Diane Sare is the featured speaker during this week’s Manhattan Town Hall meeting.
DIANE SARE: Good afternoon. I’m Diane Sare, for anyone who doesn’t know that, of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee; Dennis Speed is en route. I thought we should get started.
We are at a very interesting place in human history. It is certainly a place where none of us has ever been before. I guess on the one hand, you could say that we’re always at a place where we’ve never been before; but these places can be more or less dramatic. I can’t help but start with this very hilarious article that I saw in the Washington Post today, which says — the title is “The Post-Truth World of the Trump Administration Is Scarier Than You Think; the President-elect’s Inner Circle Is Now Utterly Dismissing the Existence of Facts.” Now exactly what is a fact? Which Mr. LaRouche has had a lot to say about; how relevant is a so-called “fact”, and who determines what a fact it? I think these are all questions which are well worth debating. For people who have not seen this week’s Hamiltonian, I have one of the two articles on the front page takes up this question. As Dennis said a few weeks ago, the thing that enraged the mainstream media as well as the Hillary Clinton supporters perhaps more than anything, was not the defeat of Hillary Clinton per se; but the fact that they were also completely wrong and clueless about what occurred. They are obviously still completely clueless about it, which is part of the challenge we face here in organizing.
So, what I wanted to do is just situate where we are; because the minute that Mr. LaRouche heard that Trump had won the election, I was on a conference call that the Policy Committee had with him on Wednesday morning, and he said this is not a local issue. In other words, what happened in the election was not because of something occurring domestically; but was the result of an international — you could even say inter-galactic — process where there is a kind of revolution among mankind right now which is a rejection of really centuries of politics being determined by globalism, or balance of power — as Henry Kissinger put it — of relations among so-called nations as being primary; as opposed to having a greater mission for mankind. And we are really entering an era where we can actually begin to think of having a mission for mankind, as opposed to a mission defined by these previous infantile parameters. So, just in the last days, as everyone knows, two of the first phone calls that Trump received were from President Vladimir Putin of Russia and from President Xi Jinping of China. I know the Chinese press coverage of that conversation was that it was diplomatically flawless; which I think is really a breath of fresh air compared to what President Obama has done to antagonize virtually everybody on the planet, even our so-called allies. The only person still trying to stand with Obama is German Chancellor Angela Merkel; and here we were spying on her, and it really is quite incredible.
So, in the last week, you have two further points of development coming from Russia and China. One is President Putin’s State of the Union address; where he stressed “Russia is also ready to work with the new US administration. Cooperation between Russia and the United States in addressing global and regional issues, will benefit the whole world. We have a shared responsibility to ensure international security and stability. We do not want confrontation with anyone; we have no need for it. We do not seek, and never have sought, enemies. We need friends, but we will not allow our interests to be infringed upon or ignored.” This thing that he said — and I don’t know what it sounds like in Russian — but “We do not seek, and have never sought, enemies” really echoes of what John Quincy Adams said. We’re not seeking monsters to destroy overseas. Putin also explicitly referenced, as Renée Sigerson mentions in her article on the Park Theatre and Hamilton in Russia also in this week’s Hamiltonian, is that Putin referenced the 210th anniversary of diplomatic relations being established between the United States and Russia. John Quincy Adams was our [first Russian] ambassador, so I don’t think it might be off the mark that he would deliberately be quoting John Quincy Adams, which is very interesting to think about. Then, he said more, very truthful on the situation of health care in Russia, that while there’s been a certain improvement and infant mortality is falling; they have not done what he wants in terms of primary care and they want to address this.
You can’t even imagine President Barack Obama saying anything like that. Obama told the London Economist in an op-ed or article that he wrote, that he has actually organized the greatest economic recovery ever in modern history; so he would never admit that there was anything that could be improved upon or wanting in his policies.
The other thing Putin said which I think is extraordinarily important and gets at this question of thinking about where we’re going in terms of the future. He spoke a great deal about education; and he said “Our schools must promote creativity. The children must learn to think independently; work both on their own and as part of a team.” I have to say, I was at this discussion a few years ago, about Common Core curriculum; and they had a school teacher there who had quit teaching so he could campaign against Common Core. He described what they set as tests for even five-year olds, which are all designed so the children can fail; so you can put them on drugs and fire the teachers. But at any rate, they say “We don’t want fiction; no more fiction. What you want is for the child to read an informational text in a group.” So, in other words, the definition of what you want a child to do is read the instruction manual for how to operate their iPhone and to be able to do this in a group. And they’re talking about forcing five-year olds to do such things; it’s completely disgusting. So, rather than the idea of encouraging creativity and children being able to think on their own, the intent is to destroy creativity explicitly. If someone is creative, then they are labelled as an outcast, a misfit. They will be targetted, etc. Again, this is extremely that Putin makes a point that he wants the children to learn to think independently. He says “and work on their own or as part of a team to address unusual tasks and formulate and achieve goals which will help them have an interesting and prosperous life.”
So, the purpose of education is not just to make money. What does it mean to have an interesting life? That means that you find objects of interest, whether it’s Einstein and his scientific pursuits and playing the violin, or learning about nature or science or poetry or whatever. I find that also very interesting. He says, “We must promote a culture of research and engineering work. The number of cutting edge science parks will increase to 40 within two years.” I don’t know what the Russian science parks are, but the idea of science parks for children is certainly a very interesting and exciting concept. Then he said later — which is the outlook of this — “There are several things I would like to stress. Our education system must be based on the principle that all children and teenagers are gifted and can succeed in science and creative areas and sport, in careers and in life. Our task is to help them develop their talents. So, this is really something and it also reminds me of what people who went to hear Modi speak two years ago, when he spoke in Madison Square Garden. He described the fact that India has an enormous number of young people. The number of people under the age of 35 in India is more than the number of people in the United States. And many people here would say, “Well, that’s a burden. The younger generation, they’re all screwed up. It’s a waste; they don’t have jobs. Blah, blah, blah.” And he said, “No, this is the great potential of our nation.” That’s clearly Putin’s outlook; that every single person has a talent; and the purpose of the education system is to develop that talent and allow the person to become a creative, independent thinker. So that was Putin’s State of the Union address.
