LaRouche: Only Alexander Hamilton Can Save The USA (with transcript)



Join the Policy Committee as we discuss the latest from Lyndon LaRouche:

Alexander Hamilton’s four economic reports to Congress laid the foundation for the principles which built the United States. Those four reports can be found here, and should be studied by all Americans. Lyndon LaRouche has revisited Hamilton’s principles with his four economic laws as stated in his June 2014 memorandum “The Four New Laws to Save The USA Now!” which can be found here.


Matthew OGDEN:  Good afternoon, it is Oct. 17, 2016, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined by Jason Ross here in the studio. You’re watching our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.  We have all six members of the Policy Committee joining us via video:  We have Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Diane Sare from New York/New Jersey; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. We just got off the phone with Mr. and Mrs. Lyndon and Helga LaRouche and as we’ve been elaborating on this website over the past several weeks, Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis was absolutely clear: That at this point in the history of the United States, the only option for the survival of this country and the survival of civilization is the adoption of policies of Alexander Hamilton, by name, as they were elaborated in his four reports to Congress — The Report on Manufactures, the Report on Public Credit, the Report on National Banking, and the report On the Constitutionality of the National Bank, and as they were reconceived and reiterated by Lyndon LaRouche in a document published on June 10th, 2014 which is the so-called the four economic laws, or as Mr. LaRouche called it the “Four New Laws to Save the U.S.A. Now:  Not an Option, an Immediate Necessity!”  We’ve elaborated those four laws on several broadcasts now over the past several weeks, and we’d encourage you to continue to pursue the substance of what Alexander Hamilton reported in those four economic reports.  As you can see on the screen, we also have the direct link to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s June 10th, 2014 paper,

So I’d like to put that out there at the beginning of our conversation today, and proceed from there.  There’s obviously a lot that’s occurring in the world: the BRICS summit that just concluded in India, very, very significant developments on that front and otherwise. That’s the initial statement and let’s just have a discussion from that standpoint.

Diane SARE:  Well, I’ll address what is obviously of concern to millions of Americans, which is that as of tomorrow, the U.S. elections only three weeks away.  So, everyone is saying, “can I vote for one of these people? If one of them gets elected, we’re finished, this is terrible.”  They’re talking about massive increases of stress in the population; polls where 35% of the voters in Virginia won’t choose either one of them. And this came up in a discussion also this morning, and I think the challenge in what people have to face is that thinking along the lines of business-as-usual  in this crisis is not the way to think.

One way to think about it is the powerful impact of Mozart and the African-American Spirituals that were presented to New York audiences on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which were part of a resonance of a demand for justice in the fight for JASTA, which wasn’t simply about the family member of the victims of 9/11 having the ability to pursue Saudi Arabia; but instead tapped into a much more powerful universal principle which Friedrich Schiller discussed in Wilhelm Tell, which is the question “There is a limit to a tyrant’s power”; and that what you have is that the rift between the two directions of the world is getting very deep and not sustainable.  Which is what you have, as Matt mentioned with the BRICS process, is a continuing and escalating collaboration for the good of future generations. The Chinese are making it more and more a spoken-of point that they have lifted 700 million people out of poverty in the last couple generations; that the direction of mankind is a direction forward, of an improving standard of living for an increasing number of people per square mile or per square kilometer; and that this is the natural process of development, and what you have is a growing leadership in the world in that direction.

On the other hand, what you have left with Barack Obama as the leading howling and shrieking representative of the British Monarchy and the British Empire is their death agony; they are bankrupt.  Deutsche Bank could be the detonator of this whole rotten system.  And what LaRouche has put on the table by referencing Alexander Hamilton and his own clarification of that with the Four Laws is a pathway to a solution, starting with the implementation of Glass-Steagall, but not ending there; that would only wipe out trillions of dollars of mythical derivatives, holdings and other obligations, which should not be obligations at this point, and protect the commercial banking system.  But that then creates a means whereby you can have national banking, public credit, and you can have an economy that actually directs the progress of mankind, by investing into those things which force us to new levels of creativity, new levels of productivity.

