Transcript: September 19 Friday Webcast
September 20, 2014 • 10:29AM

The transcript for this week's Friday Webcast; the audio is available here

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening everyone. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’d like to welcome you to our weekly webcast from Today is September 19, 2014. I’m joined in the studio today by Megan Beets from our Basement Scientific Research Team; by Kesha Rogers, a leading member of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee; and also by, of course, Mr. LaRouche.

Now Lyn, I’d to just start with our very first question here as our institutional question, to give you a chance to respond to this from the very beginning. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, President Obama announces that the United States is setting up a military command center to fight the out-of-control Ebola epidemic in West Africa. What is your view of the President’s actions, and how do you see the effectiveness of the fight against Ebola so far?”

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well first of all, the whole project as conceived, is a sham and a fraud. That’s the first thing to say. Then it becomes more complicated after that point. The question is: Are we going to dump Obama or not? Because, if you don’t dump Obama -- and you’d have to do it pretty soon, like yesterday [laughter] -- then you’re not going to have a United States. Therefore, your choice is, get rid of Obama; throw him out of the Presidency; do it quick, do it permanently. And then simply pull in a brand new Presidency, a normal Presidency, a real one. Get rid of some of the old clowns that document and clutter some of the institutions in our government. But I think we could probably muster a pretty, good team for a Presidency of the United States. I think we could it. As a matter of fact, I know how to do it, but I would hope that there are some other people who would do it.

OGDEN: Well, I know we were saying earlier today that maybe Obama is the deadly virus, since his role model is Prince Philip, after all!

Now, apropos to what you just said, that maybe we should have dumped Obama yesterday, it would have been a good occasion to do it, seeing as the fact that Obama bulldozed Congress into allowing him to engage in another war in Iraq without passing an official Congressional authorization. And not only did the leadership of both parties -- Boehner and Reid -- collude with the President to kick the can past the elections on any real debate or any vote on this new authorization for military force, but Obama also slipped the provision of arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, into a routine spending bill, in order to fight a three-way war against both ISIS and Assad. Now, not only does no one actually know if these so-called “moderate” rebels actually exist, unless you count al-Nusra to be moderates relative to the barbarity of ISIS. But Obama’s plan is to send them to none other than Saudi Arabia for their training! The same Saudi Arabia that funded and created ISIS to begin with, not to mention financing and facilitating the attacks on 9/11.

Now, although it’s absolutely clear that ISIS must be destroyed, the strategy that Obama is pursuing, is being very much criticized not only by leading members of the military -- retired and serving -- and also some members of Congress as well. The most explicit of these was Rand Paul, who said in a hearing with John Kerry on Wednesday, he said, “This President is not obeying the Constitution. What this President is doing is illegal and unconstitutional.” And he also made the point that what Obama has already done, in Syria to arm these so-called rebels against Assad, has degraded Assad’s capability to keep ISIS at bay, and that Obama is actually responsible for creating a safe haven in Syria for these ISIS rebels.

Now the other point that he made very strongly is that the Bush and Obama regime-change policy has been a failure again, and again, and again. He named Iraq with Saddam Hussein, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction. He named Libya with Qaddafi, which created the conditions that we now see there. And he named Syria, and he said “You better be thankful that we didn’t bomb Syria last year, as Obama wanted to do, because then maybe ISIS would be in control of Damascus today.”

Now Lyn, you made the point earlier, that the problem is Obama, absolutely, and the British, whose intention is to breed chaos explicitly, but also emphatically Saudi Arabia, who happens to be the world leader in public beheadings. And you stressed that we want Saudi Arabia to be removed from the equation. And there’s a real fight brewing around this question, largely leveraged around the 28 pages. What’s happening, there’s now new signers on H.Res. 428 to declassify these, and former Sen. Bob Graham has made a very strong point over the weekend and since last Friday’s webcast, that Saudi Arabia has essentially been the creator of ISIS and their primary support for financial support. And he said, “The failure to shine the light on Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11 has created the Saudi capability to engage in support and creation of ISIS today.”

So, with that said, if we’re serious about defeating the threat that ISIS represents, it seems to me that there’s three steps that have to be taken. 1) As you just said, dump Obama. 2) Shut down the British Empire and its policy of chaos and destabilization. And, 3) Identify Saudi Arabia as the leading state sponsor of terrorism on this planet.

What are your comments on that?

