News / Brèves LHLDiscussion Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente Manhattan Town Hall Weekly event 9 October 2016 Diane Sare and Dennis Speed field questions from LaRouchePAC activists in New York. TRANSCRIPT DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I want to welcome everyone here today, for the Oct. 8th Saturday Dialogue with LaRouche. DIANE SARE: Good afternoon. So, I wanted to take up specifically the question of Hamilton, and also what people have before you in the new issue of the Hamiltonian — which is named after Alexander Hamilton — because of where we are right now. Which is, after the first bail-out in 2008, we have not done anything to address the causes of that collapse, and some people will tell you that we’re headed for "another collapse." That’s really not accurate, because it is simply the same collapse that was not addressed the first time. Or, it was addressed; and the way it was addressed is that the Congress authorized, under threat from then-Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson, the first $700 billion. Since that time, I know Neil Barofsky had at one point said it was $27 trillion; I was trying to keep count. It’s $31 trillion, but you know, what’s a few trillion dollars here and there once you get to what we’ve done with these bail-outs. So, we are now poised for the entire system to completely implode. That’s the significance of the Barney Frank Dodd-Frank bail-in policy, where the system could liquidate itself in a certain sense to try and cover all the outstanding derivatives obligations, which are many orders of magnitude greater than anything that exists in the name of capital or liquidity; or perhaps Obama’s controllers will succeed in diverting everyone’s attention by starting a thermonuclear war with Russia, which is the other direction that we are headed. But this collapse is the driver. As I was reflecting on some of Hamilton’s papers, I realized that one of the major reasons why people have such a difficult time with this is the extreme brainwashing starting in the 1960s; done by the so-called "environmentalist movement" which really goes back to Malthus. The idea that human population increases geometrically, but resources only arithmetically; and therefore, we have to have "limits to growth," or you really can not have growth at all. All you can have is a sustained — you can allegedly have a sustained trajectory; which of course, there is absolutely nothing in nature or in the universe that functions in that way. But you hear it all the time — "sustainable development." It’s just crap. You know this has nothing to do with anything about how the universe functions. So, I was thinking about Hamilton’s paper "On the Subject of Manufactures," and Mr. LaRouche is explicitly referring to four papers by Hamilton: "On the Subject of Manufactures"; "On the Subject of Public Credit"; "On the National Bank"; and then when the National Bank came under attack and he needed to defend the National Bank, he wrote a paper called "The Constitutionality of the National Bank." These are the core of Hamilton’s insights as creating an economic system for the new republic of the United States. In "On the Subject of Manufactures," it’s extremely polemical; and he’d written earlier papers, because there was great controversy, or people tried to create a dichotomy between manufacturing on the one side and agriculture on the other side. You’ve heard, "Well, the wealth is in the land — agriculture." That’s sort of the Southern, British view; you think about the Confederacy, it’s all the plantation, and we’re going to have cotton and we’re going to have tobacco. The wealth comes from the land; it’s a very romantic, anti-social view of things. Hamilton made the point that of course we can’t do without agriculture, we like to eat, we like clothing, we need to eat. However, if you have an economy which is manufacturing combined with agriculture, what will invariably happen as a result of your work in manufacturing is that you make discoveries whereby your methods of farming are transformed. What happens is, it is not true that resources increase arithmetically; but actually, as a result of a scientific discovery of principle, your resources increase geometrically as well. Abraham Lincoln gave a very famous speech to this effect at an agricultural fair — I forget where it was. Anyway, he makes the point of how much corn is produced in a given area of land; and what he describes is that with methods of fertilization, irrigation, modern crop rotation and so on, you can literally get an order of magnitude increase in the amount of food that is being produced in a given area. So, the entire axiomatic structure of this thinking is wrong; it’s a fraud. If you think about today, if we had not thoroughly gouged farming and manufacturing from our economy, the kind of technology available is really extraordinary. Now you have our tractors which dispense fertilizer can be connected to a satellite which has conducted spectroscopy on the Earth; so that the tractor can be informed where you need more nitrogen, where you need more this and that. When you are dispersing fertilizer, you’re doing different amounts based on what the soil needs. This is just extremely advanced; the potential and how much greater our food supply could be based on this scientific combination. The other thing that Hamilton described in the question manufactures is, he said if you’re investing in manufactures, what happens is you create a need for a diversified workforce. Because as you develop machinery which can replace physical labor of human beings; because really, human beings should not be physical labor. There are plenty of animals which are a lot stronger than we are. We’ve already discovered that having an automobile is much more efficient than having horses; or having a tractor is better than having oxen. In other words, we should really be beyond having physical, manual labor. There are certain things you might need to do; but why not have those things in the domain of arts and artistry? Things that you want to create that are beautiful, where you’re engaging a certain aesthetical principle. So what happens is, as you’re coming up with technology which frees up human beings from that physical labor, you need people who are more and more specialized to handle certain aspects of the manufacturing process. What Hamilton says is that this kind of specialization creates the circumstances where you can have such an extraordinary diversity in your workforce. In other words, you have a need for the different talents of all members of your population. And that you will need immigrants; you will need more people to feed your economy which is based on this commitment to scientific progress. I find this whole idea very exciting, and it’s very much against what all of us have been taught. Sure enough, I was talking to someone on the phone last night about this; and he said, "Yeah, I know all about that. I’m a machinist. In the old days, every time I designed a new machine, 30 people would be out of work." I said, "Well, we would like them to work in something else." Another thing is that the point of designing the machine is so that you can produce whatever you’re producing for ten times more the number of people. So, in other words, each of these leaps enables you to have a certain function of growth. Think about what we’ve accepted today. We say you have no growth. There’s too many people; there’s too few resources. If you accept this as your axiom that we don’t want growth, we don’t want a growing population, we don’t want to consume more energy, for example, or consume whatever