And that, for the American people to respond now, you are called upon not to just go in and pull a lever or something, but to actually stand on the stage of history, stand on the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers, and demand that these things be addressed by our government.  We saw the power of this, in that we have Barack Obama, who is the most criminal and insane President we have had thus far — we may supersede those low standard in the next election.  But nonetheless, he is the worst President we’ve had thus far, and he was forced by the LaRouche movement in particular, joined with others, the family members of the 9/11 victims, and so on, 1) to release the 28 pages; and 2) he was crushed in a nearly unanimous vote in the Senate to override his veto on JASTA.

So there’s a principle here. So rather than fleeing into some deep crevice or hiding under your floorboards, it’s time for people to actually get serious and commit yourself to a much higher standard.

And one last thing I want to say:  We started in the Manhattan meetings to actually read Hamilton’s papers, as a group, which I strongly recommend, because they’re very challenging. We’re taking them in chronological order, and then we’ll review them; so we started with the paper on Public Credit, and got about halfway through.  And I will say that the people who participated in that were extremely concentrated; many people came to the meeting because they want to work through this, because they have an understanding that this is something, that as an American, particularly in this crisis, we’re obligated to understand.  And so I would urge everybody to take up a similar challenge where you are.

Michael STEGER: Well, Mr. LaRouche raised yesterday in discussion, I think, an important point.  That the Presidential process has collapsed since Mr. LaRouche was fraudulently attacked and put into prison, and that really is what we’re facing today is that, I think most of us can remember that over the last 16 years, the Presidential election process has been fairly horrible.  There have been maybe some moments where  maybe there were slightly better people who were running, but what you saw, and Mr. LaRouche said this I think four years ago, we are looking at the end of political parties.  Both parties are collapsing.  You have a cultural rot.

So the core source of the question is what’s the underlying problem?  You have a cultural rot inside the American political system and culture generally and that really has to be addressed. And I think this Hamilton question is key, because Hamilton represented a scientific advancement coming out of the Renaissance period in Europe, that the idea of the United States of a new society, a new civilization that there existed a conception, a clarity of conception of not only a nation, but the means by which the nation could advance, self-consciously and willfully.

That was unique to mankind:  Leibniz had set down the physical parameters by which that kind of economic practice could be enabled, but Hamilton set forth the clear policies in these papers to Congress, in shaping what was truly the government and Constitution of the United States.  And that really has not been implemented.  There have been applications of Hamilton’s policies, you saw it in Lincoln, and in FDR and in John Kennedy, to the best of any other Presidents.  But to have a full, clear implementation of Hamilton’s laws as natural law, as what Mr. LaRouche has developed as his Four Laws, are simply just patenting what Hamilton’s conceptions and principles were.

But this kind of characteristic is a fundamental leap in mankind and that’s where we are.  Mankind can no longer exist under this kind of “maybe we’re an animal; maybe we’re not” characteristic.  There has to be a clear, scientific identification, a distinction made, a hard-line distinction, that mankind is distinct from all animals and that what Hamilton sets forth is just the basic preliminary steps that mankind must take, to begin to really put mankind forward and towards a development orientation.

And really, at this point on the planet, we are at a unique ability, because of nations like Russia and China oriented, by Mr. LaRouche, by our organization, other patriotic forces, around this kind of conception of economic policy. That’s what has to be done in the American people today:  They have to recognize this quality of instinct, because we are looking, in the weeks ahead if not sooner, of a complete crash of this system.  It is coming down; it is urgent.  It has got Obama’s bloody hands all over it; it was his failure of a Presidency which has created it.  These last eight years of perpetual bail-outs, not one banker has gone to jail, so then the time is ripe to strike.  But you have to strike from a conceptual level.  You cannot win a war on a tactical level; you must fight at the highest strategic conception.  And I think what Mr. LaRouche has put forward on Hamilton here, is really a clear indication of how we have to move.

