Manhattan Town Hall event with Dave Christie

August 27, 2016

Manhattan Town Hall event with Dave Christie

LPAC Policy Committee member Dave Christie fields questions during this week's Manhattan Town Hall event.


DENNIS SPEED: Good afternoon. My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome everybody here today for our August 27th dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. I want to point out that our issue #3 of The Hamiltonian is available at the table; with a new theme — "Obama Is a Failure." No, it's not new, it's a very time-honored theme we've had ever since April of 2009 when Lyndon LaRouche talked about the Nero complex of the present occupant of the White House. Today, we're going to be joined not by Lyndon LaRouche, but by Dave Christie — the Northwest representative of the Policy Committee of LaRouche's Political Action Committee. He and Diane Sare will be fielding questions; we'll have an opening statement from Dave, and then we will go right to the questions and answers. I think everyone knows how that works, or we'll remind you of how that works once we have heard from Dave. So, Dave, are you able to hear me?

DAVE CHRISTIE: Yeah. I'd like to thank Diane for inviting me to speak, and I wish I were there in person; but this will do. I can only just say that the work that is going to be done in Manhattan over the course of the coming weeks and really the work that has been done, is really extremely critical to the direction that the world goes. Next week we begin an entire series of historic international summits which could be the turning point for mankind; and obviously, we intend that it is such. We also have a global leadership that intends that it is such.

As people probably know, next week we'll start out with the Eastern Economic Forum; there will be other nations involved, but Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. Just on that note, so it will be known; apparently there are ongoing negotiations between Japan and Russia to end World War II. I hadn't even quite realized that there was no official peace treaty. Then, I think it should also just be — because I think that goes to the core of what the stakes are right now. Both Korea and Japan have been used by the British, or that area of the world by the British, really since the end of the 1800s for geopolitical manipulation. So, I think the fact that they're participating in this discussion, which is clearly what direction the world goes; are they going to go the route of being used for yet another world war, which this one would be the end of civilization? Or, will they join this new developing paradigm led by Russia and China?

That's the first of these international summits, that then flows right into the beginning — a week from tomorrow, I believe — flows into the G-20 summit. Now, obviously China intends that the agenda of the G-20 summit is to take up the new financial architecture; which is something that Mr. LaRouche and his wife have fought for, for decades. Going back 40 years, when LaRouche posed the conception of the International Development Bank, which was really to be moving in this direction of a financial system that actually developed humanity and developed the real economy; and that was not isolated to be at the whims of Wall Street and London. Then, of course, LaRouche's more recent calls for a New Bretton Woods conference. So obviously, China intends for this to be put on the agenda. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has made the point that at this point, there's no one in the trans-Atlantic community that intends to allow that to be on the agenda; and therefore, I think what we are doing here is a critical part of that. Because what this meeting represents, and what LaRouche's work over the last decades represents, is to shape the institution of the Presidency. And I don't think I have to discuss with you all the utter horror show that we have with this ongoing election campaign — if you can even call it that; but I think the point is, that our work is to shape the institution of the Presidency. I think what we're doing with this Hamiltonian third issue, which actually has — to me — an ambiguous title. The idea of Obama as a failure. Well, that's true, of course, but it's also not true in the sense that he's been a total success in what his mission that he was set by the British monarchy was intended; which was to destroy the nation. Some of your probably heard the discussion with Paul Gallagher last night on the economic condition of the United States, that under the last 8 years of Obama, if you took the entire growth of the GDP and added it all together; that would not even equal one year of the growth in GDP that we saw under Franklin D Roosevelt in 1933, 34, and 35. Just one of those years is more than the entire growth of the GDP under Obama; so that obviously gives an indication of what he has done.

I think what Kesha also went through last night is clear on that point as well; which is that one of the first things that Obama did significantly on the economy, which is where LaRouche called for his impeachment, was on the dismantling of the space program. Without that kind of growth, you don't have a real economy; without that dedication to the technological growth and really a mission for mankind. I think that's the other thing that we do know, that the leadership of Russia and China are committed to that growth. China's lunar program is extremely exciting in this respect.

So anyway, to come back to it, this question of the new financial architecture at the G-20 summit really is the end of the British Empire. And I think we have to have that sense of gravity of where we are at; that we are at the moment of the punctum saliens, that there's a decision that has to be made for mankind about which direction we're going to go. Obviously, we know what the intention in terms of the agenda at the G-20 meeting. That really flows into the United Nations General Assembly, which begins September 13 and goes to the end of the month, when we'll have the heads of state meeting. Then on from there into October with the BRICS meeting. So, you just get a sense of this global impact; but what I want to be clear on is that we know what the intention of the leadership of Russia, China, other nations, India and so on and so forth. But our mission in this room and with what we are doing in collaboration with Mr. LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, is to shape the institution of the Presidency; to put Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws squarely on the table to be adopted within the trans-Atlantic community, beginning with Glass-Steagall. Obviously, Manhattan is ground zero for that fight as well, because it's the den of the enemy.

So, we're at a critical crossroads. Perhaps, I'll just leave my initial statements to that, and just see what people have in terms of insights or questions, or thoughts about the situation. Before we do that, let me just say one last thing, because clearly we have an extremely tense situation around the war danger. There's a lot that is, frankly, just not known. I know there have been a lot of people who have not exactly considered Erdogan of Turkey their most favorite person. In some sense, it doesn't really matter what you think about it personality-wise; the key is that what is shifting that we see in the case of Turkey, what has the potential of drawing other nations into this effort that Putin called for at the last UN General Assembly — which is to bring nations into a coalition to defeat terrorism in the same way we did with World War II against the Nazis. That is being determined by a global dynamic; and the personalities involved — in some ways, it's going to be sort of shifting sands.

Now the thing that LaRouche stressed this morning in some of the reports that are ongoing in terms of the diplomatic initiatives — John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, just met yesterday. You've got a phone call today between Putin and Erdogan. What Mr. LaRouche said is, pay attention to what Putin is doing. In other words, don't take everything at the face value of what this one is and this interpretation. Because I guarantee you this: if there's one thing that we know is going on in the Middle East, it's British. And the British have historically used the area — the ethnic divisions, the religious divisions — to manipulate people under this divide and conquer strategy that every empire since time immemorial has used. Therefore, we can't get caught in what this development means, this interpretation, that interpretation; what Mr. LaRouche said is, pay attention to what Putin is doing.

