Schiller Institute Conference
BRICS Nations Revive
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream:
Economic Justice Is an Inalienable Right
SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2015, 2:00 PM - 6:00 PM
NEW YORK CITY
An event of historic importance, with almost 300 participants, was convened at the Riverside Church in New York City January 17, 2015 under the auspices of the Schiller Institute, to launch the next phase of mobilization for the United States to return to its Hamiltonian roots and join the BRICS. As befit the fact that the event occurred on the weekend of the Martin Luther King commemoration, the conference was dedicated to the subject: "BRICS Nations Revive Dr. Martin Luther King's Dream: Economic Justice Is an Inalienable Right." The Manhattan event was streamed live to viewers across the globe and to simultaneous satellite events held throughout the nation and Ibero America. CLICK HERE FOR THE PROGRAM (HTML). (PDF)
After a gripping video of an interview given by Dr. King in 1967, in which he eloquently explained why he had opposed the Vietnam War, the audience was treated to a series of musical offerings from Handel's Messiah, one of King's favorites.
Lyndon LaRouche then delivered greetings to the conference by video, calling for a "mobilization of the spirit and intention of our republic, which is a task which is located essentially for our attention in the role of Manhattan, of New York City, Hamilton's New York City."
Well, good morning, for a Saturday morning. I'm Lyndon LaRouche, of course, and speaking briefly on behalf of our team which is operating especially inside Manhattan, New York City that is to speak. And what we're doing is commemorating in a, shall we say, systematic way, the leading role of Alexander Hamilton, who is actually the creator of a real New York City, and who also was virtually a creator of the Constitution of the United States; he wasn't the only one, but he was the leading figure.
And he was assassinated. He was assassinated by a British agent, which is not unusual for heroes of the United States. And they usually get killed, like, we have a couple of Kennedys who were assassinated on that principle, and so this is the kind of thing we have to deal with now, to celebrate it, in a sense, of pointing out the importance of the life, and assassinations as well, of great heroes of the United States.
And we recognize also that the United States, was organized around New York City, organized especially by Alexander Hamilton, who was assassinated. And after the assassination of Hamilton, we had a bunch of Presidents who were not so hot. Then, in about 20 years, we had a new President who was good, and then we had another President who was good, and then we had another bum, and a lot of bums. But then eventually we had Abraham Lincoln, for example, specially, and other people.
So the United States has always been besieged by British-directed agents, who often operated as Presidents of the United States or something tantamount to that, or a group of people, or by institutions of the United States.
But the time has come, now, that the Wall Street interest, which is actually a British interest, traditionally, it's a treasonous kind of operation, and they're bankrupt. Wall Street is bankrupt! And actually, the island of Manhattan is pretty much bankrupt, when it comes to Wall Street matters. So we're in that kind of situation today.
We have, on our hands, how, and we, some of us, have done something in this direction to remind the people of the United States, of the full United States and beyond, of the way in which the United States was created, and were brought into being under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton. Our time has come to recognize that there are no local states. There are states which we have created under our Constitution, with the help of our Constitution, but the creation was the creation of a single state, the United States so-called, and that the center of that has been Manhattan. And when you recognize that, the key role that Manhattan has played since the role of Alexander Hamilton and since his demise, that this is the issue we have to turn to, for policymaking for our nation.
We don't make our nation in terms of defining a couple of states, or different states. We have no separation of the United States into states. We have a convention which we designate as states; this is a convention. It's a useful convention when it's not abused, when it's not overextended. Now we have to bring the people of the United States, who now have to take on like a single force, to get rid of the filth and corruption which has destroyed us so often, especially under the Bushes, Prescott Bush's crowd in particular.
So we have to have a mobilization of the spirit and intention of our republic, which is a task which is located essentially for our attention, in the role of Manhattan, of New York City, Hamilton's New York City. And that's what we have to do. We're now today, we're celebrating that point. We're saying, yes, the states have a role as states, but they really aren't that important. They are significant; it's useful that they are organized that way. It's significant that we manage them that way, but we manage them under a single conception, a conception associated most crucially with Alexander Hamilton, a citizen of New York City. And that's the way we have to do it now.
I am rather old in some people's eyes; I'm not dead and not stupid. But I'm passing on, of course, in the future, to this mission to recreate the intention of the creation of the United States, by bringing the factor of the island of Manhattan, New York state essentially, similarly, as the force around which we must organize our nation, again, afresh, to restore it, to eliminate all corruption and stupidity that we can do. And let's do it today. Let's do it now.
And here's the old man, he's got plenty of things to say, on later occasions, and you will hear about them I believe if the old man continues to live. But that's the situation right now. Have a good time, and try to keep good health above all other things.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche's keynote address situated the potential for realizing the "beautiful vision of a world without war and terrorism" which Dr. King and the BRICS nations' emerging new world economic order advocate. Here in Manhattan, you have represented both sides of the battle ahead, she said: Wall Street, the ally of the City of London, on the side of the warmongers and terrorists, and the tradition of Hamilton, founder of the American System of Economics and key framer of the Constitution, on the other. Mrs. LaRouche strongly advocated the necessity for the release of the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, as an essential element of exposing the warmongers today, and elaborated the prospects for dramatic progress for mankind through the BRICS process already underway.
Former U.S. Attorney General (1967-69) Ramsey Clark followed Mrs. LaRouche, on the subject "Martin Luther King, Non-Violence, and American Policy Today," riveting the audience with his account of his personal role in the civil rights march to Montgomery, Alabama in March 1965, and his insistence on changing the horrible truth which Dr. King enunciated at Riverside Church, that "The greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, is my own country."
In his speech in this church in 1967, I guess it was, and I'll correct myself if I search and find otherwise, Dr. King said some words that hurt him deeply and personally, but he felt had to be said, and they were these: "The greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, is my own country." It hurt him palpably to say it, but it was a truth he felt deeply and he said it.
The next day a couple of lawyer friends of his showed up, and they'd got a copy of the speech. And they said, "Dr. King, I want to be sure I have an accurate copy" of what he really said. And it was that "the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth, is my own country."
Conditions haven't changed globally in that particular, I'm afraid. We remain the greatest purveyor of violence on Earth. We glorify its power and ignore its pity. Just look at our entertainment, our war films, and our crime films, and it's like we've got a love affair with violence. [applause] And yet, the words he spoke here will win the struggle, if human life is to endure on this planet. And I'm an optimist: I'm sure it will, at least from our own hand, which is the cruelest fate of all.
The first night out, I was sent down to Montgomery, Alabama, about four days before the march started; I was Deputy Attorney General at the time, which is on the organization chart, the second highest-ranking officer in the Department requires Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. And my assignment was to protect the order of a U.S. Federal judge who prescribed the fashion in which people could march from Selma to Montgomery, along a public highway. It was litigated for quite a while and came up with the solution that 50 people could be chosen and march two abreast. If you see the movie "Selma" which I recommend, but the movie Selma's about Selma: It's about the courage and beauty of the people there who were tired of the sheriff who liked to walk his horses over their bodies, a man named "Clark." [laughs] No relation that I'm aware of. If there is, I disclaim it now. Not that, had I been in his shoes, I might have the same.