And as Diane said, reading Hamilton’s papers as a group is probably a great place to start, but we’ve got to change the fundamental culture upwards; upwards and in a uniquely human way. That really is the political fight today, and I think the JASTA fight really also captured that very same essence.

OGDEN:  Something I gained just from recently reviewing the Report on Manufactures, this was part of the presentation on Friday evening, during our weekly Webcast, is that Hamilton makes a very cogent argument about why a country which possesses a commitment to science and technology as expressed through industry is a far more economically, is a far more economically advanced country than a country which rejects that orientation. And he lays out seven reasons why a manufacturing economy is capable of producing more wealth and a multiplier effect of wealth in term of the productive powers of labor, than a non-manufacturing economy.

And his seventh and capital point, the one he actually puts the most premium on, is that the product of the land in terms what people view as resources, whether it be plants, animals, or minerals, actually develops a changed definition:  You have a process by which resources and the idea of value placed on a certain object, actually changes over time as you have  new discoveries and new applications through technology.  What Hamilton says is, “The bowels as well as the surface of the earth are ransacked for articles which were before neglected.  Animals, plants, and minerals acquire a utility and value which were previously unexplored.”

So this is a direct expression in Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures from 1791 of what Mr. LaRouche revisits as the central organizing principle of his concept of the Four New Economic Laws, which he expresses at the conclusion of that paper under the term “physical chemistry”; or the ability, as you were saying, Michael, of mankind to self-identify himself as something other than an animal, who has the ability to change the definition of physical resource and to change his relationship to nature over time.  And that’s no better expressed than in the concept of “physical chemistry.” As mankind has progressed, our concept of resources has changed.

I don’t want to put you on the spot, but Jason was the author and editor of a report that came out several years ago called “The Gifts of Prometheus” which is an elaboration of that concept of “physical chemistry. ” [] As man moves through different ages of resources, this is propelled by increased energy-flux densities in terms of what our concept of “fire,” hence Promethean fire, may be. And maybe it would be useful just to say a little bit about that.

Jason ROSS:  Sure.  If you look at the longest timescales of human economics — don’t look only at the last 50 years; don’t look only at the last century — but look at the creation of the human species as a uniquely human species; go all the way back to Greece, go back to the story of Prometheus, where what separated human beings from the other animals, in the story as Aeschylus tell it, before Prometheus gave the gift of fire to mankind, human beings were basically animals.  He says, like insects, they swarmed in caves, we didn’t know when the different seasons would come; we didn’t know how to build houses, we didn’t know anything.  But Prometheus giving the gift of fire, also gave through it, all the gifts of reason:  music, the alphabet, poetry, astronomy; the ability to tell time with the calendar, to know when to plant and harvest crops.  And he said all gifts come from these, all gifts come from fire.

Fire at that time meant the basic wood fire that differentiates us from animals; it allows us to use this as a self-created tool, unlike a stick that some baboon sticks in a termite mound, fire isn’t a thing like that, it’s a process.  It becomes a tool for us, something that no animal species does. And by allowing us to then use more resources, by developing higher forms of fire through charcoal, we could now turn rocks into metals.  We had the Bronze Age, the ability to create bronze from rocks like malachite that we get copper from, and tin; the Iron Age.

So just as Hamilton had said, “in the bowels of the Earth” there are substances that become resources by our improving knowledge about how to use them, that’s exactly what we’ve done. And the key to that has been on the broadest scale, types of “fire.”  So moving to later stages, with the ability of the steam engine to do something totally new, which is to turn materials into motion:  By burning coal, you’re able to create motion, pretty phenomenal!  You can eliminate the need for muscle work, or windmills for the first time in history.

The higher power of the nucleus which we have not taken advantage of, we have not really figured out how to use fusion energy in a controlled way for power plants; we haven’t figured out how to use it in a meaningful way for resource extraction, for new types of refining and mining.  There’s a total revolution in our relationship to the material world, our relationship to resources, to power and to water, that can be effected by making the needed breakthroughs in our understanding of fusion, as the highest form of “fire.”