LAROUCHE: I wouldn’t bother with some of this crap, because I’m too eager to get to the bottom of it, and rid ourselves of this thing. No, there is no reason, there is no problem in getting rid of Obama. There is a problem in not throwing him out of the office immediately.

Now, What is he doing? Obama is actually a case of walking treason against the United States! That’s all he really is. He is not a legitimate issue of any kind. He’s not a moderate this, or he’s not that. He is evil! His behavior is that of an evil man! There is no alternative. The same thing with the British monarchy. The British monarchy is intrinsically an evil institution! There are cases of cultures, which are mistaken; they even make terrible mistakes. But this goes way beyond that kind of thing. What we have is, the maintenance of Obama in the Presidency of the United States, is an act of treason against the United States. And you better write that down real fast!

MEGAN BEETS: Hi, Lyn. So, I’d like to ask a question to follow on this issue of what Obama’s doing to arm these Syrian moderates. In discussions earlier today on the subject, on this issue of the chaos being unleashed in the Middle East, you pointed to the role of Russia and the importance of the stability of Russia as a factor in this whole thing. However, it’s extremely clear that the British game, is to destabilize and provoke Russia as much as possible. And just this week, the British/Obama-installed puppet, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko was trotted around the United States. He was brought into the U.S. Congress yesterday to give what turned out to be a 40-minute speech to a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress. Now, this is the same Congress which had just finished voting up their consent of Obama’s arming of these Syrian rebels.

Now, in that speech, Poroshenko urged the Congress to help arm and rebuild the Ukrainian Army so that they could fight the so-called “imperialism” of Russia. I just wanted to read a couple of excerpts from that speech. Poroshenko said, “I strongly encourage the United States to give Ukraine a special security and defense status which reflects the highest level of interaction with non-NATO allies. And I ask that the United States be forceful and stand by its principles with respect to further sanctions against the aggressor.” Now he also said, later in the speech, “People throughout the world are asking the same question: Are we on the eve of a new Cold War? Is the possibility of a new terrible, unimaginable European war there? Is what until recently seemed unthinkable now becoming a reality? Sadly, today, the answer to all of these questions is ‘Yes.’“

Now, despite how disgusting the words of Poroshenko are, perhaps more disgusting is the fact that throughout the speech, the members of the Congress gave repeated standing ovations to what was coming from Poroshenko, including those members of Congress who had just stood up and identified the unconstitutionality of Obama’s actions when it comes to the destabilizations of the Middle East. And so, what I’d like to ask you is, number 1, for your general comments on the importance of the stability of Russia, and this entire situation. And secondarily what I’d like to ask you is, why can’t the Congressmen -- let alone the American people -- see that those who fight against in one situation, are the same people that they then turn around and support, such as in this destabilization of Russia? What prevents people from understanding grand strategy?

LAROUCHE: Well, the fact of the matter is, that in his standing behavior -- and remember, you have to remember that members of the Congress are not very stable; horses shun them. [laughter] They’re not very reliable. And they’re not honest; they’re immensely corrupt. And we need a general purging of what we call the Congress today.

Now there are people in the Congress who are honest people, and who just submit to being pushed along certain courses. But the fact of the matter is, they have a responsibility; they don’t have a right to choose the way they would like to choose. Because if they don’t choose the way I would choose, they are criminals! Not because they’re criminal by their intention, but criminal by their negligence.

And therefore, you look at the world as a whole. Now, what you’re headed for here is not an issue. What you’re headed for here is thermonuclear war, on a global scale. That’s the intention! That’s the intention of the war-makers! That’s what the issue is. Don’t say “This is the issue.” There is no such thing as the issue. The fact is that they are evil! They are evil. And they are being evil. Therefore, our attitude is, dump the creeps! Just dump them! And force the issue, of cleaning up the Congress.

OGDEN: Well, I would like to invite Kesha Rogers to the podium. She’s been here for a few days, and she got a chance to get a sense of what is the smell of Capitol Hill. So, Kesha.

KESHA ROGERS: Hi Lyn, how are you? I think that cleaning up the smell of Capitol Hill first of all requires cleaning up the identity, in the backward thinking in our population, and in our culture. Which starts with my theme of my question is, on the identity of not having a direction or conception of the responsibility to humanity as a whole. Obviously, we see that from our Congress members, it’s completely lacking, and our population doesn’t have that sense either.

