Tune in live at 1:30 pm eastern for our weekly Policy Committee Show.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 18, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly webcast from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio by Benjamin Deniston, and via video by members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and Kesha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.
We had the opportunity just now to have a discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think Mr. LaRouche’s point is very clear. It is decisively determined that the entire reigning former system, the old system, has abruptly and decisively come to an end. But the question still remains: What will replace it? And that is far from concrete or finalized at this point. The leadership that the LaRouche PAC has delivered and continues to deliver, is the deciding factor in that — both nationally and on the international stage. It’s very clear that the dynamic is now shifted towards what Xi Jinping has led in China with the New Silk Road and in collaboration with Russian President Vladimir Putin in creating a new strategic and economic international order; and that is what is determining world events right now, far beyond anything that’s happening domestically from within the borders of the United States. The question is, how do we respond to that?
The LaRouche PAC continues to lead; and as we discussed on Monday with the Policy Committee, this was a very important week. Congress came back into session — albeit for just a couple of days; but there to greet the members of the United States Congress as soon as they returned to Washington were some of the leading activists of the LaRouche Political Action Committee. We had a day of action on the ground on Capitol Hill on Wednesday; and we definitely met a completely shaken up and much more open situation than we have faced in perhaps the last 16 years in Washington, DC. Both the Republican leadership and absolutely the Democratic leadership have received a severe drubbing; and the most sane aspects of both parties are realizing that now is the time to come to terms with that. Where else can they turn for leadership? The LaRouche Political Action Committee.
So, what we’re going to do right now is play a short excerpt from a discussion that was led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. These are remarks that she delivered to those activists as sort of marching orders before they went to Washington, DC. I think she gives a very clear overview of exactly the situation we find ourselves in, and the responsibilities that we have. Coming out of that short audio clip, we will continue the discussion with some much more elaborated views of what we have now been able to accomplish, and what the challenges still are ahead of us. So, let me play that clip for you right now:
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE http://recording: OK. So, first of all, I want to say hello to you. Obviously, this is a very important intervention because the election results in the United States, which many people did not anticipate, is really part of a global process. It’s not something which is accountable in all the explanations given by the US media; for the most part, the cover-up or some phony explanation like it was the FBI who cost Hillary the election and so forth and so on. What really is going on strategically is that the masses of the population of the trans-Atlantic sector in particular — also in some other parts of the world, but in Europe and the United States in particular — have really had it with an establishment which has consistently acted against their interests. People in those states which are not represented by the anti-establishment, they know that; because for them, the working and living conditions in the last decades one can say, but in particular in the last 15 years, have become worse and worse. People have to work more jobs; they still can’t make ends meet. They have many cases where their sons and sometimes even daughters have gone to Iraq for five times in a row, to come home to be completely broken. So, people have experienced that life is just getting worse for them; and they do not have any hope in the Washington-New York establishment. You had the same phenomenon leading to the Brexit vote in Great Britain in June; which also was not just the refugees and most of the obvious issues — even though they did play a certain catalyzing role; but it was the same fundamental sense of injustice. That there is simply no more government which takes care of the common good. Whatever explanations they now come up with, this will not go away until the situation is remedied, and good government is being re-established in the United States, in Europe, and in other parts of the world.
One immediate next point where the same kind of resentment probably will show is with the referendum in Italy where on the 4th of December — that is, in 2.5 weeks from now — they will have a referendum about a change in the constitution which as the sentiment now goes, will be also a vote against the Renzi government. Even so, he promised he would resign; now, he doesn’t want to resign. But in any case, this type of a process will continue until a remedy has been put in.
Now, obviously, the situation is that the Trump victory is an open question. It’s not yet clear what this Presidency will become; but as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized emphatically almost every day since the vote, this is not a local US affair. This is a global issue; it’s a global international question because one major reason why Trump won the election is because especially in the last period, he had emphasized that Hillary Clinton would mean World War III because of her policy concerning Syria. She demanded the no-fly zone and was proposing a head-on confrontation with Russia. That was absolutely to the point, because we were on an absolutely very dangerous road to a confrontation with Russia and with China.