the raw material is of the day. Then of course, you would look at this and you would say, it’s obvious; if we have nuclear power instead of burning wood, all those people out there who are chopping down the trees are going to be out of work. But maybe that’s not the right way to think about it. So, I think LaRouche’s emphasis on the question of Alexander Hamilton and his work, and then LaRouche’s Four Laws — because in a sense, the commitment to manufacturing is not to manufacturing per se; it’s the question of the science driver. It’s the question of, do we get to a fusion power based economy? And then once we have developed thermonuclear fusion, do we move on to plasma, do we move on to matter/anti-matter? And what kind of potential does that open up? And, it also gets at the question of something that my colleague on the Policy Committee, Kesha Rogers, has taken up recently; which is the space program. The work of the space pioneer, Krafft Ehricke, who was very determined that the Earth is only the biological center for mankind; but that mankind should be able to transport itself and to inhabit vast reaches of the galaxy which we don’t even yet know. So, in order to solve the crisis before us, if people are to understand why Glass-Steagall is urgent; because you realize, if we reinstate Glass-Steagall, I hope people know what will happen. What will happen is that the markets will crash; the derivatives will be wiped out. In other words, this pile of fictitious money that represents nothing but the immiseration of billions of people on the planet will be wiped out. However, what Glass-Steagall also means is that the commercial banking sector, which is savings and loans and very transparent activity, will remain intact. But that in and of itself, does not solve anything. Just because we have a banking system doesn’t mean that we are growing enough food for our population or producing enough energy for our population. So the question then is, what is the purpose of economics? What is the purpose of credit? That is what Alexander Hamilton understood very clearly in the founding of the nation; and that is what Lyndon LaRouche has taken several steps further, but is the basis of his system of physical economy. And the measure of success in this is something called "relative potential population density," which is how many people can potentially be sustained in a given square kilometer, square mile of land area. If you were creating the circumstances where more people can live in a smaller area, but with a higher standard of living, with a longer life, with a better education, free of diseases; and that future generations can know that they will live infinitely better than previous generations. That is the purpose of economic science; and it’s this that we have to convey to the population, particularly in Manhattan. And it’s this that should be the core of the Hamiltonian as it’s coming out, and of future issues, and the meeting here. So, this question — and Dennis read to you what LaRouche had to say the other day is very explicit; and that’s what I wanted to put on the table for discussion here. SPEED: OK, so we’re ready to go to questions and answers. Q: Good afternoon. I’ve become very interested in public banking, so I’m trying to delve deeper into the philosophy behind our economy and what happened early on with the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson as they were trying to determine exactly what kind of system we would have here. I’m interested in the idea of the constitutionality of, of how you all would see the constitutionality of the National Bank in relation to the conflict between the two of them, and banking in the future. Am I clear in my question? It’s a general philosophical question, but also practically how it would apply to the future. SARE: The real issue was that the people who didn’t want to have a National Bank, wanted the United States to be destroyed; and they wanted the British Empire. They wanted to be able to have these really attritional, entropic methods of looting economy. The sophistical argument they gave was that it was unconstitutional because having a National Bank was to establish a corporation. There are many people around today — I can think of some people I know — who are saying, "Well, our government’s illegal because it’s become a corporation." The National Bank was not a corporation; and part of Hamilton’s argument was that municipalities and states had the ability to form law enforcement agencies. In other words, that you are able to form institutions as part of the principle of the general welfare and the development of your nation. The Constitution and the Preamble, the commitment to the General Welfare and the commitment to Posterity mandates an ability to issue credit which is in the interest of the future of your nation. When you argue against that, as in the Confederate Constitution where they say things like "Life, Liberty, and Property" and no investment in internal improvements, then what you’re talking about — and this is Jefferson’s view, who really like Locke and Hobbes, and hated Plato — is that you’re putting a value on things that actually have no value. Which is things; your land, your property, your this or that. It’s worth thinking. After you die, because I think we can be fairly certain that each one of us is going to die; we have no reason to think that that’s not the case. What then is a durable; what remains? And centuries later, what remains? Occasionally you’ll have an ancient wall, or a this or a that; but what’s the value of that compared to the value of a Beethoven symphony, or the value of what Kepler discovered? In a sense, you say that’s very ironic; because how can I say that thinking of banking, how can banking be connected to Beethoven or Kepler? How can banking have something to do with what increases our productivity, which is the fruit of the human mind? This is clearly what Hamilton understood. I’ll say another factor on Hamilton is that, as a boy, growing up in the Caribbean and being an accountant for — I think — a sugar trader; he witnessed firsthand the evils of the British/Dutch system of slavery. And he saw the debilitating effects on what it meant to be human. So, his conception of economy was not a worship of money, but a very clear understanding that money had no intrinsic value; just like property has no intrinsic value. What has value is that which makes mankind immortal as a species. That is the fundamental difference. Dennis, you may have more on that. SPEED: Just on your last point; that the issue is slavery. And the issue to understand is that that was always the issue of the Revolution. We have written things about this; Bob Ingraham has said a few things about this. Some of this has become controversial for various reasons, but that was the truth. The American Revolution was conducted against slavery. The popular assumption that it was not is simply irrelevant and wrong. Specifically, Hamilton’s conception of man was not Jefferson’s conception of man. Washington’s conception of man, Franklin’s conception, and Hamilton’s conception were right; and Jefferson’s was wrong. Now, there were many people who were involved in the American Revolution who allied for a particular purpose. In the course of the Revolution, and in the course of the writing of the documents, the abolition of slavery was unable to be effected because of opposition from South Carolina and many other places. But the issue is Hamilton’s documents. One of the things that Lyn told us, which I want to just state here, is "Stay on the topic." The topic is that Hamilton wrote these four papers. What he was doing was inventing