Then, at the same time, you have China releasing a white paper called “The Right to Development: China’s Philosophy, Practice, and Contribution”. And the paper begins: “The right to development must be enjoyed and shared by all peoples. Realizing the right to development is the responsibility of all countries; and also the obligation of the international community.” Then, this paper goes through what’s actually occurred in China. The fact that they have lifted 7 million people out of poverty; and in China right now, only 5.7% of the population is below the poverty line. They don’t just say that’s really good and we’re doing great. They say we should have zero people living below the poverty line; that’s their intention by 2020. Then, they just looked back to 1949 in various measures like life expectancy — which was 35 years and is now over 76 years. In 1949, only 20% of school-age children were in school in China; in 2015, 99.88% of school-age children were in school. Then in terms of the GDP, in 1978 it was RMB367.9 billion; in 2015, it was RMB68,550 — so RMB68 trillion. And per capita GDP went from — if you measure it in US dollars — $200 in 1978, to $8000 [in 2015].
It reminds me — I think I mentioned this — these young people who were being interviewed, this was a documentary that China had produced going into the Hangzhou G20 conference. They interviewed this young man and he said, well I and my two brothers used to live in one room; now, we each have our own house. Imagine that kind of perspective in the United States — it’s almost unimaginable; to hear that people are happy if they can get away from their parents to go to college. And as soon as they graduate, they’re going to have to move right back in with them and work as a debt slave to pay off the tuition forever.
But the other thing which I thought was extremely significant is, they reference in the white paper not just the so-called economic or monetary factors; but they say that the other measures of their improvement are in the areas of culture, in the cultivation of the arts and music. That they are opening up libraries, public museums, and cultural centers in the most remote parts of the country. So, it is a major initiative to transform the population as a whole; and you think about what Mr. LaRouche is saying we have to do in the US is not simply Glass-Steagall or some kind of monetary this or that. He’s saying that the question is that we have to actually increase the productivity of every individual American. Increasing one’s productivity is not about what you think of in labor terms, like speed-up. I know what happened in Maine some years ago when they were shutting down the paper factories, we used to have a supporter up there who we talked to frequently; and he described how they fired about a third of the workforce and then expected everyone else to do twice what they were doing. The first year what happened is, a whole bunch of people had heart attacks and died. That is not increasing productivity; that is actually decreasing productivity. But if you think of what it means for someone to exist without electricity; imagine a farm that doesn’t have any electricity. How long can you store the milk? Can you treat the milk? Do you have to milk all the cows by hand? These kinds of questions. What does it mean when you bring electricity to that farm? It means the individual farmer can accomplish 10, 20, maybe 100 times more than that individual could do previously.
The point of that is what Hamilton understood, that by increasing the productivity then everyone else that doesn’t have to do that work anymore is now a useless eater and excess, and you’re going to have mass unemployment. But as Hamilton said, if you multiply the objects of the human mind so you have a certain kind of division of labor in your economy which is less and less based on physical labor, then you need more and more people contributing to the discoveries that will elevate the economy to the next platform. And you may need more and more people in scientific pursuits and musical pursuits. I think that is just really important, because when you get to this question later in terms of what Trump is proposing on infrastructure, Senator Schumer had some things to say about that. While Schumer’s corrections of what Trump’s people are saying — and Schumer is saying that he will work with Trump — that they want to get this $1 trillion infrastructure fund. So Schumer’s corrections of Trump are valid; nonetheless, Schumer’s thinking is also flawed and too small. People have been so conditioned to measure things in terms of money and to think of things in terms of the platform we are at; and not think about what it would mean if we were looking as if from above.
If you think about what I just said before, the question of electrification; if you don’t have electricity and you’ve never had electricity, it may not be obvious to you the benefits of having it. That was why, for example, when FDR wanted to build the Tennessee Valley Authority, he had to send teams of people down there and to go in and hold town hall meetings where they would do demonstrations for people of what an electric washing machine meant; what it meant to have electricity. You had to actually go and educate the people as to what the benefits of this new platform would be. As Mrs. LaRouche was saying the other day on a phone call, she said, “When they first came up with trains that would go 30 kilometers an hour, everyone said ‘Oh! You can’t go 30 kilometers an hour, your organs will turn into mush!” That’s like 20 miles an hour, so today we can laugh at it, but in those days there was “Oh! We can’t do this!”
I just wanted to say these things, and I will tell you this little thing about Schumer, because I think that this is important. But I tell you these things from China and Russia, and then if you think about what’s happening; they’re having a referendum in Italy tomorrow on whether or not they’re changing their constitution. I know one aspect of it is that Parliament will no longer be able to declare war; it will all be in the hands of the prime minister or president. Anyway, it’s very problematic. What is driving these things, is that you have a total bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic system; it’s over. The world is largely moving in a very positive direction. Look at South America. You had Dilma Rousseff removed in a set-up impeachment; a coup. You had Cristina Kirchner in Argentina who could not run for a third term; the guy who replaced her is a total Wall Street stooge. They’re trying to put [kirchner] in jail; they put the guy who was running the nuclear power program — he’s now in prison for 23 years. In spite of all of that, Xi Jinping spent a week in South America; they’re going to build a transcontinental railroad. The new director of the nuclear program in Brazil is going to start up their nuclear power plant. In other words, in spite of the things that look like they might have stopped this progress, it actually has not been stopped. The populations of Europe and the rest of the world in election after election are rejecting the idea that Russia and China are the enemies and that we should not be working with these nations. You have a movement very much for something different.
On this question of what Schumer said, which is interesting; he said that he hoped to strike a deal with President-elect Trump on the $1 trillion national investment in new infrastructure that Trump is proposing. He said “The Democrats stand ready to work with the incoming administration to pass a major infrastructure bill with $1 trillion in real Federal funding. This can be done in the first 100 days of the new Congress.” He correctly told Trump that this should not be in the form of public-private partnerships — the idea that you’re only going to build things that will pay for themselves — because building new toll roads and toll bridges, you’re only going to build things that generate a monetary profit. That does not meet the standard of what is needed. If you want to increase the productivity of the population, on the one hand, while it would be very nice to have a new tunnel under the Hudson River, as people trying to get to this meeting today might agree. However, the tunnel under the Hudson River is much more meaningful if it is connected to the Bering Strait, and you can take a train from New York to Paris. That completely changes the dynamic of what you’re talking about, as opposed to just one little port here or one little tunnel there. However, Schumer isn’t thinking that large; he’s saying we have to widen roads and have new sewage systems. And the way we’re going to do it is have all these companies that have their money in offshore accounts; we’re going to get them to put their money into the infrastructure and give them a very low tax rate. This is all gimmickry; in other words, it’s just too low-level, it’s not going to work.
