LPAC Policy Committee · March 9, 2015
Transcript now available. Join us live at 1 PM EDT this afternoon for a live discussion with Lyndon LaRouche, Jason Ross, the LPAC Policy Committee and host Matthew Ogden.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it's March 9th, 2015. I'd like to welcome everybody to our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.... I'm joined via video by Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio, I'm joined by Diane Sare, and our special guest for this week Jason Ross, from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team.
So, I think the best place to start our discussion and to just get things moving is by referencing people's attention to the presentation that Megan Beets gave at the conclusion of the Friday night webcast this past Friday, in which she contextualized the importance of the life of Joan of Arc, and the connection of Joan's mission and birth of the Renaissance by the founding father of the European Renaissance, Nicholas of Cusa. And as people will see on our website this morning, Mr. LaRouche put a huge premium on this presentation by Megan Beets over the course of this weekend, in discussions we had with him, some of which can be summarized in this item that was posted this morning.
So I think we can just start our discussion from here and people can just feel free to take it away.
DIANE SARE: Well, I don't want to replicate what Megan went through, because it's true, what she presented was very succinct and very clear. And I think this relationship with Cusa and then Cusa's role in unifying the Church, which Mr. LaRouche was talking about in great detail on Saturday, making certain comparisons to our own association, and the question of Hamilton, this only could have been done from the highest possible principle. Because you can say, well, supposedly the purpose of the Church, one of them, is to worship God. And, is it one God, is it many gods, you know, what are people doing, what is their belief in each of these little, separate parishes? And then the question of the split, with the Eastern Orthodox Church at the time which Cusa did brilliant work in bringing together.
But anyway, it's an extraordinary process; it had never been as clear in my mind, the actual causal relationship between what she did, her mission, and then the developments of what Cusa did. And the other thing, just on what she was dealing with, because I keep thinking about this today, and we may get into it more later, is: When you're in Dark Age conditions, what was she dealing with? An army which had given up, which was losing, which was scattered, and she was able to pull people together with a clear vision of mission and purpose. And you think about the kind of divisions, the kind of insanity that we're dealing with today in the population, where people are really demoralized, really dumbed down, and the question of how do we unify people on a higher principle, on something not based in popular opinion, which will never allow them to think straight. So, I just think this was an incredibly important topic to put before the American population at this time.
OGDEN: Yeah, just what you concluded with. Some people may know the figure of Charles de Gaulle in France, and at the time when most of the French leadership was handing over French sovereignty to the invading Nazi forces and collaborating with the Germans, Charles de Gaulle, who was an institutional person in the military and so forth, went against all popular opinion in his country, and said, I will save France. And in that capacity, he compared himself to Joan of Arc who said, at the time, the King of France had given up, everybody was demoralized just sort of opening up the country to the invading Norman forces, and saying, "this is it, there's no hope." And Joan of Arc said, even if it's as an individual, I will act to save my nation. And Charles de Gaulle had exactly the same idea of himself during World War II, and led the Résistance in a very inspired way, which was natural that this would occur within France. Because obviously the tradition of Joan of Arc is something that's deeply embedded in the historical memory and in the bones of Frenchmen.
So, this is obviously an example of the long arm of history. And Mr. LaRouche was making the point, when you're dealing with people who are tasked with making historical policy decisions today, for example, the majority of the members of the United States Congress — what one of these people knows anything about the establishment of the nation-state movement which led to the Italian Renaissance and led to the American Revolution? And yet, they call themselves the "custodians" of the Constitution of the United States? This is an extremely significant thing that people have to know about, if they're going to put themselves in the capacity of providing leadership for a great country such as ours.
KESHA ROGERS: One of our colleagues pointed out to me a passage from Barbara Tuchman from her [book] A Distant Mirror on Joan of Arc, and it was a very powerful, one-paragraph passage. I don't have the direct quote, but what it references is, she says that Joan of Arc's mission was not a mission of chastity, of keeping her virginity, or her mission wasn't just for her own religious purpose. But her mission, directly said, was to free her nation from tyranny. And I thought that that was very telling, because of the fact that she chose to carry out a mission to free the nation of France from the tyranny of an empire is why we yet exist today as a republic, as a sovereign nation. The idea that the U.S. republic or nation-states around the world were able to come about is because of the fact that you had a mission which is the mission what the people of the United States have a responsibility to take on right now.
