Manhattan Town Hall event with Dennis Speed and Elliot Greenspan (with transcript)



Dennis Speed and Elliot Greenspan field questions from NYC activists during this week’s Manhattan Town Hall event. Due to a technical error, audio of the event begins at 7:50, however the full transcript is available below.


DENNIS SPEED:  So, on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I’d like to welcome you here for today’s dialogue.  My name is Dennis Speed.  Lyndon LaRouche will not be joining us today; we will be opening our dialogue today with an opening statement from Elliot Greenspan.  I think some of you also noticed that our normal Policy Committee member, Diane Sare, is not here.  She is visiting a relative at the moment.  So, we’ll open up with a statement, and then we’ll begin the questions.

ELLIOT GREENSPAN:  You’ll notice that your EIR — presumably you all purchased an EIR on your way in — “Great Minds Create Mankind’s Future.”  Some of you are on the cover, actually; some of the great minds in this audience, who will become greater.  One of the great minds in the world is in Beijing, as some of you know.  Many great minds are in Beijing; but the one great mind I want to focus on for a moment — Helga LaRouche — has just spent two days speaking and participating in an international conference in Beijing.  The T20 conference — I think that’s Think 20 conference — which was organized by a number of Chinese think tanks, research institutes as part of a process leading into the G20 summit which is in China at the beginning of September.  The Group of 20 has supplanted the Group of 7, which prior was the Group of 8; but when Obama and company removed Russia from the Group of 8, it became a much smaller in significance and stature and intelligence and courage, a much smaller group of nations.  It removed not just Russia; China was not on it, the BRICS nations were not on it; India was not on it. Now you have a Group of 20 which has the — there’s a very short clip on CCTV, reporting on the beginning of this conference.  The clip begins with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, who emphasizes that the objective of the T20 is to generate ideas, policies for the purpose of attacking the unfolding world depression, the world collapse.  And very strikingly, in this little clip, you have the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister and then you have a Korean Minister of International Economics — something like that — speaking for about a minute; and then comes Bill Jones, who is the Washington bureau chief of EIR, Executive Intelligence Review.  And the summary of what Bill says in this conference, which is entitled “Building New Global Relationships”; Helga spoke on the first panel of this conference.  And in the news spot, Bill says — in paraphrase: The world needs probably several trillion dollars’ worth of investment in infrastructure.  China understands this; China is doing this with the Belt and Road.  This should become a model. Europeans and the U.S. should learn from China in this respect. Whether that will happen at this G20 is still not clear.  Europe and the U.S. are still thinking in the old way; they will put up resistance.  But because of crisis, they will change; maybe this year, maybe next year.  In the long run, the development view will occur.

The fact that in international coverage of CCTV on this T20 conference, they include three speakers; two who were coordinators of the conference from China and Korea, and the third was the EIR representative.  That speaks volumes.  We had just held — as most of you in the audience here know — we had just held an international conference in Berlin one month ago. “Common Future for Mankind, and a Renaissance of Classical Culture.”  Helga pulled together with Lyn on the 25th and 26th of June, pulled together leaders, fighters from 24 countries whose objective is to realize, to bring into actuality, and to develop the New Paradigm.  The new way of thinking, as opposed to the old way which has trapped the Group of 7 countries, and which is leading now to an impossible world economic and financial breakdown and a cultural dark age; unless you bring into the situation a New Paradigm, as we have been working on for many years.  Providentially, as came together in Berlin, as has come together with the New Silk Road; which is an idea that Lyn and Helga began developing and bringing into China as early as 1990 to 1992, that we have brought this New Paradigm into being.

So, at this moment of enormous instability, discontinuity, the end of an old era, the end of an old system, the breakdown of such a system; that we have the new potential, the new system which is now moving.  I think the thrust of this T20 going into this summit in China at the beginning of September — the Group of 20 — is that the potential is there for the rapid unfolding development consolidation of such a new economic order, of such a new moral and cultural outlook of a dialogue of cultures for the world.

I would suggest — we brought a few of these today.  You see the title; this is The Power of Reason, 1988.  The LaRouche autobiography.  But what you’re looking at here is the power of ideas; the power of reason, which becomes more powerful if you will, or has a greater potential, at moments of great crisis.  I think the challenge before us, before the Manhattan Project, before the American fighters and the American leaders of this movement; the challenge confronting us today is knowing the danger.  The Guns of August; the wild instability of the European and trans-Atlantic financial system; the collapse, the destruction of economies.  At this moment, the challenge and the question is:  Are we capable, will we shift our own thinking in terms of a New Paradigm, and our own action, our own impulse to act on this crisis in time, given what’s in front of us in the next two months?  The next two months defined by 9/11, defined by the UN General Assembly, and so on.

I want to take one particular aspect of this up.  Some of you may have read some weeks ago, a report in EIR entitled, “Why Americans Don’t Respond to Reality; The Power of Truth Can Overthrow the Russellite Dictatorship.”  The purpose of the article was to address what is it about Americans in this moment of history, which has crippled most of the American population in addressing the manifest reality where we have an opportunity, as Ben Franklin and Hamilton and Company organized and mobilized to defeat the British Empire.  Which they did, in terms of the establishment of a constitutional republic and a science of physical economy under Hamilton; but that the consolidation of that Revolutionary victory was not consolidated.  We can go through the history perhaps later.  But now you have the situation in which as a result in the wake of Roosevelt’s death, and the Trumanism, McCarthyism of the postwar period, and the effects of the murder of Kennedy and the paradigm shift to Hell of the post ’63 period.  Then the takedown of Glass-Steagall; the post-Glass-Steagall and post-9/11 era of Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, impulse for police state, regime-change wars, financial disintegration, and so on.

Now you have on the one side, the imminence of the Guns of August of an extraordinary danger of nuclear war.  At the same time, this is the end of the British Empire, one way or the other; if they blow themselves up, it’s the end of the empire. Alternatively, insofar as that empire is finished, the old era, the old paradigm is self-destroyed; therefore, the potential to bring in the new one is unprecedented.

And yet by and large, Americans are not — either Americans are insane about this party or that party, or Americans are saying both parties are insane, both parties are failing, but what can you do about it.  There’s a process which was, for purposes of this discussion, initiated by Bertrand Russell — the most evil man of the 20th Century — a process over the last century plus, which has created a degree of social control; a degree of brainwashing and self-brainwashing of an American populace such that by and large, Americans are not prepared for this moment.  And I would challenge the people here, that in the last two weeks we have raised the question of a broadsheet in the Manhattan Project, of the circulation of a mass petition leading into the Living Memorial of 9/11 and built upon the victory of the declassification of the 28 pages.

