|
|
The Manhattan Project: Town Hall Q&A Event with Lyndon LaRouche, August 8, 2015
8 August 2015
Lyndon LaRouche returns to Manhattan! As the epicenter of culture, politics and economics of the nation, LPAC is hosting regular Town Hall events every Saturday in Manhattan featuring a live Q&A session with Mr. LaRouche. TRANSCRIPT DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome you to our ongoing dialogue of the Manhattan Project with Lyndon LaRouche. We’re in the midst of a mobilization which particularly kicked in after August 6, the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, although Mr. LaRouche had called it much earlier. And in this mobilization, we’ve been making a very specific point: that Hillary Clinton needs to do something for humanity, and the United States, and that is, that we need her, and we need others, to take action to make sure that Barack Obama is as rapidly and efficiently removed from the power of the Presidency. This is very important because we have been in this discussion, and this discussion has begun to progress. Mr. LaRouche will give an opening statement, and it will be followed by questions. I believe that people who’ve been here know, just come to the microphone and ask your question. So, Lyn, floor’s open. LYNDON LAROUCHE: Good to hear from you again, and we shall, without looking too much on me at this point, let’s get the thing started. That we are presently faced with a crisis of the United States, and of many other parts of the world as well. We’re threatened with a great rate of death, should it happen, if Obama continues to remain in the Presidency. Because his intention is to launch thermonuclear war on a global scale. That’s his intention. He’s already been moving in that direction, and therefore our question is: How do we get rid of him, in order to free the people of the United States from the great terror that Obama’s present policy threatens to most of the human species as a whole? So, this is the crucial issue and this is the thing to be kept in mind. This issue. Because that’s the point. And what people will ask questions about here, will obviously be relevant, implicitly, to answering, implicitly, also, the questions which the citizens who step forward to raise a question, will help us to see more clearly. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. How are you? LAROUCHE: I’m not too bad for an old geezer. Go ahead. Q: We’re really glad to be here right now. My question is kind of an elementary one, and I just wanted to kind of get your ideas on this particular issue. We talk about the Guns of August. And for everyone here, I’d like you to just give us an idea of what is actually meant by the "Guns of August," and how that title ties into what we’re talking about on a large scale today? LAROUCHE: You should remember, even if you didn’t know it as such, that what happened in the course of history, beginning with the last decade before the new century came into being, that is the 20th century; and at that point, what was called the Guns of August, which meant that a series of warfare, steps of warfare, had been going along from 1890 to about the beginning of the next century. And what this represents was the march of mankind from the beginning of the 20th century, into what quickly became World War I. And we’re now faced with a challenge that a new world war, like so many other preceding world wars, is now come to depend on us. Because what Obama has done, President Obama has done, has brought the world up to a threat of thermonuclear war. Now, if that war, and that threat, were to be executed, there would probably be nobody left, human beings alive on this planet. So, therefore, it’s important that Obama be removed from the Presidency, in order to secure the human species. We do not have to go to thermonuclear war. The world does not need thermonuclear war. Obama wants thermonuclear war. He’s made it very clear. Our argument is: Obama should be removed from office now, in order to prevent him from launching thermonuclear war. And the danger of that launching is right now. It comes right in the person of Obama. Obama is on the edge of pushing over a process which would cause a thermonuclear war, worldwide. What does that mean? That means that the conflict today is considered in terms of two points of reference: one is Obama, what his intention is. His intention is to launch thermonuclear war throughout most of the world. That’s what the intention is. What’s the alternative? Well, getting rid of Obama, and going back to the standards of the President of the United States, as we had experienced that, for example, with a great President, Kennedy, who, in his time, prevented the occasion of a killing thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States. And so the time has come for two things: First, prevent this war that Obama is trying to bring on, and do it soon. Secondly, instead of having a thermonuclear war, we have to begin to organize cooperation among the major and other nations of the planet as a whole. We must go ahead, and understand what mankind is. Mankind is not an animal. No animal can invent the future. Only mankind, in the form of science, for example, can create the future. Mankind is a creature who lives on creating the future for mankind. And that’s what we must achieve. Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. This is H— from the Bronx. I’ve been organizing in the street a bit and I have a bit of confusion over a certain matter that keeps coming up. The Obama administration has signed this Iran agreement, which, on its own merits, seems to be a reasonable agreement. And then you have certain Republicans running for President who are saying, no, they want to get rid of the agreement, and they’re going to get rid of it as soon as they get elected. So, that’s one thing. What does this Iran agreement mean? Does this mean a slowing-down of the war drive, or not? And the second thing is, you also have certain questions about if Russia has the early warning systems to find out if they’re being attacked, where on the other hand, if the anti-missile systems that are being put in place in Eastern Europe, are they going to be ready in a couple of years. So, I don’t doubt the danger of nuclear war, and the importance of what we’re doing now, but I do have certain questions on the timing, and also what this Iran agreement means in this whole thing. LAROUCHE: Well, the Iran thing is relatively minor. It is not very significant. Because the significant issue is this: The issue is the conflict arranged between Obama, and also the British Empire, and Russia. Now, it’s not just Russia. There are other forces. But Obama is crucial. Obama is a product, also, of the relationship with the Queen of England, which is one of the driving forces—the Queen of England is the driving force behind Obama’s whole career. That’s a fact. Now, Russia is putatively the immediate threat to China and other nations. But that’s nonsense. The point is, Obama himself has moved step by step into this present period—that is, before the 1st of September of this year—and in that period, according to the present scheme, the likelihood is that during about that time, Obama would launch thermonuclear war. Russia would not launch thermonuclear war. It would respond to thermonuclear war, once Obama had launched thermonuclear war. The result would be horrible. And mankind might not survive it. Now this will be very quick. It starts with a matter of seconds, with a coordinated launch centered on seconds, huh? At that point, Russia will react. Russia will not attack the United States. However, Russia will act to defend itself, if the United States launches an assured kill of Russia. And everything else goes from that. This is now the immediate situation. This is the implication of continuing Obama in the Presidency of the United States. That’s a fact. There are other things that could be explained about that, but that’s the hard case. We are now, within the immediate period ahead, Obama is moving already towards steps which would mean the launching of a general international thermonuclear war. Russia would then respond to the attack from Obama, to defend itself against Obama’s attack. That, in short, is a situation which situates us right now, during the range of this month, and possibly into the early part of the next month. In short, that’s the story. There are things that could be explained about that story, but that is the story. That fact does not change. That’s the fixed reality of this moment, unless Obama is removed from the Presidency of the United States. Q: I am R— from Bergen County, New Jersey, and this question is closer to the Glass-Steagall issue. Last week, in the Wall Street Journal, there is a gentleman by the name of Ken Griffin, who is a head of a hedge fund called Citadel Investments, and he was being interviewed, and he came up with what I found to be very intriguing, interesting statement that I think is a summary of a certain attitude among the Wall street entity. His statement was, in talking to the type of business hedge funds are engaged in: We don’t manufacture cars, we manufacture money. [LaRouche laughs] So, my question is — I mean, this struck me as a pinnacle of monetarism, as a way of life; it just sums it up very well. The belief in money alone as a source of value. Could you comment? Oh, by the way, when you get to have the kind of money that this guy has, you can afford very high-profile divorces. Because apparently in the same article it was pointed out — this is happening in Chicago — his wife is suing him for divorce; and part of the terms that she wants is "upkeep money" of $1 million a month, which I thought was pretty interesting. So anyway, my question is: Can you comment on more of the morality aspects of monetarism, and how it kind of poisons people’s attitude; it has a very negative moral implication? LAROUCHE: Put him back on the screen, now. I have more to say. I want to look at him, in order to address him. OK, what you pose is very complicated, in some degree, question. And it needs a full explanation. These are very important things, because you’ve raised certain questions, which I do not agree with, but I think you will accept quickly, when I identify these measures; and I think important, before this audience, that they have a chance to understand exactly what I’m talking about, and what he’s talking about at the same time. Because, I think we converge, in terms of our general intention, and I think it’s important that he have a fair chance to respond to this, in his own terms, as I make a reply to this thing right now. You want to shut it through; this is too important to shut off. And I’m ready to take it on. Now, look: There are many assumptions in what you say which are fair assumptions, but they’re not necessarily accurate. Let me explain: The issue here is that Wall Street is totally bankrupt; it is hopelessly bankrupt; there’s nothing that can save Wall Street. The question is, since Wall Street is going to go bankrupt anyway, put it in bankruptcy, but you have to have a step. Instead of having a monetarist conception of the U.S. economy, you have to have a human conception of what the economy is. That means that we want to have productive employment throughout our population, as a mode of existence, and that the government of the United States shall cancel everything except Glass-Steagall, and oppose anything