But the march was an interesting occasion, a study in the character, the moral character of our society. The FBI which always requires someone who wants to know the truth to be carefully observed in his statements, told me that there were 1200 men, who had served lengthy convictions in prison for white racist crime against African-Americans who had come to this Selma-Montgomery area - 1200, they were out of prison now, and they had rifles on the rack on the back of the cabin of their pickup trucks. And the Bureau, whose assumptions I don't usually follow, was saying they tended to use those rifles if they got a chance.
We brought a diversity of law enforcement into that area that was certainly unprecedented in this country, in terms of its diversity, in terms of its magnitude, in terms, we had 10,000 standing by in reserve; it'd taken 'em maybe 48 hours to get into action. But we had Border Patrol and U.S. Marshals, and to the extent we could rely on them, some state and local agents and Army standing by - for 50 people to do under court order, which was litigated for about a year and a half, before you could undertake the project in a free society, to do something no one in his right mind would want to do, unless someone dared 'em to, and that is, walk from Selma to Montgomery!
I remember John Doar [Justice Dept. Civil Rights division] got so sunburned, I thought he was going to lose his nose! Even though it was in March, the Sun was really hot down there. I got the top of my ears blistered and my nose is bigger'n his, and it got more blistered than his, but I could see mine as well as I could see his. [laughter]
And the fear was palpable. The first night, we got across the bridge. I nearly lost my job, because I was standing on the far side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, by a Border Patrol car. I always liked Border Patrolmen 'cause they're kinda cowboys, and they work independently and they don't have a director of the FBI who's makin' them dress like they're on Wall Street, or someplace, and they go in pairs, 'cause they're afraid.
I was standing by this Border Patrol car, with an open mike, there were about six other Border Patrol cars that were stationed all around so we could talk to each other immediately. And they started to cross the bridge, and I made the enforcement error of saying, "Here they come, isn't it beautiful?" This was Sunday [March 21] - Monday morning the New York Times headline is: Deputy Attorney General down there to be neutral" - ha-ha - "and protect the marchers from the public and the public from the marchers, at the point at which the marchers started over the bridge, said, "Look at that, isn't it beautiful?" - for which some of my superiors were uncomplimentary about my verbiage. But it was beautiful.
The idea that it would take a force of that magnitude, and it wouldn't, really, but it would take a pretty good force to make it safe, to do something that no one in his right mind would want to do anyway, and that is march from Selma to Montgomery, even though it was the month of March, as well as the marching month, in the broiling Sun.
And the first night, we got out - I talked to farmer myself; we'd leased some land. We'd pay him some money so we could stay on his land, because we didn't want to have some conflict about, "Hey, get off my property." There weren't other places that were as convenient; and I forgot what I paid him, but maybe $500, for 50 people to spend the night on his land, on the ground or most of them had sleeping bags and something like that. We got there, and he said, "Can't do it. You can't come on my land. I've been threatened." But it was getting to be dark, and I'd been up and down that road so many times, I knew every foot of it, and there was a state park, it wasn't a mile and a half or two miles further down the road, so we just went on down there. And I set up sentries to march around the camp as we set up some four foot side-wall army tents, and had sleeping bags for the 50.
So about 11 o'clock Dr. King grabbed me and we walked away from the crowd; we were sitting around fires and we had these sentries - it looked like a Civil War scene to me. And he said, "I think you've been told, I've got to fly to Chicago in the morning." I said, :No, I haven't been told." He said, "Yeah, I'm going to leave here about 3 in the morning, so I'm going to sleep now." I kinda fussed at him, and said, "You've got to tell me if you're going to do those things, 'cause I want to be sure you're safe, man. You can't be driving yourself or having somebody drive you down that road by yourself without protection." But we were by this tent, we were looking down; it looked like a Civil War scene here in the United States of American, 1965, with campfires and sentries marching around the 50 people. And there was only one of the 50 that slept any that night, as far as I could tell - I didn't. I wasn't one of the 50 but I was supposed to be in charge of their safety. Which was kind of ridiculous in itself; I'd been a Marine corporal and a Boy Scout, but I wasn't a professional in the field of protection.
He got up and left, and got back Monday night. But the other marchers didn't really sleep that night. They sat around the campfire and they talked, and thought, and some of came up and got in the tents for a while.
And we marched on.
It's hard to believe that the palpable fear of violence and the actuality of risk. I have no idea of whether there were really 1200 men with felony convictions for racist violence, all white, all the men that were there with their guns on racks behind them in pickups, were there and had the will to shoot. But I was flying a plane back that Friday, after we'd gotten to Montgomery, and all the speechifying had gone on in front the capitol. And it was a little Army plane, about 12 passenger plane, but they had a door between the pilot came back and said, "I got a phone message for you," so I went up to the cockpit and listened. They said that a woman had been killed on the way back to Selma; she was taking some of the people who had come over for the march from Selma, that lived in Selma, wanted to go home, back; and was shot and killed. So we turned the plane around, flew back to Montgomery and tried to see what we could do to show our sorrow and prevent further violence under a pretty tense situation, still.
There were about 25,000 people who came from outside of Alabama, to participate, or just stand there and watch, a big crowd out in front of the Capitol, watch the speeches and all after the end of the march.
You wonder how much each really changed. You hope for the best, but you go into our prisons and you see they're overwhelming, disproportionately African-American, African-American males, young - young, very young. Lives of freedom for them are terminated, at least temporarily, the length of their prison sentence. And probably, at least, freedom of will and mind and spirit badly damaged for the rest of their lives. Because we haven't found the capacity to love each other, yet, and particularly when we have different colors of skin. Which in my view doesn't tell you anything about what's underneath, except another human spirit. And we know of so many who are so great.
Dr. King's spirit will prevail for societies, not just ours, in the spirits of many, many people, for as long as our form of communication endures. Which we hardly say that we've purged, or even meaningfully addressed the capacity for violence that remains in our character. All's you got to do is, look at the military budget. We call it "defense," but it's all pointing guns at other people in other places! So we're defending on foreign shores, about as far away as you can get sometimes, and be on the same globe.
Our military budget's a major measure of the spirit of our character, and it shows a spirit of fear. And a spirit of willing, if not wanting, to destroy others if it comes our mind that they're some kinda threat to us, or just in the way. And that's not the way of peace or the road to the love for each other, alone can bring peace to the planet.
But I hope that the symbol of the Selma-Montgomery march will permeate our character, because it really believed that we could overcome, it desired it passionately, and it was committed to lives without violence. As the greatest character-failure of our species, and one that threatens it - just look at our military budgets; look at the research and development of weaponry, that's to me the most painful and keenest measure of, if not where we are, where we're going. Because it's what we want to have and so much of it is so beyond imagination in terms of its capacity for the destruction of life.
So we have to resurrect the spirit that pervaded those who imagined and led, what was really a wonderful march. I think I've already said that the fear was palpable. That wasn't true of Dr. King. I remember we were standing by this tent where he was going to sleep for little bit, looking down at this "Civil War" scene. And he said, "You know, you can never be afraid," because you could almost smell the fear. I mean, that's a pretty serious thing, but that was the environment. That was not an irrational state of mind. And I think the presence of all the guns, and all the military.
