DOCUMENTATION: SCHILLER CONFERENCE
Schiller Conference Panel 2: Build the New Paradigm, Defeat Green Fascism
Schiller Institute Conference, Saturday, October 15, 2022
[Panel opens with singing of Dona Nobis Pacem canon, and opening chorale from Jesu, meine Freude by Johann Sebastian Bach.]
DANIEL BURKE: Thank you everyone, for joining us for Panel II of the October 15, 2022 Schiller Institute international conference here in New York City, and streaming live across the world; “Build the New Paradigm; Defeat Green Fascism.”
We had a fantastic first panel, if you’re tuning in right now, be sure to watch it. Also, if you’re watching online, please “like” and share the stream, please subscribe to the Schiller Institute YouTube channel.
Here at the beginning of our second panel, I won’t waste any time in introducing our keynote speaker. Allow me to simply state that the Schiller Institute sent requests to Joe Pinion and Chuck Schumer who are her opponents in the race for U.S. Senate in New York. We sent invitations which were not—they’re not here; they didn’t come. So, with that in mind, here is my very good friend for a long time, Diane Sare, LaRouche independent candidate for U.S. Senate.
DIANE SARE: Thank you very much; I’m really glad to be here. I really enjoyed the first panel. What I wanted to do is prepare us, to arm us spiritually and emotionally and culturally for this fight. Because the thing that’s really been disturbing me, what I keep asking myself, and what keeps me awake at night is “Where is the bottom?” What I mean is, just when you think it can’t get worse, then our government, NATO, the UK, does the next worse thing. When you say, “How can this be continuing? Where is the point where people will stand up and stop this descent into total annihilation?” That’s what I wanted to take up.
So, as often in these periods, I turn to LaRouche, and there was a book that he commissioned some years ago during Cheney/Bush, called Children of Satan; appropriately named. And interestingly, he began his article in here, “What Does Culture Do?” LaRouche writes:
“As we have documented this fact in locations published earlier, the turn in direction of pathway away from President Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership toward the catastrophe which is our nation’s terrible condition today [this is 2004] was begun as part of an operation in which the later head of our Central Intelligence Agency, John Foster Dulles’ brother Allen, played a key role toward the close of World War II. This is a role he played together, and over the later decades of his life, with accomplices including his James Jesus Angleton. Dulles and Angleton typify those who played a key role in bringing a key part of the Nazi SS intelligence apparatus into the inside of what later became the NATO system.”
Doesn’t that seem appropriate today? Now, and you see it. What are we defending? What are we idolizing, what are we funding in Ukraine for our own purposes? Somehow, while candidates such as myself do not have freedom of speech or the right—we have the right, it’s not being respected—to be included in debates, or heard in the mainstream media. It is somehow acceptable for perpetrators of violence to be wearing all kinds of Nazi insignia, and the United States and Ukraine did not support the resolution to condemn the glorification of Nazism. Is that merely a political question, or a military question? Or, is that a cultural question? And how did we come to this point?
The first thing I thought we would do is, we’re going to sing. And I handed out some lyrics, which I hope you got. Now, I can’t find them; I need a copy. Thank you. We’re going to sing “Amazing Grace,” and we’re going to sing the 1st, 2nd, and last verses. What’s a good key? [Hums first two notes.] You’re going to sing it with me. [Audience and Diane sing “Amazing Grace.”]
Great; thank you. Now, just keep this in your mind, because you may wonder what this has to do with fascism; and we’re going to get to that. But let’s hear from Bertrand Russell. I’m going to read you a little bit which is not up here. Some of you may be familiar with some quotes from his Impact of Science on Society. This is not on my slide, but we’ll get to that in a minute. So, Russell writes:
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. One of these most influential is what is called ‘education.’ Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one. The press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part. It may be hoped that in time, anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young, and is provided by the state with money and equipment.
“The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.”
Then, he concluded the section: “Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely, without the need of armies or policemen.”
Russell wasn’t really the founder of something called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, but the Congress for Cultural Freedom was created towards the beginning of World War II, but really the end; because they had a problem which was that they wanted the U.S. to go fascist. Germany went fascist; you had Vichy France; Spain went fascist; Italy went fascist. The U.S. didn’t. They tried to assassinate FDR; that failed. They tried to run a coup against FDR; that failed. So, what was it? What was resolved upon by people at the Tavistock Institute and the CIA and Hollywood and elsewhere, is that you had to destroy the culture. So, there was a project which involved a very nasty fellow named Theodore Adorno. If you have the view that genius and insanity are very close; that if someone is a genius, they’re probably also insane; you can thank Adorno for that.
He wrote a book called The Philosophy of Modern Music. He says: “What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.” Man is a pretty miserable species; we’ve been discussing that. “The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes at the same time the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme, toward gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other, towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks. Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked.”
Obviously, you don’t hear that in Beethoven; you don’t hear that in Bach. You might hear that in Schönberg, who agreed with this quite vehemently. Then, Adorno, who is the guy who created—this is before everyone’s time here—this thing called the Top 40 on the radio. Whatever the top 40 hits of pop music, you get to hear them over and over and over again. He said, “What’s the purpose of this?” The purpose is fourfold. One, depersonalization, loss of connection to one’s own body. Two, hebephrenia, which he defined as the indifference of the sick individual towards the external. You’re oblivious to what’s going on around you, how it’s going to affect you. Three, catatonia. “A similar behavior is familiar in patients who have been overwhelmed by shock.” And four, finally, necrophilia. He said, “Universal necrophilia is the last perversity of style.” That’s the goal. And the question is, how much has that sunk into our culture? Has this become our culture? Can we defeat it? How might we defeat it?
Now, we have on the back of this another song. Who knows it? I’m OK at speaking, but I really get nervous about singing in public, so I want someone to lead us singing. Where is Michelle? Everyone can sing this—“Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?” We’re going to just do 1, 2, and the last. You can sing with us; you’ll get the idea.
[All sing “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?”]
Thank you. Now, I don’t if we can ask questions, but what is the difference between the two songs that we sang? I’ll give you a hint. How many people in the first one—“Amazing Grace.” How many people are in the song? One. There is one person in this song. What kind of person is this? Yeah, it’s a wretch, that by some arbitrary intervention which they had absolutely nothing to do with, has become saved. I’ll let that sink in. You can think about it, and think about the implications for mankind and everything else. In the Spiritual we sang, first of all, what’s the singer singing about? It’s about you watching something that is happening to someone else. And you’re not only watching something happening to someone else, you are talking to someone, asking “Were you there when this thing occurred?” Then, there’s the higher universal question about this and what happens in the song. And now, what I want to share with you, and we’ll hear a professional singer do this, but next, are we ready? This is by William Dawson, who was a wonderful composer of Negro Spirituals. He taught at Tuskegee Institute for many years, and he had a lot to say about the performance of this music. He writes:
“Two passages taken from the antebellum archives will give the reader some idea of what American slavery meant to the Black man; introduced here to give vividness and authenticity to this analysis of the meaning of religious folk music of the Negro, properly called Spirituals. One is taken from an act of the legislature of South Carolina in 1741, apparently intended to put a curb on the torturing of slaves.
“|‘In case any person shall willfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, castrate, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of any limb or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip, cow skin, switch, or small stick, or by putting irons on, or by confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of 100 pounds current money.’
“The second passage is taken from an address by Henry Berry before the House of Delegates of Virginia in 1832.
“|‘Pass as severe laws as you will to keep these unfortunate creatures in ignorance. It is in vain unless you can extinguish the spark of intellect which God has given them. Let any man who advocates slavery examine the system of laws that we have adopted towards these creatures, and he may shed a tear upon that. And would to God, sir, the memory of it might thus be blotted out forever. Sir, we have, as far as possible, closed every avenue by which light might enter their minds. We have only to go one step further to extinguish the capacity to see the light, and our work would be completed. They would then be reduced to the level of the beast of the field, and we should be safe. And I am not certain that we would not do it, if we could find out the necessary process, and that under the plea of necessity.’
“These excerpts give deep and poignant meaning to the words of the Spiritual familiar to most Americans, ‘Nobody Knows the Trouble I See.’ With such a background, we marvel at the lack of a single word of hate in the religious folksongs of the Negro. In the midst of inhumanity, he sang, ‘Lord, I want to be a Christian. I want to be like Jesus.’ In these songs, one can hear the cry for deliverance and freedom which lurks behind every measure, because the Negro literally poured his heart into them. Besides suffering, slavery brought to the Negro the story of Jesus. In that story, the slave found the counterpart of his own tragic experiences and instantly claimed the hero of that epic drama for his own; which gives meaning to the oft-recurring ‘my Jesus’ in these songs. The slave identified himself with the savior of all mankind, whose travail and triumph became the hope and assurance of his own deliverance. Thus, religion became the medium for expressing the slave’s laments, and aspirations for physical as well spiritual release.”
So, what’s the power in that music? Because what people did, what the Spirituals were about, was the power of the human spirit to transcend death. If your identity is located in that domain, then you will not be fearful. You won’t be cowardly; you won’t be a loser. You won’t look at other people and complain about how much worse off you have it than they do. And don’t they know what real suffering is like? This is the principle that’s in the paper that Mr. LaRouche dictated from prison, which is inside the center of each program.
There’s much more I can say, but time is short. I hope we get to discuss it, because there’s a certain really soggy sentimentalism—maybe we’ll go to that last thing, I’ll just show it. You can think about why this is wrong, and then we’ll listen to the song.
“Homeless man buys stranded woman gas with last $20—here’s how she repaid him.” This kind of stuff is all over the social media. Everyone is supposed to get all choked up. Oh, this homeless man, who was a veteran but got addicted to drugs, and he’s out on the side of the road. This woman ran out of gas, and she was stranded, and he gave her his last $20. Then, she set up a GoFundMe, and raised $300,000 for him. He’s no longer homeless, and isn’t that great? [Someone in audience says it was a fake.] It doesn’t matter; most of them are. The point is, why would you have such shallow emotions to be sucked into this? Like a tearjerker. My father used to say to me and my sister; we’d watch “Little House on the Prairie” every night and cry. He’d say, “Why are you watching these tearjerkers?” This story, what does that do for the good of mankind? What does that do to stop 1.5 billion people from dying of starvation? But we read and we feel so warm; such goodness just happened. That’s the same quality in inversion of the “Amazing Grace.” It allows a population to do nothing when the supposedly representative government of that population is committing crimes against humanity all over the world, and against people within the United States.
I’m going to conclude, and we will listen to Elvira Green, a wonderful mezzo-soprano singing what we just sang.
[Elvira Green sings “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?”]
BURKE: Thank you, Diane. I would also like to make a brief comment for anyone who is not aware, that Diane Sare is on a Ukrainian black list called the Center for Countering Disinformation, financed by the U.S. government by action that her political opponent Chuck Schumer took to sign the bill sending money on the order of tens of billions of dollars to Ukraine. I urge you to take the opportunity, having learned about this, and I’m sure people are aware of this issue, but to dig deeper into it, and contact relevant representatives of government in whatever country you may be presently—I’m talking to an audience in New York, but there are people watching from around the world—and demand that this method of suppressing individuals and suppressing necessary discussion of peace be overturned. That we halt this before—it’s already caused so much heinous death and destruction. Everyone here is aware of the absolutely—I can’t find the word for it, but the extremely sad assassination, the loss of an individual Darya Dugina, who was on the Myrotvorets list. There are two lists that are relevant in this case. I want you to know that Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who keynoted, is on the Myrotvorets list, as is Harley Schlanger, who works with the Schiller Institute, and is a representative of the LaRouche Organization. So, there are many other individuals we could name; very important voices for peace who are being suppressed, who have collaborated with us in a number of different events. The Schiller Institute recently held a major event called “In Times of War, Our Voices Must Not Be Silenced,” which you can find on the Schiller Institute YouTube channel. I encourage you to take steps to tell your representatives of government this cannot be allowed to continue.
So, thank you for allowing me to share that message.
Our next speaker is known by I’m sure everyone in this crowd. I know many of you were really looking for an opportunity to hear him speak. Please give a round of applause for Haz al-Din.
HAZ AL-DIN: So, before we begin, I have some news. We’re all going to die! No, I mean it. Think about it, it’s true, right? It is going to happen. It could happen today if a meteor came, or nuclear kicks off and Russia decides that they’ve had enough with our Ukrainian adventure. We can seriously die at any moment. As a matter of fact, getting up and rolling out of bed, you’re talking a risk. Going outside, who know? You can get shot, you can die. Just by living as human beings, we’re taking that risk. So, a human being who is unwilling to risk their life is also unwilling to live. But when it comes to the linchpin, the ideological linchpin of the Green agenda, the whole thing is about this blackmail that if we continue to be human beings, and if we continue to develop the forces of production which are what define human beings and distinguish them from animals, that we’re going to go extinct and we’re going to annihilate ourselves. The thing that distinguishes man from animal is that man cannot dwell at the precipice of extinction; at least not consciously. Our lives are mediated with a sense of meaning. Where this meaning comes from is of decisive significance for all of the philosophical and theological questions pertaining to humanity’s existence. The conclusion of human history as we know it, whether you’re coming at this from an Hegelian perspective or the cogivean[ph] perspective, which is also an Hegelian perspective, I guess, there comes a point at which mankind reaches something that’s called the end of history. The end of history amounts to a resolution of the antagonism and the conflict driving human history forward. Human history is not simply a history of economics and a history of differing relations to nature and the forces of production. It’s also a political history; it’s also a history of conflict between people, not just with nature. So, in the supposed resolution of history as we know it in the form of the end of real wars, the war to end all wars was the Second World War, and we’ve never really had a war since then. So, the end of history culminates in a state of universal recognition and universal freedom and the breaking down of barriers between mankind and all that globalist bullshit that we’re accustomed to. And there’s a grain of truth to it.