The response from the Manhattan Project, if you will, at the last two Saturday meetings has been underwhelming.  That is, when Diane asked last week about the circulation of the petition, there was apparently one signature secured in the week leading into last Saturday.  This is a problem; and I would raise a couple of things that are developed by Dave Christie and Bob Ingraham in this report.  They quote Bertrand Russell from 1951:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.  Education should aim at destroying free will, so that after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable throughout of the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished.  The populists will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.  When the technique is perfected, every government that’s been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

But you now have a depth of social control in terms of social networking, mass media, and so on, which is, in the Obama period, unprecedented.  In which the attempt of the oligarchy, the so-called “game masters” in this Presidential campaign, is to impose such further control.

One of the elements of this is their age-old commitment — intensifying in the last 50 years or so — of eliminating the cognitive generators; people like Lyndon LaRouche.  If you think about what LaRouche did in the Reagan period in coming into and being brought in in the late ’70s and through the first years of the Reagan administration; being brought into the U.S. Presidency, and generating an idea.  The power of reason; an idea which Reagan adopted, which, had it been developed further would have ended the era of nuclear madness and would have created an end to the Cold War.  An international alliance of the U.S. and Soviet Union based on new physical principles, based on scientific discovery and revolution by which the U.S., the Soviet Union would have driven the entire world economy.  Reagan was shot in ’81 when he brought LaRouche into the Presidency; LaRouche was framed up, and the attempt was to wipe out this organization.  But the consolidation of that process, if you will, with Obama, is that you have now a White House under the unitary executive; the Bush-Cheney administration, the Obama administration — a unitary executive which is largely devoid of a functional Presidency as an institution.  That is to say that key people inside the institutions of government — inside the diplomatic corps, the intelligence community, the military — thinkers of the United States have largely been marginalized by this post-Glass-Steagall and post-9/11 period in such a way that you have this attempt for a unitary executive.  Much of the operation has been to take thinkers — particularly thinkers like Lyndon LaRouche — and marginalize them or eliminate them.

Well, while all this has been going on here, LaRouche’s ideas have taken over much of the world.  And as the crisis deepens across both sides of the Atlantic, then the potential which comes from the G20, from the Chinese leadership, from Putin’s initiatives on actually organizing a new international alliance to crush terrorism; the potential now is unprecedented. The problem we deal with is, by and large, people are affected by all of these means of social control, including fear; a new McCarthyism.  A new McCarthyism targetting Putin, etc.  I pose once again the challenge to all of us:  We know very well the nature of the enemy operations, the British imperial operations; we know they are vulnerable and weak as never before.  They can be taken down now; victories in the recent period presage that, indicate that.  And if we do our work, if we act willfully as we are capable of, Manhattan Project, leadership of the United States, a re-establishment of a functional Presidency — which actually took some steps forward in the Berlin conference, if we do that, then a very fascinating world economic development and Renaissance is immediately ours for the taking.

SPEED:  The floor is open for questions.

Q:  The late Colonel Prouty, also known as Colonel X from the “JFK” movie directed by Oliver Stone, compared the assassination of Herrhausen with that of JFK himself.  Kind of in terms of how we view these things, it seems like we stop at the assassination; the way that we understand somebody like JFK or Herrhausen is by studying the assassination, not the person, not the reason why they would be killed in the first place.  So, can you give kind of an in-detail view of who Herrhausen was and what he was trying to do?

GREENSPAN:  Actually, let me begin by going back to the Kennedy assassination.  The intent of the Kennedy assassination was to destroy a Rooseveltian process in America and internationally.  LaRouche created this movement beginning in 1965, soon after the Kennedy assassination when LaRouche saw the implications for the American and world economy and for this new paradigm of the hegemony of the trans-Atlantic financial institutions.  Monetarism; cultural pessimism; despair; the drug-rock-sex counterculture.  LaRouche saw the implications of that and launched this movement as a leadership.  I reference that because at the point at which Herrhausen was murdered — November of 1989; LaRouche, who had been imprisoned by Bush and Company, had already put forward the future in the form of the European Productive Triangle which then became the Eurasian Land-Bridge.  And the development of institutions internationally on international leadership, which was capable of countering the devastation caused by the Herrhausen assassination.

To your question:  Herrhausen had, on a number of occasions, put forward a LaRouchian conception of a post-Communist era. Remember, what LaRouche was doing with the SDI with Reagan was working to bring the U.S. and the Soviet Union together in a post-Cold War world around a science driver; around a revolution in science and economics and culture and statecraft.  Herrhausen had called for, prior to his assassination, but he was about to call for on December 4th, in a speech to be given in New York; he had called for an end to this IMF regime of genocide against the Third World, by opening up the potential to write off the unpayable and illegitimate debt of Third World countries, of Poland, of former Soviet bloc countries and so on.  He had called for a KfW type of institution, a Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the institution which was developed in Germany in the postwar period by Herrhausen’s predecessor, Hermann Abs; for building a credit institution which would deploy credit in a directed fashion into the physical economy.  As opposed to what the London-Wall Street crowd did after Kennedy was killed, after ’71 and the end of Bretton Woods; when they opened up the floodgates and turned the financial system into a global casino.  As opposed to a banking system oriented toward humanity, oriented toward physical development, scientific progress, agro-industrial development, and so on.  Herrhausen had already put this forward; that’s why he was killed.  You had this incredible moment of history of great optimism when the [berlin] Wall came down, the unthinkable had happened.  LaRouche thought it in his speech in Berlin, October 12, 1988.  He thought it, he forecast it; people said, “Where is this coming from? When’s that going to happen?” Well, it happened a year later.

At that point, you had this extraordinary wave of optimism; the Communist dictatorship over many countries was over.  Germany was reunified; the potential for a new Germany, allied with potentially Russia and these countries, that potential was there. And Lyn, from prison, the day or the day after the Berlin Wall came down, Lyn put forward the idea of this European Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna, as a well-spring of industrial and economic power to deploy east into Poland and east from there. Essentially what was done, was an operation to prevent that from occurring, by removing Herrhausen who was a leading advisor to Chancellor Kohl; and forcing Kohl into the straitjacket which became Maastricht and the euro system.  Forcing Kohl to give up a sovereign currency and the sovereignty of a newly-unified Germany, and accept this European Union.  Well, look at this European Union now, without going through this whole history.

Again, what came into existence by the power of reason, was an idea which has now flourished as the New Silk Road.  Again, the challenge which Lyn and Helga have on the table is, in the last weeks they have posed the revival of Herrhausen’s vision as the essence of banking of the policy of Deutsche Bank — Herrhausen’s bank — and the essence of banking in Europe and the United States; industrial banking.  Banking tied to the general welfare, to the common interests of humanity, through directed credit into the agro-industrial system.  That’s now on the table, as the European banking system, including Deutsche Bank, is disintegrating.  That’s what I would say.

