Manhattan Town Hall event with Michael Steger
California Policy Committee member Michael Steger is the featured guest for this week's Manhattan event.
DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed. On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome people today here to our session for February 11th. This is Presidents Day weekend or actually, excuse me, Lincoln's birthday, which will be tomorrow. Presidents Day Weekend is kind of a weird nonexistent holiday.
When President Trump delivers his speech on Feb. 28th before a joint session of Congress, we want to have Glass-Steagall either implemented or featured in the President's remarks. We've been involved in a campaign for the past several weeks to that effect. This is not a campaign for a mere legislative measure but for the implementation of four measures designed by Lyndon LaRouche and referred to as the Four Laws. That is the campaign that we are involved in in the Manhattan Project. That is what differentiates it from any other campaign that anyone else anywhere in the world is doing on the issue of Glass-Steagall.
Yesterday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave an interview to the Xinhua News Agency on the interaction between President Xi of China and Donald Trump, President of the United States. Among other things that she said was this: "Trump's letter and phone call are positive signs that he wants to develop a constructive relationship with China. I think we are at the beginning of a completely new set of relations among nations of the world. This has the potential for a new era of mankind and the realization of President Xi's vision. This has the ability to put civilization within reach."
Now to discuss this idea about how the campaign we're doing is not only different but what that campaign is embedded in from the standpoint from it being the footprint of a very dramatic, very different international process, we have Mike Steger. We're pleased to have him with us today, and Mike is going to do our main presentation followed by questions and answers. So, Mike.
MIKE STEGER: Thanks, Dennis. It's quite period in history at this point, so it's nice to see you all there and nice to address you today.
It's almost breathtaking the level of changes that are taking place so quickly. We're three weeks now only into a new administration, and as Mr. LaRouche had said after the election in November, this is clearly a global revolution, a global process; it wasn't something only occurring or developing in the United States.
What I'd like to go through are a couple of key developments. There is so much taking place and I want to review some of it, put an emphasis on it, and then capture what are the restrictions. Why is Glass-Steagall not at the forefront of a policy discussion? Why is the National Bank not yet at the forefront of a policy discussion in the United States? I think as many of you in this room know, a big portion of this is the level of an asymmetrical warfare on information—or really an attack on ideas and an attack on the human mind that has been taking place inside the mass media, so we'll get at that question because it is a critical component of how we make this breakthrough and consolidate what's taking place. But before we do that, let's review the political situation.
We'll start with this recent summit that President Trump and Prime Minister Abe had, because this clearly indicated a completely new shift in the way the world is now beginning to interact, the way that major nations of this world are beginning to interact. To put a certain context to that, we recently discovered in our own Executive Intelligence Review magazine in article from 1982 that situates this summit and that it was Prime Minister Abe's father who was then Minister of Trade for Japan working with the Mitsubishi Corporation, the same Mitsubishi Corporation that Lyndon LaRouche and this organization were collaborating with on a project in Thailand of the Kra Canal, was then going to go to Florida to discuss with the G7 nations trade ministers a program of a $500 billion Global Infrastructure Fund. The projects on that list included: the Lake Chad project, which is now under discussion by China; the Kra Canal project, the Nicaragua Canal project, the greening of the Sahara Desert; and its overall level of infrastructure development of the developing world. Now that was the greatest risk to world peace was the kind of economic deterioration and lack of development.
Now, that was Prime Minister Abe's father. It's important to make that note simply because it was Prime Minister Abe, after a series of discussions with President Putin, and the first one last year took place last year in May. This is important to note because, after Abe had announced that he was planning to travel [to Sochi], then President Obama had attempted to weigh in on Prime Minister Abe and told him, "Don't go, wait for the summit they were going to have soon there in Japan; wait for that first. Let me tell you what I think about this summit with Putin and then maybe you can go." Abe said, "That's okay, I think I'll go."
At that point, you saw what was the beginning of a major strategic shift on the planet where nations who were closely tied to this Anglo-American program, this British imperial policy, were showing clear signs of breaking, of working now with this Eurasian-centered process around Russia and China. Since that summit, Abe and Putin have now met three times—then in Sochi, then again in Vladivostok, and then again in Tokyo. At the summit in Tokyo, or soon thereafter, Prime Minister made it clear that it was his intention that he would fulfill a peace treaty with Russia; that he would resolve the questions of the Northern Islands or Kuril Islands, as they are known in Russia, which is a territorial dispute between Russia and Japan; that he wanted to be the Prime Minister who fulfilled that treaty agreement and resolved Japan's sovereignty on this question and opened up a collaboration with Russia. So, Abe staked his own personal career and commitment that he wanted to be the one who fulfilled this, which clearly is in this overall orientation that we see even from his own family.
Now these things are not just governed by those local circumstances. Clearly, they're governed by a much higher process globally, but the fact that these are characteristics at play are important as background.
At the time, President Putin responded, and said: It's important to note that on these questions of these disputed islands, the Soviet Union had already been willing to resolve this in the 1950s, but it was at that time, American influence to disrupt any type of negotiations between the Soviet Union and Japan, that they had already agreed to provide Japan with the two southern islands—I think there are four of them—the two southern ones would go then to Japan. John Foster Dulles, of this kind of Wall Street-British crowd made it very clear that if you make a deal with the Soviet Union, we will take Okinawa as U.S. property and U.S. dominion—the far southern island with the U.S. military base in Japan. So, it was a direct threat, a direct intervention on the British system's behalf to prevent any kind of trade or peace treaty agreement between the Soviet Union and Japan at that time.
