MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 27th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly Friday night webcast here at larouchepac.com. We’ve got a full house tonight. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, also by Dennis Small from Executive Intelligence Review, and by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC “Basement” Scientific Team.
Now, those of you who have been watching our website over the course of the past three to four days, know that Mr. LaRouche has made a very significant policy intervention into the way that people have tended to think about what are the dynamics driving the situation internationally at this time. What Mr. LaRouche did, was identify what he specified as the “Zeusian” mentality which is guiding those who believe that they can wage some sort of limited war against the nations of Eurasia, such as Russia and China, which would wipe out much of the population of that territory, but which they foolishly believe that they themselves can survive. And Mr. LaRouche made a very specific point to identify this as “Zeusian”—what he called “Operation Zeus,” which is something I know will be elaborated over the course of tonight’s broadcast by all three of our guests.
But what Mr. LaRouche said was that the fallacy of the believe in so-called “limited” nuclear warfare has to be presented in very precise terms, not broad generalities; and Zeus himself must be told: “There is no way that you can survive the effects of your own genocide.”
So, Jeff, I know that you have been involved in the last 72 hours in a series of discussions with an array of leading people in both the military and the intelligence community, and you’ve been able to circulate what Mr. LaRouche has put on the table, and have received quite a few very significant responses back on this, which I’m going to give you a chance to elaborate on. But really, all of this discussion comes in the context—today, this week—of not only the visit by Andriy Parubiy, the deputy speaker of the Ukrainian Rada, who is being hosted by none other than Victoria Nuland here in Washington, D.C., to agitate for supplying lethal weapons to the Ukrainian army in order to provoke an all-out war with Russia.
But also, we’re on the eve of next week, Benjamin Netanyahu coming to Washington, who’s being hosted by John Boehner of all people, and who will most likely be agitating for his own flavor of military confrontation with Iran. So this is actually the subject of our institutional question for this evening, and I’d like to present that now, in order to give Jeff, you, a chance to share both Mr. LaRouche’s specific response on that question, as well as giving a sense overall of the much broader context of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook on the current situation is, and the intervention that he made earlier this week.
So, the institutional question reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has questioned the judgment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over his stance on Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Netanyahu has criticized the U.S. and others for “giving up” on trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. ‘The Israeli Prime Minister may not be correct,’ Mr. Kerry said after attending the latest Iran nuclear talks in Geneva. Mr. Netanyahu will address Congress next week, after an invitation by Republican leaders was criticized by the White House. So, our question for you is: What is your view of Mr. Netanyahu’s visit?”
So, Jeff, why don’t you give us Mr. LaRouche’s direct response to this question which he delivered this afternoon, as well as giving us an overall view of what Mr. LaRouche’s intervention was earlier this week.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Before we can actually get to the Netanyahu question, we’ve got to actually situate it in the larger drive for war that we’re seeing playing out on a number of different flanks internationally. We’re clearly seeing it in the case of Ukraine, where there are concerted efforts to promote the arming of the Ukrainians against Russia, which is a complete provocation and fool’s errand, because the idea of arming what is already a failed state that is infested from top to bottom with neo-Nazis from the old Bandera apparatus, typified by Andriy Parubiy, who was the leader, one of the commanders of the armed forces in the Maidan Square between November 2013 and February of 2014, when the neo-Nazi coup was carried out against the Yanukovych government.
So, what we’re looking at, is a situation that is based on a fundamental delusion. We had a lengthy discussion with Mr. LaRouche on Tuesday night, and there were follow-up discussions the next day with members of the Policy Committee, and we’ve had a lot of input, as Matt said, from leading military and political and intelligence circles in Washington.
The bottom line is this: The present British-Wall Street-centered trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt, and details of why that’s the case, and what needs to be done about it will be taken up by others later in this broadcast. But the fact of the matter is, the system is bankrupt, and there is a desperation, particularly on the part of leading circles in London and on Wall Street, to find a way out of this impossible situation, and the option that they are looking at is war—specifically, war directed against Russia and China. Not coincidentally, Russia and China are two of the most important members of the BRICS group of nations, who are in the process of forging a viable new alternative global economic system.
