Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIW This transcript appears in the August 8, 2014 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

LaRouche Calls for World
To Follow China Lead on Fusion

[PDF version of this transcript]

LaRouche PAC's Friday evening webcast of Aug. 1, 2014 was hosted by Matthew Ogden, and joined by Dennis Small of EIR and Dennis Mason of LaRouche PAC (http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31462). Ogden opened the program by noting that they had met with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier in the day, and that the discussion would reflect their remarks.

Matthew Odgen: I would like to begin with our institutional question, as is our custom here, and the question reads as follows:

"Yesterday, international forensic scientists reached the site of the Flight MH17 crash in east Ukraine, after the government halted military operations. The convoy of OSCE monitors included Australian and Dutch police experts. According to news reports, Russian representatives will also attempt to reach the crash site and work alongside the international specialists to examine and investigate the site.

"At the same time, the so-called separatist rebels are reportedly due to meet a Ukrainian governmental delegation in Minsk today, as Belarus hosts talks including Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. The Dutch Prime Minister has outlined their three shared priorities: to repatriate the rest of the passengers' remains from Ukraine, to establish the cause of the crash, and to bring those responsible to justice.

"Our question for you, Mr. LaRouche, is as follows: What are your thoughts on the investigation of Flight MH17, and do you have any advice to the OSCE and governments of Russia and Ukraine in their possible collaborative process to reach the shared priorities outlined by the Dutch Prime Minister?"

Dennis Small: The discussion this afternoon with LaRouche raised this question directly to him, and his response was as follows: He said that the point is obvious, and the answer is already there, and the facts are there simply to be picked up and presented, in terms of the MH17 incident.

But that aside, he said, what this does, is it actually raises the other side of the question, which is much more fundamental to the strategic situation at hand: What was, and is, the fraudulent version of these events that is being pushed? Why was it being pushed? Why is it being pushed? Was it, perhaps, to hide the guilt of those actually responsible for the atrocity?

He said it was set up exactly that way, in order to blame Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had absolutely nothing to do with this whole case. So the case, and the lies against Putin, are now ricocheting against those who lied in the first place. And this can be seen—this battery of lies—in the international media campaign which has swept both sides of the Atlantic, to present Putin as some sort of a modern version of Darth Vader or something of the sort. Pretty much every published magazine of major circulation has had something or other to fill out the different forms of lies about what Putin was involved in.

The West vs. the Rest

LaRouche went on to discuss the strategic situation in regard to this MH17 situation. Because, he said that the British and their Wall Street errand boys are apoplectic over the fact that what's coming at this point from the United States and Europe, including the United Kingdom, is currently not relevant for the future of humanity. The leading edge of that, is what is happening in China, and especially China's renewed, re-invigorated lunar project, which is geared towards a helium-3-based approach to thermonuclear fusion as the next principal technological advance in energy source for humanity.

LaRouche emphasized that this—what the Chinese are now doing—is the example, the stellar example, that the world must follow today—not the fakery coming from many parts of the United States and from Europe, such as—he underscored—the mouth of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He said her idea is to give an "el cheapo" version of productivity in simple monetarist terms, which is a total fake. He says hers is a crazy idea, which is absolutely incompetent. It's not what any sane American would want to do in our country or elsewhere, LaRouche emphasized, and all of what is now coming from her, and from the British Empire more generally, LaRouche characterized as being essentially bullshit—bullshit influenced by the British, of which nothing good will come.

LaRouche also said that in addition to China, what Putin in Russia is now doing, is also shocking to many people, but he is doing successful things, despite what others in the trans-Atlantic region are up to, and despite the international media campaign to vilify him.

Now, to take a step back and understand what is actually behind this attempt to use the MH17 incident for the purpose of pushing forward a confrontation, indeed likely a thermonuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia, it's important to recognize that the British thumbprints are all over this operation. As they have been historically over similar operations—going back to the Tonkin Gulf situation around Vietnam; most recently around what Tony Blair did in the case of Iraq with his "sexed-up" dodgy dossier; what they tried to do, and fortunately did not succeed, around Syria, at least not so far; and then what they've geared up around the Ukrainian situation—the intention behind all of this, LaRouche has repeatedly emphasized, is not a regional war, not a regional confrontation, not a European crisis. It is an attempt to trigger a global thermonuclear confrontation, to force the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and others to back down and to submit. And it is the British Empire's response to the fact that their system, financially and economically, is totally imploding.

There are increasing voices being raised against this danger of war, and it is a very serious danger of war. One might look at the various proposals coming from Obama and other British agents, as something that's merely ludicrous and lunatic and ridiculous, but these ideas and these provocations, using Ukraine in particular, are as dangerous as they are lunatic.

In terms of the warnings that are coming out about this, they are coming more frequently, more loudly, and from fairly prominent Establishment circles as well.

For example, over the course of this last week, the European Leadership Network, which is made up of top European and Russian defense and foreign policy former officials, issued a statement. This includes such people—perhaps unlikely, one might think—as Malcolm Rifkin, formerly Defense and Foreign Minister in the British government; Volcker Rühe of Germany; Igor Ivanov, former Foreign Minister of Russia; and others. They warned of the danger of "potentially pitting nuclear-armed adversaries against each other in a highly volatile region," referring to the Ukraine situation and how that has been escalating.

One of the more insightful warnings came from Willy Wimmer, the German former Deputy Defense Minister under the Kohl government of the CDU, the conservative government, where he asked the question "Cui bono?" Who benefits? And he points to the United States under Obama as one of the main beneficiaries of this confrontational approach with Russia, and even more so, he said, the United Kingdom.

Now, this is a very interesting emphasis, and absolutely appropriate, because it is the British—there are Americans involved, certainly, like Obama, the British tool—but it is the British who are the ones behind this whole approach. And what Wimmer emphasized is that, with regard to the United Kingdom, Germany and Germans should not forget the way in which the United Kingdom betrayed the German Resistance to Hitler—a very strong statement under any circumstances, and certainly coming from Germany today.