And when you were reading this quote from Hamilton and thinking back to the webcast from last Friday, that seems to really prefigure LaRouche’s concept of potential population density.  That here’s Hamilton — and his papers are all polemics, and he’s taking on people who have said in their economic theory that all wealth comes from the land; this is actual theory that people believed, that he’s having to take apart and demonstrate by means of showing where the greatest form of wealth for the future comes from —  which isn’t farming! It’s much higher than that.

STEGER:  Just on a quick note, also that was also a defense for slavery.  Ultimately what Hamilton’s saying, is if mankind is going to become free of slavery, or dependent upon a majority of mankind being treated like animals, that was the fight Prometheus waged; that was the fight Hamilton waged against Jefferson, against the others of the time, who essentially believed that slavery was somewhat of an acceptable institution, and the premise of that was that much of mankind are animals; or we’re all animals and some are meant to rule and some not, an Aristotle conception.

And Hamilton and people of Hamilton’s following have always thought with a very clear distinction that there’s something different.  What Hamilton sets forth are the policies that any nation would adopt if it insists we’re going to end this slave policy, whether it be chattel slavery or the cheap labor policies that dominate the planet today.  That ultimately is what we’re talking about, is a fundamental shift ending this kind of barbaric period of mankind’s history.

Kesha ROGERS:  It’s also the fight at the very core of our nation’s Declaration of Independence, on the question of the “pursuit of happiness,” versus the “pursuit of property”; that the idea that human beings are nothing but animals to be herded or that your productivity, as was just said, comes not from the creative potential of the human mind, and the increase in the productivity of the human mind, but it comes from how much work can you get out of an individual just by increasing the labor of that person.

But I think, you contrast that idea to what is really established as a universal principle on this “pursuit of happiness,” to which you said Michael, on the fight right now to change the culture and the society to uniquely respond to this creative human identity which is the basis of LaRouche’s Science of Physical Economy, his Four Laws and the four reports by Alexander Hamilton.  This is what is being seen by China right now, in its commitment to uplift their population and the rest of the world out of poverty.

I understand that there’s a white paper that’s just been released by China on what they have done in terms of their increase in productivity, the advancements in manufacturing, and most important the advancement in their space program, in their endeavors for space exploration.  And there should be a congratulations to China for today, earlier this morning China time, the launching of the Shenzhou 11 manned spacecraft.

And what is happening is this is not just launching a spacecraft just for increasing China’s productivity in space, but for the entire world.  They’re advancing the ability for mankind to sustain life in space.  What is it going to take for going to the Moon and actually building, as Krafft Ehricke had intended, the “seventh continent” of the world?  And that’s what China is committed to right now.  But they understand that you’re not going to do that through a bankrupt financial system of having the private sector alone take nations to space.  It’s only going to be through the advancement of what Hamilton understood as Public Credit, through creating credit to invest in the future and long-term infrastructure and development of the nation.

And so, I think we look at this question of how the United States has lost its commitment to the “pursuit of happiness,” as defined in the U.S. Constitution and which formed a principal basis of  Alexander Hamilton’s reports, we can really look to China as the nation who is redefining that, which we have to take a lesson from.

OGDEN:  I think Hamilton would certainly be overjoyed at the prospect of not only mining the bowels in the surface of the Earth for resources, but mining the bowels and surface of the Moon for helium-3 and other resources.

ROGERS:  Exactly.

Bill ROBERTS:  And I think that people really do want to return to having a human sense of identity.  We saw this with the incredibly outpouring of response to our concerts, and I’d refer in particular to, a lot of people around this JASTA fight, were very personally moved by the image of people like the firefighters and other first responders who very selflessly were motivated and gripped by a concern for the countless numbers of people that they had an opportunity to rescue, but by doing so they neglected or didn’t really even consider their own personal fear; or not primarily, they obviously sacrificed and gave themselves what they saw as the more proper fear and motivation to act for others.