However, the fact that Schumer is saying this and saying we will work with Trump on this, is significant. The question of educating that intent really is on our shoulders; and this is why LaRouche said the nation is going to be led from Manhattan, the importance of Alexander Hamilton in Manhattan and what we’re doing here. I just want to close with two other thoughts on this. One, from the discussion we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, which I thought was very useful. I raised the question of the Federal Reserve, because as you know, if we’re talking about the US Treasury, or how are you going to issue the credit; we do have this thing called the Federal Reserve, which is an unconstitutional private agency. Many people are saying it should be banned. The question is how do you do that? LaRouche said, look, I would have no problem with this. I know how to do this; but it would take a long explanation. In other words, there are many details. You do have people like Thomas Hoenig; he was a Federal Reserve President in Oklahoma, now he’s with the FDIC. He’s calling for Glass-Steagall; he clearly knows something about banking. You clearly have some other people in the Federal Reserve who know something about this. So, if we were going to take this on today, the truth of the matter is that we are not in the identical situation that Hamilton was in — in a new country that had not yet established the institutions of government. To address this today would be complex; Mr. LaRouche’s point is that between himself and people out there who have been involved in banking who have a clue on how to do this, you could figure out the necessary means to incorporate in a way working with Treasury for this to function. To have the credit that is necessary to fund the infrastructure. But I think it’s a useful point of emphasis for all of us to not be flippant and make up spot answers. “Oh, you just do this …” Because imagine if you were the President and you were supposed to be actually carrying this out; would you know what to do? Therefore, we have to think a little bit profoundly about this; and that’s why it’s worth reading the Hamilton, but also really fighting to master what Mr. LaRouche says in the Four Laws and to know that the ultimate aim in all of this is not about increasing money. It’s not about money; it’s about humanity. It’s about creating the conditions that in future generations, the population will be much better than we are. That we would hope that people 100 years from now would be smarter than we are, more generous than we are, had more languages, were at music, were healthier, lived longer. Isn’t that what one would hope for? We’re only going to be here for so long; and only the most crazy egotistical lunatic would say, “I think I’m the best that ever was; and I think I’m the best that ever will be.” Then you have an interest in making sure everybody else is oppressed; I think that is Obama’s outlook.
So, the last thing I just wanted to say, is I was reflecting on this and reflecting on where we have to be and what we have to do; and I thought about Dante. I was thinking about his Commedia — the Divine Comedy. Besides saving or creating the Italian language, he was in a challenging time, dealing with a dark age and how you get out of it. So, he wrote this Commedia; the first book is the Inferno, which is when you’re in Hell. The second book is Purgatory; and then the conclusion is Paradiso. So, I was thinking about the problem with this; because many people read the Inferno. And it’s kind of a delightful thing to read, and you can remember all these things because the people do all these terrible things and they get these punishments. The flatterers — I forget what circle they’re in — but the flatterers are all sent to a circle where they’re all wallowing in excrement and being forced to eat it, things like that. There are people who have no commitment who are in this forever; they can’t even get down into Hell, but they’re running around in circles carrying white flags with nothing on it and their heads turned around backwards. You have all these detailed memories of the sins; the sins people commit. What happens? Purgatory is a little harder for me to remember; people have to do these long things like carrying rocks uphill at great distances and things like that. And then Paradiso — it took me forever to get through that, because in a certain way it wasn’t as interesting. What was going on in Paradiso? They were constructing experiments like the question of a candle and light. Does the size of the light or the shape of the light change at a distance? Now, what is the point of this idea is that it’s not sufficient merely to fight evil. To do the good is not passive. That is, we’re not at a certain stagnant place and then we are “good”. There is no such thing; not in human nature, not in the Universe, not in the way the Universe is constructed. The only way of doing good is that you must continually progress; and you must continually make discoveries which improve your relationship to the mind of God if you want to think that way, or to the nature of the creative principles of the Universe. That is a very challenging thing because it is not easy. You can think of President Kennedy’s words: “We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”
Therefore, I think I’ll close with that. Dennis has some things to say about various matters on where we are right now, but this is the challenge to all of us now; is that the more that we are successful, the more it will be necessary for us to do. And the more that we are challenged to think of things that we have not as yet considered.
DENNIS SPEED: I think the best thing for us to do is to try make sure we don’t lower the level of what’s already been presented. So, let’s first of all reflect on something. In four days, and prior to our next meeting, we will have the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor — December 7, 1941. I believe we have available for playing, and will play now, Franklin Roosevelt’s address to the nation on December 8, 1941. [What follows is the official transcript — krn]
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The address delivered by the President of the United States to the joint meeting of the two Houses of Congress held this day is as follows:
To the Congress of the United States:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, 1 hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to tie United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces with the unbounded determination of our people we will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 8, 1941
SPEED [resumes]: I will only call attention to the fact that the voice placement of FDR, and I don’t mean that technically, I mean the fact that he was able to speak for the entire nation and mobilize that nation, deployed as a result, the most powerful outpouring of human physical productivity in the history of the world—a two-front war, which was a just war, was initiated by the United States, and it was a collaboration between the United States and Russia, and the United States and China, and many other nations in wiping out fascism. We should note that he says in that speech that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us. We now have that form of treachery in the White House, and of course, we did have on Nov. 8, a shift in that situation, but that is nonetheless still there. The citizenry of the United States was called upon that day.
Mr. LaRouche often tells the story about his own hearing the words of Roosevelt, and the particular mission he was on that day in New York City, and how he encountered this change, that he could feel in the American people before he heard the words. So such sudden changes are not only possible, but they are the product of willful and deliberate actions that people can take.
We have here, as we usually have each week, a few people who were there that day, and who fought in that war, and have some things to say to us today. So I’d like to ask Al Korby to start us off, and we’ll go to Bill Monroe right after. [applause]
AL KORBY: It was Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, that my phone rang at 7 a.m.—it was my high school buddie Jim, who told me that Pearl Harbor had been bombed. I didn’t know anything about Pearl Harbor. It was my 17th birthday and all my thoughts were about that. Then the radio news told us where it was, and why it was bombed by Japan. Jim and I joined the Army on my 18th birthday. His had been two weeks earlier. I joined the Air Force, learning maintenance on B24s and B29 bombers, and then teaching others in various Midwest states. Then I was sent to Okinawa, which was used as a base to bomb Japan. On my way there, we heard that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been bombed with atom bombs. Our unit was sent to Tinian, the atom bombers’ base in the Marianas Islands, to hack up and ship our equipment back to the United States. All I thought about was that we had won the war, that we had defeated a vicious enemy.
I went through college; started a small business, which I enjoyed. And I avoided politics, which I thought was corrupt. Then came the Kennedy assassination, and the cover-up. That made me aware that it was an inside job that there was something even worse about our government than small corruption. I began reading all the publications outside of the main media, expecting that the truth would be found out. The years passed and I absorbed myself in my business and family life. Then in 1994 I got a phone call from Margaret Greenspan about an EIR subscription. I had heard about Lyndon LaRouche and I knew he was outside of the establishment and took a three-month subscription.
