LaRouchePAC Policy Committee member Kesha Rogers is the featured guest on during today’s weekly Manhattan Town Hall event.
DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche political action committee I want to welcome you to our Saturday dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. We have a special guest today, and to introduce her, I want to point out a couple of things. While everyone was angsting in various ways around the election process during October, they may have missed the fact that there was an an announcement that was placed in some newspapers on the 13th of October, about the fact that recent observations taken with the Hubble Telescope had caused astronomers to re-evaluate the number of galaxies that probably exist.
And Phil Rubinstein and some others have been taking a look at this; and we’re talking about between 1 and 2 trillion galaxies thought to now exist, or at least to be known to exist. In the Milky Way galaxy, there are about 200 billion stars like that of our Sun. And because of problems of observing planets against these stars, we don’t really know how many planets may orbit these bodies.
When you think about the fact that that was announced during all of the mêlée, and that probably most people in America missed it, it puts the context of our meeting today and our discussion in a certain light. Continually, Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized that his concept of space exploration demands a higher conception of mankind; and that that concept is identical to his concept of economics, so that when we talk about solutions for the problems that afflict the planet and afflict nations, we’re always talking about starting from a completely different conceptual platform than anybody else.
The person who has been advocating that and has been the spokesman for the LaRouche Political Action Committee for that, both through political campaigning as such and in general, is our guest today. I wanted to say, as we begin to get into the dialogue, that people should take this opportunity to sort of use the premise of Thanksgiving, which is often denigrated into something pretty cheap, to recognize that the real issue of Thanksgiving is the issue of humanity. The fact that we’re here, the way that one should give thanks is to try to make a contribution with new physical principles and new ideas that have never been seen before. That’s something that is possible for every human being; that’s our belief, and in the campaigns that we’ve done — and particularly our speaker had done — that’s what we’ve tried to get people to begin to think about.
So, I’m always honored to have Kesha speak to us. She may — we don’t know exactly — find herself in a political campaigning position sometime soon; we don’t really know about these things. But let’s put it this way, we’re going to hear from her and have her tell us what the direction that mankind is about to take is going to be; either by means of her campaigning or otherwise. So, Kesha — you’re on! I’m happy to see you.
KESHA ROGERS: OK, Dennis. Hello, everyone, it’s very good to be with you again in this very historic period. A very decisive moment for mankind, and each and every one of you there today plays a critical role in the direction that we find ourselves.
What I wanted to start with, just to kind of pick up from where Dennis left off and developed, was first of all, taking up a quote from a discussion that the Policy Committee — myself and my other colleagues, Diane and others — had with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche yesterday. I think it captures the essence of the moment that we’re in right now. During this discussion, Mr. LaRouche said, “The things to be considered are deep; they are not choice program policies, they are not superficial. That goes to the space program, and once you look at the space program in a critical way in terms of the universe, not a practical way, but in terms of the universe, then you really begin to see what chances before us in the world now are cut by the understanding that practical interpretations will not cut the mustard. You have to get at the idea of what the procedure is, the manner to create the new universe of mankind.” So, that is the question at hand. What is the procedure that must be put forth to create the new universe of mankind? I think that is the question before us; how do we bring this new universe into existence?
That’s the challenge that all of us have right now, where we find the rapid transformations happening in the world economy. This is happening at a very moment where the United States has a unique responsibility to join in the efforts of the global shifts now underway.
I’m going to come back to address and take up that question, because I think it’s going to be imperative as a part of the discussion today that we really look at what we’re going to be doing in this next four weeks, as decisive for shaping this new universe which mankind must bring about. In which we have a unique role, and Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have continued to play a critical role in doing so. I know that many of you will be participating in a trip to the nation’s Capitol, where Congress is going to be reconvening for the next four weeks; and throughout this next four weeks, they’ll be in session for a few days a week. At that point in time, the imperative fight on the table, is Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws immediately being enacted; with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall banking reorganization as a first measure to the carrying out of these Four Laws, as Mr. LaRouche defined as not just a part of some type of policy decision, but as a total transformation which is now underway, in terms of bringing the United States up to the standards that have now been set by the global shifts taking place throughout the world. These have been led as a response of the leadership of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche over the past decades against the evils of a financial oligarchical system; that is what Glass-Steagall represents. We are now poised to bring down the Bush/Obama/Cheney apparatus — the disintegrating financial system and evil empire — once and for all.
Once you do that, what is it that you’re going to be bringing into existence? I think it’s important if you look at the developments, the rapid transformation that’s been underway for the past several weeks now. Particularly, looking at what we have seen with the ongoing developments of the leadership coming from what was defined as the BRICS nations — Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa — and particularly the leadership of Russia and China. This is not something that just sort of fell on our laps, or should be looked as development of new events. It is really a transformation of mankind, taking a new leap in the development of a new system of relations amongst nations and throughout the planet and throughout the universe; which has to be understood in a critical way. The conception of mankind and the intrinsic nature of mankind as Mr. LaRouche has been really addressing the question, is the imperative understanding of how you look at the ongoing global events that have taken place. Just to kind of put it into focus here, if you look at the global shifts that you found with the developments that took place in Ibero-America just recently with the APEC summit and the role of President Xi Jinping of China and others; you really see you have to address this from the understanding that there’s a new system of international relations that are now coming into formation. In the aftermath of the summit, where President Xi Jinping of China addressed Peru, Ecuador, and Chile along with other nations, there were comments on the trip described by the Foreign Minister of China, Wang He, and he said that this trip was aimed at building a community of common destiny. He told the Xinhua daily the results of the trip were “impressive; making enormous strides towards building a community of common destiny with other nations of Latin America and the Caribbean by holding the higher banner of a peaceful development and cooperation.” Coordinating their development strategies, upgrading their cooperation, and bringing benefits to their people.
So, in the midst of these rapid international developments, you had also the role of leadership being exemplified by Mrs. LaRouche, who in the middle of these proceedings of the APEC summit, addressed a meeting in Lima, Peru that had a profound impact and intervention. Her intervention had a very profound impact. This is really characteristic of the leadership that has been played by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche. She addressed a movement of Peruvian economists; and at the end of this event, just recently, these economists came out with a conclusive statement of endorsement for Mrs. LaRouche’s remarks. Saying that, “We share Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s perspective on world development.”
