Watch the Friday webcast featuring the latest on LaRouche’s “Manhattan Project” and a special celebration of the 70th anniversary of V-E Day.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jason Ross, a member of the LaRouche PAC “Basement” Team, who will be discussing a very significant article that was just published in the current edition of Executive intelligence Review magazine, by Bob Ingraham, an historian and an active member of the LaRouche political movement in California. That article, which is the cover feature of this week’s edition of EIR magazine, is titled “Manhattan’s Struggle for Human Freedom Against the Slave Power of Virginia.”
But before we get to that: As our viewers know, today is May 8th, and it’s a very special day. Seventy years ago on this date, Hitler’s forces officially surrendered to the Allies, marking the defeat of Fascism in Europe. In the West, this is known as V-E Day, Victory in Europe Day. In Russia, which lost 27 million people in the fight against Fascism during the Great Patriotic War, as they call it—13% of the entire Soviet population at that time—the defeat of Fascism in Russia is celebrated on the 9th of May, which in Russia is simply known as Victory Day, perhaps the most important national holiday in Russia. Without the great sacrifices of the Soviet Union and of the Russian people, the alliance against Fascism never would have been successful, and the defeat of the Nazi forces would never have occurred.
Now, in Russia, huge celebrations are planned for this weekend, with a massive parade in Moscow tomorrow, which will be attended not only by President Vladimir Putin, but also by the heads of state of numerous other very prominent and important countries, including, very significantly, Xi Jinping, the President of China, who arrived today to hold bilateral meetings beforehand with President Putin. And the breaking news from these meetings is a joint statement that was issued by both President Putin and President Xi, making an historic announcement that they would be entering into a cooperation “in combining the development of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road economic project.” As President Putin said, “The integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road project means reaching a new level of partnership, and actually implies a common economic space for the Eurasian continent.” So, clearly a very historical development, in a very appropriate way, to mark the cooperation of these two great countries in the struggle against Fascism—which Xi Jinxing said explicitly in the statement that he issued concerning the anniversary of the defeat of Fascism.
Xi Jinping said the following. He said: “This anniversary is meant to honor the memory of the lost heroes, and not allow the tragic history of that war to repeat again: to create world peace together. The hard lessons of World War II say that coexistence of humanity is not ruled by the Law of the Jungle. The politics of peace is the exact opposite of the aggressive, hegemonic politics of force. The path of human development does not lie in the principle of winner take all, not in zero-sum games.”
And President Putin made the point explicitly, to state—he said in a statement that he issued: “Tomorrow, with other world leaders, we will take part in the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the victory in World War II. Russia and China suffered the worst casualties during that war, and paid the greatest price in loss of life, and thus have the greatest reasons to stand together against any attempts to rehabilitate Nazism and militarism, and any attempts to falsify history.”
Now, who could he be referring to, in terms of attempting to “rehabilitate Nazism,” but perhaps Barack Obama and his Deputy Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland? President Obama, of course, will not be attending the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, choosing to boycott them instead. Of course, this should not come as a surprise, since he and Victoria Nuland are currently supporting the revival of Fascism in Ukraine and in other places along Russia’s border, and far from commemorating the historic alliance between Russia and the United States during the Second World War, are currently attempting to provoke a third world war against Russia and its allies, including China and the other nations of the BRICS.
Now, despite Obama’s boycott of the Victory Day celebrations, the LaRouche Movement has decided to host our own commemorations. Both today at a rally that was held at noontime at Federal Hall in New York City, right beside the statue of President Washington, on the spot where Washington was inaugurated as the first President of the United States, and right down the street from the grave of Alexander Hamilton— This rally, which was live-streamed on the LaRouche PAC website—perhaps you saw coverage of it—featured a banner which read: “1945: Allied Forces Crush Fascism. 2015: Americans Crush Wall Street. Pass Glass-Steagall!” along with other signs to a similar effect.
