LaRouchePAC Policy Committee Show (with transcript)

 

 

Tune in at 1:30 pm eastern for our weekly, live Policy Committee discussion, with your host, Matthew Ogden.

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s December 5, 2016.  My name is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com with the Policy Committee. I’m joined in the studio today by Diane Sare, as well as Jason Ross; and via video we are joined by Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers joining us from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger who I believe is currently joining us also from Seattle, Washington; and Rachel Brinkley joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.

We’ve got a lot to discuss.  The big headline news right now obviously is this stunning defeat for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in the referendum in Italy and the fact that now he has announced that he will be resigning.  This is I think the conclusion of a club that was Renzi, Cameron, Obama, Hollande. All of them have now announced that they are either resigning or leaving office, and this is obviously just one more development in a revolution really that is sweeping the Trans-Atlantic.  We had the Brexit vote, then the U.S. Presidential elections, and now this referendum and the resignation of Renzi in Italy.

And I think as the lead to the LaRouche PAC website rightly points out, go back to the day following the Nov. 8th elections here in the United States, Nov. 9th, and the very first remarks that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche had at that point was that this was not something that was localized to the United States but that this was a global process that is underway and obviously on one side, you’ve got the trans-Atlantic situation where there is a revolution against the globalization paradigm, that’s occurring. But on the other side, you also have the emergence of the new paradigm from China, from Russia, and with the New Silk Road One Belt, One Road policy, a “win-win” cooperation, which is something the United States desperately needs to join.  So, I think that frames the discussion and we can go from there.

DIANE SARE:  Well, I think the Italian situation is delightful coming in the aftermath of the Trump victory because I am just wondering how they are going to spin it—like, did the Russians hack into the Italian polling places?  Was it the white middle- class Americans from Kansas?  It just puts the lie to the entire garbage that has been spewed from these desperate Wall Street and London sources, the Queen’s mouthpieces like George Soros and others—they have lost it.  They have no control over events.  They are so out of it. They are so deluded by their own, whatever, imaginary power that they no longer have, they can’t even figure out what’s happening to them.

So, I think it is really important for Americans to recognize that we are in a revolutionary moment and we had better look at the thoughts of our greatest thinkers, including and emphatically back to Alexander Hamilton and in the present day, Lyndon LaRouche, who has been right uniquely; and there are a few arcs. There’s the 40 years of the fight for a new economic order. There’s also a 30-year arc of the fight for the SDI and the Berlin Wall coming down, and his forecast of the disintegration of the Soviet Union based on the bankruptcy of that system; and that he and his wife warned at that time that the other shoe was yet to drop: That the fact that the Communist system of the Soviet regime went bankrupt did not mean a stellar victory for the British imperial free trade system.

So, now this is disintegrating and happily a new paradigm is on the table which we could join.  And clearly, the American people by and large want to joint, that they may not know how to express it, they might not know exactly what it is, but people rejected the idea of war with Russia.  That was why so many so-called Democrats—I mean, what percentage of the Bernie Sanders supporters ended up voting for Donald Trump?  I would say a large number.  They could not stomach what Hillary Clinton was promoting as a foreign policy, which was a continuation of Bush and Obama and with a clear head-on collision with Russia and China.

So, I think the potential is absolutely massive and I think it would be very wise for all of us and everyone else to think, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche was saying earlier, “Now is the moment. What will we contribute to future generations and the immortality of mankind?”  And that is really what is on the table.

OGDEN: As our colleague in Italy, Liliana Gorini said, she had forecast the downfall of Renzi and she quoted the last line in the famous opera by Mozart, Don Giovanni: “Questa è la fine a coloro che fanno male” “This is the end to those who do bad.”