But I wanted to start, first of all, just to kind of develop this point by reading a very short quote, which I think gets to a certain identity in the population, or captures a certain identity in the population. And this comes from one of the principal authors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Arthur Morgan, who was a principal engineer. And he says, “When the average person undertakes an activity, he usually gives little thought to its ultimate purpose in his life, or its ultimate benefit to mankind. He concerns himself primarily with the immediate activities required to fill his needs and desires, and with those questions most immediately related to those activities. Yet, a man’s every act has some effect, however insignificant, upon humanity’s destiny.”

And so I’m thinking about this, and you look at, you know, we have a massive national crisis right now -- the drought, the food crisis. For that matter, a global crisis. And we see that the way that other nations are addressing this crisis -- be it China, be it Egypt, or Nicaragua -- is, first of all with that identity to the responsibility to the whole of humanity, and to the responsibility of the future, of the young people. That’s what you see right now, that’s driving the passion that’s coming out of China, with their space program; of Nicaragua with their new Panama Canal development; or Egypt with their New Suez Canal. And you see that the fulfillment of solutions to the crisis doesn’t start with self-gratification or a desire for short-term solutions. And problem is that that’s what the American people are looking for. They want a quick fix, they want a short-term solution. You take the drought in California, you take the crisis devastating the Western states right now, there is no short-term solution.

And the question is: In order to bring about the programmatic effect that’s necessary to get us out of this crisis, how do we get the American people to start to recognize their identity outside of themselves, outside of a short-term solution as being the only way that you’re going to be able to even start to address any type of solution to deal with this crisis? So, that’s the question, is: How do you get people to change their identity to the whole?

LAROUCHE: That’s fun! Well first of all, you often have to start with the number one, because most people will say, “This is too much. This will not be accepted. This will not work. This is too soon.” And that’s exactly how we lose everything. That’s how civilizations collapse.

Because if you cannot take the action that is necessary for a people, at the time that the people are able to do it, would be able to do it, would be able to do it, and you don’t do that, you are a faker. You are the creator of the very problem that you offer to give freedom from. That’s what the problem is. It’s the gutless wonders, which it’s not because they’re cowardly, as such, but because they will not face the truth about themselves. That’s the problem! That’s where the problem lies. The people of the United States, generally, will not face the truth, above all other things, themselves. And that’s what you’ve got to crack!

OGDEN: Okay, we have a question that was actually e-mailed in, about the vote in Scotland. [laughter] Let me preface it a little bit, just to give people some context. As people know, the vote for independence in Scotland took place yesterday. And now even though the unionists ostensibly won the vote, with 55% voting against independence, and 45% voting for, it really was a Pyrrhic victory for the Queen. I mean, in the largest sense, since the British Empire is now being overshadowed: The Sun that never set, apparently, on the British Empire, is being eclipsed by Russia, China, and India. But also because David Cameron had to concede to a major transfer of political and economic powers to an autonomous Scottish Parliament.

Now, what’s very interesting is, that this has opened the door for many other parts of the United Kingdom to get a little idea in their head. Including, for example, today, Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, called for a referendum on Northern Irish independence. He said, “The people of Scotland engaged in a debate, and had a choice. This decision demonstrates that the people are sovereign, and that change is possible. This means that the union is no longer fixed -- it is in the ownership of the people.” And he made the point that the Good Friday Agreement provided for a border poll for the people of Ireland to decide whether or not they wanted continued partition, or to have Irish unity. And he said, “It’s time for the people of this island to have that informed debate. The people here, like our Scottish cousins, should be provided the opportunity to determine our constitutional position. That is the democratic way forward, after all.”

So, here’s the question. It says, “Mr. LaRouche, it seems that David Cameron had agreed to many concessions to Scotland, if the people would remain in the U.K. union. Some of these, according to news sources, could hurt England, and put London’s own economy more at risk. We would appreciate, if you would comment on this. Also, we were wondering, if Scotland could get such concessions from London under threat of secession, if other countries in the European Union might get the same idea of seceding from the EU, in order to get such concessions, and thereby leading to a domino effect?” [name withheld]

LAROUCHE: Well I think the whole matter here, particularly in Scotland, is the fact that the whole effort was premature. It was intended to be premature, and there to become a matter of confusion. So people didn’t know what the payoff was going to be, for the vote. Some thought they would be punished for the vote, and others thought it would be opportune. And some people were just corrupt, and some were undoubtedly drunk. [laughter]] So I wouldn’t accuse the drunk possibility as being the determining case.