Q:  There’s been speculation over the centuries that there may be intelligent life in other parts of our Universe.  Since we’re exploring now, it seems more likely than ever that perhaps people are coming from other parts of the Universe; and perhaps they’re avoiding our planet for some reason or another, we don’t know why.  But shouldn’t we be preparing our planet as we would our house for guests?  Getting it clean and orderly so that we aren’t looked on as a disorderly house?

GREENSPAN:  Well, that would take some housecleaning, if you want to prepare the planet.  We know where the intelligent life is on this planet, and we know that there are locations where there’s no such intelligent life.  What I would stress is, if you take seriously and conceptualize the Four Laws which LaRouche put forward two years ago, that the essence is that which distinguishes mankind from animals and from any other species. This quality of mind of noësis, of the creative capacity of mankind to discover new physical principles, to create in terms of Classical culture and so on; that the capacity of mankind to create new modes of existence.  That once you eliminate the zero-growth ideology, the zero-growth dogmas which came in in this paradigm shift to Hell in the ’60s and ’70s, and which has created zero growth.  That is, in the United States now, there is zero growth; Jack Lew takes pride in this somehow or other. Unlike China and a handful of countries which are, in terms of what’s called Total Factor Productivity — productivity which is a function of technological progress, where the growth is 3% to 3.5%; there is zero growth in the United States in productivity. If you eliminate the zero-growth dogma, and you open your mind with the vision of a Krafft Ehricke, with the vision of the Apollo Project, with what Kennedy brought into being, and so forth; if you say that mankind’s home is in this Universe, and in terms of the capacity of mankind to conceptualize what mankind has never experienced.  To conceptualize what might be out there; and to proceed to explore — as in the Apollo Project, as in what the Chinese are committed to doing now in terms of their coming mission to the far side of the Moon.  If that’s what man is doing on this planet, then I think we will have created the potential for these people — or whatever — you’re hypothesizing perhaps they’ll come down here.  Anyhow, the point is, we can clean up the planet by virtue of a commitment to explore others.

SPEED:  Earlier this week, Mike Steger was involved in a discussion with the Policy Committee, and he posed the question: If Filippo Brunelleschi’s dome, the Florentine Dome, which was begun in 1420 and was completed in 1436; if the dome had collapsed, would there have been a Renaissance?  It’s a very interesting question, because of course the dome is simply the completion of a cathedral.  It didn’t have any apparent so-called material use; it was for the worship of Christians, and hopefully a unified Christian church.  But in at least Mike Steger’s question, something is implied; because of course the Renaissance and the way in which human creativity and productivity erupted in the period of the Renaissance.  That’s the watershed point that Lyndon LaRouche has continually referred to throughout his entire career in terms of the sudden up-shift, the most powerful up-shift in human history in potential relative population density.  That is to say, that at that point — and not earlier from anything we know — the human race suddenly experienced a kind of shift in creativity and productivity that was unprecedented up to that point.  This idea that the dome being built was the cause of the greatest economic, scientific, and technological productivity in human history; it’s a very interesting question.

And I would just say that the reason I would take what was just posed and look at it from that standpoint might be best indicated by something that Kesha Rogers pointed out; she pointed this out yesterday in the course of the discussions that have happened over the past couple of days.  She pointed out that the LaRouche Four Laws don’t have anything to do with economic reforms in the way in which people are thinking; she pointed out that the Four Laws are all about building a future that has never existed.  So, our idea of Glass-Steagall for example, is it’s not an economic reform; we’re not trying to do something to rebalance the books of the present economy in any way.  And even when we say, it’s the same as what Roosevelt did in 1933; actually, it couldn’t possibly be the same.  Simply, it’s as honest as what Roosevelt did in 1933; and that’s the idea.  The 21st Century Glass-Steagall they’re talking about, we’re not entirely sure what is meant by, for example, a Hillary Clinton or someone else about that; but what we are clear about is that our conception and Lyn’s conception of his Four Laws are identical to the idea content of what Brunelleschi did in the creation of that dome.

I think it’s something that people should think about, because it doesn’t seem that that action itself, built the economy of Europe.  We can say many things about the technological breakthroughs, we can say many things about the scientific principles that had to be mastered to do it; yes, that’s all true.  But the intent behind completing the Dome was to do it in fact, for the greater glory of God.  As Bach said of his compositions.

Now why is that a principle of physical economy, and what does that have to do with potential life on other planets?

Beethoven answered that, in the Ode to Joy It’s right there; it’s written right there.  And I would suggest people just listen to the piece.  It’s a good way for you to, to bribe you to go and listen to it, because you’ll see that Beethoven discusses this precisely, in the “Ode to Joy.”  So it’s a group of principles that Lyn has introduced uniquely into economics, really after Gottfried Leibniz, whose 300th anniversary of his death, in 1716, is being commemorated around the world, and it’s something I think people should just try to think about to see how the ideas that Lyn is describing and are being promoted and discussed by our Policy Committee each week, they’re significantly different than it might appear.

Q:  Hi.  It’s L—.  OK, Thursday evening the Schiller Institute together with a Puerto Rican organization hosted a Classical music concert in East Harlem, with the Schiller Chorus and prominent operatic singers performing.  Now this opportunity was opened up by a guy from the area, an area where you generally don’t find any classical music performances, and mostly mambo salsa stuff.  But he’s someone who was trained as a tenor when he was young by someone who worked with Caruso, and he went over to romantic music because there was no money in the classical music and no response from the surroundings.  Now it is interesting that there was a certain resistance to our concert up to it, but after the concert’s success, even people who had been opposed to the concert, were ecstatic about it and eager to have us perform another concert in the area.  So what do you think that this says about the potential in the Manhattan organizing, and what is the importance of this way of organizing in our political fight?

GREENSPAN: At the point at which the Russian-Syrian offensive crushed ISIS in Palmyra, about two, three months ago, people will remember what Putin and his associates did in Palmyra.  Now what was the point of a Classical concert in that amphitheater after ISIS had desecrated that place, but upon a military/strategic advance by the combined Russian-Syrian force, is that what Putin was doing was, putting forward the Classical beauty was amongst the greatest, in the Bach Chaconne and so on, amongst the greatest of Western Classical compositions, creations, was putting that forward as an indicator of what it is that he and the Russians and the Syrian forces are fighting for. It’s well known who they are fighting against, but what are they fighting for?

We are, similarly, organizing in the context of this.  We had at the Berlin conference this concert, with a Russian children’s chorus, with a Chinese choir, with the Classical string orchestra at the Verdi tuning from England, I think a Syrian chorus, Ukrainian singers, and our own Schiller chorus with the Coronation Mass; and we celebrated the New Paradigm, and advanced the New Paradigm, in a unique fashion with that concert.  So we’re looking at a process which will flower.  We’ve been building this up.  In the current EIR, which most people here have, I think, look at the interview with Diane, who initiated this Manhattan Project choral process.  Look at her interview in there, as she addresses the Living Memorial, which comes together on the weekend of 9/11 with the four concerts.