It is very interesting that during this summit with Trump and Abe, that this is the context that is now under discussion. President Trump in the United States made it very clear that we will not be intervening, that Japan and Russia are close neighbors, they have certain interests at stake between them, and the United States will not be intervening or have any take or input regarding the negotiations between Russia and Japan—that you're now seeing the United States free of Obama, that we're now permitting this kind of new system in the Eurasian world to consolidate.
At the same time with this summit between Trump and Abe, which I think many people may know, but it's important to make note of it, there is a large discussion, a substantial discussion in many ways of a major infrastructure development of the United States. Trump in the day prior to the summit was meeting with airline executives and he says, "You go to China, you go to Japan. There are all these high-speed rails, there are all these fast trains, and in the United States, we have none." This is part of the discussion. Abe made the comment that if we built a maglev rail between Washington, D.C. to New York City, that it would take an hour travel. You can all ask Diane. I think she would greatly appreciate that maglev rail.
This discussion of infrastructure was there, and I'll touch on that in a second, because what is critical to this is our initiative here in the United States on economic policy, this Glass-Steagall and National Bank.
But in the broader scope of the process, because it is global, is then a question comes from a Japanese reporter, asking President Trump about the tensions between Japan and China, the China's growing role in the region—of course, there's the South China Sea, there's also these disputed rocks out there in the East China Sea between China and Japan, and Trump's response was very important. He said, "I had a discussion with President Xi last night. It was a very warm discussion, very cordial, and I think that U.S.-China collaboration will be very important for the United States and China, but also for the entire region including Japan"; so making it very clear that this is a quality of discussions between Japan and Russia, between Japan and the United States, and between the U.S. now and China.
This was the first discussion between President Trump and President Xi since he had been elected and it was clearly something of a commitment toward the One China policy, that Taiwan and China are one nation, but it was also in this broader context of this new developing system. This is just very important because we are talking about a development of a system and of a world that has never existed before. There is no parallel. We can draw comparisons, we can make notes of other moments in human history where similar substantial transformations have occurred, something like the Italian Renaissance, but what is developing has never existed on the planet. So, the fellow Americans that we are organizing, the members of Congress, whoever they might be, in any institutions, throughout Manhattan, throughout New York City, there's no nostalgia. You know, there is a big nostalgia culture we have today. There's no nostalgia for a great relationship between the U.S., Russia, and China. That's never existed, so we're developing something that has never existed before. So, we've really got to make a clear conception of the kinds of relationships that are developing among these nations.
In addition to this press conference that Trump and Abe held, they're going down to Florida for further discussion. Perhaps it's interesting, maybe it's coincidence, the summit that Abe's father was going to old on this Global Infrastructure Fund with the Mitsubishi Corp. on projects like the Kra Canal, also took place in Florida. These are just interesting aspects to how this process is developing.
The infrastructure development of the United States is clearly on the table. But you have, as I said, Russia and Japan now in high level discussions of trade development, of development of these islands, and of a collaboration of development of Russia's Far East. You now have the U.S. and Japan in close discussions on infrastructure development, shared economic trade. You have an outreach between President Trump and Xi Jinping, the two largest economies in the world, which is now taking new footing. Then, in addition to this, we know there has been ongoing discussion on the question of Russia.
And I think we have to highlight the kind of stance that Trump has taken, because there is a certain fight in this process. The interview that Trump did with Fox News on Super Bowl Sunday — this is the first time since the 9/11 attacks that a President or really any major politician has outright condemned the Iraq War in these terms, at least definitely for a President, as a "policy of murder," that this was an injustice, that this was a criminal act. This was an important break and it was provoked because of the hysteria on this new administration's ongoing relationship and discussions with Russia. Coming up next week, the new Secretary of State Tillerson will be meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and they will be discussing a possible summit between Trump and Putin. They will be discussing the various kinds of questions of Ukraine, of Syria, and the places of major collaboration with the United States and Russia. Over the course of this last week, there were also major discussions between the United States and Turkey. Now Turkey is in discussions with Russia and Iran on the question of Syria, so if the United States begins to work with Turkey more closely, it brings the United States into discussions with Russia on Syria and also Iran.
You see a kind of development of relationship among nations, that there are bridges, that the discussion with Abe is becoming a clear bridge for the discussion of the economic questions of Russia and China; that Turkey becomes a bridge and a platform for discussions in the Middle East more directly. And that we navigate some of this insanity coming out of the U.S. members of Congress and the media.
OK, so that's quite a situation.
Now, as many people know there is a summit in May, a Belt and Road summit. This is largely what Dennis just referred to. Helga Zepp-LaRouche just gave an interview to Xinhua, and this is in the context of the summit in May. Vladimir Putin will already attending this discussion; Xi Jinping will be hosting it. And there are now reports coming from a leading Chinese professor on the New Silk Road in discussion with an Indian newspaper, that President Trump will be attending. That has not yet been confirmed by either the Chinese nor U.S. Foreign Ministry or State Department.
But clearly this is the kind of potential we're consolidating, and that when you bring together this level of nations and heads of nations, in the context of what's now developing, we have clearly a potential over the coming weeks, regarding the State of the Union address and the political process here in the United States, and over the coming months going into the summit in May, to consolidate what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had said to the audience there just last Saturday in the audience in Manhattan, that we are now looking at a potential for a major transformation of the world, and if President Trump has the courage to follow through on this potential, something that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have created over this last 40 years, as we see with this discussion just in 1982, which was a direct follow-up of the discussions with President Reagan on a number of areas including the SDI, but that if President Trump follows through on this potential today, he will clearly become a towering giant in the process of human history.