So, how has antagonism at the heart of human existence reintroduced itself after the end of history? It seems it has reintroduced itself in the form of something called “ecology.” When we think of that word—and I know it’s a hideous word, and I reach for my gun whenever I hear it. But, at the root of this word “ecology” is the Greek word oikos, which is about a more fundamental living being of humanity. How do we dwell, who do we live, how do we reproduce our own existence? This concerns not only our relationship to the natural environment, but the environment that we create through our own labor. The central antagonism since then, it seems to me, seems to be about the way in which human beings themselves have come to mark some kind of abruption; some kind of blemish; some kind of scandalous existence amidst this smooth continuum of global space of the end of history. The very fact of living, breathing human beings asserting their existence and asserting their lives seems to be a dangerous thing nowadays. The Malthusian ideology goes very deep into the history of liberal modernity. Liberal modernity affords not recognition to human beings, who are inherently contradictory. It only affords recognition to some kind of universal ideal, or universal subject. And it is in the name of this universal subject that the Green agenda is being pushed. We’re all going to die, which is what they tell us. The “we,” the subject that they’re referring to is the universal subject of liberal modernity.
So, what is the status of this supposedly universal subject culminating at the end of history? In August of 2012, striking workers in South Africa decided that they had had enough of the accursed and forsaken existence bestowed upon them by the end of history. So, in Marikana, they decided to assert their lives and assert their right to existence, and they were met with a massacre by the South African police. We see the same in Palestine; we see the same in Appalachia in America; we see all over the world, with the Yellow Vests in France, humanity has definitively become an accursed and forsaken being in our world. So, the Green agenda is a type of infinite regress. There is nothing we can do to satisfy their demands to stop being so prominent in this world. However much we reduce our carbon footprint, it’s going to be more, more, and more until our very breathing is seen as pollution. Because from the perspective of liberal modernity, humanity itself is a stain on reality.
As for the threat that, in pursuit of the realization of the essence of man, we will somehow stumble upon our own annihilation, to that I say, “So be it.” If humanity, in exerting its existence and fulfilling its cosmological mission, stumbles upon its own collective annihilation, that is a dignified and worthy end, and it amounts to the significance and the meaning that human life poses for the universe. It’s a dignified end in comparison to the slow and poisoned and undignified death that now awaits us at the end of history; where we simply pursue hedonistic goals of pleasure and safety. And basically we become domesticated into animals. As a matter of fact, the very insistence, the very risk of one’s life, if what defines us as human beings. We don’t simply live and dwell like animals do, waiting to die someday. We live and die for a reason. If we have nothing to die for, we have nothing to live for.
Before, in service to the state in circumstances of war, humanity proved the meaning of its life. Now, in a future which I hope will be devoid of war, humanity can assert its existence through a collective struggle with nature and the outside world which—just like in a war—does come with the threat and risk of death. If we do not prove our life as cogeff[ph], drawing from Hegel, so much emphasized, then the only fate that awaits us is slavery.
Right now, we are witnessing a global insurgency of collective mankind rising up against this really anti-human, globalist agenda which wants to grind us into dust and turn us into worms. To that I say, “We are on the precipice and on the verge of a global awakening of the people of the world, who are going to awaken from their slumber like lions.” And why shouldn’t they? They have nothing to lose. Certainly not their lives; which they lost at Marikana.
BURKE: Thank you, Haz. Our next speaker will be Megan Dobrodt. She is the President of the Schiller Institute U.S.A.
MEGAN DOBRODT: Hello, everyone. The world is vastly underpopulated. That is not my opinion; that is proven by rigorous study of the development of our planet, of the biosphere, and by the discoveries in physical economy of Lyndon LaRouche. But, though I know those of you in this room agree with that, all of us have heard nothing but the opposite. “The world is overpopulated. We humans, by our existence, by our activity, are destroying the planet, destroying bio-diversity. The more people, the faster we kill Mother Nature.” It’s pervasive; it’s everywhere. And it’s completely unscientific.
The biggest, most pervasive mental illness in society is a deliberately crafted mentality that is anti-growth, anti-progress, and anti-development. To win this political fight in the West, to join the New Paradigm, we have to overturn that false idea, and replace it with one that coheres with the real world. The fact is, if we merely applied the technology currently within our capability in every country of the world, we would and we should have billions and billions more people alive today. Those people are needed. We as a species have a lot to accomplish over the next few generations both on Earth, and beyond.
So, let’s get concrete about this. Today, the world population is just under 8 billion. How many people should it have? What’s the optimal human population? How many people could we have? 50 billion; that’s a thought. In December of 1988, Lyndon LaRouche gave an incredible speech in Chicago, just weeks before his unjust sentencing and incarceration, at which he said the following:
[video]
LYNDON LAROUCHE: That is, if we were to take the attitude which the United States had under the Kennedy space program, or actually the Eisenhower-Kennedy space program, from around 1958, the post-Sputnik program, to about 1965, if we maintained that, combined with policies of investment tax credits for investment of a suitable kind, with a science enrichment program in our schools, and similar kinds of things, and we did that, nothing more than that …
I can assure you, that knowing what we know is important to work upon in science and technology, knowing the kinds of projects which are the best way to express these technological improvements; I assure you that if mankind on this planet had the political will to do just that, we would increase the potential population density of this planet at a higher standard of living by a factor of as much as forty, over the next three generations. We could sustain by the end of two generations, a potential population in the order of magnitude of 100 billion people—more comfortably, much better fed, much more secure, much freer, much less crowded than today … [end video]
DOBRODT: So is 100 billion too many people? 200 billion? I’m going to top that. In the 1930s, the Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, whose work we’ll touch on in a minute, said with absolute scientific certainty that the upper limit of the human population on Earth was probably in the range of 3 trillion people. But, he said, with the advent of nuclear technology, it would likely become many times higher.
So, is 3 trillion too many people? Where did the idea of too many people even come from? Why do we even consider that question today? [inaudible response from audience] Let’s take a look. Does anyone know what the British Empire’s biggest problem was at the end of World War II? There was something they were more afraid of. They were more afraid of the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. That after the war, the United States would not permit the reinstatement of the 18th Century empires; and that instead, the formerly colonized nations would be allowed to use their own resources to develop their own people as free, modern, independent nations. So, to the British then—as today—this was quite unacceptable. So, they got to work.
Leading into the two world wars, the British were premier in cultivating the eugenics movement—so-called “race science.” Culling the human herd to produce the master race. Now, as you might imagine, the actions of Nazi Germany created some problems for the image of eugenics on the world stage; sullying its image a little bit. So, the British got to work rebranding eugenics as conservationism, ecology. One of the founders of the ecology movement, Sir Julian Huxley, left his position as the Vice President of the British Eugenics Society, to which he would later return as President, to become the first head of UNESCO—- the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. In its 1946 founding documents, Huxley wrote this:
“Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake, so that much that what now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Now, lest we be unclear about what Huxley meant by the “unthinkable,” in 1941, in the middle of the war, he said:
“[W]e must plan our eugenic policy along some such lines as the following: … The lowest strata, allegedly less well-endowed genetically, are reproducing relatively too fast. Therefore, birth-control methods must be taught them; they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive….
“[L]ong unemployment should be a ground for sterilization, or at least relief should be contingent upon no further children being brought into the world, and so on.”
Another luminary of the ecology movement, just to reference, is our friend, Lord Bertrand Russell, who recommended that a black plague be spread throughout the world once a generation to cull the herd.
In 1960, Julian Huxley travels throughout Africa. He comes back to Britain, and he writes a series of articles pushing the idea that the newly-independent African nations cannot possibly to trusted to protect their natural spaces and their endangered species. So, he recommended that an international body take stewardship of these lands. People have heard that term, “stewardship”; it kind of gives you the willies, right?
The next year, in 1961, Huxley, Prince Philip (the Queen’s consort), and Max Nicholson (the head of the Queen’s Privy Council), found the World Wildlife Fund. They appropriately choose a former card-carrying Nazi as its first head, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. By the mid-1990s, the World Wildlife Fund had gained control of 2 million square kilometers, which is about 8% of the land of the African continent. Now, there is much, much more to this history, including how this grouping created the IPCC and the Great Reset Green New Deal policy that we’re fighting today. But suffice it to say that the modern environmentalist movement—and I don’t think this is a surprise to most of you in this room—is nothing but the creation of a racist, anti-human empire.
The cause that so many thousands of largely misled young people are marching for—and I was looking for numbers of how many had marched this year. But anyway, this idea that human population growth and activity is destroying the planet, it’s disrupting the balance of nature; this is an imperial lie. What we have to get to, and be able to organize people around, is what’s true. If that’s a lie, what’s the truth? What’s true is that the history of our planet, of the biosphere, shows the total opposite. There is no natural stasis; there is no Earth in the balance. Instead, what we see is a process of unceasing, anti-entropic change. Of intensifying transformation of nature, which, over time, created the conditions of the appearance of cognitive life.
To get an insight into this, we’re going to look very briefly at the work of Vladimir Vernadsky. Vernadsky was an extremely important thinker. He was a Russian-Ukrainian scientist who founded the field of bio-geo-chemistry, which is the study of the impact of living processes on the Earth’s chemical make-up. The fascinating thing about living beings, and this became central to Vernadsky’s work, is that living beings are not the stuff that makes them up. We tend to think of living things as being solid. You can touch them, you can hold some of them; some of them you don’t want to. But all living things, including all of you, are constantly in a state of flux. In fact, five years from now, none of the “stuff” that makes up your body will still be part of your body. Every single atom in your biological system by that time will have been replaced. So, if we reassembled this audience in this room, it will be a completely different collection of matter. None of the stuff is the same.
Living things are in a constant process of exchanging material with the surrounding environment; through respiration, nutrition, and reproduction. Vernadsky cited the scientist Georges Cuvier, who compared a living thing to a whirlpool, which is an organized structure which is made up of a constant flow of material. It comes into the whirlpool or into the living body from the surrounding environment, and returns there; transformed by being part of the living system. Living things synthesize new molecules within them, new chemical combinations, new isotopic mixtures. And when they die, they leave concentrations of this transformed chemistry behind them as new mineral chemical deposits. It’s through that process over 3-4 billion years, that life on Earth has radically altered the chemistry of our planet. Life took over places that were formerly the domain of non-living processes and changed them. It’s changed our atmosphere, it’s changed every aspect of our environment; it’s changed everything. My favorite example of this—partly because it’s so seemingly catastrophic—is the Great Oxygenation Event; which is something that occurred somewhere between 2-2.4 billion years ago. That was a time when new technology had recently appear in the biosphere called photosynthesis, which is a way in which life can take extraterrestrial energy—sunlight—and convert it into terrestrial chemical energy. About 2.4 billion years ago, these little micro-organisms—cyano-bacteria—started photosynthesizing. And they started pumping enormous quantities of oxygen. You might say, “Great! I like oxygen.” At the time, it wouldn’t have been so great, because oxygen was toxic to most life on the planet. So toxic, that 99% of all living matter on Earth was wiped out in the biggest mass extinction event in history. So, if you want to talk about a species that threatening bio-diversity, we got nothing on these cyano-bacteria.
What fascinates me about this extinction event, is what came out of it. A more primitive biosphere was wiped out. But what survived? What survived and what emerged was a higher-order biosphere which was characterized by organisms that could metabolize oxygen. This increased the free energy in the biosphere available for work, for change. It allowed the development of mitochondria and multi-cellular life, and is the reason that we’re all sitting here today.
Similar changeovers, similar up-shifts of species in the biosphere can be seen in each of the extinction events in our planet’s history. It’s from evidence like this that Vernadsky concluded that evolution in the biosphere was not random. And in a speech in 1928 on that topic, Vernadsky said this:
“Taken together, the annals of paleontology do not show the character of a chaotic upheaval, sometimes in one direction, sometimes in another; but of the phenomena, for which the development is carried out in a determined manner, always in the same direction; in that of the increasing of consciousness, of thought, and of the creation of forms augmenting the action of life on the ambient environment.”
So, in other words, through evolution, living matter’s power to change the environment has increased over time at an accelerating rate toward what Vernadsky called its “maximum manifestation.” And it did that in such a way that the next phase, what survives, what emerges, is more capable of future change. That’s natural; that’s the natural world. That natural process has culminated in the creation of us; a cognitive species. We humans obviously participate in the biosphere; we have a biotic component. But unlike all life before us, we are not merely biological.
For example, we obviously pass material through our body, through our biotic processes. But that amount of material is completely insignificant compared to the kind of material that we move via technology, through processes outside of our body through technology. For example, last year in 2021, human beings created 2 billion tons of steel. I can’t even comprehend that number—2 billion tons. Which required the mining and transportation of between 2.5 and 3 billion tons of iron ore. Another example: The Chinese project, the North-South Water Transfer Project, which is not complete. But when it is complete it will divert 44.8 billion cubic meters of water per year from the southern part of China up north. It will do this by reshaping the environment; reshaping the terrain with dams, canals, aqueducts, pumps, pumping stations. Think of the mining, manufacturing, the electricity, the transportation, everything involved in that to create this project. In addition to the sheer quantity of material that we move, that we effect, humans also manipulate the chemical and atomic properties of matter to create new materials that could never and would never exist on Earth without us. We create these materials; we give them carefully crafted properties like high-heat resistance, high-tensile strength, specific optical, magnetic properties and so on. We control energies and states of matter that don’t occur on Earth without us. For example, in 2021, the Tokamak in China, the Tokamak fusion project, created and contained a plasma of 120 million degrees on Earth. That’s eight times hotter than the center of the Sun. At temperatures like that, you can shock-vaporize any material down to its elements.
