LPAC Policy Committee member Diane Sare and Dennis Speed field questions during today’s post-election Manhattan Town Hall event.
DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome everybody here today, our first post-election dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. Today is November 12th, and after this meeting, we will be holding our Schiller Institute celebration as well; and that will be at a different location. But what we want to do is, since some people have not heard Lyndon LaRouche’s remarks in the aftermath of the election, I’d like to refer to that first. There are two different references. The first is the following:
“The election was not national; it was international in its entire character. And that’s because Germany was big in this thing; Germany was a big factor in this thing. Putin was a big factor in this situation. So, that’s the pattern. It’s not the pattern of local groups in the United States, though they have significance; you have to see the larger total value, and that will become evident once we start to treat the economy seriously.”
And I’m going to now switch to Lyn’s remarks in discussion of November 10th, and just read these to you.
“The whole economic system is not ready to work. We’ve got to get that system functioning, not just a few things here and there. We’ve got to pull (together) a special kind of organization which facilitates the ability of getting more parts of the world in the hands of the other part of the world. Otherwise, the thing won’t work. You’ve got to pull things together. If you don’t have a connection, you don’t have a contract…. What you’re going to see on this question is a more complicated thing. What you’re going to get is an understanding of a new conception of what international relations are. That’s what is going to happen, and that’s the way it will work. Otherwise, it will not work — for obvious reasons, for those who are familiar with the details of the German and so forth economies.
“One of the problems is that there is presently no qualified content of developing the relations among these nations. You’ve got to get an actual content, which has to be functional. That’s one of the things we have to work on, but that’s not in place now.
“The problem is that we do not have a defined international system which will secure peace. It doesn’t yet exist, and we’ve got to make it…. It’s going to take a lot of work by people to do it, because it’s not just doing it by name; the problem is to understand how that can work. This can be done. This can be done with the collaboration of some parts of the world as a whole. The overall picture is not going to be easy, but there are some connections which could be made early. But there is a lot to do to get it in the right way of success.
“I wouldn’t depend on Trump. He’s going to do what he’s going to do, but don’t depend on him. You have to depend on the creation of a new system, not Trump’s system but a new system, a global system which will meet the requirements of the development of a true international system. And you have to organize people on that basis. You cannot just say, ‘We’re going to try to make this thing work.’ It won’t work. It won’t work. But we can start. I would say Germany. Germany has a potential, if it wants to do so, it probably could make a good contribution…. What Putin is doing is excellent, and it’s well integrated; China is becoming very well integrated in many respects. You’re getting development in parts of Asia. All these things are in place, but you’ve got to get the mechanism which makes it all come together in a syncretic way.
“Space science is the way that people have to operate, because space science incorporates the crucial elements which are lacking from other sources.
“You’ve got to get into the mind of the present population — internationally and nationally; you have to get into the mind of that person who has no conception whatsoever of what that mind requires. What you can do is you can do things which will prompt development, but its chiefly local development and regional development. We’ve got to get mechanisms of international trade and agreements thereof, and that’s what’s required urgently, right now!
“Odds and ends will not do this. So, therefore, don’t try odds and ends. You’ve actually got to get into the gut of the mind of the people of different nations. I’ve had a lot of experience in this thing. It doesn’t come out because of people who are not really understanding of what this is about, but looking in the course of history, you would say that I have a very keen insight into humanity. But not all the people in it are participating. That’s the problem.”
So, those are the remarks that Lyn made to associates; and I think I’d just like to point out that from the standpoint of the questions and the discussion that we need to have here — as we attempted to do in the Thursday discussions and subsequent discussions of our organization — we want to try to approach this from that standpoint. This doesn’t mean that we’re not willing to entertain certain elements of anxiety; but we’d like to keep those at a minimum. That doesn’t mean anything other than what it means. It’s obvious that there’s a lot of anxiety which is being built by the press and others, and George Soros’s forces out in the streets of the United States; but it’s not really very important. It’s actually being done as a way of perpetuating the prior condition; but that prior condition is being eradicated, so we’re in something completely new. And that’s what we’re trying to address, which is what we now are going to do, and how we’re going to do it.
So, we’re going to start first with Diane, who is representing the Policy Committee and Lyn; and she’ll begin. After that, we’ll go right into questions and answers.
DIANE SARE: Good afternoon. So, this week has been a very fascinating week. We now have really a moment of great potential; and I think perhaps the thing that was most enjoyable about this election, if there was anything enjoyable about it, is watching all of the news media pundits completely shocked and unable to explain what was going on as Trump was trouncing Hillary in state upon state, which was not supposed to occur. I just brought this in; this was the New York Times from Wednesday, which clearly went to bed before these election results were figured out, which was around 1 o’clock in the morning. Of course, to deliver the papers they have to print them; so the headline was “Race for the Presidency Hangs on Tally in a Handful of States.” They did not want to say who won. And it carried this absolutely gigantic advertisement: “Her Reign Begins. `The Crown.'”
Now what is this? It’s an ad for a television series about the Queen; excepting it was timed to come out the day after the election. It’s huge! [The add is three full pages.] I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of dollars this cost. Then it says, “We have a new leader; a woman. Let us give her a celebration that is befitting of the wind of change she represents — modern and forward looking.” [laughter] It gives you some indication why Hillary was completely speechless after the election.