The provost marshal general of the United States, who heads the Military Police for Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guards, I guess they must have some guards too, he was down there, and he was gun man. He was later indicted for stealing guns; he'd stolen about 2,000 guns that had been seized by the military, but when they're seized they become U.S. property, and he just loved guns. [laughter] Which I guess was suitable for his calling, which shows why we have to change the calling; and had about 2,000 of them that had been seized from people, and legally seized from people because they were held illegally all branches of the U.S. Military Police, of which he was in charge. And he'd taken about 2,000 of them back home to Oklahoma with him when he retired. He was opening a gun museum. And the U.S started looking at it, and said, "where'd you get all these guns?" And he said, "Oh, they were seized." "Who seized them?" He said, "The Military Police around the world seized 'em." And they said, "How'd you seize 'em?" And I think his answer was, "well, they were there." What do you do?
We're still a gun-loving country. But guns aren't good for children, or for life and it may be about as good a thermometer of our violent potential, as anything. I was raised in Texas, and I had a .22 rifle by the time was nine; a .410 shotgun before I was 11. And loved the blue steel and the sheen of the wood stock.
But now, I've seen too much about what they do, and I never really wanted to shoot those doves anyway! We're big dove hunters down in Texas, doves are a sign of peace. It may be some meaning there, too. But they taste good. There are lot of dove hunters just shootin' doves, they're not thinking about dinner.
We've "got miles to go before we sleep."
Our military budget is still a danger to life on the planet. It's a measure of the moral worth of our people; our research and development for better ways of killin' is as high was it ever was, as if we don't have enough ways now, to destroy life on the planet. We obviously do. We're just looking for keener ones. And spend a lot of money for it.
But if we want peace on Earth, we, the people have to stand up and say, "Enough." We want to demilitarize our country and demilitarize the world. And yet, as it was when Dr. King spoke those words, in this church, we remain the "greatest purveyors of violence on Earth." And we can overcome that. It's a matter of will: Until we address it, we may be singin' good songs, but we're not marchin' the road toward disarmament. And the world daily becomes more dangerous.
Good to see you all here, and honored to be here with you in this great church. Thank you. [standing ovation]
The BRICS Process was then presented to the audience by a representative of the South African Ambassador to the United Nations, advocate, counsellor, and legal adviser to the Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations, Thembile Joyini.
The following Statement was delivered on behalf of His Excellency, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo, South African Ambassador to the United Nations, at the Conference on "BRICS Nations Revive Dr. Martin Luther King's Dream: Economic Justice is an Inalienable Right," by Thembile Joyini, Advocate, Counsellor, and Legal Adviser to the Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations.
On behalf of His Excellency, Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations, I would like to thank you and the Conference Organisers including Mr Lawrence Freeman for inviting us to this Conference and for allowing us to share some thoughts with the audience on the topic "BRICS Nations revive Dr Martin Luther King's Dream: Economic Justice is an inalienable Right". Martin Luther King actively supported the struggle of the South African people against apartheid. In 1963 the UN Special Committee against Apartheid was established and one of the first letters the committee received was from Martin Luther King. Together with the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1960, the ANC leader Chief Albert J. Lutuli, Martin Luther King made an 'Appeal for Action against Apartheid' on Human Rights Day, 10 December 1962. In his speech held in London in 1964, Martin Luther King repeated his call for economic sanctions against South Africa and said "We can join in the one form of non-violent action that could bring freedom and justice to South Africa - the action which African leaders have appealed for - in a massive movement for economic sanctions". These are the sanctions that inter alia forced the apartheid government to release Nelson Mandela from prison. After his release, Mandela came to this Church to say thank you to the people of Harlem and all those American people who supported the struggle of the South African people.
On BRICS, I agree, this is just the beginning of a new international economic order; it will be a gradual, but steady process. I also agree that not everybody would agree on the importance of the BRICS bank, but the creation of the BRICS bank is significant for future international order for three reasons.
First, it demonstrates the viability and dynamics of the BRICS despite all the skepticism and criticism in recent years. Some of the criticisms are legitimate as BRICS nations have experienced slower growth lately; even China's economic growth appears to be slowing down due to a variety of reasons. Critics of the BRICS bank also point to different views among the members as evidence of serious problems of the bank. But this misses the point. There always will be different opinions and views among the BRICS countries, just like there are differences among G7 members. What is important, however, is whether member states share a major common goal that can unite them despite differences. The answer is: development. Unlike G7 member states, BRICS members are largely still developing countries and this situation means that for a long time these countries will focus on how to improve the living standards of their citizens. Also, other developing countries are desperate in need of funding for infrastructure projects.
Second, the BRICS bank demonstrates China's global leadership. Given China's huge size and quick development, there is little doubt that the world truly needs China's leadership. What China needs to be careful about is to maintain a balance between its own influence on the bank and other members' impact. Thus it is a good sign that although Shanghai has been chosen as the headquarters of the new bank, the first president will be Indian the first chairman of the board of governors will be Russian, the first chairman of the board of directors will be Brazilian, and the first regional center of the bank will be in South Africa.
Third, the BRICS bank is significant because it is a direct challenge to the global order led by the West. Many view the new BRICS bank as a response to the failed reforms at the IMF and World Bank as developing countries like China and India cannot increase their influence within those institutions. However, it should be kept in mind that the BRICS bank is not currently challenging the international liberal economic order. China and India are perhaps the two greatest beneficiaries of an open liberal economic order; and thus the BRICS bank should try to push the IMF and World Bank to be more open and transparent. Ultimately the competition between the BRICS bank and the IMF and World Bank should be about efficiency rather than a struggle between liberal vs. alternative economic philosophies. In this sense, there is a strong complementary relationship between the BRICS bank, the IMF and the World Bank. That said, the West, the IMF and the World Bank should not view the BRICS bank as a threat to their domination of the global economic order.
To be sure, the new BRICS development bank is unlikely to replace the IMF and World Bank in the near future as the latter will still remain powerful players in the global economic order. The most likely relationship between the two is a complementary relationship rather than a conflicting one. That said, in the long run the competition between the two will intensify and the final outcome will depend on the balance of power between the two blocs: the developing world and the developed world. What is for sure is that we are in for some interesting times.
On the Programme for Infrastructure Development (PIDA), because the infrastructure deficit in Africa penalizes growth and development of the continent, in July 2010, African leaders launched a new programme for infrastructure development in Africa (PIDA). Led by the African Union, New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) and African Development Bank (ADB), the initiative has a budget of several billion dollars. The overall goal of PIDA is to promote socio-economic development and poverty reduction in Africa through improved access to integrated regional and continental infrastructure networks and services. President Jacob Zuma was unanimously elected for the PIDA's president because of the successful organization of the World Cup, which inspired the whole continent. Speaking at the launch of the programme, Mr. Zuma said that "Africa's time has come and without infrastructure, our dreams will never be realized. We cannot trade on the continent because of the lack of communication. The infrastructure that we want to create will provide new opportunities for our continent ". Programme for infrastructure development in Africa will bring together and merge various continental infrastructure initiatives such as the NEPAD Short Term Action Plan, the NEAD Medium to Long Term Strategic Framework (MLTSF), and the AU Infrastructure Master Plans initiatives into one coherent program for the entire continent.