Now, even among the most insane elements within the British oligarchy, there is clearly a recognition that to go for an all-out war of thermonuclear extermination is not a very viable strategy for long-term survival. So, the idea of a direct thermonuclear confrontation, conflict between the major nuclear powers on this planet—principally Russia and the United States, and secondarily China—is not considered a viable option. But, at the same time, these leading circles, who are sitting on top of this thoroughly bankrupt system, have deluded themselves into the idea that somehow or other it may be possible to instigate a more limited conflict—a containable conflict that even involves the use of nuclear weapons, in which the theater of warfare is restricted to the heartland of Eurasia, to where Russia and China are in the immediate target zone, where India is in the target zone, but where you avoid the ultimate launching of a full, all-out thermonuclear conflict in which all of humanity is annihilated.
Now, the delusions behind this viewpoint are very dangerous, because in the real world, the notion that you can somehow or other have a limited war, restricted to a geographic area which will go through an overwhelming population destruction—and remember, Prince Philip, one of the leading figures within this British oligarchy, British monarchy, has committed himself to the idea that the world population should be reduced by 80%. So, you have people who are looking at means by which to potentially provoke a limited conflict, even a limited nuclear conflict, centered in Eurasia, where the United States would be largely spared from the consequences; maybe even the British Isles would be spared.
Now, in looking at the current nuclear-force posture of the United States and NATO, certain things jump out that reinforce the fact that this is in fact the delusion that certain people are working off of. In Europe right now, the United States has 180 tactical nuclear weapons deployed. They’re in secured military bases in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and also there are some in Turkey. And back during the height of the Cold War, the ostensible argument was that these weapons were available for battlefield use, should the Soviet Red Army go storming through the Fulda Gap and other points of access into NATO territory in continental Europe.
Clearly, that situation is no longer relevant, but yet, rather than following the demands of a number of European governments, including Germany, and removing those tactical nuclear weapons, because they represent a potential hair-trigger for a much larger conflict, the Obama Administration in the last year has announced that they were dedicating significant funds to the modernization of those B61 tactical nuclear weapons, and under the modernization program, these weapons are going to be substantially upgraded. They’re going to have new guidance systems that will give them a much greater degree of precision accuracy. The plan is to have a number of them available for deployment on F-35 Stealth fighter planes which are capable of deeper penetration into Russian territory, and therefore these weapons have the potential of no longer being tactical battlefield weapons, but intermediate-range weapons then could be the triggers for a much larger war.
The whole underlying assumption among these utopians, who have this view of a limited nuclear war confined to Eurasia, is that a government such as the Putin government in Russia would be willing to respond in a limited fashion to a “limited” nuclear strike. Now, Russian officials, top generals, Putin himself, have made very clear that that is emphatically not the case.
So, the danger here, is that there is a delusion among certain strategic planners in the West that somehow or other, a limited and containable nuclear confrontation is possible, directed against Russia and China, but where there can be an avoidance of an extension into full-scale global thermonuclear war.
The European theater, the centerpiece of this, is Ukraine, and the simple idea of sending lethal weapons to the current Ukrainian government, which is a failed regime dominated by a radical, small, but powerful element of literally neo-Nazis from the old Bandera apparatus. The idea of arming them and seeing this as a deterrent against further Russian actions, is another act of clinical insanity that just underscores the danger that we’re facing right now.
In the Asia-Pacific region there are similar concepts being put forward that are directed against China—in some cases ostensibly directed against North Korea, but ultimately directed against China. The U.S. is putting enormous pressure on South Korea to accept the deployment of FAAB anti-ballistic missile systems that have frankly no use against North Korea, but would be part of a system against China that could allow the United States to carry out certain limited attacks against China under the umbrella of the new military doctrine for the Asia-Pacific, which is called Air-Sea Battle. That whole concept blurs lines between conventional and nuclear weapons, and therefore represents, similarly to the situation vis-à-vis Russia, a delusion that somehow or other limited warfare can be conducted against China without it devolving into a general global strategic confrontation.
This now brings us to the question of Netanyahu. It’s well-known that Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to any kind of deal between the P5+1 countries and Iran that would allow any of Iran’s civilian nuclear power program, particularly its enrichment capability, to remain intact. And so Netanyahu is coming to Washington at the invitation of John Boehner next week, to deliver an address before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, which will occur exactly two weeks before Israeli elections. Now, there’s a very real prospect of Netanyahu losing those elections, and this stunt in Congress is intended to give him a certain boost of credibility by basically having him appear and receive standing ovations from members of the United States Congress.