Dennis is actually at the core of organizing this, and he may have more to elaborate on that.  But I think that insofar as the principles on which Lyndon LaRouche organized the Manhattan Project, the Hamilton Principle, which is embedded in the Four Laws, and the choral principle, if you will, which is embedded in the Four Laws, that what we are working toward is a flowering of this process.  Most people are involved in that process—if you’re not, you ought to be—because, effectively, this is the access, the best, most important, most efficient access we have to our humanity, which is to perform Mozart, or the kind of thing which was performed in East Harlem in the concert that you just referenced.  And that we’re performing a week from tomorrow; the Schiller Chorus will be participating in an event in Upstate New York, focused on Verdi.  This is effectively our humanity, and as we engage in this, we build this project by accessing that quality of culture and that quality of humanity.  Our potential on this is limitless.

SPEED:  I’ll say one thing in addition.  People know that at the concert in Palmyra, the first piece played was the Bach Chaconne.  It’s part of his Partita for Violin in D Minor, solo violin.

Just remember what had happened there.  This was a place of execution.  Several people had been executed by ISIS.  Last week in France an 84-year-old Catholic priest, saying mass, with very few people in the church, and he was executed, in the process of saying mass.  On July 20, a 12-year-old boy was executed in Syria by the associates of Barack Obama, that is to say, the people that the United States is presently supporting in the situation Syria that Putin is trying to clear up.

Now when you look at that performance, which I suggest people take a look at in Palmyra, and look at that performance of the Chaconne, I think it’s a good idea to think about how to place that same voice in the throats of our singers when we perform the Requiem, because it’s exactly the same.

Now this is the most powerful thing you can do in politics, because politics in general is a disgusting affair, not because it’s disgusting or the idea of politics is disgusting, but because the kind of principles Alexander Hamilton brought to play in the case of the American Revolution, are generally discarded because the idea of the education of a population, such as was done with the Federalist Papers, by Hamilton, and Jay, and others, and what was done by Gouverneur Morris, his friend, with respect to the Preamble to the Constitution—he’s the one that wrote the Preamble.  That idea takes a conception of humanity that at the core of it believes in the idea that humanity is not only precious, but that the ability to love people and to allow them to express their creativity in the worst conditions of oppression, in the worst conditions of brutality, and even in the conditions where they are dead, you can allow humanity to express itself even when it is dead, because humanity is not dead; the individual’s dead.

And so what we’re doing, what the idea is, what we did is, including in Harlem—this is a community in which, when we performed there, they said to us, “This is the first time this has happened here.  We have not heard this kind of music, Classical music performed here before.”  That surprised many of our organizers.  It also delighted some of us, because it was good to know that we had done this.  And the gratitude that was felt wasn’t gratitude toward us, it’s the idea that there is a humanity that is higher, that people are “born for something better,” as Schiller said, and that when you assert it, using the vehicle of music, then you’ve employed a capability that’s dormant but is available.  It’s creativity.  It’s what Lyn talks about as creativity.

And what we’re doing on things like Glass-Steagall, or what we’re doing with respect to Kesha’s campaign for the space program is identical to what we’re doing in this regard.  I think it’s just important for people to understand that it’s an Erinyes principle.  It’s the idea that you can make justice speak, though murder would prefer the opposite.  So that the kind of murderous speeches we heard, for example, at the Democratic Convention, and the murderous speeches we heard at the Republican Convention, don’t have to speak for America. We can speak for America. We’re completely free to do that.  And the Manhattan Project is about a refutation of that America that is being portrayed falsely by these characters; and it’s about a resurrection of Alexander Hamilton’s America in favor, not merely of the United States, but the world as a whole, and the humanity of all of us, in general.

Q:  Rick, from Bergen County, New Jersey.  On the Deutsche Bank issue, that there’s been a lot discussion of, is the issue really about Deutsche Bank?  I mean there’s talk about putting into place the Four Principles, the credit bank, Glass-Steagall, and so forth, and raising everything to a higher level. And we also realize that Deutsche Bank is crumbling. I mean, it looks like it’s about to blow, and thereby take down a lot of other parts of the financial system.  But is the institution of Deutsche Bank, aside from its legacy back to the Herrhausen person, is it as a structural edifice per se, relevant?

I mean, isn’t that issue not really about bailing out Deutsche Bank at al., l but really to construct a new principle along the lines of the Four Laws?

GREENSPAN:  Remember the context for the Deutsche Bank proposal, which is to say that this came about the same day or a couple of days after the NATO summit, which NATO summit was an expression of this dying, desperate empire, to intensify their commitment to destroy Russia, Russia and China.  So I would think, number one, insofar as Lyn operates in terms of metaphor, that the Deutsche Bank question has served and serves now as a metaphor for a transformation, an urgent transformation at this moment of history.  As you know, you have a twentieth century, century of war, in which the centerpiece of British imperial strategy was to throw geopolitically Germany at Russia, Russia at Germany, in two world wars and in a cold war.  And if that were to occur again, or intensify in the immediate period, then you’re dealing with nuclear holocaust.

How do you overcome that?  Let me take two things.  Dennis and I had the opportunity to talk to Lyn this morning, and we asked about Putin, and he said: “Putin’s role is perfectly clear. If you look at his performance as a leader in society, he’s the most consistent person in the whole game; at the same time he draws support from other people that are leaders, who are trying to work through solutions. Putin is the expert in presenting, or producing, solutions. You want his view to come forth in this situation to explain things. Anything that he has to deal with, this guy is straight and clever, at the same time. I know him in various ways. He goes for the issues that he knows to be important, and he’s usually right. When he’s not right, he makes himself right pretty fast.”

Now, I say this here, because what Lyn and Helga are shaping with the Deutsche Bank proposal:  How do you take Germany, which is facing Hell, were this institution to bring down the European banking system.  You know very well the counterparty exposure of the major, too-big-to-fail banks of Wall Street and Europe to Deutsche Bank, in terms of $73 trillion in derivatives exposure. If this institution blows up, at any point, that will either bring down the banking system in a disorderly, chaotic collapse, with devastating economic effects—genocide—and will very likely lead, rapidly, to nuclear war. Because that’s the game which the British Empire is committed to playing. Or, we will have the rapid implementation of the Four Laws, of a Glass-Steagall orientation, for example, initially with Deutsche Bank.

Since Lyn and Helga proposed this, there apparently is discussion internal to that bank about some kind of separation—commercial, as opposed to investment banking separation. You have the leading financial paper of Germany, Handelsblatt endorsing Glass-Steagall. You have the emplacement of Glass-Steagall in the two party platforms.  So that Lyn and Helga have catalyzed something, I think, which opens up a great potential to actually stabilize that institution, and a banking system based on the Herrhausen principle. That’s the issue. That’s the relevant institution which can bring the thing down, or which could be a turning point in the right direction.