So, we’re incredible! What’s the effect of all of that? And here’s where we get to LaRouche’s discoveries in economics. A metric that he called potential relative population density. When we act human, behave like human beings in that way, we revolutionize our productive powers of labor. We’re able to support more people at a higher standard of living, living longer lives, who have more free time to dedicate to scientific research, cultural pursuits, literature, other things that foster genius. That’s the outcome of economic activity; more people who are happier geniuses.
Those changes are not the result of biological evolution, but of an evolution of ideas. We make new discoveries of principle that overturn the previous system of beliefs; kind of an extinction event. These allow us to change the physical world in unimaginable ways. It’s through that process that we come to one other difference between human beings and animals; the biosphere. In the biosphere, the individual is insignificant in terms of its measurable effect on geo-chemistry. Not so with human beings. One individual, through their discoveries and their change of the organization of human society, one individual can have a great geological effect.
Speaking of geological effects, over the next few decades, we have a lot of work to do as a species. We have to build the World Land-Bridge. We have to work together to rapidly help every nation on Earth develop to the most modern level of industry, infrastructure, science, standard of living. We have to finally rid humanity of the effects of colonialism for good. Doing that is going to require the labor and the leadership of billions and billions of thinking people. Our work is not just geological though. For five decades, human beings have been able to reach the surfaces of other worlds. We walked on the Moon. We’re no longer merely Earthlings. We have the potential to shape the destiny of other planets. That’s going to require a New Paradigm of economic, scientific, and cultural collaboration for which 8 billion people is not enough. We need more people. We need to create more creative geniuses. That is a beautiful mission assignment. Progress; grow; discover. That’s the task I give to all of you in this room, all of you watching. And for that, I’d ask you to consider that we may just need 3 trillion people. Thank you.
BURKE: Thank you, very much Megan Dobrodt. It is not an exaggeration to say that Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas are a fundamental resource for the leaders of the emerging new paradigm of physical economic cooperation among nations. A recent statement by Russian economist Sergei Glazyev, made on the occasion of Lyndon LaRouche’s 100th anniversary of his birth, touched on the subject.
[video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nkLsgz6fU0, released Sept. 11, 2022]
SERGEI GLAZYEV: This year progressive people around the world are observing the centenary of the birth of the brilliant thinker and, I wouldn’t hesitate to say, prophet of our time, Lyndon LaRouche. Unfortunately, we no longer can converse with him, and it’s a pity he did not live to see the day when his warnings about the crash of the world financial system came to pass.
Already 30 years ago, and perhaps even earlier, Lyndon LaRouche drew attention to the fact that the inflation of financial bubbles, including derivatives bubbles, and the creation of financial pyramid schemes would inevitably bring about the collapse of the world financial system. And he proposed to adopt timely measures to avert that collapse.
If the leaders of the world’s nations had listened to the voice of Lyndon LaRouche, then, perhaps we might have managed to avoid the social upheavals we confront today as a result of the collapse of the world financial and economic system, which is based on unlimited emission of the dollar and other Western reserve currencies. These financial bubbles are not getting any smaller. We have seen that attempts to clean them up, end in the inflation of new bubbles. Even the crash of 2008, which erased tens of trillions of dollars of people’s savings, including pension funds, did not prevent financial bubbles from bloating up again as a result of the limitless emission of the world reserve currencies, using the device of so-called quantitative easing.
Lyndon LaRouche proposed a mutual cancellation of these debts, observing the principle of fairness and effectiveness.
In effect, what we see now is that the emitters of the world reserve currencies are simply refusing to fulfill their responsibilities. It could have been anticipated that if countries which took the path of pumping up financial bubbles, abusing their monopoly on the right to issue a world currency, ran into a situation where the scale of these financial pyramids greatly exceeded the country’s ability to service them, the question would inevitably arise of how to repudiate these debts. Simply declare bankruptcy before the whole world, or come up with some other ways to write off their obligations—repudiate them?
The United States, Great Britain, the European Union and Japan have taken that second route. They unilaterally seized, and blocked, Russia’s foreign currency-denominated reserves. That means they are refusing to fulfill their obligations to Russia.
Russia invested—that is, extended a credit to these countries, in the amount of more than $400 billion, that’s the state-sector component and the government’s own, our foreign-currency reserves. Plus another approximately $1 trillion belonging to private parties is located in jurisdictions of the Western emitters of world reserve currencies.
The attempts to block these funds essentially means a default, but a default on what is owed to one of their creditors. In the past, we used to call this piracy, or robbery.
Of course, these extraordinary measures, which are totally against international law and violate every conceivable rule of decency, as well as the standards of the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, can be challenged in court. But, on the one hand, this would run into the national will of the emitter-country, which may be that of a pirate or a bandit, as we are witnessing right now. On the other hand, their action won’t save the system, because even if the U.S.A. and its European allies refuse to fulfill their obligations to Russia, that is only a small percentage of the financial obligations the world reserve currency emitters have to the entire world and their own domestic markets.
So the world is plunging into chaos, in precise accordance with the scenario, the negative scenario, that Lyndon LaRouche spoke about in forecasts he made 30 or 40 years ago. Back then, he proposed that, instead of pumping up financial bubbles, the world reserve currency emitter-countries, together with their partners and other countries, should invest in building global infrastructure, which would reduce the cost of trade, increase the efficiency of international economic ties, and, overall, contribute to raising connectivity worldwide. So he viewed the process of globalization as a process of expanding cooperation among countries, rather than attempts by some countries to exploit others.
As for the liberal globalization that today is leading to the collapse of the world financial system, LaRouche criticized it. He proposed a different model of globalization, based on the principles of physical economy: in particular, the famous project, which he and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, put forward for international discussion—the so-called Eurasian Bridge. This is a splendid and interesting project, which now, after many years, has begun to be implemented through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, which we support through linking it with the Eurasian Economic Union.
Lyndon LaRouche looked decades ahead. He warned the U.S.A. and its partners about the inevitable collapse of their financial expansion policy, under which the interests of speculators eclipse the national interest and the development of the economy.
The global speculators and world oligarchy, which are parasites on the monetary emission of world currencies, greatly disliked LaRouche for this. He was persecuted and faced with imprisonment. He ran for the U.S. Presidency several times, and if Lyndon LaRouche had been elected President, the world today would be developing in a stable fashion. There would not be the growing chaos, there would not be the worldwide wars and provocations, which the global oligarchy does in order to write off its debts.
There’s a Russian proverb: “War writes everything off.” In order to write off its debts to Russia, as well as to Europe, Washington provoked the war in Ukraine, and continues to deepen the confrontation. Things have reached the point where Washington’s agents of influence are shelling a nuclear power plant, to raise the temperature of the conflict and create the basis for a clash between Russia and all of NATO: NATO aggression against Russia.
The present nightmarish moment, with the breakdown of the entire system of international law, and of international cooperation, the collapse of the financial system, could have been avoided, if the Democratic Party organization had supported LaRouche as their Presidential candidate many years ago. But, unfortunately, history does not recognize the subjunctive mood. Or, as we tend to put it, no one is a prophet in his own country.
LaRouche’s voice was heard very well. We remember him. In practically all the major countries in the world that today are developing successfully—above all India and China—there are partisans of LaRouche. They have used his thoughts and ideas, for creating their economic miracles. It is the principles of physical economy championed by LaRouche, that today underlie the Chinese economic miracle and are there in the foundations of India’s economic development policy. The supporters of LaRouche in those countries exert a fruitful, very positive, and constructive influence on economic policy-shaping in these leading nations of the new world economic paradigm.
We should not forget the creative legacy of Lyndon LaRouche, which demonstrates the interconnection of events taking place today with their roots many centuries ago. I was always impressed by Lyndon LaRouche’s enormous erudition. He saw the parasitical global oligarchy from its origins, and traced how those oligarchical families were parasites on trade, first in Venice; then they resettled, and continued to build up their financial power, through international trade and global speculation, in Holland; then they relocated to England; and after that, seized control of the political system of the United States.
Lyndon LaRouche saw the totality of world history through the prism of the struggle between the Good—national interests, the interests of improving the general welfare—and the forces of Evil—the world financial oligarchy, which hinders countries’ development, which strives to extract speculative super-profits from trade and economic cooperation, and which deceives the entire world by inflating speculative bubbles, and abuses its positions of power in the countries where it dominates the political system. We see how today’s U.S. financial oligarchy is unleashing hybrid world war, up to and including the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, for the purpose of holding onto its global hegemony.
Lyndon LaRouche’s warnings are coming to pass. It is important, that these warnings are not abstract. They are not simply lines on a graph. I remember the famous Triple Curve, where he showed the growing gap between the size of the world real economy and the size of the world financial system. He was the first to make note of this disproportion, which 30 years ago was still not so big; it could still have been overcome by transforming the excess financial aggregates into the real sector—into real investment projects.
Now, this is a gigantic abyss. It is impossible today to transform quadrillions of dollars of financial bubbles into investments in the real sector of the economy. There are simply no mechanisms for this. None was created, because the parasitical financial oligarchy, which hated LaRouche, which always tried to shut his mouth, and persecuted him and tried to keep him locked up, ultimately acquired a monopoly on political power in the United States. And today, it uses its political influence in Washington to force all the countries in the world to obey its will. It continues to dominate the world and exert its hegemony for extracting super-profits from speculative operations.
Lyndon LaRouche turned out to be right. Today we rely on his work, his writings, in composing proposals for a very rapid transition to a new world economic paradigm. We call it an integrated world economic model, in which finance capital will be subordinated to the tasks of developing the economy, and in which the principles of physical economy will come to fruition. As we can see, countries that are taking this path are enjoying success.
There is no doubt that the ruling American financial oligarchy is losing the hybrid world war, which they have started against all mankind. It’s only regrettable, that the price that has to be paid for this will be very high. That includes the lives being lost as a result of the war that the American and European financial oligarchy organized against Russia on the territory of Ukraine. We have to muster all our forces to fight that evil, and the creative legacy of Lyndon LaRouche helps in this.
May his memory live forever. [end video]
BURKE: Sergei Glazyev is a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He is a member of the National Financial Council of the Bank of Russia. He is currently Minister in Charge of Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Commission, the executive body of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). His book Genocide: Russia and the New World Order was brought out in English by EIR in 1999.
We have a very exciting series of speeches: All of our panelists are here in person, although we do have some video contributions that will come in as well that we will play. Before we go to Fox Green and Sameera Khan, we will hear a short video contribution from Dr. William Happer, who is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics emeritus at Princeton University.
[video]
WILLIAM HAPPER: Well, thank you very much, José, for inviting me to chat with you. I’m Will Happer. I’m a physicist: I taught for many years at Princeton and before that at Columbia. I’ve also spent some time in Washington, so I’ve had a varied career.
What I want to say, now, is just a few words about carbon dioxide, which is at the center of many really stupid policies that are being espoused by governments around the world, especially in the West and Europe, and in the United States. You know, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant at all. It’s actually a benefit, and it’s really the stuff of life. We wouldn’t exist without carbon dioxide. By the standards of geological history, carbon dioxide levels now are much lower than they ought to be, and plants are struggling, actually, to grow. They grow much better if you double or triple the amount of CO₂ in the air. And commercial greenhouse operators routinely double or triple the amount of CO₂ in the greenhouse, because even though you have to pay for the CO₂—it’s not cheap—you get such better products from your plants, better flowers, better fruits, that it’s worth the extra expense from the CO₂.
And you can see that happening on a large scale, from satellites: If you look down at the Earth, it’s clear the Earth is getting slowly greener over the past 50 years, and if you analyze that, it’s not because there’s more rainfall or more fertilizer, it’s because there’s more CO₂. So, there’s nothing but good news from increasing levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
Now, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, and (my cat has just walked across the light), and it does affect the climate, but not very much: If you were to double CO₂ levels, and that would take a long time—you know, over a century at the rates of increase that we’re seeing today—you would only decrease the radiation to space, which is controlled by CO₂, by 1%. So this 100% increase in CO₂, which will be hard to attain, only makes a 1% difference in the cooling radiation to space, and that can easily be made up by a very small warming of the Earth: The Earth’s surface would have to warm by about 1° Centigrade. The exact number nobody really knows for sure, it depends on various feedbacks. But I would be very surprised, and most other knowledgeable people very surprised, if it exceeds about 1° Centigrade.
The most generous thing I can say about people who go around talking about carbon pollution and carbon footprint, and this sort of thing, is that they have a very poor education in science. If they knew more about science, they wouldn’t say that. And this, unfortunately, includes a lot of scientists, you know, who like to pontificate on things that they don’t really understand. It’s a disease that goes with being in academia.
But, you know, we’re made of carbon: Human beings are bags of protein and fat, and other materials that are all based on carbon. The amino acids that are the building stones of our proteins have a carbon atom in the center and lots of carbon surrounding them, and the other parts of the molecule. The sugars and the fats that provide energy for us are all based on carbon, and so, we use a lot of carbon. And we breathe out large amounts of carbon every breath: In fact, the average human breathes out about 2 lbs. of carbon dioxide per day.