In the last 48 hours, Netanyahu has also made it clear that he is once again contemplating unilateral Israeli military actions against Iran that could take place even before the completion of those P5+1 talks, and coverage in the Israeli media picked up here in the United States that represents leaks that are coming out of Netanyahu’s own office, indicate that he has the full cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which has offered to provide the Israelis with access to Saudi air space for such an attack against Iran.
This is enormously dangerous in its own right, but should be seen in the context of what I’ve just presented, as an array of provocations stretching out across virtually all of Eurasia, that are based on this delusion that somehow or other nuclear war, once it begins, can remain contained and limited to a specific geographic area.
Now, in the discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, he had some very pointed words in response to the institutional question, which I’d just read, because I think it very much puts the proper punctuation on the question about Netanyahu. What Mr. LaRouche said is the following:
He said, “Take, for example, Netanyahu. He is brutish and insane. This has gone too far, and it’s time that he is thrown out with the political garbage. Anyone with an ounce of sanity will recognize that this is not going to work. Working out a secret deal with the Saudis to launch strikes against Iran? That’s going to far. When he starts bargaining and making deals with the Saudis, then he’s gone too far. It’s time to dump this guy, and John Boehner, too. Make it a package deal. You’ve already got a number of these members of Congress announcing that they’re going to boycott, and that they’re not going to show up for Netanyahu’s speech. I’d say it’s time for Netanyahu to be dumped. And probably a lot of people in his own country would agree with me.”
OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, as you mentioned at the beginning of your answer, when it comes to the question of the danger of war, we have to integrate this with the disintegration of the trans-Atlantic financial system, and I think in both of these, this same Zeusian mentality that we just discussed is on full display, also when it comes to this question. To quote Mr. LaRouche from earlier today:
“Doomsday is rolling in on the trans-Atlantic economy like a heavy British fog.”
Which, I think, is an extremely poetic way to describe the coming demise of the bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system. However, although this entire system is already dead, you’ve got a certain faction of those who are insane enough to believe that they can pull the plug on the majority of the populations of Europe and the trans-Atlantic region, and yet somehow they themselves can survive their own genocide, and they’ll come out on top. We saw the fallacy of that with the Dark Ages in Europe.
The point, however, is that this is impossible, and it will never happen, because what Mr. LaRouche said: There is no way that this system can survive in its present form. It’s impossible. He said that merely by their own continued adherence to their own existence, are they finishing themselves, and the problem comes when people insist on continuing to worship the myth of this dead system. What Mr. LaRouche said is that we’ve got to tell the truth. We’ve got to say: One way or another, this system is doomed, but the question is will you continue to go along with it or not?
And so I think a perfect example of this, right now, is the case of Greece. Greece knows that it cannot pay the debts that are being demanded of them, and rather than consigning itself to the graveyard of Western Europe, certain personalities inside Greece are tending to orient now towards Russia, towards China, and towards the other nations of this new viable system that’s being created by the BRICS. And this is the perfect counterpoint, and Mr. LaRouche said, we need to compare the viability of the emerging system around the BRICS, with the absolute death of the unsalvageable system that now is dominating the trans-Atlantic. So, I’d like to invite Dennis Small to come to the podium, to elaborate a little bit more on what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject, earlier today.
DENNIS SMALL: He said that they’re bankrupt. They’re completely, totally, absolutely, irremediably bankrupt. And the problem is exactly as with the case of the insane thinking around the idea of launching somehow, limited tactical nuclear warfare, is that a similar lack of reality permeates the thinking, with regard to economic policy in these same British imperial financial circles. And the problem here, again, as with the issue of warfare, as you were just indicating, Matt, is that people give credibility to that insanity as if it had some actual substance, and the issue of stupidity of the majority of the population — stupidity in the sense of not recognizing what’s going on before their very eyes — becomes a strategic factor in and of itself. And therefore the importance of what Mr. LaRouche launched in terms of simply stating the facts around the limited thermonuclear warfare policy, as Jeff was just describing, becomes itself a strategic factor to alter that situation. So Mr. LaRouche’s intervention with regard to that situation is the leading factor changing that situation, even as we stand here and discuss this. And I think that was the idea that guided his discussions with us today as well, to carry this issue forward.