And if you combine that with what is happening with the T20, what China’s doing, what Putin is doing. Putin’s taking the Eurasian Economic Union, which the Russians initiated, and is saying, “Let us bring this into the New Silk Road. Let us create one space, from the Atlantic to the Pacific,” to paraphrase Charles de Gaulle on this. Putin is doing that! With the Chinese, under the conceptual leadership of Lyn and Helga.

That was what the Berlin conference was all about. That’s what we’re moving toward, in terms of the UN General Assembly. The issue of Putin’s international alliance to crush terrorism, is one and the same of the issue of Glass-Steagall. But Glass-Steagall doesn’t exist by itself. It’s the issue of the Four Laws. It’s the issue of the reestablishment of a human economy.

Q: [follow-up] Can I ask a follow-up?

But is Deutsche Bank itself, given its sordid history recently of criminal activity, its undefinable book of derivatives, etc., etc.,  is that a mechanism that can actually be used to do this?

DENNIS SPEED:  Let me just say something about that. That’s precisely why we’re doing it. Remember, the Deutsche Bank is presently, right now, a British bank. Essentially, particularly, its London derivatives section is what bankrupted the bank.

So, if you make this proposal, particularly at a point when the British situation itself is destabilized by several circumstances. There’s Brexit; and there’s also the Chilcot report; there’s also the attack on HSBC.

You also have to remember, by the way, where was Putin stationed when he was in the KGB? In Germany. He knows Germany better than virtually anybody in Russia. He speaks German fluently, and so forth. What’s the history with respect to Germany and Russia? Well, we’ve talked about the Bismarck reference before. We’re not going to go through all that. But what’s going on is, that Lyndon LaRouche has been at non-stop war with the British, as I think everybody knows, for decades.

The problem involved is, that generally he doesn’t have allies that are willing to win that fight. Most people are not willing to win that fight. Putin is a guy that knows, for example, the history of things like the Chechen conflict. That’s not a history that began in the 1990s with the two Chechen wars. This goes back to the time, as I mentioned before, of the Imam Shamil and Dagestan, when Queen Victoria was supporting Shamil and the others in the war against Russia. The Crimean War, of course, in 1859, but earlier than that, in the 1830s and ’40s. What he understands is the deep structure, the British deep structure, from the time of the East India Company.

You also have to just remember, just in general, Putin and some other people also in Russia, actually they are intellectuals. They actually think about what Lyn is doing. See, Lyn is not the figure that he’s been painted to be, in America, — which, by the way, many of our own people believe him to be! He’s not that! Lyn is the leading physical economist in the world, and recognized as such, by Russians ever since, at least, 1991; by other people in Russia, earlier.

What’s going on here is that Lyn has talked about the flank in the mind, continually. Lyn is engaged in a war. He intends to win it. He thinks that if he can get some cooperation from us and some others, he can win it. Often, what happens is, that people don’t get that the way he’s doing things, is at a level of grand strategy, which is accessible only if you can understand the ideas of people like Einstein or Leibniz or Beethoven or Bach.

The reason we do what we do with the chorus, the reason we do what we do with the dialogues and other things, and the reason our Basement Team is so important, is because this is an accessible method, which is being used by a few people in the world who can actually understand the world the way Lyn does. And Putin is one of those people.

So, the concept of the Deutsche Bank flank is very clear. It’s not really up to Deutsche Bank, as such. There’s a crisis, and there’s only one way out, if you want to survive. If you’ve got a mechanic and nobody likes him, but the car is broken, they go get the mechanic to fix the car. Lyndon LaRouche is more than a mechanic. [applause]

Q: [Lynne Speed]  Hi! Lynne here. One year ago, here in New York at the United Nations, Putin spoke and called for an international collaboration to eliminate the scourge of terrorism. He, of course, began to proceed to do exactly that. We’ve already talked about that, with respect to what has occurred in Syria and other locations. Unfortunately, that met a deaf ear and a blind eye by the U.S. Administration.

On Sept. 16, 2005, similarly, Putin, just four years after 9/11, spoke at a historic, groundbreaking ceremony. The ceremony was to dedicate to the victims of 9/11 a huge monument, called the Tear Drop Monument, which is dedicated “to the struggle against world terrorism.” That’s the actual name of the monument. At the groundbreaking ceremony, Putin again reiterated this commitment which really he had made clear in the moments after the events of 9/11 in his famous call to Bush, and so on, and Clinton, in a short inaugural address.

The statue, by the way, is right in Bayonne, New Jersey. It’s a 100 foot tall bronze monument. It’s fractured from the top to the bottom, with the intention of creating a kind of tension, which is modulated by a single teardrop, which resonates inside a very, very painful wound. []

Putin said at the inaugural, in brief: “We are here today to lay the cornerstone of a memorial dedicated to the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. At that time, four years ago, the criminals thought they would plunge America and all civilized humanity into chaos. They were wrong. On the contrary, we became more united than ever, and we created an actively functioning anti-terrorist coalition. I fully agree with you, Mr. Mayor,” he said, addressing the Mayor of Bayonne, “just as we vanquished fascism, so shall we defeat terrorism together.” []         One year later, when the memorial was completed, former President Clinton spoke and echoed the same sentiments on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of those tragic events, where he talked about such an international dialogue of civilization, based on peace and love.

I think it’s altogether fitting that at the upcoming concert, sponsored by the Foundation For The Revival Of Classical Culture, in which the Schiller Institute chorus will be participating, that we have chosen to use for the poster for that concert, the emblem of the Tear Drop memorial. There are more of these [showing an example of the poster] which people can get a closer look at.

It sits in Bayonne, New Jersey. It is directly between the Statue of Liberty and the former World Trade Center Towers. As you come in by ship—as many immigrants did, of course, historically, where you’d see the Statue of Liberty—you now see this tower which is really very much in the same image, or spirit, as the Statue of Liberty: the fight against tyranny, the fight against oligarchism.

It is also a very sublime and fitting reminder of what Lyn said to us several weeks ago, when this issue came up of an idea of a memorial, or a tribute, for the 9/11 victims. Lyn said, “You have to have a living memorial.” He elaborated what he meant by that—is you have to evoke a sense of guilt in the population, a sense of remorse, of which the physical representation of that is precisely the idea of tears, pangs, of remorse, which is both a recognition of what has not been done up to this point, in terms of getting at the truth behind 9/11 and the justice for those victims; but it’s also very much a resolve, that that is going to be changed. There’s a recognition, and there’s a resolve of changing it. That is really the sentiment, I think, in which we are performing this historic, magnificent work of Mozart’s Requiem, on the occasion of Sept. 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th. Four concerts.