So again, I think I'll just leave it there and see what people have as thoughts, questions, insights, etc. And of course, Diane and Dennis are here as well.

SPEED: OK, very good. So, let's go to the first question.

Q: Hi Dave; this is Marcel from Manhattan. A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure and privilege of assisting with a summer program with approximately 10- to 15-, 16-, 17-year-olds. We did a very abridged version of Hamlet over a week's time. So, we started out by holding a discussion on Classical art, and how to distinguish the value of Classical art; what Classical art does for a human being, as opposed to what passes for "art" today. The topic of imago viva Dei — man in the living image of the Creator and so forth, was discussed. My question centers on a response from one of the students there; a very bright, very astute, seemingly very optimistic young lady, who, when the topic of man's inherent nature of being good, of being moral, of being beautiful, and striving for that was brought up, she basically said, "I can't get past that; I cannot agree with that. I can't go any further," she said, "until we actually get past this." Now, we discussed a little bit — certain perspectives; the idea that while man never would have developed a set of morality, and even fighting for higher morals and development, if that wasn't inherently us. We also talked about things like the Universe which we are a part of, and in demonstrating to us the benefits, the power, the force of doing the Good, through universal responses. A lot of those discussions seemed a little deductive in manner, and this was really important to this young individual; and I think it's a very important question, because especially with what's going on in the Western world and what we see, I think a lot of young people just looking out there, do have reason to doubt that man maybe is nothing more than a sponge soaking up what's around them. So, my question is, how would you address that idea of man being inherently good, to say a 15- or 16-year old doubting that that's the case?

CHRISTIE: Well, I encourage Diane or Dennis if they have anything to add as well, but I'll say a few things. Obviously, this is the one that inherently, any assertion of truth within culture always gets the highest level of anger or whatever, however it's manifest [* missing words between segments]. This is one of the key issues of the attack by the British on the American people and the trans-Atlantic community in general, is the cultural attack. Maybe I'll go off the reservation here a bit. To me, man in the image of God; first off, Mr. LaRouche wrote a paper at one point that said what is God such that man were in his image? I think that's an interesting question, because how do you define God? Is it the white, flowing beard and the guy floating on the cloud? That's sort of the childish image; but what do you say about the nature of God? I think asking it the way that Mr. LaRouche asks it is interesting because I once heard — I think it was Mr. LaRouche who said it — that if there could be a literal translation of God, it would be that which elaborates its own continuing transformation. So in other words, something that is in a process of constant change; and clearly, the Universe is itself in a process of constant change. Therefore, the principles and so forth are in a further elaboration; and you see this in a sense with what Einstein has done. Years after his work, we're only now proving some of what he laid out. The idea of the transformation being ongoing, but also a self-awareness of that; that which elaborates its own continuing transformation. Therefore, if we are made in that image, doesn't culture play a role in helping to facilitate that? Because clearly, we all die; but what we do with our lives and what we contribute to the overall culture, helps to then develop further people. But there has to be a directionality to it.

This is maybe where I go off the reservation; and I don't know if this story — I may not have the details right, I may have somewhat relied on someone else's account of this thing. Frankly, whether the exact story is true or not is somewhat irrelevant; just get a sense of the point of it. But this is what happened. In Angola, there was an outbreak of the Marburg virus. The World Health Organization couldn't quite figure out what was going on; because it was wiping out entire villages. There's a kind of calculation that you have with disease, where kind of the optimal approach for the ability to wipe out a certain population, is where only 30% of the people die; so that others who have the disease can live and spread it further. So, in this case, this disease has a 90% kill ratio; it kills 90% of its hosts. They couldn't quite figure out why this was happening; why this was wiping out whole villages. But there was apparently this cultural tradition of having the family come over and be involved in the bathing process and then to take a little bit of the water and imbibe it as part of the ongoing fulfillment of that person's life. They identified that this was the actual source of why the disease was spreading so rapidly. In that instance, you have a situation where a cultural practice will no longer allow that cultural practice to be practiced.

Now again, whether or not that story may have been fiction, the point is that there are certain cultural practices that if practiced, will not allow your future culture. If you look at modern music and art, they will not allow the further development of the human species. It will not even allow for this idea of this continuing transformation; because there is nothing of a transformative process. It is entirely based on a sensuous, physical "get your rocks off" here for the moment goodness, versus a commitment to a higher development. If you think about how some of the musicians like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart would quote each other, where they would take a certain part of the piece of music and then develop it even further; and then take that part of the music and develop it further the next musician on. There you have a quality of development of ideas that enriches the human mind. It is not simply — even though it's beautiful and pleasant, that's not its ultimate goal.

That would be my initial thought; but if Dennis or Diane has something more to add

DIANE SARE: I think the question is the difference between an individual person and mankind as a whole. How do we each define our life? If we define our life as the very short span between our birth and our death, how long has the planet been here? About 5 billion years? So, what proportion — it's nothing; it almost seems as though it would be meaningless. But if one defines one's life as part of mankind, then what you see from the development of mankind is the potential for a never-ending development and growth. Even as ugly and criminally minded as some members of our human species are conducting themselves today, we did manage somehow to get over 7 billion people on the planet; which we could not have done if mankind did not develop from barbarians or whatever form we were in. And we uniquely have the ability to change the way that we act from one generation to the next; which no other species of anything on this planet does. I think that's really the way we have to look at it. And it's also a question for all of us every day, because whether we have the courage to act in a way that's necessary for the future of mankind, depends very much on where we locate our identity. Is our identity between the bookends of birth and death; or is our identity with mankind as a whole? And I think a young person in particular, given the opportunity to think of themselves in that way, would find a way to answer that.

SPEED: While the next person is coming up, I'll just say this: If the person was 16 years old, there's an easy answer. It means that 8 years ago, when Barack Obama was elected, they were 8 years old; and 0 years ago for them, when George Bush was elected, they were 0 years old. So, they want to know why they can't believe in this, that's why.