Now on the question of Greece and the financial situation, it is very much the fact that the British would like to believe, and would like you to believe, that they can get away with obliterating the BRICS — which after all is only half of humanity, so what’s the big deal? — wipe them off the face of the Earth, and any country that is either formally thinking of joining the BRICS, or is de facto strategically moving in that same direction. And that emphatically includes Greece. Brazil is targetted, is already in the middle of a de facto coup d’état attempt against the President of Brazil — part of the BRICS. Argentina, the same. Egypt, the same. Russia and China, goes without saying. And in the case of Greece, we’re seeing that that is what the actual battle lines are in this situation.
Now Mr. LaRouche was very pointed on this issue, as he was on all the topics we discussed, on the question of the bankruptcy of the system, and he said look, Greece is going to be the real trigger in this situation, because they have no option whatsoever. They don’t have to honor in any way, that which they do not owe. The advantage that they have, is that they are going to leave the euro — and they have no choice about it! Germany can yell and scream, the Finance Minister of Germany Schäuble, can make a big show of it, and stomp and throw fits about it, but the fact of the matter is, even if the Germans pushed them out, when they leave, the entire European trans-Atlantic system will collapse.
Mr. LaRouche said that Wall Street as well as the related system in the trans-Atlantic area will come tumbling down, and it will be a sweeping financial collapse, and it will come on like a torrent, an unstoppable torrent. And he said, just because it hasn’t happened yet, people will tend to assume that it will not happen. But it will, he said. And it will have a chain-reaction effect on the entire euro system. And the present management of that system will disintegrate.
So he said, the lesson of the Greek situation is that these guys are simply doomed. They cannot pay, and they won’t. And that’s all that there is to it. There is no way in the universe, that this system can survive. And he said the German Finance Minister Schäuble is out of his mind to try to defend this thing, and that anyone who is committing themselves to a system which is already doomed, is clinically insane. There is no one who can win that game. Just as there is no one who can win the game of so-called tactical limited thermonuclear warfare. So, either the people who are doing this and promoting it are stupid, or senile, if they believe that they can. So the whole system is hopelessly bankrupt, and it has been so for a very long time, and Mr. LaRouche has pointed to that for a very long time. We’ve known that to be the case. Now, it’s in its death knell, so let us sound it.
Now, with that actual description of what the strategic situation is, let’s look at the events of the week, which is that a kind of ceasefire was declared or signed in Greece this week, much like the ceasefire in Ukraine — which is fine, they stopped shooting, that’s very good. But none of the underlying problems were solved, and as a matter of fact, they’re worsened by the visits of these Nazis under the control of Nuland, to try to come get arms in the United States. In the case of Greece, a kind of ceasefire was signed between the Greek government and the EU. Greece asked for a four-month extension — not of their program with the Troika, but only of the ECB lending into the Greek financial system and banking system, so that they would have the liquidity to not, at this point, have to break and leave, while they are perhaps preparing other options. And otherwise the letter of understanding, or the program which the Greeks presented, did not address, and didn’t even discuss what everybody knows is the underlying issue, which is the debt.
Greece’s debt is completely, totally unpayable. Furthermore, it’s a fraud — they don’t owe it, because they have already paid it two, three, four times over, through the specific mechanisms of looting which characterize this financial system. The financial system, after Greece has paid this off numerous times, through various forms of looting — derivatives dealing, altering the terms of trade, bailout of the banks that they never see — now says that Greece owes EU320 billion. But the best calculations of experts, who actually are on the creditors’ side in this, in the case of Greece, calculate that at most, they owe 10% of that, like some EU30 billion, that’s all.
Exemplary of how this worked, over two bailout packages, over the course of two or three years, Greece (quote/unquote) “was given” EU245 billion in bailout money, of with 3% stayed in Greece for spending by the Greek government. The rest went right out, immediately, to the creditor banks. On top of that, you have a very indicative kind of fraud that’s going on, which that the ECB, the European Central Bank, which is the source of liquidity into the Greek system under the rules of the euro, purchased Greek government bonds at 40% of face value, because they were deeply discounted because everyone was saying Greece was going bankrupt, when it was actually their creditor banks that were going bankrupt; so they bought them at 40%, and then turned around to demand that Greece pay 100% on them. Now, if this reminds you of what the vulture-funds are trying to do to Argentina, it should! The ECB is simply a gigantic vulture-fund. Except they’re not quite as clever and as aggressive as Elliott Management, which purchased its bonds at 3 or 5% and is demanding 100%, the ECB seems to be a little bit new to the business, so they’re only going to make a killing of two-and-a-half times what they invested initially. But they’re being denounced as such by members of the Parliament, members of the European Parliament from Greece, like Member of the European Parliament Notis Marias, in an interview with the Executive Intelligence Review, who documented exactly this looting operation.