Trump in the election campaign had said repeatedly that he would have a different attitude towards Russia; and he said something more kinetic[?] things against China. But since he has been elected, he has been on the phone with Putin and Xi Jinping; and in both cases, said that he would work to improve the relations between the United States and Russia or respectively with China. Now that is obviously extremely important; and the other extremely important question is will he carry through with his promise on Glass-Steagall? Especially in his speech in Charlotte, he had reiterated that he would immediately implement Glass-Steagall. Obviously this is the key, because only if one stops and terminates the casino economy which is really the cause for the war, can the situation be brought in shape. Obviously, all the progressives — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren; even Pelosi said that they would already cooperate with Trump if he would go for this infrastructure job creation Glass-Steagall economic program.
So, we should give the benefit of the doubt that he really means it; but we should also be aware that naturally, the entire Wall Street crowd, the neo-cons in the Republican Party will do everything possible to not have that. So therefore, we have to have this intervention to really educate the Congress and the Senate on what is really at stake. The world is now really looking, holding their breath; will there be a change in American policy for the better? Which hopefully it will; but it requires these measures: Glass-Steagall as an absolute precondition without which nothing else will work. But that is not enough, because you are not just talking about banking reform; you are talking about a completely new paradigm in the economic system. That has been defined by the Four Laws of Lyn, which everybody should really make sure that they completely understand when you are doing this kind of lobbying work. Lyn has been stressing in the last couple of days, that the key thing is to increase the productivity of the labor force; and because of neo-liberal policies of monetarist policies of the last one can really say decades, this productivity has gone down in the trans-Atlantic sector below the break-even point. This is why we need a national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton; we need a credit policy; we need an international credit system, a new Bretton Woods system. And you obviously need a “win-win” cooperation of all nations building the New Silk Road. Also in the United States, building the Silk Road to become a World Land-Bridge.
Now, extremely important is the fourth of the Four Laws, which basically says that we cannot get an increase in the productivity of the economy unless you go for a crash program of fusion power, and you go for a crash program of international cooperation for space research. Only if you do these kinds of avant garde leaps in the productivity — like fusion technology brings you in a completely economic platform with the fusion torch. You will have energy security for the whole planet; you will have raw materials security because you can use any waste and differentiate out the different isotopes and reconstitute new raw materials by putting the isotopes together in the way required. So, it’s a gigantic technological leap; and the same thing goes for space technology. It will have exactly the same impact as during the Apollo program when every investment in space technology, in rockets and other new materials, brought 14 cents back from each cent of investment. Everything from computer chips to Teflon cooking ware to all kinds of benefits occurred as a byproduct from space research. To get the world economy out of this present condition — especially in the trans-Atlantic sector — you need that kind of reorientation towards the scientific and technological progress, increases in energy flux density. All of this Green ideology which is really no development ideology has to be replaced; and the world has to go back in a direction where the real physical laws of the physical universe are the criteria for truth, and not some ideology.”
OGDEN: Now, Helga LaRouche also delivered an equally inspiring, but much more extensive speech at a very important conference this week that occurred in Peru. This was the 23rd National Congress of the Association of Economists of Peru, that was held in conjunction with the APEC meeting which is occurring over this weekend in Lima, Peru. The title of the conference was “The Peru-Brazil Bi-Oceanic Train; the Impact on the Economy of the Amazon Region and the Country”. So, this is Peru-Brazil transcontinental railroad. Helga LaRouche’s presentation was the keynote address; and she delivered it at the opening session. It was titled, “The New Silk Road Concept; Facing the Collapse of the World Financial System”. This APEC summit which will be occurring this weekend, will be hosting world leaders including Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. There has been a major surge in interest and engagement between China and these countries of South America, around the idea of expanding the New Silk Road into South America. That would also obviously have to include North America. This is the vision that Helga LaRouche has been emphasizing, and what she laid out in a very inspiring way in this speech in Peru; the idea of the New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. The organizers of that conference — this national congress of economists, the economists’ association in Peru — drafted their own copy of a 60-page pamphlet that they distributed to all the participants of this conference, that was based on excerpts from this report by EIR — “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge”. It also included a printing of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four New Laws concept. So, this is obviously a very significant event; and the fact that it’s happening in conjunction with the APEC summit at this moment in history, is very important. We hope to make the proceedings of that conference available to viewers of this website.
