Friday Webcast, January 22, 2016
Tune in every Friday at 8 pm EST for our weekly Friday webcast featuring Jeffrey Steinberg and Matthew Ogden. Tonight, we review the latest reports of the increase in death rates of 25-35 year olds in the U.S. Why is this happening? Is this an intentional policy? What can be done? Today's webcast was pre-recorded.
Transcript-MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's January 22, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our weekly Friday evening LaRouche PAC webcast, here on larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review. The two of us had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today. We are pre-recording this webcast because of the blizzard warning on the East Coast, so our meeting with Mr. LaRouche happened literally just a little bit over an hour ago.
What we're going to begin with tonight, is the astounding evidence of a complete economic disintegration in the United States, among the formerly-productive generation and workforce layers, which has now begun experiencing an astounding surge of death rates over the course of both the Bush and Obama Presidencies, literally since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. The economic disintegration that we're now seeing taking place in Wall Street and elsewhere is merely just the tip of the iceberg of a complete meltdown of this civilization that we're experiencing now.
The economic blow-out is much much more than merely the wiping out of what were really just fraudulent stock values to begin with. What this is really about, is the surging death rates among the American people themselves. This is very well demonstrated, for example, in the case study of what's happening in Flint, Michigan, right now; which is a direct consequence of the "vulture funds" and the policies of Wall Street, and also the refusal by the Obama administration to intervene on behalf of the people of Michigan two years ago during the Detroit bankruptcy situation.
But this is almost dwarfed, in comparison when you look at the just recently released study, which I think is emblematic of the dark age that the American people are now experiencing, that was just published in the New York Times this week. Now, on this website, we've covered the study that was published about two months ago, in the beginning of November, by two Princeton economists, including one Nobel Laureate, Angus Deaton, and his wife Annie Case, in which they released a study in November 2015 which shocked the American people, which documented that there was an increased mortality among the white non-Hispanic population between the ages of 45 and 54 — really the people who should be in the prime of their productive life and the former industrial middle class.
This is what took place over the course of the Bush and Obama administrations, and had brought about the unnecessary deaths, in their terms, of one half of a million Americans — 500,000 Americans — who are dead now, who should not be.
However, that turns out to just be a very narrow slice of the reality of what is actually going on. Following up on that study that was published by these two Princeton economists, the New York Times did their own study in which they analyzed nearly 60 million death certificates that were collected by the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 1990 and 2014. It found that this death rate among the middle-aged white American population, between the ages of 45 and 54, was actually dwarfed by an even worse condition of death rates for adults of a younger age group. This study in the New York Times was published on Wednesday, under a major graphic, here, as you can see [holds up paper] on the front page, which shows how America's drug overdose epidemic spread.
What the New York Times found is that the major increase in the death rates among this entire layer of the American population was driven by drug overdoses and suicides. Some of the statistics on this are absolutely astounding. But, before I get to that, let me just show a graphic [Figure 1] which is a screen shot from the New York Times website, which shows, year-upon-year, from 2003 until 2014, how these drug overdose deaths have spread to take over the entire United States, practically. What this is showing, is a county-by-county breakdown of heroin overdoses and also prescription drug overdoses, per 100,000 people. You can see that the light blue color is 4 deaths per 100,000. And then the red, all the way up the spectrum, is 20 deaths per 100,000. You can see that almost every single county in the United States has experienced an increase in these drug overdose deaths, with a huge concentration of counties that are now seeing over 20 deaths per 100,000.
Let me show the next slide, here [Figure 2]. This slide is a close-up of data from the CDC, which shows, in 2002, where the concentrations of these overdoses were happening. You can see the biggest concentration was in Appalachia, in West Virginia and in surrounding areas of Southwest Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky. This is the former coal mining area. You also see a concentration in the Southwest, in Nevada, in New Mexico.
Take a look at the next slide [Figure 3]. This is 2014. Not only have those areas in Appalachia and in the Southwest metastasized and spread, but now you see this sweeping all the way across the country. There's not one region which is not affected by this epidemic.
Take a look at the next slide, here [Figure 4]. This is a comparison. You can see, between 2002, the beginning of the Bush administration; and 2014. This is the last year that we have data available, and one can only imagine what the data is for 2015, and going into 2016.