So, what is underway here has to be understood as a leap in the progress of mankind. It is now a point where the evil of a system of empire, of degeneracy, of financial collapse has now come to a point of total disintegration and is ending. This has been the result of the ongoing work of Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche and our political organization. This is exactly what Mr. LaRouche addressed yesterday in terms of the fight that’s now underway; that these are not just choice programs of policies that have to be enacted in a superficial, or that you can acutally look at the developments that are going on within the course of society from the standpoint of piecemeal. This event is happening here, or this event is happening there. It is imperative from the standpoint that there’s a new definition of mankind now coming into fruition. This is exactly the question that Mr. LaRouche addressed in a discussion with colleagues just on Sunday. Where in addressing his conception of an economic platform which has been something that’s been taken up on a continued basis and was part of the discussion that was led yesterday by my colleague Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team, in discussing a “platform” from the standpoint of the development of the Solar System; the leaps that are necessary for mankind in the development of the Moon as a first priority.
But why is all this necessary? How do you think about these things? First of all, you have to ask the question as Mr. LaRouche did. What is the intrinsic meaning of the human being? Of the existence of the human being, and of all human beings? What makes the universe do what it does for the function of mankind as such? The question is, what mankind can do to change the behavior of the universe as such. As he was making those comments, it reminded me of President John F Kennedy, when he said: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” If you want to really address that goal in the way that John F Kennedy intended, and which the financial British imperial system and oligarchy has been completely against from the very beginning, you really have to address it from the standpoint of mankind’s unique role in changing the behavior of the universe as such.
hat means we have to go out to understand what the characteristics of the universe are, in terms of our role in understanding the creative nature of mankind in increasing the leaps of development and transforming not just our single planet, but the entire universe we live in. I think that gets at the core of the “platform” conception of economic development of Mr. LaRouche. What Ben Deniston laid out yesterday, are fundamental practical applications that are absolutely necessary to get us to the point where we reject this notion of limitations to growth; reject the notion that there’s a budgetary crisis that conflicts and keeps us from accomplishing these goals. There really has to be an understanding of leaps in economic platforms that will allow us not to address the needs of the development of space from a piecemeal standpoint. But that what we have to now look at is very clearly outlined in the pamphlet that many of you will be getting out this week; addressing Congress members with, and which has been a sole programmatic approach of our campaign of our organization. If you can’t see this, it’s our pamphlet that says “The United States Joins the New Silk Road; a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance”.
You cannot create an economic renaissance, or have a Hamiltonian vision for an economic renaissance by addressing economic development from the standpoint of infrastructure. This gets to the very core of the discussion that has been underway. What is the difference between piecemeal steps of infrastructure development, versus what is the real conceptual understanding of creating an economic renaissance through leaps in mankind’s creative progress?
So, Mr. LaRouche has taken up that subject on many counts. I wanted to read a quote from him that addresses that from the standpoint of looking at the relationship of physical economy, increases in the creative potential of mankind and an increase in leaps of economic progress from this advancement of the creative potential of the human mind. And the advancement of what it is that we have as a species that is uniquely different from any other species. You look at how it is that we’ve gone from the development — we were just discussing this today, myself and some colleagues here — when you talk about leaps in economic platforms and development, it probably would have been mind-boggling to people during the Oregon Trail, where it took four to five months to travel across the Oregon Trail through very harsh conditions. Now you have the opportunity, because of leaps in technological transportation advancements, you can now do it in a matter of four to five hours. You look at what it took for us to get to the Moon with the Saturn V rocket, and that technology now, was as it was absolutely instrumental at the time, would not be sufficient in the necessary technologies and leaps in scientific and economic platforms to get us to Mars safely. And to actually develop the area of space in terms of low-Earth orbit and the region of the Moon; and what would be necessary as a platform for launching to Mars. This is something that really has to be taken up.
So, let me go back to the point of LaRouche’s conception of an economic platform and physical economy. What I am going to quote from — and I recommend that people go back and read this — is, I’m quoting from a work that Mr. LaRouche wrote in 2008; right after his famous economic forecast of July 25, 2007. It’s called “The State of Our Union; the End of Our Delusion”. In that program, he writes:
“In physical economy, for example, it is those creative powers of the individual human mind associated with the means by which the human mind generates or replicates either a discovery of a universal physical principle, or a modification of the application of that physical principle as such; which is the essential marker of cognitive activity. This includes discoveries respecting the principle of life itself. It is the process of discovery of such principles of amplification of the categories of application and range of application of such discovered principles, which are the core subject of creativity.”
So, that is what is at hand right now for our understanding of the embodiment — what lies at the foundation and the embodiment of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws. When we go to Congress, when we go out on the streets, when we organize the population, this is the challenge and the understanding by which we have to organize mankind around the critical importance of enacting these Four Laws immediately. Because they represent a transformation in the conception of who we are as a species and that this is the policy which has to be demanded and has to be enacted now. Not just as a policy that can be waited on, or we can wait to see what the next newly-elected President Donald Trump is going to do. LaRouche has defined that our role and responsibility is to shape the institution of the Presidency and the shape the new Presidency. Which means not just shaping relations within the United States and within the process of political activities in the United States; but understand this as a process shaping the universe as a whole. Shaping the global developments of the world as a whole; and that it’s imperative now. There’s not a choice in the matter; this is not just a nice idea. It has to be enacted immediately! We have to now bring about the Hamiltonian vision for an economic renaissance. There has to be a new conception of mankind underway to do that.