Now, that's ironic for many people. And it's something completely in contradiction to the news media. But besides the fact that the news media have blocked out this entire Silk Road process, that Xi Jinping announced in September 2013, so it's now been nearly three and a half years of a discussion of a New Silk Road as really a Eurasian-centered system, or a Pacific-centered system, with the BRICS, that you're talking about a broad-scale development now of a new world economic system.
The media have blacked this out entirely. But there's also another factor, and that is the culture itself in the United States. And the very foundation of this culture, that we see today, this rotting culture, you see it in Wall Street, you see it in Washington, D.C., you see it throughout the country, the destruction and devastation of the country, it's epitomized by the drug culture, by this drug addiction. This is something that again, Mr. LaRouche and this organization initiated, specifically the war on the drugs; we called for it. And the center of our call for that, was to recognize that was operating in this international drug trade was the international banking institutions.
Now this is being taken up. This is the first time, last night, in the LaRouche PAC webcast, where there's been a real war on drugs, a full commitment. Well, I wouldn't say a full commitment. We have to see a full commitment has to be centered towards the banks, towards the role of Wall Street. And as Matt Ogden pointed out, with the Levin-Coburn report, we've already documented the role of HSBC, the role of Wachovia — now Wells Fargo — and these other various banks directly in laundering drug money, terrorist money laundering, so that's the question. But you're now seeing a commitment.
And I want to read something from President Trump which he said in a meeting with police chiefs and sheriffs earlier this week. He said, "It's time to dismantle the gangs terrorizing our citizens, and it's time to ensure that every young American can be raised in an environment of decency, dignity, love and support. You have asked for the resources, tools and support you need to get the job done. We will do whatever we can to help meet those demands. That includes a zero tolerance policy for acts of violence against law enforcement. As part of our commitment to save communities we will also work to address the mental health crisis; prison should not be a substitute for treatment. We will fight to increase access to life-saving treatment to battle the addiction to drugs, which is afflicting our nation like never, ever before.
I've been here two weeks; I've met a lot of law enforcement officials. Yesterday, I brought them into the Oval Office. I asked a group, what impact do drugs have in terms of a percentage on crime? They said, 75-80%. That's pretty sad. We're going to stop the drugs from pouring in. We're going to stop those drugs from poisoning our youth, from poisoning our people. We're going to be ruthless in that fight. We have no choice. And we're going to take that fight to the drug cartels, and we're work to liberate our communities from the terrible grip of violence."
That's definitely a kind of commitment on this drug war that we haven't see in a very long time. And I think, probably, many people in this room are aware, as much as Ronald Reagan and his close collaborators were committed to a similar fight, George H.W. Bush and the Bush gang were the one running crack cocaine into the inner cities of our country. They were running the Iran-Contra cocaine operations into the United States. So you had a commitment at that time, even in Reagan's administration to not wage a war on drugs, to promote it.
And so this is a fundamental shift, that we have not seen going back to when the drug culture began in the 1960s. Now, this is the kind of process we've been developing over these 40 and 50 years; this is our mobilization. This question of a new world economic system, with the role that Japan plays in a collaboration with Russia, China, and the United States on the development of the Arctic, of the North Pacific, and really, because of the power of those nations and their economic significance, in the development of the world. You bring in nations like India. But this war on drugs is substantial.
Now, at the same time, you have a commitment by Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly. He made clear statements in his testimony to Congress that we've got to execute this, we've got to shut down the drug demand; you can't eliminate it, but you've got to reduce it. We've done it before; we know how to do it.
And what we know, is that that means a development program. You've got to keep these young men out of prisons, to keep them off drugs; you've got to change the educational program. You've got to create a sense of science and optimism to our education and to our culture.
You've got to have a program of development, of jobs, real jobs, not these makeshift jobs, not this "gig economy" that they now call it. But a sense of what you're contributing in your daily work efforts as something significant and positive for the society as a whole; that's how we eradicate this drug culture. But you also have to go after the production of it; 99% of the heroin comes through the Mexican border, he said; these things have to be shut down.
Now, at the same time you have an administration committed to shutting down this drug trade, they're also willing to address the fact that this entire environmentalist program is a fraud and a scheme. Ben Deniston just did a video report on the LaRouche PAC website, which highlights what they're calling "Climategate II." ["Climategate II, NOAA Whistleblower, Exclusive Background" https://larouchepac.com/20170208/climategate-ii-noaa- whistleblower-exclusive-background] That before this big Paris summit which received international support, including from nations like China, and others, though perhaps it's superficial, there was a complete fraud of a report prior to this Paris conference, on ocean water temperatures, that it was an entirely fraudulent document and a leading figure out of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) came out and leaked this. This administration is going directly after this environmentalist insanity. That it is a program for depopulation, it is a program of drug addiction, it is a program of no-development, in any regard.
And this is substantial, because not only is this the first time we've had an attack directly on the drug culture of the United States, and what we have to do to fulfill that, and I'll get back to that on this financial question; but there's at least a war on drugs that's comprehensive; and an attack on this environmentalist insanity. This is the first time that this has happened also. It became more prominent with the Clinton/Gore operation, especially Gore, but George H.W. Bush — the Bush family again, was pushing this environmentalist/overpopulation insanity going to back to the 1960s and '70s. So this is a real break from this British imperial insanity in the United States. And I can tell you, I'm speaking to you from California today: There is a freakout in California, and though they might want to say it's about illegal immigration or gay rights, or gay marriage, or rights to abortion, I'll guarantee you: The core of this freakout is the drugs. And you wouldn't have anybody believing in so-called global warming if they weren't on drugs, if they weren't on drugs or if there wasn't a drug culture. That much of the fraud of our culture today, is largely based on the idea that you've got a drug culture: It's the music, it's the pessimism, it's the loss off of clarity of mind.