And I think that that Americans would actually gladly, especially given the stress — there was this report from the American Psychological Association, that Americans are deeply stressed out about these elections; they are completely stressed out and fearful of the economic situation.  But again, people will tend to think of economics just in terms of their own personal monetary situation, and the despair of being someone that cannot continue to be able to exist, and continue to live under the current economic situation.

And when we make clear to people what the principle of the General Welfare is, scientifically, in depth in a way that this has transformed the cultures in the BRICS countries, then people can begin to think and act like human beings.  I think there really is something to Mr. LaRouche’s very adamant emphasis that the key right now is that this principle of Hamilton, what Hamilton fought against the slave-holders for, is really want people have got to get this modern, updated sense of if they’re going to be freed from the sort of false fear of self-preservation and the kind of inescapable fear that you get when nothing else is offered to them but these awful, awful candidates.

Dave CHRISTIE:  I think in part it gets to this whole market theory, because what was Alexander Hamilton going against?  He was going against the policies outlined by Adam Smith, this is the time where he was writing The Wealth of Nations, he was of course one of the chief propagandists for the British East India Company, and this idea of the “invisible hand,” the magic of the marketplace, and you don’t really have to have the kind of outlook that Kesha identified with Krafft Ehricke or what we see with what the BRICS nations and the New Silk Road program is, which is a long-term intention to actually develop mankind from a scientific standpoint.

Instead, you reduce economy to some “market” driven by simple desires of the base side of mankind, or the animalistic side of mankind, the “pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain,” as Adam Smith goes through it in his writings.

And I think frankly that conception, because if you actually look at what Hamilton is doing with these papers, this is part of the establishment of the United States. This is part of forming the institution of the Presidency, and the idea content that would govern the nation.  It was not an academic series of papers that he was putting out; these life-and-death about whether the nation was even going to be formed, and be free from the British Empire, or whether it was going to get stuck back into this market theory concept that was really, that was the slave system, but it was the less overt version of slavery was this concept of the free market that the British were proposing.

But what Hamilton was doing was organizing a nation and organizing a discussion  process that was forming the institution of the Presidency.  Now, in my view, this is what Lyn is doing with the Four Laws today, is similarly an intervention into the institution of the Presidency around what are the principles that determine whether a nation exists or a people exists or not; and is part of shaping what should be a discussion process now.  But do we have a discussion process around the institution of the Presidency?  No!  Most Americans approach it like it’s just some market theory, or it just descends down, the invisible hand hands you these candidates and you’re just supposed to muddle along and hope that something good happens.  Versus saying, what should be the discussion process? How am I involved in shaping the institution of the Presidency?  How am I involved in securing and knowing that my future will be guaranteed based on a scientific principle?

So I think the question of these reports and that discussion process is crucial and that’s what we have to be very clear with the American people:  Don’t give up your fate to the invisible hand.  Actually fight for it, by knowing scientifically what it is.

Rachel BRINKLEY: And that is the point that Hamilton makes about natural law, is that it’s not something — he goes back to the idea of Nicholas of Cusa, who originated the nation-state on the idea that, the only principled reason for leadership to govern over others, is for those governed to consent to the leadership; otherwise it’s a form of tyranny.  And he says, all policies have to be derived from that idea, and so he attacks the people that are trying to say that the government itself, under the Constitution is a tyrannical form of government that’s trying to suppress the liberties of people.

And he says: No, the only laws that are fit to be enacted are those that are derived from the nature of man, that every man is equal, in this power of their inherent rights. So all the policies today have to come from that same standpoint of natural law.

But also, just to continue on the point that’s been developed today in the discussion so far, LaRouche’s Four Laws, the fourth one is very clear on that idea of an affirmative state of nature.  And he says,  “the subject of man in the process of creation, as an affirmative identification of an affirmative statement of an absolute state of nature, is a permitted form of expression. Principles of nature are either only affirmation, or they could not be affirmatively stated among civilized human minds.”  And I think his reiteration of the concept of “affirmative” being that there has to be a creation, a product of something new by the human mind, as we’ve discussed with the concept of “physical chemistry,” as economy, and etc.