The objective of the PIDA is to establish a framework strategy for infrastructure development at the regional and continental level covering all the four key sectors of Transport, Energy, Trans-boundary Water, and ICT. PIDA will be the AU/NEPAD key planning/programming document guiding the continental infrastructure development agenda, policies, and investments priorities in the key sectors for 2011 - 2030. The ADB will be responsible for implementing the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA) through its department of regional integration. The Bank's role as Executing Agency covers the responsibility for contractual, financial, technical and administrative management of the programme including responsibility for procurement procedures, in conformity with its existing regulations, budget management and disbursements. The PIDA is supposed to be managed by the regional economic communities. They will work closely with the respective Member States, specialized agencies of the AU and sectoral organizations. The PIDA budget, estimated at 7.8 million Euros, is financed by the European Union, Islamic Development Bank, the African Fund for Water and the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
On the Grand Inga hydropower project, the Cabinet approved in August 2014 the ratification of the treaty on the Grand Inga hydropower project between South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), paving the way for the next phase of what could eventually become the largest hydroelectric project in the world, with the potential to power half the continent. The Grand Inga project will seek to harness the power potential of the Congo River, sub-Saharan Africa's greatest waterway. Once all seven of its planned phases are complete, it is expected to generate a massive 40,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable power. Subsequent phases, adding up to an eventual total capacity of 40,000 MW, will allow countries in southern Africa, north-east Africa and parts of west Africa to benefit from production at the site. The project has the potential to supply clean and affordable imported hydroelectric power to meet the needs of the DRC, South Africa and surrounding countries and holds the potential to fast-track SADC [Southern African Development Community] development, alleviate energy poverty, stimulate economic growth and facilitate infrastructure development. This represents one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken on the African continent, and one which will long be a resounding symbol of the rise of Africa and her people.
In conclusion, on Nuclear Energy, South Africa has signed many treaties on nuclear energy and has two nuclear reactors generating 5% of its electricity. South Africa's first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1984. Government's commitment to the future of nuclear energy is strong, with firm plans for further 9600 MW in the next decade.
I thank you for your attention.
Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) then addressed the event by video, pledging to "keep beating the drum" for release of the 28 pages from the 9/11 Inquiry, and directing the audience to pressure their Senators and Congressmen for action.
I want to welcome you to the Schiller Institute's conference this Saturday. I'm Congressman Walter Jones. I represent the 3rd Congressional District of North Carolina. And I want to ask you to join us-we after two years, have been trying to make sure that the families who felt the pain of 9/11 could read the 28 pages in the 9/11 report that have been classified. And this past week, as a matter of fact, Sen. Bob Graham, the former Senator from Florida, who has done so much to try to get the American people the opportunity to read the 28 pages, you might remember or you might not remember, but Bob Graham and Richard Shelby, both Senators, co-authored the 9/11 report. It was the Bush Administration-and no one can quite understand [why]-that decided that 28 pages out of the 9/11 report would have to be classified.
Well, people like myself, people like Stephen Lynch, Thomas Massie, and others in the House, we have read the 28 pages: There is no reason that they have not been declassified. There is nothing in the 28 pages that dealt with national security-nothing. What it deals with are relationships, and I cannot go any further than that.
Why I wanted to address you today, is that we need your help. We need you to pick up the phone, call your Senator from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, wherever it might be, and your House member, and ask them to please join Congressmen Steve Lynch from Massachusetts, Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky, and myself from North Carolina, and cosponsor H.Resolution 14. You can do this by picking up the phone and calling (202) 224-3121. Such an example as Senator Schumer from New York-he should be out front for the families who have lost so much. Sen. Cory Booker from New Jersey should be out front for the families who have lost so much.
That's their decision, but if they hear from you, then they might decide that they should read the 28 pages, or they might decide that they want to put in a resolution on the Senate side that we have put in on the House side, calling on President Obama to keep his word to the families of 9/11. Twice he has told the families of 9/11, "I will declassify this information." He has not done it yet.
Stephen Lynch and I wrote the President in April 2014 to remind the President, that he made this promise to the families; and here we are, January of 2015, and we have not even gotten a response back from the President. That is not fair to the families who have lost so much.
So it's up to you to join us. We're not going to let this go. I call it a drumbeat-we're going to keep beating the drum. The families deserve it, and you, the American people, deserve to know the truth about 9/11.
Thank you for letting me speak to you today, and let's work together for truth and honesty to save America. Thank you so much.
Jeffrey Steinberg, an editor of Executive Intelligence Review, discussed "A Time to Break the Silence: Reversing the Illegal Use of Secrecy from the Assassinations of MLK, RFK, and JFK to the Suppression of Sen. Graham's 28 Pages."
Thank you Dennis, and thanks Helga, and thank you Congressman Walter Jones and also Ramsey Clark.
There is in fact, one dove that I can think of in the world, that actually deserves to be shot, and that dove, is Al Yamamah, which is the Arabic word for "the dove," and also happens to be the name of the project, through which, for the last 30 years or so, the British and the Saudis have been amassing the offshore slush funds that have been the major source of financing, to all of the world terrorism that Helga identified in her presentation as one of the two great horrors that have been bestowed on the world by the British Empire, and which still represent the greatest threat: The danger of thermonuclear war at the high end, and the danger of terrorism as a source of mass population reduction at the low end of the violence spectrum.
Now, I think that in the words of Congressman Jones, you may have detected the fact for the first time in quite some time, there's some passion in Washington about something that really is important, for the survival of the United States and the world. What I would say to you today, is that the pathway for realizing what Helga called for, in her keynote address, namely for the United States to accept the offer that was presented recently in Beijing by Chinese President Xi Jinping, for the United States to join not just the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), but the whole emergence of a new just paradigm for the world. If the United States can break free from the power of the British Empire, which is manifested not only in the overarching power of Wall Street over our political institutions today, but I would say is equally demonstrated by the fact that Presidents Bush and Obama have gone far beyond what anybody would consider to be rational in covering up the 28 pages. These are both examples of the power of the British Empire today.
Much of what is in the 28 pages, per se, is fairly well known, at least portions of it that are very damning to the Bush family, and to the Saudis, are fairly well known. Senator Graham, in 2004 wrote a book called Intelligence Matters and by using anecdotal accounts of the work of his Joint Select Committee on 9/11, he was able to get a lot of the story out. So, for example, we know that two agents of Saudi intelligence, located on the West Coast were the official greeters of the first two 9/11 hijackers when they arrived in the United States, in early 2000. They were financed by those two Saudi intelligence agents, they were set up in housing, and for security purposes, they were set up in residence at the home of an FBI informant. They were provided the funds to go through the flight training, and every step along the way, they were provided with all of the resources they needed.
It's become pretty obvious to anybody who has actually tried to dig into the details of 9/11, that 19 individuals, 15 of them Saudis, who did not speak English, could not have conceivably carried out that attack, without substantial logistical assistance, and there's evidence on a certain level that agents of the Saudi government were involved in providing that assistance. So that aspect of it - name, rank, serial number - of the people involved in that, both the Saudi intelligence officers and the terrorists themselves is fairly well known publicly. It's also now known that the FBI covered up 86,000 pages, of evidence that there was a similar Saudi support cell backing up the terrorists in Sarasota, Florida, so that the group down there, including Mohammed Atta, were able to operate freely because they had, similarly, a support apparatus with lots of money that was behind them. And so a lot of those details are going to come out.
