March 6, 2015 - Friday Webcast with Jeffrey Steinberg

March 6, 2015 - Friday Webcast with Jeffery Steinberg

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it's March 6, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly webcast from Tonight I'm joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Basement Science Team. And the three of us had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier this afternoon. So the remarks you hear tonight will directly reflect what both of their outlooks on the current situation is.

So I'm just going to begin with our institutional question for the evening, Jeff, and read it, and you can deliver what Mr. LaRouche's response was to this. It reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, with the actions of the Eurozone finance ministers and the European Central Bank, it is clear that a showdown is nearing over whether or not Greece will remain within the Economic and Monetary Union [emu]. Regardless of that outcome, Greece is facing an urgent need to rebuild the real economy, create meaningful jobs, particularly for the youth population with 50% unemployment, and set a future course of long-term development. What are your recommendations to the Greek government, and how can they meet these urgent challenges? Thank you."

JEFFREY STEINBERG: As Matt said, we had a very extensive discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche just a few hours ago, and Mr. LaRouche had a very, very precise response to this institutional question, and I took fairly copious notes, so what I'm going to read to you, are Mr. LaRouche's comments. These are not a transcript, these are not verbatim, but I think they capture the precise essence of what he had to say.

He said, the real bankruptcy is in the London-Wall Street trans-Atlantic system as a whole. The question being asked by Russia and many other nations today, is whether the Europeans and the United States under Obama can survive their own foolishness, or whether their actions will lead to world war, and a possibility of general extermination. Queen Elizabeth and her circles may appreciate the idea of general war, but I don't. Greece, fortunately, does have a place. They can join the other club. They can become a part of the BRICS process. A growing part of the world is breaking from the Anglo-American interests, and this is now including a majority of nations of South and Central America and the Caribbean. Of course, this also includes many nations of Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Africa.

So Mr. LaRouche continued. He said, to put it in blunt terms, the EMU is bluffing in the case of Greece. They're attempting to blackmail Greece. This is very foolish for Western Europe and the United States. Greece has a unique and close relationship with Russia, as well as with China, and this is their gateway into the BRICS alternative.

What we are seeing in the confrontation with Greece, as well as the confrontation with Russia, is a last, desperate effort to bluff. The danger is, that at the end of this bluff, is nuclear war. The challenge for most Americans, is that they cannot conceive of the insanity that is driving this policy of bluff and provocation. They cannot conceive, for the most part, that anyone is willing to risk the suicidal extermination of mankind. This is insanity beyond comprehension, yet this is what we are dealing with in the case of Obama, the British, and other desperate forces.

Now, Greece has a long history as a maritime power. It goes all the way back to the period after Zeus was killed. Greece has a maritime characteristic, and that is the basis for Greece becoming an integral part of the BRICS paradigm. China is already looking at Greece as a key Mediterranean terminus of the New Silk Road.

It looks like the Greeks are being force to leave the European system. I say, it is in Greece's interest to leave. The European system is hopelessly bankrupt. The European system is disintegrating. Greece can take the lead in breaking up a system that has been rotten and destructive from the outset. By leaving the Eurozone, Greece can expose the fraud. That's how you beat them: expose the fact that they are a bunch of bankrupt bluffers and fakers. Their system is disintegrating, and all they have left is the threat of war. Obama is the same thing, part of the same bankrupt system. Obama's fraud against Russia can lead to the destruction of the human species. Stick with Obama, and you get a free ticket to extermination.

Now, let me just add, that last year Executive Intelligence Review, working primarily through our European bureaus, produced a proposal, a Marshall Plan for the Mediterranean region, which covered Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the countries of the Maghreb region of Africa stretching all the way to Egypt, and up into the Eastern Mediterranean coastal region and beyond. And this is a critical piece of what is now becoming a potential integrated part of the Chinese-initiated New Silk Road/Maritime Silk Road, which does represent a viable future for mankind. So Greece for historical as well as current strategic reasons has unique opportunity to call the bluff of the European Central Bank and the Eurozone finance ministers, walk away from the euro, knowing that this will provide the opportunity for the other countries in the Mediterranean region, Italy, Spain, Portugal, stretching all the way up to Ireland.