The demographic breakdown of this is absolutely astounding. Since 1999, the drug-related death rates among the white American population within the 25-34 age group — both among men and women, male and female — have increased by 500%! This is broken down according to drug overdoses, where in 1999 you had 6 per every 100,000 people died of a drug overdose, and in 2014 it was 30 of every 100,000 people — a 500% increase, over 15 years. During that same period, suicides among that age group went up from 15 per 100,000, to almost 20 per 100,000. If we go up to the next age bracket, between the ages of 35 and 44, you can see that drug overdoses increases increased from 9 per 100,000, to 30 per 100,000. That is a 300% increase. And, between the ages of 45 and 54 — this was the age group that the two Princeton economists studied in their published work — drug overdoses increased from 6.7 to 30 per 100,000, which is a 400% increase. And suicides increased from 16 to 26 per 100,000.
Now, the New York Times study, which was published on their website on Monday, and then followed up with this major front-page article that was published on Wednesday, I think, rightly, points out that this is a shock to people who have looked at this. It quotes [Dr. Wilson Compton], the Deputy Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who said, "This is absolutely startling. These are tremendous increases." And, what's absolutely shocking about this, is that this has caused the overall death rate of this layer of the American population to increase over this time, offsetting what should have been a decrease in the death rates because of increases and improvements in medical technology; the treatment and prevention of heart disease, of cancer; and so forth. Despite the fact that there were increases in medical technology and a decrease of death rate from these so-called "natural" causes, the overall death rate was increasing, because of drug overdoses, suicide, alcoholism, and related forms of death.
So, the New York Times, I think, very rightly stated that what we're seeing here, is an epidemic of hopelessness, and that this is not a purely drug-related question; this is an economic question. And this is reflective of a complete breakdown of the economic productivity of the American people, and a surge in complete lack of a sense of mission, a sense of future; and hopelessness among this layer of the American people. It quotes [Mark Hayward, a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin], an expert, saying, "There are large numbers of people who never get established in this economy, who live outside family relationships and are on the edge of poverty." These people end up taking prescription drugs such as opioids; many of whom then switch over to heroin. And this heroin is in many cases this heroin is laced with a very deadly form of synthetic drug called Fentanyl.
"Poverty and stress, for example, are risk factors misuse of prescription narcotics," says Dr. Hayward. The New York Times study quotes Eileen Crimmins, a professor of gerontology at the University of Southern California, saying, "For too many younger people, and especially for too many women, they're not in stable relationships, they don't have jobs, they have children that they can't feed and clothe, and they have no support network. It's not medical care, its life. These are people whose lives are so hard they break."
This is the reality of the situation that we have now found ourselves in after 14-15 years of first a Bush/Cheney administration, and then an Obama administration. And, literally, if you take this period of time, between 1999-2000 and now 2014-2015, this is the period since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and the policies of both the Bush and Obama administrations, to sacrifice the American people on the altar of the bail-outs of these Wall Street banks. And that's a very relevant point, because not only are we seeing a spread of heroin usage, opioid usage, on the level of just the general population, which crosses all sociological barriers. It's no longer concentrated just to inner cities, or just to even rural poor whites, but this is crossing over to every single level, every single income bracket, across the entire country. Rural Appalachia, suburban areas, families whose incomes are higher than $50,000 a year, inner cities, everywhere, every corner of the United States.
However, take a look at the policies of the Obama administration, for example, who have found that every single one of the major Wall Street banks has been up to their elbows in drug-money laundering: Wachovia, Citibank, HSBC. Each one of these has been found guilty of dealing with drug cartels in Mexico, South America, elsewhere, and it's been thoroughly documented, such as in a Senate report that was published two years ago, by the Senate Permanent Investigation Subcommittee, chaired by Sen. Carl Levin, which documented the case of the drug-money laundering that was committed by HSBC.
However, what has been the official position of the Obama administration, and of the Obama Justice Department? Not one of these banks will be prosecuted. Why? They're "too big to fail." As Lanny Breuer said, who was [Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division] in the Obama administration Justice Department, "If we were to prosecute these banks, it would threaten the integrity of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system." Which I think proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this entire financial system is founded on criminality and fraud.
So, we're seeing a complicity, from the Obama administration, from the Bush administration. The blood is on the hands of the people who have failed to address the fact that there's been an official policy to say Wall Street banks will be protected while the American population and the productive powers of that population are thrown on the junk heap.