But it’s like that. The British Isles has been the British Isles! Which has been a sick department of humanity. It’s a very sick place. It’s not a good place. There may be a few people there, who actually are capable of thinking. But it’s a very weak place, morally weak. The British Isles is morally extremely weak. Because it’s ruled by the Queen or the Royal Family. And the very existence of the Royal Family means that the intrinsic characteristic of the British system, is that it’s corrupt! It’s corrupt from inception. Not conception, but inception.

And therefore, then, it’s not fair for anyone to say the Scots will think like this, or the Irish think like this, and so forth, they’re all under cloud, of the British Monarchy. They’re all victims of the British tyranny! And none of them has really taken any action, to get that bastard off its back.

OGDEN: Well, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, but Obama responded to this vote in Scotland, by using it as an opportunity to reaffirm his special relationship with the Queen. He said, “This is a sign of our strong and special relationship with the people of Great Britain.” And so, if you ask me, Obama would probably want to have a referendum here in the United States, that we should rejoin the British Empire. Or maybe that’s giving him too much credit, maybe he would just order it through an Executive Order.

LAROUCHE: I don’t think there’s morality in Obama. I don’t think there’s any, not any, really, in Obama. Nothing. No honesty, no nothing. He’s a piece of you know what. And, the sooner we get rid of him, and throw him in the trash barrel, or send him to some place where -- well, how about Saudi Arabia? [laughter] That’s a good place to send him. The trash is already collected there. They can have all the fun they want to, as long as they stay in their own territory.

OGDEN: Right. Well maybe this is a good occasion to remember Scotland’s poet, Robert Burns. He wrote a poem condemning the original Act of Union, when Scotland was forced to join Great Britain, and I think it’s apt.

He says,

“What force or guile could not subdue,

Thro’ many warlike ages,

Is wrought now by a coward few,

For hireling traitor’s wages.

The English stell [still] we could disdain,

Secure in valour’s station;

But English gold has been our bane-

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”

So he says,

“We are bought and sold for English gold,

Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”

Now, there’s a question that I’d like to ask, before I ask Megan to come up to the podium, and this is on the subject of what occurred this week between Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi. Xi Jinping made his first official state trip to India as President of China, and together with Modi, he declared that India and China together will build a new Asian century. And it’s interesting, this is referenced to an idea that Deng Xiaoping used to emphasize, which originated with Nehru, who said, “When China and India join hands, we shall create an Asian century.”

And then at the same time, Prime Minister Modi made a statement this week, saying that “China and India represent 35% of the world population. With the arithmetic of our relations,” he said, “I am convinced that together, we can script history.” Now, he also said, “However, this relationship is not merely arithmetic, but it goes beyond plain arithmetic.” Which I think is really an excellent point, and it’s a point that your wife Helga made repeatedly both during her trip to China and also since her return. She has stressed, that the effects of this new paradigm, of the BRICS countries and the agreements that they have signed, goes way beyond just those countries themselves. And the effects of Xi Jinping’s declaration of his intention to build the New Silk Road, goes way beyond those projects per se. And what Helga has emphasized, is that while all of these are crucially important, the non-linear, or the non-arithmetic effects of the optimism that has been unleashed by these nations, and what these nations have done to embolden other nations and other countries on this planet can be seen everywhere from Egypt to Argentina, for example. And in fact, just this week, there were very significant meetings between the Foreign Minister of Argentina Timerman, who went to Cairo to meet with el-Sisi in Egypt. And both of them declared that their nations have a shared commitment to defending the developing world and emphasized that there is a long history of cooperation between Egypt and Argentina, dating back to the time of Juan Perón and Abdel Gamal Nasser.

So what’s very clear is that this new world economic order, as it was conceived and put into that kind of idea in the 1970s, with your direct involvement, has been on the agenda for 40 years, and it has now arrived and is here to stay, as an efficient force on this planet, something that the British Empire has been trying to desperately stop for 40 years, including in their direct attacks against you and your role.

So my question is, I guess, is the Sun now setting on the British Empire? And what can we do to hasten their demise?