This will bring about the end of a bankrupt system and force the issue in the right way, and will call the bluff on those people who are not only promoting a further looting genocide of Greece and the other Mediterranean countries, but are actually taking measures that could lead to a war of extermination.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, I think what you can tell from what Jeff just reviewed from Mr. LaRouche, what Mr. LaRouche emphasized during our discussion earlier this afternoon with him, was that his job, and our job generally, is to say what most people are too terrified to say, or even to think about. And in an environment which is completely dominated at this point by total wartime propaganda, you can really see very clearly the fact that the role that LaRouche PAC plays in this regard is absolutely crucial.

I think that the most clear example of that from this week was what Mr. LaRouche did in the aftermath of the murder of Boris Nemtsov. And what Mr. LaRouche said in denouncing the attempted frameup of President Vladimir Putin of Russia in regards to the murder of Boris Nemtsov, and asking the obvious question, which was, who stands to gain from the killing of Nemtsov? Whose benefit was this killing in? Clearly not Vladimir Putin's. And it's very clear, that this is being used to just continue to feed the absolute hysteria around what I think you could probably call the "Nuland narrative." Victoria Nuland herself was on Capitol Hill this past week, along with Mikheil Saakashvili, the former, disgraced President of Georgia, who's now an advisor to the Poroshenko government in Ukraine; Garry Kasparov; former Ambassador to Ukraine Steven Pifer, several other think-tankers, all of whom were testifying in front of the House and the Senate, beating the drums for nuclear war against Russia. And now you've got John Boehner, plus ten other leadership members of the House of Representatives, circulating a letter demanding the immediate provision of lethal arms to the Kiev, Ukrainian government forces.

Now, following Mr. LaRouche's denunciation of the attempted frameup of Putin, around the Nemtsov case, you've had a number of other very prominent people who have begun to echo his point in the past several days, pointing out that this operation has all the hallmarks of a set-up job, an attempt to try to precipitate a regime-change operation against Putin, against the Putin government, inside Russia.

And, I think, quite significantly, President Putin himself is on record warning about just such a provocation, already back in 2012, at which point he was running for President. And, speaking as a candidate at that time—this is in 2012—he was asked about the role of provocateurs in destabilizing the situation inside Russia, and he said the following. This is a quote:

"The people you mentioned really want some kind of clashes; they are pushing for that, and are even prepared to sacrifice somebody and blame the authorities. I know this method and these tactics. For a decade there have been attempts to use them, especially abroad. This is true, and I know about it. They are even looking for a so-called sacrificial lamb, somebody famous. They would off him — excuse me for the expression — and then blame the authorities. People over there are capable of anything. I'm not exaggerating. I hope that those who sincerely want to see improvements in the situation in the country and are exercising their right to criticize and demonstrate, will not fall for this, but everybody should be aware of it."

So, I think that's very clear, and extremely prescient, and obviously applies directly to the situation around the tragic murder of Mr. Nemtsov. And, President Putin reiterated this, in a speech he delivered, I think on Wednesday, the day before yesterday, to the Interior Ministry, where he said that the "audacious murder of Boris Nemtsov, right in the center of Moscow, was a politically motivated crime," and he warned about attempts to use what he called the "color revolution technology," the aim of which he said "is to provoke civil conflict and strike a blow at our country's constitutional foundations, and ultimately, even at our sovereignty."

So, Mr. LaRouche's point about this, earlier today, was that what we're seeing here, is the last-ditch desperate efforts of Obama and other representatives of a thoroughly bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system, who are reflecting what he called a degree of "Zeusian insanity," which goes beyond the comprehension of most of the average citizens of the United States. He said that this is being driven by the knowledge that their entire system is bankrupt, and they can't hold it together any longer. And, that this is the key factor that you have to take into account, both when it comes to what's happening with Russia, as well as the situation with Greece.

So, Jeff, I just wanted to ask, what more do we know about the specific circumstances surrounding this latest escalation against Russia? What are the other factors that have to be acknowledged that are occurring simultaneously? And, what are the necessary steps that we must take to prevent this escalation towards a third world war?

STEINBERG: Sometime back, President Putin said—I don't remember the precise venue, but I remember the point he was making—he said, if there wasn't the Ukraine crisis, which the West is blaming on Russia, they would have either invented one, or come up with another excuse, because the real target in this entire exercise, is Russia, and, secondarily, China.