We're looking at a situation now which is far worse than 2008, as Mr. LaRouche has stressed, and in many ways, is far worse than 1929-32. The question is, what policy must be implemented in order to reverse this dark age, and reverse this trajectory in the death rates among the American people, which is reaching the point of unprecedented levels. The policy of Glass-Steagall, the policy of breaking up these Wall Street banks has to be seen from the standpoint of not just a financial reform policy; but this is the criminal element in the United States, and this is the cause of the increase in the death rates among our fellow American people; as is seen in just one reflection in this study on the heroin overdoses, opioid overdoses, and rising suicide rates among this American population.
Then again, if we turn around and say, among these young people, for example, who have experienced a 500% increase in the rates of drug overdoses and suicides in just the past 14 years. What can be done to give these young people a sense of the a future? The CCC of Franklin Roosevelt is a very necessary precedent; the work-relief programs of the first 100 days is a very necessary precedent. You take the population aged 45-54, who should be employed and who have no productive employment; this is the population which must be employed and put to work through Federal employment projects to get the American people back into a future-oriented, mission-orientation. However, as Mr. LaRouche said earlier today, we have reached a point where we are so far gone, that it's not going to just be through a partial replication of policies that have come before that we can save this system. But the entire system must be junked; and we have to look to the policies that are now taking place in places such as China and allied countries among the BRICS, as the example for what must be done in the United States. I think this is very clearly documented in "The US Must Join the Silk Road" Special Report that's just been published by the LaRouche Political Action Committee; and these are the policies which we've laid out in very clear terms.
I just want to stress before introducing Jeff, that everything that Mr. LaRouche has said over the last 14-15 years about the policies of these two administrations being policies which are literally killing the American people, has become very clearly demonstrated in this study that was published. And I would recommend that people take a look at this; and people don't even have to read the New York Times article to know this. I think everybody in this country has had some proximity to this crisis; a relative, a friend, a family member, a neighbor, who has been a victim of this crisis.
So, I'd like to introduce Jeff Steinberg to elaborate a little bit more on what Mr. LaRouche's points were in response to this, during our discussion earlier today.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche has been persistently making the point that you've got to remove President Obama from office if you're going to even have a chance to begin addressing the problems that have now been presented in very stark kind of snapshot terms by these three New York Times studies. Now, I think it's important to remember that the phony statistics that are repeated like a daily mantra by the Obama administration and most of the mainstream media, that the US economy is recovering, that unemployment is now down to 5%, is a very conscious fraud. Remember that there are now more than 94 million people who are of working age, who are not in school, who are not in military service, who are not in jail, and who are not in various medical institutions; 94 million people between the ages of 18 and 65, who are not counted as part of the labor force because they are either chronically unemployed, or have not yet ever been able to find a job. So that 94 million people represents almost one quarter of the American population, who have been consciously thrown on the scrap heap; and that's not to even take into account the children of those people who've been written out of the equation, or the senior citizens who are living in the kinds of poverty conditions that Franklin Roosevelt insisted would never happen again.
Now, Mr. LaRouche's point is very clear: This is not something that was simply conjured up by George W Bush or Dick Cheney or Barack Obama. This is a policy that has come down from the British. In 1979, Executive Intelligence Review published the first of what are now five updated editions of the book Dope, Inc.; in which we detailed and documented that the British were conducting an opium war against the United States with the idea of destroying the United States in terms of the principles on which the republic was founded. Particularly the principles of Hamiltonian economics, and a democratic republic. Now, in the aftermath of the Civil War, which was a resounding defeat for the British who attempted to break up the Union, despite the fact that the British assassinated President Abraham Lincoln; it was clear that the United States had emerged as a powerful industrial, and by extension, military force. And that the prospects of a British overthrow of the American republic through military means, had been eliminated. From that point on, the conscious policy of the British Empire, the British monarchy, has been to destroy the United States internally by tearing apart the social fabric of the nation; and by introducing a culture of pessimism, despair, ignorance, and hedonism.
So, if you take what Matt just presented — these three New York Times reports, which merely provide a snapshot of where things stand now; you've got to next ask the question, "How did we get here?" There's no dispute that for a growing and sizeable portion of the American population, the whole idea of the American dream has been whipped away and torn apart. As Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing in our discussions today, the state of the labor force, particularly the younger elements of the population, was better in 1933 when Roosevelt came into office and launched his 100 Days program; created the CCC program, created the Work Product Administration and other agencies for putting people back to work than the population is today. Young people are addicted to video games; in many instances, violent video games that have produced things like the youth killers in Paducah, Kentucky, in Littleton, Colorado, the many instances that go unreported in the national media today, because they're just so commonplace.