the United States. He took Franklin’s work and he took the work of the Revolution itself, and he invented the United States. As early as 1781, he wrote a set of documents called "The Continentalist"; they’re the precursors to the "Federalist Papers." This was during the Revolution, and he spoke at that time in his writings against confederacy. He said it this way, he said, "The most wealthy and best established nations are obliged to pledge their funds to obtain credit, and it would be height of absurdity in us, in the midst of a revolution, to expect to have it on better terms. This credit, being to be procured through Congress, the funds ought to be provided, declared invested in them." That is, the Continental Congress. "It is a fact that besides the want of specific funds, a circumstance which operates powerfully against our obtaining credit abroad, is not a distrust of our becoming independent; but of our continuing united. With our present confederation, the distrust is natural. Both foreigners and the thinking men among ourselves, would have much more confidence in the duration of the union, if they were to see it supported on the foundation here proposed." It was, in other words, in the infancy at the time that the United States was fighting the Revolution, the issue of confederacy versus union, or the Federal system of Hamilton and Washington, was already being discussed and debated and fought through by Hamilton. This is not the "Federalist Papers"; the "Federalist Papers" of course, were released to the people of New York by Hamilton and Jay, and also Madison was involved to some degree in this. But they were a fight to establish the Federal system. The United States was invented by Hamilton; the Federal Presidential system. He, together with Washington, who was not merely the figurehead of that, but he was the actually President; he was the executor of it, and was the only person who could have been the executor of the United States at that time. So, that’s what happened. Now, what we’ve got to do is, we’ve got to remind Americans of this; they don’t know this. The present candidates for office, for example, are unspeakable; and therefore, the present occupant of the office is also not only unspeakable, but morally unfit for the office. So what the problem is, is that the American people have taken to discussing anything but the system that Hamilton already created for them. And our job is to use what we know to cause what we did two weeks ago, to become the standard of deployment of the American population on behalf of this country. Because what we did came out of Alexander Hamilton. What happened two weeks ago came specifically out of this project; as people who know it well know. And it was done very much like the American Revolution was done. Lyn had an idea; he put forward an idea about the Hamilton Presidency a year and a half ago. We acted on that; we stayed with that idea, and as a result, we converged certain forces who had been fighting for a very long time to do a few things around the 28 pages and JASTA and many other things. But they couldn’t get them done. We catalyzed something; we did not do it, they did it. But in the same way that Hamilton’s writing of the Federalist Papers invented the United States, caused the people to invent it, we used a principle that Lyn taught us, to create a condition for victory, where that condition would not have existed without us. And it’s the same exact thing we can do right now with the respect to the establishment of a new credit system, an international credit system, with Glass-Steagall being the first of four measures that would be taken in line with what Lyn calls the "Four Laws." Q: Hi, it’s Bruce from New Jersey. I want to locate what you were saying about the victory with the JASTA bill down in Washington, D.C. and also how that can be, and should be used to leverage what we need to be doing around Glass-Steagall. On the Monday night national call, I referenced that I constantly update and get email addresses for different congressmen and others, not only in the New Jersey area, but throughout the metropolitan area, and even farther away; and I got a response, it happened, my local congressman because now they’re on recess, where he had set up a coffee with his constituents. And I signed up to go to that. And normally, what he does, is he gives a brief presentation and then he goes around the room talking to people about their specific gripes or problems or whatever. So he did this for just a couple of minutes at the front of the podium, basically saying, "I’m glad to be back here in New Jersey, Congress is so dysfunctional; we don’t seem to be able to get anything done...." and basically he was going to close off the conversation. At that point I raised my hand, and said, "Congressman would you like to say a few words about the recent JASTA fight?" So he said, "Yeah, I can do that," and he proceeded to say that the JASTA bill had been passed; a lot of people may not have been aware, and he mentioned the name, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.; but he said, "why don’t you get up and tell people about it, tell people about this fight that went on." So, I related how Congress had unanimously in both Houses passed the JASTA bill, yet we knew and I’d had a chance to be with people from the organizations associated with the family members of the victims of 9/11 who had gone down to Washington, D.C., rallied in front of the White House, stand with the press conference by Senator Blumenthal and it was known by people that the President was going to veto the bill, and specifically, do it right before the Congress expected to recess, and then the bill would die. And what happened, is that Congress did not recess; it went back into session and overrode by an overwhelming, probably an unprecedented margin, Obama’s veto and many of the vetoes back in history. And I proceeded to mention all of this to the people, and then the congressman got up and said, "yes, we had made the commitment that we were not going to recess until we passed the JASTA bill" at which point the audience got up and applauded. The point being, that he wasn’t even going to mention this! Yet, among a lot of people across the country this was exactly what they wanted to see; they wanted to see the stuffing beaten out of somebody that needs the stuffing beaten out of them. And the other thing about it is, it gave me a chance to talk to the congressman about Glass-Steagall, and potentially, I’m going to be able to have a sit-down with the congressman to go through it. Because this is something we should be doing. And I’ll just briefly mention another kind of circumstances, this one from a couple of years back, during a U.S. Senate race in New Jersey where we knew a congressman was going to be running for Senate, potentially was leaning towards Glass-Steagall. He was holding an event; it was going to be an internet event. I called up his office, and said, why don’t you have the congressman mention Glass-Steagall? So they called me back a day or so later, and said, why don’t you come to the event, and why don’t you ask the congressman about signing on for Glass-Steagall? So obviously, there was a setup involved here. So I went to the event, got up, mentioned Glass-Steagall and said, will you sign on to Glass-Steagall? And the congressman said, Yes. So I took it a little further. I said, Listen, if you win the Senate race, will you sign on to the Senate version of Glass-Steagall? And he said, "well, I have to think about that," [laughter] but anyway, I threw it out there. And he did, he signed on to Glass-Steagall. So this is the kind of thing we need