Now, look at the situation on the ground in eastern Ukraine. By and large, the agreement worked out among the four Normandy heads of State—Putin, Poroshenko, Hollande, and Merkel—has been implemented, particularly on the part of the pro-Russian forces. The Luhansk and Donestsk Republics have pulled back most of their heavy equipment, as specified by the most recent Minsk agreement. In fact, if anybody is significantly lagging behind, it's the Ukrainian forces, because some of the battalions that have been must brutal in the east of Ukraine, are not part of the regular Ukrainian army, but are part of these Right Sector-dominated militias that are run by local oligarchs, and they've openly come out and said that they have no intention of abiding by the Minsk agreements.

So, in a certain very real sense, Ukraine itself is not the issue that it was, even several weeks ago, yet, the targetting of Russia, the targetting of Putin, is escalating dramatically, and it's no longer related to Ukraine; it's a direct, immediate, provocation, directed against Russia.

Yesterday, four NATO battle ships entered the Black Sea for extensive maneuvers that will involve a number a number of the NATO countries that are right in the Black Sea region: Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey. And, the Russians' response has been to say that Russia will conduct certain air maneuvers that are direct rehearsals for suppressing exactly the kind of NATO deployment that's being exercised right now. There are other Russian maneuvers going on, of several thousand troops in the Western District within a very close distance to the Ukraine border.

So, what we have here, is a situation, in which the direct tensions between the United States and NATO on the one side, and Russia on the other, are intensifying at a point when the level of actual trust and communication between the top leaders of the United States and Russia is at an all-time low. During some of the darkest moments of the Cold War, when people were frightened about the prospect of nuclear war; during the 13 days in 1962 of the Cuban Missile Crisis; during the period in the immediate aftermath of Russia rejecting, under [yuri] Andropov, President Reagan's proposal for collaboration on the Strategic Defense Initiative—these were periods where there was a grave fear that we were very close to the edge of thermonuclear war.

Those situations pale in comparison, with the danger that we face right at this moment. Number one, the relationship between President Obama and Putin is virtually nonexistent. The fact that President Obama, early in his Presidency, send Michael McFaul, a known agitator, whose career track record, whose academic credentials, centered around color-revolution regime change, was sent to Moscow, as the U.S. Ambassador, was a very clear message that President Obama intended to have no relationship whatsoever, no collaboration, no deliberation whatsoever, with President Putin of Russia.

And, the situation has gone from bad to worse. McFaul was named this week, explicitly, by one of the Greek strategic analysts [Ilias Iliopoulos], who wrote about the Nemtsov assassination. And he said, that Nemtsov was a perfect target for those in the West running the color revolution against Russia. And, among the reasons that Nemtsov was such a viable target, was number one, he posed absolutely no threat to Putin. Nemtsov had been part of the 1990s apparatus that looted Russia blind from the inside, in conjunction with the British. Nemtsov was associated with Yeltsin, with [boris] Berezovsky, with [anatoly] Chubais, and was considered to be somebody who was widely despised inside Russia. So, he posed absolutely no threat to President Putin, but, was in contact directly with Ambassador Mike McFaul, when he was still in Moscow. So he's a perfect target to be the fall-guy, for McFaul, Victoria Nuland, and the British apparatus that have been behind the scenes, a driving factor in pushing this war confrontation with Russia. The British House of Lords this week produced what's being billed as the most comprehensive study yet, of the events leading up to and following the Maidan Square coup in Ukraine. And needless to say, the House of Lords places 100% of the blame on Putin and on Russia.

So, the British are in the middle of attempting to escalate the provocations between Obama, who they've got in their hip pocket, and the Russians. It's very reminiscent of how the British played the Germany under Hitler game with the Soviet Union in the Second World War.

Now, the Russians are not about to succumb to the bluff and the threat. The chief of operations of the Russian strategic force, their triad of nuclear weapons capabilities, which they've modernized tremendously since 2008, gave a statement this past week, which was widely publicized in Russia, and picked up around the world. And he said very clearly: Any kind of action that is directed against Russia that aims at regime change, that is an attempt to force Russia to back down, will be responded to with a strategic strike.

He recognized and explicitly pointed out that there is a new, evolving NATO doctrine which is based on the idea that it is possible to carry out limited nuclear war, restricted to the immediate vicinity of the center of Eurasia, directed against Russia, perhaps at some point directed against China and India. But these ideas were circulating around in the early years of the Cold War: You had the RAND Corp., you had Herman Kahn, famously at the Hudson Institute, talking about 54 steps of escalation of nuclear conflict before you got to a full-scale thermonuclear war.