Q: [Renée Sigerson]: Let me take that one step further, because actually the comment I had is not unrelated to this. We've all sat here in various of these meetings, and people who have been here before or watched them on the internet and heard Lyn at certain points when people said, "I was having difficulty breaking through the coldness, the disinterest, the alienation of the population." And he would say, "Go with Hamilton." And what's been happening progressively is, this has been in the back of my mind as I've been organizing; and it's really funny about what people know nothing about, sometimes can also be, in the way that Dennis is indicating. But sometimes, what people know nothing about can be a controlling factor in not being able to access within themselves coherence, a sense of identity, and a proper concept. One of the things that people know absolutely nothing about is who is Alexander Hamilton. And I'm bringing this up at the point that we are now distributing this newspaper, just so that in case anybody asks you, "Did you choose this name because of the Broadway show?" In case that comes up, I think we should put it on the record that everybody should know, every organizer in this movement should know that the first time that this organization published Alexander Hamilton's writings on Report on Manufactures and the report on a national bank, was in 1976. We published his writings on this subject. This is something that Lyndon LaRouche has thought about throughout his entire development, and has been an integral part of everything that we have done. It's not a gimmick; and it's not based on popular culture. It's like this Einstein question that he's raising; you go into any department store, and you'll see a picture of Albert Einstein with a quote, as if he's some kind of freak who said these goofy things. When in fact, what you're dealing with is the fact that the enemy is terrified that these kinds of ideal personalities will become known to children; will become known to human beings. Therefore, it's a way — even if the person is no longer "alive" — it's a way that the person discovers within themselves a capacity to access a greater power of ability. In that connection, I think the key with Hamilton — which I found by discussing this with all kinds of people who were pessimistic or not really thinking that we could pull this off — is this concept of the power of labor. This is really where everything sits, because it's also the root of his deeply emotional hatred of slavery. And people are shocked when they find out about this; completely shocked.

So, I thought you, I know you've thought about this a lot, Dave, and so have the other people sitting here; but I think it would be useful in that connection to discuss the implication of producing the newspaper The Hamiltonian and the kind of cultural effect that can have now, intersecting what we're doing with the Requiem and so forth.

CHRISTIE: Yeah, actually just to perhaps pick up on part of the last discussion as well, at the University of Washington you have a very high percentage of students coming from Asia; and a lot from China. We find that it's almost night and day in terms of a cultural outlook. I think obviously, that is connected with the fact that if you were an American, there's just no way that the average college student — a freshman was 3 years old when 9/11 happened. Your sense of the world is entirely skewed; your first memories are under this 9/11 system. Under a system of perpetual war; under a system of Obama murdering people every Tuesday with these drones. That's just accepted. So, it's a surreal culture and a surreal growing up, it has to be an absolutely surreal experience. For children in this, you're not just growing up in a society that's dying, but a society that's killing; that's defined by murdering people around the world and pushing things to the brink of war, versus what you have in China. A young person from China has an entirely different cultural experience. Deng Xiaoping's reforms were initiated and I believe he was out the year that the Berlin Wall came down; so he was setting things into motion that are not being solidified for a young person who is of a similar age of our college students now, has an entirely different world view, having grown up in China; has an entirely different world view of progress; and really is growing up in a country that is employing Hamilton's principles, that is employing the scientific method that really is — Mr. LaRouche's conception around economics are in some ways an echo of Hamilton but it's a further development. I just wanted to make that point.

As far as the intervention into New York, I'm one to wonder whether certain things are done accidentally or not and therefore the idea of this crazy musical "Hamilton," I'm convinced it's all to divert what Lyn has done on this Hamilton question.

But getting that out, intersecting the discussion in the city which has a radiative effect and if you talk to any organization, a lot of the national organizations in the United States often are doing things that truly is a radiative process; I know this by organizing out here that a lot of the networks that we intersect are in some ways we intersect the same ones back in Manhattan. So this is a critical intervention into the domain of ideas, and having it out in print and circulating it is very crucial. So all of you who are involved in that, in the distribution and the organizing around it, you should just remember that that has a national, and really international, impact.

SPEED: I'll just add something here, because of the Manhattan character of what this answer would be: Lyn has made it clear that we need a new Presidency. Alexander Hamilton was never President of the United States, and he was killed by the British so he could not become President of the United States. He was killed by a Vice President of the United States who should never have been Vice President of the United States.

And he was the author of the Constitution, together with his friend Gouverneur Morris from New York also. They weren't the sole authors but they were the crucial authors and the Preamble of the Constitution was written by Gouverneur Morris, in specific. The battle on slavery also very much takes place in New York, and the creation of the idea of the American System, or the idea of the economics, is Alexander Hamilton's personal creation, taking things from Ben Franklin and taking things from others, but it's his unique contribution to American history. It's why we're here.

Now, in terms of this idea of what we're supposed to do and this issue of the identity we talked about, and Dave just referenced it, the American identity and Alexander Hamilton are synonymous. The American identity's been stripped from the people of the United States through a coup that occurred on September 11th, and it occurred in New York City. Hamilton, as a very young man, dedicated himself to overthrowing a despotic, mad, dying kingdom, called the British Empire, which has never been, actually, finally laid to rest. And it's our intention to do that.

Now, specifically, there are enemies that Lyndon LaRouche has, and not because he wished them, it's just as he said, you know, it's often said that you know somebody from their enemies, people like John Train or others that we've recently spoken about again; not that they're so important, but what's relevant is that there's a coup of bankers, and the banking establishment that runs the Congress and runs the Congress on behalf of the British Empire; and runs the people of the United States in the form of culture, because that's where the culture that people have comes from: It comes from the banks! It comes from, yes, their capitulation to the banks, but it's all given to them as bankers' culture, whether it's given to them as hip-hop, whether we're talking about Broadway musicals, whatever it is that you want to discuss, it all comes from these people, and it's a culture of slavery.

So the issue of the "empire of the mind," as Winston Churchill discussed it, is as much at the root of what we're doing with this issue of The Hamiltonian, not the particular issue, but the issue of making it a process of the creation of the Committee of Correspondence, as in the case of the American Revolution. And when you give out The Hamiltonian and you resurrect the same tradition that he created, when he created the New York Post here for the purpose of winning the battle for the Constitution; he's the one that did it, and that's where the New York Post comes from, that's what its purpose was.

We are calling upon people to take on what Lyn LaRouche has always talked about: That you need an intellectual elite. The elite is not because of rank or status or money, or anything like that. It's a self-identification as being a human being. Because most people do not identify themselves as being human beings! They don't! They call themselves blacks, they call themselves Hispanics, they call themselves rich, they call themselves transgender, whatever they call themselves, they do not identify as human beings, and partially because they don't know how to be a human being. And the issue is, how do you teach people how to be human?