And then tomorrow, in New York City as well, the Schiller Institute will be holding a special musical event in Manhattan, in solidarity with the celebrations which will be occurring tomorrow in Moscow. And for that event, we have a very special statement which was recorded earlier this afternoon by Lyndon LaRouche, himself a veteran of World War II, but whose fight against Fascism didn’t end on V-E Day, but really only began, continuing through the intervening 70 years, and one which he continues to lead on the international stage today. So, this statement echoes several points which Mr. LaRouche also made during an interview with Sputnik International, which should be published on that website soon. And as I said, the statement was recorded to be played tomorrow evening at the musical celebrations in New York, but we thought that it was highly appropriate to play it for you tonight as well, to set the tone for the broadcast here this evening, and as sort of a prelude to the events which will occur in New York City tomorrow. So we’ll play this shortly, as we get it loaded here.
[pause] Okay, I apologize for technical problems. As this gets resolved, we’ll proceed, and I’ll be notified if it is resolved shortly.
Now, what I want to underscore about the events in New York City tomorrow is that this is the location at which Mr. LaRouche has insisted that the leadership of the United States is to be located, and the activities of the LaRouche Movement are centered. As was discussed during the rally on Wall Street today, we have a showdown at the present time against the enemies of the United States, who are headquartered at Wall Street—the headquarters of JP Morgan is directly across the street from Federal Hall, where this event was being held today. And you can see the coverage of this rally on the LaRouche PAC website, as I said earlier. And I ask you, if you are anywhere near the New York City area during the day tomorrow, please contact our organizers there, our office in the New York area, in order to attend this event, if you’re not already planning to attend. This is a very significant musical celebration, and as I said, the statements which Mr. LaRouche recorded are going to be played there.
So, until we resolve the technical errors here, I’ll just proceed.
What we have to do when we discuss the anniversary of the defeat of Fascism, is realize that the struggle against what Fascism represents, is one which actually began long before World War II—really one which is, in a very real way, embedded deeply in the history of the United States and the identity of our country. It’s one that goes to the very root of what it means to be a human being, which has been the explicit subject of our broadcasts in this venue over previous weeks, with the presentations that you’ve heard from Benjamin Deniston on the true identity of mankind as a galactic species.
It’s also one that’s very clearly demonstrated in an interview that was posted this week with Sergey Pulinets, who is a very significant Russian scientist, and who’s actively applying his understanding of the galactic forces which shape Earth’s environment, to developing technologies which harness the principles which can improve the conditions of life here on Earth—something which only the human species can do.
So, I understand that this statement is ready to be played, so I’d like to draw your attention to the audio of what Mr. LaRouche had to say earlier today.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, let me congratulate the people from Russia who are overlooking what we’re doing, and what we’re getting in the Manhattan area. We’re having quite a celebration in Manhattan this period, and it coincides with a celebration which is coming out of Russia. So, this is very nice, considering the alternatives—especially the alternatives. But it’s very important.
The problem we have, is we have a President here in the United States, who, like his immediate predecessor—another Bush case—is a real enemy of our own United States, the enemy from within. And it’s only because of those enemies from within that we have a mortal conflict threatened to us, against Russia and other places; whereas we have no reason to want that to happen, and every reason to prevent it, because if a war were to break out, now, between the forces in Russia and the forces in the United States, the probability would be the extermination of the human species—not the certainty necessarily, but the probability. And therefore, the very idea that we can cooperate to prevent that from happening, is of itself the greatest importance at this particular moment.
And also at the same time, we have Europe is disintegrating, in terms of its capabilities. France is in a mess, and Germany’s in a period of decline, and things like that. But the point is, we could solve these problems if we wanted to work at them.
Now particularly, because, look at China—and China and Russia are practically one and the same thing in terms of cooperation; they’re distinct in their characteristics, but they’re agreed in their cooperation, essentially. And you have, in other parts of the world, similar things: India is a remarkable complement to what has been unified with Russia and China.
And the same thing should be with the Greek issue. The Greek issue is a problem at this time—only legitimately, say as an issue, because some people in Germany in particular, but also other countries, want to abuse the Greeks. And there’s no reason for it to put up with that. And you have people in Germany who are insisting that the Greeks must surrender, by allowing themselves to be raped. And there are some people in Germany who insist on raping the Greeks. And that’s not a good idea; they may not like that, and might respond to it. But the point is, there’s no reason for this abuse of the Greeks by the Germans or by anybody else.
You also have instability in the British Empire area.