This brings us back to why this organization has been able to prevail in this fight over the course of these 40 and 50 years: Because it wasn't simply that we didn't like the Vietnam War, or that we didn't like Obama. This organization has been led by a distinct quality of thinking, that Mr. LaRouche himself has embodied. And I think you're going to have a class later today, by Phil Rubinstein which addresses some of these questions.
But this drug question goes back a long time. This was a policy of the British Empire. This has been a targeted attack on the American culture. It has been the most vicious. The same thing was seen in China, with the Opium Wars. And this was explicit British policy. You can read the British economists, you can read someone like John Stuart Mill who will tell you, it's the right of the Chinese to have access to heroin, to opium, it's their right, it's their right to liberty to be drug addicts, to destroy their minds.
Now, the bigger question is this: If the population is not drugged up, you wouldn't tolerate Wall Street bailouts. And when we talk about drugs, we're talking about, of course, marijuana legalization that Obama has pushed; we're talking about the massive epidemic in heroin, which largely stems from the addiction to painkillers, to opioids, and this has been an explicitly Obama policy: They unleashed the gates on prescription drugs, especially painkillers. So this is a program.
If people weren't on these drugs, and this is a broad portion of the population, you wouldn't tolerate these questions, you wouldn't tolerate the destruction of your country; you wouldn't watch the industry break down; you wouldn't watch the nation go into wars for 15 plus years of perpetual war; you wouldn't watch the bailouts to the very criminals that ran the criminal fraud against your population; and you wouldn't tolerate Obama's ongoing drone attacks and murder policy. And so, what we're getting at is a real question here, that this question of liberating the minds of our population is something that Mr. LaRouche, Mrs. LaRouche and this organization, and everyone who's been a member has been fighting for, a liberation of the human mind: That the slavery today is a slavery of the mind.
Because what we're talking about is having access to the future. That many Americans today have an emotional connection out of fear or anger for what they've seen. Very few Americans today have an emotional connection to the kind of future that we can build and create. That might be a little bit more understandable when there's not much there on the horizon in terms of a new potential. But today, what we've seen consolidated over these last few years, and especially with the Brexit and then the Presidential election is now a new potential that is clearly more than just possible. It's approximating everything this organization has been fighting for. And there has to be an emotional connection that we can address the problems that mankind has faced for fear too long, the kind of poverty and famine and wars, that people still imagine Africa to be. As we saw with the Ethiopian-Djibouti rail line, China has a vision of Africa far different than just wars and famine. But many people in Europe and the United States accept "that's just how Africa is." We've lost our vision, we've lost our sense of the future.
And this is really the target of this drug culture, it's to undermine the ability of the human mind to access the future, both either based on people who have become addicted to drugs or dominated by the culture and by the music, by the scientific frauds, or by the people whose families are broken down from it, or whose employees are destroyed by it.
Now, this brings us back now to the single unifying question of what we've got to do to address this problem. The mobilization of Glass-Steagall and of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws is now the primary focus we have to implement, for two very clear reasons. It is the inflection point of this entire political process. On the one hand, if you're going to shut down this criminal drug trade, this scientific fraud of global warming, operators like George Soros, like the Wall Street banks, like what we've see from Prince Charles in this push for this global warming fraud, we're going to suffocate and shut down the funding for the these types of operations, and you're going to shut down the drug-running operations. You're going to pass Glass-Steagall. There was a former UN official, Antonio Mario Costas, who made it very clear, and other people have corroborated this that the banks are dependent on the hard cash of the international drug trade, and that through Glass-Steagall you separate those institutions and you fundamentally change the ability for those banks to depend upon the very livelihood of the American people for their gambling addiction. We're going to wipe out the Wall Street gambling process, we're going to wipe out these worthless debts, and we're going to stabilize and ensure the stability of the American population. That's Glass-Steagall. You've got to wipe out this British system.
Now, at the same time, Glass-Steagall is the first step for the United States to take to make it possible economically, not just to permit it, for Trump to encourage or endorse a new relationship among nations, but to then establish a direct participation economically of the United States in collaboration with Russia, China, Japan, other major nations, that Glass-Steagall is the first step.
The second step is a national banking system, and then you have the opportunities for the public credit and the science driver programs that are so key. Now this national banking is the very principle of the United States. Every time it's been called back into existence in some form, you have a transformation of the American economy. And there's very clear reason why: Because at the point we have today, today, we have a monetary system, you have a system where the money circulates based on a liberal conception of mankind, that at best you seek pleasure and attempt to avoid pain. But that's the very existence and nature of human decision making and choices on a social level and govern economic practices. That's the extent that the British economic system views any so-called statistical principle within economics.
But the very opposite is true: Human beings are not governed by according to that process. We have unique access to the power of the human mind to identify the longer and more substantial principles that govern our universe, our development and our culture. And that we have access to recognize and identify those principles, to discover them as new ones and to act upon them toward the benefit of the society and of mankind as a whole. The National Bank does that: It takes the so-called "money supply" that's been thrown out there through these bailouts, through these printing presses, and it shuts that process down and it aggregates that money supply and transforms it into a credit system. It changes the system, it becomes an inflection point, or a change. So that that money is aggregated with a singular focus of development of the country as a whole. That is an aggregate power of the nation as a whole and its future to develop that future. That's why the National Bank becomes so important. That we take the money that's in circulation, we take the Treasury bonds that are in circulation, and you're now bringing them to bear, not just simply distribute it to where they might find some quick profit. Like you see in New York City, I see it here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Where does a lot of the money go that directly affects us? It goes into real estate, it goes into hyperinflation to the basic commodity, things like real estate — that's a major area.