They were completely shocked; they were totally taken off guard, even though Russia’s President Vladimir Putin had said very clearly at Valdai — and he didn’t make any forecasts of who was going to win the election. He simply said, “Why are the Western leaders continuously surprised — by the Brexit vote, for example? Or by what Duterte in the Philippines has been doing, where he said, ‘No, I don’t want to buy rifles from the U.S.; I’m going to buy them from Russia and China. How can I trust the United States? No, I don’t want to have a war with China.” And he reached out, and the Philippines and China, you now have Filipino fishermen fishing in the waters which were just recently going to be a cause for war, according to the United States and our Asia Pivot.
What was somehow missed is that everything has changed. Many of them are still trying to figure it out; and we all know people who had somehow tied themselves to what they imagined Hillary Clinton represented. Just as various people, even those who endorsed Trump, said that people are not supporting him because of his flaws; but because they want a change. I would hope that the people supporting Hillary were not supporting her because of what she did in Libya, or what she did in regard to Benghazi, or her millions and millions of dollars’ worth of speeches for Goldman Sachs, or her commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. What you have is a minority of the population who living in a complete illusion about what the state of affairs actually is, and what we have to do.
Now, we shouldn’t be complacent about this, but the media are definitely trying to whip up all kinds of hysteria and craziness. And terror: They’re trying to terrorize people. So, the front page of the Bergen Record this morning says, “Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Likely To Start Quickly.” So, everyone is supposed to run for cover, hide; he’s probably going to be shooting people in the streets, we don’t know.
Then it says that what he wants to do is overturn the illegal actions that Obama took by executive order; supposedly to protect people. But of course, what they haven’t ever told you in the press, is that among various ethnic communities in the United States, it is Barack Obama who is known as the “Deporter in Chief.” He has deported millions and millions of people; ripping up families. This is an article from the Los Angeles Times: “Obama Ordered 7000 Immigrant Children To Be Deported Without a Court Hearing.” OK? So, what’s going on here? We have the media giving us reports which have absolutely nothing to do with reality; and I think Dennis’s warning is very well taken. If they can be this wrong, then whatever they’re saying about whatever they think is occurring is really quite irrelevant. They have obviously totally lost touch with reality.
Now, I wanted to read you the message from President Putin from the day after the election; this was not a specific address about the U.S. elections, he was receiving the credentials from 19 new foreign ambassadors. And along those lines, I just want to mention that I was very happy to also read this morning, that our treasonous, pro-British Empire, former ambassador to Russia from Harvard University, McFaul, has been denied a visa to go to Russia; that’s very smart of them. They’re saying it’s retaliation for all of the people whose visas we have denied as part of the sanctions. So, Putin says:
“Ladies and gentlemen, a few hours ago, the presidential election ended in the United States of America. We followed this election closely. I want to congratulate the American people on the end of this election cycle and congratulate Mr. Donald Trump on his victory in the election.
“We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations between our countries. We realize and understand that this will not be an easy road given the level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it is not Russia’s fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
“Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps on our side and do all we can to set Russian-U.S. relations back on a stable development track.
“This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia and the U.S. share for maintaining global stability and security.” [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53223]
So, this is what Putin had to say; it’s very straightforward, and we further know that President Xi Jinping of China called Donald Trump to congratulate him. He said:
“The two biggest economies in the world share responsibility for promoting global development and prosperity. I place great importance on the China-U.S. relationship, and look forward to working with you to uphold the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation with differences controlled in a constructive manner.”
And there was a tweet, which I really have to say that so-called important political messages are conveyed in this completely illiterate medium. However, Modi sent out a tweet saying, “India looks forward to working closely with Trump to take India-U.S. bilateral ties to a new height. We appreciate the friendship you have articulated toward India during your campaign.” And also, another BRICS leader, the President of South Africa Jacob Zuma wrote, “South Africa further looks forward to working closely with the new administration in the United States in promoting peace, security, and prosperity around the world; especially on the African continent.”
So, you begin to get a sense of what Mr. LaRouche is saying; that we have a change in international relations. That is true; there is a change. What is the nature of the change, what will the dynamic of this be, is not up to Donald Trump, per se; it is up to the American people.
And I would very much remind people what occurred in the period preceding the election; where we had a President Barack Obama, who had refused for several years, to release the 28 pages on who was behind the 9/11 attacks. Yet, the LaRouche Movement, and emphatically family members of the 9/11 victims, created such an environment that Obama found himself forced to release the 28 pages. Not because he intended to, but because there was such a dynamic that he could not do otherwise. Then, when the JASTA — Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — passed overwhelmingly by voice vote in both the House and the Senate, Obama, and again it shows you just how delusional these people are, because somehow he and his advisors thought that he could successfully veto this. He vetoed it; and the Congress — the House and Senate — were so determined to pass it, they even stayed in session longer than their break. Which, as people know if you know Congress, is unheard of; and the Senate voted 97-1 against Obama to smash this.
It is my personal view, and as we discussed actually with LaRouche — that what is urgent right now is that we get action. He said we need production. And what he emphasized very strongly is not simply Glass-Steagall, which we absolutely have to mobilize for and we should hit the Congress very hard on this during this lame duck session; that they should vote on and pass Glass-Steagall.
It’s not only LaRouche’s Four Laws per se, or the Hamiltonian principle which is true and correct, and why we’re studying Hamilton; but what he has been emphasizing repeatedly for the last two days, is that we have to increase the productivity. And many Americans don’t know how to think about that. What do you mean, “productivity?” Is it money? I saw on Donald Trump’s website, there’s all these figures for if you get another $1 million into GDP, we’re going to have so many jobs. But doing what? What are the jobs? Are they jobs that we want? Are they jobs that are going to raise the standard of living and make us more productive?