So, I really do think if people reflect just on the last six months and see that all of these characters have now fallen. You’ve got the Obama legacy; that is repudiated.  You’ve got Cameron who was forced to resign in the wake of the Brexit vote. You have Hollande who announced that he is not running for reelection as President in France.  You’ve now got Renzi in Italy—I mean Merkel like the last woman standing here.  But those were the pillars of this entire regime-change, globalization  kind of paradigm.  And there is nothing that is defined right now, but it is so wide open and the strength of this dominant dynamic that’s now coming from China and from Russia, a dynamic of development and a dynamic of increased productivity, and investing in the creativity of your people — which this is how it was termed by the Chinese in a white paper that we discussed last Friday, and by Putin in this “State of the Nation” speech.  You need to invest in the creativity of your people and upgrading the ability of your economy to accomplish great things.

JASON ROSS:  In terms of setting up a level of productivity, some people think in terms of, does this individual project increase our productivity or not?  Like the way the that people look at infrastructure, or the way some people look at infrastructure, wrongly.  And they say well, this is a project and if we do this we’ll have a return on it.  You know, if we rebuild this airline terminal at this airport, the passenger fees will pay for it.  Great, no problem, we can totally rebuild our airports that way; or we can build a toll road or a toll bridge over here and it will pay for itself.

And when you think about the difference between that and setting up the potential for what the country can produce.  Look at what Hamilton looked at in terms of the productive powers of labor.  What are we as people capable of doing with our effort during a day?  What are we able to accomplish? And what are the things that bring that to a higher level.  That’s the place to put the focus on.

One thing came up this weekend.  I was speaking at a meeting and a lot of people were asking about solar, and they were saying “well, solar panels on your roof, you can actually turn a small profit from it, it is worthwhile.”  It really misses the point. Because if you are saying what we as a nation need to reach a higher level of productivity as a whole?  Solar panels aren’t going to be a step in doing that.  Right?  What will be is a national high speed rail network.  What will be is nuclear power plants.  What will be is a crash effort for developing fusion. Those are the things that people will look back in 100 years and say, “Oh!  That is what got us to the next level.”  Not, “the reason our average income now is $200,000 per person back in 2015-2016 dollars”  —  no one is going to say that the reason for that was filling potholes.

They are going to say “it is because we took ourselves to a higher level.” And that’s one of the emphases that Mr. LaRouche places in his Four Laws about how to create an economic recovery right now, in that third point that he makes.  The credit created through National Banking must be invested in projects that increase the energy flux density, the increased productivity as a whole, not as seen as piecemeal profits from putting components together.

DAVE CHRISTIE:  Yes, I think that concept is part of the end of the end of history.  We had the freak-out by Krauthammer, one of these neocon spokesmen, and organizers of the policy where he referred to the Trump victory as undoing the wonders of the last 25 years.  Now, what is he talking about?  He is talking about the fall of the Soviet system and at that time, people like Fukuyama and others of this neocon stable were saying that this was now the end of history, the West had won out, or really the Wall Street and London had won out, now and we were going to have the ultimate of the free market economy, which is simply code word for allowing the British oligarchy to kill us all.

But clearly that has been reversed with this cascade of developments, but obviously that cascade of developments, as Mr. LaRouche identified with the Trump victory is part of a global pattern.  That was exactly the fight that Lyn initiated along with Helga, Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche, where they put the program through the ’90s of the New Silk Road, the Strategic Triangle, as it was later called by people like Primakov, of bringing in Russia, India, and China, and that is of course the seed crystal of the BRICS.

This dynamic is taking hold, and I think whatever attempts there are to derail it, including the ability to somehow break Russia and China apart, it’s not working.  We’ll have to see how this plays out, but even these lame neocons from out of the Heritage Institute, supposedly they were the ones who instigated the call from the President of Taiwan to Trump, to try to get him into this row with China.