But what I can say is, we have now set the agenda. What’s happening now is that the world is being forced to respond to the agenda that has been set over decades — but really in the last few months — by the LaRouche Movement internationally. You can see this by the flurry of coverage of Glass-Steagall inside the United States, and the fact that there’s open discussion including from the new leadership of the Democratic Party: Warren, Sanders, Keith Ellison, and others. Now is the time to put Glass-Steagall on the table and get out in front of this. But the other element of this is the discussion of so-called “infrastructure”. Now infrastructure can mean a lot of different things, and I’m sure that people watched the victory speech by President-elect Trump where he talked about building rail, building bridges, building airports, and so forth.
The latest development in that discussion is an article that is featured on the front page of the New York Times today, called “Trump-size Idea for a New President; Build Something Inspiring”. Good headline, and the article starts off pretty inspiringly; it says the only way that you’re going to be able to unify a bitterly divided America, is by building great infrastructure projects. Not just painting rusty bridges, or laying a few miles of asphalt, but “Build something awe-inspiring. Something Americans can be proud of. Something that will repay its investment many times over for generations to come. Build the modern-day equivalent of the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel ” All of which were built by Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal administration. Then the article does also say, “Can anybody remember anything that came out of Obama’s $800 billion [stimulus package]? I don’t think so.” So, this article usefully cites what Franklin Roosevelt did with the PWA, the WPA: 700 miles of airport runways; 650,000 miles or rail; 78,000 bridges; 125,000 military and civilian buildings, [including] 40,000 schools. This is massive. The article also usefully says the idea that any infrastructure project today could pay for itself through user fees is a ridiculous prospect. But the alternative that this article poses is just as bad; saying, the way to do it is for government to borrow most of the money from investors.
So, I think this demonstrates that we have a lot of work to do with putting the full concept of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws on the table. Now, this article cites a few useful infrastructure projects: a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River; California high-speed rail; a Northeast mag-lev corridor; a Miami sea wall; so forth and so on. But if you look at the vision that’s presented in this pamphlet — “The United States Joins the New Silk Road: a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance” — with the Bering Strait tunnel rail project to connect Eurasia with the North and South American mega-continent. If you look at the amount of high-speed rail, if you look at the water management programs; and most of all, if you look at what China has been able to accomplish in just the last few years, you’ll see that everything that is cited in this article absolutely pales in comparison.
And, there are some much deeper scientific points that have got to be addressed. 1. The understanding of what Alexander Hamilton actually did; and 2. what Lyndon LaRouche’s science of economics defines as real productivity from the standpoint of increases in energy flux density. So, I think that sets up the discussion that we can have here right now. Ben, Diane, Kesha, and I think we should maybe expand from there.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: I think it’s very important that Mr. LaRouche, increasingly in the last couple of months, has said over and over again, “Productivity; productivity; productivity.” We have to start thinking about not just providing jobs, not just providing needed infrastructure projects. I think it’s worth making a distinction between on the one side things that are just needed to maintain what we have. We have a massive deficit just to maintain the standard — I think the appropriate term is “platform” as Mr. LaRouche had introduced a couple of years back — about how to think about infrastructure and the real development of a national territory in a scientific way. You have a certain platform of activity, a standard of activity level that maintains a specific level of existence for your society; directly connected to the potential relative population density of your society. We should always be looking to push to higher and higher platforms; higher levels of activity. Our current platform is degraded; much of the infrastructure we live upon was built largely under Franklin Roosevelt and a few spurts of activity following him on that. So on the hand, yeah, we need to rebuild some of these things. Our existing dam systems, transport systems, even soft infrastructure like health care systems are in need of repair. But we also need to push to a higher level; we need to go to a new platform which has higher degrees of productivity per capita. Higher degrees of ability to support a larger population in new area, new territories of the country; increase the productivity of existing territories, and that begins to create real growth. You’re not going to get real growth just by rebuilding what you have; although you need to do that, because we’ve been letting this decay for decades now.