LAROUCHE: Now, the British Empire has to be -- we have to be rid of it, period. There’s no question about that. The problem here is that, people are still thinking in terms of the relics of the system of empire. They’re thinking of monarchies and empires. Now in point of fact, this may look good to some people, the naïve, but they don’t think clearly enough. What we’re talking about, we want to eliminate the entire system of government which we have found dumped on us in various forms.

Now, that does not mean we are opposed to cleaning up the mess in various parts of the world. Yes, we definitely want to clean up the mess, but how do we intend to do it? Do we intend to create a formation of sovereign nation-states? Are sovereign nation-states a solution? I would say, no. I would say, that’s another trick, to catch us again. What we want to do, is eliminate certain features of government on this planet, permanently!

Now that means that we want to create an international community, of common interest, and that we want to share a discussion and a discovery of what that common interest is; not just a common interest, but thinking into the future, thinking into several generations ahead. In other words, personal development is not really very good these days. What happens in various societies, is not really good. It’s a sham, it’s a makeshift. What you want to do is evolve a form of government, of type we would imagine we want. But we want that kind of government, the kind of government which frees us from the tradition of the old systems of rule. And that has to come. And that can come.

For example, you have the case of the BRICS. Now, the case of the BRICS shows you the model of the possibility and the promise of success. So what we want to do is we want to take the BRICS conception, and say we no longer have a system, of governments, but we do have a system; we have a system we, ourselves, create, an international system of a new type, in which the people in various parts of the world do what they have to do. But what we want is the conception, what is the mean of human life? What is the meaning of the existence of human life? Why should you live? Why should you have a human life? For what good is it? To have a free ride, on a good life? Or, is there a meaning to humanity’s role, in this Solar System and beyond? And beyond! Is there a meaning, by which we should be guided, in the shaping of the future of mankind, within the Solar System, and wee bit beyond? A new kind of system, unconceived so far, by most of mankind? But that’s what we really need.

We don’t want to have a new system, which is just brand new and different; what we want to do, is to say, how can man properly manage himself? What is the purpose of man’s managing himself? What are the goals? What is the future of mankind? How do we shape the future of mankind?

These are questions which are not even generally asked, and therefore, we have to take a moment aside, from the ordinary. We have to say, let’s take the lessons we’ve learned from South America and central America, just as an example. Now, let’s pack in with India, pack in with China. China’s a very good example of what the potential is. So what we want to do is, bring about a conscious idea of what mankind is, what the permanent meaning of mankind shall be, what mankind shall do in space: We have to think about that kind of thing. We don’t want the old stuff! We don’t just make a cheap change, from the past.

And so, mankind has to rethink himself. And what you’re seeing in South America, in some cases, what you’re seeing elsewhere, is an attempt by some governments or some parts of governments, to discover a new principle of government, in which government becomes the purpose, not the means but the purpose! In order to give birth, to a conception of man, that mankind has never received before, to reach a level which mankind has never accomplished before! That’s our mission, or that should be our mission. And what we should be doing, is thinking, thinking, about what all that means. We’ve got to have a completely new conception of what mankind is. And there are people now, enough on the planet, we see in China for example, a developmental process which is very interesting, very interesting features inside there, other things, in South America, the BRICS cases: These things are examples, of not of models as such, but examples of models which open the gates to creating a new freedom of mankind in society. And that’s what we have to do.

We have to reeducate mankind within himself, and give mankind a vision of himself, which he had never achieved before, and let him rejoice.

BEETS: So, this’ll be the final question this evening, on the issue of man rethinking himself. You’ve spoke quite a bit about the domain of Classical art, and particularly about the domain of Classical music, and the unique power of a musical performance to grip the mind in a creative experience which is comparable to the mode of discovery of a new scientific principle. And you’ve emphasized that that mode of experience is the true mode of experience of reality, not the so-called daily experience that we get from the senses.

Now, over the weekend at a celebration in honor of your 92nd birthday, there was a performance of a Brahms string quartet, the Opus 51, No. 1, in which the performers of that quartet were able to achieve a level of coherence and an access to a depth of insight into that composition which they had not rehearsed: They had not achieved before what they achieved that day in the rehearsal process. And I think that this underscores the essential point, that the performance of a piece of Classical music is not a literal sounding of the notes in order, it’s not a series of sounds which can be put into place ahead of time. Each and every time, each and every performance is something new, it’s a unique discovery, it’s a creation.