So I want you to think about this: We’re basically carbon living creatures, all living creatures. And we produce a lot of carbon dioxide simply by living: Two pounds a day per human—there are 8 billion humans, that’s quite a lot of carbon, isn’t it, per day? And if you’re going to get rid of carbon pollution, does that mean we ought to get rid of humans? This is not a rhetorical question: It’s something worth serious consideration, because some of the most rabid proponents of fighting climate change also think you need to get rid of most humans. You know, I don’t agree with that, and you ought to think about it, too, because it could affect you in the future.
So, thank you very much. I wish you all well at this meeting: It’s an important meeting, so learn as much as you can.
JOSÉ VEGA: I think something you do very well, is taking this back a layer, is this idea of well, I don’t necessarily know if this is true or right, but it should be investigated. And I think that approach is something you’ve been trying to get into the science of climate for the last 20 years. Because we see scientists taking an axiomatic approach, “OK, climate change is real. Now how severe is it?” As opposed to, “Well, wait a minute to what extent does man induce or influence climate change, and how catastrophic is it, really?”
HAPPER: Well look, everyone knows that the climate always changes. You know, the geological record makes that clear, and even the historical record: We know very well that there was massive climate change at the end of the Roman Empire was one of the contributors was one of the things that caused the mass migrations that were such a problem for the Roman Empire. And there have been many others like that. So, definitely climate changes. I don’t see evidence that humans have had very much to do with it, or will have very much to do with it in the future.
I already mentioned that the main greenhouse gas that we’re concerned about, carbon dioxide, is heavily saturated, so doubling CO₂ only makes about a 1% change in radiated forcing, to use a technical term. But the idea we have to spend trillions of dollars decarbonizing the Earth, when carbon dioxide is definitely good for the Earth, good for life on Earth, is just insane. It’s like burning witches to stop climate change, which we used to do, by the way. And when we did that, the leadership was always the most educated people. In the Salem witch trials, all the judges had Harvard degrees, and the common people were a little less certain that the witches had anything to do with the bad climate, but there was no doubt in the minds of the Harvard judges that they did…. [end video]
BURKE: OK, thank you very much to Dr. Will Happer. Let’s continue, thank you so much, José. There’s a little bit of excitement going on behind the scenes, which I’ll be happy to tell you more about later. But in the meanwhile, I thank you for continuing with us on Panel 2. If you’re watching online, please like, share, and subscribe.
And I want to take the opportunity for a brief moment to point out a couple of things: One is that in your program, you have a page at the very beginning “Support the Schiller Institute,” and if you would like to become a member, contributing member, recurring member, then you are very much invited. We need resources to do our continuing work.
And secondly, I would like to encourage people to take a look at this featured item we have, which is the first volume of Lyndon LaRouche’s Collected Works. There are five books in here, and Megan Dobrodt here was very deeply involved the production of this wonderful volume. And you can purchase it outside, or people who are watching can go to LaRouche Legacy Foundation [https://www.larouchelegacyfoundation.org/collected-works]. We will also be publishing Volume 2 very soon.
By the way, my friend Courtney, he figured out a solution to what Dr. Happer was talking about: In order to do his part for the climate, he simply does not exhale; he only inhales [laughter], and he’s just the greenest person I know, mostly complexion.
Anyway, we’re going to have my friend Fox Green: He is a leader of Space Commune [https://spacecommune.com/], they have a wonderful podcast, they have a website. You can purchase the beautiful poster that we have all over. That was designed by this man, Fox Green. [applause] We get tons of comments in support of that. So, this man has many talents, and he’s going to give a beautiful speech here: Please give a round of applause for Fox Green of Space Commune. [applause]
FOX GREEN: And thank you to Daniel for putting this on, this amazing conference, and you pulled it all together. I have so much gratitude for everyone in the room right now, and being included in this event; this is amazing. It’s great. Thank you to the Schiller Institute and The LaRouche Organization.
Now: Since the era of the industrial revolution, the enemy of human progress has been fascism: Where humans have sought to grow, those in the ruling class have sought to contract, or hold back that group. During the 20th century, we recognized this in Hitler’s right-wing Nazi Party, the so-called National Socialists. The dominant narrative of World War II leads us to believe that we defeated fascism, but this was simply not the case. Fascism was never defeated—beaten back, yes—but it was never defeated. It was rebranded. The vanguard of fascism now cloaks itself under the guise of socialism once again, and Woke faux progressive politics, the so-called left wing—Joe Biden, the Democrats, George Soros, and their new reactionary Socialist Party, is a breeding ground for a new pack of ruthless, egomaniacal, sociopathic ladder-climbers, the Democratic Socialists of America. [applause]
They are the foot soldiers of the Green New Deal, which is a plan for international genocide and mass death, via food and energy austerity. For the past 17 years, I’ve lived in the Hudson Valley, a semi-rural, back-to-the-land “Disney World” for liberal elites, two hours north of New York City. Underlying this supposed utopia are multiple compounding economic issues: Housing is completely unaffordable, homelessness is rampant, and wages are falling. What’s happening in the Hudson Valley is a microcosm of the acute problem facing the entire nation.
The Hudson Valley has historically been home to America’s infamous robber barons, and that trend continues today with the heavy presence by Peter Buffett and George Soros, who have built intellectual fortresses in the NoVo Foundation and Bard College respectively, within 10 miles from where I live. These oligarchs, like their predecessors, have a vested interest in rolling back the progress in industrial capitalism to a neo-feudal society. The Hudson Valley is a hotbed of environmental and conservation [afference 1:35:29]. Shutting down industry is a favorite pastime of the area’s most beloved leftwingers, including none other than Pete Seeger (Pete Singer sucks, too, though), who devoted his last decades to shutting down Indian Point Nuclear Energy Center, a plant that provided over a quarter of New York City’s power, which was prematurely decommissioned in 2021.
But it wasn’t always this way. The Hudson Valley used to be an industrial hub. We produced things like bricks, textiles and cement. Industry made up 40% of the economy as recently as 1970s. Today, it’s down to 5%. Now, our economy is dominated by service work, specifically, education, healthcare, retail and tourism. We don’t make anything. And most well-to-do liberals and leftists are totally blind to this problem.
The Hudson Valley is an advance version of the plans our ruling elite has for the rest of the Western world, continuing the slow death of our productive economy and turning us into an army of servants. In a way, I am from the future, trying to warn you, that the service economy is a dead end. The only thing it brings is the veneer of progress without any. It’s a simulation: It’s a new gilded age, a speculative bubble, a virtual reality for a totally controlled and servile population. A steady-state aka degrowth economy has been in the works since the 1970s, when the hegemonic think tank Club of Rome published Limits to Growth. Service sector work goes hand in hand with degrowth economy.
In an economy ruled by scarcity, a cascading pyramid of servile work, everyone is competing. We all become pets of the ruling class, living in a dog-eat-dog world. Most of our production has been outsourced to the Third World and China, and most of our service work involves importing these goods, micromanaging every moment from freight docking to consumption, and even the post-consumption life cycle of the product.
This is not a steady state, at all, but a controlled demolition guided by entropic pessimism. This is quite literally reactionary, fascism, holding back the progress of humanity. The financial capitalists that run the world have slowed the industrial machine of the Western world to a steady hum, keeping the forces of production and human abundance at bay for half a century, and it’s playing out its crisis in every sector—housing, food, healthcare, you name it.
Degrowth is the ideology that makes us complicit, the ideology that turns us all into servants of capital. It’s time for Americans to return to our roots of fighting imperialists. The attitude among the left is that the United States is a white settler colonial state, that must be burnt to the ground. But it’s precisely the opposite. As the largest population in the imperialist core, American citizens play the most pivotal role in destroying fascism, once and for all. If we can focus on our own growth as a nation, and join China and Russia in developing the rest of the world, specifically Africa, the necrotic arm of imperialism will have no choice but to shrivel up and die.
We do not want to reduce our footprint. We do not want to leave no trace. We do not want to drawn down to zero. Every human being has the God-given right to leave their mark on this world, to become immortal by their own creative contribution to mankind. [applause]
Our country is suffering from a plague of pessimism. Americans are fiercely independent and wildly creative: That is our culture. We need a new American government based on our founding principles: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
That’s the Declaration of Independence, if anybody is curious.
A new American government rebuilt from our founding principles, which nurture the creative and independent American spirit, would unleash massive potential for a human race.
We are under occupation by Green fascists. This occupation differs from the occupation of force at gunpoint, like we saw in Nazi Germany. Our occupation is one of the mind: Our minds are locked in a prison of pessimism. The American public is told, day in and day out, that there is no alternative, or, if they do not like the status quo, if they’re fed up with capitalism, their only other option is degrowth. There is no up, only down. We have hit the ceiling, we have hit the so-called “Limits to Growth.”
But this is not true at all: We have hit the limit to how much we can grow under a free-trade, imperialist economic mode. Humanity has all the tools to break through this green, Malthusian ceiling. Current nuclear energy technology, with fusion right over the horizon is our golden ticket, the catalyst to transform our energy flux-density and human potential. The only way to beat the Green New Deal fascists, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the neo-fascist Democratic Socialists of America, is to fight degrowth. We need to bring back industry, production, good jobs, optimism for the future, and meaning to life for the American people. Thank you. [applause]
BURKE: Thank you, Fox. And now, it is a pleasure to introduce, the one and only Sameera Khan. [applause]
SAMEERA KHAN: Thank you so much for the introduction, I’m so excited to be here, very excited to talk about Green fascism. Now, I’m going to keep it very short and simple, because there’s so much propaganda to sift through.
Now, to start off with some personal background: I was heavily involved in the 2016 election, with progressives in the Bernie Sanders campaign (very cringe) [laughter]. I spoke at climate rallies, not because I really cared that much about the subject, but because in support of my allies at the time. I even went to Standing Rock—yeah, it was that serious. [laughter] Very embarrassing: It’s something I’m not too proud of, but it’s the reason why I’m here, today. You learn and you grow.
But that was my first introduction to the climate movement, or Green fascism, as we call it. Then I grew up.
Over time, I began to make sense of the broader implications of the climate movement, environmentalism, and Green fascism, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. Now, in my career, I focus mostly on foreign policy; that’s what interests me the most. But domestically, when it comes to climate change, it’s pretty straightforward. If we were drilling more, we wouldn’t have to beg Saudi Arabia or Venezuela for oil—it’s not that interesting.
Now, in foreign policy, however, it’s more concerning. People might not know what they’re signing up for, when they demand that Biden take action on climate change, because if you look through the fine print, when it comes to Biden, or the Soros Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, it’s focussed entirely on weakening U.S. rivals and preserving Western hegemony: Like China and the Belt and Road Initiative, mentioned 30 times. They say that China is the world’s number-one polluter and we need to decarbonize the Belt and Road Initiative. So when AOC says, “We need to decarbonize”—she’s talking about China. And they also state very clearly, for example, in the National Security Strategy agenda that just came out a few days ago, that the purpose of climate change is to deprive so-called “authoritarian petro-states,” for example, Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, and so on and so forth, of economic power, so that they’re deprived of political power on the international stage, so then they can no longer challenge the West, right? Works out perfectly.
And that’s what the global energy transition does: Once we transition to Green energy, then the power will revert back to the West. Saudi Arabia will no longer have political power. You know what they just did with OPEC, alongside Russia. Biden is slipping out. He wants to sanction MBS now. [laughter]
But another component of this policy is to prevent emerging powers, for example, in Africa with existing, untapped resources that they want to develop, that they want to make money off of, that they want to use to develop their economies, that’s a key part. And we don’t really have time to get into the nitty-gritty, because as I said, I was going to keep it simple. But, where do we go from here, what can we do? I think information is the most important, info-warfare, but perhaps that’s my media bias talking. Unfortunately, there is massive support for taking action on climate change. There really isn’t much details given as to what we’re going to do, but of course, that’s channeled into foreign policy: Something like 90% of Americans think that it is a major problem, that Biden needs to catch on now.
So, in terms of info-warfare, what I think needs to be made clear, first and foremost, is that there is no climate emergency. Right? That’s quite literally what the scientists said the World Climate Declaration. I can send that to all of you later on. [https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/] Because any sort of acknowledgment or even mild environmentalism can be, like I said, channeled into foreign policy, and that’s dangerous, especially in Biden’s hands. But once we start there, we can sift through all the propaganda, and go through, point by point: For example, green energy, big green versus big oil: There’s a leftist narrative, that for some reason big oil doesn’t want to invest in green energy because it’s not profitable. But the opposite is true! They also think the government is reluctant to take action on climate change, but like I explained, they’re actually eager to do so. And, net zero by 2050, this is the big one: This is a huge gap between Western progressives and the rest of the world, because the entire developing world, they’re unanimously against net zero by 2050, the developing world, that is.
And honestly, I’m very excited that I’m not the only one that cares about this, because you can only complain on Twitter for so long, right? But I’m very excited to work with all of you on this. And I’m glad I’m not the only one. And thank you so much, Daniel Burke, because we’ve been talking about this for weeks, and we need to do something immediately, because, it’s the next big thing. They’re already preparing like censorship arrangements with social media companies to censor “climate disinformation,” of course, that definition is vague—very, very vague. They’re saying anyone that says, well, they’re calling it “hate speech.” They’re saying “climate disinformation” needs to be censored as “hate speech”! So, when you have that sort of vagueness, I mean, like the slippery slope, right?