I want to end with these remarks by saying that as we go back to Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis on the development of space as being a key conceptual understanding of how we address the concerns for mankind on the planet; address this higher identity of who we are as a species. He continues to bring up the role and the leadership of the great space pioneer Krafft Ehricke, who has become a dear friend of mine in this fight to understand what is really required to lead this nation from the brink of despair which we have continued to find ourselves in under the evil and destructive policies of a Bush/Cheney regime which now has to be ended. I want to just read a quote from Krafft Ehricke. I know some of you have the work that was put out by one of our colleagues, Marsha Freeman, entitled The Extraterrestrial Imperative: The Compiled Writings of Krafft Ehricke. I would encourage you to go into that work if you have it, and look at a writing that he has called “A Case for Space.” It was pretty phenomenal, because he writes this at the period eight months after the launching and landing of the Apollo 11 mission. I was thinking about it; he’s writing about — there’s still fights about it. This is February 1970, the Apollo mission landed in July of 1969. It’s really fascinating just to think that Krafft Ehricke was not just an engineer or aeronautical scientist and engineer who looked at space from practical applications. He really looked at the development of space from the standpoint of the application of an understanding of the human creative process; it was not the case that we go to space because it’s there, but because — as Krafft Ehricke says, we need its potential and we need to develop its potential for the development of the human species as a whole. I thought it was remarkable that you had the announcement by President John F Kennedy in 1963 that we’re going to send a man to the Moon and return him safely to Earth; and that we’re going to do this before the decade is out. There was a major fight by the budget cutters, the limits to growth, anti-human, anti-scientific progress agenda to try and do everything to make sure that that didn’t exist. After the horrific events that took place in 1967 that halted the space program, with the burning up of the Apollo 1 mission, during that two-year period until 1969, it was very uncertain whether we were going to accomplish that goal that Kennedy had set into motion.
And as soon as that goal was accomplished, and we achieved, via the development of “sending man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth,” after a major fight under way, Krafft Ehricke wrote this paper, because the budget cutting, imperialist, anti-development agenda reared its ugly head like never before. And in this “Case for Space,” Krafft Ehricke writes: “Among the many important challenges of our time, space is the only major challenge that is not born out of past acts of ignorance, indifference, or man’s inhumanity to man. … Space opens new horizons beyond Earth, and offers new beginnings in ways we can manage this precious planet. It offers noble aspirations, opportunities for creative action, for bringing the human family closer together and contributing to a better future for all.”
And after he continues to develop this, he says that some of the challenges that come upon us in terms of the attacks on the space program, you know, why would we want to spend this money in going into space; you have poverty, and you have all of these other concerns, why would you want to spend the money in actually going to space? And he addresses that national space effort by saying, that you have to deal with the conflict of war, you have to deal with poverty, you have to deal with all of these things that confront the nation and confront mankind; and he says, “Like the space program, these other efforts have important positive goals badly needed in the area in which loss of identity is speared by so many young people, though never with less justification if they would just tune in, rather than tune out.”
He says, “Improving living conditions and education, conquering disease and overcoming social injustices are positive goals. The national space activity contributes to many of these efforts and certainly does not impede the others.” And he just takes up the question, if you want to address these concerns, the inspiration and the development of mankind’s purpose for enhancing our development of space is absolutely imperative to accomplishing these goals, to addressing these concerns and questions confronting mankind. Because they’re not concerns that cannot be addressed; they’re concerns that you have to look at what is bringing these things across? It is the fact that you have had a conception of a limitation on the creative potential of mankind, a limitation of growth that has been put on mankind. And until we remove that all limitation, then we will never be able to address these concerns. And the best means to be able to remove those limitations, is to define mankind’s true purpose: What is the intrinsic nature of mankind? How do we create this new universal system? And it is through the development of space, and it is through the development of bringing forth the vision once and for all of a true economic Renaissance where the development of space is at the core of and at the head of that.
So I think that that should be our fight, that should be what we immerse ourselves in, in our understanding of the critical role we have before us right now, in moving this Congress, in moving this population, that this is not an easy task of just getting someone to pass a piece of legislation, but there has to be a deeper issue of understanding of what it is that we are fighting for.
I want to leave it right there, and go on with that.
Q: Hi Kesha, Ian Brinkley, here. I had sort of two questions which both come from a more general concern that I’ve been thinking about. One is the issue of 9/11 and I’ve sort of noticed that this has gone a little bit into the background, over the past month or so. There hasn’t been much emphasis on it on the website, or in our discussions. But it seems to me that that’s concerned with affecting the policy of the next Presidency; it seems that’s of course a very, very important aspect to get the truth out on that, and enabling to get the right policies to be put into place, and enabling the people who were responsible for that to be brought to justice. (Sorry, I’m having a little trouble formulating my idea here.)
Let me go on to the other concern which is of a similar nature, which is on the issue of the financial system: and we’ve been saying that we need to get the Trump administration to pass the Glass-Steagall , or we’re saying it needs be passed before. But that’s the idea, to get that passed. But we also have a need, in my mind, there has hasn’t been enough emphasis on the need to establish a Pecora Commission, and have a real revelation of all the crimes that have been committed, and just because it kind of seems a little bit silly to talk about separating a bank that’s a commercial and investment bank, when the bank in the first place is laundering billions of dollars in drug money — maybe we should just shut it down! And then talk about separating it.
So, anyway, I think you can sort of see where I’m coming from on these two issues, where it’s kind of like we have to address, we have to expose and bring the criminals who have been perpetrating these atrocities, whether it’s in the financial system, or whether it’s with things like 9/11 and the cover-up of the Saudis and this, that seems like issues which we can bring to bear in a very strong way right now, to enable us to get the changes in the policies in the United States that we so desperately need, such as Glass-Steagall and the whole Four Laws program.
What do you think? Is that…?
ROGERS: Yes. I think it’s one and the same policy. That first of all, the fight to bring about this new system of international relations, the right to bring about a new conception of economic relations, a new conception of mankind in the universe, is a defined attack on this financial oligarchy, on this imperial system. Yes, I think it’s absolutely imperative that we have to have new Pecora Commission. You know, Glass-Steagall itself is absolutely imperative, but we have to bring justice to the injustices and the criminality that we’ve been seeing.
But how do you do that. First of all by shutting down Wall Street. There is not going to be any kind of compromise idea that is going to work with the next President of the United States, Mr. Donald Trump coming in; that his stance on Glass-Steagall requires the complete bringing down and removal of Wall Street. That has been the enemy of mankind, this Wall Street phenomenon has been what has set the United States back tremendously!
And so, what are you going to replace this dying system with? And we have the solutions for that. I think we have the solutions which start, or, take up your first point of how do you bring about the needed against the injustices that were committed after 9/11? Well, let’s go back to Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis on bringing forth a “Living memorial,” which yourself and many others participated in. And this wasn’t just some nice idea that was going to have an effect in a short period of time, where what we did in presenting a beautiful identity of mankind to some of these families of victims of 9/11, the families had never experienced or seen before, by allowing them to participate in something that was truly human. The impact of that, was phenomenal, in terms of what it created: there was an act of justice that was created. Because in the midst of that development, where Mr. LaRouche said, we have to have a Living Memorial which emphasizes the living and what our responsibility is to carry out for the development and for making sure that those who had died had not died in vain and that we were going to gain justice. But it required a different understanding of our being as who we are as human beings.