In other words, it’s not a question of money; and my colleague on the LaRouche Science Team gave an example. In China — and I really think it’s worth thinking about this over and over again — what we mean; because this is why Alexander Hamilton was so successful and why Americans will not be successful today unless you can actually think about this question. Apparently, China TV has a six-part series on their Belt and Road program; and in this series there is a little section about a cucumber farmer, who had his little cucumber farm and was producing a small number of cucumbers which he got to market however he could. But then, a super highway was built next to his cucumber farm; so all of a sudden, he is building greenhouses and he can produce millions of cucumbers. Because he has an ability to not only produce the cucumbers, but to get them to markets all over China. And who knows? Maybe he’s getting them all over the world. So, you can say that the cucumber farmer is doing the same thing now that he was before the highway was built; but actually, that’s not true. What has occurred is that the productivity of this farmer has increased by orders of magnitude, because the platform — and this is a word Mr. LaRouche is using as opposed to infrastructure, because we don’t want to just think of building a port, or a highway.
What you want to think about is a platform, where you’re raising the entire level of the whole economy. Like, for example, what happened with Franklin Roosevelt under the Rural Electrification Administration; the Wall Street bankers argued vehemently against providing electricity to every home. They said, “OK, OK, it’s cost effective”; everyone has heard that — “cost effective.” That’ll kill you, that language. “It’s cost effective to have electricity in the cities, because you just need a little bit of wire, and you’ve got millions of people living close together, so it doesn’t cost that much. But you want to take 40 miles of copper wire to hook up some farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere? That is a waste of money.” So you had massive opposition to Franklin Roosevelt’s plan to electrify the United States.
But think about what happens on a farm when you have electricity? One thing I didn’t know is that apparently, the egg-laying cycles of chickens is affected by light. So, if you can control when you have light and darkness, you can actually increase the number of eggs that your chickens are producing, among other things. Obviously, refrigeration; if you can refrigerate the milk, then you can produce larger amounts because you’re able to store it. And heating, and machinery. So, the point about this investment in electricity, which all of the brilliant economists and people at Columbia University and Harvard and MIT would all tell you not to do, because it’s a waste of money, because they’re measuring things in terms of money; actually was the best investment that could have been made, because it elevated the entire platform of the economy.
So this question of productivity in the United States is an urgent question; which is what we have to put on the agenda uniquely. I can assure you — and many of you here have been with me and others when we have gone down to the Congress to meet with members of Congress on these matters; I think I can say we’re probably lucky if one out of hundred Congressmen even understands what it means to increase productivity, and it’s probably less than that.
So, one, do not underestimate that everything has changed as a result of this overwhelmingly vote against Obama and the British Empire; but what will come next depends on us. As Mrs. LaRouche put it, we have a reprieve; that is, this election has taken a collision with Russia, a thermonuclear war threat with Russia, off the table — at least for the moment. But if we do not address the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic system, the fact that Deutsche Bank could be the detonator, or any one of these things; if that is not addressed and solved, then war is going to be right back on the agenda. So, it is very urgent that we move at this time. So, that is what I would like to put on the table. [applause]
SPEED: OK, so let’s go to the first question. Just line up at the microphones. If there’s anybody here who hasn’t done this, just state the question; make is as short and focussed as you can. Then if you want to follow up, you can stand there and go to a second question if that’s required.
Q: Good afternoon. This is M— from Manhattan. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say it was very liberating in an important sense to see what happened on Tuesday. And it’s obvious; it’s all over the international news and everything that of course the protests and their ultimate and utter hypocrisy, their nonsensical nature and everything is George Soros. The idea is to try to intimidate Trump; try to get the neo-cons into the Republican apparatus and so forth. However, what I also noticed — and I think a lot of us noticed — is that outside of these people who are being organized, two things that I thought of when I thought of what was going on for the last few days. Number one, the Reign of Terror in France; and number two, Julius Caesar, where you see the populace being riled up. They kill Cinna the poet just because he has the same name as Cinna the conspirator.
But I think on Tuesday, the American people at this juncture have decided that we decidedly do not want to go down the road of the Roman Empire and the truthful way that Shakespeare fashioned it. But my question is, even amongst colleagues in the workplace, friends, and so forth, people are completely, completely, freaked out about this. People are calling people names — “climate deniers”; if you voted for Trump, you’re evil and this and that. I think the psychosis is really coming to the forefront.
So, without belaboring this issue too much, because I know we are uniquely qualified to do a number of things that are essential now, and we need to do things at the highest level. How do we talk to our friends? How do we talk to these people to try to get them back to a sense of reality and a sense of optimism from where they are now? Thank you.
SARE: I’m not sure we can say anything that’s going to get them back to a sense of reality. What I mean is, they’ll come around. For people who are honest and just completely brainwashed, the shock of all of their axioms being smashed at once will subside; and they might begin to consider the reality that we’re facing. We’re all getting this. Someone was very offended that someone had called Hillary Clinton a name. Now, I don’t think we should just randomly use crass language and call people names. But on the other hand, I thought “Well, what has Hillary Clinton done?” After this hideously brutal murder of Qaddafi when he was in custody, which created a situation that was a major contributing factor to the fact that you have 60 million refugees. And she gloats over this: “We came; we saw; he died. Hee-hee-hee… ” If that doesn’t really just turn your stomach … But you’re dealing with a kind of hysteria, so my approach is not to not talk to people, but don’t worry. As Dennis said at the beginning, it’s somewhat irrelevant. The world has actually changed; and whether they see it or not, or ever see it, that is the case.