The real importance of getting the 28 pages released, though, is something quite different, because there's some mythologies that need to be busted up. And the best opportunity that we have right now, the critical flank for getting to the underlying, deeper truth, not just about 9/11, but about the nature of the real political control over the United States, is buried in those 28 pages, so long as when they come out publicly, the full implications of what they tell, are fully realized. We know, for example, Ambassador "Bandar Bush," that was his unofficial name, Prince Bandar bin Sultan was the Saudi Ambassador to Washington for decades, and was considered to be the adopted son of President George H.W. Bush, and the adopted brother of President George W. Bush. You can find on the internet, hundreds of photographs of Bandar and the Bushes, hanging out together. It's also known that Bandar was a source of some of the funds that went through Saudi intelligence, directly into the pockets of the 9/11 hijackers.
And so, some of those elements are well known and the critical thing is that, once those leads come out, once the official content of those 28 pages comes out publicly a number of things are going to be clear. Number one, it's going to be clear that the real issue, behind why President Bush, and now for the last six years President Obama, have desperately refused the demands of the 9/11 families, the demands of Congress to release those 28 pages, when everyone who has read them, knows that there are no genuine national security secrets to be protected, is going to be a lot more clear.
The first fiction that I expect and I can assure you, those of us here, will guarantee that this fiction is busted once and for all, is that the whole idea that there are countries of the Persian Gulf, the whole idea that Saudi Arabia exists, the whole idea that Bahrain exists, the whole idea that Kuwait and Oman and the U.A.E. and Qatar, actually exist as real countries, is a pure British fiction. These countries have never existed as independent entities, in any way, shape, or form, that we think of as a genuine, sovereign country.
And we've written extensively about the Al Yamamah deal, the Dove deal, which began in 1985, between Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher, that continued under Prince Bandar and Tony Blair, and every subsequent British government since then. It was a barter deal in which the British gave armed equipment, fighter planes, radar systems, military hardware, to the Saudis, and the Saudis paid in oil. And the amount of oil that they gave, when sold on the international spot market, generated literally hundreds of billions of dollars in excess cash, after BAE Systems was paid, after all of the usual bribes were given to the relevant Saudi princes, there were hundreds of billions of dollars left over. And the British themselves and Bandar himself, openly admit that that has been the largest offshore, unregulated secret source of black funds to finance terrorism, in the world today. It still exists. It's still operational.
But the story itself goes back long before Prince Bandar was born, long before the Al Yamamah deal. In point of fact, the British Empire has controlled every country of the Persian Gulf, and by official British accounts, they openly acknowledge that Britain ran all of these countries, officially, through a series of treaty agreements, beginning in 1763, and extending officially through 1971.
So, in other words, you've had centuries in which the policies of these countries were dominated by the British.
Now, the story goes back a little bit earlier, because in 1661, the British East India Company expelled the Portuguese from the Persian Gulf because the Persian Gulf was the critical stop along the way to India. And the battle for empire in Europe centered around who would control India.
And so, I think it's very notable that the starting date from which the British themselves say that they ran the entire Persian Gulf, is 1763: That's the year that the British won the Seven Years' War and defeated all of their European rivals and at that point, took undisputed control over India, and through India, they took undisputed control of the Persian Gulf. I'll just give you a few examples: In 1820, the British signed what they call the General Treaty of Peace, and this solidified the fact that the British actually selected the particular tribes in each of the countries of the Persian Gulf, that would be installed in power. And those tribes, the al-Khalifa tribe, the al-Thani tribe, the Saudi tribe, are still to this day, the ruling families in the six countries that makes up the Persian Gulf Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
The actual head of state of the Persian Gulf region, from the time of that treaty was the Viceroy of Bombay in India, and under whom there was a resident agent of the British East India Company located in various cities, first in Iran and later in Iraq. And they were the actual sovereigns. The actual name, that the British head of operations in the Persian Gulf was referred to, he was called, "the uncrowned King of the Persian Gulf."
In 1853, there was a follow-on treaty signed between Britain and all of the tribal leaders of all of the countries that still exist under the same borders today in the Persian Gulf. It was called the Treaty of Maritime Peace in Perpetuity. In 1892, there was a corollary to that treaty called the Exclusive Agreement, which basically gave the British absolute veto power over any territorial transfers; it gave the British control over all foreign relations; and in return for that, the British guaranteed that they would be the armed force to provide security for all of the Persian Gulf states.
In 1922, even after the end of the First World War, during the epoch of the Sykes-Picot Treaty, the agreements were extended to give the British control over all resources of the Persian Gulf region, and by that point, obviously, "resources" very much meant "oil." Much of this was under royal charter, under the control of the British East India Company directly, during the 19th century in particular. But as late as April 1st, 1947, the British Foreign Office officially assumed control over the foreign affairs of all of the countries of the Persian Gulf, under a new treaty, in which a power-sharing arrangement was reached, with British security backup, the tribal sheikhs were given control over the internal affairs, and the British controlled foreign policy, they controlled military policy, they controlled the international commerce, meaning the British had actual sovereign control over the oil flows, and basically, the British courts had extraterritorial jurisdiction over all non-resident Muslims. So in other words, any foreigners operating throughout the Persian Gulf were operating under British Crown law and there were British courts that existed in the area to make sure that that was enforced.
By the way, I should say that in the British archives, you can go there and find a series of annual reports covering elements of the British controls, year by year, over this region, one of which was called the "Annual Memorandum of the Cultivation of Opium in Persian." So you're dealing with the Opium Wars policy, all along.
Now, in 1971, the British were so confident, with Henry Kissinger as both Secretary of State and soon-to-be National Security Advisor as well under Nixon, that they "nominally, surrendered their absolute, top-down control over the Persian Gulf. And it was short-lived, but nevertheless, they temporarily thought that it was more important to let the Americans foot the bill, since costs of military operations were getting a little bit more expensive.
In 1985, with the establishment of the Al Yamamah deal, they clearly decided that they had to be in on the ground and running things as a result of the relationship between the British and nominally Saudi empires.
Now, things are changing: On April 29th, 2013, the preeminent military think-tank for the British Crown, the Royal United Services Institute [rusi] published a report called, "A Return to East of Suez: U.K. Military Deployments to the Gulf." I'll just read you a couple of sentences quote from it. They say, "Just as U.K.'s withdrawal in 1971 created a security vacuum that drew the U.S., somewhat unwillingly, further into the affairs of the Gulf, the U.S.'s cooling of its engagement seems to be drawing the U.K. back in. We seem to be witnessing the slow transformation in the U.K. military postured towards a tentative return at this early stage, to the pre-1971 strategy of rooting Britain's presence in the southern Gulf through agreements with its traditional allies in Abu Dhabi and Dubai without outlying anchors in Bahrain and Oman, and with close political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that could be upgraded to the military level if necessary." So, in other words, they're back. And really, the truth is, they never left.
So, when you look at the implications, from this historical standpoint, of the role that the Saudis are now nakedly playing as the patrons and sponsors, of virtually every form of jihadist Sunni Wahhabi terrorism in the world, and fold in the fact that the other major source, of international terrorism, is the international drug trade run by the British through institutions like HSBC and the follow-on institutions of the old British East India Company's Opium War policy, then you see very clearly, that what we're dealing with here, if we go to the heart of what these pages really tell us - let's not worry about the literal "words"; we already know a great deal about what the literal words tell us, but let's look at the implications, let's take the opportunity of getting these 28 pages released, and released in such a way that we guarantee that the truth, the underlying truth, that the real source of 9/11 - yes, it's Saudi, but explicitly, it's also British.