And there was nothing more powerful that did that, than (1), the music and the cultural intervention that we made with Requiem concerts, there in New York. And the impact of that followed on by the fight for the passage of JASTA, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, against President Obama’s veto. It showed that these institutes are not all-powerful, that they can be brought down, and that we waged a greater power than any of these evil Saudi-British financial/imperial system, and that power has to be unleashed within the population. And once again, it can and must be unleashed: It has to be unleashed within the population and that has to be unleashed within Congress, as well.
And what happened, wasn’t just a coincidence of events with the passage of JASTA and the defeat of Obama: That was a decisive defeat of Obama and this British Imperial system, of the Saudi system and despite anything that they tried to lay upon the families of 9/11 and the population; it wasn’t going to work.
And the same actions now are required for the passage of Glass-Steagall. We can’t say, “well, Wall Street is a lot more powerful and we can’t survive without Wall Street, and so we have to just make some kind of compromise.” There can be no compromises, and that’s why what I developed in the beginning of the discussion, just in terms of this higher conception of the fight that we’re in the midst of right now, and what we have the potential to unleash, in bringing justice, not just by sending a few bankers to jail, but bringing down this system of evil once and for all, is what our goal has to be.
Q: Hi Kesha. Alvin here, there appear to be three things that the future President has laid out that represent — you can see why the British in particular would be completely freaked out. Lyn has spent his lifetime in looking to defeat and crush, and we may be on the verge of doing that now, even though Trump clearly needs an awful lot of help doing that. When you take, for example, Glass-Steagall, without say, the interview with Paul Gallagher on exactly what real financing would require, how that would work in a Hamiltonian style, which the Republicans and Trump are completely lost on. So there’s the idea, again, you’re saying of a mere law won’t do it. You have to understand and go deeper and really think big.
Of course, the avoidance of World War III with Russia, and referring to Russia as a future partner, is again a step in the right direction for us, and a sense of relief, but of course, for the British concern to attack terrorism means that we’re not anywhere near through with 9/11 and bringing that out; so you have the second element.
And the third one is his stance on exposing climate change as a hoax. Even though again, the science that he’s using and I don’t know how he comes up with this Chinese stuff, but then we have the work going in the Basement. You know, he says that China’s responsible — he stated this publicly. But that I think is easily correctable, too, when you look at what’s taking place with the team in the Basement.
Now, Lyn has been locked out, not of the institution of the Presidency, but of the office of the Presidency for the past 16 years, and since no President has listened to him, we stand where we are. I listened to an interview of Lyn by someone by the name of Roger Stone last week, who has some association or affiliation with the Trump operation. [https://larouchepac.com/20161121/lyndon-larouche-radio-interview -roger-stone] And it was a very respectful interview, he acknowledge Lyn on many levels, and so apparently on some level now, the future President of the United States is in some way listening to LaRouche. And I thought that that was the most significant development of the week, from my end.
And so, we have these three key things that would bring down everything and give us an opportunity to change the world, save humanity; Lyn is at least in his doing what he’s doing, is having some effect on that process, with still many things that we just don’t know is going to happen. So my question is, with these things, how much closer are we now, then, with now, Mr. LaRouche having some contact with the future President, to bringing down this current President before he can do any more harm? And what do we need to do to accelerate that process, and not wait?
ROGERS: That is the key. That you really have, as Mr. LaRouche defined just recently, look at the evil and the destruction that has been foisted on our population and society, under the regimes of the Bush families, George Bush, Sr., George Bush, Jr., and the Bush-adopted Obama, and realize that that system has to be brought to an end. That evil, Obama and what he has represented as the destruction of this nation, has to be ended now; what the Bushes have represented.
And that you have to look at this from the standpoint of how that has played a critical role in destroying the potential of leadership that Mr. LaRouche has represented in the United States, and it was done intentionally; that it wasn’t that the politicians weren’t listening to Lyndon LaRouche. It was the fact that going back to Lyn’s role in terms of where we could have been in a transformation of the planet that could have already been set into motion: 1) right after his economic forecast and his warning about the incoming Nixon administration and what Richard Nixon was going to do, what LaRouche warned about prior to 1971, of destroying everything that President Franklin Roosevelt in terms of global relations, had set into motion. It has been an ongoing fight of this imperial force, not just represented by these two presidents, but going back even further, after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the bringing in of President Nixon and his policies to defy what Roosevelt had sent into motion and what Kennedy had in essence set into motion.
And that you now have a new development of international relations which must be brought into formation, and this has been Mr. LaRouche’s approach. But what happened? He was imprisoned, he was railroaded, he was actually put out of the limelight under the policies of the Bush regime.
I think that that has to be looked at right now: That we can now bring this evil and imperial system to an end, that now we have a global alliance under way. And that really, Mr. Trump’s actions are going to have to occur within the context of that reality: That LaRouche’s policies are now dominating the planet. That the imperial forces of the Bush-British Imperial regime, Obama, that they have failed. They can’t win. But they have to be ended now, and so the policy has to be that LaRouche has to be recognized as the sole leader in this fight. And it would be very wise of the next Presidency to look at how the empire acts to shut down anything which is good; so if President Trump is going to do anything which is good, he has to be willing to take that on in a series way and cannot compromise, with Obama, or with this entire system.
That’s where I will leave those comments.
Q: Hi, Michelle, Manhattan/New Jersey. I’ve been going out as much as I can in the last few weeks, to the streets of mankind with LaRouche PAC organizing teams, to present our ideas, LaRouche’s ideas, on where to move from here. Because there’s a tremendous moment of opportunity with what happened in the election. I think you just went through this pretty clearly. And we’re definitely getting an openness of mind from a lot of people, to the end of the 16 year tyranny of Bush-Obama, the era of wars, the era of a collapsing economy, bailouts of Wall Street.