But you also need to create real economic value, real economic growth. And that goes to this issue of, are you increasing the productive powers of your labor force? Are you increasing the ability of your productive sector to produce the physical goods needed to support society more efficiently and at higher qualities with less physical input per capita, you could say? Can you measure those kinds of steps of growth? Are you taking that metric into account? That’s critical right now; and it’s worth recognizing that we’ve been living in a post-industrial policy for many years now. This whole idea of the services economy, that somehow we can support ourselves by creating jobs in services; where we take turns washing each other’s laundry. I make you a cup of coffee; you make me a hamburger. That doesn’t actually create qualitative changes in the ability of society to sustain more people at higher living standards. You’re just trading service work back and forth.
So in all of this, we need to have a serious re-focussing on what are the essential principles of human economic growth? And that’s why Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws in totality is so crucial. That’s why I thought it was very good in Mrs. LaRouche’s orientation into our deployment into DC, she made a very clear point on Mr. LaRouche’s fourth law — this fusion driver program. These are the kinds of things that you might employ a relatively small part of the population even in that specific endeavor; but you’re pushing the frontiers of engineering capabilities, scientific capabilities. That actually has the most important radiating effect on the entirety of the economy, the entirety of the productive capabilities of the labor force.
You absolutely need this science driver, this high-technology, high capital-intensity driver program to really push the whole program forward. The depth of the crisis that we’ve gone into just makes it that much more important that we have that element up there, front and center. Since Mr. LaRouche put out this Four Laws document, he has also obviously been increasingly focussed on the role of space in that focus, in that goal. That is another absolutely critical element of this. It was not an incomprehensible or miraculous thing that John F Kennedy’s Apollo program had such a massive spin-off effect in terms of payback to the US economy from the investments that were made. The studies not that long after the project finished, were already showing a 14-1 payback in terms of the totality of increases of productivity of industries that were not part of the space program; but acquired technologies. Precision engineering capabilities; high-precision control systems for production; various things that were created out of necessity to make this super-advanced Moon mission work. But that increased the ability of mankind generally to be more productive in his production capabilities. That was then able to be applied throughout the economy generally.
So, those are the kinds of things that we absolutely need right now; not just repairing our existing degraded infrastructure. We’re going to have to do that, sure; but how do you create the growth where you can afford to do that, and afford to make completely new investments? Part of this infrastructure discussion should be opening up new territories of the country. A major part of this pamphlet that we put out, and a huge part of Mrs. LaRouche’s focus, has been new cities. You’ve got huge territories in the United States that are not developed. Let’s develop the nation; let’s expand new territories; let’s create huge areas of new growth. That’s the kind of stuff that’s going to drive the whole process forward. We’re in a real need for some precise, clear, authoritative leadership on these issues, because these things are not understood. We’re not just going into this in a vacuum; we have a completely broken down system; not just in the financial sector, but in the physical economy, too. So we need clear, precise, immediate action. We don’t have years for somebody to figure this thing out over time; people’s lives are on the line right now in terms of what’s needed to turn the US economy around.
DIANE SARE: Well, I’d like to just put this in a context; because we’re not having a discussion here in the abstract. And I want to go back to what Mr. LaRouche did in the 1970s with the creation of the Fusion Energy Foundation, and his role in being brought into a team to create a Presidency. I want to be very clear with the people watching this that what we are doing is not an academic discussion of nice things that we, sitting in a little corner, want to do. Mr. LaRouche — as you heard from what Ben laid out — had a very clear conception of the necessity of fusion energy at that time. Also, people remember the Jimmy Carter Presidency; small is beautiful. I think we were talking about global cooling back then, and now it’s global warming. [One sentence paraphrase because of bad audio] What we needed to do, in collaboration with Edward Teller, was to take the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine off the table. The only deterrent to a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union was who could blow up the world more times over. What happened was, in the process of this, Ronald Reagan as a candidate and then as President, was recruited to this idea; and I think we’ve been told there a number of things which Mr. LaRouche was working on with the Reagan administration. Not the least of which was the SDI, which the Soviets rejected and Reagan announced, which led in a not-so-indirect way to the Berlin Wall coming down. Also, there was discussion of a meeting between President Reagan and Indira Gandhi, former prime minister of India who had been leader of the Non-Aligned Movement. Reagan, as people recall, was shot in ’82; Indira Gandhi was assassinated; Mr. LaRouche was put in prison. I’m not saying that to say that we’re worried about it; there’s all kinds of questions of security and safety. But my point is that LaRouche personally has played a major, important role in shaping the institution of the Presidency; and his incarceration was timed for when we had earlier another such great opportunity, which was when the Soviet system collapsed economically as he warned it would. He was in prison, and his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche put on the table with him the Productive Triangle and so on. We know what happened; that was sabotaged by a series of wars. The Balkans; the first Iraq War; we later had 9/11 and so on.