to be doing, we need to get on email lists of Congress; another thing I was thinking about this, we should do a similar kind of thing with that congressman, with even the opponents of Congressmen now who have not taken a position on Glass-Steagall, or who are up for reelection; that if they don’t sign up for Glass-Steagall, get ahold their opponents, and make them make the issue of Glass-Steagall. I pretty much want to leave it at that. But I think that’s a couple of the approaches we should have about getting to every one of these congressmen, senators and others. So if you want to add to that...? SARE: I’m glad you’re raising this. If you think about what happened going into the JASTA vote, I think it was July 14th where Obama made the announcement that he was going to release the 28 pages. Now, as everyone here knows, Obama had absolutely no intention of ever releasing those pages. And we, our organization, had been leading a fight for this, which even inspired the family members, who themselves were at a point of giving up. We discussed it going into this 15th anniversary. You had this crime on American soil of nearly 3,000 Americans being killed; thousands more now dying, and justice had not been done, and we had a series of lies; and not only that, all of these wars and all of the people who died in the so-called "war on terror," we have more terrorism than less! And what happened, finally, was you had two of the congressmen, Walter Jones and Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts, and I guess Massie [ky] was also there, gave a press conference where they admitted that they could, if Obama wouldn’t release these pages, then they could go on the floor of Congress and they could read them into the Congressional Record. And within a week, Obama decided to release the 28 pages. Which is something that many people, in their cynical, practical wisdom, would say, "It’ll never happen. Forget it." And Im sure many of you here at this meeting, who have tried to organize your friends and your acquaintances have run into this, where you say, "no we have to..." "Aw! That’ll never happen, that’ll never happen. Congress? They’ll never do anything, the President’ll never do anything." It’s no wonder that you have such a record number of suicides, because if everything is that hopeless, then what’s the point? So what occurred with JASTA, is that the family members of the victims have enormous moral authority, because of what happened, and the fact that justice has not been done. We, from Manhattan, created a resonance for this question, with the series of Mozart Requiem performances, which are in another domain, if you will; a certain quality, a spiritual quality or invisible quality of inspiration, which is a real factor. And you got something where these congressmen did something which is very unlike themselves. And what’s Obama’s explanation? "Well, they just wanted to be seen with the families, ’cause it’s an election year, and if they weren’t with the families, then that would look bad." No principle. His interpretation of that is there was no principle. Now, what do you have with Glass-Steagall, and this is where the nub of the fight is, and where the question of Hamilton and LaRouche is so crucial: Because why haven’t these congressman — why don’t we have Glass-Steagall now?! And one thing that Rachel takes up in her editorial, I was reflecting on it, because I was at the National Conference of State Legislators in Atlanta, where you had this poor state rep from Delaware who had introduced a resolution for Glass-Steagall, and the way the conference center was set up, the hallways go all around [the atrium] and you can look all the way down several floors, and see what’s going on in the hall across from where you’re looking from. I was on the top, and I would see, whenever this woman came out of a meeting, there would be 13 Wells Fargo, Bank of America, CitiGroup people hounding her and harassing her, very much like what the halls of Congress looked like with the Saudis crawling around; I mean, even the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia was here trying to stop JASTA, which is pretty incredible and a pretty outrageous violation into the internal affairs of America that the Saudi foreign minister would think he could do that. So the tactics of the Wall Street bankers and the tactics of the Saudi terrorists are very similar. The question is, the understanding of the Congress and the understanding of our neighbors, who still tend to worship money. And people can get the compelling argument, that if you don’t shut down the logistics apparatus of international terrorism that you are going to have more terrorism; and that as a result of lying about what happened, and instead invading Iraq, and invading Libya, we have created a situation where we have created more terrorism and more people have died! But in terms of banking, there are many, many people who believe in some imaginary system which they think has more value than human life. And the question of what does this actually represent? In other words, if what we’re saying is not done, how many people actually are going to die? How many people have already died, because of the policies of Wall Street? Shouldn’t the population, when Kissinger signed off on that NSSM-200 in ’74, they were projecting that by now the world population would have like 15 billion or — anyway — the world would have actually many more people, so in a sense, you can say the policies of these people has already killed billions. And there is a way, where people take an emotional distance from that. And our job is to make this real, which is where the courage comes from to stand up against these thugs from Wall Street, who are totally desperate, who are going down, and of course, the irony is, whether we get Glass-Steagall or we don’t get Glass-Steagall, they are all going down! The system is finished. The question is, are they going to take everything with them, or not? The other thing I would just say is that, what also is reflected in this JASTA vote is a dynamic shift which is different, which may be the reason why they decide to respond now, where they didn’t before. Just as when the Berlin Wall came down in ’89, people found themselves ennobled, and Shelley describes it: you become a trumpet for a principle which you may not yourself understand, that we’re in a moment like that, where a principle of justice can come through in spite of the fact that the instrument is not so clear on what the instrument is conveying, in this case, the Congress. I think this can be done. I think this can be done, I think this has to be done, but I think we should have no illusions about the degree of insanity among our fellow Americans and the Congress and the problem of their worship of money, as if it has intrinsic value, versus what has real value, which is the principle of human creativity. Q: [avneet] Hello, I have two questions and I’ll try to make it short. I attended a lecture last night by Indian cabinet minister Shashi Tharoor who many people have seen last year gave a speech at Oxford calling for British Empire reparations for slavery and occupation of India; it’s a very good presentation. So he was there last night, he’s writing a book on the British Empire in India; so he went through that because it’s something that from much of the audience seemed to not know these facts which we all know; that the British Empire left India in 1947, at a 90% poverty rate, and 8% literacy rate. So he said, compared to what we are today, we’ve come a long way. He went through how the genocides that were done in India, were all intentional; they were not