And so, I think the issue of economics and the issue of what we say about our economics process, in terms of Hamilton's role, is really a way for people to understand Lyndon LaRouche, because he is the most misunderstood figure of the 20th century in America and the 21st century. There is no figure in American history more consciously misunderstood and distorted than Lyndon LaRouche. So people can't even see Lyn, so the best we can do at the moment, yes, we invoke Hamilton, so they can see what they've been rejecting for the last 40-50 years in Lyn, which is their rejection of their own identity.

And so I think that the point is, that we can find in our distribution of this, we're going to find the real America, which will step forward to meet us, because they will recognize themselves, their better selves, the better angels of their nature, in our publication and in our actions.

Q: [follow-up] One quick sentence about this: Hamilton's notion that wealth resides in the development of the power of labor, is exactly what made Lyn super-dangerous to the enemy in the period that he entered into the political arena in his own name, and is the fundamental fault line in the fight between monetarism and the new economic architecture: This notion that it is the development of the power of labor, through cognitive development, which is the source of wealth, and the non-physical is the source of wealth in economy. That is the wedge, the flank in the mind, which actually introduces the concept of imago viva Dei. And I think that that's the reason that the more you think about this, the more you find that you can reach people by introducing this conception, and I just wanted to emphasize that.

CHRISTIE: Actually, real quick, given that Lyn, the debate that he had where that threat was delivered, was the debate with Abba Lerner and it was delivered by some of the very same people that Dennis was just referring to: The threat to Lyn that said, we were defeated, and we will never allow you to defeat us again; in the debate where Lyn basically tripped what the British monarchy, or the forces of the Empire had thrown one of their key people to debate LaRouche and LaRouche got them to admit outright that that they were fascists. And so afterwards, they said, you'll never be allowed to do this again and that threat was delivered by some of the very people that Dennis just mentioned around the Congress for Cultural Freedom and these same people that are integral and controlling and degrading the culture.

Q: This is perfect. I was to give you guys a report, because I've been the person who's been leading the distribution on the ground. I'm Pim.

So, we were going to places in the morning, where people were getting off the ferry, the train, by the bus, different areas and locations in Manhattan, in the evening in Queens, giving out thousands of copies of The Hamiltonian with our activists. And I have to say, what I've remarked is people are very enthusiastic about picking up the newspaper, about seeing something new, about seeing people that are actually willing to do something. Because people are just so — picking being Trump and Hillary, they're driven nuts. [laughter] So they're looking for anything that's different, anyone with a solution. And then, if you stack on top of that, the danger of war that people are trying to put out of their minds, and then the bankruptcy of Wall Street — people were extremely happy to see us out there in a fighting spirit, giving these out.

And the latest copy, the one with "Obama Is a Failure" on it, I thought going to Queens last night, I'd get run out of the streets. But everybody has to admit, Obama is a complete failure, wherever they are on the political spectrum. So, in two hours we got out something like 500 copies; it was really, really fantastic.

That's my report. I don't know — you guys sort of answered everything already, if you have anything else to say.

Diane SARE: While Dave is adjusting his camera — he might have something to say — but I think that's really important and I'll make my plug now which I was going do at the end: Everyone here, and everybody who is in the New York metropolitan area who's listening to this later, online, should become part of this distribution. We really want to be in the situation that the 10,000 copies that we have per week right now are gone in a couple of days — and I don't mean because we dumped them, or we leave 500 copies at this place or another, but because they're going out and we're building a network that takes responsibility for this every single week. Because I think you're right, and that's a really interesting report, and this is only our third issue, and people are already coming up and saying "Do you have the latest? What's next? What's next?"

So we're clearly finding a real hunger for LaRouche's ideas. As you said something better, people are disgusted with what they are being told are their options. They are saying to themselves, "I know there has to be something else out there." And I just can't stress enough the importance of every single person here leaving this meeting with 100, 200, copies of this paper to get out to your neighborhood, or wherever you want to take them to distribute.

Q: [follow-up] Anyone with free time who is not coming out with us, having fun, you're missing out!

Q: This is Rick from Bergen County, New Jersey. This is kind of an unformed question, but it was provoked by Jason Ross's comment Thursday night that in talking about Einstein, that there were two models; scientists come up with mathematical models and he curiously stated that a guy by the name of Lorentz came up with a set of equations and that when Einstein did special relativity, he came up with the same set equations and they're called the Lorentzian equations. However, when you go into the physics behind the original Lorentz formulation you don't get relativity; it's only through Einstein that you get to relativity because Lorentz made certain assumptions about physics that Einstein realized weren't true.

This kind of fascinates me, because if you take the Lorentzian model and look at the Einstein model, perhaps one can glean some insight into Einstein's thinking by kind of subtracting the Lorentz stuff from the Einstein stuff, and what you'll be left with is the Einstein insight into the real physics that turned out to be so much more deep and have so many more implications.

My point is that if one's stuck with the original mathematical model, one could say "well, these are the same." Because the two models say the same thing, they're the same set of equations, so how could one get any more out of the Einstein. So it fascinates me and I want to pursue this, because one can get some insight into the creative process of Einstein through contrasting these two pictures. That's what I have to say.

CHRISTIE: Yeah, well, I'm not quite sure of the exact difference, and clearly need to do more work on this. But I think probably one of the key things to emphasize is, no discovery, including what Einstein did, always exists in the domain of the imagination first. How would you see processes at the atomic level? Even the reflection of a lot of what he was reflecting on was the question of light, this is somewhat of an outgrowth of all the discussions of the interrelationship of light, magnetism, electricity and the potential of gravity being related to those as well. But do you really ever see any of those things? You maybe see effects of it.

And so, the question of Einstein, as any creative mind, and he was very clear, you always see things in your imagination first and foremost, and clearly in this way the minute way in which light was to bend around, through the first proof with the observation of an eclipse that was going on, that the way the light bent around the distant star that they were looking at, that's so minute that has nothing to do with sense-perception.

That is also where Lyn often references to Einstein as a musician, but it's the same thing in music: Do you really ever see, or even really hear the music, the relationships that exist within the notes and so forth? You see it in your mind's eye, the case of Beethoven is critical to that because at the end of his life he couldn't even hear. And there was also this recent statement that Diane had pulled out from Helen Keller, that goes to that same issue as well.