that is not Glass-Steagall. And the United States government now has to create — after dumping these banking interests, which must be cancelled, plain cancelled. They are worthless, and therefore you cannot argue, that the people of the United States have to pay a bill for a worthless value, or less than worthless value. So, therefore, that has to be done, which means that an extended application of Glass-Steagall, must replace entirely the Wall Street system. In other words, the Wall Street system must be put into the garbage pail. The people who go bankrupt, all right, let them go bankrupt and let them stay bankrupt if they want to. But we must take steps to the people of the United States with the means, monetary means, of reconstructing the ability of the people of the United States, to be able to be employed in ways which are reasonable for the service of the United States, as such. And we would assume that everything we would do, under those kinds of conditions would be consistent with a generous attitude toward the other nations of the planet. But the United States has to be defended! Wall Street has to be cancelled. Every penny of Wall Street assets should be wiped off the books! And then, what we would do is create a Franklin Roosevelt-type of measure, is a credit system to help in creating a program of employment, which will reconstruct the nation of the United States as a whole. That is a simple way of dealing with this. That is the fact! That’s what must be done. Anything that is not doing that, is absolutely wrong and is a threat to the existence, of the citizens of the United States. Thank you very much for sticking on on this thing, but I wanted this thing to be explained clearly. Q: I had another question which is a slightly different topic. That when I talk to people, I don’t talk to a huge number of Americans, but, when I do talk to them, it seems like sometimes that they’re from outer space. I don’t know where they’re coming from, to be euphemistic, to be kind. My question is, do you think that Americans now, are more complacent that the Germans were in the 1930s? Can we call the U.S. in its current state, "fascism"? LAROUCHE: No. It could be considered that, but I don’t think we should hanging around, waiting for that to happen! What we should do is simply cancel Wall Street. Cancel Wall Street! Because the United States must create a fund for productive purposes. We must rebuild our economy! The people of the United States are suffering greatly from the conditions of life today. We must take steps which would do mainly one thing, even from the beginning: We’re not going to wait until success blossoms above us. We are going to make it clear, to the major part of the population as a whole, that we in the United States are committed to cancel the Wall Street system, and come up with a contrary system, which is the Franklin Roosevelt principle; same thing. But we have a much more urgent problem than Franklin Roosevelt had to face, because the murderous characteristics are much more important today, than they ever were under Franklin Roosevelt. However, once Franklin Roosevelt died — and I have a very special attachment to Franklin Roosevelt; but, when he died, what happened was that his death allowed scoundrels of various types to take over through the Truman administration. And we never really recovered from that. We’ve gone generally sliding down, more poorly and more poorly ever, ever since President Roosevelt died. And so, the point is, we have a big job: we have to take the same kind of program that President Franklin Roosevelt proposed, to create that kind of a credit system. And we have to get our people to work in forms of employment, which are suitable to the dignity of American labor, and the families of those people. And that’s my summation of my view on this thing. Q: [some of this question is paraphrased for clarity — ed.] Hi, Mr. LaRouche, nice meeting you. I waited a long time to see you. My name is A—, a poet, Arabic poet, from Syrian-American farm. I came here to talk to you and to talk to all American people. And I wanted to, first of all, when we talk about Obama, we have to remember what George Bush did, and what the father did; and McCain, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld. When we are going to talk about the system of the United States, we have to think: What is the best idea, to get peace to the whole world, when we change the mentality of the Congressmen and the Senators who love to live in the blood. We are not going to forget about what happened in Iraq; we’re not going to forget what’s gone on in Syria! Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, and a lot of Congress — McCain, [inaud 9:17], supporting ISIS in Syria, and we have proof of that. And they murdered for 40 years, when our kids are bleeding, killing, our women raped — and all the world and especially the media lie. And make the stories look like the Syrian army killing the people, when that time we were under terrorist attack. I want to say to Mr. LaRouche, and everybody hear me: It is time to move clearly to let us have our power as Americans. I want to now say AIPAC doesn’t make the decision of the United States. Americans do the decision making, not AIPAC, not money, not the Israelites. It is time for the United States to give people to most of the truth, to see what’s going on in Syria, and what’s going on around the world. First of all, we have to put money for our propaganda. We cannot have propaganda to get our voice out, because they have the money to campaign. We have to think: Why would make enemies? Why would we, as Americans, make everybody hate us? We’re killing the Iraqis; we’re killing Syrians, we’re killing all over! And