Now, I think that is an ongoing story, but the key to that is what was just emphasized I think on Friday by Wang Yi, the foreign minister of China, where he said very clearly, the relationship between Russia and China is not just simply some bilateral relation.  This is the pillar of peace and stability on the planet, and what is the core of that peace and stability?  It is the Silk Road, but it’s really the emphasis around the Silk Road integrating with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), but it is more the idea that is shaping a new set of relations between nations as Jason just went through.  That has to be dominated by Mr. LaRouche’s Four Laws.  The leadership of those nations has a very real sense of what Mr. LaRouche has been up to over these four decades in terms of laying out the principles that should guide this revolutionary upshift.

I think the attempts by the British to run their divide and conquer strategies —  it’s just not going to work.

ROSS: I was witness to a pretty embarrassing attempt at that.  There was a forum on the One Belt, One Road initiative held in D.C. last week and at the end of it, Jim Woolsey was invited to speak as somebody who is considered part of the incoming Trump administration.  So, after all these Chinese speakers are going through all these incredible projects they’re doing around the world, after this panel of some Americans who really didn’t have all that much to say about what the U.S. could contribute to it.  Then Jim Woolsey says, “Well, you know, we can work with China. China is friendly.  You know, China is not an aggressive nation (unlike those Russians)” [laughter]  Then in terms of what the U.S. could cooperate with China on, he said, “You know we can cooperate with China on railroads and transportation, that’s great.  And also ethanol and alternative fuels —  to break the control of Iran and Russia!”

It was so insane, the idea that you could possibly pull China and Russia apart.  I mean it’s clear that what Putin and Xi have forged as an understanding is not a bilateral relationship. They have been very explicit about saying, this is solidifying a potential for a new paradigm in the world.  And then what is the carrot that Jim Woolsey has to offer?  Ethanol?  Turning your food into gasoline? [laughter]  It gives you the sense of desperation behind some of this old paradigm trying to assert its continuity today.

MICHAEL STEGER:  Well and just the degree to which this establishment is discredited.  We had a conference in Vancouver this weekend that both Dave and I spoke at, and one of the final questions was just because promises are made by political leaders doesn’t mean that the problem is solved.  You end up with that certain problem that democracy can express, democracy can provide consent to right policies, or it can reject those policies which they clearly have identified throughout the trans-Atlantic as killing them.  It is a contagious characteristic we see now with the Renzi referendum, the presidential election.  These last six months of the Brexit have been breathtaking.  I mean there’s been the Philippine vote, the Swiss referendum essentially in favor of nuclear power, these things.

But the problem is, is this establishment is discredited, not simply because they knew what was right, and did the wrong thing.  They don’t actually know what the policy should be!  They don’t know how to think about reality, without ideological eyeglasses.  They can’t operate within that context.  Mr. LaRouche often used to provide this sense that, at points like this where the system begins to entirely breakdown, the conceptual system, then turning your garbage disposal on will flush your toilet, or your garage door will open.  But what you associated with work will no longer work.

You know, and there’s a comic nature to this: You watch people like Jim Woolsey provide their policies — they’re somewhat comic, like are you serious?  But there’s also another factor that there’s not only Jim Woolsey and these other people pushing these policies; there’s a whole generation of people that graduated from Harvard, Yale, for like $200,000 worth of college debt that have no understanding at all, of how to think in reality.  They paid $200,000 to be brainwashed in an ideological cult!  They have no comprehension of what’s happening in the world; they have no ability of how to think about policy toward mankind, or about scientific processes, without an ideological framework, to actually look at it from physical reality and deal with it from, one, that’s a beginning standpoint. Then, to bring in the qualities of a creative human mind, to bring in the powers of genius, to shape then that policy, that sense of mission within scientific endeavor, that’s something that’s far beyond them.