And if we remove those factors, there would be no reason for general war. There might be some nations which would want a general war, but you wouldn’t have the combination of forces. If the United States would join with Europe and China, and other nations of relevance, there would be no war. There might be conflicts, there might be issues, all kinds of issues, but we’re in a period now where humanity is going through different phases of its existence. We used to have individual powers, ruling powers. But now it’s not quite the same thing. We still have the special dignity of specific nations among themselves, but we don’t have any reason to treat ourselves as being inherently enemies. The question is, how can we work together to produce the results we want.
What we’re seeing in South America, for example, is an example of exactly what has to be done. But what’s happened between Russia and China is an example of that. What India is doing is the same thing.
So, this is a good reason for celebration. This is a good day for celebration, because I’m sure that there will be some people in Europe who will enjoy this, but there are also, we know, more immediately, right in Manhattan. So, Manhattan is, on this particular day, and probably spilling over to Sunday, is going to be a very, very happy time for people to rejoice in what the good things are, and we’ll let the old grumpy people go off in a corner someplace.
Therefore, we have to understand that we need a unity among the major powers of the planet, especially the leading major powers, and especially Russia and China together, because they’re both in the same interest pattern, and we don’t want a war with China and India, as well.
So, that’s what we should celebrate, and we should let our celebration be a force of influence to incline us in that direction. And I think that’s quite feasible. Now, whether everybody is agreed on that or not, that’s a doubtful question, but I think we ought to make a good effort on that behalf.
I think that will do.
OGDEN: So, in light of what you just heard Mr. LaRouche had to say, and the events that are happening today, tomorrow, and through the weekend in New York City, I would like to ask Jason Ross to come to the podium to discuss the content of this piece that was published, by Bob Ingraham, and to further draw out its implications. So, Jason?
JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matthew. So, Bob Ingraham’s piece is in the latest issue of EIR, which I hope people viewing this webcast are subscribers to. As you can see, the title is about the fight between Manhattan and the Slave Power. Bob draws out— Well, we’ll get into it in a moment.
Let me first say that any serious and honest discussion of any topic that’s about politics economics, a social topic, it can’t avoid addressing the nature of the human species. This comes up, for example, in Plato’s dialogues, where discussions of specific topics like parenting, poetry, or even love, end up arriving at wisdom, knowledge, and the nature of the human individual. In The Republic, for example, a ten-book-long discussion about an ideal republic, the discussion ends up getting to a certain point where, after trying to come up with what all the rules should be for how the republic should be organized, what the exact structure should be, they come to a realization that the generation that’s coming up in this republic wouldn’t know why those were the best ways to run anything, and there would be no reason for it to maintain itself over the future, and that the continual re-discovery of the best way of organizing society — that ends up becoming the topic. So you find this in anything. You don’t have a series of policies, you don’t — for example, by setting down notes for a piece of music in a score — guarantee the performances of that piece later will actually be musical.
So it’s not about policies. And you can take the case of Hamilton, who is undeniably, among anyone who looks at him, quite a genius. His legacy, however, is often treated as though his financial policies were financial policies, taken away from the visions that he had about the organization of the new nation overall, and of what humanity ought to be.
Let’s talk about what Bob Ingraham did. We had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, in which he said it was a heroic and suppressed piece of research into the insight on the real development of the United States, a suppressed history of the U.S., and the New York tradition, that got elaborated.
Let me start, by reading the opening of his article. So he starts, he says — this is Bob Ingraham:
“There are many myths and counter-myths surrounding the early history of the United States of America. It is often difficult for the mere observer to discern what was actually going on, and what the nature of the battle was. This document will demonstrate that from the very beginning, this nation was defined by a titanic war between two opposing forces, opponents who differed not merely on practical political issues, but on the very nature of the human species itself. On the one side was the New York leadership who created the United States Constitution and defined the mission of the United States during the Presidency of George Washington. Against them were arrayed the Virginia combine of the Southern ‘Slave Power,s’ an anti-human aristocracy who were determined that it would be the slavocracy of the South who would control the future destiny of the nation. This is the story of that battle.”
As he sets up this New York leadership — what he means by it, he points out that in the years immediately prior to the American Revolution, four graduates of King’s College, today’s Columbia University in New York, began to organize themselves together. These four were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, and Robert Livingston.