So, you've got to ask yourself, how did this come about? Where did this phenomenon come from? And again, Mr. LaRouche has emphasized that if you don't understand the hatred of the British Empire for what the United States represented, as a revolutionary republican culture in its first generation, then you can't understand what happened during the course of the 20th Century, and now into the beginning of the 21st Century. You can't appreciate what has been done to the United States, unless you go back and look at this factor of the British assault, the British hatred. What we, when we wrote Dope, Inc. called the "British opium war" against the United States. Remember, in the middle of the 19th Century, the British launched wars in order to impose opium addiction and destroy the population of China, as part of a looting operation that took the form of two Opium Wars and a massive enforced opium addiction on China. We're seeing the same thing happening here in the United States today; and it's not a new story.
I want to review with you, over the next few moments, some of the statements of intent that have been issued by prominent voices of the British Empire. And at the end of that, I want you to ask yourself a question. Is there any longer any confusion in your mind in terms of what Mr. LaRouche talks about when he discusses the British Empire as the root cause of the problem. Now, we can just start, of course, with the case of Barack Obama. Barack Obama was essentially picked up and created as a political entity by British networks. One of the most prominent figures in the entire career development of Barack Obama, was George Soros; who is not only a British agent — and fully documented and certified as such — but Soros has been the driving force, the source of financing for several decades for the entire movement to legalize all illegal drugs in the United States. If you think it was merely a matter of medical use of marijuana, I can tell you from personal experience, having attended conferences of Soros' Drug Policy Foundation going back 20 years ago; where in private discussions behind closed doors, Soros openly said — and his representatives openly said — that the objective was the legalization of all drugs. Crack cocaine, heroin, you name it. So, now we're seeing the consequences and fruits of that. When Obama was elected President of the United States, back in 2008, with George Soros' money a prominent feature of that, the message radiated out to all the drug-producing countries of the world, that it was an open war to start flooding the United States with even larger amounts of illegal drugs; because the efforts to stopping it will be minimal and eventually inconsequential. So, it's not just a matter that people, out of despair, out of desperation, have turned to illegal drugs; those drugs are now available in vast quantities and at greatly reduced prices in every county in the United States.
So the figures, the 47,000 people who died of drug overdoses in the United States in 2014 alone, is merely a statistical marker for what is actually going on. But again, I want to take up the larger question: What was the intent? What were the statements of intent? What was the vision of a future United States, represented by some of the leading powerful voices of the British Empire? We've quoted previously from Lord Bertrand Russell, but it's always useful to recall his own words about what his view and what his intentions were towards the United States and towards the world as a whole. In 1951, Russell wrote in a book called The Impact of Science on Society about the targeting of young people for menticide, for destruction. He wrote: "Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men — Pavlov and Freud — have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically, is mass psychology; its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these, the most influential is what is called education; religion plays a part, though a diminishing one. The press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part. It may be hoped that in time, anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young, and is provided by the state with money and equipment. The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under scientific dictatorship. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children; on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Secondly, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity.
"But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise, and to discover exactly how much it costs per head, to make children believe that snow is black; and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray." And then he says: "Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation, will be able to control its subjects securely, without the need of armies or policemen."
There are other, even earlier quotes from Russell, showing the same intent. He wrote in 1931 in the Scientific Outlook, where he had a chapter devoted to education in a scientific society. He said, "The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the remedies of psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'cooperative'; i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children; insubordination without punishment will be scientifically trained out of them."