And in thinking about that, what's so unique in thinking of today, why what the new Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras just said that if there was a referendum in Greece to come about on the decision of the Greek people whether or not they would keep their dignity or go along with the continued policies of austerity and the continued EU policies and corruption that's being perpetrated against the Greek people and against nations throughout Europe, that they would choose their dignity. And the point being, why would someone like Joan of Arc continue to choose her dignity and the understanding that the dignity of the nation comes as a priority even at the cost of your life, even at the cost that you're going to maybe have to suffer some great setbacks or death for that matter.
And I thought that that was very important, looking at what Tsipras said: Yes, they would choose their dignity. The question is whether or not the American people would do the same, and how we get the American people to say, our dignity as human beings comes first, just as Joan of Arc chose. And I think that that's a very important quality to actually address.
JASON ROSS: Mm-hmm. On the subject of the nation-state, is really something that we take for granted now, and we should remember that it didn't exist in Joan of Arc's time; France wasn't a nation-state when she was throwing the English out of it. And her goal wasn't only to overthrow foreign tyrants and allow homegrown tyrants, to allow feudalist leaders to continue to rule France and treat the people like slaves, serfs, animals. That was not fully realized during her lifetime, of course. But the following King — she brought Charles VII to the throne, who was lousy; his son, Louis XI, is cited as being the first ruler of a real, modern nation-state in Europe, as was Henry VII in England. But if you look at what Louis XI had done in terms of bringing in an internal sovereignty and a power of the nation-state as a concept that's able to defend the common welfare, that's able to promote the commonwealth as a concept, this is something that only exists on the scale of a nation, and can't exist when you've got feudal lords ruling each individual portion of a territory.
One example of something that Louis XI had done was to remove all taxes on grains, because the way it would work is you would have all these feudal lords; any time goods crossed their boundaries on the way to somewhere else, every single lord along the way could tax it. And this made it impossible to really develop any sort of internal trade, really develop the internal part of the nation. So between that, and other policies on a national scale, of supporting immigration of skilled workers, of using taxes and tax policy to promote productivity by having basically something similar to a progressive income tax, where noblemen who didn't do anything useful were taxed at a higher rate than were people living in a city, actually doing something that was beneficial.
OGDEN: I think that's crucial, to think about this as a moment of political revolution in European civilization. But any political revolution must be based on a scientific revolution. You can't have one without the other. And if you look at what happened with the Renaissance and the role that Nicholas of Cusa played, you had a change in mankind's conception of himself, which was what was necessary, to create the possibility of modern civilization, a modern nation-state, a sovereignty of the people for themselves.
And one thing that occurred to me is that people don't generally recognize that Joan of Arc was contemporary with Brunelleschi: They were the same generation! At the same time Joan of Arc was doing what she was doing in France, Brunelleschi was designing the Duomo in Florence, was laying the groundwork for the political revolution, and scientific revolution, that Cusa brought to its fruition. And Mr. LaRouche was mentioning a few weeks ago, Brunelleschi was the architect, literally of the Renaissance. He cast the shadows of the human mind, and then it was up to Cusa to recognize what the human mind was, in and of itself. So you think about this "triad" that Mr. LaRouche talked about, of Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler, and then you put the role that Joan of Arc played right into the middle of that as a contemporary, the same generation of Brunelleschi, and you get a vivid idea of what the Renaissance was about, as both a political and a scientific revolution.
MICHAEL STEGER: To add another dimension to this discussion, too, because what comes up, you see with what you referenced, Matt, with Charles de Gaulle and resurrection of a true identity of France, when all of its leadership under Pétain had gone fascist, you see the same thing in Russia today, where you see a revitalization of a national identity of a positive nature. And Russia has taken on numbers of major invasions of this fascist-type policy in its history, so there's a real sense of that. And the question comes up, how do you resuscitate or revitalize the true American identity? Because that's largely what's been lost in this process? I mean, in these last 15 years, as Jeff [steinberg] has made the point on a number of the webcasts, our Constitution has been shredded, these last 15 years since 9/11. The younger generation, really born in the late '80s and now early '90s, emotionally, they had what's I guess described as "emotional deprivation disorder," I mean, there's a lack of an emotional connection to the nation, to an idea, to what Joan of Arc really represents, which is what really the ultimate expression of a commitment to your nation, but as Schiller referenced it then, your nation as part of the human race, and part of the human development as a whole culture.