What these people did was — and take Hamilton, in particular, as well — it wasn’t to set up a series of policies. Let’s address three acts that Hamilton performed in his role as the nation’s first Secretary of the Treasury, under George Washington. The three major reports that he gave to Congress, at their request, were a Report on the Public Credit — how to finance the debts of the United States and of the states making it up — a Report on a National Bank, and a Report on Manufactures. Now, although there were financial and monetary aspects to these policies, of course, it was in the Report on Manufactures that Hamilton got to really let loose and lay out what he considered to be the appropriate direction for the nation to take: one in which the laziness and indolence that he saw being far too common in the United States, could be replaced by increasing manufacturing, innovation, real growth, real development, and not, as the tradition of the Southern states would be, a real aristocracy of slave-owners, and the barbaric practice of slavery, which Hamilton viewed with disgust from a very early age, given his experience among the sugar plantations in the Caribbean.
So, these policies were fought dramatically by this slave-power faction. Take for example, Jefferson. Jefferson was in Washington’s cabinet — he was the Secretary of State — and he and his allies would throw up all sorts of oppositions to what Hamilton was trying to do. In order to, for example, have the debts of the states assumed by the federal government, they used as a bargaining chip, moving the capital of the United States from New York, down to the Potomac. That was the price that had to be paid to unify the nation’s finances. On the establishment of a National Bank, Jefferson wrote a — frankly full of nonsense — letter to George Washington explaining his view of why a National Bank was unconstitutional, why the United States shouldn’t be able to set up a corporation, and throwing in what was really legal mumbo-jumbo, about the types of laws that were being overruled through the creation of a National Bank. Hamilton very deftly defended it, and his response received by Washington, with very short time before Washington had to either sign or veto the bank, made it clear that it was Constitutional.
But the opposition that was coming from these layers — it wasn’t about difference on banking per se, it was about a view of what the nation ought to do, and of what the nation ought to be. On slavery, for example, Gouverneur Morris, Hamilton’s long-time friend who ushered through the potential for the Constitution and the formation of the United States — he spoke at the Convention — this on the debate about continuing slavery, on representation of slaves — regarding what you’ve heard of the three-fifths clause — Morris said, “Upon what principle is it, that slaves shall be computed in the representation?”
For those unfamiliar — in our Constitution as it was finally ratified, there is a clause in which slaves are counted as three-fifths of a person for representation. The South wanted them counted as full people, so that the representation — the numbers of representatives in the Congress, in the House, for the Southern states would be increased. But obviously, slaves weren’t voting, so the other faction — Morris, his allies, Hamilton — said that there should be no count for slaves, that the voting power of the South shouldn’t include people that Southerners considered as property.
So here’s what Morris had to say. He said:
“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in [philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina…. The admission of slaves into the representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with laudable horror so nefarious a practice….
“Domestic slavery,” he said, “is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of the aristocracy.”
So, in what became the Constitution, in what became the government under Washington, in the work that Hamilton did as Secretary of the Treasury, he sought to re-create the United States, not as an agrarian wonderland that Thomas Jefferson would have proposed, and supported, and did support, but rather one in which industry was promoted, manufactures were developed, bounties from the federal government were applied. He set up the Society for Useful Manufactures as a pilot, as a test program, in how industry and manufacturing could be deliberately, and with a plan, promoted and developed in the nation to make it more productive, and to change the power of the human individual. This was Hamilton’s outlook.
Now, the opposition to this, — let me read another quote from Bob Ingraham’s paper. He says, “In his series of reports and actions between 1789 and 1793 Hamilton did not set forth a ‘program’ nor a ‘formula’ for economic policy. The intent, the Principle, underlying Hamilton’s initiatives is grounded in the goal of an ever-increasing National productivity, rooted in scientific and technological advancement. For Hamilton, this was the axiomatic principle at the heart of the Republic, without which there could be no republic, and thus the full power of the sovereign National Government, led by the Presidency, must be brought to bear to secure that directionality.”
The opposition to Hamilton’s proposals came with a very basic concept of what the purpose of the nation was, and what the nature of mankind was. We’ve already heard about the views on slavery, which was certainly supported by Jefferson and others. You know, there’s a myth, one of the myths that Bob points out, is that all the Founding Fathers held slaves and supported the institution. It’s not the case: At the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was considered that slavery was on its way out and even within a reasonably short period of time. In 1770, slavery was allowed in all 13 colonies. By 1790, already, it had been banned north of Maryland: The progress in this direction was being made.