What we are doing today is to shape the American [nation] in participation with what is a New Paradigm; which LaRouche and his wife personally have been very much involved in creating. Two years ago, Mr. LaRouche announced that we should move the center of our American operations to New York City; which was done. In the last three or four months, we have begun circulation of a newspaper appropriately titled The Hamiltonian. I’ll just say I found it ironic that the New York Times today has these headlines about infrastructure. They also have articles about how school children in Estonia and Latvia were terrified that Hillary Clinton was going to drag them into the middle ground of a war between NATO and Russia. It’s very interesting.
The big title on The Hamiltonian this week is “We Are Facing a New Epoch for Mankind”; the subtitle is “The New York Times Has Become Irrelevant”. So, they may be scrambling to make themselves relevant. But what you also see, is we have printed now, four weeks in a row, Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws. They have no excuse to be so idiotic on their proposals; both for how you fund this, and how they’re thinking about it, which is all domestic. The world now, what Mrs. LaRouche described in her speech in Peru, was that Xi Jinping made his announcement of this in September of 2013. In those three years, he travelled to 37 nations; he made bilateral agreements with 56 nations; 39 new cargo routes have been opened. These are major international transportation corridors; 98 airports. The magnitude of this completely boggles the mind. It really is in keeping with what Hamilton would have envisioned; what you saw with Henry Carey, or John Quincy Adams in terms of their role in the United States. And I would say geographically, if you could step away, if you could get on a space ship and look at the Earth from a distance; or just take out a globe and look at what the United States is, where we are between the Atlantic and the Pacific. What North America is, and South America now getting involved, we have a great opportunity before us to play an absolutely strategic role in this. Our intent is to bring this about, which is why it’s so crucial that everybody watching this, makes it a point to master the principles in Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws. Particularly the fourth principle, and also particularly the principle of credit; which is in a sense tied to the increase of productivity. We’re not going to fund so-called infrastructure by tolls; we’re not going to build a new bridge, a tunnel under the Hudson and charge people a toll and that’s going to pay for it. No, if your population is able to produce orders of magnitude more than it is currently producing, that is a net increase in the wealth of the nation. It has nothing to do with tolls, or tickets for public transportation; which are all sort of a form of tax farming and looting.
I do want to underscore: 1. The role of Lyndon LaRouche in shaping the Presidency; 2. That this is going to occur from Manhattan; the entire transition seems to be being organized from Trump Towers on Fifth Avenue in New York City. It is incumbent on all of us to raise this to the appropriate level of discussion and to not tolerate anything smaller.
KESHA ROGERS: Just to follow up on that, another important aspect of the fight waged by Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga, going back to the 1970s around the fight that you just mentioned, Diane, of the Fusion Energy Foundation, was the fight against this apparatus of a zero-growth or no-growth culture. He was very instrumental with Mrs. LaRouche and also their collaboration with space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — who we’ve mentioned a lot — on taking on this degeneracy of the attack on population reduction that was being promoted and continues to be promoted to this day. Many people may remember that there was a book put out in the 1970s by two men, Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester. Jay Forrester just died recently at 98 years old. He was instrumental in putting out the computer models which indicated that there was a certain relationship between the limited resources on Earth and the production of food to how many people you can sustain on Earth and so forth. This is something that Mr. LaRouche has taken directly in terms of this is an attack on the human identity, an attack on the real productivity based on the creative potential of the human mind and LaRouche’s model has been brought up on the increasing of the energy flux density of your economy per capita, and per land area.