You see then, in this context, I think looking at what’s taking place even in Canada, where there really is a revolt against this process, and especially from a lot of the various Chinese, and Indian,  and Russian layers there.  But what role we play as an organization, that the leadership of this process really does require our leadership more than ever.  And I think what Lyn and Helga stressed in a discussion with the German organization over the weekend, is something that is true for any leadership today: the quality of genius.  This higher quality of morality, where creative genius is what distinguishes mankind from any other living species.  And it also defines that characteristic of interaction between the human individual and the universe itself, that quality of interplay of the creative mind being able to act upon a universe, and change it in such way that mankind grows and develops:  That characteristic, that philosophical outlook is how mankind actually advances.  That quality of leadership is the most essential today, because we are at a breakdown point of this past system.  But what defines the new system?  Or perhaps, in a certain ironic way, what’s going to be lacking in a new system? What comes to bear?  What is the Trump administration going to bring in terms of policy?  Are they going to bring Glass-Steagall?  Are they going to go with the full Hamilton bank?  Clearly, doing pay-for-itself infrastructure projects are a waste of time:  It’s like  — if it’s not cocaine, it’s certainly just caffeine to the system.  It’s not going to provide new sustenance to our society.

But the longer-term perspective, our quality of leadership is going to be that quality of genius that Lyn and Helga stressed over the weekend, is something that this organization, our network, our recruitment process, the young generation we’ve got to recruit into this process, is going to play the essentially role over this coming period, because there’s an entire stable of Harvard and Yale graduates who right now are going to have to be demanding their money back: They don’t know how to deal with this process.  And so that quality of leadership I think stands out among many of the aspects of what’s going to be required in this coming period.

KESHA ROGERS:  Yes, Matt, you brought it up earlier, but on what Michael just developed really put forth the conception and the principle that was defined in this Chinese white paper, “The Right to Development: China’s Philosophy, Practice and Contribution,” (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/ 2016-12/01/c_135873721.htm) on the inalienable right to development, and you really have to look at that  from the standpoint of the conception and the principles that were organized to found our Declaration of Independence and our U.S. Constitution.  And what does this start with?  This idea of the “pursuit of happiness” has to start from this very conception that Alexander Hamilton had in mind.

We’re talking about progress, or promoting development and what is real production, productivity, really starts with the cherishing and stimulating the creative faculties of the human mind. And that’s what China, in their white paper starts with: They really are inspired by what was the conception and foundation that was laid out in the United States by our first Treasury Secretary, by what was the fight for really looking at what is the nature of the human individual?  How do you actually foster creativity?  How do you actually foster the pursuit of happiness of every single human being?  And it’s not through enslaving people, or not through making people work slaves, or trying to find short-term profits in getting so-called productivity for the Wall Street rich to make money from.

And you think about how some people today are thinking about what profit or what productivity is, you know, we want to put $1 trillion over the course of 10 years into some infrastructure, thinking “Well, I’m not going to invest in this if it’s not going to give me a short-term return.”  Well, a lot of the things that are needed right now are not going to yield a short-term fix. You’re not going to get some user fees right away for building high-speed rail systems; and if you’re looking for some short-term users fees, instead of saying “this is what we need for the long-term longevity and productivity of our nation, because every single human mind is valuable, and has a purpose and a mission; then if you’re not thinking in that way, then you’re thinking wrong.

And the perspective again, we’ve laid this out on a number of occasions, the profound insight of Krafft Ehricke, and the fact that he wasn’t speaking from the standpoint of just astronautics or aeronautics from a practical standpoint, but from a very philosophical standpoint.  And I was just thinking about this idea, when he puts forth his Three Fundamental Laws in Astronautics, it is the expression of the inalienable right to development.  And where he says, (1) “Nobody and nothing under the natural laws of the universe impose any limitations on man, except man himself.”  (2) “Not only the Earth but the entire Solar System and as much of the Universe as he can reach under the laws of nature, are man’s rightful field of activity.”  And (3) “By expanding through the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life endowed with the power of reason, and the wisdom of the moral law within himself.”

And that is, again, the inalienable right to development. That is the pursuit of happiness.  And I think we really have to, as Diane and others have said, take inspiration from these creative minds; and take inspiration from LaRouche, who is making this very point on what is the conception of productivity that we have to instill into the population at this moment in time, which is very critical.