But now here’s the fight, here’s the origin of this “state’s rights” claptrap that we hear from the Confederacy, that people might think has a more recent origin in Southern states trying to be left alone from the interference of the Union, or whatever people hear about the Civil War. But here’s what Madison had to say, back in 1792, about Hamilton’s proposals. He said: “What do you think of the commentary on the terms ‘general welfare’? This broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it, myself, as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the government, as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction. And as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
In that same month, Jefferson wrote memos about why Hamilton’s suggestion to the use bounties to promote manufacturing, was against the Constitution and that only tariffs could be used to support manufacturing. There was a whole fight. It went so far, that on the subject of the National Bank, Thomas Jefferson promoted using the death penalty, against anybody who would work for the National Bank. Here’s what Jefferson had to say about any Virginian who was caught working for the National Bank, which he considered the United States as a foreign legislature.
Jefferson said, that any Virginian helping “is an act of treason against the state of Virginia, and however shall do any act under color of the authority of a foreign legislature” — the United States — “whether by signing notes, issuing or passing them, acting as director, cashier, or in any other office relating to it, shall be adjudged guilty high treason and shall suffer death accordingly”!
Those were Jefferson’s words for any Virginians who might work with Hamilton on the National Bank.
So, the other big irony about this, is that the fight between Jefferson and Hamilton sometimes is presented as Jefferson promoting a republican ideal while Hamilton was promoting an aristocracy. I think we know who had slaves, and in fact, what Jefferson liked to do with his slaves.
There are other points in this paper, all of which I think are — a lot of it’s very provocative and shocking. One of the things that would seem to be a surprise is the discussion of the Erie Canal. The Erie Canal, this was one of the initial projects promoted in the new United States: This connects the Great Lakes with the Hudson, making New York the gateway to the West. By the time the canal was finally really being built in 1817, there was a whole fight about who was going to control the West: would it be the slave power, or would it be the New York intention, the Hamiltonian principle, the development of the nation? So, for example, would New Orleans be the gateway to the West, via the Mississippi? Would slavery go and develop and spread through these new territories? That’s certainly what was pushed. Or, would New York be the gateway to this new area?
So the Erie Canal, this wasn’t just a way of moving goods more easily. It was also a really, fantastically expansive project: It was 353 miles long, the biggest thing like it built in the world; 83 locks, 17 aqueducts, took eight years to construct, and with its completion, the primary means then of heading out to that new region of the nation, was via New York.
So it wasn’t only an infrastructure project, it really was about the development of the nation, what kind of outlook of mankind would be developing it?
On economics, and obviously, these are only portions of Bob’s paper, which everybody should read, he takes up the Whig Party, and what he says is mistakenly considered to be the American System of economics as a Hamiltonian principle. He points to Henry Clay’s American System of Economics, which is given as comprising three topics: a National Bank, internal improvements, and a high protective tariff. And he says, that is not what Hamilton promoted! Hamilton, for example, did not want high protective tariffs. He thought that excessive use of tariffs to defend internal industries could promote laziness and a lack of innovation.
He promoted bounties and the encouragement of manufacture, as opposed to simply preventing manufactures from outside. The difference between keeping things out versus active promoting development of new science.
On the issue of the National Bank, you can have a National Bank without it functioning for the general wellbeing of the nation, hence, the importance of the direction and the use of the national bank, the context in which it exists. The bank itself isn’t the only component: Where is the nation going? What is the leadership for the nation? How did the bank operate under the leadership of Biddle, compared to other leadership?
And then, here’s the really big one, the idea of internal improvements. Bob Ingraham points out that between 1797 and 1861, except for the John Quincy Adams Presidency, there were no national economic internal improvements. To the extent that there were canals built and things of this sort, it was done by the states — that the Southern slave power exercised a veto over any national approach to economics as a whole.
And what this gets at, this isn’t a fight about an overbearing national government and state’s rights. It’s about a defense of not having principle. It’s about saying, we’re not going to organize ourselves around this principle of mankind. We’d rather be able to do our own thing — and I think we know what that “own thing” is.