Furthermore, the Parliament of Greece has decided that they are going to audit the debt with regard to its legitimacy — which is a very good step towards simply saying, “Go jump in the lake.” The purpose of auditing the debt, is to not pay that which is illegitimate. And in the case of Ecuador, which is the only country in the world that’s actually carried out an audit of its debt, officially, what they found when they went through this with a fine-tooth comb, is that of course they had paid their debt many times over, and therefore, they did declare — this was back a couple of years ago — a partial debt moratorium. In the case of Greece, they can’t pay in any event, and everybody knows they can’t pay, so the only question is, when does the chessboard actually get kicked over?
As a result of this looting process, the Greek economy has been transformed into a rubble-field. There is 60% youth unemployment in Greece today, perhaps more; and as this slide which you can see on your screen indicates, every other major aspect of the Greek economy has been turned into a success story for the IMF and the Troika: poverty, over the last four years has risen by 30%; homelessness, by 25%; suicides up by 27%; prostitution, up by 150%—that probably includes the finance ministers of the previous governments, that would be my estimate. And what’s happened is that the population is simply being decimated. The total population has dropped, the birth rate has dropped, you have a depopulation policy going on of exactly the sort that Jeff was describing earlier as the global policy of Prince Philip and the WWF and the British Empire in general.
Now, incidentally, Ukraine is also being completely wrecked by similar policies. You have a situation now where the Nazis in the government of Kiev have announced that they are cutting off gas supplies to eastern Ukraine, because they are rebellion against the Kiev policies. Now, it’s the dead of winter there! Ukraine can be very cold! And this policy is nothing but genocide. And in fact, that is precisely the word that was used by the President of Russia Vladimir Putin, to describe what was going on there, a characterization which Mr. LaRouche said was calculated and absolutely correct.
Now, what’s going on in the Greek government? Well, there’s a lot of discussion going on, and most of it is not being covered in the media. But, for example, the Finance Minister of Greece, Varoufakis, after this ceasefire was signed, which leaves all of the major issues technically unresolved, announced the following. He said, “We will not have liquidity problems for the public sector workers” in other words we are going to be able to pay the public sector workers; “but we will definitely have problems in making debts payments to the IMF now, and to the ECB in July.” In other words, their priority is to keep people alive and not pay the debt. That’s one of the statements which has driven Draghi at the European Central Bank, and Schäuble and others in Germany, completely up the wall — “the Greeks can’t be trusted.”
Now, there was a very fascinating exchange, on television in Greece, which I think gives a window into the actual issue of what’s being discussed there, and this was a discussion between Prime Minister Tsipras, and one of the iconic figures of modern Greek history Mikis Theodorakis, a musician, a leader of the resistance fight in Greece, and a major opposition figure against the IMF policies, who had voiced some doubts or concerns, lest the negotiations with the EU turn into Greece falling into the “spider web of the EU” was how he described it.
So when these two gentlemen met, before they went into their closed-door meeting, they had a brief exchange before the cameras, and Theodorakis said to Tsipras: ” Have the strength to say no to the German nein. We will discuss it. It is more feasible than ever, we are very close.” To which Tsipras responded, “This needs a good strategy. We’ll discuss it in detail.”
Now the reference of Theodorakis, that “this is the moment, it is feasible, we are very close,” is in fact, very suggestive of what the real options are, and I was actually rather strongly reminded by his formulation of “have the strength to say no,” of the famous discussion between Posa and Don Carlos’s father who was then the king of Spain, in the Schiller play [Don Carlos], where Posa says to the King, “Be a king among a thousand kings,” to try to get him to change and go in the right direction.
Now, I think what’s interesting in the formulation of Theodorakis in this thing, recognizing the moment; Tsipras has clearly shown some significant leadership in this situation up to this point, and the circumstances are such that this thing can, in fact, only go in one direction. Now, what is that direction? Mr. LaRouche made the point in the following way: He said, “The only thing you can do, is replace the bankrupt system with a non-bankrupt system, and anyone who’s intelligent or sane, knows that it’s time to move your economy out of the graveyard and find a new address. The Greeks are doing this: They’re establishing close ties with Russia, which China, with other viable nations, and as a result, a great rejuvenation will occur very soon. Greece will return to its legacy as a great maritime power,” Mr. LaRouche said. And what is waiting out there to replace this system? The BRICS system: This is actually viable. This has viability to exist. He said: Compare the trans-Atlantic system and the genocide there with what the BRICS nations are doing. What is happening in Asia has viability, and therefore, this system will be replaced. This is already in motion.