That was the beginning of my enlightenment, my search for the truth, for something that made sense. In 2001 I became an active member. I realized how long I had been naive, that I had accepted the comfortable, narrow surroundings I had been in. But now I saw that here was what I had been looking for, searching for, that my education was just beginning. I knew the feeling in my business, that when I came across something difficult that I had to work hard to accomplish, the joy of satisfaction when I had accomplished it. I hadn’t felt that for a long time, but now, I was beginning to feel that again—an awakening, and I wondered if other people could tell me that that feeling, that awakening had happened to them. I think that the answer is here, that I am surrounded by people who have experienced that joy of discovery. [applause]
BILL MONROE: Thank you. For fear that I might be slightly repetitious, I myself experienced those same devastating factors that your previous speaker spoke about. I had really considered extending my education by going to NYC, but I knew not what my destiny was.
When word reached me about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, my chief concern was, “Oh, my God, all those poor innocent people. Gone. Never to be returned.” My heart bled. To this day, I have never overcome that feeling, for the useless waste of human life.
Up until that time, to the best of my knowledge, the United States had an ongoing good relationship with Japan. I could never fully understand what caused the turnaround. Unfortunately, it happened. I can remember being onboard a ship, one that was made in the United States by Kaiser, rapidly put together. Up until that time I had never been aboard a ship, but that was a real experience. To think that I’ve seen from shipboard flying fish, whales, sharks.
I also experienced during that trip, a severe thunderstorm. Off in the distance was a dark cloud, which rapidly approached, and the rain came down real hard, — and the next thing you know, it was gone. This was my personal experience to the Pacific. I’m almost certain that the Pacific is larger than the Atlantic.
Going back, in retrospect, when I was in Europe, in the European war, I was onboard a ship for 45 days. You’d thought I was a sailor rather than a soldier. Can you imagine, being on a shipboard that length of time?
Up until this day, these things periodically flood my mind, oft time when I’m in my bed and I’m trying to go off to sleep, I have got quite a difficulty to do so. Perhaps you all don’t know it, but I suffer from PTSD. This is a result of exposure to the war. Every Friday I go to the VA to try to get help for my condition. Many times I wake up; I find all my bed clothes on the floor when I’ve thrashed around, not knowing where I was, what I was doing. These type of things, I want you all to understand, never, ever leave your mind. I won’t say they are constantly there, but they’re there very often. I’m always happy to say, at the VA where I go to, they treat me exceptionally well.
I’m classified as totally disabled. As you noticed me coming in, I’m using a walker. To me it’s almost a joke, because I’ve always been athletic. I ran track, hurdles, played football. I participated in probably just about every sport you can think of, even including things like badminton, which is almost like a girl’s sport. [laughter] And now, I find my sight is very, very bad. Every time if some of the folks leading me into this building, I would never get in here.
But I want to say this before I break off, I love everybody. I love each and every one of you. I consider you are part of my family. I joined the LaRouche movement a good number of years back. I can’t recollect when it was, but at that particular time, I got sidetracked, being a man, with women — ahem! — and I curtailed my relationship for a short length of time, until somebody like Ernie called me up and said, “Hey, Bill Monroe! What happened to you? Why did you leave us?” “I said, Ernie, thank you for the call. I guarantee, I’ll join you, in a matter of days.” And I’ve been doing that ever since.
So, God bless each and every one of you. Like I said, you’re like my family. I don’t know how much longer I’ll be above ground; I’m only 96. Thank God, I’m still in my right mind. Thank you ever so much for listening to this gentleman. God bless each and every one of you. Thank you. [applause]
ELLIOT GREENSPAN: While we’re on the subject of Pearl Harbor: First, these two veterans in the war against fascism, picked up from Lyndon LaRouche’s example and decided to join a movement against the mother of fascism. That is, we won the war against the Nazis, against the fascists, but we did not carry forward President Roosevelt’s commitment to end the empires, a postwar world of development without empires. And what Al [corby] and Bill [monroe] have done is extraordinary, in the sense of making a determination decision to join LaRouche in a world movement to crush empire. That’s the opportunity, that’s the possibility which exists now.
Now, in that context, I would ask Dennis or Diane to pick up on the following: Many things Lyndon LaRouche, who was there, of course, as he talks about often, — who was there in New York City on Dec. 7, 1941. Lyn talks about a number of things from that period, and I would emphasize two and ask of you if you can comment on this further: One is what he often calls the “Pearl Harbor effect” or the “Pearl Harbor reflex,” which is the instantaneous change he saw on that day in the hotel in midtown Manhattan and the broader process of transformation in response to, or at a moment of shock, of great crisis, of attack. We were one month ago, through a different form of shock and perhaps that conception, the Pearl Harbor reflex or effect is of relevance here.
Secondly, Lyn talks often about, he was asked the day or soon after President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, which was before V-E Day or V-J Day, while the war was not fully over. President Roosevelt died and he was replaced by President Truman and the comrades of Lyn took him aside and said, “what do you think of this and the effect of this?” and Lyn said, “what I know is a great President, a great man is being replaced by a little man.” And the fact was, what ensued in the years subsequent, is what Lyn calls the “great shrink”; Al, in talking earlier, emphasized that he wanted nothing to do with politics in the years after the war, and I think it was all too common. But it goes to this social process developed in this country which caused great damage to the nation, and to our own role, of “the great shrink.”
So just on those two things if either of you can pick up on that and can elaborate a bit.
SPEED: Well, I’ll just reference another such moment that happened in our country’s history, and that was immediately following the election of Abraham Lincoln, when seven states from the South seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated; so by the time he got into office, seven of the states were out of the Union, they said. Of course, Lincoln made a point to them, you don’t get to do that. That’s not your choice. There is a singular United States, and the states do not have a right to decide that they’re not part of it. There’s a Union which is what we represent. We are not Confederacy; we are also not a democracy. We are a republic.
In the course of his First Inaugural Address in 1861, when he concluded it, Lincoln used an idea which is not, I think dissimilar to Roosevelt’s implicit idea, which was in the [fdr] speech that you heard but not stated in this way. Lincoln said in that inaugural, and I’m quoting him here, “The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
There’s a power in what’s called “music” which is not indirect. It’s direct. You needed the voice of Roosevelt on Dec. 8th, 1941, the same voice that had said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes, needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
That’s what you have to have: You have to have a certain trumpet and it has to be a musical statement, because musical statements have a power that no other statements have. You heard it in the speech.