accidental. They were all intentional and the British Empire had no agenda to provide or send food despite the hundreds of miles of railroads built in India, which like in Africa, were all built from mines to ports, just to extract materials. So it was a very interesting discussion, because it was a dialogue between him and another Indian journalist of how, today in India, every month, you have 1 million people turning 18 years of age, every month. So every year you have 12 million people entering your labor force, registering to vote, wanting a better future. So you have so much potential, but also he made the point, it’s like water in a dam: it’s got huge potential but it can also be a huge disruptive force if a development policy isn’t shaped very quickly. And the last time India had a good job rate was in 2011, when we produced 1 million jobs in 2011, so that’s not even very good. Last year — that’s what they said, and I would check it — but last year they said India only produced 100,000 jobs. And that’s the organized sector, because a lot of the jobs are in the an organized sector. I don’t know if that’s correct or not, but we do have a lot of work to do. I say that because I was in India for three weeks; I just got back three days ago, because this year India is hosting the BRICS summit, which starts next week; you have Putin, Xi, Modi, Zuma, Temer all the BRICS leaders will come together. I was there to attend the BRICS Academic Forum, which was very interesting. You have these delegations which were very good, and there were people in the delegations who were very conscious of the role that they are playing, not just for BRICS but a beacon for the entire humanity. There were some really good fights about what are we here to do? What’s the BRICS? Are we here to just reform the old system, or are we here to create a new system? And if we’re here to create a new system, why are still stuck to old methods of figuring out economy, like GDP and all these old British standards? So I wanted to ask Lyn, how exactly would he address the challenges of India, and what should India, hosting the BRICS this year, being in such a position today, what should we be doing? But that’s just a short report. SARE: From what Lyn said to us on the phone the other day, he was pretty explicit, that is needed is an international system of credit modeled on what Alexander Hamilton did. So clearly that’s the short answer. And the potential is great, which is also cause for optimism, because we can look, perhaps without the greatest optimism at our members of Congress who did do at least one thing that was unusual: They broke from their typical behavior to do something to absolutely smash Obama in a very effective way. On the other hand, when you think of them behaving as inspired, it’s somewhat hard to imagine, but we’ve seen this extraordinary process, led by Xi Jinping, Putin, Modi, Egypt, — there’s a whole dynamic globally, which will have its effect also on the United States. an I think such a policy of Hamilton’s papers, and Hamilton and LaRouche explicitly, and obviously all of these leaders are so familiar with LaRouche that if we say, "Hamilton and LaRouche" they have an idea of what that means; and we should see if we can get it done. Q: [follow-up] LaRouche was very well-known in the BRICS delegations; I can report that myself. LaRouche is well known, but not well-studied enough, and that is frankly our role. The BRICS does need direction of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. Thank you. SPEED: The thing that needs to happen is that we here, need to reemphasize getting rid of the British agent Barack Obama. The British East India Company as Lyn has talked about it many times, from 1763 is still the dominant agency in the world, although the American Revolution was very important in securing a beachhead to work against it; until the emergence of the BRICS process, itself a product of what Lyn and Helga had done from particularly the fall of the Berlin Wall, that there hasn’t been a confluence of forces, a combination strong enough, to actually do what was attempted by the American Revolution. The American Revolution was never finished. And when we talk about fighting against slavery, you’re talking about the British; poverty is British. Illiteracy is British; degeneracy is British. Slavery is British. The reason you have such a big problem in the United States is, once you have refused to identify the source of the actual conflict, that the United States had been dedicated, built and dedicated to fight, it’s the conflict that Hamilton lost his life fighting, with a British agent Aaron Burr! Once you don’t say who the enemy is, then you can’t win against the enemy! How’s it possible? You never win. So one of the problems that we know with India, is that there has got to be a clarity in that area. That’s not to criticize India, that’s just to say more that in the United States, a lack of clarity about the fact that if you look at Hillary Clinton, for example, she’s an agent of Obama. You can say, "Hillary’s horrible, she’s terrible." Well, yeah, if she’s an agent of Obama, that’s the worst thing you can say about her. And you have to understand what he is in turn. This is the hereditary enemy of the United States. Hamilton invented the nation, to fight against this hereditary enemy, and if we take what we have been directed to do around these Four Laws, and make that the focus, then what’ll happen, is that people’ll be inspired to do the right thing. Certainly India’s role in space, especially with its recent Mars mission and some other things, implies a possible collaboration between China and India, and Russia, in which we would have to get the United States involved. But then, again, there’s Barack Obama: He destroyed the space program. So you have to see that, in our case, what we can do, is to reemphasize this. And I frankly think that would tend to moralize forces globally including in India, that would understand that perhaps American had gotten its soul back. Q: Hello, this is J— from the Bronx. On this idea of moving forward as mankind and getting rid of this idea that money has intrinsic value, last night I was at Columbia University, listening to a lecture about gravitational waves and the discovery of them; and LIGO. And two black holes coming together and merging made a noise, and LIGO was actually tuned at the frequency between 256 and 512, and that’s how they picked up these gravity waves; and more importantly, they went back into history and started talking about Newton’s theory of gravity and then Einstein’s theory of gravity as well, and Einstein pretty much proved Newton wrong. But a lot of scientists didn’t agree with Einstein’s theory of gravity waves at the moment. But about 40 years later, a couple scientists said, "let’s prove Einstein right." So they came up with this idea of LIGO which was basically the machine or the invention that was used to prove these gravity waves today. And so after about 30 years of building up the money and research, they finally built one in Washington state and another one in Louisiana; and earlier this year, they detected gravity waves as a fact. Now I’m not here to report on that specifically. It was what happened afterwards; as we were going up into the observatory, I heard someone saying "Yeah, this is great and all, but what’s the return on investment? What’re we going to make out of this? Like, what’re we investing in, exactly?" So, I realized it’s that type of thinking that’s destroyed our space program; people are infatuated with money that they don’t think about the human creativity and the possibility. After we went up to the roof and