Under a national banking Hamiltonian economy, under a LaRouche policy, that investment is losing money; it's becoming obsolete; it's a slumlord like approach to economics to put your money into so-called real estate as some kind of long-term financial investment. In a true economy, one based on this conception of principle of mankind, the one governing this new system, this new relationship among nations, is one where advanced technologies, you're having a transformation of technology, making the previous technologies obsolete. That's where you find your greatest profit! That's where you find your greatest return on investment! In the areas like fusion technology, space exploration, what Kesha raised on the Thursday night call [http://action.larouchepac.com/national_call_february_9].
These questions of major scientific and technological advancement, high-speed rail, of a development of land area, something like the Bering Strait Tunnel, to develop the areas of Far East Siberia, northwest parts of Alaska and Canada and the United States. These kinds of technologies and projects create a new economy and a new society, that's where you find the return on investment. So instead of having money oriented towards where people can make people can some kind of quick gain, on very obsolete and static entities, or even worse, as we know, the drug trade. That the national banking system transforms that and reorients it now towards a real advancement of the development of the country. And that's a sense of principle. That's a sense of what the human mind can grasp, that capability. And that's why it's always been such a powerful aspect of the United States economy.
It's been this drug culture that we've now seen for over 50 years in this country, promoted and endorsed as somehow "expanding your mind," that we're now out to end that drug culture, to end this British system, and to orient to what is very clearly an international level, a major development orientation with major nations. And that nations like Mexico, you know, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly made it clear, we've got to work with Mexico. China has offered to work with Mexico, in questions of high-speed rail, port development.
This is the parallels between the projects under discussion today and what this organization has promoted and developed over 50 years, from Operación Juárez to the collaboration on the International Development Bank, these projects are now coming to bear, but not as separate projects, but as a unified, integral system as human development. And it's that kind of political fight, around Glass-Steagall that then becomes the inflection point on two aspects to eliminate and destroy this British system, and to create this kind of new system which can clearly be consolidated over the coming weeks, and potentially at the Belt and Road Initiative summit in May, with the level of representation that might be developing there.
So it's somewhat of a striking world. And the way that we saw Glass-Steagall developed last week, at the press conference, you saw the bipartisan effort, you saw the commitment to work with the new Presidency, to break this so-called partisan political theater you currently see, the political theater of George Soros at the airports and these protests, you saw people cutting through that to focus that they were going to work together, bipartisanly, with this new administration to bring this policy to bear.
And then, over this last week, you see the consolidation of these international developments, the war on drugs, the collaboration with Japan, with Russia, with China. We've got a lot to do.
So I wanted to make my remarks more extensive, given how much is there, just to kind of refresh it, remind everyone, put it into context. And then I'd be very happy to see what you guys are thinking and open up the discussion.
SPEED: OK, thanks let's go right to that discussion. We have about a half-hour.
Q: Mike, this is R.S. from Bergen County, New Jersey. You said a lot, it requires a lot of thinking, it requires a lot of filling in of details, and last night, it was pointed out on the call, that the Levin report is out, and is readily available in pdf form. [Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse http://www.hsgac.senate.gov//imo/media/doc/Financial_Crisis/ FinancialCrisisReport.pdf?attempt=2] It comprises something like 600 pages, but there's a lot in there, and as you mentioned, it is an exposé of some of the major banks, HSBC, in particular. What's really ironic about the whole thing is that, and obviously there's necessity for Glass-Steagall in order to split up the banks. But there are also other money-laundering laws that are on the books. And when you glance at the Levin Report, you realize that some of the activities of HSBC were from Mexico to collect piles of cash without really asking very many questions, and then run them through HSBC accounts. So it creates deposits from cash that they inevitably knew was coming from nefarious activities, and this is in violation of money laundering laws that we already have. Now, I don't know to what extent the banking laws of Mexico are different laws from the banking laws of the United States, but we know we have banking laws.
So it raises the question of where was the government in enforcing the laws that are already on the books with regard to HSBC's activity, which is very clearly brought out in the Levin Report? I personally would, given that it's pretty easy to distribute, I would like to send out to all the legislators of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a copy in pdf form of the Levin Report, and I would also like to provide a summary of the most important aspects of it, pointing out criminal activity and I would pose the question to the legislators, why were you not enforcing laws that are very clearly stated, and how did you allow this to happen?
And not only that, but you cannot allow it to happen any more, otherwise you are criminally complicit.
STEGER: Well, that's what we had. We had 15 years of a criminal Presidency. It's the Executive branch which executes the law. And that's what we had. And the American people — there's been a loss of the ability to conceive of a future, to recognize we are free of that tyranny. By no means are we naïve about various problems, or what could take place within the Trump administration; but it's very clear at this point, that we are free of this kind of criminal British sponsored behavior at the Executive branch. There is a fight. And it's a fight that we have to shape. It's a fight we have shaped over these 40 or 50 years of a process. So there you see the question: Are we going to be committed to fulfilling — and I think Phil Rubinstein is going to take this up on a higher level — but is there a commitment to follow through on a full development of a new world system and the development of our country? That's what the Four Laws are; you have to start with the fourth one. And for too long, that kind of commitment has not existed. And when you don't have that kind of commitment, then you have corruption, and you have a direct compromise of the American population. And they've been sitting there, letting this take place to them.