And at this moment, we are still uniquely the voice in the United States presenting the necessarily grand scale of solutions that are needed. You take China building 12,000 miles of high-speed rail in the last 10 years, and the New York Times is so bold as to publish on their front page a proposal for a 240 mile line from Dallas to Houston!
So we’re getting a lot of openness from the population, as far as I see. I have friends in Boston who’ve reported similarly; people who — you know, “what’s next?” Bernie supporters, who voted for Trump, or Bernie supporters who voted for Hillary but what to know what we have to say. Or people from the various walks of life.
But you also have from some in the population a certain fear or anxiety over what will happen next, because they don’t know, or they’re just confused. And I think an important aspect of how we’re intervening into that, is just to think about, how do you address fear and anxiety? You don’t do it by scaring people further, or by delving into ugliness. Or trying to recount the votes from an election a couple of weeks ago. You do it, by presenting the solutions and also presenting a more beautiful idea of mankind.
And you went through this a few minutes ago, but in September, just as we presented Mozart’s Requiem through the New York City Metropolitan area, as a means of inspiring a justice, a Living Memorial for 9/11, three weeks from today, we’re going to present a concert in Brooklyn, we’re going to present Wachet Auf! — thank you Bach — which means “Wake up!” I think an appropriate theme for the United States right now; and also African American Spirituals, which are a very important part of American culture that I think could bring people together around a positive sense of identity. And then also, Handel’s Messiah, which has the theme, among other texts that it draws from, the idea of “good will towards men.”
And it’s certainly the case that people who’ve sung in our choruses, as well as people who listened, can detect a different approach that we take. It’s the same music, but when we go out and we’re going to present the idea of “good will towards men,” we’re going to present it from the standpoint that we actually mean it. And that it’s not one group or another, but a good will towards mankind.
So I know that you guys have had recent music events down in Houston; I thought you might have some thoughts on the importance of beauty and culture towards making this shift towards the United States and for mankind.
ROGERS: Yeah. That’s great. It’s absolutely imperative. Many people, just in terms of thinking about the role of the incoming President, as you said, there’s lots of confusion or fear, concern, upset. And one of the things that I was thinking about is this powerful transformation that took place with the speech that was almost of a Lincolnesque quality of the newly President-elect Trump, for the Thanksgiving message that he gave. And he says, and I’m going to quote this and then say something about it: He says, “It is my prayer that on this Thanksgiving, we begin to heal our divisions and move forward as a country, strengthened by shared purpose and a very, very common resolve.” He says, “We have before us the chance now to make history together, to bring real change to Washington, real safety to our cities, and real prosperity to our communities, including our inner cities, so important to me and important to our country.”
And while that’s a nice message, it’s not enough. How are you actually going to realize that? First of all, we have been immersed in a culture of just purse ugliness, and division and evil, and that’s been coming on with the last 16 years of Bush-Cheney policy, with the war drive, the lies, the continued droning attacks, everything that has set this nation back. And I would say that even in this midst of this election campaign, that evil or destructive conception, really played a role.
But what is it going to take to realize an end to this divisiveness and bringing forth a new direction for the nation, which is needed? And it’s exactly what you just said. We have to inspire the world with beauty. We have to inspire with Classical music, and we’re doing that across the planet.
What happened in September with the role that we played in bringing about something which is completely profound to the population, of this nation and the world, with the Mozart’s Requiem concerts, is absolutely what is required right now to free the nation from this degeneracy; which we’ve seen, which has impacted our Presidency, which has impacted our policy in the nation. And to actually uplift the population to a higher standard, and that’s what we’re doing with this music work, with the presenting of music out in the community. And we’ve got to do more of it.
We’ve recently here done a number of events, going to community centers, and other events; and we also had an event, as you guys did there, three days after the election, in celebration of the birth of Friedrich Schiller. And the people who participated in this were from all different backgrounds and walks of life. They were Hispanic, Black, Asian, everything. And they were not addressing each other based on differences, but we were all brought together — it was amazing, because there were a couple of Chinese, Asians there who didn’t really speak English, but they were profoundly moved by the African-American Spirituals; they were bouncing in their seats, and very happy. And it touched them in a way that was human.
And that’s what we have to do with this music. We have to get to the deeper, the inner core of humanity of each and every individual, in a way that they really have not been given the opportunity to participate in.
So, I think that’s good what you guys are doing. Keep it up.
SPEED: Before we go to the next question, Diane’s going say something here.
ROGERS: Oh, great!
DIANE SARE: Just a couple things, because I think this goes together very well with the question that Ian asked at the beginning, which in a sense is a question of justice. And justice and revenge are not the same thing, as I hope everyone knows. Because we are in a moment of great opportunity and the window of opportunity is going to close. There’s a timetable to get certain things done, because decisions are going to be made, and it will be a decision in the right direction or a decision in the wrong direction. And once that decision is made, reversing it is much more difficult than perhaps getting the decision made when you had the moment of opportunity, which I think we have right now in this transition period.
So I was thinking about what our friend, Daisuke Kotegawa, the Japanese banker said in this interview did that Mike Billington did with him on the LaRouche PAC website. [https://larouchepac.com/20161010/bankers-who-should-have-gone- jail-are-wrecking-economy-again] Because he said, you know, when I was in banking and the Japanese banks kind of exploded with a similar bubble, and we had to unwind them, a whole bunch of my colleagues went to jail; and some of them committed suicide. And he said, I thought that was really harsh at the time; I didn’t think it was necessary to send these people to prison. But now, when I look back at it, I see that it was necessary that some people go to prison because you had to restore the confidence, that certain kinds of behavior would no longer be tolerated.
In other words you don’t want to inflict, as we say in our Constitution, “cruel and unusual punishment.” You don’t do that. But you want to take someone out of the way where they can impose similar policies. If you think of what we’ve had with the drone killings, or what in my mind the thing that made Hillary Clinton the most unelectable, was her gloating over the absolutely brutal murder of Muammar Qaddafi while he was in custody; that anyone who could gloat over such a thing is clearly missing some connection to humanity. But that wasn’t — Hillary in a sense corrupted herself, because she sold herself out to Obama and the British Empire. But what is the nature of the evil that would perpetrate such a crime? And who were these people who are bringing Ezekiel Emanuel, who is the murderous architect of Obamacare, who says that if you’re over 45 years of age, it’s probably not worth saving you because your quality of life is not as great; or Barney Frank, who’s been brought back?