I think this spirit, this affect, this emotional and both political idea of the world coming together in a new resolve and a new commitment, particularly coming off of our victory with the 28 pages, that we go into this next six weeks, and organize like the dickens, around this idea.

Finally, I just want to say, is, one of the profound ironies is, as we’ve talked to people about this 9/11 memorial, everybody’s mouth has dropped open, because it’s been totally suppressed. Nobody knows that this towering Memorial even exists. So, tomorrow morning, for those of you who would like to join us, at 10:30 we’ll be going over to actually see the Memorial. You’re all welcome to come.

I’d like you to comment on that, particularly on perhaps developing Lyn’s idea of this quality of the sublime that we have to evoke in this period to prick the conscience of our fellow Americans. [applause]

GREENSPAN:  Dennis referenced the occasion this year, the 370th anniversary of the birth of Gottfried Leibniz, the 300th anniversary of the death of Leibniz.

Leibniz develops this conception which you’re alluding to, which I think is at the core of this, and needs to be at the core of our outlook, which is to say that under conditions of great evil, that mankind has this capacity calling it agapë, this capacity for love, in such a way that you can generate a greater good, than the evil and the effects of that evil.

I think that’s the guiding principle that underlies what we’re into, what you’ve just developed.

I want to take one thing that came up, over this week on Leibniz, and come back to this point.  If you had an international conference in Hannover, where Leibniz was based for much of his life, 440 scientists from 32 countries, and in this congress, the China-born specialist on Leibniz at the University of Hannover said, “For our own happiness, or the happiness of others—We can only be happy if others are happy too. What it is about, is human beings, other cultures — it is about the common good of all.” And then a second figure at the congress said, “If you look at the theme of this congress, it implies that also in his academy projects for the various countries, he saw no benefit in progress which occurs at the expense of other countries, but in his striving for harmony, he was convinced that there will always be a mutual benefit of all.”

What Xi Jinping has put forward is that conception, which he calls, it’s translated as “win-win,” is the harmony which is inherent in a mankind based on agapë, based on a commitment to the general welfare principle, the commitment to justice, is that in that kind of Universe, the capacity for mankind to overcome the evil which you see in Palmyra, which you see in Nice.  And what comes to mind, picking up on what Dennis referenced earlier on this, is that hours or days after the Nice massacre, you had a performance of the Beethoven Ninth in Munich.  This was in the shadow of Nice, in what people who saw this described as an extraordinary performance of Beethoven’s Ninth.  Think of the principles that Schiller and Beethoven bring to bear in that.

Those, I think are the principles underlying the commitment, the “Living Memorial” idea, which is not merely to memorialize the 2,977 who perished on that day, but to commit ourselves to bring into being the greater good, in such a way that the perpetuation of this evil through centuries by the British Empire, can be ended, in such a way that we bring this Schillerian-Leibnizian world into being.

Q: Good afternoon.  I’m Patrick from “Casca.”  Greenwich is compromised.  [laughter] A week ago when I was here, we had a discussion about the signatures for the petition.  So that was the orders that I got.  What I did is I got about 10 of my friends and I gave them each five of these petitions. And I said, “Look, next Thursday” which just passed, “I will pick them up. All you have to do is get the signature and tell ’em what it’s for.  It’s about the 28 pages that were classified and so on and so forth.”  And they said, “got it.  I’m on it.”  I kept in touch but then things got out of control.

So I made a promise to myself.  I said, “You know, every day, I’m going to have one sheet filled.”  And I figured with all the others coming in, I’d have a tremendous amount of signatures. So, unfortunately, they failed.  But for six days, I have 84 signatures; and I have check made out to LaRouche PAC, a donation in the process.

So I would like to tell everybody that’s trying to get signatures, don’t even think about hurting feelings, because if you think about that, you’ll never get a signature.  And if somebody says, “Nah, I don’t want to sign it,” that’s OK! There’s a thousand more that are out there.  But keep on going. And I learned something from the call [on Thursday], and Jeff Steinberg said to me, “Persistence and focus, and that’s what you need, and we can do miracles.  We have.”  And then when everything’s settled, I’ll get them into music. [laughter]  And that’s my report for this week.

GREENSPAN: We should work on a challenge to the entire Manhattan Project, to get 84 signatures next week, or 840 signatures, whatever.  We can come back to this perhaps in the implementation; but you mentioned Jeff Steinberg.

I was talking to him the other day, and in a discussion he had with some of us the other day, he emphasized that prior to the Berlin conference, a month ago, that he and Helga had done some meetings with people to develop, to work through the most efficient means of making these people some of whom are prominent people, very uncomfortable.  Because the subject was, how do they come to the next, higher level, I terms of their identity, in terms of their political commitment, in terms of their effectiveness?  And there was a particular case, of an individual whom he had Helga had met with on a number of occasions, and based on the meeting they had had, I presume in June, this individual addressed the Berlin conference, unprecedented.  That is, he was on a podium, with Lyn and Helga, for the first time, a public podium; and it turns out that after he gave his speech, which had certain problems to it, but which ended with a very, very important discussion of the New Silk Road, as the unique solution to the problem of geopolitics, which to one degree or another he was trapped in.  That he proceeded immediately to send out the speech to an email list of 2,000 people.  And the people involved, this is an important figure within the institution of the U.S. Presidency, a guy with a long diplomatic career, intelligence career, etc.  So he set out his speech, from the Schiller Institute conference, on the podium with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche for the first time, to this whole network; thousands of prominent  Americans.

Now, I take this because what Patrick keeps doing, is he keeps overcoming a certain fear.  Like he described last time, when you went to the firehouse and these guys said, “Get out of here; we’re not going get involved in this. We’re not supposed to be political.”  And you described, from the town halls in Connecticut and from the firehouse, it appeared as if there was some McCarthyite clamp that had been imposed; that “we’re not going to talk about this, etc.”  And it may well have been imposed, in this social control environment that I was alluding to before.

But you said, as you were leaving the firehouse and these guys said, “get out of here,” you said, “No.  I’m not leaving. This is too important.  We’re talking about your comrades who were murdered in the Towers, and we’re talking about hundreds of other firemen and policemen and first responders; and we’re talking about thousands of Americans.  And we’re fighting this, and we’ve been fighting this fighting this for many years, and we are now winning, we’re turning the corner on this thing, and we have to consolidate this victory over the next couple of months.

Assuming Putin speaks at the UN again, let’s say late September, a year on from the Sept. 28 speech at the UN General Assembly last year, when he proposed a World War II-style U.S.-Soviet alliance of 70 years ago against Hitler, which succeeded, and he posed something along those lines for this moment of history, let’s assume he’s back at the UN; he was in St. Petersburg a couple of days ago at a conference of Russian security services, law enforcement, and he put the conception forward again.  As he put that conception forward in Bayonne in that speech that Lynne described.  As he put that forward at least implicitly, a couple of hours after 9/11, on 9/11, when Lyndon LaRouche was on the Stockwell Show responding in real time to this unprecedented attack on America and Americans and Lyn pointed to the international force which had to be behind this and the domestic inside assistance.