That also has to be stressed, on what we've been discussing to the younger crowd, on the culture question, around the science question, of actually developing their imaginations, so that they can make these kinds of discoveries. Those are my initial thought, and I'll do more on the Lorentz transformations later.

SARE: I just wanted to add, because I actually don't think you're going to discover the insight into how Einstein thought by comparing however Lorentz came these so-called formulas, and Einstein did; or that somehow Lorentz was missing something that Einstein had. Because the question of method is completely different. And I think that more fruitful would be to think about, why Einstein played the violin. And I'll just leave it at that.

SPEED: And for those who are interested, later you can talk to Phil in the back, if you don't know what a Lorentz transformation is.

We're going to move on with the questions, and actually, we can have more discussions on it later.

Q: Good afternoon, this is Jessica White from Brooklyn. My question starts with a brief statement and a picture that I drew. It's not the best picture in the world, but I want people to try to remember this [drawing of a round bomb]. "The Bomb."

Now, I was thinking about some of the things that have occurred through leadership, specifically the leadership of Putin, and how history changes — you know, the bad guys somehow suddenly get a change of heart, and you wonder, what are the things that led up to this. Well, basically, what we're trying to do, is say, no matter who becomes President, we should shape the Presidency, we should shape the ideas and the policies of whichever one of these lunatics wins, because that's the only people that are going to win, one of them, and therefore you have to be able to change in some way, the minds of the people who are looking at this so-called President, and then that will make that President do the right thing as a leader.

Well, Putin is a leader, and we see that he has already changed the dynamic of Erdogan (I hope I'm pronouncing it correctly) in Turkey, where he was totally with the British Empire, willing to bomb the heck out of the Syrian forces on behalf of the British Empire and America. And so now he's kind of teamed up with Russia in defending the Syrian troops because he was basically given an offer he couldn't refuse.

So, now, I want to go back a little bit to look at Israel, which is hot button topic at all times, so I showed "The Bomb." Because if we remember, Netanyahu at the UN, and I watched part of even if it was sickening; showed this picture of this Bomb, and said "Iran is crazy. They — Iran — will have a nuclear bomb in one year and they will annihilate Israel unless you, the UN, join me to stop them." Now, with Putin being backed by BRICS and the New Silk Road policies, we see that Putin has offered to broker some type of agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and this is coming within the near future, maybe within the next year. So the Palestinian leaders and the leader of Israeli, who still is Netanyahu, I'm pretty sure, he's considering it.

Now, why is he considering it? Well, I call it the "stick and the carrot": Putin has a big stick, and he has bombs that are not nuclear; he has a bomb that is 44 million tons of TNT, which is I don't how many times bigger than Little Boy and Big Boy of Nagasaki and Hiroshima — but that's not the point; he also has the carrot. And there are things within the BRICS policies that Israel could benefit from.

And so he uses this situation, this power of having his word, and standing by his word as far as the power is concerned, but he has the BRICS nations also, and the idea of prosperity and development, the end of terrorism through development — he has that, too.

And, so, I'm saying that Clinton, once upon a time, was also trying to be the mediator between Israel and the Palestinian people, and he offered many things, or tried to, before he was sabotaged. So now we have Putin, who's offered to be this mediator and get these things settled between the Palestinian and Israeli state.

So my question is, what did Clinton offer? He didn't have the New Silk Road, but what were the kind of things that he was offering at that time, and what is Putin offering now and he does have the backing of the New Silk Road? What's the difference? Because we see true leadership in the President of Russia.

CHRISTIE: Well, actually, I want to come back to what Diane said on this question of method, because the way that the reductionism works is, you take a set of observations, you describe a certain pattern, or your mathematics is eventually to describe the pattern that you see; versus a creative discovery, which is to make an insight into the domain of principle, that then orders what you see with sense-perception.

And I say that, because a lot of what is going on right now, in terms of analysis of this situation and this goes to what you're getting at, which is, that there's something else going on, that is evident. Because you might look at the situation, say, in the case of Erdogan or the case of Netanyahu that under the [noise interruption] — anyway, if you were to approach the situation under the rules of the present game, which were the rules of the present game — British geopolitics — you would look at all these characters, whether it be Netanyahu or Erdogan — and see if I looked at what they're doing from that standpoint, it wouldn't make any sense. But here you have an entirely new conception coming into being which is what Putin represents is the core of the leadership, but clearly Xi Jinping of China, and Modi from India, you're seeing a different quality of leadership, which is determined by the fact that they intend to create a different future, and it's a future that does not exist under the fault lines of British imperial geopolitics; but rather, from the standpoint that we have to define relations between nations based on progress, based on physical economic growth and you do that through science and technology and development of culture. Remember part of what they're doing with the Silk Road is cultural, you have Silk Road symphony orchestras. So that's where you're seeing, I believe now, these shifts that are going on, because you're not making observations and trying to curve-fit and create a system, because it doesn't rely on the present system; it's coming from without.

Now, I think the other side of this is part of what the better side of Bill Clinton represented was being done in coordination with LaRouche. There was the whole dialogue that is really the seed crystal of what we're seeing with the new paradigm, the BRICS; Sergey Lavrov made the statement on occasion of the first birthday of the late Prime Minister of Russia Yevgeny Primakov after his death last year; he said, "before there was the BRICS, there was the RIC" the "strategic triangle" [Russia, India, China], and we've discussed that. But this has been a long brawl and the better side of Clinton was that he was oriented in that direction. And I think that would be, that's the only way you can have peace in the Middle East, that's the only way you could get rid of these geopolitical fault lines is just get rid of geopolitics and go to a new conception, and clearly the Silk Road — I mean, the Middle East is the crossroads of civilization. You just look at it geographically: It's the gateway from Europe to Asia and Africa, and the peace is going to be defined by bringing into being the Silk Road.

Q: [follow-up] Thank you. I also wanted to say, you're absolutely right, I didn't talk about the question or the idea of Clinton's collaboration with LaRouche, which is like you said, the major part of the better part of Clinton, and also we're not talking about Hillary, OK?

CHRISTIE: Yep! I think what Hillary represents is just the cover for Obama to continue with these — the British are desperate; they don't have a lot of time. The new paradigm is being consolidated, but the question of us bringing the U.S. Presidency back to sanity is critical.