In other words, a conscious attempt to guarantee that future generations will have no capacity for creative discovery. Now, Russell and many of his collaborators, including the brothers Aldous and Julian Huxley, understood that it was going to be vital to spread this ideology and this spreading of drugs into society; and that the opium war against the United States, was an absolutely indispensable part of the assault against the cognitive powers of the population, particularly focused on young people. Aldous Huxley came to the United States in the 1920s; and not surprisingly, he immediately found his way to Hollywood, where he became part of a circle of British ideologues who were dominant behind the scenes in the mass culture industry in Hollywood. There was a whole grouping from the 1920s on in Hollywood that was known as the "British set". It included people like Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, Igor Stravinsky, who was part of the assault on music that was a core feature of this 20th Century attack. Huxley was part of the MK-Ultra programs that developed the means by which to spread various kinds of psychotropic and other kinds of drugs into the population. And Aldous Huxley, in an address in 1961, to a conference sponsored by the US government's Voice of America, at the California state medical school in San Francisco, was very blunt. This was not fiction; this was his statement of intent for what future generations in this country would be experiencing and would be put through. He said, "There will be in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies; so that people will, in fact, have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will distracted from any desire to rebel, by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
Now, Huxley was part of the experimentation in psychedelic drugs that was partly US- and British-government sponsored and financed from the 1950s onward. And one of Huxley's closest collaborators was a Harvard professor of psychology, named Timothy Leary; who became one of the leading propagandists for the use of psychotropic drugs. Leary wrote a personal account of his involvement in this drug counterculture project; and at one point, reflected on conversations that he had personally had with Aldous Huxley. He said that he recalled Huxley telling him the following: "These brain drugs, mass produced in laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen without you or without me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this revolution, Timmy, is the Bible." Leary then provided his own comment: "We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality that has cursed Europe for centuries, and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism, and scientific paganism had arrived."
So, this just gives you a brief flavor for what we're looking at. I mentioned Aldous Huxley and quoted from him just now; his brother Julian, who was the founding director of UNESCO back in 1946, made it very clear that even though Hitler had been defeated, and the racial science policies, the eugenics policies at the core of the Nazi movement had been discredited, that these were British ideas that would be brought once again to the fore. Julian Huxley, in his opening address at the launching of UNESCO in 1946 declared, "Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care; and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake. So that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
Now, the strategy that adopted by the British oligarchy at that time, and Julian Huxley was one of the key figures in this, was since the concept of eugenics — race science — could not be permitted for a reasonably long period of time because of the evidence that had come out about the Hitler genocide; they adopted a new strategy. Instead of calling it eugenics, they called it ecology; they called it conservation. And launched what is today a full-blown rampant Green movement, which at its core, is a revival of eugenics, and is a revival of the policies that were, in fact, the policies of Hitler. And those were the policies that the British and certain American allies, like Prescott Bush and Averill Harriman endorsed openly as their vision of a revolutionary future; a future of reduced population, racial purification, and the creation of an oligarchical society in which people were basically slaves to brainwashing, drugs, and deprived of the kind of education that allows people to be truly creative human beings.
Now, as one element of the MK-Ultra drug experimental programs of the 1950s, which was principally a British program, there were extensive studies on how to use forms of mass psychology to create the conditions where people would willfully submit to the kinds of menticide and despair that were basically planned by the British. William Sargant, a Tavistock Institute psychiatrist who served in the British military at a certain point, was one of the critical players who was brought over from Britain to the United States as part of MK-Ultra. In 1957, he wrote a book called, Battle for the Mind, in which he discussed certain core principles about how to conduct the mass brainwashing of the American people.
And bear in mind that he wrote this book six years before the assassination of John F Kennedy; but think about the Kennedy assassination, think about the Martin Luther King assassination, the Robert Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the riots that plagues the United States in the 1960s, and the cultural paradigm shift that was effected. And let's see what William Sargant said about that in 1957; he wrote: "Various types of belief can be implanted in many people after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger, or excitement. Of the results caused by such disturbances, the common one is temporarily impaired judgement and heightened suggestibility. Its various group manifestations was sometimes classed under the heading of 'herd instinct' and appear most spectacularly in war time, in severe epidemics, and in all similar periods of common danger, which increase anxiety and also individual and mass suggestibility."
So, you've got this continuing pursuit of means of conducting mass psychological assaults against an entire population. You had the waves of assassinations and wars and riots that caught the United States throughout the 1960s. What was the outcome of that? You had the advent of the mass rock/drug/sex counterculture; because young people, suddenly for the first time, felt that the world was completely chaotic, was collapsing. And that the concept of a viable future was no longer quite so certain. You also had the advent and the cumulative effects of more than a century by this point, of a conscious assault against the principle of renaissance that had last been seen in the great musical compositions of the middle towards the end of the 19th Century; when you had Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms. And suddenly, at the beginning of the 20th Century, all of that great advancements, all of those renaissance breakthroughs were shut off; and instead, you were presented with a culture of ugliness, of banality, and of perversion.