The American people have to bring a connection to this kind of fight, to what we now have as a possibility to fulfill. It's our government. It's our chance to fulfill this. They don't follow through on a lot of laws — look at the drug legalization. You think the drug legalization in California, this is going to be a tens of billions of dollar industry! You know, you have a third of the population in California on Medicaid? And 40% youth unemployment? This state's been gutted, it's destroyed! And you're now going to legalize drugs?
So where's been the execution of policy? It's been outright treason for 16 years. And I think that's what we've got to recognize as the change.
And we've now got to fulfill the change, by what you're describing, execute on these laws, and reinstate the law we most need which is the Glass-Steagall.
Q: Hi, I'm D. from the Upper East Side in Manhattan, and my question is about the Federal Reserve. And in particular, it seems to me that if we were to add a Fifth Law maybe it would be about the Federal Reserve and getting rid of it, because it seems to me like the original banking conspiracy. Can you comment on that? And what's your thoughts about the Federal Reserve?
STEGER: It's not that important. The Four Laws will override the Federal Reserve's ability to control the current economic policy. Because it's not. What's controlling economic policy is a British directed policy to destroy the United States; so you've got to break from that first. Can the Federal Reserve continue to play a monetary role? It can. It might not have to indefinitely. We can definitely, at some point, we could eradicate it; that's not a problem. But what you have to do first, and this is question — the difference is, at a point of collapse, we're looking at the collapse of the British Empire, right now; we're living in it. This is what it looks like; it's pretty awful. Everyone can see the collapse, everyone can see all the problems.
The question that most people have lost, and they don't know they've lost it, because they don't even know they had it, which is that the power of their mind to access the future. And to conceive of the future according to principles, that then allowed them to act to fulfill and create that kind of future. And that's the very principle of economics; that's the very principle of what our banking system has to be based on. And the American people have lost that conception. And if they can conceive of it theoretically, is there an emotional connection that is so strong that you don't become distracted, you don't get diverted from the mission at stake. And when the mission is presented as it is today, with such clear potential, that we don't let ourselves get distract from that.
So the question is the National Bank. The National Bank will essentially take over the responsibilities of the Federal Reserve, but most importantly what it does, is it changes the system itself from a money system, a monetary system, to a credit system. And that change is the one that's most important.
Q: [follow-up] I do think that that's important, that essentially we take back control, because, just the principle of allowing a private institute to basically run the financial institute of the United States is just fundamentally wrong in a democracy.
STEGER: Absolutely. Absolutely. And the way it's set up, it's meant to facilitate this British system, this monetary system where the money goes towards a pleasure-seeking society versus a society looking for real development. And I think more Americans are craving this question of real development. That's a political fight.
Q: [follow-up] I agree. Thank you very much.
Q: Good afternoon Mike. B. from New Jersey. I just wanted to go back to something you brought up around the meeting that Trump just had with the airline industry, and in the process of that he was talking to them about the railroad system in the U.S., where China's got these high-speed rails and you get on a railroad in the United States and it "chug... chug... chugs..." along. And at first it would seem like an odd thing to say in the middle of a meeting of airline executives, to talk about railroads seemingly a competitor. But in thinking about it, what you see is an industry which has the potential to actually access the ability to develop that railroad system, in a competent way. I mean, here's a high-tech industry, which has got the manpower, it's got the technological capability, and it's got the expertise which could easily be shifted over into the development of a high-speed rail system.
So it really is a fit and it's also what's going on around the fight for Glass-Steagall is a fit from my own standpoint as a retired member of the AFL-CIO, the Building Trades; that he met with the leadership of the unions in the country.
And just a little sidelight: In the development of the trade unions in the country, one of the primary things it's gone after is the development of the human mind. That is, number one, they require you to be clean from drugs. That's an absolute thing — I don't care if you're in a five-year apprenticeship or other type of training programs, up until the last day, you can be randomly tested, and if you flunk that, you go right back to the beginning of the line again. So it's a real commitment to make sure that you have a workforce that can do the job you need, whether it's like, I used to do work in nuclear power plants; or in other types of industries, chemical plants or whatever. But a real capability to fulfill your own expectations.
So I think what you're seeing, for most people you would think it's amazing that you're not seeing this "chug... chug... chugging" of an administration. You're seeing whole new areas of capability being developed in the administration, which we have to make sure particularly by making sure Glass-Steagall is passed, and the Four Laws, and complete, and make sure it can fulfill that capability.
So just maybe some more thoughts on that from me.
STEGER: That's great. You know, Helga said this morning, when we talked to both Lyn and Helga LaRouche, on this drug question, once people get a sense that it's real, that there really is going to be a war on the drug culture, both for rehabilitation; you know, Mike Billington reported — Mike Billington and a number of our leading members had served time in prison, unjustifiably, as political prisoners. And while they were there, they saw the deterioration of our prison system. You know, 75-80% of all crime is drug related; how many people on drugs are either have mental health problems, or the mental health problems are becoming created by the drugs? And so, how many families — we see it when we call our various networks, and do the political outreach, how many families have been devastated by this? How many workplaces have been devastated by leading employees? How many young people got into a sports injury and then became addicted to drugs, and overdosed? So, families that were hard-working and committed and doing the right things, all of a sudden were facing a war on them! Where their young children, or basically nearly adult children are now getting killed and murdered by this process? And one of the things that the media took up, was saying that Trump was overstating the murder rate, that the murder rate's highest in 47 years. What happens when you take the murder rate and combine it with the drug overdose rate? Then what happens? Because this is murder! It's intended murder of the population. This is what people like Thomas Malthus explicitly stated, this is British economics. They state it!