Now, in addition to this, also pointing the finger at the British—and this is very necessary, since, as LaRouche has emphasized repeatedly, it is the British Empire's strategy that is behind this—there was an open letter sent to British Prime Minister David Cameron, written by Sergei Stepashin, who was a cabinet minister in various Russian governments. The headline of his letter says it all. It says, and I quote, "You [David Cameron] are supporting Nazis in Ukraine and threatening Russia with world war." This was published in RT, and it was an answer to an article published by David Cameron in the Sunday Times, which, according to the letter's author, "marks a major escalation in the Ukraine crisis, seeking to pull the European European Union into a war against Russia."

So, the strategic situation of the British drive to war continues to be absolutely front-and-center, but now there is a growing wave of response to this. But in addition to the threats of military nuclear war against Russia, there's a new element that's been folded into the picture this week, which we'll discuss a bit further ahead, which is the idea, from the British again, of unleashing financial nuclear war against Russia. And this was stated in exactly those terms by Wolfgang Münchau, writing in Financial Times Deutschland, where he is a regular correspondent. And what he said is: Look, we don't have to worry about this Ukraine situation and what Russia is doing. "We can crush the Russian economy in weeks," he bragged. He said all we have to do is to block their access to international payments systems. And he said, "Payment systems are the nuclear bombs of financial war."

So, as you can see, these ideas, and these proposals from the British are indeed as dangerous as they are crazy. LaRouche's response on the Münchau and related threats was: "Nobody has a monopoly on money."

'Two Systems Are Before the World'

Ogden: A major turning point has taken place with the declaration by the BRICS countries that they were creating a New Development Bank in collaboration with many presidents from the Central and South American nations, that this was going to be the inauguration of a new economic order for the planet.

In the [July 25] edition of EIR, Dennis Small wrote an article titled "The BRICS Summit: Half of Humanity Launches a New Economic Order," in which he makes the point that if you look at the portion of the world's population which is represented by the BRICS countries, combined with the nations of Ibero-America, you're literally talking about half, or 48% to be precise, of the human population on this planet, and one-third of the total land area.

With the creation of the BRICS' New Development Bank, the continuing, steadfast refusal by Argentina to pay the usurious debt payments being demanded by the vulture funds, and the heavy emphasis on real value, in the form of investments in nuclear fission power projects and related supporting great projects for rail and water development, what we're seeing is indeed the emergence of an entirely new economic order on this planet.

Meanwhile, the other half of humanity is in a process of self-imposed general breakdown crisis, with the systematic elimination of nuclear power from electricity production, as we showed on a graph on this broadcast last Friday; the blow-out of leading European banks such as Portugal's Banco Espirito Santo; the looming bail-in of the entire trans-Atlantic sector; and the blow-back of the sanctions against Russia, costing Europe hundreds of thousands of highly skilled industrial jobs, especially in Germany and France, when the unemployment crisis in Europe is already catastrophic.

So, it's clear that the world has now been divided into two opposing systems: as LaRouche has identified them, the Promethean system versus the Zeusian system, or the system of creativity and growth on the one hand, versus the system of death and decay on the other. And these two systems cannot continue to coexist.

This is precisely the point that was made yesterday by Argentina's chief of staff, Jorge Capitanich, who said, regarding the financial warfare being waged by the vulture funds against Argentina's national sovereignty: "It is not possible for the world to coexist with these types of minuscule agents [the vulture funds], who distort the functioning of the international financial system, relations among nations, the exercise of sovereignty, and, above all, the will of nations. The defense of the Argentine position is the defense of our sovereignty, the defense of our resources, the defense of our children's daily bread. International leaders haven't hesitated to provoke wars to intervene in nations for the sole purpose of appropriating resources. We are going to continue what we're doing, in a complex world."

Now, over 150 years ago, an American economist by the name of Henry Carey, who was the leading economic advisor to President Abraham Lincoln, in fact, made the very same observation of the impossibility of the coexistence of these two distinct and opposing systems. What he had to say was:

"Two systems are before the world. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism, the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war, the other to universal peace. One is the English System, the other we may be proud to call the American System, for it is the only one ever devised, the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world. Such is the true mission of the people of these United States: to raise the value of labor throughout the world, to improve the political condition of man, to diffuse intelligence, and to promote the cause of morality, and to substitute true Christianity for the detestable system known as the Malthusian, proving to the world that it is population that makes the food come from the rich soils, and food tends to increase more rapidly than population, thus vindicating the policy of God to man."

The battle between these two opposing systems is precisely what we are faced with today. And we've now reached clearly the point where these two systems can no longer coexist—or, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: A world divided against itself cannot endure half-slave and half-free.

So, the question is: How can we return the United States to what Carey defined as this true mission of the people of the United States, and how can we join that path of humanity in freeing the world from the Malthusian system of ignorance, poverty, depopulation, and war, and return to the American System as he defined it?

From the Top: China's Space Program

Small: There's not a simple formula, and it involves what LaRouche has often referred to as "heavy ideas," to be able to carry out that task which is the immediately urgent strategic task, as you've just presented, for the United States to rejoin humanity and in fact to lead humanity, as has been our stated national mission throughout its existence as a constitutional republic.

Incidentally, I should say that I've done some more calculations, and the 48% of the population which is involved in actual development rises to 50% plus 1, if we exclude from the trans-Atlantic side all the bankers and speculators, and I think they should be excluded, in all fairness. So, arithmetically speaking, we're with the majority!