And everything else is just a distraction, everyone fighting over lack of wages, you know there’s protests going on right now for food service workers wanting more money, the wage problem in the United States, to raise the minimum wage; but how is any of this going to be done?  Only through this concept of creating a higher quality of productivity.  So anything else is just a distraction.

And so LaRouche’s emphasis on Hamilton in that concept, we purely do have to focus on that.  Wall Street can sort itself out; it creates no value to the economy, it creates nothing new. Hamilton’s the way to go.

SARE:  I would also add that symptomatic of this crisis, or part of this terror, which is a legitimate terror, is that you have a certain clamoring for war with Russia.  Now, the U.S. in this meltdown phase, at one point LaRouche said, we can’t really wage a war; we just caused a lot of chaos.  But first of all Biden announcing that we have a covert plan to launch cyber war against Russia, and I know that Ed Snowden said that Biden apparently doesn’t understand what the meaning of the word “covert” is.  I mean, we’re just a source of ridicule, but we’re dangerous!  Russia is doing drills to prepare for nuclear war: They’re saying they have the capacity to shelter 40 million people in underground shelters. And Hillary Clinton somehow knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, with no evidence whatsoever, that it is the Russians who are interfering in the U.S. elections.  So this is very terrifying.

And then on the other hand you have a diversion from this, by talking about Donald Trump and sex.  So you can either talk about having a nuclear war, or you can talk about sex, and the fact that one is a diversion from the other I think is what has this effect, which is getting Americans so completely stressed out, freaked out, alarmed; but the point is, these crazy things — that debate is not in the domain of reality.  And one thing that we absolutely do have to keep a focus on, is the necessity of the removal of Barack Obama from office.

If it were to be publicly acknowledged what is obvious I think to everyone that this man is completely off his rocker, and that he is a threat to the survival of the human race, and he were to be removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, that would change everything!  That would completely transform not just the electoral process, but it would establish a precedent where, finally, the American people have drawn the line and said, “No!” as in the Schiller play of Wilhelm Tell, “There is a limit to a tyrant’s power.” There are certain policies, certain actions which are simply not acceptable by the government of the United States any longer.

And so, if you think about how Alexander Hamilton, for example, or Ben Franklin, or George Washington, how would they look at what our nation is doing right now, and the very small-minded, low level behavior and mindset of the American people, I think they would be horrified.  And then the question of the remedy, which is, a certain factor of inspiration as I mentioned we see with the music in response to this choral principle and also what Kesha has described what China is doing with their space program:  That this is something which is really for mankind, for the human species.

And that’s we in the United States should be demanding and we simply should not accept any lower level than that, and certainly not succumb to the insanity which is being put forward as a so-called political process in this country right now.

STEGER:  And then in the discussions over the last week on this question, it was ongoing discussions with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche on how do you deal with this kind of insanity.  And one of the key factors is that, there is a seething rage under the surface in much of the American population and you see this in various ways, but people try to categorize it in small niches, when it’s across the board in the American population; this is upward trending towards 80% of the American population who are outraged by the candidates, the tone of this election and far more than even that, the actual breakdown of our society.  The ongoing wars — the New York Times had an article yesterday where Obama’s been engaged in extensive special operations in Somalia; we’re engaged in something like 10 different countries in warfare in just this year alone!  I mean, the level of insanity and economic breakdown in this country, the racial tension, the blowout of the banks, the blatant, public criminal fraud of the banks, as you saw with Wells Fargo; so this rate, this is all Obama.  His drone warfare, his wars, his bank bailouts, the economic breakdown; and to a certain level you see the psychopathic nature when he declares himself the greatest source of economic recovery mankind’s ever known — in numbers of articles now, The Economist, Wired magazine.