Kennedy did something similar in his Inaugural Address, in the famous refrain: “Ask not what your country can do for you.” Which startled everyone who heard it, when they heard it: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” And what happened was that this mobilized a whole generation, which was very young, and with his death, that generation was almost instantly demobilized, and demoralized. And unfortunately, the results of that are what you’ve seen the recent candidates for President, and the recent leadership of the United States.
So I believe that this issue of shrinkage, planned shrinkage in the case of the United States, can be addressed by the thing that we have been doing in Manhattan, in specific in the Manhattan Project with the music. I think the idea of what we’re doing with the music, is this idea: that you’re trying to have Americans find their voice again, and that the promulgation, the propagation of the idea of a generalized chorus of citizens — yes, there’s the singing performances, but the idea is of the chorus of citizens, an idea that was developed in Greece, in a similar situation, between 500 B.C. and 490 B.C. by a series of people, including Aeschylus, who developed the Greek chorus and developed Greek tragedy, in order to prepare the citizens of Athens to fight, if necessary, singlehandedly, the entire Persian Empire.
Which is actually what happened! And they won. But, as I think people know, that’s what’s on Aeschylus’s tombstone: “I fought at Marathon.” There’s no reference to the place. There’s no reference to him being a great artist. It’s “I fought at Marathon.” When did he fight at Marathon? All the time he was writing those plays. The preparation for the battle went way, way, way before. And that’s the way the Athenians created Western civilization as it’s called.
Now, yes, Plato and Socrates and others affected it to a degree, but again, in a tragic time, and in a tragic place. After all, Socrates and Plato existed at a time that Athens is being destroyed in the Peloponnesian Wars; Socrates is assassinated by the Democratic Party of Athens. Plato goes into exile. And he had Socrates strike from the grave by becoming his voice. We don’t have any writings of Socrates; we only know Socrates through the voice of Plato, giving us Socrates’ voice.
So I think that this issue of shrinkage is very related, and let’s now conclude with the obvious fact that the one clear voice in America that many of us have been very clear about for many years is Lyndon LaRouche: That people who have had the opportunity to hear Lyn speak, particularly in the period of the ’70s, and ’80s, and so forth, know what I’m speaking about: There’s a voice you heard! Which had a way of making things clear when other people were very, either confused or were uncertain.
So for me, I think this issue of thinking about how this concept, this musical concept which we already presented, — you know, we’ve done it, John’s been doing it, Diane’s been doing it, it’s been being done by the Manhattan Project: That’s what we’re doing. But making that the basis of our interventions into the Congress, into Washington, D.C., into the United Nations, for that matter, making that the basis for our so-called “politics,” that’s the think that will give us our greatest power, and our greatest success.
JOHN SIGERSON: John Sigerson here. I’d just like to add something and a thought about December 7th, in terms of the December 7th phenomenon of shock. I was just reflecting on the fact that, yes, it was a shock, but this was not just any shock. It was a well-prepared shock. I remember my grandmother who was a businesswoman in the 1930s, this was the famous family story: She traveled in Germany in 1934-35 and she came back and she told the family, “We are going to have a war.” She said, “It’s coming. There’s no doubt in my mind.” And indeed, through the late 1930s, remember, the invasion of Poland was in 1939. So it was two years of brutal warfare. Warfare was going on in China, at that point — brutal warfare.
So the war clouds were there; and indeed, what was going on in the United States was there was a brutal back and forth between the so-called Republicans and Democrats (I suppose you’d call it), about the question of whether the United States will remain a neutral country. And in terms of the runup to the attack on Japan, there was a big discussion about the fact that once Japan had joined the Axis, which it had already done, the question was, was the United States going to continue to supply raw materials, contracted and honor the contracts for raw materials which the United States was continuing to supply to Japan?
So this was all going on, and these negotiations were going on at exactly the point that this attack had occurred. So it was a well-prepared shock. And I just say that, because, again, even thinking about music, that the effect of a musical idea, also is exactly that nature of a well-prepared shock — it’s not just any shock.
Again, you can think of a poorly prepared shock, think about 9/11, where you had a confused population, a demoralized situation where the President of the United States had been completely, basically run out and tarred and feathered; and you had a weak President who came in, a stupid President who came in; and then you had this 9/11 thing. So it was a very poorly prepared shock and we got exactly a very poorly prepared response, a ridiculous response.
I just wanted to segue that, again, into the musical question is that, what our task is, on musical efforts is precisely to find the kind of well-prepared shock that creates a resonance in the population. And we’re doing this right now with performances of the greatest music that we can are able to perform. However, I know, and I think everybody else should be painfully aware — I’m sorry I’m a little bit close here; it’s the p’s. I need a pop screen here [laughter] — painfully aware that what is really required to inspire and shock our young people out of the incredible banal and superficial kinds of entertainments that they tend to fall into, is precisely to find the kinds of musical composition, in the broadest sense of musical composition — which may include drama, poetry, and all sorts of endeavors — to create that kind of resonance.
I think we need to work a lot with the Chinese on this. As you could see with the recent festivities for the G20 that the Chinese love big spectacles. Beautiful big spectacles, and boy were they spectacles! I mean, my goodness! But, is that enough? Is that enough? Is that what’s going to inspire people?
Yes, big spectacles are good. Verdi was very good at that. I mean, some of his best operas were these huge — I mean, Aida was incredible, and it had its own effect. So you can do that. But it has to be on the highest level, which is what Verdi was very concerned about.
So, we’ve got a lot of work in finding the geniuses and creating the geniuses that can produce these kinds of works, so that once again, we can say that we are going to have — we have composers, and poets, on the level of a Schiller, on the level of a Shakespeare, on the level of a Beethoven. Why are these people just in the past? Why don’t we have them today? This should be painful to everybody who’s thinking about this thing, rather than just to turn around and say, as so many people have said, “well, I could not possibly be that way. I could not possibly match the accomplishments of these people in the past.”
Again, it’s sort of similar to the situation that J.S. Bach was confronted with, where he grew up under the beginnings of the reconstruction, after the devastation of the Thirty Years’ War, and really, a kind of a little Dark Age that occurred during the 16th and 17th century, that he created an entire, new musical world. And also, it reminds me of Brahms, who is highly underestimated in this respect, because if you review the entire breadth of Brahms’s work in the last 19th century, he was bringing in Bach, he was bringing back the best of all eras in these compositions. He was not just creating a Brahmsian era. He was attempting to create something that could be built upon for future generations, which has yet really to be even exploited.
So everything that we do about music, it’s not just a question of creating beautiful pieces of music, but it’s all a question of shaping and preparing for those kinds of shocks, a real Pearl Harbor effect for our young people.