And that's really the question: How do we take back this culture which has been destroyed, since the late 1800s when Wall Street took over this country? When we had Hamilton and John Quincy Adams and Lincoln and others, that really represent the culture of this country, how do we bring that back today? And Joan probably is the most significant example of that.
SARE: You know, one effect of this dumbing down — I'm just reflecting on the challenges to get the American population to shift, because clearly we have to shift; we've had a number of discussions now, really over three years about the likelihood of thermonuclear war, that Britain, the British Empire, using their tool Obama, and NATO, are provoking Russia. And now it's even more brazen, because you had the ceasefire — you had a ceasefire in Ukraine, and no sooner do we have a ceasefire than you have a drive in the U.S. Congress to send weapons to Ukraine! So clearly, we don't want the ceasefire from here. The idea is to provoke Russia. And you have these silly debates, and I was very struck — in New Jersey, people may know that Senator Menendez has now come into some trouble, and he is one of the primary people who wants to arm the Nazis in Ukraine. He also, consistent with that, is his support for Bibi Netanyahu's address to the U.S. Congress, who as former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said, "Bibi Netanyahu is more frightening than the enemies of Israel." He is destroying the country, and the economy of Israel is in a shambles, and that's what Israelis are most concerned about.
That aside, so what's the line now? Menendez, who probably is a corrupt crook, who is completely owned by Wall Street, may or may not have done something questionable with a friend of his; I'm sure there's much more if they want to get a more serious case. But the line is that, Obama didn't like that Menendez crossed him by supporting Bibi Netanyahu, so Obama is running a political vendetta against Menendez, who is now being supported by "intellectual giant" Ted Cruz. And you look at this, and you say, "This is the most insane logic and argument!" Even if it were, it's like Hitler versus Caligula, or something, and people — I ran into this with some people that I knew from my various campaigns in New Jersey, are drawn into the most inane argument, trying to defend Menendez because of Netanyahu, and the whole thing is insane.
And meanwhile, we are marching ever closer toward thermonuclear war, and that is not even a topic of discussion. And you have a President who, in effect, wants to lay the blame for the assassination of Boris Nemtsov at Putin's feet, when Putin would have absolutely no interest in having done such a thing, since he enjoys 85% approval rating.
But my point more is the American people: Because Mr. LaRouche pointed out, I think it was last week, or in a webcast, that you have this spike in suicides among middle aged Americans, that the population has actually become depraved! And therefore, the challenge to us, and the challenge to our friends, is to actually fight for a standard of truth, around which we can rally these people and pull them together into a force which is going to save the United States, to restore our Constitution and to create a situation where the United States becomes a member of the BRICS, which is the new paradigm which has picked up, in a sense, this Joan of Arc legacy.
But, I think, really, we can't be naïve about how far the American population has sunk in terms of losing their identity, their morals, even a clue as to what's happening in the world and what's even in their own interests.
DAVE CHRISTIE: Yeah, just to note similarly, we had an opportunity to intervene on our friend Adam Smith, the congressman from the south side of Washington who has a bill in the House to arm the Ukrainian Nazis. So we went to discuss with him the insanity of that, and had a fairly raucous intervention, including by one of our members dressing up as a young, Ukrainian supporter of his, complete with the Wolfsangel [swastika] armband and a Tymoshenko style braid, and she had an 8 by 12 photo of Stepan Bandera. And she was saying, "You just don't understand, Adam is here to help out the Ukrainian people so we can liberate Ukraine from the Jews, Muscovites and those nasty Poles." So it was quite a raucous intervention.
But what was notable, and we've seen this across the nation, is that the townhall meetings, the attendance is way down! And other than a few politicos that were there, there was another group that had a very specific intervention they were making around green cards and guest worker status, and so on. But the point is, there was really only a handful of people that were there.
And I think that goes to a certain level of demoralization. I think what Diane was raising actually goes to what Rachel had brought up around the "consent of the governed," that that's really the only validity of a government is that is agreed to as the consent of the governed. Which I know what just raised on this Greek situation, where they're saying, if we take a referendum of the people, and let them decide on their dignity, and whether they would choose their dignity,. And I think the situation in Greece is of a different nature.