That aside, the issue really is one of heavy ideas that are required here, and in discussing this with LaRouche today, he said: Look, you have to take this thing from the top. If you're going to look at the planet, you have to start with the stellar example of unleashing the kinds of forces and productivity which can pull the planet back from the brink of extinction, both economically and militarily. And that example, he said, is China, with its lunar program, which involves mining helium-3 on the Moon, for the purposes of achieving a complete transformation of the relationship of man, not only to our biosphere here on Earth, and the way we conduct our economic activities here, but to totally transform our relationship to the solar system and beyond.

LaRouche said that actually is the standard of activity today. The Chinese are acting in the future, they are thinking that way, and he said that Russia will do the same thing in their own fashion. As opposed to the pathetic Angela Merkel of Germany, who has no idea whatsoever of productivity. Her ideas are intrinsically incompetent. What's her standard of measure? It's a strictly monetary one, one based on austerity, which will only destroy the economy, as is clearly being demonstrated in what Germany is doing today by their withdrawal from nuclear energy. So they're going fast—not forward, but backward—in terms of energy-flux density. That is absolutely not what's needed.

What do people really want? The problem is, he said, people are unemployed. They're being starved to death. They have no future. The youth are being destroyed because they see no future for themselves. And all of this is being done to pay off a bunch of crazy financial vultures, like those who are trying to kill off Argentina, as a prelude to bigger prey, such as Europe as a whole, which is on their immediate agenda. And these are people who have absolutely no idea of productivity, or rather they're implementing ideas which are absolutely "crackpot," to quote LaRouche. Their standard of value is fraudulent. What's the physical value of their product? How do you measure it? There is none.

Now, if we take a look at the world from that standpoint, from the top, that is to say, from the most advanced reaching-forward of humanity in the direction of our future as a species, which is what China is doing today, what do we see? Let's just take a look at recent developments over the last two weeks, since the July 15 BRICS Summit, and the followup summit the next day, July 16, between the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russian, India, China, and South Africa—and the heads of state of Unasur, which are the countries of South America, Central America, and Mexico.

Well, let's look at the map of the world that we have prepared for this discussion. The areas of the BRICS are marked in the darker green; the Ibero-American countries are in the lighter green, and the rest of the world is in gray, very gray.

Let's start with the green, which is the BRICS and the Ibero-American countries, where things are actually happening in the direction of taking mankind forward. Number 1 is marked in China. Now what China has just announced, are the next steps, in their lunar project. People will undoubtedly recall the launching of the Chang'e 3, with the Yutu lunar rover, recently, which was highly successful, enormously successful, but now they've announced the next stages in this. They're not talking specifically about what's going to happen with Chang'e 4, but the next one after that, Chang'e 5, which is scheduled for 2017; they're going to do the following. They plan to bring samples back to Earth from both the lunar surface, as well as, by excavating six feet under—where they may well find the corpse of Wall Street and the British Empire as well. But they intend to find some other interesting things there as well.

To do all of this, they have just announced, they need a new launch site, a new rocket, and a new spacecraft. Now, it's very interesting, because their current lander, which they used in the previous landing, of the Chang'e 3, was equipped to handle a 1.7 ton lander. But the rover actually weighs only 0.14 tons, that is to say, less than one-tenth of what the actual capability is. So clearly, they have ideas towards the future with this.

Now, what are they up to, what is going on on the surface of the Moon? Well, it's very well known, and it's not being particularly hidden. What is known about this project is that they are, among other things, looking to the lunar surface for helium-3, which is a helium isotope which is particularly appropriate for fusion, thermonuclear fusion power development. And the lunar surface is known to be plentiful in helium-3.

I will quote recent remarks of Harrison Schmitt, the famous Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator. He said, "China has made no secret of their interest in lunar helium-3 fusion resources." And the chief of China's lunar project, Ouyang Ziyuan, said, "When obtaining nuclear power from helium-3 becomes a reality, the lunar resources can be used to generate electricity for more than 10,000 years for the whole world."

Now that's an interesting statement. What it doesn't mention, but is undoubtedly well-known to the Chinese, and it is a point that LaRouche has repeatedly emphasized, is that it is not only the quantity of energy that is made available by an advance such as fusion, but the energy-flux density. In other words, the actual power to achieve work in the economy, which extremely dense sources of power can provide, which is very different than the same quantity of energy coming from a less dense source. In the past, we have discussed the difficulty of cutting metal with 3 quadrillion candles, which would have the equivalent amount of energy of one laser, which you can use to cut metal. And there are many such examples.

So, the Chinese are talking about this openly, and they're not only talking about it, this is what they're doing. And it is the reason why LaRouche has said, if you're going to take the world from the top, this is the future of humanity. And unfortunately, the United States, Europe, and the U.K. are completely irrelevant to the actual physical-economic future of humanity, at this point.

The End of Globalization

Now, let's go back to the map, because it's certainly not limited to China. Let's do the rounds on what's going on elsewhere, very quickly.

Number 2: Russia. Well, right after the sanctions went into play earlier this week, coming from Europe and the United States, including financial sanctions against their banks, as well as cutting off European and U.S. exports to Russian industrial areas, and also limiting certain military applications, President Putin simply called a meeting of his military-industrial complex, and said gentlemen, this is a blessing in disguise. We can and we will produce all of this nationally. We will achieve self-sufficiency. And what I want you to say, and I want to discuss with you right now, is how we're going to do it, how long it's going to take, and what the cost to the economy is going to be. But we're going to do it.

And the fact of the matter is, that these provocative sanctions that were announced, as LaRouche has emphasized from the outset, are not going to have that kind of effect on Russia as is being claimed by Mr. Tough-Guy Obama, and Mr. Tough-Guy Cameron, and so on and so forth, but actually the biggest negative impact is going to be on the sanctioners: that is to say, Europe in particular, and Germany, which actually is the intent of the policy from the British in the first place. But I'll come back to that.