Now, one of the things that was in motion this week is the fact that two of the BRICS nations this week formally approved the charter of the New Development Bank which the BRICS established in principle back in July in Brazil, July of last year. Russia and India approved this in their parliament in the first case in the upper and lower house, and the India cabinet in the other case; China is not a problem on this thing; South Africa has it before its parliament, and the Brazilians are moving it to their Senate soon. So we’re at a point where the New Development Bank of the BRICS is about to come into existence with merely $100 billion in capitalization, almost nothing — as compared to the $2 quadrillion of the bankrupt, failing trans-Atlantic system. And many people will ask: how is it possible that something that has a nominal value which is 10,000 times less than this huge, gigantic financial system, who could this actually be the germ of an entirely new system? And this I think actually brings us to the fundamental issue that Mr. LaRouche was talking about with the Zeus principle. Because the two systems are incommensurable. The $100 billion, this very small new system which is being created, very small in numerical terms, actually represents a power to transform the physical universe, that is no there with $2 quadrillion in derivatives, $4 quadrillion in derivatives, or $4 trillion quadrillion in derivatives! It’s the power to physically transform the universe, to deploy a capability of increased energy-flux density, to provide mankind with the creativity and the creative tools, the fire, which Zeus would deny mankind, as in the Prometheus issue, that’s what is actually behind this otherwise very small $100 billion capitalization.
So you’re sort of talking about something like the transmission in the biosphere, from reptiles to mammals, where you had just a few, little small, very small mammals that started appearing, and you had these gigantic dinosaurs around all over the place. And the dinosaurs, like the British Empire today, were Zeusian, and the outlook was Zeusian. And therefore, what we have to deploy, is a contrary principle of the physical universe. It is not a question of muscle power, Mr. LaRouche says, that moves history. You won’t overwhelm the enemy with numbers or war; it’s not a mechanical policy or a numbers game. It’s a question of unleashing that which is unique to the species, which is a power to transform the physical universe, which is now being destroyed, willy-nilly, under the policies of Zeus.
OGDEN: Thank you, Dennis. Just to underscore the point, what Mr. LaRouche was stressing is, look, this system is doomed, and you just have to tell the truth about that. It’s like the walking dead. And it’s not a matter of whether they make some mistake or not. This system is inherently doomed, because it cannot physically continue to exist, and he said we’re now experiencing the fall of Zeus, which is something which Prometheus portended. And as Dennis just mentioned, I just want to repeat this point, Mr. LaRouche was stressing to us, as a meeting of those who have taken responsibility, to act on history at this moment, that history is not a mechanical process. It’s not a matter of muscle power. Your power to act on history is not determined by the numbers of people who agree with you, or the popularity of your opinions or something like this. He made the point that it’s higher processes which are ordering history, and it’s only if you understand that, that one is qualified to make policy or to provide leadership. And in that regard, he highlighted the role of Nicholas of Cusa, who was sort of the founding father of the Renaissance at the time that European civilization had destroyed itself through its embrace of a Zeusian oligarchical system.
And this is very much where we find ourselves, obviously, today. And what Mr. LaRouche was saying is, a sweeping change is needed, at a time when everything is falling apart, when everything is going wrong, when the other thing that they have to offer, is dark age and war, what you need is a Nicholas of Cusa, who obviously himself was a quite Promethean figure.
And when we look at our own responsibility, our job is not to explain or try to describe the mechanics of how history is moving, but that we ourselves have to be the cause of that movement, and to create the future. And I’m going to read one other, rather poetic passage from what Mr. LaRouche had to say today. He said, “We must recognize the winds and the tides of history. Don’t get stubborn and try to resist. Set your sails accordingly, choose your voyage, chart your course, ensure that you’ve picked the right mission and direction, and set sail. China’s doing this, others are doing this. there are whole areas of the world that are doing this. We’ve got to realize that our job is to make history move. Don’t try to explain why history is moving, be the cause of its movement, and create the future.”