I saw the Moon for the first time, up close through the telescope, and I saw Mars through a telescope, I was in awe! And it was all surreal. And then, I see 12 year olds, and 13 year olds, bringing their own telescopes and looking at the stars! And I realized, they don’t care about money, they don’t care about this "return value" of looking up in space. They were just curious. They just wanted to see what was going on up there, what was causing things to move and why the stars were shining so bright. And that idea that Hamilton had that money has no value, was really paralleled that night, because these 12-year-olds were so curious, and yet this adult was like "well, where’s our money goin’? This is a waste of money." So that was pretty much my experience last night. I don’t know if there’s something you’d like to add. [Speed’s response is off-mike.] Q: John Sigerson, here. Just a couple of a comments and a plug for a class that I’m giving on Friday. First of all on Alexander Hamilton: I just wanted to point out that if anybody thinks that his works are somehow inaccessible, you can get his entire, complete works for $1.99 on Amazon. And his entire works are totally fascinating, and you should avail yourself of working through a lot of what he wrote. It will really open your eyes. The second thing I just wanted to point out, is that in effect, we are representing the victims of British Imperialism, in the same way that the 9/11 victims organization was; we are the organization that represents all those victims, past, and present, and future, potentially. And I think emotionally, I think that that’s very important for us to think about, ourselves as being that kind of representative. That is, you’re not just representing yourself, your own ideas, we are representing this interest of humanity against this scourge of British Imperialism and everything it represents and all of its manifestations, with Bush, Obama, and Dodd-Frank. And if we present ourselves to congressmen as that, not just the LaRouche movement — I mean, yes, the LaRouche movement, and yes, LaRouche — but also we’re representing these people. I think that’s very important. And that just brings me to my other point, about reputation. I think that one thing that still holds many people back is this question of "my reputation." What I will do if I take a stand and my reputation will be injured, that is the thing — and I know this, because I took a big step a couple of weeks ago, in introducing LaRouche’s economics and his economics idea to a lot of our musician friends, who may not be very familiar with it. And so I took a deep breath and did that. And I think it was very effective, and I expect to continue on that kind of discussion in the seminar that I’m going to be giving this Friday. But I was reflecting on that, this idea of reputation, thinking about the reputation of somebody like Johannes Brahms, the great composer in the late 19th century. At the time that Johannes Brahms was writing his incredible works, his symphonies, his Requiem, his beautiful songs, many of which were based on German Volkslieder, German popular songs, — well, German people’s songs, very similar to the African American Spirituals; that’s what Brahms was working on. He was accused of being a fuddy-duddy, behind the times; saying that he would have absolutely no influence in the future, because it’s just "old hat," everything that he’s doing. And one thing that the great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler pointed out, many, many years after that, in the 1940s, is that with every single advancing year, Brahms’s reputation grew, and grew, and grew, and grew. And all of his opponents got smaller and smaller and smaller. And I think that says something about what you have to think about in terms of your own idea of what your reputation is, your personal reputation, but also when you’re talking to other people about what they really think their reputation is. This, of course, impinges on the idea of immortality, that is, what is your real immortality. What do you really want future generations to think of you and of your friends, and of what you did, or failed to do. So that’s what I simply wanted to say and invite people to participate in the seminar, where one of the things that I will do is help people recognize this same ghostly spirit, that we conjured up, you might say, with these four concerts that we did with the Mozart Requiem, to help people to be able to recognize that, or recognize its absence, in many performances of Classical music today. Because in many cases, what you hear as Classical music really isn’t, because it’s missing that. So we’re going to go through some examples of where you can literally touch it. Thank you. SPEED: I don’t really have a lot to say in response, John. I just wanted to point out that it’s not just missing from music, it’s missing from the pulpit, it’s missing from the judicial bench, it’s missing from every political debate, we don’t have what we used to call "soul"; or used to be called "soul." Not the 1960s version, not the 1960s version. And just I think what’s important in terms of the class, or the series, is that this work that Lyn began; if you could say just a bit before you sit down, about — because you’ve been involved with Lyn and his music work and his interest in music from the ’70s. Why was it, that he had this abiding and always present emphasis on, whether it was Beethoven, or whether it was the tuning question, why was he always emphasizing this? SIGERSON: Well, it really boils down to me, personally, it boils down to this conception of progress. This certainly was what brought me close to Lyndon. Even before I had met Lyndon, sort of the cauldron out of which I came was a conflict that I had with my anthropology teacher, up at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville. His name was Goldman and he was a specialist in the sexual practices of the Andaman Islanders. [laughter] Now, the Andaman Islands, — I’m sure Avneet knows where they are, very much so — and at that point, they were subject of fascination by the New Agers, because of the sexual promiscuity of the Andaman Islanders. And I wrote a paper and submitted a paper, saying that I thought this was ridiculous, that what these people need is good sanitation, they need proper living conditions, and so forth, instead of all these anthropologists coming in and examining their sexual practices. And I got a comment back from my professor, who said: Sorry John, but your paper is really not adequate because what you’re recommending is something tantamount to "social engineering"! [laughter] And that gave me a lot of thought, because for him, "social engineering" was something that was very bad! You’re not supposed to engineer societies. But of course, anybody who knows Alexander Hamilton did exactly — what’re we doing? We’re doing social engineering! I mean, the U.S. Constitution is social engineering, from the most advanced standpoint. So that’s what brought me around, and I think that in all cases, that, to me, has always guided my judgments about music and what to do and what not to do, culturally. Which is that anything that does not represent real progress in terms of progress of the intellect, even if it means the discovery of principles who have already existing principles, but principles that are not well known, just the very fact you have increasing numbers of people who are discovering those principles, well, that means you have an increasing, what LaRouche calls, "density of singularities." Because every time that little light goes on in your head, that’s a singularity. And if you have that going on in millions