But I think this goes right back to the question which started out on the Joan of Arc, what she did to unleash the quality of fight that then led to the Renaissance. And I was struck by what Rachel had read from Nicholas of Cusa, on this idea that the only validity of government is through the consent of governed; and what that came out of, is the debate that he was leading around the unification of the Church, which was centered around the notion of the Filioque, which was the discussion at the time in the Orthodox Church where they said, the question of the Trinity was God through the created, mediate through the Holy Spirit; but what Cusa discussed was that went the other way.
Now, people can see that in religious terms, but if you read the writing of Cusa, you know that it's a much more universal conception, which is that, we being made in the image of the Creator, means that we're also creative. And it was that core which said, which people, whether it be the Venetian Empire, or the Roman Empire, had used the Church to promote this idea that people were not creative, that you had to accept the Word of God as flowing from the priest class or something, and therefore, you couldn't come up with your own decisions, your own sense of creativity. But it was Cusa who fought for that idea that, no, indeed, we are all creative, if made in the image of the Creator. And I think that idea as being the foundation of statecraft, but really as being that the nature of man is what we're dealing with now, is that people have lost that, they just accept the political class that they know is corrupt, but they accept it as if they're just peasants right now, and we have to reawaken that very foundation of what the nation was founded on, the creative principle.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: Yeah, just on that, there was, at the time of Joan of Arc, as Jason was saying, there was no real rule of law. It was the "might makes right." Nobles were found to be good kings if they could conquer the most land. It was not based off of their intellectual bearing or anything like this. And what could a regular person do about that? They had no real power to challenge this arbitrary law, and various lords constantly fighting for domination over the other, and the people were subject to this insanity. There was absolutely nothing they could do to challenge it.
So, yes, Joan being a peasant girl, a shepherdess, saying she could rule an army and fight for a principle of the sovereignty of a nation of France, and end this arbitrary domination, did unleash the idea that there is a right for justice, there is a right for a higher conception of man. And then, also, looking at the role that France played after that, as was referenced, Louis XI who was set into motion her action, and then the role of France in the American Revolution, this was a direct continuation into the United States, and the fact that this state of affairs being the case in Europe, this could never be done on the continent of Europe; it had to go to another land.
And so it really is just that quality, that, one, that she had to have the most profound idea, that she represented. Cusa being inspired by that most profound idea and elaborating and developing it into a scientific conception; and then this inspiring others, Leibniz, Hamilton. You know, for example, Hamilton has this beautiful quote that's in the direction of this idea, which is something like: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." ["The Farmer Refuted" http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s5.html]
And so you just have this idea of something that's a higher conception of mankind, that that's the basis for law, and that this could not have been done in Europe, and what Joan of Arc did unleashed this, as a social process that led directly to the United States. And I think that's something, Americans being reminded of this today is essential to regain our identity.
BILL ROBERTS: Rachel that quote you just referenced from Hamilton, reminds me directly of what Leibniz says in quoting, I think it was St. Paul if I'm not mistaken, in which he said that truth is written on the hearts of men, and that he raised this in taking on directly the doctrine of John Locke and Aristotle before him, that the mind of man is a "blank slate." And so, you can see, I think this question of the capacity, or let's put it this way, the access that citizens have to justice is a question of a fight to engage other citizens in the improvement of their own morality, which comes through the very Keplerian pursuit of the understanding of the understanding of the principles of the universe, but through the investigation of their own mind.
And so, this "consent of the governed" that Dave is raising, and Rachel, this was as much an investigation of a scientific principle, as a theological principle, as a question of natural law in government. But I thought that really clearly came together in what Megan Beets read from Joan of Arc's letter to the English at Orléans, something like, "you make your appeal to the King of Heaven" — she was basically saying each man has a direct relationship to God, and that that is the basis for natural law; it is not dispensed from man to man. And of course, that was exactly what was unleashed with what Cusa did.
Anyway, that's a clear point of access for any American, is that the process was the engagement of the average citizen by Hamilton and his groupings, which was the basis of ratifying the Federal Constitution, as we know. And that should definitely inform what our ability is to inspire the average America — maybe not the average American — but those Americans most prone to being concerned about what's going on in the world, because the United States does have a unique role to play in this BRICS process, which I don't think is clear, otherwise, at all without considering this type of question.