So the point that we came back to is that the rage that is in this population is unescapable, it is going to be unleashed; it is going to be targeted to Obama and anything associated with him, and that’s exactly why the Republican Party is disintegrating because they worked with Obama these eight years; they worked with him all the way.  That’s why Trump won’t even condemn Obama.  He makes the election more about Bill Clinton’s sex life, than the fact that you have a psychopath who’s ready to mass genocide against mankind now.  Or, everyone talks about Hillary Clinton’s push for world war with Russia, which is blatantly clear — what about Barack Obama’s push for nuclear war with Russia for the last — you could say eight years — but essentially since 2011 and the killing of Qaddafi, that we had an immediate push for confrontation with Russia and China.

So I think there is this question we have to tap into, and one of the main factors that we’ve confronted in the organizing, is there’s a level of despair, people are giving up on the process.  And this is the kind of moment where you cannot give up.  There has to be a deeper source of optimism, a higher scientific sense of what mankind can do, and that’s why this Hamilton question that Lyn’s raised has been so essential: because this rage is going to be unleashed.  But it’s got to be directed at the right people:  Obama, the Wall Street types, the British Empire generally; this animal conception that has been imposed on mankind.  But we have to apply to an uplifting of mankind:  We have to go towards the space program, that is absolutely a critical direction for mankind today.  And it awakens a sense of scientific optimism, that is so essential in a country becoming so distrustful and paranoid, we have to awaken that quality in our population today.

We’re going upwards, upwards to the stars, but we’re going to develop this country.  That kind of optimism is critical, and I think Hamilton captured that, and more than anyone Lyn has over the course of the 20th century.

ROSS:  Mm-hmm.  The LaRouche movement stands in a unique position to be able to provide and guide that upward orientation. And like you’re saying Mike, there’s plenty of anger, there’s plenty of fury about what’s happening, and people are looking at this election and saying “Omigod, we’re going to have a terrible President…”  We already have a terrible President!  So the question is, how are we going to create successes of the type we’ve had recently with forcing the release of the 28 pages, and with forcing the Congress to override in a smashing way, the veto Obama had made of the JASTA bill.  What we need now are successes on the affirmative front, of the LaRouche  Four Laws starting with Glass-Steagall.  And what makes that possible is people having a sense of what we could be doing:  You know, don’t watch football on Sunday, calls your friends together and read a Hamilton paper.  I’m serious! I meant it!  Get a sense of how this country was created!  How are these policies that set us on such a good developmental path in our early years, how were they formed?  What is LaRouche’s policy today?  Figure out, how can we make that happen?  What can be done?  Presentations in your community, letters to the editor, there are so many things that could be done to organize around the New Silk Road conception that the LaRouches have been developing for decades now; for these Four Laws that Mr. LaRouche has proposed, we’ve got these policies, and they’re not going to implemented via a Presidential election.  They’re going to be implemented via pressure coming from an informed and active citizenry, as we’ve seen with these recent success!  Let’s have more successes like that:  It works!

OGDEN:  And it’s worth, I think looking back at the process by which, now Glass-Steagall is a household word.  This is a subject of debates, how did that happen?  It happened because there was a leadership of society to introduce this as an idea, beginning very significantly with Rachel’s campaign for Congress against Barney Frank; Kesha’s campaign for Senate, based on the concept “Restore Glass-Steagall!”  This didn’t just magically happen, that now Glass-Steagall’s a household word, but it’s the same kind of thing as the process by which the in-depth understanding of national banking, of the increases in the productive powers of labor, of the concept of a future-oriented driver for your economy, all of these must become household words in the kind of popular discussion among an informed American citizenry.

It wasn’t magic when Alexander Hamilton did it:  He put quite a bit of effort into writing not just these four reports, but also a whole series of the Federal Papers and as Jason said, these are actually what people were reading, in gathering places, in public community areas, and they were posted up, and that’s the kind of discussion process that can happen.