Oh my gosh, but, yes, I’m very excited to work with all of you, and, thanks so much! [applause]
BURKE: Thank you, Sameera. You know, we were thinking of going out in the street with a sign that said, “Let’s Nuke Russia,” because nuclear winter is going to help slow down climate change. But that’s—someone here told me that that would probably be a bad idea, because so many people would agree with it. So, thank you guys very much for your contributions.
And now we’re going to show two videos: The first video is from Fouad al-Ghaffari, of Yemen, who is Advisor of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet for BRICS Countries Affairs, President; President of ALBRICS Youth Parliament, which is a close friend-organization to the Schiller Institute and is really a part of our efforts. If you open up your pamphlet to the page right after the program, you will see a petition, which is a “Call for an Ad Hoc Committee for a New Bretton Woods,” and this is a proposal for reorganizing the world economy in the midst of this economic breakdown that we’re in. This petition has been endorsed by the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of the cabinet that Fouad al-Ghaffari advises in Yemen. Pretty good? And so, in the video, you’ll see a number of news clips that show the work that Fouad’s organization is doing in Yemen, and I’d like to share that with you.
[video: in Arabic, transcription from English subtitles]
(video shows Fouad al-Ghaffari and his son Ali donning space suits)
FOUAD AL-GHAFARRI: This is Fouad and Ali al-Ghaffari from Sana’a, Yemen, with the spirit of our national vision 2030, despite the siege and aggression, we confirm our participation with the call of Mme. Helga LaRouche, president of the international Schiller Institute, to the youth of the world.
ALI AL-GHAFARRI: Greetings to you Madam Helga from the capital of resistance! And to all the youth around the world who have responded to your call. We add our voice to both your and their voices.
FOUAD AL-GHAFARRI: We today stand in Yemen with the call of Helga LaRouche, to prove that our country will participate in these events and take its place despite all the hardships and join the youth of the rest of the world in playing a creative role in humanity’s future and civilizational development.
ALI AL-GHAFARRI: Yes, the age of reason is completed between the stars, and our hands are extended to all the youth of the world, to building a better future for all of us, on this planet and outer space.
[Then follows three clips from news broadcasts]
[First News Broadcast]
ANCHOR: The foreign minister Mr. Hesham Sharaf Abdallah met today a group of “BRICS Youth,” the Belt and Road project. In the meeting the foreign minister appreciated the efforts of patriot youth that works during the time of aggression to expose the violations of the aggressors. [Shows Fouad al-Ghaffari briefing a group.] And he has confirmed that he will present the proposals for opening dialogue and cooperation channels with the People’s Republic of China and other countries of the project, with the goal of building a strong Yemeni economy. He has reaffirmed that it is the Foreign Ministry’s initiative to be open to all the countries of the world and economic blocs according to the country’s interest and mutual benefit. And he has pointed out the project that was launched by the martyr President Saleh Al-Sammad, “One Arms Builds, One Arm Protects,” confirmed that the political direction represented by the emergency government is building a modern Yemeni state without any discrimination or division.
[Second News Broadcast]
ANCHOR: Prime Minister Dr. Abdulaziz Saleh bin Hartour has pointed to BRICS as an international orientation that works toward the end of the Western liberal hegemony that was built on colonialism, exploitation, and hegemony. This has come after the Prime Minister’s attendance to the celebration of the annual BRICS day that comes on Nov. 23 of each year, in which the strategy of the BRICS was presented for economic cooperation, which included Russia, India, and China. [Shows Prime Minister at celebration] The Prime Minister said that Yemen as a nation and a people is closer to the BRICS due to their peaceful and positive attitude toward the Yemeni people. He pointed out the importance of the project of the Maritime Silk Road which China has started building. It passes through the beaches of Yemen on the south coast, passing through the old Yemeni land, reaching the West through the Mediterranean Sea. He expressed his gratitude to friends in Russia and China, and other speakers, such as Germany, India, France, Iraq, and America, who presented and acted clearly with the Yemeni people. The Prime Minister considers his receiving of the International Arab Gold Award 2021 something he is very proud of. In the event, which the Foreign Minister Hesham Sharaf Abdallah and Member of Parliament Ali Elzenem attended, the President of the Committee for Tribal Cooperation Sheikh Deifallah Bassam spoke on the ancient history of Yemen and the historical role of the Yemeni tribes over centuries. Another word was given by the Dean of the College of Emergency Medicine Dr. Muhammad al-Washli and the President of the BRICS Youth Parliament Dr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, pointing out that Yemen today looks to BRICS as an ambitious international project that aims to end the bestial liberal ideology. [shows Fouad al-Ghaffari presenting award to Prime Minister] On the eve of the celebratory event, the Prime Minister inaugurated the new project for the College of Emergency Medicine, as well as launching the second edition Yemeni BRICS Sustainable Development University Curriculum, announcing the beginning of the works of “BRICS Award” in Yemen, as well as commemorating a number of both tribal and national people that support BRICS.
[Third News Broadcast]
Today the Public Entity for Investment has held a ceremony in the capital of Sana’a in honor of the BRICS Youth Parliament for winning the Golden Chariot Transport Award. The event was attended by the President of the Committee for International Relations Saleh Hasaiel and the Deputy of the President for the National Outlook at the Foreign Ministry, Ambassador El Naguib Elza’my. The President of the National Entity for Investment Khaled Sharaf El Din congratulated the BRICS Youth Parliament and its support for the legendary struggle of the Yemeni people. He confirmed the importance of building a strong national economy, built upon practical standards with high quality. The Deputy of the Entity for Investment showed their efforts toward the preparation and development of the future economic and strategic plans to break the blockade that the Yemenis have faced for close to five years. The President of the BRICS Youth Parliament, that won the Golden Chariot Transport Award, Fouad al-Ghaffari, said that the government winning this award came after a lot of effort, pointing out that the BRICS Youth Parliament received this award during such tough times for Yemenis, which is considered an excellent achievement, especially at this stage where the nation faces siege and aggression. [Shows Fouad al-Ghaffari at microphone] “Today we celebrate in Sana’a this award from His Excellency Minister Foreign Minister Hesham Sharaf, with the sponsorship of Mr. Khaled Sharaf El Din, the Vice President of the Public Entity for Investment, and the attendance of Sheikh Saleh Sayel, the President of the Committee for Political and International Relations. The Golden Chariot Transport Award is the ‘Oscar’ of transportation awards. It is issued in the Russian Parliament and is endorsed by the United Nations. Its significance in Yemen is that it came during a time of siege and aggression against our country.” [end video]
BURKE: I want to extend my thanks to Fouad al-Ghaffari for the submission of this video to the conference. [https://larouchepub.com/other/2021/4848-yemen_international_conference.html]
Next we’re going to see a contribution from Germany. These are several speakers, you’ll see them listed here. They are: Jonathan Thron, Nikolai Mrosek, and Jakub Sederstroem of the Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität; Hermann Gaizenreider; and they work with the BüSo party, led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche; and Fabian Peter, who asked that he be identified as part of the anti-imperialist union of peace.
JONATHAN THRON: [via interpretation] Hello, I greet you all very warmly from Germany. My name is Jonathan Thron, I am a staff member of BüSo, the German arm of the international LaRouche movement and I am very happy that now an international LaRouche youth movement is emerging again!
Together with a few supporters and friends we would like to present our thoughts and work, how we contribute to integrate Germany into the global dynamics of the New Silk Road (BRI), so that now finally a New Paradigm of worldwide peace—free from hunger and poverty—will emerge.
NIKOLAI MROSEK [auf Englisch]: Hello, dear friends and associates of the Schiller Institute. My name is Nikolai and I’m living in Cologne, Western Germany, and I’m an active supporter of the LaRouche movement for about 11 years. A few months ago, I decided to take more responsibility for the sake of my nation and for the future of mankind and became Vice Chairman of the BüSo North Rhine-Westphalia, which is the political arm of the LaRouche movement here in Germany.
Now I’m happy to share my thoughts with you. I think that this gathering of the international youth is crucial to win the ongoing fight about mankind’s future. You’re probably aware of the so-called climate protests, which took place on Sept. 23, which mobilized thousands of young people demanding an end to the use of fossil energies and the global transformation into a zero growth society.
We, as a sane fraction of the international youth, who are aware of the existence and the power of the intellectual heritage of Lyndon LaRouche, should define ourselves as a countermovement to that inherent fascist and anti-human conception of man as a beast, which is without a doubt the underlying cultural basis of the greenies, the anti-growth “we like to have no future” party.
The LaRouche heritage, which is well documented and now available online, really provides us the sustainable solutions to the cultural and political crisis the world faces right now. Our primary task is to make known Lyn and Helga’s decades of strife for that new paradigm, that paradigm of the World Land-Bridge which, based upon the principle of win-win cooperation between sovereign nation states, is the key concept to global prosperity and political freedom for all people.
Thank you.
HERMANN GAIZENREIDER: [via interpretation] Worldwide we see endless and artificially upheld centers of conflict. For example, the cartels in America, in Africa something like Boko Haram, in the Middle East something like Daesh (aka ISIS). And one must not forget the color revolutions, which in 100% of the cases had negative consequences.
Russia has proven itself, by supporting Syria in the Syrian civil war to fight back against Daesh. Now the terrorists are in the middle of Europe, and once again Russia and their allies are there, fighting against them.
What Russia performs militarily, China does so economically. The New Silk Road is based on mutual benefits, not on ethnic origin, religion or forms of government which in most cases is populism. In Western circles, the New Silk Road is labeled as Chinese colonialism or imperialism, and completely despised. If the situation were hopeless, their propaganda would be unnecessary.
Looking at the Ukrainian murder list, one can see that the Schiller Institute and its supporters pose a serious threat in the eyes of the oligarchs, by having a realistic alternative to the long-established parties and ways of thinking.
This movement offers the best opportunity for the different peoples of the world to resolve old disputes, and collectively decide and develop the future. Thank you.
FABIAN PETER: [via interpretation] Welcome to my channel “Anti-Imperialist Union of Peace.”
Today I won’t talk about the problems that people in Germany, in the EU, in the whole Western world are facing due to the current crisis. We all know about the price increases of practically everything: heating costs, food, materials of daily use; we fear the electricity cuts and the cutbacks in everyday life. We worry about how to reasonably get through the fall and winter while our government imposes increasingly absurd sanctions on Russia and China and other anti-imperialist nations. None of this is a new.
But in this video I want to talk about what chances there are to find a way out of this crisis.
Referendums have just taken place in eastern Ukraine, where the population overwhelmingly voted in favor of their regions joining the Russian Federation. This decision, which was made democratically by the population, will have a significant impact on the Ukraine conflict, because it means that in the future Ukraine will border directly on Russia in the disputed areas, meaning Ukraine will be forced to negotiate peace as a result, should Zelenskyy not want to risk a third world war with Russia.
The West assesses all this as aggression by Russia, but the U.S. Navy itself is allegedly involved in the recent destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea to symbolically cut the last ribbon between Russia and Germany.
At the same time, the complete opposite is happening in the global East. More and more countries are interested in cooperating with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the core of which is formed by Iran, Russia, and especially China. Even pro-Western nations such as India and Saudi Arabia are establishing contacts with this alliance, hoping to gain an advantage in trade with the Belt and Road Initiative.
How wonderful it would be if Germany could join this alliance. How much more advanced our world would become as a result! But for this, not only would our government have to disappear, but the entire imperialist system, embodied by the EU and NATO. Our goal must be to fight for our sovereignty! Germany must finally become a democratic, peaceful and neutral state, as stipulated in the Potsdam Agreement of 1945!
Let us return to the respect of international law and to the self-determination of nations!
Let us end the arbitrariness of the West!
Our goal is to defeat imperialism worldwide!
Thank you!
JAKUB SEDERSTROEM: Hello, my name is Jakub Sederstroem, I am 26 years old and I work in the research field of lighting technology.
What worries me about the current situation is that the discrepancy between the real social opinion (as I perceive it) and the opinion propagated by the public institutions and thus publicly accepted, is drifting further and further apart. This difference in itself is disturbing, since public institutions should reflect and represent the broad base, quasi the foundation of their existence.
However, what causes even greater unease in me is the knowledge that such a state is very unstable. As can also be observed in nature, there is a force that strives to release tensions and balance potentials. In nature, this can happen slowly, like the gentle flow of a stream, into a deeper pool. But it can also happen explosively, like a lightning strike. Anyone who has ever looked at a tree shattered by lightning knows what damage such a voltage release can cause, even to a bystander.
In our situation, the direction is unknown. A social movement can be bludgeoned and kept down, and a government can be overthrown and driven away. Both are accompanied by suffering and casualties. Blowing up a dam is similar: The more tension that has built up, the more devastating the flood wave.
My wish for our society is that we re-establish a natural flow without blowing up a dam. We need to dismantle with determination and courage, brick by brick, and thus rebalance our potentials so that fertile land can be created along the entire length of the river.
Thank you!
BURKE: Thank you! Now, there’s going to be a little change in the program, but we’re coming to the end of this panel. And then we’ll go to questions and that will be a lot of fun. And so, I’d like to invite Liam Murphy of the LaRouche movement to come right up.
LIAM MURPHY: Hello, hello, how is everyone doing today? Are you enjoying the conference? [applause] Great!
Thank you so much for being here, everyone, especially on such a relatively short notice. Just for a little bit of context for this conference, we in the LaRouche youth movement, about two and a half, maybe three months ago, we came together for what we called a “cadre school.” We came together and we sat in kind of a room like this, and we discussed some of the ideas and what kind of an educational process and what is the necessary solutions, and out of that, we decided that we would want to bring this conference together, so that we could actually form the basis for a movement to push for these ideas and these concepts. So I’m so thankful for you guys’ being here.