And a couple of hours later, Putin was the first head of state who contacted President Bush and said:  Look, we’re standing down.  We’re taken our military and our nuclear capability, we’re standing down.  Because we want you to know, we had nothing to do with this.  And implicitly we want to work with America, to organize an international capability to crush terrorism. That was at least implicit in what he said, on 9/11, and then he’s developed it now on these series of occasions.

I’m saying this to people here, because the kind of thing when Patrick overcomes his fear, and just fearlessly says, “Hey, look: I’ve known you for ten years or 50 years; you’re in family, you’re my friends, firemen, whatever…”  Or, “I’ve never met you before, but you should sign this thing! You should read this pamphlet.  You should contribute to LaRouche PAC,” I do say this is exemplary.  And if we had 50 or 100 people in Manhattan, who were doing that, the Manhattan Project would be qualitatively, dramatically transformed, and that is what we need between now and 9/11, and as of the weekend of 9/11 and as of the General Assembly coming together.

Because we’re it!  Look, exactly what is Deutsche Bank going to do, you know, the bankers and the depositors in Germany and America, what are they going to do as this system blows up?  Go to Hell?  I could go through the bail-out, the bail-in, all this crap over the last eight years, and London and Wall Street are thinking about doing:  It’s genocide.  It’s world war.  They have an option.  They have an alternative.  We brought it into being, and we have a job, —  you know, Helga commissioned this one last November.  We have a lot of these out here.  People should be taking this:  “The U.S. Joins the New Silk Road.”  That’s the question.  Is this going to be an orderly transformation, back to Hamilton, and forward to LaRouche? Or is it going to be Hell?

So the kind of thing Patrick’s getting at here, in terms of that petition or this pamphlet, or the next pamphlets we should be putting out; we’re going to have the full proceedings of the Berlin conference available in about a week, the entire transcripts of it; this is extraordinary ammunition.  But it’s very much up to the Manhattan Project to lead the country, the activists here, to lead the nation and in that sense, the world, to consolidate this process as Helga defined the process in Berlin and again a couple of days ago in Beijing.

Q:  Alvin here.  I’m happy to follow Patrick, because I was appropriately embarrassed last week to not be able to say I had done any work on the petition.  And so, I, too, decided to actually do some organizing this week around that.  And what I did, was I talked to now, not my so-called “contacts” about this, but this seemed to be a perfect opportunity to talk to people that I know, but that are so-called “not political,” which means that they’re in desperate need of the ability to think.  And this petition, once you actually start to use it is when it becomes more than information and you see the power of what you’re holding in your hands.

Sure, on the surface, at its lightest levels, 3,000 people died; this report was suppressed, we should get this out and tell people.  But that’s not what this petition’s saying; it’s saying a lot more, including solutions.  And if you’re thinking, it’s going to create a certain amount of tension in the person.  And see that we’re not just having a “good rally,” just like we’re not just having a “concert” to have music, but that there’s something else going on.  So now the possibility of them thinking.  These are people that I would never talk to about anything we’re doing, including music, but the occasion of 9/11, the Chilcot Report, the BRICS pamphlet and so on, opens all of this up.

Now, I’m not saying that things went hunky-dory and smooth with people; because the deeper you go, the more nervous they become.  They sign the petition, but they don’t want any contact information!  They say, “let’s just leave it at that.”  But that’s not the point.  The point is, now they’re thinking, and I’m urging them, they say they will; it’s funny how long 28 pages can be, and I think they’re going to find it very long.  But now, I’ve opened something up that did not otherwise exist, and will continue to do so to expand our network.

You know, last week I was here, but apparently I wasn’t in Manhattan.  This week I was, and that’s what I can tell you.

SPEED:  I just want to say one thing concerning this issue of deployment.  Fear walks the United States. And I want to at least at this point, compliment people on the fact that they’re restrained enough, maybe actually properly occupied mentally, because we haven’t been getting any questions on the idiocy of these conventions.

Now, there’s something important about the idiocy of the conventions, which is fear, and both conventions trafficked in nothing but fear. The issue of the circulation of the petition, the issue of what we were doing, and especially when people are going out here and actually talking to people — because everybody knows that’s what the fear is, to talk to strangers. Or you talk to people who aren’t strangers, but are, people you think you know very well, but they actually don’t know anything about you, or you them.  And you’ve kept this thing comfortable, because it’s easier to do.

So everyone is whistling past the graveyard, but they don’t realize they in the graveyard. In fact, they’re in the grave. So they’re whistling in the grave. So, in the course of life, sometimes, it behooves one to get out of the grave.  That’s what the term Renaissance means, so to speak.

I think what’s important is that, everyone can think about how Lyn does this, because he does this all the time. Everybody knows that, and the issue is not just invoking his name, but his method.  And his method is, if you want to know what’s going on, poke it with a stick.  If you want to really understand what’s going on in life, poke it with a stick, and you’ll see what’s really happening.

One of the things that everybody here, Elliot reported before, “nothing is new in the 28 pages.”  Well, first of all, that’s not true.  But secondly, the actual fact of the matter is, that it’s interesting how little activity we’re seeing right now in the United States, in response to the release of the 28 pages — it’s fear!  If we act, we’ll see a lot of activity.  And I think this is the essential point, is that the action of the citizen, that the citizen knows that they have to take; people know what’s right.  They may say they don’t, but if someone such as ourselves, is presenting what is right, they know that’s right.  But to get them to act, we have to act, — but with confidence; and also a certain amount of humor.  And one of the things Lyn suggested we do, let’s see if I can just reference this here, quickly, is he said, “we need to start a campaign for the edification of people.  Who is the Idiot of the Week?  He’s referring to the two candidates, in specific:  Who is the Idiot of the Week?”  He said, because what’s going to happen is, each of these people is going to be saying things that are going to rankle people.  They’re going to say things that are stupid.

Now, what we should be prepared to do, is to go through this, and then say, “Now, didn’t you think that was stupid?” And who this week is the “Idiot of the Week?” And it will alternate.  By the way, don’t leave out Jill Stein. She will also be the Idiot of the Week, although she’s less important.  I just reference that, because some people are talking about this Green Party candidate.  And of course, it’s the Gangrene Party, is what it is.  This is not the future.  I just wanted to say that.

Q:  Hello.  Jessica from Brooklyn.  I’m inspired by Patrick and — I’m always inspired by Patrick.  And I’ve been away for a while, and coming back and hearing about the petition that is being circulated our group, I’ll have to jump in with both feet. And of course it is a daunting task because you really do have to jump in.  It’s more than just talking about it.