Why is the Bush family so desperate to cover up 9/11? And what does the Bush family have in common with President Obama, who remains equally desperate to cover up 9/11? I can assure you this is not about Saudi Arabia. This is not about a bunch of people running around the Persian Gulf, still to this day riding on camels. This is about the British. And the 9/11 events, and the content of the 28 pages, opens up a window into the historical truth.
At the event a week ago Wednesday in Washington, D.C., that Congressman Jones referenced in his brief remarks earlier, Sen. Bob Graham made a number of very clear, unveiled references to the British. I can assure you that he's aware that this Al Yamamah factor, the British factor in 9/11 is significant. Two years ago, he wrote a novel called Keys to the Kingdom, and of course, in a novel, you're free to say a lot of things you can't say if you've been privy to classified information; you can give real name, rank, serial number. But he goes through, as the centerpiece of the entire narrative, the Al Yamamah deal and the fact that the Saudis and the British are basically wedded at the hips, and that's really the nature of the source of international terrorism today.
Now, Prince Bandar, who does not actually have a reputation for being the brightest bulb in the marquee, made the kind of typical mistake of arrogance that you would come to expect from someone who considers himself to be a protected asset of a royal system - by which I don't mean the Saudi royal family. He's had on-and-off relations with the Saudis. But Bandar's a British agent: He was trained at Sandhurst, and if you think about the long wave of British control over Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Persian Gulf, you realize that there are many, many people who may nominally be Saudi by birth, or Qatari by birth, or Bahraini by birth, but they're British to the core, and Bandar is absolutely one of them. That's why he went to Thatcher to establish the Al Yamamah deal in the first place.
So Bandar was leaving the United States; he was a burnout case. And so, he was preparing to go back to Saudi Arabia, and so he commissioned a biography, an official biography written by someone who he went to British Air Force academy with, a kind of a finishing school for training of young Gulf princes who were going to be going back and having some kind of power role in the establishment there. And in this book [The Prince, by William Simpson], he could not resist, but boasting about the real nature of the Al Yamamah deal. And so, he said, and this is a quote from one of the British officials who actually managed the bank accounts through a British office in the Ministry of Defense, called the DESO, the Defense Exports Support Office. They basically wrote the checks for the Al Yamamah and a guy named Edwards was the head of the DESO for a number of years and was interviewed by Prince Bandar's friend who was the biographer.
And he says: "Edwards admitted that for the Saudis the use of oil meant that the contract was effectively an off-balance- sheet transaction: it did not go through the Saudi Treasury. Edwards also confirmed that one of the main attractions for the Saudis in this unique arrangement was British flexibility." I don't think that was a sexual allusion, by the way. [laughter] "'The British were much more flexible than the Americans,' he said. 'The Americans went through the Foreign Military Sales system which has congressional law behind it. If the customers get out of line and they fail to pay the money, then they are cut off. In this country, it was quite flexible;...' The phenomenal amount of money generated from the sale of oil comes through DESO before being paid to British Aerospace. Edwards admitted that the government does charge a little commission for administering the contract, money that attracted the attention of the treasury, as it built up a considerable surplus.... The ingenious diversity of Al Yamamah, together with the British government's discretion and liberal approach to a unique finance deal, largely founded on the undisputed collateral of the huge Saudi oil reserves, could explain the financial black holes assumed by a suspicious media, to be evidence of commissions."
But [author] Simpson explained, "Although Al Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spinoffs are the by-products of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated as the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qaddafi's troops from Chad." And here's the key admission: "It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviet occupying forces." In other words, the antecedents and then the existence of al-Qaeda was being financed through this fund. "Arguably," Simpson admitted, "its consummate flexibility is needed because of inevitable opposition to Saudi arms purchases in Congress.... The oil barter arrangement, circumvented such bureaucracy."
So this is the kind of thing that exists when you are an empire, and you can make your own laws as you go along and you happen to control every offshore financial in the world. You can use them to run these operations, and, if you shut down that apparatus, then you dry up international terrorism in short order. The idea of approaching this from the bottom up, by hunting through caves in Afghanistan or desert outposts in Yemen or Somalia is not the way to go, when this is a policy of empire. And if we can break the myth that there is in fact a Saudi Arabia or a Qatar, or a U.A.E., or a Kuwait, as real sovereign entities, as opposed to subsidiary fictions of the British Empire, then we'll already be a very long way towards defeating terrorism.
And by the way, this is what Bush and Obama are terrified of more than anything. What they're afraid of, is that their existence as creatures of the British Empire, poisoning the United States, is going to be exposed.
Now, I don't believe in coincidences, at least not when it comes to major historic turning points, and so, I have a sinking suspicion, that there's some correlation between the press conference by Senator Graham and Congressmen Lynch and Jones and the 9/11 families on January 7th, and the fact that earlier this week, the Republican Party in their retreat, their "chocolate kiss" retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, had as their keynote speaker, Tony Blair. And the same day, President Obama at the White House was entertaining British Prime Minister David Cameron. So I think this is the Bush/Obama concept of "bipartisanship." [laughter] The British New Labour go to brief the Republicans, and the British Tories go to dictate to President Obama what to do.
Now, I am sure, that Blair, who shut down the Al Yamamah investigation as Prime Minister, because it threatened vital British national security interests, - and indeed it did - was there with the Republicans, telling them, "You better shut these guys up. You better make sure that this Senator Graham, Walter Jones, et al. thing gets quashed now, and it doesn't see the light of day, because all of our necks are on the line."
So I think that sort of brings me to an obvious conclusion: Everybody here in this room, as Representative Jones urged all of you, has a special responsibility to make sure that these 28 pages see the light of day, and they see the light of very soon, before we wind up staring down the barrel of Russian nuclear weapons, or American nuclear armed submarines launching on Russia. This is the legacy of Ground Zero. If you want closure on Ground Zero, which is hallowed ground in this country, then let's get these 28 pages released, and let's be the voice that explains to the American people, and the world, what these pages actually reveal. It's not just the fact that Prince Bandar received money through the Bank of England into his account, and dutifully wrote checks to the 9/11 hijackers, which is exactly what happened. But that's merely a small episode in something that's much bigger and that we've got to make sure that the world clearly understands.
If we can accomplish that, in the days and weeks and months ahead, then what Helga called for, about the United States becoming an active participant in the BRICS process, in the new paradigm of relations in the world, can be realized. So there's no gap whatsoever, between the fight for the 28 pages, and the fight to restore the United States to its Hamiltonian tradition, which means wiping out the power of Wall Street and London over the U.S. And this is the decisive flank, to make that happen.
Jason Ross, editor of Twenty-First Century Science and Technology, then concisely summarized the "promised land" which the BRICS nations are building, emphasizing the principles behind the new world economic platform coming into being.
Glad to be here, glad to see everybody here. Glad to everyone made it and looking forward to the challenging and important acts that you're going to be taking part in after the conference as well. Let me give an abbreviated version of what I want to talk about and I'm going to take up the main topic being, what economics is. Two other topics I'll just refer people to things on: The other two topics are more about nuclear fusion and more about Vladimir Vernadsky and the breakthroughs in science that are going to be made if we choose to take them up.