First, I would like to say a huge thanks, and I want to get a round of applause for our security team that has been here, today. [applause] Thank you! We’ve got the greatest security folks, the greatest security. They’ve been doing real well, they’re very thorough.
I also want to say thank you to all the people in the LaRouche Youth Movement, can they stand up. Isaiah, there he is, too! Let’s give them a round of applause. Thank you!
And I also think we should give a big round of applause to all the great speakers that we have had today. [applause] Both the first panel and second panel have been absolutely fantastic, so that’s been great.
And lastly I think, an applause for all of yourselves is necessary, because you came here. And this is a little bit of a scary situation to go in—I mean many of the people on this list, I mean, here, on a hit list, a Ukrainian Nazi hit list, and there is even threats to this very event; that’s why I gave huge thanks to our security because this is kind of a dangerous situation we’re in, a dangerous point in world history. And for you guys to not only have the cojones to come here, but to actually advocate for these policies, and to use the dreaded “L” word! The dreaded “L” word, Lyndon LaRouche, it’s very brave of you all, so give yourselves a huge round of applause. Exonerate LaRouche! Yes!
Thank you guys for coming. I just recently got involved with the movement. I discovered the movement just a little less than a year ago, and it was actually thanks to some wonderful folks we have in attendance here, who interviewed Daniel Burke, and I was like “Wow! This is awesome, there are communists talking to someone from the LaRouche movement—I haven’t even heard of that before. What is going on?” But I found the conversation fascinating. And I engaged more and more with Daniel; we became friends on Twitter, and eventually I was invited to help out on Diane Sare’s campaign. And I came out here, I was talking to LaRouche people. At first, I was a little bit nervous, because if you just Google on Wikipedia, “LaRouche,” some freaky things pop up. And so, I was not so sure, but I loved the ideas, so I wanted to give it a try.
Then, my very second day here, they invited me to go to a chorus and sing. And I was like, this is where I’m going to get brainwashed on? [laughs] But luckily, it didn’t go like that: It was a fantastic conversation that I had with them. They’ve shown nothing but agapic type love for me, my wonderful girlfriend in the back, Zaier [ph], who is doing a speech later, so thank you so much to her, too. And I’m so thankful, so thankful to all the love and support that they have shown to me.
But with that all said, I wanted to give a little short speech today, involving the weight of the situation that we’re in, the weight of the crisis that we’re in; but within this crisis, there lies more opportunity than ever before. Now, within this moment, because all these things are coming to a head, we have the opportunity to really move into a new paradigm. And that’s why we named this conference what we did: “Build the New Paradigm, Destroy Green Fascism.” Give it a round of applause, thank you.
So here’s my speech: The “L” word is the most suppressed and critiqued name in all of politics. Simply mentioning the name of Lyndon LaRouche sets off alarm drills in the heads of people who have been programming by the lying mainstream media, and by Wikipedia. By coming here today, you are bravely engaging with what the radical globalist left refers to as a “cult”! Prior to a little bit more than a year ago—I just covered this bit, but, I had not even heard of Lyndon LaRouche. I had no idea about the ideas of this movement and of Lyndon LaRouche and of his fantastic achievements, not only in the political sphere, but also in the musical sphere, as well as in the sphere of science and the contributions he has made to the science of the community. And so, I think it is for obvious reasons that Lyndon LaRouche has been suppressed. And throughout his life, he had predicted precisely the situation that we are in, today. And not only did he predict it, but before it had even happened, he had laid out the solutions to precisely the moment we are in now.
And believe me, these ideas—you know, we are not just worshipping the man and worshipping his ideas, because, oh, we think it’s so great. I mean, 25 members of the Schiller Institute are on a hit list, that’s not because they’re incapable. Online, people always say, “oh, the LaRouche movement, they’re just a bunch of wackos, they have no impact.” Then why are they on a hit list for—25 members of the Schiller Institute are on a hit list! So here is a reason for that, and there is a reason that the elites within the State Department and the ruling class, including Henry Kissinger, shiver when they hear the “L” word: LaRouche.
And it is because his ideas, the policies he developed to face today’s crisis, and the movement he began, jeopardized the entire existence of their hegemonic control and the entire existence of the globalist banker cabal, and their so-called “rules-based order.” Booo!!! (I’m sorry.)
The rules-based order does not have any rules and it’s not based. The rules-based order is anarchy and imperialism! And to the many of you who have been working tirelessly to fight back against the globalists, by being here today, you are solidifying yourselves as enemy to the ruling class. Know that. Know that that’s what you’re doing. And that has become obvious by the actions that they have taken against us. It’s become obvious from the fact that this very conference was faced with threats of violence; it’s become obvious from the fact that Jackson Hinkle has been banned and demonetized and de-platformed, simply for telling the truth about Ukraine. So thank you, Jackson for what you’ve been doing. Thank you. [applause]
It has also become obvious from the fact that Haz has been banned from Twitch, simply for expressing, in a kind of joking context, “Putin is good”!
It is absurd! It is absurd, the fact that just simply saying that maybe we should cooperate with someone who has nuclear weapons, rather than fight with them, is somehow something that is worthy of you being de-platformed, and that’s where we are, today.
And lastly, it is obvious that what we are doing is crucially important, when you see the real-life recognition of the people today, to this crisis, and the reality that they’re waking up to, both in the streets and online; all over, you’re seeing people wake up to what’s going on. Today, more than ever before, people are seeing through the lies being told to us by our country’s supposedly “most respected” institutions. People don’t want to die in nuclear war! People don’t want to live in a world, in a country, where they can’t afford a home! Me and my generation are looking at a future, where we could possibly not ever be able to afford a home—I mean, that’s the reality I face every day. It gives real saying to the globalist saying of “You own nothing and be happy,” because that’s the path we’re going down, this green fascism.
We don’t want to work in what Fox described, the service economy. We’re not here to just be of service, we’re not here to just be slaves. We’re here to accomplish something. And Putin was so right in his speech, “you can’t be the people with paper money! You need food! [applause] You can’t heat people’s homes with numbers on a screen. You need energy.” And today it is becoming more clear than ever before, to the masses of people, both in developing countries, who have been depleted by green fascism and austerity, as well as in the West, where for the first time, people of all ideologies, and this is very obvious in this room, people from all ideologies—from Libertarians, to Communists, to MAGA Republicans, to today even MAGA Communists [laughter], as well as the LaRouche movement! We are coming together to demand our country back!
In 1776, the United States earned its freedom from the most evil and devious empire of all time, and with the economic policies of Alexander Hamilton, our nation was put to work to build a new Jerusalem, a modern republican state run by the people, for the people, in which the goal of government was to procure and guarantee freedom and prosperity for all. Our Preamble of the Constitution, which Ashley brought earlier—stole it right from you; I was going to bring it up [laughter]: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,” and this is my favorite part, “promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” And that is why the founding fathers established the Constitution. That is why we destroyed the British in 1776, and we kicked their ass again in the second American Revolution, the Civil War! We said, no, to Britain’s evil slave colony, the Confederacy! [applause]
Today, when our sovereignty has been destroyed, when our country is being ruled by the same globalists whose ancestors we fought against in both American Revolutions, we must stand up! A third American Revolution is necessary, not only to restore our country, but also to save the world from green fascism, to save the world from never-ending war and austerity. Che Guevara once said to an American: “I envy you. North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all. You live in the belly of the beast.”
Today, we can’t let our country down, but more importantly, we can’t let the world down. We can’t let humanity down. At this moment in history, we sitting here today, the effort we give, the struggles we make, the sacrifices we make will decide the fate of humanity. Will humanity’s story end in tragedy and nuclear Armageddon, or, for the first time in world history can we unite, as sovereign national citizens and as world citizens, and unlock a new paradigm for humanity? And this is why the “L” word, for LaRouche, is so important: His legacy, his ideas, set the path forward for how humanity can respond to this crisis. His spirit is here with us, in this room today. With the World Land-Bridge, we justify the struggles and deaths of all who came before us. We can look in the mirror or look to God, and say, all of history was worth it, because of what I am doing today. All the struggle, all the pain, and we can know that we leave a legacy behind, to the billions and billions of humans—or, Megan said earlier, trillions—of humans who will come after us. This should be the task of all of us, here, today. And this, I believe, is the full weight of our responsibilities.
So thank you for coming today, and I urge you, never give up, never surrender, no matter the threat, no matter if they start banning us on Twitter for saying the climate bullshit is a lie. We owe our ancestors and all future generations, that today we struggle, with agapic love, for peace and justice for all humanity. And while we do that, let’s end our fear of using the “L” word! This year, on Sept. 8—coincidentally, the day the Queen passed away—the hundredth birthday of Lyndon LaRouche was celebrated!
My friends, I am proposing that this hundredth anniversary of Lyndon LaRouche’s birth, we need to make this the Year of LaRouche: We need to exonerate LaRouche. Bring his name back, and bring a solution to this crisis: Build the New Paradigm, Defeat Green Fascism.
Thank you! [applause]
BURKE: …that’s all right, but you guys followed him on Twitter. Thank you, thank you for that. That was wonderful.
So, now, the final section here: We’re going to hear from two people who might have just saved your butts from being fried in nuclear war: I’d like Kynan Thistlethwaite to come up to the lectern right here! Do you recognize this man?
KYNAN THISTLETHWAITE: Thank you for that, Daniel. I’m a little bit nervous speaking here. This is my first time. I know I probably shouldn’t be nervous, considering what I just did. [laughter]
Well, there’s been a lot of talk about climate change, and I was reminded of when I was in school—some people may have had this—but it was in September that there was a rally going on in Manhattan, and you had choice, your parents had to sign a permission slip, and they would basically let you out of the day in school to go to that rally. And that excited me, and that meant I didn’t have to go to school. And I didn’t go to the rally, either!
You know, it’s funny, because they’re so concerned about climate change, yet, I think the most dangerous form of climate change that we’re facing is in the form of thermonuclear war. Yet, they’re not asking us to go out of school to rally against that.
But I think the main point of what was done at that intervention which José and I did, was to break the complacency of people in the West, and especially people in the United States, to actually go out to their congressmen, their representatives and do the exact same thing. And has been continually emphasized throughout this conference, we’re at the most dangerous, tenuous stage in human history. So where do we find that impetus to act? And I want to quote from a famous English poet and writer; his name is Percy Shelley. And he was someone who was very meaningful to Lyndon LaRouche in particular, and you can find what LaRouche wrote on him.
But he was a political organizer, and he talked about something called the mass strike in a pamphlet that he actually dedicated to the Irish people who were, at that time, fighting against the British Empire, which is the same enemy of today. And he had this to say:
“Man cannot make occasions, but he may seize those that offer. None are more interesting to Philanthropy than those which excite the benevolent passions, that generalize and expand private into public feelings, and make the hearts of individuals vibrate, not merely for themselves, their families, and their friends, but for posterity, for a people; till their country becomes the world, and their family the sensitive creation….
“I perceive that the public interest is excited, I perceive that individual interest has, in a certain degree, quitted individual concern to generalize itself with universal feeling. … [A] benevolent and disinterested feeling has gone abroad, and I am willing that it should never subside. I desire that means should be taken with energy and expedition in this important yet fleeting crisis, to feed the unpolluted flame at which nations and ages may light the torch of Liberty and Virtue.” [emphasis in original.] [Proposal for an Association of those Philanthropists…]
And I suggest in order to seize on that occasion which Shelley spoke of, we organize interventions, like the one this week, and we do it 10 times a week. I think that what would be needed would be is 30 people doing exactly what we did, and encouraging others to do the same.
And that’s all I have to say, so thank you. [applause]
BURKE: Thank you, Kynan. And now, our final speaker is going to be a serial committer of interventions against the hideous misleadership of our nation, and that is: José Vega! [applause]
JOSÉ VEGA: Is that really what I looked like?
First of all, thank you all for being here, really. My dad, I have a lot of respect and love for my dad, and so before I begin, he always wants me to say “thank you” to the Almighty, because it is His will that allows us to be here, but one my favorite phrases is Inshallah [“God willing”]. [applause]
I’d like to begin by quoting Shakespeare:
“There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat.
And we must take the current when it serves,
or lose our ventures." [Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene 3]
Now, I made one, almost fatal mistake, when I confronted AOC, and that was that I said, “unless you choose to stand against nuclear war…” And the reason that I believe this was a mistake, is because nobody has the privilege to choose anymore. That is a luxury that we lost a long time ago! You have to act! It is no longer the choice between action and inaction, but action or nonexistence!
Now, what do I mean, when I say action? I mean we act in the name of love for mankind, and that love dictates how we act. Love isn’t easy. Because it requires a certain strength to find within yourself, because when you talk of loving humanity, that means you have to include people like AOC and Bowman, the Squad, even President Biden, Putin, everybody. See, these people, especially the Squad, were like you, once: They were in your shoes, they believed in the best of government, they believed in the best of people, they thought themselves to be the change they wanted to see—they really did believe that, and maybe some of them still do. But when they see you and me now, and when they see somebody confronting them, they don’t “see you,” they see the ghost of their former selves, the person in them, in the back of their mind whom they tried to kill off. They seem themselves at a point when they also were angry, and they believed in making people uncomfortable, just like all of you do now. And that’s what scares them. Because your voice and their ghost is louder than all the PR people who talk to them, all the Vogue covers they’re on, all the press they get—nothing will ever suppress the voice in the back of their head that knows they’re doing something wrong. They have found themselves lost in a dark wood, and sadly, their guide was not a Virgil, but Satan himself.