This madness was disproven at the time. The danger is that back then, it was a bunch of academic fantasy-life, on government payroll. But today, we're in a situation where the United States is going through a modernization of the 180 tactical nuclear weapons that are forward based in Europe, directed against Russia. They're being expanded in range, there are new guidance systems that are more accurate. The idea is that somehow or other, by reducing the payload to where it is a less extreme nuclear explosion, that somehow or other the Russians will respond in a limited fashion and you can have a contained notion of nuclear war.

Well, the Russians just blew that whole idea out of the water, with the statement by the operations chief of their strategic force who said no way! If there is any kind of limited strike against Russia, the Russian response will be an immediate, total strategic retaliation. Which means that the people who are pushing the provocations against Russia, who are willing to take a desperate bluff, are running the risk, whatever in their demented minds they think they're provoking, of triggering a general thermonuclear war of extermination. That's the danger.

And you have a desperation, that's drive by the fact that this entire London-centered, Wall Street-centered, trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. Greece has put a punctuation mark on that, and has greatly reduced the timeframe in which the showdown will take place.

And secondly, you have this insane notion being promoted, once again, that some kind of utopian fantasy of limited nuclear war, of population reduction that can be geographically circumscribed in the center of Eurasia and will not affect the United States, will not affect other peripheral areas, this idea, is the greatest danger in the current strategic situation, because the world, the real world doesn't operate on those kinds of insane utopian ideas. And if one side tries to actually put them to a test, when they're bluff is called, then the likelihood is that the Russian response will lead to the kind of war of extinction that very few people here in this country, or even around the world in other parts of the world, are capable of conceiving.

This is why you're getting an outpouring of certain senior diplomats, people like Jack Matlock, who have been repeatedly warning, echoing what Mr. LaRouche has been warning about for the last several years, that we're not facing some kind of limited conflict, but we're facing the imminent danger of a war of extinction.

So that's the situation. There are clearly leading people at the top of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are aware of these dangers, who are concerned about them, who've maintained lines of communication with their Russia and Chinese counterparts as an effort to try to avoid the worst happening. But the problem is, that, when you have a President of the United States under the thumb of the British, and driven by this desperation, there are dangerous limitations even on what the Joint Chiefs of Staff are capable of preventing from happening.

So that's where we are right now, and the Nemtsov assassination was another indication that we're moving precariously close to this showdown moment.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we're also joined tonight by Megan Beets, whom I'm sure most of you are familiar with. I don't want to say too much before handing the podium over to her, but I just want to emphasize again the point that Mr. LaRouche was making this afternoon and what Jeff just elaborated. That even though most Americans will tend to underestimate this factor, the key element which is driving this threat of thermonuclear war right now, is the fact that we're not dealing with so-called "rational" actors. A rational person would not think in this way. But the psychology of that oligarchical principle, which we're dealing with when it comes to the current representatives of this trans-Atlantic system, you're seeing an element of Zeusian insanity — that was the way Mr. LaRouche put it — in the face of the challenge, an existential challenge, that they see to their power, which is coming from the BRICS and allied nations at this time. It's an oligarchical psychology that will tend to lead towards the genocidal destruction of a large portion of the human race if it's not stopped.

And Mr. LaRouche emphasized that this is something that we've seen as a recurring factor throughout European history. You know, it's only through the recognition of the oligarchical principle of a real force of evil, and the commitment to not allow this to occur, that civilization has been saved before in the past, and that civilization can be saved again now. The example that Mr. LaRouche has been citing quite a bit recently, is the connection between Joan of Arc and Nicholas of Cusa. And he's been emphasizing that, despite the killing of Joan of Arc by her enemies, it was this event which contributed significantly to crystallizing what we now know as the European Renaissance, which was born out of the efforts of Nicholas of Cusa.

And what Mr. LaRouche emphasized today is that this is a history that very few people know anything about, but it's very significant, not only from the standpoint of allowing people to understand what the true creative forces are that move, and shape history, which is something that Benjamin Deniston elaborated quite extensively at the conclusion of last week's broadcast, but it's also, in order to answer the question, what is it going to take, to crystallize a Renaissance around what the BRICS and other nations represent today, this new, emerging system.