Q: Good afternoon, my name is S__L__ from the Upper West Side, Harlem. My question is, and this is for all three of you, if you can: Oct. 1st is when China gets its cut of the SDR, it's going to be 20% taken away from the U.S and 20% given to China. That's going to cause a major currency devaluation almost overnight. Everyone that I listen to, LaRouche PAC, X-22, SG Report and all the guests they have, there's a sense of alarm now. There's no longer, "we're a couple years away, we're months away, we're weeks away," there's a sense of alarm that Oct. 1st, some very detrimental things are going to occur.

How can we segue a little bit quicker — I mean, even if we got a new Presidency in, the speed or the time that we could change our policy over to, "Well, let's go along with China" still wouldn't be enough to stop that currency devaluation from occurring and chaos breaking out. So what can be done?

CHRISTIE: Helga Zepp-LaRouche just made the point that if the U.S. does not want to sabotage, and this is frankly for Europe as well, the trans-Atlantic power, does not want to sabotage the agenda for the G20, they can start immediately with passing Glass-Steagall, the writedown of the derivatives and motion towards Lyn's Four Laws. Otherwise, doing nothing is an act of sabotage, and that's what we see now.

I would just say this on all this stuff, the SDR — actually there is a recent report — , and some of this I have some people that I've been talking to about these so-called crypto-currencies, bitcoin and things like this, and people get fascinated, and they say, "this is totally against The Man, and it's just a pure market theory concept and we don't have to engage in what the international banks are trying to manipulate and the central banks," and on and on. And then it turns out that there was just recently a report that there's a consortium of the top six banks including JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Santander and they all want to move toward these crypto-currency type things, whatever they call them, so they can facilitate their transactions without the middlemen. Who's the middlemen? It's the county-level regulators where you have to register sales and so on, so we can make sure we know what the hell's going on with transactions.

So the point is, all this stuff on the monetarism, whatever form it may take, is a form of insanity. And the way we're going to deal with the imminent blowout is exactly, as Lyn has prescribed, with the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall.

There was this Neel Kashkari of the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis, he said this, and I haven't investigated it fully, but he said the Federal Reserve has in its charter an ability to implement Glass-Steagall in effect, the banking separation and so on, in coordination with the FDIC on their own. And I say that, not because I expect the Federal Reserve in its present condition is intending to do that, but I'm saying things can happen in this kind of a moment in ways that we may not think. You know, the Berlin Wall did not come down because there was an election, or a referendum that brought it down. It came down because the present system at that time could no longer serve the needs of humanity and it crumbled under the weight of its own corruption.

And so, things can happen, if we provide the leadership and clarity, and that's what our intervention around the institution of the Presidency is; it's not around electoral politics, it's around shaping the idea-content of the institution so we can act in this moment of crisis.

SPEED: I think we have two more questions and then I'd like to have Phil Rubinstein say a few things, because I think that the last several exchanges have been about the exactly the same topic. And I would rather reserve what I could say about that — that is, this issue that people are referring to, as the Lorentz transformations, but is not the issue at all; just as the date Oct. 1st, is not the issue at all. Jason Ross said something this week, and he said, there is no such thing an instant, it does not exist. And he was saying this in the context of trying to talk to people about how Einstein thought. Diane's already referred to something concerning Einstein's violin.

And we should have our questions. But I think it's important just to say, there's no need to go down the wrong direction in thinking about these things. You want to know the difference between the issue of what happened with Putin and the question of Clinton? Well Clinton was actually President of the United States, the U.S. had a President! You don't have one now! Putin is actually President of Russia. He's actually a leader. That's the difference. And there are things we can say about the two different processes; we already referenced that. But you can't analyze things from an inertial frame of reference. Which is what Lorentz did.

That's not all that happened, and I don't want to presume to try to say something; I'm not going to say something incompetent which is one of the reasons I want Phil to come up and comment, so Lyn doesn't kill me! [laughter] For saying something stupid.

But I think if we take up these two questions we should take up this matter that's sort of emerged underneath. And it's really on the question of Einstein and how he thought.

Q: Hi Dave, this is Alvin. Pim talked about the activities increasing around the broadsheet I want to talk a bit about the activity around the buildup for the concerts. And we have been moving steadily uphill. As Pim said, he was leading the delegation of those deployments. I'm happy to report that I'm not, really; that it's being done by a group of young people, one in particular, all of whom have either their first year of the science and music program; others have been involved in that for several years. And I've been this kind of surrogate and it's a very interesting process to go through. Yes some supervision required, but I think oftentimes, we require more than they do. If you just let them do what they do. So I was successful in that regard.

Earlier it was mentioned on The Hamiltonian principle and awful "Hamilton" play. Well, this week, every night, and last night was the first night of the HD outdoor series at Lincoln Center and the movie they presented was "Amadeus." Which next to "Hamilton" I think, would stand as one of the most awful attacks against one of the greatest minds. And I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the kids on this in one of our breaks before we went out for a second time. And they found it very useful.

I began by saying, "Don't get me wrong, I liked it too, at one point. But let's go into what that actually is, and the whole idea of, when you say you're a genius, it seems to be synonymous with also a pervert, or a freak; or some sort of self-centered being, that out of nowhere just happens to create something that is like God, but the rest of the time they stay in Hell." So, we had a lot of fun with that, and it helped with the distribution. We had nine kids out there and in two hours — it was something, because I was able to float now; we had a lot of flyers and good representation, and at times, I would find myself saying "those girls are talking too long, they're standing too close together," and well — they did all of that, and they got out 2,000 flyers in 2 hours, so... And we'll be back at it again.

It was interesting to share, because I find my own beliefs on how you should handle and run something, where I found this inclination to set something up that appeared to be wrong, and the more I stayed out of it, the better it was. The only time they did sort of panic, was boy, when that rush starts coming and those throngs of people, they got a little panicky, and tended to pull together. But we straightened that out too. Tonight, they're doing Le Nozze di Figaro, so we won't have too much intervening to do there.

CHRISTIE: I think that stands on its own. I'm also waiting for the "wise words of Phil Rubinstein."

SPEED: There's one more question.

Q: Hi. This is just to harken back to an earlier part of the discussion, but it came to my mind as things were being elaborated, that you run into this problem, where you're trying to organize different layers of society, including scientific workers, people involved in fusion research and you're trying to get them to see the necessity of the political fight that we're engaged in; and it made me think of a very provocative and funny quote from Vladimir Vernadsky who said, that "thought is not a form of energy, how then does it change material processes?" And it just occurred to me like "Wow! If people doing fusion research just thought of that, just for a minute or two, maybe they'd be more interested in participating the work that we're engaged in as a political fight."