we say, "Oh, we are nice." Is it time, in our voice as American people to say, "Now we offer our hand for peace, like the Syrian people for peace." I want to ask you a question, Mr. LaRouche. You hear about Syrian President Assad, about [s/l Five Seas 25:46] and I know you know it. Why doesn’t the world accept it, when we say we don’t want a war? Syria is the keys [s/l for which they want to break the BRICS 25:55]. There, I’m done. I want to tell you one thing — I’m sorry I’m taking a long time — but it’s a time to hear me, and to hear a Syrian voice, and Syrian kids, when they call on everybody, "Stop that war!" and nobody listens. [weeps] It’s time, the Syrian people say, "Stop! Enough!" to all over the world. Put pressure on Senate and Congress, and Turkish and Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar: Stop defending those terrorists! Mr. LaRouche, now we are endangered. Now we have ISIS, we have jihadists, a lot of them al-Qaeda, and now a new one is called [s/l al-Qalasan 26:36] coming out. The governments want to hide it, but it’s true. We have to open our minds — the only way — I’m sending a message for all over the world, to be connected with the Syrian President and our government in Syria; to take the name and take the information of who is walking into our country! We don’t want to wake up to another 11th of September. I’m done. And, the second thing I want support, and my voice now, for all people; this is the time to move, with all our faith and our country, to stop the tax on old people and their houses. They work all their lives; when they get older, they’re not supposed to pay tax, in order to help them out to live and enjoy their lives. Thanks a lot! LAROUCHE: Okay, if the President of the United States is replaced by a suitable President; to replace Obama and to replace Bush before Obama, also, in that case, the basic complaint is removed. But it requires also a revision of the U.S. economy, as such. In other words, we must get rid of Wall Street; we must cancel Wall Street. Wall Street, and the British Empire, are the secret sources of what you’re complaining about. So, if Russia were in charge, you would not have much of a problem, as such, with Russia, at this time and under these terms. But, in the area you’re talking about, the danger is great, and Obama is among the major threats to life, in that particular community that you talked about. And therefore, we have to get rid of Obama from the Presidency. If you don’t get Obama out of the Presidency — and we can do that, under a provision of our Constitution; we can throw him out of office on short notice, and I recommend we do that. But we also need to create a financial system, a reformed financial-monetary system, which enables us to meet the urgent needs of the American citizens, who are either not employed, or poorly employed. And therefore, we must do the two things together, as one and the same thing. We must give protection, to mankind throughout the planet; we have to talk about human beings, and say there is nothing which can compare with a living human being. We have to take that as our point of reference. Reorganize the world! We have an excellent thing that just happened in Egypt. The Egypt achievement is great. It’s wonderful. In one year, they have accomplished a miracle. They have opened up the possibility of development of the whole world, in various categories. They have opened the gate for that. And this is wonderful. There are other things like that which can happen. That would do it. But that’s the way to look at it. That’s the way to look at it. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. My name is M— from New York. I have a question about the Silk Road project. This week there was an email alert from EIR regarding desertification program in China. And I looked at some videos, and went further, and I did run across a video documentary by John Liu, a Chinese photographer, who documented this whole program of reclamation program of the desert area in China, the Loess Plateau, and this took place about a decade ago, and it was fascinating. So I was wondering; and he was so moved by this, just being the photographer for it, that he went and became a soil scientist, and changed his profession. So I was wondering, is this something that is being offered as part of the infrastructure-building that China is doing for the Silk Road to other countries, as well? Can they export this technology as well? LAROUCHE: Look, China at present is leading in the world in terms of progress on this account. And China is also, together with now, with what was agreed to with Egypt, one year term of double-channel for international trade. So there are things like that which are very important, they are ready to go. The problem is, what is the threat to those kinds of programs from being allowed? Well, I would say, President Obama is the chief threat throughout the whole human society; as a threat to the United States itself, but a threat to the people of the United States, a threat to most of the world. Obama is the greatest menace to humanity at this moment, now. And that’s the thing that has to be solved. Q: Basically, I agree with your entire worldview. However, the devil is in the details. I spent all my days talking to people in the street, organizing all kinds of groups in New York City, especially housing, especially in the Puerto Rican-Hispanic community. New York City is 42% Spanish-speaking now, and the rate of that population is growing. Do you see any difference between Obama and Hillary Clinton? And then I would like to make a comment after you. LAROUCHE: Oh, there’s a big difference. I know Bill Clinton very well. I worked with him during a good part of his