So it used to be, or at times it has been natural to progress. It used to be said that it was natural in the United States for each generation to live better than the one before. That's not the case today. Most Americans, as polls show, are not believing that any more: They are concerned that their children are not going to live as well as they have. Why the change?
It used to be considered natural that we would improve, that things would be better, that we would develop. Now, let's take up, how we create strategic safety in the world. You know, Jeff was speaking about the 28 pages, about the need, if you're going to address terrorism at its core, don't overlook, don't leave out the financing of it, go right for the 28 pages, go right at Saudi Arabia; that's the only way you're going to have a lasting security in that regards. And Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche has spoken frequently about Xi Jinping's understanding that security is not a local matter: That in this world, we will either have global security, or we will not have security. It's not possible to have safety and well-being in one country, while allowing terrorists and irregular warfare to run amok elsewhere to pursue various interests. We have to have a global security order.
What I'd like to address is how that global security order has to itself be based and include science as a cooperative means among nations, from the standpoint of economics. Because creativity isn't something, - you know, development, this isn't just something that the soul yearns for, that the spirit seeks. It's the basis of why we have economies and animals don't. You may have noticed that animals don't have economies: There aren't banks for squirrels; the International Pidgeon Institution doesn't release indicators of inflation; there are not rhinoceroses who measure their manufacturing output. This doesn't happen.
Take an example: If we had a time machine, and you went back 5,000 years, you'd been in a very different world than that of today. You might also ask yourself, what could you do in that world. Would you have anything helpful to offer? I don't think you'd be help people with their iPhones, since there weren't any; would you be able to help people discover how to turn rocks into metal? Could you help people use the stars to navigate? Could you help develop agriculture? Could you design a canal? Or, take someone from 5,000 years ago, and bring them to today. Obviously, it's a very different world.
Now, if you put a kangaroo, a hummingbird, a mosquito in this time machine, they'd get along just fine. Kangaroos don't have to operate any differently now, than they did 5,000 years ago; hummingbirds? There's no difference; it doesn't matter. They're timeless. Time is something that only exists for us, as human beings. We're a species for which this kind of time has a meaning. It doesn't exist for the animals. They have one generation to the next, but they're all the same.
So, economics is based on the ability of us to create history, to discover new true things, to determine how the universe works, and to change our behavior by using that knowledge to live differently. So 5,000 years ago, human beings first turned rocks into - let's get that slid - first turned rocks, this green rock is called malachite, you can turn it into copper. You can add some tin and create bronze. There weren't any pigs doing this; this was people. This developed a new era in history. Or think about agriculture: Think about the development of planting seeds, so you would know where you would find food in the future. Do animals do that? or do they walk around hoping they'll find something.
Here you see the development of corn. On the left, that's what corn looked like, before farming turned it into the modern form of corn that we're familiar with today. Not very appetizing-looking on the left. But that's what it looked like. We develop new forms of life. And this is well before Monsanto, or genetic modification of that sort; this is the genetic modification of breeding, of developing better plants, of creating new kinds of fruits, of grafting trees for example.
Or, take the other knowledge we developed: astronomy, navigation, using lodestones, the natural magnetite rocks that you could use as a compass. How did that change our relationship to the entire globe? How about Eratosthenes figuring out how big the Earth was? How does that change your relationship to it? How about developing hydraulic engineering, canals, waterways, irrigation systems. The first creation of a lock, to move up a river past rapids, of a dam to control floods, to control water heights. Of a mill, to use that flow of water to replace human labor or the labor of oxen or horses, pulling something.
Or windmills: Windmills were a great invention several hundred years ago! They're not, today. But when they were first invented, it was a great breakthrough. You could use it for grinding, you could use it to pump water and move back the sea, as in the Netherlands.
How about the Renaissance? How about the stunningly beautiful conceptions of the beautiful human race, as seen in Florence, as see in the work of the greatest artists, the greatest musicians? The development of perspective, beauty, music, poetry: We could use these to channel, to celebrate, to advance, our view of ourselves, a higher view of what it is to be a human being. This is something that everybody has in their mind, whether you're conscious of it or not, what it is to be a member of the human race. In the Renaissance, in addition to the scientific aspects represented a real breakthrough in explicitly developing a way of discussing that in an uplifting and more truthful way: What are we? What are people?
How about the development of the first modern nation-states? How about Joan of Arc, and the creation of Louis XI's France, Henry VII's England. How about modern science, which made tools that weren't made out of stone, like in the Stone Age, or metal or wood, but tools made out of the power of the mind. How about creating that apparatus of scientific thought as a possibility? These tools created by Cusa, Kepler, Fermat, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, how did that change us? It allowed us to move forward, solving all sorts of scientific, engineering problems. Think about the steam engine! That released tremendous amounts of power! You could burn a rock, and instead of using that just to cook your food, you could somehow turn burning into motion: That's a phenomenal change! It seems like two completely different sorts of things. So that breakthrough, how did that change what we could do? How much power did we have at our disposal thanks to that?
How about electricity? Now, instead of carrying coal around, you could carry power on a thin piece of metal, on a wire. You could have your engine over here in a power plant, you could have a wire and you could have a motor, in a factory. How did that change production, how did that change what we were able to do? Electricity allowed us to create new materials as well, by separating metals, for example. Today, throwing away a piece of aluminum foil, that's something that people do, or maybe recycle it, but go back a couple of hundred years, Napoleon used aluminum for his plates, and he served his guests on gold plates, because aluminum was more expensive then. Now it isn't; that's because of electricity.
How about the germ theory of disease? Which I hope everyone's keeping in mind and washing their hands a lot. The germ theory of disease, vaccination; how many lives have those discoveries saved? How much unnecessary suffering have they averted? How about the development of anesthesia and pain-killers, which made surgeries possible, that you would never think of having done without those developments! A hip replacement? I don't think anyone would want to do that without anesthesia and pain-killers! It wouldn't happen, right?
The nuclear era, that brought in a whole new possibility of technologies: Medical scans, smoke detectors, power plants, explosives, basic knowledge of the physical world. How much more power will nuclear fusion bring to us, and the fuller development of already-existing nuclear fission? What would be the potentials of a fusion economy, where we're using helium-3 mined on the Moon, as China's already moving to do, to have a platform where we would have to worry about many of the things we consider to be natural phenomena today?
Drought - that's considered a natural catastrophe. It shouldn't have to be. There's plenty of water in the oceans, why is there is a drought in California? Well, we don't control our weather, and we don't have a desalination capability. Why do we have shortages of power, or of materials? With a fusion torch you could recycle 100% of waste, you could mine even poor-quality soils. We could move asteroids! There's 100% guarantee, that an asteroid or a comet will strike the Earth and kill almost everything on it. That will happen. I don't know when, but there's 100% guarantee it will happen. And we're at a stand in human development where we need to take that seriously: Under a fusion platform, we could move these asteroids - we could move them where we wanted them! If we had Obama's plan to visit an asteroid, we could put one where we needed it and use it as the raw materials for building our spaceships and things like this up there, instead of here on Earth, and having to carry them up.
Also, we wouldn't have to worry about Saudi Arabia manipulating the price of oil. But we also wouldn't have empires.