OGDEN: Well, I mean, what was happening at the time of Joan of Arc's life, what was happening in the century preceding the Renaissance, this was the 14th century Dark Age, this was the Black Death, this was a general breakdown crisis of the entire European system, which had been dominated by a Zeusian oligarchical principle. And when you think about the role that Cusa played, for example, in bringing the texts of Plato from Greece into Italy, the translations of these ancient Greek texts, the dialogues of Plato, the ideas of Socrates.
I mean, included in this obviously, is the plays of Aeschylus and his acknowledgment of the natural law principle of Prometheus. I mean, how did Prometheus know that Zeus's reign was temporal? This was not an eternal reign, even if he chained Prometheus to a rock, he knew that Zeus was in violation of the principles of natural law, and that through the very act of being Zeus, he would precipitate his own downfall. And that's exactly the situation we find ourselves in now. That's what Mr. LaRouche has been stressing again, and again, and again, week after week after week: We're at a point where the entire trans-Atlantic system cannot continue to survive! It is destroying itself through its commitment to a Zeusian principle. And it's only through a total revolution in that system of economics, a return to Alexander Hamilton, and an embrace of this new "win-win" type of collaboration between nations that's being championed by the BRICS right now, that you can save yourself from the Dark Age that is a consequence of the self-destruction of the Zeusian system.
And I think situating Joan of Arc and Nicholas of Cusa in the context of that, the Dark Age as a general breakdown crisis, as the consequence of a Zeusian oligarchical principle, is necessary to give people an insight into the relevance of that for today.
ROGERS: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right, and it gets at a critical point that Mr. LaRouche made in discussion with associates not long ago, on the understanding of history as a process, and not just as a series of events. And it's interesting, because when you think about this discussion in itself, it actually takes up that principle. Because when you think about the essence of what Joan of Arc represented or who she really was, a lot of times, you can put her as a figure at a certain point in time within past history, that people may read about and come to accept or not accept. But the reality was, what she was doing, had an effect, or shall we say, an impact on what actually created and made possible the ability for all of these processes, all of these conditions that we're speaking of in terms of our ability to be able to fight today, to even come into being.
And I think it's absolutely true, that the decision does get to an individual, moral and willful decision, which in many cases, you didn't have — well, you had, but it was taken away from you before; and now today, we have the ability to say "no, we're not going to return to those bestial conditions that mankind has been subjected to. No, we will not allow for the control of tyranny and oligarchy, and a system of Zeus, of evil, to take over the population." But until the population understands that they're not just victims that don't have any power over the circumstance, because they think of "I don't have an impact on history or on my future, it's just something that happens to me, or that has happened, versus something that actually gives me an understanding of what truly makes us human beings."
I think that's the essence of what we're addressing, and what is the challenge to ourselves and to the population as a whole today, if we are to get out of this crisis.
BRINKLEY: Just to go back to the point Matt brought up, as while this is a fixed system, absolutely. Within the concept of Europe, at this time of civilization prior to Joan of Arc, prior to the nation-state, there was no ability for progress. There was such a state of chaos, nobody could come out of it, unless they actually went to another continent, as mentioned, which was totally crucial. But there was just no ability to change within the system, you had to introduce something of a totally different quality. It is an inferior quality of mind of this states of affairs, of the oligarchy or whatever you want to call it. There's no potential for growth.
Anyway, just to make that point about the importance of this today: We are, we must have a new conception for mankind on the planet. We must have — the only way out of this is to leap to an entirely new level, and discussion of mankind. That's the point, that this is only going to come about by the evolution of mankind to its natural state, not this lower, bestial state.
SARE: You know, one thing that that raises, because you say, well, it's a Dark Age and people get enraged when you try and present the truth. On the other hand, since it is the case that the human mind is not a blank slate, that human beings actually do recognize truth. And one way you see this very clearly, is, for example, in music: If someone is practicing a piano sonata by Mozart, and they play a wrong note, and someone listening who has never heard the piece before, will hear immediately, that there's something wrong, whether they know the piece or they don't — so why is that?
And why can't you do that with something by Stravinsky or Schoenberg, for example?
ROSS: They've got a lot of wrong notes!