ASUKA SAITO: Hi, it’s Asuka. I would like to say something on Pearl Harbor, because I’ve been working a lot on the history of World War II, and it’s something very personal, as you know — obviously, I’m from Japan, and my grandpa’s brother died in Manchuria; my grandpa didn’t go to war, thank God, because he was an astronomer.
So I just wanted to share a story, and maybe you guys can respond: There’s a famous story, I think most people here know that at the closing of World War II, the Japanese delegation who signed the Peace Treaty, they went to the signing and they came back and reported to the Emperor of Japan that the reason why the Japanese Empire lost the war, is not because we lacked the military force, but because the United States had moral superiority.
And I just want to share this story that I recently learned, which is the guy who led Pearl Harbor, he was on the air force of Japan, interestingly, after World War II he became a Christian missionary and he toured all around the United States. And the way that happened was, — this guy’s very interesting; his name is Mitsuo Fuchida. And his life is overall pretty interesting. He went to Hiroshima right after the bombing; he investigated the whole situation and so forth.
But basically, around the close of World War II, he was tasked to investigate what was going on in the prison camps in Utah [?], where you had Japanese soldiers who had surrendered, were stationed. And mostly these people were not really treated that well, but nonetheless, he was writing a report to the Japanese government to tell them was the condition of these people; he interviewed one guy who said: We were really hungry, we were not getting any medical treatment, but one lady started to come to us every day, and gave us food, gave us medical treatment; she acted a nurse for them. She didn’t speak Japanese, but we started to be friends with her. And the lady later told these soldiers in Utah Camp that her parents were murdered by Japanese soldiers in the Philippines; her parents were Christian missionaries.
But according to the local Philippine population who were there when the parents of this lady were basically beheaded, the last words that her parents uttered were “God, please forgive them, for they know what they do.” And he described it as a shift, a sort of a Pearl Harbor for him, to change his conception of life, and from that time on, he decided to commit himself to Christianity.
And so, this is kind of interesting twist, but obviously, what we are doing right now in Syria and other places I think we are definitely underestimating this power of human agapë, and we have to definitely bring this force to the fore.
That’s my little story that I wanted to share, and if you want to say something, go ahead. [applause]
SARE: Well, it actually creates kind of a challenge, what you just said, because on the one hand, obviously, there were many atrocities that were committed by the Japanese, not the least of which was Pearl Harbor. But on the other hand, as was described earlier by Elliot, when FDR died and Truman came in then what did the United States do, but drop these two nuclear weapons on civilian populations in Japan. The soldiers were told, people who were alive at the time were told, that had these bombs not been dropped millions of people would have died, blah, blah, blah, so everyone was brainwashed to accept that committing such a hideous atrocity was necessary, when in fact, because of what General MacArthur was doing with the blockade and the negotiations going on between the Emperor of Japan and the Pope, Japan was actually preparing to surrender. And the dropping of the nuclear bombs was completely unnecessary.
So, you think about the paradox that creates, that someone would say that Japan lost because they would be morally inferior to the United States, when the United States carries out a completely immoral atrocity. And again, I would say, I think this is really why we have to always try and think from above. There is such a thing as truth: It was true that Japan carried out these crimes. It was true that the United States carried out an atrocity, but also the story you tell, exhibits a higher principle which as you said, as you said, is this question of agapë.
And I just want to say, people know — I’ve cited this before, and people may know it for themselves, because MacArthur was very clear, after the magnitude of the destruction of these bombs was seen, the speech that MacArthur gave from the USS Missouri after the surrender of Japan was that, he said, we have now seen that if we continue to rely upon war to settle disputes, Armageddon is at the doorstep. We can destroy everything. And he said, the problem is, that our leaps in science have outpaced the leaps in our spiritual development, and he called for a spiritual recrudescence if we were going to reconcile these things.
And I think in a certain sense that’s what’s posed here. I was thinking of the question of shocks, the 9/11 shock, but also in a sense the shock, although some people might see it the 9/11 but simply because they’re not in reality, is like a 1989 shock. Although we are about to have some very ugly shocks. It is the case that the trans-Atlantic financial system is completely bankrupt; it is the case that at any moment, this thing could completely unwind and disintegrate in ways that are very hard for us to imagine, unless you have certain things like Glass-Steagall in place and so on, there can be an unfathomable amount of chaos; not that it has to occur that way, but I’m just saying that in a sense it’s not quite resolved, we’re not clear.
So, we have a moment for very great potential, as we had when the Berlin Wall came down, and you had a certain elevated quality of the citizenry where the people were prepared to stand in front of tanks knowing that they could be mowed down, and people were responding to Schiller and Beethoven. But then, at that time, you had Thatcher and Bush Sr., who were opposed to the reunification of Germany, who started a series of wars; Lyndon LaRouche was prison — emphatically a major factor — and instead of that opportunity leading to the great potential that was possible, it was squandered, and we had 25-plus more years of war.
So now we’re at an even great moment of revolution which is sweeping the entire globe: What happened in our election here, it’s what happened in the Brexit vote, it’s what Duterte is doing, it’s what happened in France with the Républicains, it happened in Bulgaria, it happened in Moldova, you know, there’s a global revolt. But the question of securing it very much comes to the United States. And I think that’s the challenge for all of us here: This is not a time to be passive or complacent but to mobilize from the highest level.
SPEED: If you look at the recent, these last couple days’ revelations about the German government covering up for the fact that they knew that the United States was deploying drone aircraft out of Ramstein Air Base in Germany, and you look at the fact of who Obama really is, you begin to see the urgent necessity of the discussion we’re having today. And I think what you had to say, Asuka, was a real advance of this discussion, because you have to think about these things, how individuals have to make a choice, whether they are involved in atrocities or not. And sometime, those individual choices are actually capable of changing whole government policies.
Well, what the situation is is that according to the German codes against commission of crimes under international law, which they just signed in 2002, what’s going on from Ramstein would mean that the German government should be prosecuted, as should the Americans who are committing those crimes, at Ramstein. And that Angela Merkel, who’s been declared to be the last bastion of democracy, is not only not that, but she’s actively covering up for crimes against humanity being perpetrated on the soil of Germany, once again! Which the entire postwar period was spent, supposedly reeducating the German population to prevent.
But this is being done by the United States, forcing Germany into a collusion with a policy that they couldn’t carry out unless they were using Ramstein, because the way that it works is, the bases are in southwest Texas and various parts of the United States, they require the relay station of at Ramstein to be able to profile the targets for the drone attacks. You have to have that: That’s where they monitor the targets from, that’s where they profile them, that’s where they evaluate the targets. You don’t have Ramstein, you basically can’t do it, at least insofar as drone warfare had been being carried out until 2015. So if you were to shut that Ramstein base, you couldn’t do it.