I think it’s really important right now to look at the fact that Mr. LaRouche sees this fight as a complete shift in the global direction of mankind; unifying mankind on a level that nations have never been unified on before. I thought it was important that yesterday, we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche — Ben, myself, and others from the leadership team; and one thing that he brought up was the integration of the space program and the development of space research, space science, and the exploration of space to Classical music — which we’re really defining in the development of our Manhattan Project, which is really shaping our organization across the country and internationally. You have seen a culture which is completely degenerated under the Bush-Obama Presidencies. You take the inspiration, the culture which shaped the identity of the fight and the vision that led President John F Kennedy to implement the space program in the way he did. The fact that he brought in people like Pablo Casals into the White House; that this classical identity and classical culture was very instrumental throughout the space program, by people such as space pioneer [werner] von Braun and various others working with him. Some of these scientists who came with von Braun, like Krafft Ehricke and others, from Germany; who helped to shape the US space program. It’s interesting; you compare that to what you’ve seen under Bush. Who did he bring into the White House during his inauguration? I think it was Ozzy Osbourne; rock music, heavy metal. Then you had Obama bringing in Beyoncé, not to mention the other very degenerate cultural figures that he has brought in. So, I think what Mr. LaRouche is saying around this is extremely important.
I think it’s also important to look at the space program and the integration of the classical culture as the expression of a higher identity of what it means to be human, and the inspiration and optimism that’s been missing from the population. There’s a few more things we can say on this; I think it’s also important to recognize the importance internationally of what China is doing. We can say more on this later, but the fact that when you talk about inspiration and optimism, we have now the Shenzhou 11 space crew, the crew in China who just docked 33 days ago to the Tiangong 2, the space lab for China. They’re doing experiments that are quite phenomenal; but what they’re really expressing — they’re going to continue doing these experiments in space. One of the things we saw back in 2013, when you had the astronauts docking the first space lab for China, videoing this and beaming it back to Earth; and 60 million children watching it. They’re going to do something similar for this space experiment. This is something that we have to go back to right now; the space program is not just some abstract thing on the side for gurus who like it. We have to make it part of the culture; we have to make it something that inspires and uplifts the population again, but is instrumental in the development of the increases of the productivity of society and increases in the platform. So that means that the population has to come to a higher level of understanding of their identity; and the way to do that is really an integration of culture, as Mr. LaRouche has made clear.
OGDEN: One thing you brought up, and I thought it was good to go back to; the conjunction of Kennedy’s space program, the kind of inspiration and culture needed. This was something very conscious to the Kennedy administration; not only did they bring Pablo Casals to the White House, but this was part of a broader discussion between John F Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and Pierre Salinger, who was the Press Secretary. But before he became Kennedy’s Press Secretary, had been a child prodigy; had been a concert pianist, a composer. He had discussions with Jackie Kennedy which he records in his book, where Jackie Kennedy said the role of the White House should be to set a tone for the arts which will encourage great culture, classical culture around the country. And we should exhibit the finest of culture, of art; we should set the standard which everybody else can then rise to that level.
It is good that you brought up, Kesha, in conjunction has happened politically, where New York City has definitely become the center of gravity of the political universe of the United States. It’s not just Trump; Clinton was also New York City. It was a strategic decision to center a very active organization in New York; but that entire process has also happened in parallel with what Diane has been leading there with this revival of Classical music and culture. That’s very important, even from the standpoint of what is our idea of man; and the dignity of human beings. Yes, granted, there were dark tones during this Presidential campaign which is not acceptable. But the idea of the dignity of man, and the creativity of the entire human species is what is embodied in the greatest of Classical music. It’s one thing to point actually, Diane; that first Messiah concert which launched the New York City renaissance project, happened in the context of this racial tension that was heating up in New York at that time. So, this still is a very important aspect of addressing that.
SARE: I just wanted to add one quick thing on that note; which is a musical question actually, if you think about a symphony orchestra or a chorus and the role that individuals play as part of that body; where the whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts. Were we to launch a transformation of society along the lines of what Mrs. LaRouche outlined in Peru; that is, the US to become integrated in part of the Belt and Road program, then I think we would quickly discover that we actually don’t have enough people in this country. So that all the things that people are afraid about, about who’s going to be excluded, who’s going to be deported, etc.; you will find yourself looking at your fellow human beings with new eyes because of the creative potential of each individual which will be necessary to transform the nation and the world in the immediate future.