So I'm going to give Megan Beets a chance to address this subject.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I want to start just by reading something Mr. LaRouche had to say on exactly this question, the fact that we are facing the total collapse of the Zeusian system and thereby the freedom for mankind to consider the more fundamental question, which is, what is the meaning of mankind? So he said:

"Mankind is located, his identity is located in what he or she contributes, to the future of mankind; not how long they live, but what they contribute to the future. And people who are serious, order their lives on the basis of realizing a necessary improvement to the existence and persistence of their lives, their own lives. It does not lie in any other simple explanation. All people die, all men and women die. They will eventually die, so what's the meaning of their life? The meaning of their life is what they contribute, to the future of mankind.... And it's the people who create something which contributes to mankind's future, is the meaning of mankind's existence."

In 1431, Joan of Arc is burned at the stake, at the age of 19, after a grossly corrupt one-year imprisonment, torture and trial at the hands of the rotten French lackeys of the proto-British Empire and their Venetian sponsors. These were the people who believed in the system of Zeus and that if they just carried out their lackey tasks, such as this corrupt trial and torture of Joan of Arc, that they might perhaps survive, themselves.

This empire was so terrified of this 19-year-old woman, that they burned her twice, in order to ensure that there was nothing left of her body. However, when the news of her case, of her trial and of her death, reached the ongoing Catholic Church council, the Council of Basel, which frankly many of her judges and murderers later began to attend, when the news of her death reached that Council of Basel, a process was set into motion by the spark which was the mission of her life, which ignited those as the circles of the great Nicholas of Cusa, to mobilize against the evil in society, which had killed her.

Now, during that council, Cusa wrote in a document that he produced for the Council in 1433, contrary to the Zeusian faction in attendance on the true nature of government, which is really a treatise on the true nature of mankind and natural law. So Cusa writes in his Concordantia Catholica,

""Therefore, since all are by nature free, every governance—whether it consists in a written law, or in living law in the person of a prince ... can only come from the agreement and consent of the subjects. For, if men are by nature equal in power and equally free, the true, properly ordered authority of one common ruler, who is their equal in power, can only be constituted by the election and consent of the others, and law is also established by consent."

So this is two years after the murder of Joan of Arc.

Now, let me back up a little bit and talk a little bit about Joan of Arc and what she did, and why the Zeusian system was so terrified of her. By the year 1420, this is 11 years before her death, France was on the verge of disintegration. In 1337, about 85 years earlier, the crown of France had been seized by Edward III, King of England. This unleashed over 100 years of warfare, of economic destruction and collapse, of mercenary armies roaming France, fighting the English and fighting each other. By 1347, between the years 1347 and 1351, four years later, a quarter of the population of Europe was wiped out by the plague. In 1418, the Queen of France turned and became a traitor to France, fully ceding France's sovereignty to the English, and she placed an English King on the throne of France, disinheriting her own son, the Dauphin [Charles VII].

So this is the Europe into which Joan of Arc is born in 1412 in a tiny village in the north of France. In 1429, when Joan is 17 years old, when the resistance within France who were still loyal to the Dauphin and to the idea of France as a nation was near collapse, Joan of Arc and her faction convinced the Dauphin, the rightful King of France, to give her, a young shepherdess, the weapons and the troops which would be necessary to raise the English siege of the city of Orléans, the last bastion of the French resistance to the English takeover. When Joan of Arc arrived at Orléans at the head of the French army, leading the hardened veterans of France's wars, who had failed time and again to relive France of the attacks from the English, Joan sent a letter to the English to warn them of what she intended for them; which I would like to read in full because it's her words, and I think it hopefully will give people a sense of the kind of passion involved in her mission. So this is the letter she sent to the English commanders:

"Jesus Maria.

"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, you call yourself regent of the kingdom of France, you, William de la Pole, Sir John Talbot, and you, Sir Thomas Scales, who call yourself lieutenant of the aforesaid duke of Bedford, render your account to the King of Heaven. Surrender to the Maid, who is sent from God, the King of Heaven, the keys to all the good cities that you have taken and violated in France. She has come here from God to proclaim the blood royal. She is entirely ready to make peace, if you are willing to settle accounts with her, provided that you give up France and pay for having occupied her. And those among you, archers, companions-at-arms, gentlemen, and others who are before the city of Orléans, go back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not do so, wait for the word of the Maid who will come visit you briefly, to your great damage. If you do not do so, I am commander of the armies, and in whatever place I shall meet your French allies, I shall make them leave it, whether they wish to or not; and if they will not obey, I shall have them all killed. I am sent from God, the King of Heaven, to chase you out of all France, body for body. And if they wish to obey, I shall have mercy on them. And have no other opinion, for you shall never hold the kingdom of France from God, the King of Heaven, the son of St. Mary; but King Charles, the true heir, will hold it; for God, the King of Heaven, wishes it so and has revealed through the Maid, and he will enter Paris with a goodly company. If you do not wish to believe this message from God through the Maid, then wherever we find you we will strike you there, and make a great uproar greater than any made in France for a thousand years, if you do not come to terms. And believe firmly that the King of Heaven will send the Maid more force than you will ever know how to achieve with all of your assaults on her and on her good men-at-arms; and in the exchange of blows we shall see who has better right from the King of Heaven. You, duke of Bedford, the Maid prays you and requests that you cause no more destruction. If you will settle your account, you can join her company, in which the French will achieve the finest feat in Christendom. And give answer, if you wish to make peace in the city of Orléans; and if you do not do so, be mindful soon of your great damages."