Now, what happened was, one of the representatives from the Linke party [The Left], had a statement about this, and I just want to refer to it quickly because there’s something in the statement — the statement refers to the fact that the attacks that are going on are coming from — these drone operations are carried out in the course of the so-called “war on terror” in which suspected terrorists are targetted by drones; terrorists are targetted on the basis of lists created in the United States and are released by the American President every Tuesday; there are also so-called “extralegal executions” in countries which the U.S. is not at war with , including Yemen and Pakistan.
Now, you heard Roosevelt go through the group of innocent people; and you heard Bill talk about the innocent people being killed and his outrage about that. But that’s what’s going on — every Tuesday. Do you hear the great outrage by the various people, very concerned about what’s going to happen, now that Donald Trump is President. And you hear them talk about the talk about the problem of “incipient fascism,” and you hear them talk about many other things. But every Tuesday, from the United States, not only is the United States committing crimes against humanity, it is forcing other countries into collusion with that, and then picked leaders from those countries are justifying their staying in power to do this, in the name of preserving democracy!
Now, that’s not a surprise. Those of us who have been doing this for decades know this is pretty much the way things have been. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it.
I think what’s important about our role, here, today; I think what’s important about what it is that LaRouche has us doing on the question of Hamilton in the Four Laws, is, it is in order to deal with these problems, but to not have to do it by going to war by killing people. The Four Laws are one of the most combative, aggressive, and militant processes that you could possibly initiate not only against war but against the enemies that are perpetrating these wars. One of the reasons why people do not want this done, is because they know — that is, the people we’re fighting, — because they know that they’ll end up in a Nuremberg dock!
Now we’re not interested in executing all these various people. We’re just interested in the fact that they should have no power. And I think what’s important is, that the time has come, and we certainly are living in this time when we can actually have this effect. But we have to mobilize our forces, the citizenry, to think musically. Don’t react to press, don’t react to particular insults; that’s why the story about the woman who became a missionary, after her parents were beheaded in the Philippines is so powerful. Don’t react from the standpoint of what you think you’re justified in doing, because of something that’s happened to you. Most of Greek tragedy is made up of stories like that. Rigoletto, that’s the subject, that’s the topic in Rigoletto.
No! We are better than that! We can respond to “the better angels of our nature.” And that is the if you will, the moral power of what we’re doing with respect to our music and the Manhattan Project, and the Hamilton process that Lyn has forced us, if you will, to stand by and stand up for.
I understand there are three more questions, so we’ll take those and then we’ll conclude.
Q: Hello everyone, my name is Preston Charles. I am a student at the City University of New York’s LaGuardia Community College, where I am also a student mentor for the “Strive for Success” program. One of my main things there to do is to help guide other students through the process of being a first-year college entrant, especially with them being from insufficiently resourced communities.
So, I’m actually going to wrap my question in the context of a statement and an announcement, because we have a couple of things going on at LaGuardia Community College; and something that I’ve also been thinking about since this discussion has begun, and I think another gentleman spoke about resonance and how do we make statements and also inform people to make it resonant with them, that they too can change their lives, they have the power to do that.
With that, let me get to the event that we’re holding at LaGuardia Community College on Dec. 14: It’s going to be somewhere from the time of 2.15-4.45. We’re going to be doing a Q&A and a little bit of a presentation on some of the principles of Hamilton’s law as well as Glass-Steagall, and I think what’s really important here is, how do we make young people understand that this has importance to their lives? Especially the intersectionality of social and economic justice and how they are one thing. And I think that also has to do with the fact that individuals are so — right now, another gentleman said they’re “distracted.” Huxley always refers to “soma,” and I think with our population, especially because I am also a young person, we get distracted by social media, and these other things. So how do we bring a message to them that they can latch onto and that resonates with them, and that they also want to be part of the process?
So again, this Q&A goes through Hamilton’s laws as well as what Glass-Steagall really means and how that will affect them. So that’s all I really would like to say, then.
SARE: I think that’s excellent and needed. Actually, what we found, because I know you met us at LaGuardia, is that the response among young people, is largely very good. As often is the case, I think younger people get mobilized when there’s a question of war, at least from what I understand, that is one of the strongest areas we’re getting a response on, is people actually are aware — I mean, for people at college age, we have been at war for almost all of your life! Certainly all of your young adult life, and as long as you can remember, which is completely insane, and is not a normal way to be brought up.
But I also think, what inspires all of us, is higher ideas and not being practical. Because we don’t respond to things being made into bite-size, like a killer for organizing, a question we often get is, “Well, can’t you just put it in one paragraph!?” Can’t you just make it stupid, because everyone we’re talking to is stupid?
And actually that never works. If it does work maybe you’ve organized some kind of crazy mob that will break windows, or something, but what we hope to find are the rare individuals who really want to think: Because those people are leaders of other people, and that’s how the population gets organized. And so, I think the best way to approach any organizing mission, is to tell people the truth, whether you think they’re going to understand it, or not; or whether you think they might have a personal relationship to it or not, and to be confident of the fact that since people are human, there are universal questions which they will respond to.
But again, I’m glad you’re doing this, and we need to do this everywhere.
Q: Hi, I’m Linda Vu [ph] and I’m an organizer here, and I’m going to give a report on some of our activities, some of our interventions that we’ve done this week: On Friday, we went to an event at NYU that featured a very special guest speaker, but this event happened a day after another event in Washington, D.C. the day prior, on “One Belt, One Road” that was organized by a Chinese leader by the name of Dr. Patrick Ho: He’s the head of China Energy Fund Committee. And in D.C., he gave a series of suggestions to the incoming Donald Trump Presidency on what the U.S. relationship should be with China. And he said the first of these suggestions is that the U.S. must join the One Belt, One Road.
What’s really fascinating is that at the next day’s event, at NYU where myself and Avneet went to, there was a featured guest speaker Mme. Fu Ying, who is the chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress in China; she is probably the highest level woman in China. There were about 300 people in the audience, most of them NYU students and mostly Chinese students; and out of that, were mostly young Chinese female students came to watch her, because of her character in diplomacy, kind of how I think she embodies 3,000 years of Chinese wisdom in her diplomacy. And she’s been described as being able to deal with an audience who’s completely hostile, and just disarm them with her calm, and charm, and sharpness in a matter of minutes.
Now, the purpose why she was here to speak at NYU, which is the question of U.S.-China relations, and she starts off her
speech by bringing up President Xi Jinping’s conversation with Trump right after the elections on Nov. 8th; and this is what President Xi said to Trump: Cooperation is the only right choice between our two countries, and that we should advance our relationship to bring more benefit to the people of the two countries. And Mr. Trump completely agreed with President Xi, and he expressed that he believed the U.S.-China relationship will witness even greater development.