of heads, which is the kind of thing that’s now occurring in China, especially, millions of young heads, and also what was just mentioned here about the children looking at the stars, then, that’s progress! And that’s the best way that you can think about progress. So that’s what I would say. Q: I want to segue off of what Avneet said about the BRICS forming a new structure, rather than just modifying the old one. Now, in that propensity, I wanted to mention that Hamilton’s views of America, in America, will work; but taking them internationally is going to take an extra step, especially with Russia, China, and India. Because it’s deeply engrained in their culture to use gold, to set their money with. Especially China. It goes back millennia because they created the first fiat currency and they still feel that bite today. So my question is, is how can we get past that cultural barrier of, we have to use gold and inform them, you know, there’s another way? SARE: I actually think using the gold as a standard or not using gold really has no impact on whether they can have a Hamiltonian policy. I mean, in a sense, China is the closest, although there’s certain features that if Americans could come back to their senses, and think about how our Constitution was conceived of, we could contribute to this process. But if you look at a nation which actually already has a very strong commitment to the future, which, I think is also very important, Deng Xiaoping, his idea-if you think of a place that came out of the most intense, horrific, degradation of the human intellect as the so-called "Cultural Revolution" under Mao, and then, what was determined as a course out of it, now over a few generations, maybe two or three generations, how you want to look at it, and what they’re capable of, I mean, the thing that is human, is the ability to change. So I don’t think there are such things as we call "cultural" or whatever, or like "genetic" traits to people, because we are the only species that willfully changes our species, and I think that’s the thing to focus on, and from that standpoint, the future. And I would say, I just cannot stress enough for everyone here, how much it is axiomatic in our culture, in our society and the trans-Atlantic world, that we dont know longer believe in growth, and we no longer believe in a self-transformation. And I would ask people to consider, also, if you take an animal, whatever it is, a beaver; you know, they build little houses and things like that; they’ve been doing the same thing for thousands and thousands of years, and I don’t see any indication that — I’ve never seen a beaver driving an automobile for example, and I don’t see any indications that they’re actually going to change! Whereas you think about mankind and then you think about how insane it is where we place our values. I know, Mrs. LaRouche had a polemic at one of our conferences some years ago, of the amount of money that Americans spend on their bodies; you know, the gym, the nails, the message, — well, our bodies have remained quite the same over a very long time. But a few thousand years ago, we were burning wood, eating raw meat, dying by the age of 25 or 30. Now, we can have a life expectancy where you can imagine a world where many people live to be over 100,; that we can prepare food in ways that are much more interesting than eating raw meat and chewing grass. We have means of communicating with each other which are not physical, and the arts, I think are one of these that is very profound. So that we have actually undergone a species transformation, which is not experienced in our physical being. And I just think there are certain factors of optimism, like where this JASTA thing passed, where you suddenly feel like a great weight has been lifted off you, and you can think about the world differently. If you think about what it would mean — I was very struck, remember a couple years ago, when we first started this, and LaRouche said, if you had a government worth its salt, wouldn’t it just take over these skyscrapers? I mean, shouldn’t we just throw all these bankrupt whatever they are, these criminal operations out of these skyscrapers? Probably a lot of these skyscrapers are empty anyway, they’re just for real estate speculation. So wouldn’t you just throw people out and convert the buildings into hospitals and institutes of higher learning, and housing for artists, and practice rooms for trombone players, and things like that? where you could actually develop? And it was such a novel idea, and you kind of say, "Gosh! Why didn’t I think of that?!" Well, you didn’t think of it, because we’ve gotten so beaten down by various assumptions which are all related to the underlying assumption that growth and transformation for increases in energy and increases in intelligence, and improvement in the standard of living is not something that is axiomatic in us any more. So I think if there’s a culture that we have to change, it’s that culture and come back to actually a human culture which is based on that principle. Q: It’s Howard in New York, I just was on the subway the other day and I was reminded of something LaRouche and this organization have been worried about for a long time, because I saw a young man on drugs, about 20, and he was sort of nodding out, and his pupils were dilated, you could see because he had these light blue eyes. And for some reason, he was sort of friendly and talking to people, so I started to talk to him, and apparently, he was on an opiate called Tramadol, which is a little bit less known than some of the other goodies like oxycodone and Fentanyl which is given to cancer patients. And it was funny, because after I mentioned it, this guy was getting off the subway and then he started breaking into a little song about "beware of the dope," so you could see this is on people’s minds. I know we’re concerned about this, but it seems from what you read in the press and in person, there’s a tremendous amount of these opiate drugs hitting the population, and killing the population, and this is not just heroin, it’s also our dear pharmaceutical industry. SPEED: In the Federalist Papers in the very beginning, Hamilton says the following — Hamilton and his associates — he says: "It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." That is the issue that you’re talking about. That’s precisely what you’re talking about. The issue of drug usage in America is that issue. And people particularly in certain of the neighborhoods, whether you’re talking South Bronx, whether you’re talking Bedford-Stuyvesant, or you’re really talking now could be Vermont, could be New Hampshire, could be Maine, it could be anyplace in the United States. The largest heroin usage you have in this country is among white suburbanites. Not black ghetto- dwellers. You have other forms of designer drugs, that have been introduced over a long time, into the African American and other communities as genocide initiatives, and this has been ongoing; and Obama is aware of it, and it’s being done, and people are being exterminated. For example, synthetic marijuana is being circulated up in Harlem and these other areas. This is being done intentionally, because it creates insanity. And it creates a form of insanity that encourages people to demand very, very draconian police measures. And that’s what you have. Why don’t we do an experiment: Why don’t we take the Bronx, where we have some young people; we have an active process with some of the legislators there, many of whom have expressed one way or the other, their agreement with Glass-Steagall and who are aware that the prospect of a credit system as an