And so, we've got to take the emotional connection people have to this problem, and when they see that it's real, there's going to be a real fight for it, to engage them, and bring them in to a real fight for the vision of what we can do with this world and with this country. I think that's a responsibility on all of our shoulders at this point, to take this kind of situation and to grab it and to recruit people out of this dark age they've been living in, to build this kind of new system. And as we know, the Glass-Steagall is right there, it's the top, it's relevant, we've got legislation moving on it, we've got to bring people into this vision of where we can go immediately on this legislation over the coming weeks. That's my thoughts.
Q: [follow-up] On that, we'll be going back again to Washington to make sure we get that moving.
STEGER: That's right: Everyone should go, as many as possible.
Q: Good afternoon, my name is I.M. I have two statements I'm going to make. I went to Albany recently, and the politicians we met with, they were very receptive in terms of Glass-Steagall. And I think it is a good thing. But I must say, in the '80s I taught in the prison. And I met people, I was very amazed, how people can be high on drugs and you know, get into criminality. But I told them, "You have to be high on life! Regardless of how bad things are!" So, I understand what you are saying about the drugs, etc., but there were people who were able to make contributions, but they just give a blank eye, because they did not care.
Secondly, I worked to train people in clerical and building trades, so I know, on a small scale we helped people. But as you're saying, America need to make it a national effort in order to get people in the 'hoods, — I'm inner-city, but some people are going to say they're 'hoods, the people are there, but they're good people. But when you do not have any insight or people are not helping you to make a better person, you know how people get all into the drugs, and so.
I worked with a particular guy in one of the unions and he said to me, "Oh, Miss. M. if you and your boss had more people, this would be a better world." When [inaudible 53:13] guys who you have to train, you cannot just deal with them on skills, it has to be a whole approach, whether you have to be their nurse, their mother, their everybody. So until American really puts training, Glass-Steagall, and mental health those three have to work together. Because people do not want to be a bum, you know. So there is more to it. So sometimes when I hear people talking, I say, you' know what, they need to go in the 'hood and understand what is happening to people.
So, I like what you're saying, but you need to make some fieldtrips as well. Because don't talk about it from up here, you need to go down in the trenches. I don't mean to get dirty now! But you know, you need to get some real insight from the grass roots to really understand the pain people are going through.
I got a lot of — I mean "Oh, who does she think she is?" because I grew up where — you know, we bad-talk the British, but I got the best out of them, from the Caribbean. I know they were bad, but I'm not going to say that in terms of certain things. But I learned to navigate. Things may not be 100% with me, but I'm high on life.
SPEED: But do you have a question?
Q: [follow-up] I'll say one thing: go and do a little field work, and then you're going to have more! See when you hit it out there, people are going realize, "He knows exactly what he's talking about." So this is what. Do you have any comment now?
STEGER: I think the point you made is the right one. It's got to be every aspect of our society. You don't address this part, piece, by piece, by piece. That's why the leadership we play is so important; it's not because we're not down in the trenches, we've gone there. We've done the outreach, we know the nature of it. But the question is that, the point you made is the right one. It's got to be the whole culture. The whole society. The guy at the gas station, the doctor, the judge, the police officer, the mothers, the nurses, the schoolteachers, the street cleaners, everybody has to have a sense that we're going to uplift this process. There's going to a be a higher mission for the nation; that we're oriented towards a vision of the future, and that we have clear ways that we know we're going to make that happen.
And what's developing amongst these nations around this Belt and Road perspective, this summit in May, this has the potential to be one of the greatest historical events in human history: never before have East and West civilizations come together in this way, potentially, to discuss a new world system of global development. And for the United States to be taking the steps now over the coming weeks to prepare ourselves to participate in that, and create that kind of collaboration and development, at every level of society, that's the critical steps we've got to focus on, right now.
But I think you're right, we've got to incorporate everyone.
Q: [Elliot Greenspan] At the first of the year, Helga LaRouche emphasized that 2017 can be the year in which the new paradigm is consolidated. What's happened over the six weeks from the first of the year is stunning, what's happened in the last six days is stunning. It's clear. You've gone through the details: Between now and May 15th at the Beijing [Belt and Road Initiative] summit, it's clear that this new paradigm, this new world economic order can in fact be brought into being. Lyndon LaRouche, in a discussion a few days ago, emphasized that Trump will not be a problem, in terms of actually bringing this into being and we're seeing that unfold. LaRouche had said, right after the election, "we don't depend on Trump, we depend on the creation of a new international system," which is what we've been working on for 40 years and it's rapidly being created.
But, Lyn stressed, we have a limited time, in which to consolidate this: So, first I want your thinking on that, on why that is, exactly how that works.
And secondly, we all here have an extraordinary challenge, because the potential to bring this into being is right there, we've got to break through in this country, the Glass-Steagall is on the table, there's a petition operation going on: We want within two weeks from now, two and a half weeks from now, on the 28th, to actually have Trump address this , when he addresses the Congress for the first time. You've alluded to problems in the organizing, problems within the population, within our own ranks. And I think it would be invaluable for people in the room who are committed to this, and want this to come into being and have quite an historic task in front of us, I'd like you to just elaborate for a minute on how you see the difficulty of doing this, the subjective problems.
STEGER: Yeah. I think we all recognize the population is distracted. Even aspects of our own organization can get distracted. The future has to become tangible, and it can be. And the problem is that this culture is basically at this point, there's been an operation to prevent that, for a long time. But there's an operation now, in the media, and — you know — I think if you're smart about it you see it from a different angle. You see all this coverage of petty corruption, whether it be talking about Ivanka Trump's clothing line, or the so-called travel ban, refugee thing, executive order; you see all this discussion in the media regarding all these things, and the reality is that these are out to distract the population. Maybe they're even out to distract the media. The real questions at stake is the potential to consolidate these strategic points. The British Empire, the guys in London, the guys in Wall Street know what Glass-Steagall means. They know what this Belt and Road perspective means. They know that if Trump participates in that, and that's now the dominant story of the day or the week for the United States media, then their blackout of this development of this new system breaks down.