I think the more urgent question is obviously the British Empire, this rotten Wall Street banking system. There are already howls of terror that Donald Trump supports Glass-Steagall, for example, coming from Wall Street. So, it’s incumbent upon us to create the policy direction; starting emphatically with Glass-Steagall.
On that question, I’ll just say I found somewhat interesting, I’m on the email list of Elizabeth Warren. I got this very long email from her yesterday, which first says Donald Trump said all these terrible things; the election was horrible, it was really ugly. I don’t like him; but I know that he stood up against Wall Street and took a lot of flak from the Republican Party. So if Donald Trump wants to address the needs of the middle class, if Donald Trump wants to reinstate Glass-Steagall, then I will work with him 100%.
And that’s significant, which also underscores what I said before the election that the media was spreading all this crap about how Americans are divided. Americans are not divided: How many Americans do you know, who think that we should risk a nuclear war with Russia, to defend ISIS? Not many. How many Americans do you think that no single Wall Street banker should go to jail? That we benefitted immensely from a handful of crooks making billions of dollars while the rest of us became homeless? Not many Americans think that.
So the truth of the matter is that Americans are actually quite unified around a solution. The problem is, they don’t know what that is, and it’s not clear what Trump is going to do or not going to do, or who he’s going to appoint or not going to appoint, and for us to speculate on that is a colossal waste of time.
What we have to do is carry this out. And again, I really want to underscore this question of productivity, because that is going to be the primary question. And I have seen nothing, frankly, from Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, or anyone else that they actually understand what that means. People have an intent, they don’t like to see the American people suffering, they don’t like that our manufacturing and industry has been shut down. But do you they understand this question as a scientific principle, which is reflective of the nature of mankind? That I am not confident in and therefore that is for us to do.
Q: E—C— from Wilmington, Delaware. I heard Trump say a couple good things the other night in his victory speech and he said we’re going to build infrastructure. Of course, we understand that he doesn’t really understand what that means, the way it has to be done: We need maglev trains, to go from New York to South Africa. And other locations along the way. We need to develop the cloud formation technologies to green the plateau of Mexico and new Mexico as we build NAWAPA, and this has to be done to create this platform. We got to create a worldwide platform of advanced maglev and other technologies, and in order to do that, the best way to mobilize it is to get people united around a space program, which Lyn’s been saying, and reviving the fusion effort.
So we have to make this election to be the revenge of the Fusion Energy Foundation, which they tried to deep-six, but which it looks like it’s coming back to life here. So I don’t know exactly what the question is but, or how do this — maybe that’s the question. How’re we going to get this advanced technology revolution as a permanent preoccupation of every honest American citizen and everybody else in the world? That’s what we have to create an American Revolution every day from here on out. So I guess maybe it’s appropriate for Schiller’s birthday since he was definitely of that generation, the Hamilton generation.
SPEED: OK, well, let’s take the Schiller point. In his Essay on Universal History, Friedrich Schiller talks about the difference between two outlooks: what he calls the Brotgelehrten, the “bread-fed scholars” and the “philosophical mind.” The first group of people basically study something so they can get a degree, so they can then get a meal; and that’s what people do. So they believe in things like going to college to study things like “hotel management,” or things like that. And I don’t mean that they are all to blame; many of them have been induced to do that. Such people are slaves, and that’s most of the population, that’s most of the media, it’s most of the politicians, most of the clergymen, are slaves. They’re bread-fed scholars.
And then there’s something called the universal or the philosophical mind. And the thing that Schiller says about that, is that’s a mind that loves truth more than its system.
In other words, people have axioms, they have assumptions, and you get these characters, particularly in universities, who make it a point after a certain age, when they go into a classroom they have a set of notes from lectures they gave 20 years earlier. And what they do is they get in front of this group of people, new students, and they just deliver the same, stale, lecture, often in monotone, often boring the hell out of people. These people are the living dead. So when they run into a situation where everything is different, what they do is they try to do the same thing they did before.
So let’s take our situation right now. What Lyn is saying, what he’s insisting, we don’t have the system that we need. But we can have a mindset, the way that we are thinking, the way that we are approaching things, which can give us a pathway by which we can begin to act, such that we can both discover and also create what’s required. This is very important to understand. Look at, for example, just taking this issue of the childish demonstrations. Let’s leave out the agents for the moment, let’s take the people that are actually, honestly out there and upset. This is childish.
There’s obvious, direct path to holding everybody in this country accountable, and Glass-Steagall gives it to you. Why? Republican and Democratic Party platforms both stated it. Donald Trump stated it. In fact, he stated that he wanted to instate Glass-Steagall because he wanted to help African American businessmen. That was what he said on Oct. 26th. So for all those people who were worried if he were a racist or not, if they were really worried about that, you would hold him accountable on Glass-Steagall, because of what he said.
What’s going on is this is childish! You want to hold the Democratic Party accountable? Go after Glass-Steagall. Hillary Clinton said she was for Glass-Steagall; I don’t believe that she means it. But you know what, we can test it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she will come out for Glass-Steagall, that is, if you put it into the Congress that this must be immediate acted upon, prior to Trump’s inauguration, in the next week or two weeks!