And ironically, I think this is what set Johannes Kepler apart from his contemporaries, his rivals, that while they were preoccupied with trying to observe and explain how the planets were moving, Kepler was interested in discovering the cause of their motion. So maybe with that said, I’d like to ask Ben, how do we have to think in order to be the movers of history today?
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, that’s a pretty tall order. I’d like to refer back to set this up to some of what Mr. LaRouche had to say earlier in the week, in setting the context for a whole process of intervention that he’s laid out in the past five or six days.
On Wednesday, in a discussion with his Policy Committee, he had some particular remarks about getting a more precise strategic assessment of the war danger, I want to pull from just some of the concluding points of his remarks on Wednesday, which we published on the LaRouche PAC website on Thursday. He said: “…what would make sense, is what was done with Zeus, a Zeusian kind of thing, where a very extensive destruction of large areas of the planet Earth would be affected, and it would be really a long time before anybody really moved things up and started to build a civilization again.”
And Mr. LaRouche went on, he said: “This is what we’re talking about; this is strategy. This is what I’m talking about. We need a new Renaissance now, a serious Renaissance. We understand how the human species behaves; we understand its evils as well as its good potential, and we must make an instrument which will do what has to be done, to prevent a mass killing of the human population. And to create a new kind of organization, a new kind of Renaissance, in the sense of Nicholas of Cusa’s Renaissance. … That’s what we must do. We’re getting indications that such potentials exist. They may be faint on the horizon, but they exist. And if we do our job properly, we can call a halt to the genocide.”
And a little bit later, Mr. LaRouche went on and he said, “Nicholas of Cusa’s work was in that direction, along with others in the Renaissance. And that’s the way we have to approach it. You have to take the principle of the Renaissance. You have to look at the idea of the Renaissance, from the standpoint of the long wait of Europe to become free of the Zeus atrocity.”
So those were excerpted from Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on Wednesday. And in our meeting with him earlier today, emphasized that he wanted this issue included in the discussion tonight. So I think it’s important to start by emphasizing why it was that Zeus went after Prometheus. What specifically drove Zeus to chain and torture Prometheus?
Now, as the ancient Greek playwright Aeschylus tells us, at least from what’s available of his works to us today, Prometheus dared to bring fire, which was supposed to be just the knowledge of the gods, he dared to bring fire to the common people, to the mortals. As Aeschylus has Prometheus recount, he saw mankind under the tyranny of Zeus in a pathetic and depraved state, as Aeschylus has Prometheus say in his play, regarding the mortals of the time:
“Though they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail; they had ears, but they did not understand; but, just as shapes in dreams, throughout their lengths of days, without purpose they wrought all things in confusion. They had neither knowledge of houses built of bricks and turned to face the Sun, nor yet of work in wood; but dwelt beneath the ground like swarming ants, in sunless caves. They had no sign either of winter or of flowery spring or of fruitful summer, on which they could depend, but managed everything without judgment….”
So this was the state of mankind under Zeus, and Prometheus, betraying Zeus’s policy, intervened. Prometheus is best known for having brought fire to mankind, but what else does that mean? According to Aeschylus, he brought hope to mankind: He taught them astronomy, he taught them about the seasons, and agriculture; numbers, language, arts, medicine and metallurgy. As Aeschylus writes, “Hear the sum of the whole matter in the compass of one brief word — every art possessed by man comes from Prometheus.”
So it was for this action, this violation of Zeus’s policy towards mankind, that Zeus sought to imprison and torture Prometheus. And as Mr. LaRouche has often stressed, this is not a tale of some struggle from long ago, to be recounted by historians or academics. This expresses the principle of a governing characteristic which has plagued Western civilization from the time of Prometheus up to this very moment.
So what does Prometheus show us? Well, man is not a beast. Man inherently is not just another animal species. What we see in Prometheus is that it’s the actions of Zeus, the active intervention of the Zeusian system which condemns populations to this type of bestiality. And Prometheus dared to violate Zeus’s system, and it was not simply just by giving things to mankind. It wasn’t simply an act of charity, maybe the way people think about charity, but it was by allowing mankind to rise to the potential already inherent in mankind. That’s what Prometheus was able to do.