Again, this was not something that just happened as the result of bad luck. One of the major networks that was brought into the United States under British Fabian sponsorship to spread this concept of cultural pessimism and irrationalism, was an organization known as the Frankfurt School. Which was established in Germany in 1922, and which was part of a revolutionary movement that concluded that during times of war, during times of great crisis, the working class populations tended to become extremely patriotic. And the Frankfurt School revolutionary movements, associated also with people like Georg Lukacs, had concluded that the real revolution had to take the form of an assault against the fundamental tenets of modern western European culture; which was already degenerate, and therefore opened up an enormous opportunity.
One of the leaders of the Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno, came to the United States in the mid-1930s. He went to work at Princeton University in a Rockefeller-funded program called the Radio Research Project; that aims to study how populations could be manipulated by the new advent of mass communications technology — movies, radio, the early emergence of television. Adorno had a background and training in music; in fact, he was a student of Schoenberg, who was one of the original composers to introduce atonal music, which was a total assault on Classical composition. Adorno, as a conscious part of this British assault against American and generally speaking Western culture, wrote a book in 1948, which was addressed to the question of modern music.
It was called The Philosophy of Modern Music, and the basic theme of the book, which was a series of essays dealing with Schoenberg and Stravinsky, was that modern music, completely in contrast to great Classical music, was intended not to uplift people and to make a direct appeal to their human creativity, to their soul; but was to bring them down and to actually destroy their capacity to think. Adorno was very explicit in the idea that modern music intended forms of mental illness, or tap into mental illnesses and bring them to the surface.
This is from his 1948 book, The Philosophy of Modern Music. He says: "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering, the seismographic registration of traumatic shock, becomes at the same time the technical structure of music. It forbids continuity and development." Which is obviously the key to music. "Musical language is polarized according to its extremes towards gestures of shock, resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand and on the other, towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to stop in her tracks. Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal; it is a surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked." He continues: "It is not that schizophrenia is directly expressed therein; but the music imprints upon itself an attitude similar to that of the mentally ill. The individual brings about his own disintegration. He imagines the fulfillment of the promise through magic, but nonetheless, within the realm of immediate actuality. Its concern is to dominate schizophrenic traits through an aesthetic consciousness. In so doing, it would hope to vindicate insanity as true Hell."
Now, Adorno goes on to catalogue various forms of mental disease that can be instigated and accentuated by exposure to modern music; by which he meant not only the atonality of Schoenberg and Stravinsky, but the background noise, the Musak, the pop 40 kind of music that was then becoming a major feature of American culture as it began a long steady process of degeneration. He said, what would be the consequences of repeated exposure to these kinds of music? Depersonalization, which he describes as the loss of connection to one's own body. Hebephrenia, which he defines as indifference of the sick individual towards the external. Catatonia; disassociation of time. And ultimately, universal necrophilia is the highest perversity of style.
Now, obviously in this brief period of time, I've just scratched the surface. And I've only touched on a few of the leading criminals of the British Empire, who have focused their attention on the destruction of the underlying culture of the United States. The menticide targetting successive generations of young people. And we have the report that Matt began this broadcast with, dealing with the fact that we're there; we've reached the point where millions, perhaps tens of millions of Americans have been thrown onto an economic and cultural scrap heap. Where they have no opportunity, no sense of the future; where despair is manifesting in its most extreme form in drug addiction, heroin overdoses, suicides. Those are the most shocking, extreme forms; but for every case where that has happened, how many millions of others, how many people do you know personally, who've chronically out of work. Who've developed a sense of absolute despair about the world, about their own future, about future generations; which is always the hallmark of a growing society.
So, step back and think about the fact that there has been a more than 100-year conscious cultural assault against the United States. Yes, there have been dramatic developments; there have been assassinations of Presidents. We had the spectre of the Bush/Cheney administration launching a string of absolutely needless wars to impose a police state structure on the United States. We've had Obama opening the floodgates for this opium war assault, which is in its most advanced stages right now. But go back; think about where this comes from. And only from that standpoint can we begin to have a serious discussion about remedies.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just to say, this astounding rise in death rates that has been documented thoroughly in these New York Times studies, is a direct consequence of the ideology that Jeff just very thoroughly documented; which has come to dominate much of the 20th Century, and is now literally leading to the cannibalization of the American people by a system which is based axiomatically on that ideology. This is hitting hardest among the youth generation; it's literally destroying the future of the United States. It's that 25-34 year old generation which has experienced among the white demographic, a 500% increase in death rates from drug overdoes over these past 15 years. I think, correctly, as the New York Times article states, "The rising death rates for these young white adults, aged 25-34, make them the first generation since the Vietnam War years of the mid-1960s, to experience death rates in early adulthood than the generation that preceded it." That's a dark age.'