SARE: Yeah, right! But I think it really does get at — I was thinking through this discussion about — the courage, on the one hand, the courage of these people to stand for truth; on the other hand, as you tune yourself to working on universal principles, it really doesn't make any sense to be anything but truthful. And Kepler's insight, for example, I mean, it was practically an imposed value of the Church that the Earth had to be unmoving and be the center of the universe. And he had the courage to simply dispense with that, to say, "this is not so," and not only that everyone's work who came before him to show that first of all, there wasn't any difference between the other models of the Solar System, and then to say, "but there is a principle to this, and it's a higher principle." For which, he did not get gold medals and become rich, but starved, as Rachel brought up before.
But nonetheless, that's what's enduring, because it's true and because actually human beings are not animals, and because we have a mind which is in coherence with universal principles.
ROSS: It's a human universe. I mean, that's part of the darkness and depression, is the separation that's made between us and then the universe as a whole. Or, the application to us, of things that are true, but only about portions of the universe — like, take the Second Law of Thermodynamics: That's a legitimate, valid physical principle about systems of gases or about chemical reactions. It says that things move in a way, where the free energy decreases, or you may have heard people say, "entropy increases," or "things become more disorderly."
It has no application at all to humanity, to any large-scale processes, it's really just about chemicals and gases. And the idea of taking that and saying the whole universe is becoming more disordered and that's where things are headed, that's a really depressing thought. I mean, that goes right along with telling children that "natural" means "unhuman," and that anything we do that the universe didn't do on its own is bad, because if it was supposed to have happened, it would have done it itself. Or something like that, and that your goal then is to not exist.
Instead, the opposite is the case. If you want to say, what do we know about the universe as a whole, what are universal conclusions that we can make? It's not extrapolating from how systems of gases work, or the way chemicals react. It's not something like the Big Bang or the heat death of the universe, where you take local principles that we know and just expand them into the past or into the future. Start, instead, like Cusa does with what do we know about the universe as a universe? Then, he says, what do we know about knowing?
So, in his work De Docta Ignorantia, he begins with God and describing how God can't be known directly, but it's through specific types of unknowing that we can come as close as possible to knowing God, Who can't be understood directly. And that he, in discussing the universe and our understanding of it, he's very explicit, that new things happen, that new thoughts actually develop, that logic is not the way to think. That there will be impossibilities in our attempts to understand things. Those impossibilities mean that our method of understanding, that our language, is lacking. There's something totally new, and an unexpressible is needed. And that in creating these new things, previously unexpressible, these new ideas, in that way it's like trying to see God. Or it's like actually being a creator.
And Cusa actually took issue with Socrates and Plato a bit on this, where Socrates had the idea that learning was really recollecting things that one already knew, in opposition to the idea that the mind is just empty; that in some sense the mind already has these things, they're brought out. Cusa didn't actually agree with that; he understood it as a polemic, but he said, "no it's not the case that everything that the mind develops already existed. The mind, we really are creating things.
So you think about, to some extent, the things that we discover about the world around us, yeah there are things about the world around us, but also those discoveries we made, we developed a tool for our thinking, we developed a mental took that we can use like a hammer or a shovel, or doing more with a hammer and a shovel, we develop concepts that are useful for the process of understanding, that give us a greater power over things, and that the most universal of principles, is our ability to discover. It's not taking subatomic particles and hitting the rewind button and going back 13 billion years, and saying, "here's what would have happened at the beginning of the universe, if we know everything about it." I don't think we know everything about the universe, or even close — so it's just sort an exercise in silliness to some degree to try to just rewind, or go forward and say this is how the universe will end.
If you want something universal, focus on that discovery process and the fact that the universe will never been a closed system. Our understanding of it will never be done, and in that sense, our action in it will never be done in the universe and we'll never be done; we are creating.
OGDEN: Yeah, you made the point specifically about Kepler during the webcast a few weeks back, that everybody else was trying to answer the wrong question, and no matter what effort you put into answering the wrong question, and no matter what answer you come up with, the answer will always be wrong, because the question was wrong.
And so, Kepler said, the question is not how do these planets move? The question is, what is moving them? And when you ask that question, then you can discover the answer which answers something that could never have been even answered before ask that question. And that was demonstrative of the Cusa method, as opposed to just trying to fill in the logical system of what people already believed.