So, that's economy. Those kinds of changes? That's economy, that's moving the human species forward. Those are chapters in a history book. What happens on Wall Street? That's not economy, that's stealing, that's gambling, it's empire, it's money! Money's not economy. We use money, but it's not what the economy is. Food is an essential part of the economy; having a place to live is an essential part of the economy. Gambling? That's not an essential part of the economy, that's not one of the basic needs of human beings, or of us as a social species.
So, let's take the opportunity to enjoy understanding this heritage of human development. We're a part of that, that's our common ancestry, our common past. We can all develop a greater understanding of that, and use that to act to create a better future. We also have, just very, very briefly, before us - can we get the chart of the fusion energy budgets, just very quickly - why isn't this happening right now? Why are polls saying truthfully that Americans don't believe that the next generation will live better: Here's one example. Back in the late '70s, several ideas were developed about how financing of nuclear fusion research would change the expected date that nuclear fusion would be a reality. You can see these different colored charts. You can see that maroon line, which people then expected meant that we would never achieve fusion. The black line is the actual U.S. funding for fusion: So a decision was made to stop that real economic process, they discussed, as part of a shift towards Wall Street.
We don't need Wall Street. We don't need monetary economics. We need physical economics.
So let me leave with a teaser, and an announcement about a couple of events, particularly - well, not particularly for, but for young people; I see some young people here in the audience. One of them is about the work that Mr. LaRouche has initiated on moving science forward, and I'll just point people toward the website of 21st Century Science & Technology, for more on fusion, for more on Vernadsky, and how life sciences can transform our idea of physics.
So let me leave you with those things, also on the larouchepac.com website, there's a video I just produced about putting fusion power in the context of these overall changes, and end with an announcement, that if you are a young person, - if you're wondering whether you're young, I would not consider myself to be young, so if you're younger than me - please, after this conference is over, we're going to meet; look for me and Daniel by the elevator bank, and we're going to discuss an event that we're going to be having tomorrow in New Jersey from 11-3, and also possibly an even tonight, for more on these developments.
The transcript of Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche's keynote address is available here. The following are her closing remarks to the conference.
There is one area which we have not really talked about enough today, and that is that we need urgently, to have a new cultural renaissance on the whole globe. I think that we all agree, and it was expressed by Ramsey Clark and you, that the popular culture is horrible, Satanic. It turns people into beasts. Or no - beasts are not like that. I don't know of any beast which is as bestial as human beings sometimes become.
So, what we need urgently is a Renaissance. How do we get out of a Dark Age into a Renaissance?
We have studied the universal history of civilization, and since Jeff mentioned the Decameron, that described the Dark Age of the 14th Century. And how did mankind get to the golden age of the Italian Renaissance, which was an absolute break with the entire axioms of witchcraft, of flagellants, of the Dark Age? People in the 14th Century really - when the Black Death was raving, people became total beasts, because the horror was so big that they lost every human feeling, every human sentiment. Mothers didn't care about burying their children any more. People were completely dehumanized.
And what was done then, civilization was saved by a handful of people going back to the high points of previous civilizations: to the Greek classic, to Dante, to Petrarca, and they started to revive the ancient treasures of the past. And the method of collecting handwritings, and original humanist writings, is absolutely key.
So, my first advice is, throw out all books with footnotes, or at least put them in the basement for the time being, and go back to the original sources. Go back to Plato. Go back to Augustinus. Go back to Confucius. Read other great thinkers of other cultures.
What happened in the Italian renaissance was that you had a couple of gifted people who already revived it, but it really clicked when Nicolaus of Cusa organized the entire delegation of the Greek Orthodox Church to participate in the Council of Florence, and they brought the entire volume of Plato. Plato had been forgotten for 1,700 years after Greece collapsed after the Peloponnesian war, and Petrarca had tried to find at least one translation, which he had knowledge of because he read Augustinus, so he knew there was this Platonic writings which must be very important. But he couldn't find it.
But when the Greek Orthodox church delegation came-Plethon, Bessarion, and other notable scholars-they found fortunately the Medicis, and they created a platonic school, and then the Italian Renaissance really flourished, and laid the foundation for 600 years of cultural development of the West to follow.
So, the lesson of that is, we have to do two things.
On the one side, we have to join the BRICS for the very simple reason that the people in the BRICS countries are not so pessimistic. They're optimistic. They're thinking about the future. They're thinking about making the future. And that optimism is absolutely contagious.
So, let yourself be infected by the optimism of these countries, but at the same time, we have to really get back to science, technology, great classical art, and study the great contributions of the past.
Why do you think we put so much classical music, spirituals, in every conference we have? Because we need to transform the moral side of people. We have to transform the aesthetical side of people. People have no more taste! They have forgotten what it is to love Classical music. So we have to study it.
This is why Diane Sare has started a New York-New Jersey chorus, to learn bel canto singing. Join the chorus. Come every week, or whenever this occurs, and learn to sing like the beautiful singers we heard today. Everybody can learn to sing. Your voice is an instrument, and once you start to conquer Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Verdi, and other great composers, to own them, that you know how to sing them, or play the music, you will see: it transforms you. You become a completely different human being.
Then, go to the great poets after that. Read Shakespeare, read Schiller, read Shelley, and others. And then you will see, these things become Geistesmassen, thought objects in your mind, which, step by step, every time you add a new area of knowledge, you become a more harmonious personality yourself. And you have the idea that you can change your emotions. You can consciously become a beautiful soul.
People go into the fitness studio, and they train how to that muscle to go to that angle, instead of that angle, by using the machine in such a way, and they spend an enormous amount of energy on this, but they don't focus on becoming beautiful souls. Beautiful bodies is okay-I'm not against that, but beautiful souls are a little bit more important. And Friedrich Schiller, according to whom the Schiller Institute has been named, had very much the idea that each human being can become a beautiful soul, a person for whom freedom and necessity are the same. People who are doing their duty with passion, and are free in doing it.
And you can develop your character to match what the National Bank will be, the New Development Bank, and all these other things. Because our dear friend Krafft Ehricke, who was a German-American scientist who developed the Saturn rocket on the Apollo program, he said the reason why the work of the Schiller Institute is so important, is because you can use anything for good or for bad. You can use any technology, any instrument-you can use a paper to cheat people. You can also use it to do something. There's no such thing as an objective. It's always the subjective.
Is the human being using these things an elevated noble soul, a moral person, an aesthetical person, or not?
So, we have to combine all of these things-infrastructure, new credit institutions, new sciences-all of that has always to be connected with making your soul more beautiful, and to create a Renaissance of people who have their identity, not located in money, or power, but who have their identity located in the creativity of mankind, and to contribute with their lives, that mankind is progressing. And in the words of Vladimir Vernadsky, that the noosphere is becoming stronger in the domination of the biosphere.
That is, if you look at the long evolution of mankind, you can see that there is a tremendous progress, and the more human beings become artists, scientists, teachers, but especially discoverers in classical art and science, the more people will be better, and the less they will have a desire to do evil against other people. Because, you ask a scientist, or a great composer or musician, what he wants: He says, oh, I'm so happy that I can do my job, because that's my identity. Even if I wouldn't get any money, I still would be doing the same thing.
And that is the future of mankind. Mankind will stop being a greedy little bastard, cheating on his neighbor. I think that that is not what we human beings are, and what we potentially will be.
And I'm optimistic, that I in my lifetime-and I'm not so young any more-that I will experience a complete new paradigm of civilization. Because it is within reach. And I want you to join the effort to make it happen soon.