And so, the role we play in these coming weeks to consolidate this, because the distractions, the demoralization, are the very weapons that this Empire has to undermine this characteristic.
And so, I think Lyn knows it. Lyn knows that we've got a process going on. It's a process that's governed by a much higher process than even Trump and his team probably understand. But it's what we've generated: You guys saw it there with the JASTA fight. What did we ever mobilize — I mean there were deployments to Washington, D.C. for the JASTA fight; there were some. But it wasn't a main focus. The focus was to uplift an orientation of the population to a higher sense of just and of the American society, of what we truly were. We weren't these 15 years of wars and dark age. We were a society oriented towards the development of mankind and what that meant, through the concerts, through the choral process.
That's the kind of situation, that's where the focus has to be, and the mistakes that are often made, where battles are lost or wars are lost, is because people decide to descend from the domain of principle into some kind of tactical approach, some type of scheme, some type of reason to reason to hesitate. And hesitation can lead to the loss of the greatest potential mankind has ever seen.
And so I think that's the problem that we face, and that's the kind of clarity of what this domain of principle is; and it was probably best captured, as least for me as an example, with what we did on the JASTA fight. Because we soared on the domain of principle, overcoming what seemed to be infinite opposition in members of Congress, with Saudi money and Republican corruption and Democratic submission to Obama. And you overcame that, from a higher domain of principle. But that domain has to be acted upon. It has to be accepted, voluntarily by a part of the population, to really fight for it. It doesn't act upon itself.
SPEED: Let me just say a couple things here, because we're going to close this section out, in a minute: We've emphasized and LaRouche has emphasized, continually, that Wall Street has to be shut down. Now, the President needs to do that. If you are going to do a war on drugs, the first thing you are going to do, is shut down Wall Street. The premise that you are taking law enforcement actions, in some ghetto, and you're not taking them at a bank, is not a viable premise! The addiction in the country is among bankers, who are so addicted that they actually began doing the exact same thing that they were doing in 2007 and 2008, and they've done it again! The drug problem is their addiction to speculation. If you want a war on drugs, you have to have a war on speculation, instantly! So, could the President do, what one President once did? Shut all the banks? For a bank holiday, to put up a wall?
President Trump likes to put up walls. Why not put up a wall, around the drug speculators?
See it's important to realize that what we're talking about with Glass-Steagall, we mean. And apparently Trump means it. Now, he didn't say what I just said. But that is your war on drugs! That is what has never been done. And that is exemplified, in terms of the person, the poster-child for that, is George Soros! Master Speculator, major purveyor of legalization, major opponent of Donald Trump, and the employer of Steven Mnuchin.
So, I think it's useful to realize that something else has entered the picture with respect to our mobilization and deployment, which we need to think about in those terms. As opposed to, "oh Donald Trump did something, this is good, we're reacting to that." No, wait a minute! Maybe this is what we're attempting to do — I mean if we're intelligent enough to understand what we're supposed to do.
Now, the relationship between the Manhattan Project, as Lyn designed it, and anything, including the Presidency of the United States, is we are supposed to see the opportunity, and act on the opportunity. That, by the way, is what all Presidents of the United States always expect. The Presidents are not supposed to decree and make all the policy: The citizens have to do something. We were built to do that.
And so, I just want to make clear and to underscore, on the travel to Washington — we're also going to go to Albany — and we're also collecting petitions on Glass-Steagall, that people should think about, what we have just talked about here, from the standpoint of that mobilization, because it's one and the same thing.
And the last thing I wanted to say was just on this issue of the culture. Well, that, of course, is why we do what we do with the chorus. The chorus is not extracurricular to us, it's life-and-death. It's the core, frontlines of our whole political battle, in America, and in New York City in particular. And more can be said about that. Diane of course, has talked about that quite a bit, and John Sigerson as well, on many occasions, and many of you are involved in that. But you won't stop a drug culture, if people don't have a sense of a future. They'll just die. You'll say, "we'll take your drugs away," they'll say, "Well, I'll just die. I'll take you with me." What is the future?
So what Kesha Rogers has been emphasizing with respect to the space program or these other things we've talked about, this is the world for us to understand, that the LaRouche Manhattan Project, what I'm trying to say is, what we do, is what will determine the success or failure of these initiatives which are very important, that you've heard about this week. And we have to think about this as a culture fact of our time. We are a cultural fact of our time. What we do or don't do, determines the way in which the entire culture and civilization goes.
And so, I think it's significant to just put things often in that context, and then you don't get worried about some of the other problems that could come up, in any initiative, that anybody proposes, including President Trump.
So Mike, if you want to give some final, closing remarks?
STEGER: I just think these next couple of weeks are of the greatest importance in human history, and we should do everything we can. We've got the deployment into Washington, as was stated, but the level of outreach, the inspiration we can bring to many Americans—.
One thing that stands out is this, there's very few Americans that don't realize there are big changes afoot in this country and in the world. But far too many of them are looking to the mainstream media or the political press or whatever it is, to capture a sense of what's taking place. They're not going to get it there. They're only going to become more disoriented and more demoralized. So our outreach, our inspiration, our ideas, have to propagate like they've never propagated before in this environment, because victory I think has never been closer at hand than it is today.
SPEED: OK, thanks a lot Mike. We're going to have to get to work, and get this done.