OGDEN: Ben was just referencing some of Mr. LaRouche’s early writings on economics which really get to the question of how do you measure productivity. This is not just raw labor power; this is not just the number of jobs. But it is the question of generation upon generation, can you produce more than is consumed? But can you do it in a way where the power of the human species actually is transformed almost as a species characteristic, step by step? I’ve found it very inspiring that during those opening remarks that we played by Helga, she went back to the discussion of what we used to call the isotope economy. What power can mankind wield if we penetrate not just to the molecular level, but to the very atomic level? Fission power is breaking apart the atom; fusion is an entirely different matter, where you actually have the ability to create new elements. You have the ability to create new isotopes of any given elements, which have very differing characteristics. It’s the promise of Promethean fire, which mankind has been working towards over millennia; but we have not yet achieved. This is an inspiring subject, but the ability of mankind to wield power at the very basic level of the fabric of matter; that’s an entirely new power.
DENISTON: Yeah, and it’s a huge subject that could be probably taken up in much more detail. It really goes to the question of what is a resource? What do we consider as a resource; and how that continually changes as mankind develops. Once you go to this level of an isotope conception of resources, we don’t use up isotopes. When you use petroleum or wood, anything you use — unless you’re actually doing fission and fusion, when the total amount of matter you’re working with is very small — you’re not actually destroying the elements themselves. You might be acting on a state of organization that’s been created. We might be looking for certain states of organization to utilize the properties of that as a resource at a certain point. But I think this goes right to the issue of the isotope economy, the intimate connection with energy flux density where we could begin to create those states of organization ourselves; or work with lower states of quality of concentrations of ores and various things. Where things that were not economical before to do, or not even possible to do before; if you get a higher energy flux density, a higher energy throughput, you can begin to manage in a completely new way. Separating the quality of resource elements that we want; organizing them in new ways.
Helga mentioned this very exciting prospect that’s been talked about to some degree for years of this fusion torch idea. That you could take stuff that now is just trash, trash is fundamentally everything we use; that’s why it’s our trash. It was something that we were using that was useful to us. Now, we might have degraded it in some way and put it in a landfill; but the fundamental constituents of what made it useful are still there. So, it’s not inconceivable to think of mankind progressing to a point where we could reprocess even these landfills. That might be a little ways away; there will be some steps along the way to get there. But those are the kinds of complete transformations in what mankind can do to recreate the cycles of productivity that support, again, larger populations at higher living standards; and really going in the opposite direction than we’ve been going in for decades.
Right now, a family needs to work three or four jobs just to not get by month-to-month, and not be able to afford health care, not be able to afford education. We need a society where one job can sustain a significantly sized family and provide these kinds of benefits — higher education, health care, and have free time for arts, for recreation, for developing the cultural mental powers of your family and yourself. How you’re going to get to that point is going at these issues we’re talking about here, of actually increasing the productivity of the labor force as a whole; the productive powers of the labor force as a whole. Pushing these kinds of science driver, technology driver programs that make these kinds of breakthroughs.
Mr. LaRouche’s point on this as a new focus that he’s put on this in the recent period, is really critical. We got to raise this discussion to not just jobs, but productivity. What’s your ability to produce things? If we’re serious about turning the economy around. It’s kind of been referenced here and there, but we have allies in doing that. It’s not just going to be completely on our own shoulders. We have to decide to do it, but China has said, “Hey, United States! If you want to quit this geopolitical, 19th Century crazy game and get to some serious discussion about creating a future for mankind, that’s what we’re doing. So, if you want to work with us, we’d be happy to cooperate with you in a serious, honest investment and development for our nations.” Many other nations are rallying around China in their effort to do that; so that’s there as a critical support point, if the United States makes this shift. These are the critical issues that we’ve got to put on the table and fight out.
And again, Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws, as he said, is a central organizing document around that whole perspective.
ROGERS: Yeah, it’s also important to note that as Mr. LaRouche said, in the calling for the implementation and enactment of the Four Laws that he’s put on the table as an urgent necessity, Glass-Steagall being the first and urgently needed measure, is not an option or a compromise with the Wall Street bankers. He indicated that it has to be the Franklin Roosevelt; and it can’t be a watered-down Dodd-Frank compromise or anything of that nature. There’s only one way you’re going to wipe out this casino economy, Wall Street speculation; and I think that goes the same for the measures needed with the development of the types of density and increase in energy source and fusion economy as Mr. LaRouche is calling for. There’s a lot of compromise out there about that, too. “Fusion is a long way away; it’s never going to happen. The politicians aren’t going to let it happen.” All of this stuff.