So Russia is proceeding with this. This is all to their advantage, according to Putin, and furthermore, they have proceeded with plans with China, to build floating nuclear plants, for use not only in those two countries, but for exports to other parts of the world. These are not fusion plants obviously, that remains to be developed, but nonetheless, fission plants are very useful in today's economy.

Then, let's go back to the map, and look at the third major economic and population superpower of the BRICS, which is India: They have also launched nuclear power projects with Russia; there's a series of agreements which have just been reached, all of this is in the aftermath of the BRICS Summit, and they have also announced the formation of an expert group of Indians and Russians, to jointly study trade denominated in rubles and rupees—in other words, non-dollar-denominated trade.

And what perhaps has the British Empire most upset of all, is that the Indian government has just announced in no uncertain terms, with regard to the World Trade Organization's proposal that India abandon food self-sufficiency and get rid of their food reserves because it's a violation of globalization and free trade—and it violates the tenets of economics as announced by Adam Smith—the Indian government pronounced in no uncertain terms, "Screw you." And there is now much discussion in the rather hysterical international media that this fine formulation by the Indians, actually puts an end to the era of globalization, because they will not be able to proceed with the kind of global free-trade agreements which has been the hallmark of the British Empire, for the destruction of nations around the world.

So that's China, Russia, and India.

Now, again, back to the map: Number 4: China and Thailand have just announced joint railroad construction through the area that also covers other countries in the area, Burma [Myanmar], Laos, and so on. Number 5, Bangladesh, said that the BRICS announcement of a New Development Bank to provide credit for actual infrastructure and development projects, sounds pretty good to them, and they will be honored to join the BRICS New Development Bank. Because the bank was set up both to accept new members, subscribing a certain amount of capital to the bank, as well as to issue loans to countries that are outside the BRICS. So this is a project which is open to the world, and it is the project, of course, which the United States must join and will join, once we have Obama safely out of the White House.

Then, look at number 6—all of this is in the last couple of weeks—Singapore has announced that they will join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is a development bank, which China has announced to cover the entire Asian area, but also going beyond that, as well.

Then, going across to the South American area, we have number 7, coming off the BRICS Summit, the plan to build a transcontinental railroad crossing from Atlantic to Pacific, involving both Brazil and Peru.

Number 8, Nicaragua: Part of the package of agreements around BRICS was to build a new inter-oceanic canal, a new "Panama Canal," in effect, but going through Nicaragua, which the Chinese are involved in, in a principal way. The Russians are also involved. And the Nicaraguans have travelled abroad to Asia, to get other countries to be involved as well, such as South Korea.

In Guatemala, one of the more destroyed countries of Central America, of the entire region, leading political forces, taking a look at the BRICS and the New Development Bank, have said, "We want in, too."

The final one is number 10, and this is kind of my favorite. Because what happened in South Africa, in the course of this last week, is that Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba said the following: Henceforth, granting visas to incoming workers for the hospitality industry, including dancing girls, is out. We want advanced manufacturing, nuclear building, space satellites, lasers, mineral beneficiation, aquaculture, seismic surveys, ship repairs, etc.

So if you know anybody who's a dancing girl, better tell her—or him, if it's London we're talking about—that they should get trained in seismic surveying, or something of the sort: That's where the future is at.

Europe Gets the Argentine Treatment

Now, let's shift to the other part of the world, the gray area, the very gray area, because, sanctions were just announced. Right? We heard all about this, this is designed to destroy Russia, supposedly, because of all the bad things that they did in Ukraine, which of course they didn't do—but leave that aside. So the sanctions were announced. What's going to be the effect of the sanctions? Number 1, in France, it is estimated that as a result of the sanctions placed on Russia, 100,000 jobs will be lost. Number 2, Germany: It is estimated that as a result of the sanctions against Russia, 300,000 jobs will be lost, principally in the machine-tool sector, especially in the area that is so vital to the German economy, which is the Mittelstand [small and medium-sized industries].

Now, in our discussion this afternoon, Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, that this is actually the real target of these sanctions! They are designed, intentionally to destroy the German economy, to do to Germany, what was attempted with Versailles and other arrangements. And this is the British who are behind this.

And indeed, that is the case. The effort here, what is going on is the plan to bankrupt what remains of European economies, especially the German economy, drive them into default, and then foreclose on them, using the exact same vulture funds that are targeting Argentina, for their predatory activities.

And when I say the exact same vulture funds, I mean, the exact same vulture funds! Like Elliott Management, which is the principal vulture fund of Paul Singer—who, incidentally, is one of the principal financiers of many Congressional Republican candidates and sitting Congressmen, including John Boehner! That's what's going on in this situation.

Now, the vulture funds that are involved in this, are buying up bad debt all over Europe, for example, in Spain. They're buying it off the banks' books that are currently going through stress tests, with the idea of cleaning up the bad debt that they hold, which is, across Europe, something in the range of EU2 trillion worth of bad debt, and then they are taking this and selling it to the vulture funds, for how much? Less than 4 cents on the dollar. The vulture funds then turn around and find a convenient judge in their hip pocket, like the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Argentina, and they, then, obtain the right to collect 100 cents on the dollar for what they paid 4 cents on the dollar.

This is bail-in. This is foreclosing on Europe, which is the next step, after Argentina; but of course, Argentina is resisting, with important international backing. So that is the immediate future, intended for Europe under the British plan: foreclosure, the Argentina treatment.

Back to our map. Take a look at the situation in Austria. They expect to lose 20% of all of their current business with Russia, that's number 3.

Number 4, Italy's Mezzogiorno—they're also suffering terribly. In the last five years, the average household consumption in Italy, under the policies of the British Empire, has dropped 13%.

Number 5, Ukraine: Well, this is kind of ironic, because the prime minister of Ukraine, "Yats," who was put in power by Victoria Nuland and remains in power, at her pleasure, has pointed the finger at Argentina—other Ukrainian authorities have done the same thing, to say: Oh, how terrible, they've defaulted. We're not going to default.