OGDEN:  Yeah:  I don’t think we’re going to be able to have a manned colony on the Moon or Mars through paying for it by users fees.  I mean, maybe building some toll roads on Mars or something would be the way to pay for it!

ROSS:  We charge the tourists a lot of money…

OGDEN: [laughter] Exactly!

But this is a very, very big question right now, and it goes back to the nature of Hamilton and exactly what Hamilton set up under the American System.  If you look at the distinction between feudal Europe, where  — yeah, there was “infrastructure” so-called, built by feudal oligarchs!  You know, people charging tolls to cross the river in a ferry, or having private bridges, or these types of things.  The American Revolution was based on this idea that you’re talking about: The inalienable right to development, and that it was the responsibility of the Federal government to develop the territory of the country, for the benefit of the people of that country, and it doesn’t work any other way.  The best example, Abraham Lincoln knew, we needed a transcontinental railroad; that was going to be the next step in unifying the United States:  He made it happen.

Franklin Roosevelt understood, you had to develop the entirety. That was the Four Corners program, the great projects that Franklin Roosevelt built were distributed around the country so that there would be a common benefit for the entire country. It wasn’t just based in the location where you were going to have the most tax revenue coming back from it. And John F. Kennedy made it a vision, a national intention to a put a man on the Moon.

So this foolishness, and you know, Chuck Schumer rightly called it “a scheme, a gimmick,” this foolishness of saying, you’re going to have a bunch of rich billionaires go out and build some infrastructure projects and we’ll give them tax breaks to encourage them to do that, as a private kind — that’s really nuts!

And the point is, if you go back to the core of Hamilton, not one the different ways that he did, but if you go back to the core of the intention, of what Hamilton understood, it was precisely this question:  Internal improvements in order to develop the country to invest in the creativity of the people. And you can scientifically know that this investment will pay for itself multiple-fold, because you have a leap in the productive powers of your labor force.

So the question is, how do you apply that to today, and as we can see and I think we’ll increasingly see, this is going to be the fight over the next few weeks, the first 100 hundred days of this administration.  What is infrastructure?  What is investment?  What is $1 trillion?  Where do you spend $1 trillion?  Where do you get it from? And what is the intention of the United States?

ROGERS:  And how do you apply that to a Galactic process? Because you’re talking about international development and development outside of the Earth?  Then where does that productivity really start to develop itself?

BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, and Mr. LaRouche, in papers that he used to write about this, and discussions about this, used to use the image of what is the quality of morality and quality of intelligence that you’re going to have to have in a community of scientists living on the Moon or living on Mars, to be able to handle those conditions, psychologically, to be able to organize a community of that type?  So you can start from that and then work backwards, and say, sure, there are certain practical things we have to do, within a certain framework of time, and those things are good things, they’re necessary things.  If we don’t do those things, we can’t progress.  But we’re not going to pretend as though everything that we say is necessary and good, are steps that we’re going to start with an understanding of in the first place.  We have to, in an overarching way, consider that, really, the real driver and the real substance of what we have to accomplish as a future mission, is producing a better person. Producing a better quality of people, that are going to be capable of taking mankind into the Galaxy.

CHRISTIE:  Our colleague Ben Deniston had done a presentation on viewing the development of space and particularly using the Moon as a new platform or base for launching further exploration.  Very clearly he laid that out as a shift up, in terms of a platform of development.  And Mr. LaRouche had made this point a while back, at a certain point he even banned use of the term “infrastructure,” because he wanted to make that point: Infrastructure, and in an economy when people talk about infrastructure, it’s not just building some railroads or so on. If you think about it in the way Hamilton did, and define it around increasing the productive powers of labor, then you are thinking about it as this kind of evolutionary upshift to the next platform of development, a higher level of progress that you have to go on.