Why weren’t all the people out demonstrating for Glass-Steagall? Why were they not all demonstrating right now, for the purpose of holding Wall Street accountable, which they thing Trump works for? And we know Hillary works for! How come that’s not happening? ‘Cause they don’t care! That’s why! They think they care. They sincerely believe that that their feelings have been hurt. But they don’t care about themselves or the United States, because they’re culturally suicidal. How do you know? They legalize marijuana! They listen to crap music! They have a crap culture!
And they love it!
They are bread-fed scholars, they are not universal minds. That’s a mind that prefers to have its system decomposed in front of them, if truth arises from the destruction of the system.
So what we do, and what Lyn has insisted on that the Manhattan Project is going to do is we’re going to represent the idea of truth. And particularly on economics, the truth is, the most competent person in the world on this question is Lyndon LaRouche. Now, that is actually appreciated at some level by Russia and China, in particular, and some other people in the world know it as well. But this is the issue for us. And the Manhattan Project is going to project into New York City and in the country, Lyn’s principles of economics, and cause that to become hegemonic, using the moment that’s just occurred, to create a great people that respond to that great moment.
Q: [follow-up] Just a brief follow-up after what you’re saying, we’ve got to redefine childish. Because when Friedrich Schiller was a child, four or five or so, they were reading Greek in the original, they were reading Plato. That’s what he did when he was five years old. We could create geniuses and we know how to do it. And we’ve got to make sure that people don’t pretend it’s a secret any more.
Q: This is S—. We’ve been getting a lot of response lately from the Muslim and the Bangladesh community in the Bronx, and we were invited to attend an event yesterday which was for the Millennium TV third anniversary, and the title was interesting; it was called “Bridging Communities Worldwide.” There was about 300 people there, they had a lot of different presentations, mostly of people singing with a microphone, or people doing cultural dancing or even modern dancing, Bangladesh dancing. And it was very loud.
But we were able to actually create a huge contrast because when we came up on the stage, we had this Classical method of bel canto which people had to be very quiet to listen to, and they actually were. We introduced ourselves as the Schiller institute, but we actually showed a copy of the New Silk Road report and told people that our intention was to develop the world with culture, infrastructure and real ideas. And after the presentation, people were very quiet, they responded very well; in fact the person who interviewed us for their Millennium TV bought a copy of the Silk Road report. And when we returned back to the table, we saw people reading the section of the report on Bangladesh and other things, and we got into a lot of discussion.
So the question is, what do you think this means in terms of the international factor for policymaking?
SARE: I find it somewhat delightful that it’s a Bangladeshi television station at a party where everyone’s speaking Spanish. I mean, you know, people should think about this question again of the unity of what it means to be human and why Mr. LaRouche has stressed, among his other statements in the aftermath of this, is that one of the problems that we’re facing is that Americans have been thinking the wrong way about nation-states. And it’s not to say that there’s not a value of a culture, of a language-culture and so on, but the way that we have been accustomed to thinking about nation-states is actually too low-level for where mankind is.
And everyone has heard, there’s astronauts from all different countries, or cosmonauts, who describe their experience of being in outer space for the first time and looking out on the Earth, because there’s not really such thing as down and up out there, and being struck by how tiny it is! And then, the thought, “well, what is it that we are all squabbling about in this little, tiny place, when our domain should be the entire universe?”
So I think in a sense that’s the first thing: It’s a natural human desire to be greater, since we’re talking about Schiller, “we were born for better.” Our destiny is something greater, and I think people have a sense of that. So if we have the opportunity to present it people will definitely respond. And I think each of us has to keep challenging ourselves, to put aside childish things, as Ed was saying, or the way that we used to view the universe.
Because I think every person, particularly those of us who were born and raised Americans have kind of a default setting that we are the center of the universe, nothing happens on the planet except for that we initiate it. And that’s not true any more. That’s not to say that there’s not a unique and very, very important role for the United States to play, or that our Constitution and the breakthroughs that it represented from Joan of Arc to Cusa, to Hamilton, to Lincoln, to others, was not crucial for mankind. But it is important to recognize that perhaps the way that we tend to think about things, and the way we think about our planet as too small and not from the standpoint of what it actually would look like from the universe.
Q: Last week I was sitting in class with some of my fellow classmates in speech, and instead of having class that day the professor decided that we were going to talk about the elections. So — we had little notecards and he said, “write down how you feel and what is your solution.” Well everyone pretty much unanimously “I’m really upset, I don’t believe this.” One person was even, “I don’t see how a person who makes such comments about women and this and that could beat another woman, and even though she was corrupt, I don’t understand how she lost…”
But what I raised was the true issue at hand: I raised Glass-Steagall, I raised why Glass-Steagall was eliminated, how it happened. I raised that the ultimate goal is destruction of the people and depopulation of the planet. I mentioned people like George Soros, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, whatnot — and then all of a sudden, the tone changed. People were like, “wait a minute! I’ve been hearing mumblings about this stuff too,” but they were kind of timid to come forward with it, because as soon as you come forward with it, you’re a conspiracy theorist.
So, some people were like, “could you give me more information? Where do you get all this stuff from?” And this next Tuesday, I’m giving a speech on Glass-Steagall and the Four Laws as a persuasive speech to sign on, call your Congressman and Sinisters — Senators [laughter], call your Senators and sign on
And then, at the end of the class, another person gave a solution which was just keep pushing ahead and doing what you’re doing. And I tried to say, it’s not that simple, it’s not just as simple as, well, he wants to become a nurse, so I said, it’s not just as simple as just keep pushing forward, they can’t stop you, I can become a nurse if I want to!” That’s not the issue. The issue is, is they want you to just keep pushing forward and living your life and being blind.