I attended a space conference this week; and one of the things that was being promoted in terms of deep space exploration was solar-electric power. “Yes, we agree; nuclear, increase in fusion sources is most important, but it’s not practical. So, we’re going to go with this.” Or, “We’re going to push this, because it’s probably something we can get through Congress.” That’s the most insane thing you can think of. When they talked about to carry cargo into space would be 2-3 years, is that real productivity? How are you going to advance mankind’s exploration into space and the ability to actually go out to a Moon mission as a base? And a Mars mission? Also, just increasing what Ben was just discussing in terms of our ability to increase our resources here on Earth. The mining of Helium-3 on the Moon and various other resources that we’ve talked about.
Once again, the point was, a lot of people want to compromise on these things. There cannot be compromise because there is a global shift underway; and that global shift is requiring an increase in the highest levels of scientific development that has to be implemented immediately. This is why Mr. LaRouche’s fourth law in terms of fusion driver program, is something that — just like Glass-Steagall — cannot be compromised on; and is absolutely fundamental for pushing forth the breakthroughs which are necessary.
OGDEN: Well, that was Helga LaRouche’s point during the opening segment that we played today; that it is incumbent on all the activists, all the viewers of this broadcast, to master the contents of Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws document. This might seem like a short document, but it’s a very dense document; and a lot of the subjects that Ben has brought up here today in terms of the definition of economic productivity and what the nature of mankind is. Kesha, what you were saying; there really are no limits to growth. This is not some kind of thing where when we reach our carrying capacity, that will be it. It’s mankind transforming its own species; transforming the universe, and transforming our relationship to the universe. That’s what’s addressed in this policy document by Lyndon LaRouche. You have to set the bar that high; it cannot be any lower than that level from which you’re going to effect the kind of revolution in policy that’s necessary for the entire planet at this time.
So, we have a lot of work to do. The Congress was only in session for a day and a half this week. But what that means, is that they are back in their districts; and I’m telling you, it’s not going to be like business as usual. This is not what the conditions were before this election. It’s all the more important to think from the standpoint of what Diane was mentioning in the beginning of the show: Our role is — and has always been — to shape the institution of government of the United States from the very highest level. This is not coming in from the outside; this is not a voice calling in the darkness. This is working with the leadership of the nations of the planet and creating the dynamic that you now see taking over. This has been decades in the making; but I can guarantee you, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have played a role that has been central to this reality now coming into being. I’m talking about the New Silk Road; I’m talking about this trilateral relationship between Russia, China, and India, creating a new dynamic on the Eurasian continent. Everything that’s happening in South America right now is something that Lyndon LaRouche was personally involved in over decades; and now South America coming into the New Silk Road and joining this new World Land-Bridge is something that is very real.
Nothing is determined; but our role is to continue that fight inside the United States, and to make this a reality — “The United States Joins the New Silk Road”. We put it in the present tense for a reason.
So, I’d invite Diane, Kesha, if there’s anything concluding that you’d like to say before we close out the show?
SARE: I think one great benefit of launching this recovery and increasing the productivity is all the states which just voted to legalize marijuana, will have second thoughts about that.
DENISTON: We want high productivity, and it doesn’t mean that.
OGDEN: You’ll turn out like Gary Johnson and have an “Aleppo moment”. OK. We’ll take that as a concluding point here. Please stay tuned. We will make the full speech that Helga delivered in Peru available. The audio at least, or maybe the video. There was also a very productive dialogue that occurred with the participants of that meeting with Helga, following her keynote speech. So, that’s an important thing to stay tuned for. Also, we will be producing a feature video — about 10 or 15 minutes in length — on the content of the Four New Laws. That fleshes out some of the Hamiltonian aspect of that; and it’s an educational tool to teach yourself and to teach everybody else real economics. So stay tuned for that; that will be coming to the website soon.
Thank you for watching; please subscribe to our YouTube channel and our daily email updates. All of the information is available in the description of this video available below the video in the YouTube player. Thank you and we’ll talk to you soon. Stay tuned.