I think the importance of what Mr. LaRouche does in citing Vernadsky, and understanding this, in particular the development of the biosphere; now, that’s not to say that probably the amphibians thought about their present work as laying the groundwork for the next evolutionary upshift to the reptiles; and the reptiles thinking about the mammals.  They probably weren’t thinking about it.  But we see that that’s how the biosphere developed. And what Vernadsky makes clear is this biogeochemist — he was actually looking at this as the flow of atoms and so forth is how he discusses it, but that, we see that that’s what Lyn develops, a new concept of how we should be even thinking about chemistry in terms of an economic process.

And clearly the next upshift towards fusion is another whole degree of mastery over processes we think about in terms of normal chemistry, where we’d literally be able to make elements, we would literally be able to through a fusion torch, take garbage and transform it into things that are useful, that that next evolutionary upshift is how we have to think about this. And what Hamilton laid out with the productive powers of labor, we’ve got to go to that new conception of thinking about that and that is an integral part of the space program.

So just to have that sense that we have to think of this as a platform development and not lame sense of “infrastructure” and user fees, and how people are thinking about it.  So I think the importance of how Lyn develops that as a single unity of concept in the Four Laws, is again just critical for the shift that the world has to make right now. [https://larouchepac.com/four-laws]

SARE:  I think one crucial aspect of this is going to be Classical music.  I was thinking, when Bill was talking, about, it would be much easier to live and work in a lava tunnel on the Moon if you were playing Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, if everyone with you were part of a chorus!  And I was thinking about even just the culture of the United States, there was an enormous amount of music as part of people’s everyday lives, and people also consciously deployed it to pull the nation together. I mean, one, every little just in New Jersey and Long Island, where you had machine tool shops that were producing components for the planes for World War II and then aerospace [research centers] like Brookhaven and so on, what you discover is that there were hundreds of community choruses, community orchestras; I was involved in something this weekend, with a community orchestra/community chorus, and you realize, it’s there.  Now the problem is, they’ve all been destroyed.  The choice of music that people make nowadays is dreadful, to put it diplomatically. Their method of singing is a horror; they probably couldn’t be heard without a microphone — I mean, if you have a large enough chorus.  So there’s been an enormous amount lost, but what you also see is a certain kind of intent.

And it struck me, therefore, what we do, what we have done, what has been done by the Schiller Institute in these series of conferences globally; with these musical panels but also this process of community chorus organizing, which has been led largely by John Sigerson in terms of the conception Italian bel canto placement, and Classical composition, is actually unique. I think there are very few programs, even in Manhattan which you would think should be the center of this, where you can have an entire program which is actually beautiful from beginning to end; which doesn’t have some world premiere of someone vomiting into bucket that’s labelled as “art,” as part of the program. And it has an effect on people! Anyway, it’s just crucial.

The other aspect of this, is that when the population has an idea that there is a future, that will be better than the present or the past, the approach to everything changes — including the most basic things that people think are not related to it, like interpersonal relationships, or how a corporation is organized: Everything changes.

And in a sense, that’s sort of the challenge, both with an infrastructure platform, and a platform of society that mankind can function, in a way which in a sense you’re not going to get there from saying, “well, here’s how we are now, let’s take this piece, this piece, this piece, we’re going to improve each of these little pieces,” and it will never add up to the actual shift that is potential.

And I think it’s the smell of this  — I don’t know how else to describe it.  It’s like an electricity in the air when you get a kind of a mass strike phenomenon, as Rosa Luxemburg described, where there’s something bigger — or Shelley described, what’s happening is greater  than all of the individual pieces, or even the individual personalities who are playing critical roles, some very deliberately and with intent, like Lyndon LaRouche; some who simply have fallen into it because of history, like Donald Trump. At any rate, therefore, the question of consciously fighting for principle, and not accepting that what we can do in the future is limited by what we can do now or what we’ve done in the past, but a whole new mode of thinking, then this could just absolutely transform everything. And I think we have to really fight for that and not allowed ourselves to be buffetted about, because I know there’s enormous angst, “Oh! Trump appointed this horrible person!!” or, “this terrible thing happened!”