Because if you think you're going to get fusion and that's going to solve all your problems — it's not! Because what's really the factor that's required is, a thought. It's an idea. And it's called, the U.S. Presidency. What is it? Look at Hamilton; that'll give you a pretty idea of what the Presidency, as an idea that needs to be implemented as a factor to summon up the powers of society to do the good, that'll give you an idea. Look at LaRouche's work in economics. That'll give you an idea. Anyway, I thought I'd bring that up as something to contribute to the discussion and see what you thought about that.

CHRISTIE: Yeah. It just goes to the core of our discussion so far, which is, if we allowed ourselves to be stuck within the rules of the game that have been provided for us in this crazy election process, — forget about it, there's no hope for anything. But that is not what is setting the global agenda right now, and that is being set by — you know, Lyndon LaRouche keeps referring to the leadership of Putin, but it's in the process of what he's actually leading which is this new paradigm.

I thought I'd say a few brief words, because I can see this from out there, not to speak from a localized sense, because what's happening in the Pacific Northwest right now that I can see in terms of the openness from international layers, it's very much being determined by what China, Russia, India and so forth, around the Silk Road, and that's being done. I know in Manhattan it's a bit different: It is an international center. Languages are being spoken there that don't even exist in other parts of the world. However, in the Northwest, and West Coast in general, we're sort of at the frontiers, but what's defining the sense of — Seattle for a long time was thought of as the place where everybody ran to, to "get away from it all"; well, it's about to become the gateway to the Pacific, the gateway to the U.S. and North America entering this new paradigm around the Silk Road.

And the other thing that's important to recognize, is once we start opening these things up, we're going to find out an amazing interrelationship: For example, here, because of the close relationship that the Northwest has with Alaska, the idea of the Bering Strait Tunnel oftentimes excites people's imagination, like "Wow! Think of it!" You look at from a globe, it makes sense, of course: It's the quickest route right through the Bering Strait, right up and over into Asia.

But you're also going to open up, when you open up this transportation, not simply as a railroad that can get you from Point A to Point B, but as a development corridor, you can open up a whole capability of developing the Arctic region; and we discussed this years back, but the Arctic development is integral to the space program. It's sort of a laboratory for different — because of the harsh conditions, it's almost like being on another planet. So there's other aspects of it, that we haven't even explored, like Shaviv and Svensmark just came out with a report, where they're showing the relationship of cosmic radiation to the solar cycles, that allow for more cosmic radiation, which affects cloud cover, and so on; that they can now find those correlations not over aeons, but find them within a few years. So these are the kinds of things that we can find out with the Arctic question, like auroras, that there's all kinds of activity around cosmic radiation that we have yet to explore.

I have more to say on that, but I don't want to go too far here. But really you can see the excitement and what people have as a sense of the future is not being defined by the present realities of the United States. It's being defined by a sense of what could be and the future that is now unfolding within Eurasia. And we just have to keep bringing that to the American people, to say, "You're not in actual reality. You're in a created, pseudo-reality, but this is what's actually defining the planet."

Q: Good evening, I am from the tiny Caribbean multi-island-state of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Many people have never heard of it.

As far back as 1981, our then government formed a diplomatic relation with the country of Taiwan. Today, that government is a delicate political balance of power with the opposition which is led by a development economist, and he has announced three days ago, that according to a dispute in the courts, if that goes his party's way later next month, he would be adopting a one-China policy. Now this has sparked a lot of furor.

And people like me, we think this is a brilliant move. The other people bringing up what I call uninformed comments and arguments, they're asking what is there to be gained from a one-China policy, and things to me which seem very frivolous about China's human rights record and so on. So I'm asking you in that context, countries like ours, who need infrastructure development, who need a quantum leap in that area, what our your thoughts on this policy, and how should countries like ours proceed?

CHRISTIE: Maybe because of the time, and I thought Phil was going say a few words — he's actually been there; he and his wife Leni have done significant work there and probably has good insights, so I'll just leave that immediate question.

But you go back to the old geopolitics, Mackinder and the British always were afraid that Russia and its related Central Asia, would be that bridge between Asia and Europe. And the wars, the First World War and even before that, the Russo-Japanese War, the Sino-Japanese War, it all comes down to this sense of British geopolitics, where these first ring nations, which included Japan, Australia, South Africa, all the British, which was to basically isolate and keep that from happening, keep Russia from becoming this bridge. And so those nations with the potential of Japan to shift, or the potential of Taiwan to shift; or obviously with South Africa, we're seeing them move in this direction, the potential of that being created, not because of a fight within the present paradigm, but because this new system is coming into being, and that has to be defined as Renée pointed out earlier, and it is the productive powers of labor.

It's Hamilton, but LaRouche is more fundamental, or his new development of that concept as Ian just referenced with Vernadsky, LaRouche has actually brought in physical science, chemistry and these kinds of processes, as a literal part of physical economy, it's just trade and these kind of things, but the development of the whole biosphere and the integrated relationship that the power of ideas has to transform.

But as far as the one-China policy, maybe I would let that be answered otherwise.

SPEED: Phil?

PHIL RUBINSTEIN: Well, I have to laugh. I guess I'm the one who gets to be incompetent — but anyway. [laughter]

On this one-China, you know, the Taiwanese believe in one-China, and there's an increasing degree, even with the new President to recognize that there's going to have to be a serious relationship with China. So I think we have to put it in the context of the broader point that we began with, that really, right now what's about to happen at the G20, between Russia and China and so forth, is going to dominate what goes on in big countries, little countries — remember, Hamilton came, I believe from St. Kitts, so we have to look properly at the Caribbean.

But on this other point, I would call people's attention to the fact that both at the Thursday night Fireside Chat and then last night on the webcast, and then we had a bit of a discussion on Wednesday, there have been discussions largely led by Jason Ross on this question of why Lyn has brought up Albert Einstein at this point. And there will be more: The weekly report New Paradigm show was done by the Science Team and has been somewhat in abeyance, is about to make a reappearance. And on questions like the far side of the Moon, Einstein, — take the far side of the Moon, this is a question about our further development of an ability to answer and deal with astronomical questions. There are certain kinds of things we can do from the far side of the Moon, that we can't do from anywhere on the planet Earth.