But I didn’t get to get that out. So I wanted to parallel what’s wrong with most American youth now, with altruism. That they were programmed, — even I was programmed as a kid, with things like GI Joe, He-Man, as long as you fight that good fight, and you keep pushing forward, they can’t stop you, just wear your blinders. So I’d like to know if you’d comment on that?
SPEED: Well, my first comment is that what you did in the class is exactly what everybody here can do, and what we want to encourage the American people to do. For example, Diane referenced before that we want to go down to the Congress; we want to go down there next week, and everybody here is invited and that would be a very good thing. In addition, of course, here, there are various ways in which we can challenge people.
But I think what was important was what you said: The mood in the room changed. Because you’re changing people’s mindset. The issue of the distribution of The Hamiltonian, let’s take that for example. The latest Hamiltonian has a headline which just says “Victory for the Universe.” I particularly liked this headline, because it’s what we call a “Labor Committee” headline; that just means those of us that go way, way back, know that our specialty was being completely egregious, outrageous, polemical, acerbic, impolite. That’s what we do. That’s us. So we will say something that can’t possibly be forgotten. It will stay in your mind and it will haunt you, perhaps for decades. And that’s what you want to do: That’s good teaching! So that’s the main point, but there’s a lot of ways to teach, and the idea of an intervention by our people, in Congress right now would have that impact.
In terms of the issue of programming, sure! People are programmed, and that’s what happened around these elections. And we have a whole generation, too, really, but the younger generation which is programmed for failure. And the one after that, is programmed for death! So the election disrupted that programming to some degree, that’s why some people are so angry: Because their programming has been disrupted. It’s like throwing cold water on somebody at 3 a.m. and they wake up, and they’re not like happy. They’re really screaming — but then you tell them there’s a fire. So now they’re happy you woke them up; they don’t like how you woke them up, and they’re pissed off at you personally. They’re probably not going to thank you until they get out; but that’s the way to think about the issue and what we need to do.
Q: Good evening. Well, I must say I’m elated, in the moment, and of the moment. I said that to someone back in my country [in the Caribbean] today, who was on a radio program, and they were alarmed. “How can you say that?” and they were trying to compare the demon we have at home, with Mr. Trump. And I said, “Please do not insult Mr. Trump.”
Now, I want to start with a quote from a brother who passed from the life physically, but in the life spiritually: Bob Marley. He said, “Men see their dreams and aspirations shatter in front of their face. With their wicked intentions destroy the human race.”
So all that has happened there, is a mystic which is shattered illusions of the so-called intellectual, educated people in the Western world, and the system. Now, how do you see it playing out internationally, not just in America where we could ride up in this platform, this moment, this opportunity that arises now, to inform and educate the masses of the people that they have to realize that they have power; that is what was shown in this election: the people have the power. And how will the official, formal educational and analytic system change? Because they have messed up, they have failed big time! They took a Russell approach, they took a Hobbesian approach, they didn’t look at the creativity of the ordinary people, the rural people, so that they could think for themselves and think outside of the box, to decide in their own mind that that’s not the path we want to go. And so here it’s come to this.
So how could that be advocated and built upon?
SARE: Well, there’s a few aspects of this. One is the immediate question before us, which is the passage of Glass-Steagall, during this interim session of Congress. I think, on policy matters, there have been other changes, which I don’t know if they’re going to occur while Obama is still in office, which Trump has expressed; for example, he was very clear about what he thinks about the situation in Syria. He said, “I don’t know the value of working with rebels who we don’t know who they are, to overthrow Assad, which puts us in a conflict with both Russia and the Syrian people, ” and ISIS is meanwhile taking over.
So there’s been a certain intent expressed, but the question is — I think you’re asking, what’s the manifestation of that? How do people around the world know? And that’s why I’m saying, the first thing is what we do right now. And I would like to say, something came to my mind, in this period, especially as the sadly, totally discredited news media are trying to incite all kinds of hysteria, is what happened when Rabin and Arafat made that historic agreement about relations between Israel and the Palestinian people. And Mr. LaRouche said, “we have to get shovels in the ground immediately. We have to get the water flowing immediately. There has to be an immediate benefit to the people who have had this courage, as Rabin said, to challenge their own axioms.”
And LaRouche said, if we don’t get this done, if the International Monetary Fund gets involved, then this thing will drown in bloodshed. And sure enough, the International Monetary Fund was involved, the projects were not built, and Rabin was assassinated.
So, I think we have to feel it very urgently upon us to get things done now, which can be done, because clearly, as I said before, the American people are unified. And we have a majority in the country who don’t want to be slaves to Wall Street and who don’t think we should have a war with Russia, among other things, who would be inclined to act.
Now, that being said, I think that — and we’re going to be reading Hamilton — is that each of us, everyone has to really challenge themselves to think more deeply about what we’re looking at. What’s the difference between infrastructure and a platform, for example? Why is it actually necessary that mankind grows? In other words, it’s not just a nice thing to have a growing population with a higher standard of living, but this is actually necessary for the human race to survive. And that is because of the species nature of man, unlike any animal is that human beings actually change our species characteristics at will. And I’ve said this before, but I think it really bears repeating: if you had any other animals, that had just a hyperbolic spike in their population, well, at a certain point, they’d all start eating each other, they’d run out of resources, and they’d die. You’d get a mass extinction event where some disease hit and they all just got wiped out.