No! there is something — I mean, they impeached [Brazil’s President] Dilma Rousseff; they’re trying to put [former Argentine President] Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in jail; there’s been a whole assault on South America — nonetheless, Xi Jinping goes down there for a week, and they’re now talking about a transcontinental railroad, and in other words there’s something much greater which has been unleashed, and in a sense there is power by aligning oneself with this, and then thinking beyond it, which human beings can naturally do, and no other species can.

Rachel BRINKLEY:  On that question of the future, Mr. LaRouche made the point this weekend, that we need to inspire people to be able to think from the future, not even just think about the future, but what is it we want to create as a future, and then looking back now.  So I think that gives you a totally different sense of how to think.

STEGER:  On this point on the Classical music, there’s a quality within those compositions that are similar to what Krafft Ehricke captures around what he recognizes as mankind’s requirement.  Krafft Ehricke made it very clear on the 10th anniversary of the Moon landing by the Apollo project, that mankind would not survive, if mankind were to remain on the planet.  And it’s not so much the requirements that you have to have “more geographical space,” that you can’t have this unending population growth, which Krafft Ehricke was a major supporter of, this growth of the human species; but it was the conceptual room, that mankind can only be mankind when there’s something great to discover, and that that’s what drove aspects of the Renaissance to get even beyond what was within their local confines; that mankind requires that quality of identity, of social participation in that unknown, to be discovered, to really embrace mankind’s creative potential.  And you get that same quality from Beethoven’s compositions, or Bach’s, or Mozart’s or the other great Classical composers, is that there’s something beyond what they’re presenting.  That’s maybe perhaps why their compositions can be perpetually rediscovered, because they’re not finite in their nature.  They have that unending process of discovery within them which really captures mankind’s nature.

And so that interplay between Classical music intervention that we’ve been making, and that quality that’s been made over these centuries, and this quality of driving mankind beyond Earth, into the universe, into the Galaxy, is really something that people dichotomize them, as with many other things, but really, they are a similar, shared endeavor.

OGDEN:  Well, great orchestras, choruses, concert halls, have to be considered part of your cultural infrastructure of your country:  This is infrastructure!  In China, they’re investing in brand new, acoustically beautiful concert halls, across the whole country: Along the route of the New Silk Road, these new cities include concert halls, orchestras are springing up across the country, very, very skilled.  One of the reasons why you get such problematic programming, I think in this country, is orchestras are so dependent on private financing, and you have these billionaires who come in and say, “I want this bizarre piece played,” and nobody in the orchestra, nobody in the audience likes it, but you have to play it because that’s where your funding is coming from!

There has been discussion over years of public, Federal financing for orchestras and the arts — that’s something that the Kennedy administration took seriously; they founded the National Endowment for the Arts, but Jackie Kennedy and John Kennedy, that’s one thing they were interested in.  That’s where the Kennedy center in Washington, D.C. came from.  But going back to the WPA [Works Progress Administration]; what Franklin Roosevelt was doing, was not just putting people to work digging ditches, filling potholes.  It was, how do we preserve and invest in the skills of our people?  The talents of our people, whatever that may be?  Whether it’s a machine-tool designer, or whether it’s an author, or a writer, or a composer, or an artist.  And so the WPA had arts programs as an integral part of this, and building new cities and having it be beautiful was in the interest of the people who were going to live there.

So there’s a physical infrastructure, and there is a cultural infrastructure.

SARE:  And not the people who launder drug money, who say, “this composition is best performed while on drugs,”  Or “best listened to….”!  [laughter]

OGDEN:  That’s a conflict of interest there!  For sure!

SARE: The space program would never work that way.

OGDEN:  I think one of the other elements to bring into this is just the factor of strategic tension around what’s now playing out.  You can see the situation in Syria, has taken a complete turn, which I think is very much related to the fact that there was a total repudiation of Obama in the United States.  So the fact that Obama, Hollande, Cameron, are gone, has created a changed situation on the ground in Syria.