But the best estimates of authorities who have studied this, such as Russian economists and experts such as Sergei Glazyev, are that the Ukrainian economy, after [signing the Association Agreement with the European Union, which is intended to eventually result in] joining the EU and being subjected to the same policies that the rest of the European Union is being subjected to, is going to face a collapse of 60-70%, and certain bankruptcy as a result.

Back on the map, we see the United States, number 6—that requires a whole discussion in itself—but what you have is a disastrous situation in terms of the collapse of the economy, the production capabilities, especially energy-flux density, across the country.

And finally, number 7, in Africa, the three nations of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, which are the current victims of a terrible Ebola epidemic, which you've undoubtedly heard about in the press, with the threat and the danger of this spreading like wildfire across Africa, but not just to Africa, but to all parts of the world. For that you can also thank the vulture funds, which have been very active across Africa. They have destroyed these economies, as have the IMF and the banks and so on, destroying their capabilities for development, and forcing them to pay debts, over, and over, and over, again.

It is most significant, that this coming week, in Washington, D.C., there will be a summit meeting of most of the heads of state of Africa, and they will be meeting, unfortunately for them, with President Obama. And in preparation for those meetings, President Obama had a kind of town hall meeting with a group of African youth who are studying in the United States, and to one question asked by a concerned young African about, can't we do something about the legacy of colonialism, and the fact that the debt that has been hung around our shoulders is destroying our ability to invest in infrastructure, President Obama's answer was, and this is a paraphrase, what he said was actually worse—was, "suck it up, pay the debt"! You can look it up. What he told them was, stop complaining about this colonialism and debt business. Yeah, sure, there were some problems. But that doesn't explain your problems now. You have absolutely enough resources, he said, to both pay the debt, and also see some progress.

So this is the President of the United States, telling a continent which is being ripped apart by the British Empire, and you are seeing the results in this Ebola epidemic, he's telling them, "Suck it up, that's the way it's going to be!"

And that is the way it's going to be, so long as Obama remains in the White House and so long as we leave those very gray countries in their current condition, instead of, as we must, getting them over to the other side into participating in what is, in fact, the American System of economy, with the BRICS and other nations.

A Sea-Change in Congress

Dennis Mason: I want to turn to the fight here in the United States. One week ago, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 105, by an overwhelming margin of 370-40, and shortly after the vote, LaRouche's assessment was, that opened up new possibilities which were not available beforehand. Now, for those who don't know, that resolution stated simply that "the President shall not deploy or maintain United States armed forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use, enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution," and that "nothing in this concurrent resolution supersedes the requirements of the War Powers Resolution."

What the passage of that means, technically, is that the President is not to go to war in Iraq without first going to Congress, for debate and approval. What it represents beyond the technicality, is that the House of Representatives has begun to take action to reclaim its sovereignty as an independent and equal branch of the Federal government. This aspect, the institutional role of the Congress, was raised by several members in the course of the floor debate, before the vote on that bill, and several of the members specifically cited the powers granted to the Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Now, as far as that goes, that's very good. However, there is more in Section 8 of the Constitution, than the powers of the declaration of war. I would draw your attention to the part of Section 8, on the powers invested in the Congress to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.

So there's an important question on the table, which is, that if the Congress is going to reassert its power as an independent institution, will it reclaim all of its authority under the Constitution? Will they restore Glass-Steagall and begin the process of restoring the sovereignty of the United States? And I would say, here, that part of the answer to that question is in our viewers' hands. As Harry Hopkins said in a speech at Grinnell College in 1939, "This government is ours, whether it be local, county, state or Federal. It doesn't belong to anybody but the people of America. Don't treat it as an impersonal thing, don't treat it as something to sneer at, treat it as something that belongs to you."

Now, as it stands, the Congress is set to begin their August recess and they will be out in the districts, in your backyard, with many opportunities for those of you watching this broadcast, to go out there and demand that these Congress people take action. There are real possibilities which have opened up, in the wake of the vote on that bill, but if they're going to bear fruit, we have to make it happen. It's possible that the Congress will restore Glass-Steagall as the first step in implementing LaRouche's Four Laws. It's possible to restore the sovereignty of the United States. It's possible to end the system of dying empire, and join the system of development which Dennis just outlined, but we have to fight for it. And I would urge each of you watching this broadcast, to make the time to go out and give your member of Congress a swift kick in the right direction. We have plenty of material on the website [http.larouchepac.com] for you to use, and you can call into our National Center for collaboration also [1-800-929-7566].

And whether or not you can make the time to take action yourself, I would encourage you to contribute generously to the LaRouche Political Action Committee, to give us the ability to fight on your behalf. As President Kennedy said, "Good things don't just happen, they are made to happen."

So with that said, I'll turn it over to Matt, who has a picture of the fight in and around the Capitol, since last week's historic vote.

Impeachment Is on the Table

Ogden: Thank you Dennis. Well, let me just start by saying that LaRouche today stated that Speaker of the House of John Boehner is to be considered the representative from the State of Idiocy. And anyone who is supporting his policies deserves the fine distinction of being recognized as a "Boehner-fide" idiot.

Let me just repeat what Dennis mentioned: The vote last Friday was a dramatic vote, 370-40. That's a truly historic event in Congress. And that vote, as LaRouche said, now opens up the very real possibility of more actions by Congress that others would consider "impossible," most especially, the immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall and the impeachment of Obama.

So this vote has opened the door, but our job now is to break it down. And that's exactly what LaRouche PAC intends to do over the coming days and weeks, despite the fact that Congress has recessed for their August break....

You can probably expect Republicans to stand up in front of their town hall meetings and brag about how they voted in favor of John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama, in the hopes of somehow assuaging the utter hatred for what Obama is doing, amongst the American population. But I think we can be guaranteed that we're not going to let them off that easy.