Now, human beings can have this hyperbolic increase in our population as long as the productivity of each human being increases. And, I would further say, and these are the things that really get in people’s craw, take the case of energy: It is natural, and it is right that we should consume more energy per capita, than the previous generation; and that the people who come after us, should consume even more energy! Everybody should have a vacuum cleaner that goes on its own, for example, or robots to do you your housework, or whatever. And these are just silly examples.
But I’m just saying the idea that we depend more on energy so that we should have more leisure time to think and be creative is a necessary thing and it’s a good thing. Now, if you say that that’s the case, then what does that mean? Does that mean we can continue to get energy from various forms of combustion? Like certainly it rules out solar panels and windmills right away — we can forget that. They take up way too much space, and produce way too little energy. But coal, gasoline, natural gas, — we’ve had combustion engines for a century! We can’t get beyond this? I mean, what’s the matter with us?
This is ridiculous: Fission energy, we should have had fusion back in the ’80s; we should have been on to plasma and all kinds of form of energy that we don’t even know. But if you think about the difference, how much uranium do you need for however much energy, compared to how many tons of coal or how many gallons of oil, right? You see the difference.
So these are these questions that we should take our fellow Americans and really challenge them: Are you human? Don’t you want to be a human? We should have a human economy. We’re not dogs, we don’t want to live out in a shack with no electricity in the middle of the woods and die of a disease before you’re 12 years old. Right? And therefore, knowing what the destiny of man is, then that’s the policy that we have to fight for.
Q: Hi, Alvin here. A little bit of an extension of the Thursday conversation. Starting with on election night, I made sure that I stayed free of the TV drama and did not watch a single airing or radio broadcast. The reason why was because not only the nonsense you have to put up with, but because I knew the only thing that would be different in the morning would be the level and degree of danger that we were in. And so I woke up and saw that we were in a little less danger, for the moment, and that was useful.
But I had to think then, in terms of my workday, and all the people that come in and out there; I work with people that would go anywhere from middle class to upper class in salary. And some of the greatest democrats and liberals in the country, they would have you think they are. So I say, “Oh, do we have enough tissues?” is my question, for the all the snots and tears I was expecting. And I said, let’s gear up for this and who’s coming in.
But that’s not what happened at all. And sure, there were some freakouts, but in the three days since, I think I can say from my little snapshot, and I have talked with a fair number of people, because they’re bringing it up, is that the Boomers by and large, have taken a posture of — they’re looking for a “kumbaya” type of moment, that “we’re going to stick together on this and we’re going to make change.” You know, sit around the campfire kind of thing. This is the real feeling, because they have no idea really what they’re talking about, but their axioms have been smashed, and this is what Dennis got into a little bit on Thursday [on the Fireside Chat]. And I’d like for us to go a little bit further into that.
And so, the reaction I thought I was getting, it’s still a freakout, but it’s completely different — it’s calm. We’re going to sit around, have some Francis Ford Coppola wine, and you know, that kind of thing. And so there they are. But then they say, “well, you know, Trump has said he’s for Glass-Steagall; Elizabeth Warren, this was in conversations yesterday, is fully behind Trump if he’s serious about that, she’s willing to go in with that. and you all know Bernie was…” That kind of thing. So even this group, I think, can be reached if we do it from that standpoint, of oh, kumbaya, you want to get together, you want to work together? How about this, why don’t we rebuild this nation? How long did it take you to get here? How much have you been tripping around the streets?
But then there’s a second element that I don’t know about and don’t understand, and that is these 20-somethings now that are popping up. And what must be strategic deployments. And this is now some really disgusting behavior that you see.
So, I’ve seen the boomers, I’ve talked to some of the 40-year-olds and they’re a little bit just wondering if their money and sex is going to be keep coming in. But the 20-year-olds in particular, I’d like to hear what this is. Is it all organized, or…? And the reason why the Boomers aren’t joining them, I think is they’re scared to death of some of these people; they’re really crazy. So.
SPEED: I’ll just say something about it. A couple of our people who are that age may want to address this, and therefore, I’m going to keep it very short. For 16 years of the life of a 21-year-old you have had them governed by a fascist dictatorship. But the nature of the way that they were governed was with this form of a Panopticon, what Jeremy Bentham described. That is, what happened was, the combination of internet, Facebook, iPhone, all this stuff, has had the effect of changing people’s behavior so that they were self-regulating their insanity.
What Panopticon was was a design for a prison. It was done by Jeremy Bentham, and the idea was that you would have one guard in a tower, some stories above people who were in transparent cubicles. And the idea was that they all knew that they were being watched by the guard — but actually the guard could not physically watch them all at the same time. But they didn’t know that. Therefore, they would regulate their own behavior, on the presumption that at any point they were being surveilled, or could be being surveilled.
Now, what has existed, especially in the lives of these people, and Phil Rubinstein spoke to this last week; because the reason for part of the spike in suicides among people between the ages of 10 and 14, is social media: That they’re being constantly evaluated through social media, and they’re watching this in real time. So this is sort of the “infernal algorithm” if you want to put it that way, of social media. So as a result, there’s a quality of insanity there, which has not been seen before, except during the period of the 1970s, when there was some experimentation done on this, by people like John C. Lilly, who wrote a book called Programming and Meta-Programming in the Human Bio-Computer. And he determined 26 levels at which you could administer programming to a person. And so in those case, in those instances where they actually created programmed killers, you had that in the ’60s; but now you just have that generally in the society. This is generally done. And anybody of that age has been taken through that kind of process.