There is going to be an interview with Virginia State Senator Richard Black on that question, which was done last week, but will be posted on the LaRouche PAC website fairly soon.  And I know, those previous interviews have gained significant traction on YouTube and I think people are probably looking forward to this update on the situation in Aleppo.

But all of these things have to be taken together:  The alliance between Russia and China is an economic alliance; it’s a strategic alliance, but it’s to create this new international framework, and the United States, our role in that is essential. One thing that Helga LaRouche brought up in our discussion earlier this afternoon was, OK, if you want to take seriously, how are you going to resolve the destruction that has swept the Middle East and North Africa, you need a Marshall Plan!  And there are people who have discussed that, including the new National Security Advisor Gen. Michael Flynn.  But again, it’s the same discussion about infrastructure:  What is a Marshall Plan? That can be defined in many ways.  The way that it has to happen, is you need to approach it from the standpoint, of “this is an area of potential collaboration between the United States, Europe, Russia, and China,” and it’s one of the greatest opportunities for collaboration to extend the New Silk Road into the Middle East and to use that to turn what has been a war zone of epic proportions, into a bastion of peace and development.

SARE:  Just one thing, before we close:  Something that would go hand in hand with this revolutionary process, is Glass-Steagall passing in the U.S. Congress.  In other words, it would be such a natural part of these developments around the world, that this would just pass, in a sense, because of the total and utter bankruptcy of the system; and Congress is not there for that much longer.  But I do think it’s worth stating: They should recognize that it’s time to get this done, as only the first step.  But in a sense, it’s an intent of a directionality for the future, and given everything else that’s happened, I would say indications are that were it to be voted on, it would pass.  It’s a question of getting it there.

CHRISTIE:  Actually Diane, as good as obviously all the global developments are, the utter bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic system is the backdrop of this drive for world war, and frankly, the question of passing Glass-Steagall urgently, or immediately, is — we’re not out of the woods, yet! I know none of us on this discussion are implying that we’re out of the woods, but something of a chaotic financial breakdown with the kind of tensions that you do have — I mean, Russia just announced that they’re developing hypersonic missiles to combat the Prompt Global Strike.  I don’t think that they think they’re out of the woods, yet.  So clearly passing Glass-Steagall would be essential.

I mean, before the Italian vote, the Financial Times came out with a virtual act of terrorism, as it was called in Il Giornale, and Mr. LaRouche agreed with the assessment that it was the London crowd threatening Italy that if they didn’t go along with it, that the top banks would collapse. And that’s one of the triggers for the meltdown of the system; you have the situation around Deutsche Bank:  the trans-Atlantic system is on the edge. So passing Glass-Steagall is really an essential part of stabilizing the strategic situation as well; and obviously initiating the shift into the new paradigm.

OGDEN:  OK.  Well, I think that’s probably a place to conclude.  As you know, the full Four Laws program that Mr. LaRouche has written still remains the number-one agenda item and that is available on the LaRouche PAC website: That’s Four Laws: https://larouchepac.com/four-laws

And what we need people to do, as we’ve been doing over the past two weeks with these activists who have coming to Washington, D.C., is to continue the momentum:  It’s a very open, and revolutionary period, but it’s also a period where education and clarity of ideas is the most powerful tool that you have.  So a lot of people I think will find themselves in positions of authority, where people are asking you, “what do we do now? what must happen?”  And so you have the responsibility to make sure that the ideas that you have are clear and well-defined.  So these Four Laws are the essential element, and we’ve now also got the complete book, The Vision of Alexander Hamilton, which has the four original reports by Alexander Hamilton, on the National Bank, Manufacturing, on Public Credit, and on the Constitutionality of the National Bank.  So those are also available, and the reading groups continue around the country, and we encourage you to become part of that dynamic.  And sign up for our daily email, if you have not already, and please subscribe to our YouTube channel.

So thank you very much for joining us today and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

This entry was posted in LPAC, LPAC Policy Committee Discussion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s