Well, so then the question is, how do you invoke a certain quality of passion? Because what’s happened in our nation over the last 50 years is that human beings have been very degraded by a series of attacks on us, and attacks on our free will. As Schiller says in “The Sublime,” there’s nothing worse for a human being than to suffer violence. Because violence annuls what it is that makes you human. That is, that we have will, we are not forced to do anything, you can be hungry and decide not to eat; you can be tired and decide not to go to sleep; in other words, human beings are not animals and we don’t have to be subject to so-called animal urges.
And therefore, to impose through brute force, on a human being a mode of behavior, then you are attacking exactly what makes them human. And I think that is one of the most evil things that can be done.
So the question is how do we develop a conscience where, when you are confronted with that kind of evil, instead of having it just go by and you act like it’s normal, you have the inner strength to say, “this is absolutely inhuman, intolerable, should never be done to a human being, and no human being should participate in this.” And that I think is the profound question of music, and Michelle, you yourself know this from the work with some of the young people, with children in schools who may not have ever had the opportunity to hear Bach; but if they were given the choice between Bach and Lady Gaga — she does music, right? Or so-called? Rock or something? I don’t know what she does except run around in bizarre uniforms or outfits — anyway, she does something that makes some kind of noise.
If a child had a choice between these two things, the child would choose Bach! Because the child has a natural inclination to participate in those things which are human and those things which are beautiful. Like the solfège class when you find yourself trying to move out of a particular domain, or you can use the terminology “key,” but into someplace which is not necessarily directly related to it, you find that to be a challenge. It’s outside of where you thought you were.
So at any rate, these things are critical; and music is way, without even so-called verbal language, in which people can be reminded of this identity and I think we urgently have to do this as much as possible in this moment. Because Schiller also talked about the French Revolution, where he said, “you had a great moment, you had a moment of potential, but the population was too small; they didn’t demand greatness,” and I don’t mean greatness like a bunch of egomaniacs. But greatness in terms of what it actually means to be a human being, and to have a mastery of the universe.
And the last thing I’ll just say, which Kesha referenced at the beginning, the question from Kennedy, about “Ask not what your nation can do for you, but what you can do for your nation”—and what your nation, you as a citizen of your nation can do for mankind. That is, what makes us immortal, and fully human, is what we contribute so that future generations are better people than we are. And that you know that even though each one of us is not going to be here, mankind as a whole is going to be a much better species than it is today.
I’m saying all these things which have a certain challenge, the kind of challenge that Kesha raised about LaRouche’s thinking about the necessity of the space program, the necessity of man’s identity, the deep questions, because we have to begin to live these ideas, and express them in our interaction with the population as a whole, so that we can get a profound change in the United States, in the direction of policy in a very short time. And that is part of the challenge and that’s why I think these concerts coming up here in Manhattan; Mr. LaRouche said emphatically that John Sigerson, who I see sitting there, should get into Washington, D.C., because obviously there is a need for a certain kind of shift in identity of the population and the leaders of the population in this moment.
Q: My name is J. and I have a question more about space exploration. Since John F. Kennedy said we were going to the Moon, it took hundreds of men and millions of dollars to get two people onto the Moon and back. And since Apollo 17, space exploration has kind of faded from America’s view. And with people such a Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos putting their backs into these companies such as SpaceX, what do you think of the entire idea of space exploration coming out of NASA’s hands and becoming more of a privatized goal?
ROGERS: Good question: It absolutely should not, must not, and cannot happen. And it really gets to the question of what is the nature of the reason we explore space? Is it because we want to have a tourist attraction? We want to have a profit, more money, more benefits for the rich? That we want to go there and say, because “we did it”?
It was interesting, space has now become an “experience.” I was at an event recently, and you have this insane thing by — and it’s really unfortunate how degenerate and backwards our culture has become; even within the scientific community. Because Buzz Aldrin, who was a hero to many, because he landed on the Moon with the Apollo Mission, is now saying, “Oh! Been there, done that. It’s now all about the rocket experience.” [laughs] And he said, “You now have to be part of the rocket experience.” You’ve got to be part of the “rocket experience.” Oh, what does it matter how long it takes you to get to Mars? What does it matter, if we’re only going to go to Mars, to land people on Mars and leave them there?
But what’s your identity, your conception of mankind? Your protection of a true purpose of mankind? That’s why we go into space, because we have to actually do what Krafft Ehricke said, and developing the “seventh continent” of the world, developing the Solar System as a whole, that is our unique purpose, as a species. It’s not so rich people can go and make a profit, and we can cut the budget and cut NASA to a small, mediocre means. But NASA, space development, space exploration has to be the driving force of the development of the creative potential of mankind: It has to be the driving force at least in scientific and economic platforms. We only touched upon that, with the Apollo Mission, with the vision and purpose set forth by President John F. Kennedy. And some people say that Kennedy’s intention was just solely to send a man to the Moon, land him and return him safely to Earth. That is not true!
And look at the impact, economically, scientifically, that we had when we put space as a national priority and a national mission: That’s what it has to continue to be! And anybody who is trying to put it into the hands of some “limits to growth” budget-cutting, “if they survive all the good for them, if they don’t oh well, at least they had the ‘experience.'” That’s completely inhumane!
And so, I think that going back to the point that Diane just made, this is why we’re talking about, we have to have a higher conception of the being and nature of mankind. And the beauty around that is the discovery of space is really making music, in the same way, is really advancing this creative potential, and discovery of a true Classical identity of our human nature.
So, I do not agree at all, that we need to turn our space program over to a solely commercial, privatized entity; that it has to be a national mission and that national mission has to be restored and it has to be restored with a new conception of how we are going to develop space in ways it has never been developed before.
Q: This is R. Do you believe the Trump administration will increase funding to NASA?
ROGERS: Do I believe? I don’t know. There are indications right now that he intends to increase the funding to NASA. But I think that is a priority that we have to demand, as I just said. NASA is not some kind of a side issue: It has to be a national priority and a national mission. And increasing funding to NASA is absolutely more important than continuing to increase the funding to Wall Street bailouts.