But we have the privilege to be guided by the work this organization has done for the last 50-some-odd years, and we can pull out Squad and other people who have been misguided, and show them that there is a way forward. And in the tradition of Dante, it is only right that we take upon the mantle to trek through the many layers of Hell that we find ourselves in today, and with reason as our weapon and love as our guide, we can trek through the deepest layers of Hell, as Dante did, and come out the other side in a world full of optimism and hope for all, a world when everyone can be allowed to develop their mind to contribute great discoveries.
And my friends, I am proud to say today, that although we may find ourselves in a dark wood, we are not alone: The love that moves the Sun and all the stars is the same love that will move us to act for the sake of our posterity. And to whoever is listening to those conference, long after every one of us is gone, I hope the love that has resonated today has reverberated and may reach you wherever you may be, because this conference was always for you. It’s not for us, but it’s for those who come after us, and that is in the name and it is for those people who will be born long after you’re dead, that we act for and that we do this for. It’s not for us, but for them.
Thank you. [applause]
BURKE: Wow! Pretty exciting. That’s the end of the second panel, everyone. Now, I would absolutely like to open it up for questions, and I will begin with an international question that comes from Peru. I’d love to hear from Diane Sare in response to this. “I am Bridget Motta-Melendez[ph], and I represent the youth of the Christian Democratic Party of Peru, meeting here to participate in this important event organized by the Schiller Institute, of which our party is a member as a political party. For the Christian Democracy, as for the Schiller Institute, development is the only way to achieve peace among all nations of the world. The development of all nations is a threat to their power, that’s why they are brainwashing youth with that Green ideology. Its spread has become a poison for youth, blocking their desire for progress. The Green ideology can very easily penetrate the minds of youth already polluted by degraded music and drugs. As young people, how can we fight that ideology which has invaded us through gigantic publicity? How can we go back to a healthy culture which encourages us to promote progress and development? How can we ensure that every child is able to develop their power to become a genius?”
DIANE SARE: Well, I guess the first part is, we have to work on becoming geniuses ourselves in whatever quality we can. I think there are a couple of very important aspects of that; one of which Dana was getting at. I really liked her answer on the question of the music, when she said, yeah, there’s a place for Bach, but we need more people who can improvise; more people for whom this language is part of their identity. I bring that up now, because there is such an unbelievable thought control, and there are so many ways that, even if you don’t believe the narrative, you fall into traps because you take it for granted that other people believe the narrative. Therefore, I think this question of poetry, music, drama are extremely important, along with recreating the great scientific discoveries of geniuses so that you come to know these things in your own mind.
Since this question of drugs was raised, I really want to say here, because this is part of what has destroyed people’s ability to think and to find within themselves the proper emotions. Our entire society is addicted to drugs; legal and illegal. It is seen as wrong if you are depressed. Well, maybe it’s wrong to not be depressed if you’re about to get annihilated in a nuclear war; maybe you don’t need to go out and take a pill for that. Maybe you should actually try doing something about it instead, and you’ll feel better.
Schumer has this bill, the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act, he calls it, to legalize—it’s not really to legalize pot, it’s actually to get a whole bunch of people addicted and create a cash stream to bail out Wall Street, while you destroy their ability to think. If you read the legislation, you see it, because the main thing you go to jail for is if you don’t pay taxes on your dispensary. In the state of New York, since pot became legal, the number of children admitted to the emergency room for marijuana-related issues has gone up six-fold. So, what kind of government wants to destroy your ability to become a genius? This is a big deal also, because nations like Haiti are used by the drug cartels and Wall Street as the transshipment points. That’s why any time you have a leader in one of these nations that wants to say, work with China instead of Taiwan, they are bumped off and the nations are destroyed.
There’s no isolated part of this, that’s the thing. There’s no one thing unfortunately that we can do. We have to somehow take the whole into our minds and then we have to each fight personally for the highest possible standard, and to have an idea of the limitless possibility of perfection of ourselves and our neighbors.
BURKE: Thank you very much, Diane. Let’s do some questions. I believe that Haz and Sameera will be joining us shortly. I really want to welcome anyone to speak up. We have to be out of here by six, and that means everything has got to be out. But we can keep going for another while. I saw a question over here.
Q 1: The question of a nuclear war. It’s well-established that we’re willing to break out; all human life would end. Is this possibility a conscious policy of the ruling class? Or merely an outgrowth of, is it the logical conclusion of a set of policies, or something that they actually want to see occur?
BURKE: I think that’s a very important, fascinating question. I’d like to invite any of our speakers who would like to comment to come on up. Unfortunately, we don’t have a better situation here, because I don’t think people will be able to see you if you stay seated, so whoever would like to speak is invited to come up to the front.
But I’m going to take the moderator’s prerogative and give my own contribution on this. I think it is the latter. I would invite you to take a look at the origins of Mutually-Assured Destruction, which Mr. LaRouche wrote about a lot. I think you know that in There Are No Limits to Growth he talks about this, and in many other publications. It has to do with a proposal from the standpoint of the Cold War, to lock the world into two halves of one oligarchical system, where the idea is, if we can keep everyone terrified with the danger of nuclear destruction, nuclear war, then we can ignore all of their concerns about the advancement of humanity. We can ignore their concerns about economic development, because we are no longer required to increase our physical productive capabilities to win a war. We can just point nuclear weapons at them. Then there was a stand-off there which happens over the course of the Cold War, when both sides were trying to outmaneuver the other from that standpoint. That’s what’s so different about what has happened in a certain sense; what’s developing coming out of the concept that Xi Jinping uses—a shared community of destiny for mankind. That is a proposal of how to organize the relationship between states that completely supersedes this kind of idea of carving up the world into two halves. That would be my answer. The thing is—and Scott Ritter is extremely clear on this, Theodore Postol at MIT has talked about the effects of nuclear war. You’re looking at a potential for miscalculation, because if there’s no intention to change the dialogue, the logic that creates the crisis, then you’re simply escalating and escalating, and it’s a game of chicken in a sense. An idea that somehow we could cause the other side to blink, and then we’ll have a chance to hit them hard.
However, I’m not speaking from any military analyst point of view, and I can say, look at it from another perspective today in terms of the plan from the Ukrainian government, the individual people saw; he had the bracelet that appeared to have a swastika on it—I believe it did. He is the head of the Ukrainian Armed Services. He, in a letter that was published right before a major meeting of NATO, not even six weeks ago, he proposed preemptive nuclear strikes on Russia. So, their logic requires constant threatening of that, to the point that now we have a large number of utopians who believe that we could have a limited nuclear war. They are willing to organize the potential to get people to drop tactical nuclear weapons or something like that. So, in other words, they think they can win it, and they don’t take into account the fact that any reasonable judgement shows that that would lead to the release of all nuclear weapons. Does that answer you question? Yeah.
SARE: The other aspect of this, and it’s a peculiar thing, which is why we all have to work on being fearless, is that the only time that nuclear bombs were dropped, of course, was by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? Well, that was Bertrand Russell again. The Emperor of Japan and the Vatican were already negotiating a surrender. MacArthur had already done a totally effective naval blockade, and even if you make the argument which I can’t even imagine making that somehow you had to use one nuclear bomb, why would you use two on major population centers? What was the purpose of that? The purpose of that was fear; that’s why Bertrand Russell, the great peace activist, want to preemptively nuke the Soviet Union. He said once the United States gets a nuclear bomb, we should make sure no one else does. That way, you can have one world government. You’ll have one guy who’s evil and insane enough to use it, and you can get everyone else under control.
Does that mean they’re only doing this for the purpose of scaring you? No. That’s kind of the paradox. But it’s a tricky place, because it’s not a question of hysteria and hyperbole, it’s a question of understanding the evil that we are confronting, and being aware that the purpose of this in the first place is fear. Therefore, we don’t want to succumb to fear in that way, but reality.
BURKE: I also think this is a question we should submit to Helga, and hear from the President of the Schiller Institute what her view is on that.
Q 2: It’s established additionally that the ruling class does have this Malthusian worldview linked to the desire for depopulation, so that’s the other component. If there are people who are saying that the optimal number of human beings living is something in the area of 500 million, are these two ideas of Mutually-Assured Destruction and the desire to reduce the population down to a drop in the bucket of what it is now, are these two ideas linked?
BURKE: You know, Megan may have something to say on this, because she spoke about Bertrand Russell. She says, “Yes.” Also, look at the policy in 1949 articulated by Lord Bertrand Russell which is that we should have an Anglo-American world government, and the way we’re going to get that world government is by threatening the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. When asked if he really meant this, he said, well, you can’t make a threat without really meaning it. So, he was perfectly willing to see the nuclear destruction of most of the world. He is the arch Malthusian of the 20th Century, so I think that gets to it.
I know people want to ask questions; I see a few. I want to take a couple in a row, and I know we’ll have some questions for Haz, for Sameera, and for Fox specifically. This gentleman over here, and then I’ll go to my friend here. Go to Gaylin[ph] with the jacket.
Q 3: So, there was a lot of talk about growth, and how do you win the battle? Because Americans have sort of perverted the definition of growth, where it’s more about mindless consumption and GDP growth, and something that doesn’t really affect the average person’s life. How do you change, how do you reprogram people to change how they think about growth?
MEGAN DOBRODT: I think we have to just start doing it. Two things. One, you already have parts of the world where it’s happening. Look at what China has done over the past two to three decades. This is absolutely incredible, and that’s why young people in China are optimistic. We used to do that here. The problem we’re running into now for two, going on three generations’ separation of living experience of what human beings do; the kind of growth we all talk about when we reference growth. This exciting application of human genius to improve and reorganize the world. You think about the population of fought World War II, but first rebuilt the United States so that we could fight World War II, we were capable of fighting it. You had a certain excitement. Think of the population, the young men and women who did the work to put human beings on the Moon. There’s a love and an excitement for human genius that comes from success. So, I think one part of it is, we have to just start doing it. It wouldn’t be bad for a lot of people here to travel to China, travel around the world and see what’s going on; see what different nations are doing, and get an experience since it is already happening.
But I think I’m not that worried about it. I don’t think it’s going to take 100 years to de-brainwash people, because I think once you put them in that situation, people are going to let go of this pessimistic crap for something which is much more natural and human and exciting.
BURKE: Thank you. Let’s go over here to the second row.
Q 4: I was just wondering, while giving credence to the distinction between hope and delusion, I was just wondering what do you think would be the greatest human insight that would give the general American populace hope? Because, last night I was out with Isaiah handing out pamphlets for this event, and I ran into two different people who expressed the sentiment that we’re just kind of screwed. There was this tone, this tonal implication that there’s not much else they can do. My immediate response was, “You should never lose hope. Humanity triumphs over all.” And I told them we’re all in this together. It’s OK to feel anxious, but you shouldn’t let that completely make you give way.
I was wondering, what do you think is the greatest triumphant insight that we’ve gained throughout our existence that we could instill in people? It’s probably too broad of a question, but …
BURKE: Very good.
FOX GREEN: I think to speak to that question, and to the other question about changing people’s minds about growth, we’re taught in our society that growth is all about producing too much; that we’re controlled by consumerism. This is sort of this false paradigm. Humans just want to grow for the sake of growing, and that’s why we get all this waste in landfills, why we have all this stuff that we don’t need anymore. This is the paradigm we’re trapped in; that all we have left is to just consume and consume until we die. This is not the world operates outside of our country. You look at places like Russia and China; in China specifically, growth doesn’t just mean throwing a bunch of stuff in the landfill and getting a new iphone every year. It means actual potential for human ability to enjoy the world. It’s not a pessimistic de-growth attitude; it’s not that we have too much and we need to get rid of all this extra shit we have in our basements. I think that ideology comes from the ruling class. These people who are so rich; they have all this shit, and they just want to go to yoga retreats and live this ascetic lifestyle because they have no soul. They live in this entropic, pessimistic reality, and they have sort of trickled down that ideology to the rest of us. I think this idea that no, we can be like the rest of the world. We don’t have to just take on this attitude that the ruling class has pushed on us, that they see no future. No, we can reject that and say, “No, I actually want to see a future.” Like José said, the future generations. That’s how we live eternally is by pushing ideas down through our children and create a society of abundance for everyone. That’s how I would say. Confronting both this de-growth attitude, and then I say, look to the rest of the world for inspiration on how we can do it here.
Q [off mic]:
GREEN: Yeah, I feel powerless sometimes about nuclear Armageddon. What can I do? How can I stop it? Look at what José did; look what Kynan did. And look at everyone in this room. Everyone in this room is fighting right now. That’s what we’re doing; that’s what we have to keep doing. Does that answer it? OK.
BURKE: I want to add on to exactly what Fox just said. Namely that we’re going to people who are leaders. We’re going to people who have taken leadership. That’s what you’re looking at in terms of the panelists on this panel and the previous panel, from here in the United States, from across the world. People in the audience who are taking very serious leadership right now. We’re going to grow that. So, think about what the next conference is going to be. Think about a room twice as big as this, three times as big. That’s the kind of way we should be organizing, each of us. Trying to create a forum for this process to grow.
I know I have a couple of questions over here. If I could, I’d like to take them one after another; I’m always mindful of the time. So, if we could take them together, and then we’ll give the panelists a chance to come up and respond.