Now, Joan leads the armies on a three-day siege of what had been a month-long attack on Orléans, and what she did was the impossible: She forced the English to surrender. From Orléans, Joan led the armies of France, and her King to the historic cathedral at Reims and crowned him the King of France.

Now, she was later betrayed by that King, and she was captured in battle in May of 1430, and she was sold as a prisoner to the English. And she was burned alive by the English and their French lackeys who thought that they could eliminate her, by burning her body, to save their own skins. However, what Joan of Arc unleashed by her mission and by her victory against the evil which killed her, is something which is not locatable within the bounds of the actions that she took during her own mortal life. The process that was unleashed, which was led by Nicholas of Cusa, took what Joan of Arc represented as a mission and her passion for the freedom and the sovereignty of the people of France as a nation, and made this a mission to free all of mankind from the Zeusian empire, and to crush the evil in society which burned her alive.

So, in 1435, four years later, the Pope that Cusa worked with, helped to organize the Congress of Arras, which was attended by Cusa's collaborators, including the future Pope Pius II, and by September of that year had organized a reunification of the warring factions within France to unite against the English occupation. Two years later, Cusa left the Council of Basel as an emissary sent by the Pope to Constantinople, to Byzantium, and his mission was to bring back the representatives of Byzantium to what became the Council of Florence, the shadow of the Dome of Brunelleschi, for the reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches, which had been split since 1055. Cusa succeeded in this great mission and he brought back 700 representatives of Byzantium, including the Byzantine emperor, including the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and including especially, the complete works of Plato, which had never been seen by the West. And in 1440, just a couple of years later, Cosimo dei Medici was inspired to mobilize a complete translation project of the works of Plato and establishing the Platonic Academy in Florence.

So what was set into motion by Cusa, was what became a complete transformation of society. This led in 1461, into the establishment of the first commonwealth nation-state under King Louis XI of France who is the son of the King who was crowned by Joan of Arc. Now, just preceding that, between 1450 and 1456, you had a second trial of Joan of Arc, which was a trial of rehabilitation, exonerating her and condemning instead her judges, and exposing the evil of what had been done to Joan in the name of the Church.

Now, this Renaissance process, which was the beginnings of what eventually became the American republic, was also the foundation of the later work and passionate commitment of Johannes Kepler, to establish the human mind in its true and central position in the Solar System, in his discovery of the harmonic organization of the Solar System, and the capability of the mind of man, any man, as Cusa put it in his Concordantia Catholica, of the equality of all men on the principle of creativity.

So this comes back to what I opened with in quoting Mr. LaRouche on the issue of the meaning of mankind, the meaning of life, the mission of mankind, and the fact that the meaning of life, as opposed to what's imposed by the beliefs of this empire system that the world has been suffering under, since the assassination of President Kennedy in the United States and its aftermath, the meaning of life is in being truly human, in the creative process which, long after your death, establishes a continuing process of the further perfection and uplifting of the powers and capabilities of the human species, and changing, even after the death of one's mortal body, the meaning of mankind as a species.

So this fulfilling of the mission of Joan of Arc, which is not quite complete, was taken up by a very small handful of leaders in what became the Renaissance, led by Cusa. And the question before all of us today, is, will we respond to the horrors of the potential of nuclear war, and the horrors of the potential extermination of the human species — will we respond as the faction of Cusa responded to the horrors of what was done with Joan of Arc, and create something in mankind based on this spark of potential with the BRICS process, which has never been seen before?

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. With that said, we're going to bring a conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank everybody who tuned in tonight for watching our webcast. I want to thank Megan for joining us, and I want to thank Jeff Steinberg for being with us tonight.

Please, stay tuned to Good night.