international prospect makes sense, because they come from Puerto Rico or they’re from Dominican Republic. Why don’t we take that area and say, why don’t we take this, and say, "OK, this Hamilton idea, let’s make that our central point of intervention." Why? Well, you have this idiotic musical, and people are speaking about, they think, Hamilton. Well, rather than merely attacking the musical, which might be a nice thing to do, the reason I mention it, is the author of the music is either from Washington Heights or the Bronx area, and Hamilton, and Hamilton as a figure is who we’ve adopted through The Hamiltonian, which is itself a modern-day expression of the Federalist Papers. In other words, what was being done by Hamilton and Jay in trying to mobilize New York City to create the Presidency of the United States, is what we need to do in New York City. That’s what the Manhattan Project should do. Lyn is saying he wants the Four Laws out there: Why not take the area that everybody is terrified of, why don’t we take the area where people think it’s the most violent, why don’t we take the area where people think it’s the most hopeless, why don’t we take the people who everybody says can’t learn anything, why don’t we take the area in which death walks the street together with children and babies, every day — why don’t we take that area, and have people look at the stars? Why don’t we take that area, and take the space program that we’ve been talking about and Kesha and others have been particularly promulgating, and make that the topic there from the standpoint of saying: "What Hamilton would have done in that area, he would have not settled for slavery, which is what drug usage is; drug usage is slavery, and the people that engage in it are slaves! So the issue of slavery, debt slavery, or psychological slavery, that issue is the issue we take up, and what we do is we take our choral project and use that, and counterpose it to the musical. And then we tell the legislators what we’re doing, and say: "This is how you implement Glass-Steagall." What happens if we do that? That doesn’t mean we can’t do it in other parts of New York City, but why not take the area that everyone is terrified of, and launch an initiative, not in itself, but merely as the same thing we’ve been doing; why not take the living dead of New York City, and transform it? Q: On this point of drugs, DiBlasio wants $100,000 to do a study of setting up clinics throughout the city that will be places where heroin addicts will be able to — whatever, you know — consume heroin, shall we say. There is a Brooklyn councilman in Bay Ridge, I believe, who has a petition against this scheme of Soros-tool DiBlasio. SPEED: I just want to check if there are any other questions, because otherwise, we’ll close out. Do you have something? We’ll make this the final — because of the time. Q: This is M— from Manhattan. I actually didn’t have this question/commentary until 15 minutes ago, but listening to what a number of people were saying today sort of a thread that developed in my mind, was the idea, and it seems to go back as a principle what a big thing that we’re fighting, is the idea of truth, and the recognition that truth is an agent of freedom, and not an agent of repression as it’s made out to be. And I think, for instance, when John Sigerson talked about his run-in with the professor and the idea that he had talked about trying to organize for what should be done for these people, as opposed to letting them do what they want to do; letting them have the quote/unquote "freedom" to do in fact, whatever they do. And it occurred to me that a lot of these movies, like the original "Star Trek," these space exploration movies, which always tout coming from the United States, the Star Fleet, and so forth, where we’ve made great strides , we’re going deep into space, basically the extraterrestrial imperative, in other words; but then one thing I was starting to think about, that is always there, is that if there’s a culture that people run into in these movies that is actually inferior technologically to yours or something, the bottom line is the same, from what we’re taught through these programs, "you don’t interfere." Because interfering will destroy them, interfering will give them a certain power, a potential that they’re not ready for, and therefore, that will destroy the culture, destroy the civilization. So that’s constantly being hammered away that, the Malthusian idea that the moral thing to do, is, to leave these people alone in their backwardness, basically. Not to help, not to advance, not to progress, not to develop. And so, in terms of that Malthusian ideal that’s there. And that also led me to thinking about just what we were talking about in school; we were talking about Classical culture and at the Metropolitan Museum, when you go right up to the stairs, slightly to the right when you enter the paintings, there the famous Jacques-Louis David Death of Socrates, where he has the hemlock in one hand and he’s pointing to the heavens; and he is poised to not commit suicide, in a real sense, but to show how corrupt, in fact, Athens is and how there’s a higher moral law for people. So it just occurred to me this whole paradigm of give people the freedom to do what they want to do, and let people be who they are, is really what’s being peddled as the idea of destruction, and it’s really what we’re fighting, because, I was thinking, for instance in the old Pantheon of the Roman Empire, where you have all the gods, and you can believe in any god that you want to believe in, but you cannot assert that any one god is ultimately truthful. And so the way everybody’s inculcated with the idea that if we’re told there’s one principle, a common principle or something of that sort, that that’s a bad thing, and we’re being herded that we’re being controlled, when it’s actually the opposite. And it just occurred to me that I think that’s maybe one of the things to focus on and fight in this, to get people to see that if we coalesce around these common principles that defined our history... SPEED: M—, are you asking a question, or are you just stating something? Q: [follow-up] I guess the question would be, when we’re talking to people, what is the best way to take up that discussion about how truth is a unifying and a liberating principle for humanity, as opposed to something that constricts us with the current paradigm that we’re taught that in. SARE: Well, your description caused me to imagine something: Imagine of those anthropologists came to the United States right now, and they would say, "Look this culture: They have these two, crazy, criminal killers who are running around the country, they’re all over television, and then people are going to march like little lemmings into choose one of these as their leaders, but in order for them to carry out the ritual, they have to be on drugs." [laughter] I did think it’s worth — why don’t we look at it from that standpoint? SPEED: We’re going to end at this point. Let me say this, because we’re going to be doing a bit of implementation: The statement that we read at the beginning will be available for everybody tonight, I guess, if we can get it out to from larouchepac [https://larouchepac.com/20161008/agents-history]. And I think you should take the statement, study it, and think about it. Because the difficulty will be sticking to that orientation, eliminating extraneous considerations, and thinking of ways to make the idea of what Hamilton describes and what Lyn’s Four Laws describe, how to make that change the United States in the immediate days and weeks ahead. That’s our task. OK, we’re now concluded.