Q 5: Given the threat of thermonuclear war that we’ve talked about a lot today, we hear this phrase “off-ramp” thrown around a lot by NATO shills and opponents alike. Given that we’ve crossed Russian red lines in assisting now in attacks on what is now Russian territory, what is the off-ramp for the Biden regime? Are there any actions they can take to cool this down, or are they too far gone?
Q 6: This is my second time asking a question; I think that makes me greedy. My question is this: Here in the West, our elite politicians have done everything in their power to limit and distort any information regarding the Belt and Road Initiative and the win-win cooperation model that might help avoid nuclear war. And in this way, it feels as though we are powerless to direct any mainstream political energy towards the U.S. joining those particular efforts. So, my question is, what direct steps can be taken in the present, even in our everyday lives, to help encourage this cooperation? Thank you.
BURKE: Would any of the panelists like to come up? Liam and José, of course you guys are also panelists.
I would also point out on the mainstream media thing, you’re sitting like two feet from a guy who was just on Tucker Carlson, and about eight feet from another guy who was just on Tucker Carlson.
SARE: On the Belt and Road question, one way we can get that discussed is to get me in the debates. So, everybody is clear, as was said Schumer and Pinion have announced a debate on October 30th, appropriately on the eve of Halloween. I have not been invited, even though I met the ridiculous threshold of submitting 45,000 valid signatures to get my name on the ballot; which I did. I am the only one in the state of New York who did it. So, I think that may also be why they don’t want me in the debate; because I’m not going to answer their stupid questions on single issues. And I’m going to ask my own questions, like 14,000 newborn babies die in the first three months of this year in Afghanistan? I think that’s a question that should be asked.
I’m totally blocking on the specific thing you asked about. Oh yes! And the reason I’m blocking is that it’s so hard to think about, and you can’t … Look, there is a poetic principle, there is a principle of natural law. It may not be Biden, and thank God we don’t have to depend on that, because that would be a huge risk. But if you look at how what we are doing is backfiring—for example, in discussion that Ray McGovern and Helga were in, he brought up the importance of Germany. You do have to ask, “How long are these European countries going to stay?” There are such great benefits of being an ally of the U.S., right? Your pipelines get blown up; you can freeze to death in the winter; you can starve to death; you can be on drugs. That’s great. So, I think that there might be some break in this unholy alliance of NATO and the European Union, which could really change the dynamic. What is the U.S. going to do if it’s the only one in NATO that wants to nuke Russia anymore? I’m not saying that will happen, but I do think there’s a certain possibility. And this is also where faith comes in, because you look for every flank, you fight for the truth, you do what we do here, and the interventions. By the way, that AOC intervention was beautiful because it clearly came at a moment where a lot of people are thinking that thermonuclear war is real. So, it got enormous amplification. Whereas, if it had happened even three weeks ago, it might not have had the same effect.
I think there are a whole bunch of factors that we don’t know. And we’re acting in a universe which is lawful, and therefore, if we fight for universal principles, something’s gotta give somewhere, and maybe we don’t know exactly what it is.
BURKE: It’s funny that you make that statement, Diane. Because I was just thinking that David Christie, who’s a member of the Schiller Institute, in 2014 said to Barack Obama, “Tell us about your plans for nuclear war with Russia,” which is the same policy that we have today. And of course, that was not heard by almost anyone. That one, basically the same intervention. Obama heard it, that’s true.
I would really like to give everyone a chance to hear from Haz and Sameera and Fox. I’d like to see Haz, rather than responding to a question, is it possible you’d like to come up and address the audience for a few minutes? Do you have anything else to say? Your thoughts in general, or … OK.
HAZ AL-DIN: When I first began streaming online and putting myself out there, I used to have the view that with leftists, there maybe can still be some kind of dialogue; maybe this is not an actual primary contradiction, but just a disagreement. And there’s this battle to acquire hegemony among them. And for a long time, and very slowly, I came to realize that there was something completely irredeemable about the Left. I have a speech in Austin outlining this fact. But, the even that has fundamentally changed my outlook and because of which I think there is no possibility of returning to this view that there’s something redeemable about the Left, was the savage, bestial, and inhuman responses that they gave to the murder of Darya Dugina. When I saw those responses, I realized that this entire time, all of the smack they’d been talking wasn’t just some unserious disagreement ideologically. These people genuinely want to kill us! They genuinely want to see us dead because we have crossed the line of what they consider acceptable as far as what views you’re allowed to have, and what stances you’re allowed to take.
We’re no longer dealing with a situation of reasoned dialogue between human beings. We’re dealing with a war of Schmittean, absolute enmity for which there can be no dialogue, there can be no forgiveness, and there can be no exchange of ideas. They have decided—not us, because a reasonable human being would never initiate a conflict on the basis of ideas—but they have condemned us on that basis. They’ve left us with no choice but to treat them that way. The truth of the matter is that the war that they’ve waged against all dissidents and against all people with opposing views, is part of a more fundamental war which is actually related to the topic of this conference. It’s about a caricature of humanity in the form of the universal global subject, the member of the Open Society, the ideal subject, the politically-correct subject who is a citizen of the world. And real humanity, humanity in the depths of Tartarus, humanity as the working class confronting the real threshold that defines our relationship to nature and ourselves, which is actually what defines us as a species. This humanity, the one that was murdered at Marikana, the one that’s oppressed in Palestine, the one that’s oppressed in America and throughout the entire world, has no place in this world. And when we give voice to this proletariat, we are condemning not only the system, but all of those who have decided there can be no humanity outside of the strait-jacketed ideal version they’ve created. So, when we speak, we’re not just speaking. For them, it’s like we’re firing bullets, we’re waging guerrilla warfare on their entire world and their entire constrained perception of what it means to be a human being. For them, our words are mightier than bullets; they’re more vicious than bombs. That’s why they’ve decided that those of us who step out, are worthy of death. I did not know Darya personally, but I could say that there was nothing fundamental I really disagreed with her about. The views of her and her father have shaped my understanding of the world so profoundly, that I took it personally. They weren’t just talking about Darya when they were celebrating her death. That could have been any one of us, and they would have talked about us in the same exact way. They don’t care that we have families; they don’t care that we’re human beings. They don’t care that there’s a reality to us beyond ideology. They decided to draw a line, a threshold. You’re either in it, or you’re out. And that threshold for them is what defines humanity.
But the truth is that the real threshold defining humanity is not established discursively. It’s established materially, and principally by the proletariat of the world. In their living existence, and in their relationship to nature and mankind; that’s the real threshold defining what humanity is. That’s why the proletariat as a class doesn’t just represent itself. It represents true universal humanity in all of its authenticity and all of its real being. That’s why it is the universal class, and that is why it is destined to win this world.
BURKE: Thank you, Haz. OK, I think we’re going to have to have a vision of what we’re going to do here, because we do have to get out by six, and I imagine people are going to want to talk in the common area and so forth. I want to get down to probably two or three more questions. This gentleman here. I’m going to prioritize people who have not asked questions yet.
Q 7: My name is Garrett, and this is my first LaRouche event, and my first I guess you’d say Mecha-Tankie event—these folks who I’ve followed online for a bit. I come out of the Medical Freedom movement; I’m one of the city workers who was fired for not taking the mandated MRNA vaccine. So, I appreciate the support that Haz and some of these folks have given to that cause.
I guess my question kind of comes out of left field, but I’ve heard a lot of talk about space travel and space settlement, so I guess mainly it’s for Fox. From everything I’ve read, it isn’t really possible for human beings to settle in space as they currently exist, which implies trans-humanism. And of course, people in my movement are very much opposed to trans-humanism. That’s part of why they’re opposed to the World Economic Forum and their trans-humanist agenda. So, I’m wondering if you support that. How else would space travel be done, and things of that order?
BURKE: Fox, it’s for you, and I’d like to invite Megan also to come up afterwards.
FOX GREEN: I’m not really an expert on space travel, that’s just the name of our channel, is Space Commune. So, I’m sure they’ll have some better answers for you on that. I have heard people talk about trans-humanism being sort of cautious about that. What I’ll say is, if you were talking to someone 100 or 200 or 1000 years ago, and doing all the things you do now, would they say the same thing about how you speak about people being colonizing space. “Oh, that’s so weird, you can shoot up a giant building to 20 floors, and ride in an electric carriage and get to where you’re going in a matter of hours.” Is that trans-humanism? I think that this is just technological progress. I think the essential part is not removing the human element, right? It’s not removing what is essentially human about technology is that it works for all of us; it doesn’t just work the best on an oligarchical class to keep the rest of us down. It works to progress all of humankind so that we can all achieve what we’re meant to achieve here on Earth.
GARRETT: Not all technology is genetically engineering human beings, where it would seem to be that surviving in space would require a fundamental change in human physiology.
GREEN: We already go up in space, though.
GARRETT: I mean in terms of settlement and long-term. There are already astronauts who consistently have long-term health after effects from being in space.
GREEN: What about being in an airplane? The technology that seems bizarre to us now, might just be what’s normal in the future. I feel like I’ve iterated that.
DOBRODT: The point is, we change our environment to make it possible for us to live. Very soon, in the next couple of decades, we could have an industrial settlement on the Moon. I don’t know if people would live their whole lives there, but we’d certainly have long rotations there. And the point is, we would actually change the environment of the Moon to make it possible for human beings to live there. We do that willfully because we make discoveries of principle that allow us to make those changes and do it. And that comes in the implementation of technologies that we build that reflect those discoveries. But it’s not just something we do; life did it. Life existed in the oceans, and then it actually developed the technology to come onto land and colonize land; which is actually not a bad comparison to make.
So, I think Fox’s answer really is the answer I would want to give, but just to add to that, we change nature to make it suitable to live and work and do all of our wonderful things there.
BURKE: Another question? Let’s go to Ben up here. Oh, I’m sorry. The gentleman behind the pillar; go ahead.
Q 8: So, from this conference today, I feel one of the insights I’ve gotten is what’s it called? Marx, as you know, talks about how the bourgeoisie will become outdated as the productive forces grow, right? Well, that’s the exact reason why they’re trying to push the de-growth agenda on us. They want to keep their power, because if the productive forces become too powerful, the productive forces will outgrow their usefulness as a class for not just the bourgeoisie, but the elite, and they’ll be overthrown by the proletariat. And they’ll be made useless. So, Marx was right about that.
LIAM MURPHY: I thought it interesting what you said, and I would just like to talk about very quickly the story of Zeus and Prometheus. You said potentially if we develop these technologies, if we don’t do de-growth, we might move on past these people. I think that is an interesting way of putting it. You can also see this in the story of the Greek gods and Prometheus. The Greek gods didn’t want mankind to have power over fire. They didn’t want mankind to be beyond just basically a slave. Prometheus gave humanity the gift of fire. From the gift of fire, that’s where we’ve gotten our energy from; that’s where over time we’ve been able to develop our use of fire to higher and higher levels of capability, to where now today, we’ve unlocked the secrets of nuclear power. Using the nuclear process, we can make basically anything we want. It’s a very expensive process, but you can make from the nuclear process anything you want.
My main point is, you’re right. We’re unlocking new levels of technology, and that is what they’re trying to hold down, and that is what we are going to defeat by building this New Paradigm. So, I think you raise a good point.
BURKE: Thank you very much, Liam. So, we’ve come to near the very end, and I’d like to invite Frank to join us up here at the front. He had something prepared. I’ll give him an opportunity to speak.
FRANK : I almost got out of doing this speech. So, good evening, everyone. I’d like to recognize both senior and new members of the LaRouche movement and the Schiller Institute, members of the Infrared community, our friends and allies from around the world, and fellow independent thinkers. I am just in awe of the quality of mind and the power of the people in this room. We have had powerful speakers representing key sections of the international movement to fight against the Great Reset agenda and Green fascist policies. The connections being made here today will be decisive in the upcoming struggle against our foe. But even as this is happening, we are in great danger. As others have mentioned, our elite threatens us with thermonuclear war. And more specifically, in two days, NATO will host a nuclear exercise only 600 miles from the Russian border. This is just one of many provocations that they’re done in the past year. Many have asked, “What can we as politically engaged young people do?” Well, I see in all of you, a flame. I see people who have a love of truth, and are willing to fight for it. I know this, because if you didn’t, you wouldn’t be here.
I see leaders and potential leaders. The LaRouche movement once fielded hundreds of candidates across the world for various local and federal elections. We can do that again. There are currently about a dozen of us in the LaRouche youth movement; you’ve met many of them. You’ve met them, and they’ve come up and spoken. But Daniel has said that for us to accomplish what we strive to do, we will need about 500 good committed LaRouche youth movement members to bring about the change that we seek. We can do that with the people in this room, the people who are watching online, and the people we have yet to reach. Join us and make it happen. We will have educational seminars that Jason will be teaching, along with many of us from the LaRouche youth movement, where we will teach you the insights that LaRouche had in the fields of science, economics, music, theater, and the tools to make your own discoveries. Because you will need these if you are to run a country. So, sign up for Jason’s class, which should be provided in a link, I think. How will they sign up for your class, Jason? [Jason replies off mic.] larouche.info/classes. Join us for these seminars, and we will put you in political office, or we’ll help others in the LaRouche movement do that. And let’s fight the Great Reset and Green fascism.
BURKE: OK, time for last big claps. Are you ready? We’re going to do it. First, give a big clap to Jackson Hinkle. Let’s get one for Haz; and Sameera; and Fox; and everyone who has been giving these excellent presentations. This is the conclusion of our event. Thank you so much for coming.