Now, on this topic, the great conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, in his writings, he speaks in some details of exactly this, of the artistic creative process, both of the composer, but of the performer, as which something which isn’t really different, and he speaks about the production of what he calls “an image of a spiritual event.” Now, I just wanted to quote briefly from one of his writings, “The Principles of Interpretation”:

“The question now arises of how the performer, with nothing at his disposal but the separate constituent elements of the work, is to proceed in order to achieve a grasp of the work, as a whole. First, he seeks to assume the parts in the most satisfactory way they allow, in his judgment, arranging them as attractively as he can, rather as he would arrange flowers in a vase. But there is, of course, a vital distinction between such an arrangement of parts, however skillful, and the organic driving force which has informed the composer’s act of creation. For all the performer’s ability, what he achieves can never be more than an assemblage of already available, ready-made elements. Never can it match the composer’s living vision of his creation, with its individual parts bonded together ... by an inner logic sustained by the principle of improvisation. ...

“But how can the interpreter [reconstruct or recreate the work in its original form]? How ... can he come to understand the work as an organic whole and the spiritual experience that underlies it?”

Now, while Furtwängler is describing this process of the creative work of an artist, one thing that I find extremely striking about it, is that he could also be describing the creative process of a scientist, of the scientific discoverer. That fact was noted by the great scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, who was a contemporary of Furtwängler. And it was Vernadsky who raised the solid evidence that, it is the unique creative action of man which, number 1, is transforming the planet and bringing new states of organization into existence on the planet at a rate never seen before in the biosphere; but that, number 2, this power is not limited to the bounds of planet Earth.

Now, Vernadsky wrote in 1920, “Music seems to me to be the deepest expression of human consciousness, for even in poetry, in science, and in philosophy, where we are operating with logical concepts and words, Man involuntarily and always limits -- and often distorts that which he experiences and understands. Within the bounds of Tyutchev’s, ‘a thought once uttered is untrue.’ In music, we maintain unuttered thoughts.... It would be quite interesting to follow in a concrete way the obvious influence of music on scientific thought.”

So, my question on all of this, aside from getting your reflections, is, what must those today who have taken responsibility for the future of mankind, who have taken responsibility of establishing a new system for mankind, learn from this domain of Classical art?

LAROUCHE: Okay, got you. Well, the first problem here, and in that discussion, is the attempt to define a specific equation for art, music, so forth. And there’s where the comes in, becomes very tricky. Because it doesn’t work that way. The creative mind is not a code, the creative mind is a force. It’s a force which expresses itself, and which is not adequately expressed. And therefore, what happens is, you get a process which is the history of this art, art and science, the same thing! And it always comes to the fact, that there is a principle in space, in physical space-time, there is a principle which regulates the system but is not regulated by the system. And that’s the difference.

The idea of the fact that there is a universal principle which dominates what we call principles, that what we call principles are merely shadows cast by this higher principle. It has no specific character as such, and yet, we can recognize its character. All great art, does precisely that. The difference is that it makes the issue, the reality.

It’s not an explanation. It’s a fact that there’s something there, which you can not control, but you can experience. And that is what all great Classical art is. Classical music is typical of the same thing. And you take the whole history of the Renaissance period, from the beginning of the Renaissance to the end of the Renaissance, and that is what is the defining, and what’s lacking is, that most people today, have no conception of what the Renaissance concept is. They always think it’s a gimmick, which is something you can work. But it’s a principle, it’s a principle of the universe! And it’s not something that you can copy, it’s not something you can treat that way. It’s something that takes you over, and which you are willing to obey. And that’s what the truth is, and that’s what great art means, in its highest sense.

There are other ways I could give, you know, a long exposition on this process, but that little, simple definition, which comes from a young gentleman you know --

BEETS: Kepler?

LAROUCHE: Yes! That’s Kepler’s principle! And that’s the principle. So it’s not a gimmick, it’s a principle. It’s a principle which is embedded in everything that makes us good! [laughs] And that’s the whole point of the thing, it’s the principle that makes us good.

You went through this thing, a comparison of how you do that, with others as well, same thing. What you do is you rise to the occasion, where you recognize that in yourself, is something you can comprehend, is something you can experience, and you’re damned glad you could! [laughs]

OGDEN: Okay. Well, thank you very much. I’m going to bring a conclusion to this webcast at this point. So, I’d like to thank Kesha very much for being here in the studio with us; than you Megan. And of course, thank you Lyn.

Thank you for tuning in, and stay tuned. Good night.