Q: Hi John Sigerson with the Schiller Institute. I have a suggestion, and then a question. The question is the following. Is that one of the worst travesties, one of the most genocidal travesties of justice that’s been done in the United States over the past 50 years has been the jailing of Lyndon LaRouche! And at the time, when he was let out, we had a campaign to exonerate him, to pardon him and exonerate him.
Every single President, since his jailing, has refused to do that. Of course, Clinton was cowed into refusing to do it. Instead he pardoned a bunch of speculators. Bush certainly wouldn’t do it, and certainly Obama wasn’t going to do it. I think now we should ask Mr. Trump to exonerate finally Lyndon LaRouche, and have some justice in the United States, for once. So that’s my first suggestion.
The second question has to do with a discussion that recently Mr. LaRouche had with members of his “Basement” Science Research Team, who were struggling with how to further deepen our understanding of the genius of Albert Einstein. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this discussion, but it was quite fascinating, and very challenging, because he was pointing out that none of these — that we should not be focussed on any of the specific breakthroughs that are usually cited as what Einstein represented, but rather a fundamental discovery which he talked about, he described as the “extension of radiation”; something which I don’t really quite understand, but I think is very useful for us to work on.
But he also pointed out that Einstein’s discoveries in this field were preliminary, and we don’t really even know what the extent of this extension is. And he said that what we desperately require, are a few geniuses to be able to figure this out.
And my question to you — and this brings to mind an old article which we put out in I think The Campaigner, when we were publishing The Campaigner magazine, which was done by a collaborator of LaRouche at the time, and is called “Genius Can Be Taught.” I don’t know whether Lyndon LaRouche really agreed with that at the time, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by teaching.
But what I’d like to ask you, because I’ve seen flashes of genius from you; I’ve experience certain flashes of genius I think in myself. But if you could possibly give an insight, because this is a subjective question not an objective one, is your insights into what this thing called “genius” actually is?
ROGERS: Wow! OK. That’s important. Let me try to address that, I think it’s that first of all, all of us who are here right now, who joined or became associated with the LaRouche movement and the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, saw a quality within Mr. LaRouche which was completely profound and which challenged the identity of each and every one of us: that we have a unique responsibility to rise up to a level of our existence, of understanding of who we are as a human species, that is really not conveyed in any way in this culture that we live in. And most of the people, most of the members of this organization, or the people who come into association with Mr. LaRouche, find themselves at a moment where you really have to take up this Schillerian conception of mankind: What identifies the dignity of man?
And I was thinking about, I’m really profoundly inspired by the role of music that has really shaped my identity, and really allowed me to be able to make the types of decisions to provide the type of leadership and to really overcome fears. Because one thing about genius, is you cannot be afraid to address problems. You can’t be afraid to actually go out and discover something that’s new, something that you don’t understand. And this has been a very interesting challenge about my taking up the role and responsibility in the fight for our space program.
Because it doesn’t start with some kind of superficial scientific understanding that “I know everything about space. You know, I don’t! I’m not an aeronautical engineer, and from the standpoint of how people define the responsibility of what it takes to actually be a leader in this domain is very superficial. And it really has been the work in music that has had a profound on unleashing that understanding of creative potential that can be defined.
And I think that, you know, the power of why Mr. LaRouche empathizes with Einstein; I will not try at all to say that I understand exactly what Mr. LaRouche is developing on the purpose by which we must master Einstein’s discoveries, except for understanding Einstein in his totality. What he was as a complete being, and how that impacted the world around him. And we have to see ourselves from that standpoint. That genius is something that can be really born inside you, can be mustered inside you. And it reminds me of the The Artists of Friedrich Schiller, and Friedrich Schiller saying: “The dignity of man into your hands is given.
“Its keeper be!
“It sinks with you, with you it will be risen.”
That’s the fight right now. That it is this question of preserving and protecting and uplifting the dignity of all mankind that requires you, what is absolutely necessary and what it required of us, and to bring about the understanding which is required of us to bring that into existence.
And so, I think that’s it. I think that overcoming your fears and doing that by knowing who you really are, and taking on that identity. As Mr. LaRouche has really inspired us to do.
Q: I want to ask a basic question. I want to ask, what takes should we take to assist in the establishment of the downfall of Wall Street, and the changes necessary for the awakening in our society?
You know, I didn’t get to hear your entire speech, but when I came in, I would like to know exactly — speaking to us as individuals, even though we’re working together, let’s say, my part, or another person may come with their part. What would be our objective, working collectively as a group, or even individually, what would be necessary to bring about this downfall?
ROGERS: Very good. Well, we have to identify a common mission. Which is, first of all, Mr. LaRouche has laid out very concrete solutions and ideas that must be taken up and enacted by everyone possible.
You know, people have their different concerns, what’s important to them, their different types of interests, in terms of what they think they want to deal with. But you have to think about addressing these concerns on a more profound and higher level. And the first is, when Mr. LaRouche called for the enactment of his Four Laws, to save the United States, as not an option but as an absolute necessity, this is the first priority that every single citizen of this nation has to demand be brought into action: That we have to have the overthrow, the bringing down of this system of degeneracy, of Wall Street control over our government, now! If you’re going to deal with anything else, you’re going to deal with the drug epidemic, you’re going to deal with poverty, you’re going to deal with all of these other concerns and issues that confront us, you have to take it on from the highest possible standpoint, and LaRouche has defined that. That’s why he starts from the standpoint that his Four Laws, which are, immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall banking reorganization; shutting down the Wall Street bailouts; the enactment of a National Bank; of public credit for investment in leaps in our economic platform; and for a fusion science-driver crash program.
Those are not just to be looked at as step-by-step piecemeal actions. They are a unified action that has to be taken as a one, and really have to start with this conception of the fight for the human identity, for the human creative process.
So Wall Street, can and must be brought down; all the mechanisms for doing so are there, the question is, people just have to come together, overcome their fears and realize that this apparatus is not all powerful.
Q: [follow-up] I understand, now the thing is that, from my understanding, and from experience and years of doing different things, ministry and things of that nature, business, whatever the case may be. It’s not easy to bring people together all of the time, honestly. But what I’m asking you, is like, let’s say you’re speaking to me as an individual, what would I do, in my part, to help in this?