ROSS: Yeah, look at what LaRouche did with economics! I mean, people generally try to approach economics as studying things in the economy, especially money, or things that can be measured in terms of money. And you know, LaRouche doesn't address the economy that way. He says, you want to understand economics? Why do human beings have an economy? What makes it happen? What's the actual origin of wealth? It's a discovery process.
And so this is sort of 50 year ago, now, that he had developed this insight, very similar to what you just brought up about Kepler, where he's saying, turn it around, turn it around: If you want to understand economics, how do you foster that ability of human beings? And certainly, you're not going to do it by measuring money. Making money is not the same as — you know, you're trying to answer the wrong question, you're trying to do the wrong thing if you're trying to increase money instead of increasing wealth.
STEGER: This question of discovery is really critical — It's interesting to think about Plato, how he was provoked, I would image, Plato was provoked, "what is the universe that Socrates lives in, that he conceives he lives, that he would come to act the way he does?" And really you see the same question come back into the Renaissance with what Jeanne d'Arc did. How could anyone, how could someone like Cusa and the people around him, who recognized the corruption, not be provoked to say, "what is the universe that Jeanne d'Arc lives in? What is the Creator she has in her mind, that provokes her to act with such passion, and such inconvenience to her own life?" She clearly has a radiating effect.
It's interesting to think that what Kepler makes more known is the universe Jeanne d'Arc lives in. It makes it more knowable to a conceptual discovery, that which Jeanne d'Arc had in her own mind in terms of her relationship and mankind's relationship to the universe.
And that idea is absolutely critical: If the American people are going to wake up and throw this bum out of office and clean out Wall Street, and Congress and Washington and these horrible cesspools we've developed here! The American people, we are a critical part of the BRICS, and we have an amazing international response right now in the United States towards what's happening! The Americans are just clueless, and we all know it! We're on the streets! We know what's happening. They won't even say the word, "BRICS." You can go — they just won't say the word. And it's not so much the real American identity, and this question of provoking that discovery is critical to shaping the political process today.
CHRISTIE: You know, Michael, just to follow up on that, because I attended an event at the University of Washington Jackson School, right? Which is their foreign policy outfit, fairly prominent, and the whole discussion was — it was entitled, "Russia's Pivot to China, in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis," right? So every major deal from the mega-oil and gas deal, even elements of the Silk Road were brought up, all this discussion of between Russia and China — and not once in an entire hour and a half discussion was the BRICS brought up!
Now, these were students, some of whom I've seen on the campus, they've probably gotten out literature, for sure, they've gotten our literature, seen the banners that we've had on the BRICS. So the idea that it's not coming up, I don't think it's accidental. It think there's a specific almost blacking out of it as a concept. Because, if people have an idea about what the future could look like, that's what generates a certain question then of action. And the potential always has to come before the action can unfold from that, and it's very clear that they're trying to take that away from the American people as a concept of potential.
And our work of doing that, because if they could just see — because this is the first time we've been in this kind of Dark Age moment, yet, the Renaissance is just sort of happening right around the corner, if you will, in China and these other nations; they're already moving on it, so I do think we can expect that things are going to break. And I think that's the other side of this.
I mean, they couldn't even wait four months for this Greek situation. They were trying to kick the can down the road, but they're already trying to force Greece into some decision, because they know it's not just simply whether or not Greece accepts the austerity policy, but they have to crush out of the people now the potential to rise up and fight against this oligarchical principle, this oligarchical tendency, and that is what they're trying to crush out of the Greek people, already right now; that's what they're trying to crush out of Russia right now, is they're saying "we're not going to back down to your demands that we give up the BRICS process."
So I think we just have to be clear with people, like, what're you so depressed about? What're you so...? You just have to open your eyes and see that we already have the future is unfolding if we take it.
OGDEN: Okay. Well, I think that's a very apropos statement to end our discussion here with. I would remind people that we do have an ongoing series of conferences that are occurring in New York City, and we've now got the next one under discussion which is going to be at the end of this month, March 28th I believe. And this will be a very significant event in the context of everything we've talked about here today. So it's better to get an early start on putting people's attention towards this and helping to build it, and also orienting the entire country around what we are doing in New York City, as Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing repeatedly.
So, with that said, I would also just ask people to go back and view the presentation that Megan Beets did at the conclusion of this past Friday's webcast. Watch it again in the context of the whole discussion that we had here today. I think you will get even more out of it.
I want to thank everybody for joining us, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.