I'd like to bring people's attention to an article that was published in The Hill this week, titled, "Jones, No to Obama Lawsuit." This article features Rep. Walter Jones [R-N.C.], who says that the Boehner lawsuit is nothing but "theater, nothing but a show." The article says, "Walter Jones, who will vote no on the legislation that is scheduled to hit the House floor on Tuesday, said he prefers impeaching Obama. 'Why not impeach, instead of wasting $1-2 million of the taxpayers' money? If you're serious about this, use what the Founders of the Constitution gave us,' Jones said. 'That's why the Republican Party is in trouble,' referring to the Republican leadership's opposition to impeachment." And Jones stresses that this should not be about politics and about elections, as both the Democratic and Republican Party leaderships are trying to spin it, but "that the integrity of our government is more important."

And I think that's what most of the American population are thinking right now. They're sick and tired of the political games that the party leadership on both sides are playing, and they're serious about defending themselves and defending the Constitution. Only five Republicans voted against the Boehner lawsuit, including Jones, but I think a lot more of these guys, once they get back to their districts, might be hearing from their constituents, exactly what Walter Jones said, that instead of wasting time and money, and threatening the existence of the country with a lawsuit that's intended to go nowhere, why not just do what the Founders intended in cases like this, and file articles of impeachment? Either you do that, or you will go down in history as a genuine, Boehner-fide idiot.

But it's very clear, as we saw this week, that the entire debate around this is just scripted by the leadership of both parties to try to quash the rising tide of impeachment. In fact, Nancy Pelosi came to the floor on Thursday, and declared that John Boehner has got to uphold his side of the bargain! She said, I took the impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table, back when I was Speaker of the House; now you've got to do the same!

However, despite the attempts by the party leaderships and these party hacks, events beyond their control are moving very quickly, and are forcing the issue of the criminality of the Obama Administration. Very significantly, yesterday, CIA Director John Brennan was forced to come out and apologize for lying about the fact that the CIA spied on the Senate Intelligence Committee which had been tasked with investigating the Bush/Cheney torture program.

So far, two Senators, both Democrats, have called for Brennan's resignation over this—Mark Udall from Colorado, and Martin Heinrich from New Mexico—both of whom are members of the Intelligence Committee. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, also said that Brennan's job should be put in question, and she said, "This is an issue of Constitutional proportions." And "if the CIA is indeed spying on the U.S. Senate, where does that end?" And other Senators are now saying that they may unilaterally decide to declassify the Senate torture report, without waiting for the White House to give its approval, which has been stonewalling in an attempt to cover up for the crimes of Bush and Cheney.

9/11: 'We Know Exactly Who Did It'

Now, this gets directly at another fight which I just want to mention in brief, that has really heated up in the past two weeks. This is the fight over the declassification of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry Report. This escalation started with an event that occurred a week ago Tuesday at the Bipartisan Policy Center, on the 10th anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, at which several members of the 9/11 families stood up and confronted the panelists, the commissioners of the 9/11 Commission, and challenged them to support the declassification of the 28 pages in the Joint Inquiry Report, to which both [co-chairmen] Lee Hamilton and former New Jersey Gov. Tom Keane unequivocally answered in the affirmative [see EIR, Aug. 1, 2014]! ...

Since then, there's been an explosion of news coverage on House Resolution 428, the bill by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie, to declassify these 28 pages. There's a video excerpt of Massie at a recent press conference, which was just posted on his website a couple of weeks ago, that has received 82,000 views in just a few weeks! Based on this, Massie was interviewed on several talk radio networks, given multiple news media stories, including in the Daily Mail from London, which quoted him saying that reading these 28 pages "had forced him to rearrange his entire understanding of the last 13 years of history."

Very significantly, a long article came out today, titled, "Former Senate Says Huge Breakthrough Is Coming in the Classified 9/11 Information," which quotes former Sen. Bob Graham, who explicitly says that the original classification of these documents was "part of a larger effort to cover up Saudi activity in 9/11," and that he believes that there was "some Federal directive issued to all the agencies to disguise the Saudi role in 9/11." That article ends with Walter Jones calling for the American people to exert maximum pressure on Congress around this declassification fight. He said, "We're going to continue to beat this drum, but the only way we'll succeed is if people from around the country contact their Members of Congress and tell them to support this effort." Which is exactly what you need to do.

Perhaps the most significant of these articles that have come out, came out today, which highlights the role of the LaRouche movement specifically, in leading this fight, and quotes Lyndon LaRouche, saying that not only were the Saudis involved in the 9/11 attacks, but the British were, as well. And this goes back to what Dennis Small was saying earlier, about the finger being pointed now, increasingly, at the British. This article quotes LaRouche saying, "We know exactly who did it. It was done by the British Monarchy, the British Monarchy set up the whole thing. That's the guilty party and that's what the cover-up is all about."...

So this is the fight, and obviously, this is a very significant escalation in the coverage of this. LaRouche stated earlier this week that what will come out of this is very serious. He said, "Bush and Cheney can go to prison if the full truth comes out on their complicity with the British and the Saudis. The Bush/Cheney organization created a crime against the United States, and they need to be punished with the full weight of the law." And I would add, the Obama Administration's continuing to cover up this crime, is just as much of a crime itself....

Four New Laws

Let me remind our viewers that several weeks ago, LaRouche issued a document which continues to be the most important strategic directive to be followed, and this has got to guide everything that we do over the coming days and weeks. That document was titled, "The Four New Laws To Save the United States: Not an Option: An immediate Necessity." and it's available at http://larouchepac.com/fourlaws.