And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized this week, in the quotes I read at the beginning, this became even clearer in the Renaissance with the work of Cusa, and with the continuation of Cusa’s work with Kepler. Again, mankind is not inherently a Zeusian species, even if Zeus has tended to dominate for long periods of time. Mankind, unlike any animal species, despite the desires of Zeus, has this unique power, to act to change his relationship to the universe, as Kepler demonstrated in his work.
Kepler discovered the principle organizing the entire Solar System, and he did so in a method which he, at a certain point in his life, developed and defined as his conception, his principle of harmonics, his principle of universal harmonics, harmony. And that is how he discovered the Solar System. For example, I think to help illustrate and understand this, the fact of the matter is the results of Kepler’s discovery, are simply not at all possible to be derived from sense-perceptual interpretations of the universe. The results of Kepler’s discovery are completely inconsistent with anything that man could derive simply from his sense-perception alone.
That Kepler, following Cusa, had already recognized that the fundamental principles of the organization of the universe were not accessible to mankind through the senses, nor from any types of interpretations or developments based upon conceptions derived from sense-perceptions. This being the case, yet, mankind still demonstrates a certain unique quality of progress.
So what, then, if not sense-perception, is the basis for mankind’s demonstrated ability to scientifically progress? Now, as Kepler demonstrated, and also very explicitly discussed, when he spoke of his work in his discoveries, and the work leading into his discoveries, the subject of science, really is the study of the unique characteristics and powers of the human mind, specifically. That Kepler, very explicitly following Cusa, looked directly to the nature of the human mind and human creativity, because it’s the human mind which can perform actions which can uniquely enable mankind to understand and operate upon the fundamental principles organizing the universe. It comes from the human mind alone, as far as we know.
So if we really want to more truthfully understand both the nature of mankind and the nature of the universe of which mankind is a part, we really have to change what most people today think of when they hear the term “science.” I think we can phrase this in a question, as follows. We can ask, “What is the universe, such that the non-sense-perceptual powers unique to the human mind alone have the potential to bring mankind into greater coherence with the organizing principles of that universe?” I think that’s the type of question Kepler asked, Cusa asked, and we have to again ask today, and seek further insights into.
And I want to read that formulation again. We have to ask: ” What is the universe, such that the non-sense-perceptual powers unique to the human mind alone have the potential to bring mankind into greater coherence with the organizing principles of that universe?” And this was Kepler’s conception of universal harmonies, as he discussed in his Harmonies of the World. This was Kepler’s basis for his discovery of the principle of the Solar System, both in what he actually did, what he actually demonstrated in his life’s work, and in how he correctly thought and wrote explicitly about his own work, and seeing his own work in a continuation of the work of Cusa.
So the point is, this is a principle that really Zeus, or followers of Zeus, or believers in the Zeusian system, can’t really understand directly. I think the issue is that the fundamental nature which defines the Zeusian system or followers of this oligarchical ideology, that which makes Zeus, Zeus, is that which denies this very principle, this very Promethean principle.
So I think what’s being put before you, the audience here today, by the entire discussion, is that we’re at the historical time when we must rid society of this Zeus phenomenon as understood by Aeschylus, as expressed in the fight that Prometheus waged, and is being expressed today in its new form. It is recognized that the reality is that we cannot have general warfare today, in the age of thermonuclear weapons. That is something that society has been realizing and struggling with for the last decades, that new reality. But I think Mr. LaRouche also recognizes that fact as the expression, the product of a deeper issue, which is that we can no longer have a Zeusian system, a Zeusian social structure in a thermonuclear age; that we can no longer allow mankind to be denied access to understanding his true, Keplerian nature, the true Keplerian nature of his existence, as Zeus had attempted to deny fire to early mankind.
I think the broader issue is that mankind has to come to understand and embrace this unique capability specific to the human mind, that alone defining both the basis of mankind’s existence and also defining the basis for mankind’s understanding of the Solar System for science. And in doing that, there’s an incredible amount of work to do: We have an entire Solar System to develop and explore, as Mr. LaRouche is emphatic, we’re seeing China orienting in this direction right now. We have an entire galactic system to understand, which makes our Solar System look rather tiny in comparison. So these are the types of challenges we need to be looking forward to addressing, in frankly an excited fashion. So I think the message is clear through all of this, the time has come to get rid of Zeus, and get on with the progress of mankind.
OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. And with that, I’m going to bring a conclusion to tonight’s broadcast. I’d like to not only thank Ben, but also thank Jeff and Dennis for joining us here, tonight, and thank you for tuning in. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.