So, I’ve collaborated with a few people in our membership as to what we’re going to do to get that done.  There will be calls, there will be talking, conference calls, things like that, to kind of organize what we’re going to do; and I will definitely be part of that organizing.

One of the other things that is inspiring:  I came back from my little jaunt around the United States just recently with my daughter; and when I got back,  my son presented me with a gift that he found at a street fair, an African-American street fair. And the artwork that they had was called “Historical African American Art.” And it jumped out at me, and I’d like to show it to you.  I just want to present that first, because we’ve talked about Fredrick Douglass, and we’ve talked about the music of the Classical composers as part of thinking and the critical thinking in leadership.  And this picture was given to me by my son  — it’s Fredrick Douglass, this is Fredrick Douglass’s grandson [holding his violin].  This was found at a street fair.  And I don’t even know how much he purchased it for.  I should ask.

It says, “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, rain without thunder and lightning.” — Fredrick Douglass.

And then at the bottom of it is says: “For it is through beauty that one proceeds to true Freedom” — Friedrich Schiller.

Q:  Wow!

Q: [follow-up]  And I was like, “you kidding me?” [applause] So if you comment on that, it’s really inspirational.

SPEED:  Well, since my wife designed that — [laughter] That’s what that is.  That’s simply a blowup of one of the posters from one of our concerts from the ’90s.

Q: [follow-up]  Yes!  Cool!

SPEED: And somebody took to a street fair. In the 1990s, we did a lot of work to create something called the National Conservatory of Music; it was a commemoration of an actual organization that was founded here in New York City by a woman by the name of Jeannette Thurber. And in the course of the concerts that we gave, we were doing this around the death of Marian Anderson, but in the course of that, that’s how we met Sylvia Olden Lee, and that’s how people like Robert McFerrin, William Warfield, George Shirley and many others began to work with us. So, what Jessica has, somebody took — that’s probably one of the posters, we made posters; and apparently this made its way somehow to a street fair on African-American historical art, without our attribution, I noticed.  But that’s all right, that’s OK.

So nothing in the universe is accidental:  Locke was wrong, Leibniz was right!  There is no tabula rasa.

I think that’s all the questions, so let’s just get a summary from Elliot and we’ll move to the next section.

GREENSPAN: Well, since it was your son who found this and presented it to you, it just prove again the underlying harmony of the Universe:  Kepler was right, and Leibniz was right, and Vernadsky, and Einstein, and LaRouche have been right about this. That’s right.

All I would add is, I second Dennis’s motion that this audience has been appropriately full of foresight in not bringing up a series of questions about the these conventions.  What I would say about the election campaign is, all of this is the old paradigm, which is dead!  Don’t get caught up in this versus that, lesser of evils, it’s all evil. The old paradigm is evil, and self-destroyed.  And the great question, the challenge on the table for all of us, is to rapidly organize this New Paradigm, which is what Helga’s been concentrating on of late, and that’s what’s on our plate for the weeks ahead.

Q:  I’m sure anyone who has been going through the 28 pages has noticed that there is not one single page that doesn’t have a blackout. So the question might be, well, we have a lot of information, some of which we already knew, but what’s the secret underneath the black marks, that we cannot see, and cannot read and cannot explain to others?

GREENSPAN:  The real  word on this is that there are hundreds of thousands of pages, which the FBI and company have. That’s 28 pages.  There are hundreds of thousands of pages, which is relevant, and there is intensifying activity to force this out in the open.  Jeff Steinberg addressed a conference two days ago in Washington, and discovered a lawyers’ committee which is working to get state and Federal grand juries’ investigations of all that.

The cat’s out of the bag. The Pandora’s box has been opened up.  We’ve done a job on this thing.  So, redactions or not, the more fundamental or important point here is, to recognize that this is an expression that of a dying empire, whose time to go to Hell has come.

And we are rapidly, as Helga again in Beijing this week, we are rapidly bringing this new economic order in the world, new dialogue of civilizations, this harmony back, this Leibnizian world into realization.  And again, I urge all of you to recognize, as the explosions build in the period ahead, if we’ve done our job over these weeks ahead, then people will increasingly gravitate toward the only available option, solution, which is what we’ve put on the table.

Q:  [jessica] Can I say one thing about the campaign?  OK, sorry about that.  But, I deliberately watched the disgusting display of Hillary Clinton and her speech, because I wanted to see what she was going to say.  And I know that that can be very dangerous, but I really wanted to see what she was going to say, and how stupid she would sound, and what she would do and leave out.

But one of the things that was kind of humorous to me, is that Trump came up with the statement about the emails of Hillary, and I think everybody may have heard it. And he did give kudos to Putin.  He said that if you really want to get to the bottom of the emails, with his crazy song, that you should get Putin to investigate the emails and then you might actually get somewhere. You might actually get a real investigation because these other clowns don’t know how to investigate anything, and they would find out the real dirt on Hillary.  So I thought that was kind of cool, even though Trump is a jackass, that was kind of fun, so I just wanted to bring that in.

SPEED:  I think I’ll take the opportunity to transition us. This is from Charles Mackay’s book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:

“In reading the history of nations, we find that, like individuals, they have their whims and their peculiarities; their seasons of excitement and recklessness, when they care not what they do. We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. We see one nation suddenly seized, from its highest to its lowest members, with a fierce desire of military glory; another as suddenly becoming crazed upon a religious scruple; and neither of them recovering its senses until it has shed rivers of blood and sowed a harvest of groans and tears, to be reaped by its posterity….” And then toward the end he says: “Money … has often been a cause of the delusion of multitudes. Sober nations have all at once become desperate gamblers, and risked almost their existence upon the turn of a piece of paper. To trace the history of the most prominent of these delusions is the object of the present pages. Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

We reject this idea.  We reject the idea that people think in herds. We say, “that’s not human, that’s herd mentality.  It’s animal mentality!”  And our approach is completely different.  We say that creativity is accessible, available, and is imperative. And that’s what we insist upon in our conception of citizenship. I understand one of our members here is becoming a citizen, and I think we’ll say a little bit more about that when we finish. The concept of citizenship we have is based upon the duty to be creative.  That’s the concept of citizenship, and all the other elements of that, that people tend to associate with it, are derivative.

So I would just say, that going back again to what we said about Lyn LaRouche; he’s in Europe now, of course, and other things are going on, there’s a lot of discussion that’s happening in many ways.  He has invented a Manhattan Project; that’s what you’re all part of.  And that Manhattan Project has to seek with a greater degree of perfection, or a less degree of imperfection, to arrive at a new concept of citizenship than Americans carry out.  I think the important idea is, that no matter how deluded our fellow citizens may seem to be, the truth will set them free. And that’s our agenda, that’s our job, that’s our directive. Know the truth, and set them free.

This entry was posted in LPAC, Manhattan Project and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s