That document begins by stating precisely where we are, concerning both the United States and the broader trans-Atlantic region. LaRouche says, "The economy of the United States of America, and also that of the trans-Atlantic political-economic regions of the planet: are, now, under the immediate, mortal danger of a general, physical-economic, chain-reaction breakdown-crisis...." And he prescribes the only solution that exists to avert this general breakdown crisis, in the form of what he calls, "four specific, cardinal" laws which he emphasizes are fully consistent with the intent of the U.S. Constitution.

These four laws are, as follows, in summary:

  1. The immediate re-enactment of Glass-Steagall, to eliminate the trillions of dollars in fictitious trash on Wall Street.
  2. A return to the Hamiltonian system of National Banking, in which banks will only be allowed to operate under the national authority of the Treasury of the United States, as Lincoln did with the greenbacks and with his corresponding banking laws.
  3. The use of this Federal Hamiltonian credit system to generate high-productivity employment, as was done under President Franklin Roosevelt, to rapidly increase the productive powers of the labor force through qualitative increases in the energy-flux density of technologies employed.
  4. The adoption of a fusion-driver crash program, as an affirmation of the true Promethean nature of man. Or, as LaRouche defines it, the Vernadsky principle of the noösphere.

Now, it's only by understanding these four points as a single, principled idea, that we're going to be able to generate the necessary mobilization to ram through the restoration of Glass-Steagall in the short term.

What I want to ask as a final question to Dennis really gets at what has just been brought up summarily concerning this four-point program.

Earlier this week, in the context of the seismic shift that's taking place in the aftermath of the BRICS Summit in Brazil, LaRouche issued a call for the convening of an international nations, to determine a universal standard of measurement for real economic value. LaRouche PAC issued a [[release]] [[http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31434]] which elaborated this proposal, which detailed that this international conference would be tasked with taking up the questions: "What is productivity?" "What is manufacturing?" "What is human creativity?" And: "What are the essential requirements for mankind's survival?" This must be a serious international dialogue to determine a set of universal standards for measuring real value, taking into account the urgent needs of every part of the world. The key principle, LaRouche emphasized, is energy-flux density. Based on that principle, participants in this conference must come up with the answers, on how to provide for mankind's needs in energy, in water management, in food production, by unleashing the productive powers of labor. LaRouche said, the question is, what does mankind need, to sustain man's progress in the Solar System?

He emphasized that you have to take the current, outstanding initiatives and accomplishments of leading nations as your standard. For example, what is China doing in the field of lunar colonization? What are India and China together, doing with respect to achieving a breakthrough on thermonuclear fusion? And LaRouche emphasized that we do not yet have the answers to these vital questions. And this is why it's essential to convene a working gathering of leading representatives, of leading nations, to forge a new system based on different principles of productivity.

Now, as I mentioned, LaRouche emphasized in his Four Laws document, that the standard of true value must be premised on what Russian Academician Vladimir Vernadsky identified as the human principle, as he called it, the noösphere. And I should take this occasion to let our viewers know that 21st Century Science & Technology has just published two volumes of a single anthology of original translations of Vladimir Vernadsky's works. These were published on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the celebration of the birth of Vernadsky.

Now, I think we can consider these documents as part of the corpus of the founding documents for this international conference, and in the context of this, I'd like to ask Dennis, to speak on the question of where can we begin to start answering the questions that LaRouche posed, and who should be involved in a conference of this type?

Read Economic Value

Small: Well, besides LaRouche, obviously, I would say we can be assured of the success of this conference, if among its leading participants, are Vladimir Vernadsky and Gottfried Leibniz. And I say this seriously, not in jest, because historical figures, even though they may have passed away, have and can assert a continuing force, in the progress of man's ideas and mastery over the universe. And Vernadsky on the Russian side, and Leibniz as perhaps the Founding Grandfather of the United States, represent exactly those kinds of ideas. As we saw here, today, with the ideas of Henry Carey, in terms of the two systems that are at war, in previous discussions that we've had of John Quincy Adams' ideas, I think that the role of these ideas in actually shaping history is pretty well established.

Now, on this question of what is value, what is real economic value? Perhaps a good starting point is to tell you a little bit about a very prominent, mid-20th-Century, Russian scientist/economist and friend of LaRouche, a gentleman by the name of Pobisk Kuznetsov. Because what he decided, and presented formally to public gatherings, based on his discussions in-depth with LaRouche, is that a new unit of measurement of the physical economy should be established. And it should be, he said, something called "the larouche," or the "La" for short.

Now, I'm going to read to you what Kuznetsov had to say about the LaRouche unit in a moment, but it's important to know that he was actually himself very close, intellectually, to Vernadsky. His economic systems in part were based on, and inspired by, Vernadsky. In 1987, Kuznetsov wrote an article whose title was, "The Irreversibility of the Historical Process of Nature and Society in the Works of V.I. Vernadsky and in Contemporary Science."

In the period of 1943 to 1954, Kuznetsov was a prisoner in one of the Soviet Union's Gulags, along with another very prominent Russian scientist by the name of Academician Nikolai Fyodorovsky, who was the founder of the Institute of Applied Mineralogy and a close friend and collaborator of Vernadsky.

So it's of some interest that one of the intellectual heirs, in one sense, of Vernadsky, had the following to say about what he considered the most fundamental measure of value in economics. He said in an article written in December 1994 in Rossiya 2010:

"Let us introduce the physical magnitude of 'a larouche,' designated by 'La,' which gives the number of persons who can be fed from 1 sq km or 100 hectares, during one year. The figures ... correspond to 'potential relative population density,' introduced by LaRouche. We have introduced the new unit of measurement, the larouche, which is the quantity of persons able to be fed from a certain magnitude of area, taken as the unit of value in this system." And he goes on, "We share LaRouche's view that the magnitude of potential relative population density can serve as an indicator of 'intellectual culture,' but taking into account the quite diverse values for farv" which he says is "photochemically active radiation per vegetative period" and "we shall compare not simply 100 hectares, but 100 hectares for a given local farv value...."