And see, people don’t want to admit something like that, but in a case like this, this is why you’ll see particular manifestations of insanity. Now, our job has to be to not so much address that; we can tell people what that is, but we have to go after what is essential. And this is what LaRouche keeps talking about right now. We don’t have the solution. But we have the method to create the solution. Vladimir Putin, the Chinese government, the Indian government in a different way, and many other people are reality oriented. There’s an orientation toward reality. And that helps us, it provides us a way that we can help, what is a generation in the case of the United States that is completely lost. Let’s take, for example, this issue of the platform that Diane just brought up again and what Lyn has said about the productivity. The problem you have with people under 21, is many of them don’t have any conception of what work is. They just don’t have it. So when we actually place the idea of productivity into motion, what we’re going to have to do is to refer, for example, to the kind of thing that goes on in China around their Moon program, their Moon project. You know you have teachers in China who have been astronauts who have taught as many as 60 million students, from space. That’s an inspiring thing. That can inspire somebody who’s 8 or 9 or 12 years old. But we don’t have that kind of thing — and in fact, that could have been transmitted into the United States had the United States been interested in collaborating with China in that way; and that could be happening any day.
So much of this could be instantaneously changed. I think, otherwise, some people who are that age can say something to you about that, if they choose to.
OK, I wasn’t paying attention, but I’m told we have a very short period of time, about seven minutes. OK, we’ll go for eight minutes.
Q: This is Rick from Bergen County, New Jersey. And very briefly, I’ve noticed a strange phenomenon: I speak to people and they tell me they voted for Hillary, but now they’re very happy that Hillary was not elected. And I don’t know, something was unleashed in them. Is this just a weird phenomenon, or have you noticed this…? I mean, they seem to have had some kind of repressed hatred for Hillary which was not expressed through the ballot box. And now they’re happy she was not elected even though they voted for her.
SPEED: But, yeah, that’s like two people out on a date, whatever, and they drink, and maybe things get a little hot and heavy, and the guy says, “Let’s elope tomorrow.” The woman says, “Great!” And then he doesn’t show up the next day, and she’s completely relieved. [laughter]
Let’s go to the next one.
Q: Hi, I’m Linda, I’m an organizer. I’ll give a report on some of our interventions this week on the institutional level, but I wanted to share an insight regarding this whole election process from a post on Facebook from an old classmate from California, where he goes: “I wonder how many people who voted for Trump faked their true position in the election to avoid criticism and violence? At the end of the day, when you’re in the snug booth and it’s just you, your ballot, your pen, and your opinion, the truth comes out. [laughter] I only ask, ‘No war, please, President. Now, go make nice and play nice with Putin.'”
So we had some pretty good interventions this week at Columbia and also at the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. And also Russian events as well at the same Columbia institution. And this was Thursday, so two days after the election, and it was just enjoyable, watching the directors at these institutions, who started off the event where they just cannot deny the implications of the result of the election. They were all stunned and confounded. And the whole point of this event which is regarding U.S. China and Southeast Asia was to promote this geopolitical viewpoint. But they basically started off the event by saying that now Obama’s TPP and Obama’s Asia Pivot is basically dead.
And that was basically the driving point that guided the entire dialogue of the whole event. And there were these countries whose representatives spoke, who didn’t really play into this U.S.-China relations either. For instance, the representative from Thailand, his presentation was entitled “Thailand’s Losing Face in the Thai-U.S. Relations,” and went through how it was during 1997 during the financial crisis it was when the United States threw Thailand under the bus, it was China that came in and bailed out Thailand with several billions of dollars. So just to give you that sense.
And then in the latter one we intervened, we brought up what was needed to be brought up, Silk Road, Glass-Steagall. But at the latter event, as the National Committee for U.S.-China Relations showcased a British speaker, a high-level British speaker on Xi Jinping! And one thing was clear in both of these events was that, these are experts on China, and Xi Jinping. And what was clear was that they had no clue what Xi Jinping was actually really doing! They had no clue: They barely brought up the New Silk Road, they barely brought up the One Belt, One Road, and had no depth of insight into this at all. And these were experts!
So, I’d like to know what your thoughts on that, because it relates to what you were bringing up, Dennis, on how it’s up us, to really fight for the creation of this new system and how we must all master what Lyn and Helga’s discussions are. I’d like some of your thoughts on that.
SPEED: Sure. Well, because of time, we have like 1 minute left. If there are people who have other questions, you can speak with me. What’s happening, is that we have another event; we’re going to be adjourning this one for the purpose of reconfiguring, and we also have the Hamilton reading to do.
So I’ll just say this about what you just said: Shelley makes the point that in times of crisis and in certain periods of history, you can suddenly teach profound and impassioned conceptions. And the reason you can do that, because everybody who’s been teaching shallow and silly conceptions is suddenly discredited. And you’ll see that happen at every level of the society, and that’s what you experienced. These people actually never knew anything anyway. And now it’s simply been manifest.
So what our job is, is to walk in, not because we’re wise guys, but because we have certain ideas about reality, and allow other people who are already there and who are capable of responding, that’s what our job is. And Lyn is excellent at that — that’s the point. Lyn’s greatest authority, right now, is his exclusion from the club of experts. And that’s precisely why, right now, under this circumstance, he will be listened to in ways that have never even been conceived of, by ourselves, and by other people, and by our enemies.
So I’ll just say that much about it, and we’ll adjourn the session at this point. And if anybody has any other questions we can have private discussions.