So: throughout her speech she went through her experience as a diplomat and what she saw in the Middle East, actually, and in Afghanistan in the last 15 years. She went through how it is now high time that infrastructure development is needed and in the United States, and how is it that the question of the value of human beings is what should govern international relations.
It was clear that this whole event was set up as a push into the next Presidency, and so Avneet and I asked Mme. Fu Ying, one, we brought up Patrick Ho’s suggestions to Trump the day before, and what she thought of that? And how is it that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche had argued for such proposals in a strategy of war avoidance and how is it that the U.S. can work with China on specifically the New Silk Road project, energy, and fission to fusion, and also space exploration?
And she said: Look, we have to work together on these matters which are very beneficial for all peoples. But China was very disappointed, surprisingly so, when the United States rejected the Chinese on cooperating on the New Silk Road. When it is that the United States would push for China always to make contributions to the world, and when China does, the U.S. rejects it! So we were very disappointed. And on all fronts of scientific projects it’s very important for mankind, but she said, what is the key thing between the U.S. and China is the question of trust: Will we actually have a trust between us; that we cannot just be half-friends, and half-enemies.
I’ll just leave it at that; it was just clear to us that it was really set up around this question of U.S. and China collaboration around the One Belt, One Road and the New Silk Road project. And it was really great that we were there, because if we hadn’t been the question of the New Silk Road wouldn’t have been highlighted as well; it would just be generalized as Chinese infrastructure investments into the United States.
Q: So, Diane as you referenced earlier, Congressman Schumer [d-ny] just stated that he wanted this trillion-dollar infrastructure fund and that he would work with Trump to facilitate it. And we just had a delegation of activists and members in D.C. on Wednesday and we were advocating for such things as well as the Glass-Steagall and a return to the Hamiltonian principles. We do plan to send a delegation for this week: So do you have recommendations?
SARE: It should be as big as possible! Everybody here should go.
No, I think we have to stick to the high ground, because as everyone knows who’s been there — how many people here went to Washington this past week? OK, a couple. And the week before? A few more.
So everyone who’s been there, I think the thing that hits everyone is you get astounded by how little the people we talk to know about anything; and that may be different if you get to talk to the congressperson, or you will meet the rare staffer who who’s someone who’s really inspired. Because I heard there were a couple offices where we met someone who like knew every Kennedy speech from memory and things like that; so you meet those people. But I think the main thing I think we have to convey is the sense of urgency on the financial blowout: this is now. We don’t know if it’s going to be Deutsche Bank; we don’t know what the effect of this Italian referendum tomorrow is going to be. There are many banks in Italy that could just go at any minute. So, one, it’s urgent and they tend not to see that.
The other thing is in Manhattan, as Mr. LaRouche said, that what Schumer said is important: We want a dialogue on this. He is now the Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, so it should be discussed that this has been put on the table and that people should be conversant in the fact that this exists. Most people probably are very unaware that there are even Democrats who are saying we want to — I mean, we know that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have said that they would work with Trump on Glass-Steagall and job creation if he wanted; it’s significant that Schumer is saying this, but the question is what is the content? And our job is to always keep this on the level of what LaRouche is saying which is the increase of the productivity of the average person, and I think emphatically the material that’s been coming out recently from Kesha Rogers and Ben Deniston on the space program is also crucial.
But we should be everywhere, recruit like crazy, get hundreds of people to all of the offices of the various Federal representatives here and both their local offices and their Washington offices, and not take no for an answer. And not let them brush us off.
Q: So we need volunteers.
Q: [Denise Ham] I’m asking this question because of what you said in the beginning about China and Russia and this idea of education. About 30 years ago, I did some research on education in the New York Public Library, and I was looking at books they had to dig them from under the subway, books from the 1840s. And in these books, they describe that the fourth grade curriculum in the United States looked like: and what it was, was geometry, astronomy, music; one or two ancient languages, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin; and at least one or two modern languages outside of the English tongue. So this was the United States before Lincoln.
And I don’t want to go into a big thing about the destruction of education; I think everybody here knows that. But I just want to add one other critical thing, which is that Wilhelm von Humboldt, what he had to say about education: He said the most important thing we have to do is we have to develop the character of the individual, that that person has a sense of character, of duty and that’s how you create a citizenry.
So I just wanted to add that on.
SPEED: I think we’re going to conclude at this point, and we’ll go into our implementation. I just want to say two things in conclusion: Mme. Fu, in a sort of a short bio video made about her, talked about the fact that when she was very young, before what she knew what the word meant, she wanted to be an astronaut. And at her dinner table there was always discussion about books, because after she was born, her mother put herself, that is, the mother put herself through primary through secondary and college education. So, as she was growing up, her mother was always reading and there was always discussion about something intellectual.
She pointed out that that was interrupted by the Cultural Revolution, and then there was a career change, or career path. But the thing that she expresses and I would invite people to take a look at her and get a sense of her — and you can see it also in the pictures of her mother — they’re always smiling! They’re always very happy. It’s sort of very interesting because you see those drab Red Army uniforms, but you have this very vibrant person inside of it. There’s something about the quality of the human spirit and the fact that it can always overcome whatever conditions are; and that a single person can turn around an entire society, which again, is the theme of both LaRouche has always taught; FDR represented and expressed it, as we heard; and the veterans whom we heard from today also expressed.
And I just wanted to say that it’s important for us all, I think to realize that at this time, in this United States, at this moment, there is a capability that we represent — each of us — for a kind of world-shattering change that would perhaps appear to you right now to be completely preposterous, that you could effect, but which is nonetheless within your grasp. And this, I think, is why the Hamilton issue, the real Hamilton issue and the real Alexander Hamilton, is so central: Remember that, despite the poverty of Broadway, it is true that Hamilton came from absolutely nothing, and was able to change the world in a way which continues.
So this is not our situation: We do come from something. We come from what he did. And we come from what LaRouche has allowed us to do as well, in a different way. And so I think all of us should be optimistic about not the impact, but the unity of effect, the unity of effect that we can achieve, as a single nation and a single people: That that’s who we can speak for. Not because we are rejecting what other people’s viewpoints are, but because there’s a need right now for America to be pulled into a musical harmony of interests, and we can do that. As you know, I think people are aware that LaRouche has required John Sigerson to do something in Washington, D.C., the content of which John is still musing about. But we do know what the intent is: And I think those of us who go down to Washington and work otherwise, in the Manhattan Project can help him with that.
So, I think we’ll just conclude there and thank everybody for listening.