And he concludes,

"In 1980, I was able to estimate the possibility of creating a system of for feeding 300 million people, by means of hydroponics.... Since this anticipated a complete system for feeding 300 million, it corresponds to 20,000 larouches, or 40 times greater than the known productivity of Belgium."

What he's getting at here, and reflecting off LaRouche's ideas of potential relative population density, is exactly a measure of the effect, that the rising productive power of labor has in terms of making it possible to sustain an ever larger population, at ever higher living standards, with ever less human labor directly involved, that, through an increase in technology which is reflected in rising energy-flux density. So potential relative population density is a reflection of man's power within nature to improve his dominion over the entire physical universe.

Now, although he doesn't mention it here, Kuznetsov clearly had an understanding of a second, and perhaps more fundamental aspect of LaRouche's idea of potential relative population density, or the "larouche" in this case, and that is, that it's not a fixed unit of measurement. It's not like a ruler, where you can apply it to a fixed object and say, OK, this is our unit of measurement and it doesn't change.

The sign of a successful economy is precisely the fact that there is an increasing potential relative population density. Your real metric of value in an economy, is measured by that power which creates changes, to the good, in the potential relative population density; that is to say, man's creative scientific capabilities. So the metric of value in an economy is man's ability to change the nature of the physical universe around him, including his own mind.

So, having quoted Pobisk Kuznetsov on the subject of the "larouche," I'd like to quote Lyndon LaRouche on the subject of the "larouche." And this is in a document which may be less known to some of you because it was written in 1994. It's called "On LaRouche's Discovery," and the very first paragraph is LaRouche writing about his own central discovery:

"The central feature of my original contribution to the Leibniz science of physical economy, is the provision of a method for addressing the causal relationship between, on the one side, individuals' contributions to axiomatically revolutionary advances in scientific and analogous forms of knowledge, and, on the other side, consequent increases in the potential relative population density of corresponding societies."

And he continues:

"In its application to political economy, my method focuses analysis upon the central role of the following, three-step sequence: first, axiomatically revolutionary forms of scientific and analogous discovery; second, consequent advances in machine-tool and analogous principles; finally, consequent advances in the productive powers of labor."

Vernadsky's Three Domains

Now, in that context, let's look at our two proposed principal participants in the upcoming international conference, along with LaRouche's ideas, Vernadsky and Leibniz, by way of preparing ourselves for this upcoming conference. In this case, our preparatory documents are not all of these long, "whereas, whereas, whereas, therefore..." pieces, in the usual format of United Nations resolutions; but rather, the kinds of publications that Matthew was just showing you of the writings of Vernadsky.

So Vernadsky discusses the three domains that coexist with different laws within the physical universe. The one being the nonliving, the next being the living, or the biosphere, and the third being the noëtic or the noösphere, that dominated by man's creativity. So what does Vernadsky have to say about that which creates value in human society? He says [in 1926]:

"Mankind's power is connected not with its matter, but with its brain, its thoughts and its work guided by its mind. In the geological history of the biosphere, a great future is opened to Man if he realizes it and does not direct his mind and work to self-destruction."

Vernadsky continues, in a different writing but with the same idea:

"Human thought ... modifies that which we call the laws of nature.... With Man, the form of biogeochemical energy associated with reason grows and expands with time ... and is especially due to the growth of reason itself ... [which is to say] the creation and expansion of the scientific understanding of our surrounding universe."

And then in 1938, Vernadsky writes:

"Thanks to human creativity, the biosphere is rapidly shifting into a new state—the noösphere.... A single individual unit of living matter, out of the totality of humanity—a great personality, whether a scientist, an inventor, or a statesman—can be of fundamental, decisive, directing importance, and can manifest himself as a geological force."

Now, let's hear comments from the anointed representative of the United States of America, our Founding Grandfather, Gottfried Leibniz, who in 1671, in a discussion of the founding of an Academy for Culture and Science, has the following to say. Now, mind you, this is almost 300 years before Vernadsky. In 1671, Leibniz says:

"An increased agreement and close correspondence of skilled people will be aroused, creating opportunity and arrangements for many excellent and useful thoughts, inventions, and experiments.... Establish a school of inventors and, as it were, an official laboratory, in which each could readily work out his tests and concepts."

He then goes on:

"To facilitate the crafts through improvements and tools, through always inexpensive fire and motion" (parenthetically, there you have energy-flux density) "to test and be able to work out everything in chemistry and mechanics, to work with glass, to create telescopes, machines, water devices, clocks, lathes, painting studios, presses, paint companies, weaving factories, steel and iron works."

And finally, from Leibniz: "Means will be supplied to maintain the nourishment of the people, to establish manufacturing and consequently drawing commerce, and in time, to establish workhouses and houses of discipline for the idle and criminal"—perhaps Obama—"in which to improve. The schools furnishing the youth with exercises, languages, and the reality of the sciences to work. And to supply and make useful resources and funds and other things lacking, on a large scale."

I.e., you've got to be able to finance this in a certain kind of way.

So, in conclusion, let me simply report to you what LaRouche had to say this afternoon, as part of this discussion which we just shared with you. He said:

"The question on the table is, what is value? Increases in the productive powers of labor, in and of themselves, define everything. Where do they come from? Man's creativity. Vernadsky presented the idea of evolutionary progress as a universal principle. That is the metric of life. You have to apply this to the Moon and our Solar System. That's what China's Moon project is all about, it defines the principles of the development of man, throughout the Solar System.

"We know this principle in one form, as developed by Johannes Kepler, but that is only one principle. Others may be involved in the Solar System as a whole. But this defines the characteristic which typifies the process as a whole. That's where the Moon project comes in. It is convenient to understand the problem before us, which is what we must do to properly define economic value, which in turn is necessary to solve the current strategic crisis."