And it’s straightforward.  Yes, there’s a lot of detail that Hamilton includes, and it’s challenging, but it’s not as challenging as you might think it is, and when you latch onto what some of the central theses of Hamilton’s reports are — I mean, the Report on Manufactures, he makes it very clear.  He said, I am out to prove that the establishment of manufactures in a country has the effect of rendering the total mass of useful and productive labor, greater than it would otherwise be.  My proof is that manufactures, science, technology, can increase the productive powers of labor.

He says it again:  Manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive augmentation of the produce and revenue of the society, but they contribute essentially to rendering them greater than they could possibly be without such establishments.

So then he goes on to prove that and it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.  This is what engendered the ability of the United States to become the leading industrial power of the planet within a short hundred years of its foundation.  If you take that, if you focus on those principles, and then you take the updated attention to that that Lyndon LaRouche gave in his 2014 Four New Economic Laws paper, and understand it from these essential principles of physical chemistry; you know, Vladimir Vernadsky defines man as a distinct and superior form of life than other forms of animal life, other forms of plant life, too, I should hope so; and then you work backwards from there, and then you understand the significance of the restoration of Glass-Steagall.  You understand the significance of the directed investment through the Secretary of the Treasury as Alexander Hamilton created it, of national credit towards big projects, the way that Franklin Roosevelt did it; the way that Abraham Lincoln restored the power of the Federal government to organize the finances of the nations through the Greenbacks and the 1863 and 1864 banking laws.

It used to be a source of pride among the American people to have that kind of in-depth knowledge of our history, and to be able to know what created us, how we won the American Revolution, this used to be a source of pride among our people.  And I think people have allowed themselves to get so drawn into an entertainment culture, that they’ve lost the sense of a birthright to that concept of what it means to be an American. And we must restore that.  And you can do it through the names of Alexander Hamilton and of Lyndon LaRouche.

STEGER:  I just think it’s worth going back to what Rachel raised because that part of the Four Laws is a fairly dense conception of this ability of the human mind to affirm such a notion as a universal principle, and it really is striking:  We really are at point where much like what Einstein was able to generate within the conceptions of science,  where a lot of the fraud that Einstein had exposed had been exposed prior; much like a lot of the fraud of the current economic policies, the free trade, free market program was already exposed by Hamilton before.

But it’s time for now a positive adoption of a higher principle, and obviously that’s true within the fields of science, such as what Einstein created; but it’s also true with what Lyn has introduced into a conception of economics, that really is the father of all sciences, because it makes possible to measure the progress and meaning of the human species and of the individual within that process.  And I think there really is a distinct quality of a revolution in scientific thought, probably best seen in the collaboration of major nations on the space program.  With that conception, really, you see it as a driving conception, that many people — it may take some time, I think it’ll take some time for these Hamilton policies to take root, but that really this is the driving intent behind where mankind can go.  It really is looking at the Solar System as kind of the playground of the coming period of mankind.

OGDEN:  OK.  I think that’s a very clear message for today: I would encourage people, the Four Laws website, this is going to be updated in the coming days; we’re working on a little bit more of an elaborated package to allow you to explore some of the aspects of the Four Laws in detail.  But right now, I would encourage you, is the link. You can see it on the screen.  And we’ve also made available, I believe for the first time in one location, the pdf, very nicely formatted copies of these four Hamilton reports; those are also available on the LaRouche PAC website, And I just encourage you to print them off and spend some of your leisure time reading Hamilton!

So thank you all very much, and I’ld like to encourage you to stay tuned to  Jason Ross will be presenting a very interesting picture on worldwide development projects, particularly from the standpoint of what’s happening in Egypt, this Wednesday, on the LaRouche PAC New Paradigm show.  He will be appearing along with a collaborator of Mr. LaRouche, Hussein Askary. So that’s something to look forward to.

And we’ve obviously got a lot of work to do over the coming days.  So thank you, stay tuned, and we’ll see you next time.

This entry was posted in LPAC, LPAC Policy Committee Discussion 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.