Let me read Bob’s conclusion and then say some more about Hamilton. Bob ends his paper, he says, regarding New York:
“The localism, the backwardness, the rural idiocy of the Southern Slave System, could find no home in New York. Even after the infestation of the financial parasites—Aaron Burr, Martin Van Buren, August Belmont and J.P. Morgan—Manhattan has always been Hamilton’s New York, and the financial agents of Empire merely a foreign bacillus that has no legitimate existence. It is still to this day the cultural, educational, financial, and—in a very real sense—the political capital of the United States.
“In the mid-1960s, only about two decades after the death of New Yorker Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon LaRouche initiated a series of classes and lectures at Columbia University —the alma mater of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Gouverneur Morris—which attracted young people, and led eventually into the founding of the LaRouche political movement, an association which stands to this day. It is that movement, our movement, which speaks for Hamilton’s New York.”
I think if we reflect on what kind of stand must be made at present on this, and reflect even briefly on the significance of the fight around water policy, where we see, on the one side, the notion that water is simply limited, there’s none left, we’re going to reduce our use of it, we’re not going to create new resources, it’s inherently wrong for us to grow in that way, that human beings as a species, our identity should not be one, of changing nature, should not be one, of changing our relationship to the world around us; versus the, frankly, Hamiltonian view, as he put into practice and has, as his principle would continue in its expression today, to say: No. We’re going to develop a scientific understanding of how do these water flows work? We’ll be able to develop new resources, we can take water from the oceans, we can develop the ability — we already have the ability — we can further develop the ability to control the water, to control rainfall patterns, to control the formation of clouds. Are we going to be a nation of people who have an identity as human beings, of being powerful creators of a better future, of developing through science, through improving culture and the application of our knowledge, will we develop an increasing power, and an increasing potential human population on this planet?
Or, will we go the other way, and say, there are some limits beyond which we simply cannot go; if we’re out of water, we’re out of water; we’re just going to have to die, shut down the state of California, or reduce its population, as Jerry Brown as said, to about 1% of what it currently is, right now?
The economic outlook, the political outlook, necessary to make the control, the ability to overcome this water crisis, for example, among others, to make that a reality is one of the Hamiltonian principle. And I don’t think I need to say more about that in this context.
So I will urge everybody — you know, it’s a big paper; it’s very difficult to give a summary of it — but I encourage everybody to read through Bob’s article, and take up an understanding, take up developing an understanding of what the development of the United States has been based upon, and what the political identity of the human individual must be, and use an understanding of the political fight around that, to guide us in the present.
OGDEN: Thank you Jason. Let me just, in conclusion, emphasize that what Jason has just elaborated here, especially from the standpoint of the necessity of understanding the axiomatics of the view of man and the image of man, one can see that when we speak about the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism, we’re talking about something which runs very deep. It’s necessary to recognize that the same depraved and bestial view of man, man as an animal, man as a beast, which was associated with fascism, and the racism of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and ’40s, is in principle precisely the same view of man which lay at the root of the system of Southern slavery, which we fought a war against 80 years prior during the Civil War, and was exactly the same view of man that lay at the root of British Empire, which we fought a war against 80 years prior to that in the American Revolution.
And the same British Loyalists on Wall Street, who allied themselves in support of the slave system in the 18th and the 19th centuries, were the ones who support fascism in the 20th century, as exemplified by the Bush family, the heirs of the legacy of Prescott Bush, who personally was involved in financing Hitler’s war machine in Nazi Germany. It was this evil and oligarchical view of man, which Alexander Hamilton committed himself to eliminating when he crafted the U.S. Constitution, and worked with George Washington to create the institution of the United States Presidency.
And it was from Alexander Hamilton’s headquarters, in New York City, that he coordinated this struggle for human freedom, against the Wall Street alliance, at that time, with the slave-holders of the South, and it is from this same location, in the City of New York, that the LaRouche movement today is leading the continuation of this fight against the Wall Street fascist alliance, that same alliance which Franklin Roosevelt, himself a New Yorker, claimed victory over, 70 years ago today.
So, with that said, I’d like to encourage everybody to involve themselves in the events this weekend, either personally or in spirit, that are happening in celebration in New York City, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. We’ll have updates for you shortly. Thanks for joining us tonight, and good night.