You got to talk to people as an individual. Because sometimes, people come together, sometimes they don’t. Nobody has control over that. But what I’m saying, is let’s say, you’re speaking to me directly as an individual, what would I specifically do, in order to be able to help in the process of what’s taking place?
ROGERS: Well, I’m speaking to you as an individual now, that you have to actually master these conceptions. You have to go to Congress with us. If you haven’t already signed up, to go to Washington, D.C., on this coming Wednesday, you should be there with us.
Because that’s the funny thing is, I’m speaking to you as an individual, but I’m speaking to you as an individual with responsibility. Because you know, a lot of people will say, “I can understand this, but you know, my friends, they’re not going to get it; my family they’re not going to get it.” And that’s not acceptable. At this moment confronting mankind, confronting our nation, everyone has to get it! They have to come together. They have to realize what the threat is against them right now, against their very being, and they can’t just say, “well, I don’t have time for that.”
So, I’m speaking to you as an individual with a big responsibility. And you can start by joining our team there going to Washington, D.C. and mastering these ideas, and challenging Congress to take actual immediately.
Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
SPEED: “Ask not what your universe can do for you. Ask what you can do for your universe.” [laughter]
Q: Hi, Kesha, this is T.H. from New Jersey. I just wanted to bring up this more recent thing where Trump had this interview with the New York Times. And it wasn’t anything — there was some interesting stuff, but I would just like to point out one thing that he did refer to wind energy as essentially a worthless form of energy, which was useful, for him. But I think in terms of what he thinks about fusion, there’s no concept necessarily what fusion is, maybe from Trump. It may be around more basic things.
But I was just thinking here, in terms of “ask what you can do for your universe” is an interesting way of thinking of it. Because I know LaRouche he often brings up Einstein, as the example for mankind. And when people look at Einstein, they often see a figure you can’t really come up to. Like in your own life, you often feel like he’s out of touch with your own life, because of the amount that he did. But I think that’s the point. Because you realize your potential, when you have to compare yourself to somebody else, somebody great like that.
So, I’d just like to see what you have to say, just in terms of higher forms of energy, higher forms of potential energy and the humans’ ability to reach those things?
ROGERS: Hmm. I think what we’ve been doing with the work in our Basement, the LaRouche science research team, our Basement team, is absolutely critical. And it’s absolutely critical to address this from a standpoint of why did LaRouche start these investigations? Why did he start the development of these science and research teams, in the way that he did? Because the standard, right now, within our society, just does not add up. The standard of real creative output, the standard of understanding the necessary leaps in platforms of creative and economic progress does not add up, because people don’t think about it from that standpoint: That it really has to be addressed, what it is that is required to bring about this shift, to get us to the levels of energy-density which is going to actually be part of the development of mankind as a whole.
What we’re talking about here, is not just in terms of platforms in energy-density of going from a wood-burning to a coal, to a fission and fusion based economy, and that these things kind of “happen” as a succession on a small scale. But what you’re talking about is LaRouche’s understanding of economics from the standpoint of the increases in physical universal principles; and he really talks about this a lot. And everything that he starts from, from the standpoint of the challenge that he gives to his organization, and to the nation, to his science team, I mean, most scientists throughout the country are not working on the level of profound ideas and the understanding of the mastery of new physical universal principles in the universe, in the way that LaRouche is calling for. It’s very superficial if you will. And so I think that has to be clearly understood.
And yeah, we got a lot of work to do, because I don’t think that most of the people that would be hired to take the policy for science, for space, even come to that level. And that’s why what we’re doing is so important: We have to intervene in shaping the policies of the institution of the Presidency, and what we’re doing with the development in the science work
, and what Ben [deniston] laid out yesterday , is absolutely imperative for any administration to take up, in a serious way.
SPEED: I think that’s going to conclude our questions. Well, you may have some things to say to us at the conclusion now, Kesha.
I was just thinking about these last exchanges. The only form of intelligent life we know exists in the universe, is here. Now, if the atheists are right, and there is no God, then, so far as we know, we’re the only shot the universe has for self-development, and we were generated by it, so now, that means the universe is really in trouble if that’s the case.
And if they’re wrong, and there is a God, then we’re all in a lot of trouble! Because I don’t think He’s going to be too pleased by what’s going on, either.
The thing I think to think about is, do you want to leave, in either case, what we’ve got to do, up to the people, whatever they are, whoever they are, on the planet. You have a few people; you’ve seen Vladimir Putin, we something in China, we something in a few other places. But where is the development and the change that is for the universe going to come from? Without thinking about it, how is it possible, that can in fact, happen?
And what’s more important, is that since LaRouche has made it clear that, for him, physical economy and these matters are identical. So, I think we’ve had a very valuable discussion, and I just wanted, Kesha if you wanted to close out, tell us if you have any summary remarks at this point.
ROGERS: No. I think that we really just have a unique opportunity before us right now, and that every single one of us, has a responsibility, as we never had imagined before. But I think Mrs. LaRouche said it very clearly in discussion we had with her, that you see the rapid development of events happening in the world, and it is a very beautiful opportunity before us. But it’s also, at the same time not a time to be lax, or a time to be complacent, or a time to just kind of sit back on our laurels, shall we say. We have to take these ideas, and really master them; we have to have a new conception of our identity and our purpose within this nation, within this universe; and that we have to fight for that, for every single citizen in this country.
And as Diane said, this fight really starts with the understanding that you’re really doing this, and you’re acting not for yourself, or not for the immediate period; you’re acting for those generations to come after us, for them to actually have an opportunity to participate in a better world. And you know, as Kennedy said: Ask what we can do together for the freedom of all mankind. And we have to make sure that our children, and our grandchildren’s generations have the opportunity to participate in a true freedom of mankind.
And I will just end lastly by saying, we can bring about that freedom by bringing them an experience of a beauty, that really has to touch the inner core of their human identity, that they’re not going to get with the degeneracy of the culture we live in right now. The cultural intervention is absolutely imperative. The music, and the participation in the profound beauty of music in the way that LaRouche has really inspired us to take up, is extremely important. And I am looking forward to John Sigerson and Diane starting this chorus in Washington, D.C., for starting a music program on Capitol Hill, and we should get ready for that, because they definitely need it! And I’ll be there!
SPEED: [laughter] All right, we want to thank you very much for being with us today, Kesha!