I would just take one point, on this question of Einstein, because there's too many things to deal with in a short description: But I think relevant to this question that Rick brought up on the Lorentz contraction, which Rick knows the mathematics probably better than I do; but the issue that came up is that basically there was an incoherence in physics, period. That is, the idea there were universal laws, laws that apply no matter what the condition of your inertial frame of reference, as Dennis put it, no matter what your constant motion is, the same laws apply. Or, put a different way, you couldn't tell that you were moving by some of the ways in which the mechanics of your train or whatever you were in, you couldn't tell that you were moving by simple changes in the laws of physics; the laws of physics were the same everywhere.

Now, this ran into a number of anomalies, not just the one that's famously known, but often misunderstood, and that is, that when they tried to measure the effect of moving through the ether, you needed an ether for the electromagnetic waves supposedly by the classical physics; so when they tried to measure the effect of moving through the ether at the speed of light, they found there was no effect. Somehow, some of the laws, the so-called Galilean transformations didn't work.

There were other things, by the way, not just that. There were incoherences in the application of Newtonian mechanics to electromagnetism, for example. So this was a big issue, because if you're a physicist, you don't want laws that work for your neighborhood, or like a quarter of the planet, or some part of the Solar System. Physics should be discovering, science should be discovering universal principles, universal laws, and then changing them if they have to. So Lorentz came up with the so-called Lorentz transformations, and he was a leading physicist, and the idea was that the measuring rods were contracting in the direction of motion; so that, when you tried to measure the motion of the Earth through the ether, your measuring rod would contract and it would seem to be the same speed.

Now, the contraction works. It's frankly a mathematical fudge and Lorentz was smart enough to make the transformation work. It wasn't wrong.

So the real issue that comes up with Einstein is a different one, and I think it is related to why Lyn refers to Einstein: It's a matter of intellectual guts. It's a matter of political and intellectual courage. Because Einstein said, "No, this can't be the way the Universe is." In effect, he said, God wouldn't make a Universe like that. The Creator wouldn't have done it. And that's very much the way Lyn approaches looking at the world: We can't accept this situation, and it's not true.

So what Einstein did, is he accepted the principle that the laws of physics were uniform, no matter what your inertial motion, that is your constant motion, moving at a constant speed. But he said, also, the speed of light is constant; that is, no matter what the speed of the source of the light everybody will measure the same velocity for the light. It doesn't change.

Now that was a very shocking principle, because what it also did, was it meant that time was not fixed. There was no absolute time. In Einstein's application of it, you not only had a length dilation, you had a time dilation: That is, the faster you were moving, the slower your clocks were moving. And there was no such thing as simultaneity, because in order to something to be simultaneous you have to have an observer at a given place receiving the light from both sides at an equal distance. But if somebody is moving relative to the guy on the railroad bank, he's not going to measure that rod at the same time; he's going to measure it as occurring at a different time.

So Einstein changed the whole idea of time. And what I mean by that is, look, there's always four coordinates: You're somewhere in space and you're somewhere in time. That's in classical physics. But in classical physics, time is fixed for everybody, there is somehow an absolute time that ticks away, that we're referring to when we measure things Einstein says, no, time is a coordinate, that is, it changes. You can rotate and you'll get a different measurement of time. You can move and a fixed observer will measure a different time than the person in the moving box.

So he had the courage to blow up standard physics. It was political and intellectual courage, that's the relevance. It's not that you would deduce from the relationship between the Lorentz contraction and special relativity.  This is something I saw one reasonably interesting physicist say:  It was the political and intellectual courage to say, "I'm going to give up the existing standards, I'm going to go against the peer-group physicists..." which, by the way, keep in mind, special relativity was not accepted by the mass of physicists when it first came out.  This only became relatively accepted by about the time that Einstein went to Berlin at the request of Max Planck, who of course was a famous leading physicist, and that was 1914; so somewhere in between 1905 and 1914, this became generally accepted.

Now, it also is relevant in the sense that Einstein stood against the indifferentism of modern science.  Modern science, the whole point of the hegemony of the Copenhagen interpretation, so-called, of quantum physics, is that everything is probabilistic;  we cannot know what reality is.  We can use certain kinds of mathematical models, to make predictions that work, most of the time.  But we cannot know and we cannot go beyond this.  This is a complete physics, not in the sense that we know everything, but in the sense that it's all we can know: We're finished.  Basic physics has been done.

And Einstein said, "No, that simply is not true.  There is a reality behind this apparent probabilism."  And he stood for that during his entire life, and he was mocked for it, despite what you hear about him being a... he was mocked in the physics world, then you get a lot of this crazy stuff that came up, he stole it, etc.  But, he stood for a quality of the human mind; he stood for the idea that there might be a principle of causality more akin to music, which he said, famously in  an interview.

So it's not as though he's right about everything, that's not the point.  The point is, that he had a certain intellectual, moral courage about the ideas he was working on.  I think that even goes back to Marcel's original question about the 16-year-old: Part of the problem is we don't expect 16-year-olds any more to have any standards.  One question to ask the person is, "what good are you going to do?"  Complaining about the fact that human beings sometimes act like animals is not going to change anything.  If you think you can do good, that proves that human beings are good. You don't need to prove it with 7 billion people:  One case is enough to prove that there's good.  And that's the kind of thing, I think that  Einstein was working on.

And Lyn did say to I think Jason, he said it also in a conversation I had:  He understands Einstein.  And I think to a large extent this is what he means.  He understands the character of the intellect, not just in praise of an intellect. The character he had in these fights, which is what also allowed him to make the discoveries.  You can't really be creative without a certain character, a moral character, that drives you to commit yourself to what's true.

So I think I'll leave it at that. [applause]

SPEED:  So Dave, do you have anything in conclusion?

CHRISTIE:  I just want to thank everybody for the discussion.  It was a good discussion.  And I think the point that Phil made is crucial.  And I also think that this is a time where as this new paradigm has the potential to come into existence, that we remember who created it, and it has been Lyn with that same moral courage, to bring this into existence.  And we have to keep that in mind in this discussion process that we're involved in, we haven't even dug through what Lyn has done! There's probably people in the Russian Academy of Sciences, people in the top level of the Chinese scientific community that are actually ploughing through LaRouche's economics as the guideposts, as the core of what this new paradigm represents.  So we have to have that style amongst ourselves.

SPEED:  Good.  We want to thank you also Dave for joining us today. And we're going to get to work.



Also Relevant