The study also points out that there's a very clear delineation among the less-educated layers of the population; it says that these death rates that rose among that age group, rose faster by any measure for the less educated. A 23% increase in death rates among those without a high school degree; compared to only 4% for those with a college degree. So, you can see, it's the most vulnerable, it's literally the forgotten man which is dying en masse. The astounding statistic is the number of US drug overdose deaths reached a new high in the year 2014, which is the last year with complete records. 47,055 people died in drug overdose deaths during the year 2015; which averages out to an average of 125 people every single day.
So, I think what's clear is, in combination with the evidence that's presented in this study, and what Jeff just went through in documenting this British imperialistic ideology which has come to dominate much of the 20th Century since the rise of Bertrand Russell; is that there's no solution to this without having a completely new paradigm. Where this system, which is based axiomatically on anti-human principles, must be replaced by a completely new paradigm; a renaissance. And as I stated earlier in this broadcast, what Mr. LaRouche emphasized is that the solution to this dark age that is being experienced by the American people must be seen as not something that can just merely be solved by some sort of reforms of the system. But that you have to take the impulse that's coming from China and related countries, who are actively pursuing a policy of economic development and a scientific and cultural renaissance; and use that to create as the foundation for an entirely new paradigm to replace this failed paradigm in the trans-Atlantic system.
So, I would just like to conclude today's webcast with a slight reference to something that Xi Jinping said over the course of his historic tour through the Middle East and North Africa, which is taking place this week. What Xi Jinping said in a statement which he delivered to the Arab League conference in Cairo just yesterday, was made specifically in the context of the crisis plaguing the Middle East and Northern Africa, which is absolutely having reverberating consequences throughout Europe, as we can see with the refugee crisis. And is also obviously directly the consequence of 15 years of perpetual war policies from the Bush and Obama administrations. But I think that you'll find that what Xi Jinping says here, applies just as much to the situation that he was addressing directly in the Middle East and Northern Africa, as also to the situation being experienced here in the United States, as was documented by these New York Times studies as I stated at the beginning of the show. So, this quote, as I said, was taken from a speech that Xi Jinping delivered yesterday after being on an historic tour to Tehran and to Riyadh, where he presented a whole raft of economic policies, peace through investment, and so forth. But what he said at the beginning of this major, historic speech I think is very significant in light of everything that we've presented here in the United States as well.
So, this is what Xi Jinping had to say: "The key to overcoming difficulties, is to accelerate development; turmoil in the Middle East stems from the lack of development. And the ultimate solution will depend on development; which bears on everyone's well-being and dignity. It is a race against time, and a struggle between hope and disillusion. Only when young people are able to live a fulfilled life with dignity through development, can hope prevail in their heart. Only then will they voluntarily reject violence, extremist ideologies, and terrorism." And I would also add to that, only then will they reject drug addiction, suicide, and the related causes of death that we've discussed here today. So, just let me underline what Xi Jinping stated there. "It's a race against time; a struggle between hope and disillusion. Only when young people are able to live a fulfilled life with dignity through development, can hope prevail in their heart." And I think that's what's very thoroughly documented in the pamphlet that LaRouche PAC has issued over the course of this past few weeks, titled, "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road: A Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance" in this country. So, we urge you to continue to help assist us in circulating that pamphlet, that material; it's available in digital form on the website, and we do have plans to issue hard copies in print form as well. And to continue fighting with us to make sure that these policies are implemented in the United States. As I think we discussed thoroughly on the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee discussion this past Monday, there is such a thing as too late. And it's only through the actions of the viewers of this webcast here tonight are willing to take to fight for a new Franklin Roosevelt solution to this absolutely devastating disaster that we've documented through these increasing death rates, that we have hope to save the United States before it's too late.
So, I'd like to thank you for joining us here tonight; and I'd ask you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. And if you're in the path of the blizzard here tonight, please stay safe. And we'll ask you to tune in again next week. Thank you very much.