career, in two terms in office. I also know what mistakes he had made during his second term. But no, that is not really the problem. The problem was for Bill Clinton, was the British problem. And what happened was, he was set up by the British Queen, through the British Queen’s means into the United States. And what happened is, the system of the Republican Party, which framed this whole thing up, is the cause of the problem. As a result of this problem, what happened was, we cancelled the Glass-Steagall law. And the cancellation of the Glass-Steagall law is the chief reason for the accelerating rate of destruction of the incomes and conditions of life of the citizens of the United States. And that’s what the key issue is. Q: That might be correct, however, Mr. Obama is the first elected African-American President. And I believe that if you were to concentrate on Mr. Obama by himself, any organization that will want to get rid of Mr. Obama, will have a reaction from the African-American community, as racist. And, the person who is the real President of the United States, as far as I’m concerned, is a Naval Intelligence officer called Hank Paulson. He calls all the shots in the geopolitical strategy of the United States, and the economy of the United States, and I think we should take a good look at him. He’s investing in Puerto Rico. He is looting Puerto Rico, and throwing people in the Puerto Rican community out on the street, here in New York and in Puerto Rico. LAROUCHE: Well, I have to correct you. The point is, that Obama is the greatest threat to humanity on this planet right now. What has happened now, is Obama has deployed forces now, to launch war by the United States against Russia and other targets. This man must be removed from office immediately, now, if you wish to keep the people of the United States alive. Q: Mr. LaRouche, good afternoon. My name is L— from Harlem. The question, similar to the gentleman who just spoke, I need help in understanding the focus on Obama within this context. That if we were talking during the Bush Administration, and it was said that Bush had to be gotten rid of because of, quote, "a threat to humanity," my mind would go to Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neo-cons. So when you talk today about Obama, I need help in understanding that grouping that he actually represents. LAROUCHE: The group he represents is his own ego. It’s not a category. It’s his own ego. Q: I didn’t hear you. LAROUCHE: I say that Obama has no moral qualities whatsoever for anyone. Because if he remains in office, you will be dead! Because he is on a program which will bring mass death throughout the United States and most of the world. We’re on the edge right now. He has been the worst President, that we have ever had, so far — the most destructive and the most evil. Q: For clarification of everybody here, I’m not speaking from the standpoint of "a black person defending Obama" LAROUCHE: I’m not talking about a black person, either. It doesn’t make any difference to me. Q: All right, OK. LAROUCHE: I never had a distinction about black and white, I never believed in it. Q: Okay. But talking about how the question might be received. But I’m not, quote, "in disagreement" based on the information that you have. What I need is help in understanding how a black person — and I’m talking from a black person’s standpoint, not me — but in terms of Obama being in office, and driving the country to the point, to the brink of, quote, "war" and therefore annihilation, nuclear war, how that could be allowed within the Administration; how that could be allowed within the context of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Maybe I’m naïve. But the point is, that there has to be elements there, who know the danger that exists as well as you do, and would be making efforts to do something about that. So that’s the help that I need on that. LAROUCHE: Well, the point is, Obama is the chief enemy of what you present as your cause. He’s the one who is leading you right to the edge of death, general death throughout the United States and elsewhere. Q: OK. All right, thank you. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. Two years ago, we had a Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was also hospitalized in emergency for a blood clot, I believe, in the brain. And shortly after that, she was visited by, some partisan members of the government, regarding the attack on and the involvement on Benghazi. Also at that time, she needed also to testify, in front of the Congress about involvement on that matter. So we don’t know nothing about her. So at that time she was in the hospital, I wonder if she was scared about what could happen to her. LAROUCHE: I’m not sure of all the facts of the matter, but I understand the kind of thing, the plea you’re making on this issue. And I find myself very sympathetic with that issue. What I don’t know enough of the details to go much beyond that. I think the case is important. The statement you make, I think is an important one. Q: My question would be, today she’s running for President. She also knows that she covered up for the President regarding the Benghazi attack. Number two: the coverup of ISIS, giving them support against the Assad regime. LAROUCHE: Sure. Sure. It’s a fact. Q: Can you elaborate on that? LAROUCHE: Yeah. That’s a fact, and it has to be dealt with. We’re going to have to deal with this as soon as we can. And it couldn’t be soon enough. Q: Good afternoon. My name is Miss J— . The reason why I’m up here is because I want to know — I have a couple of questions: Why is it that we blame President Barack Obama for the state that the U.S. is in, when he’s not the only one to blame? LAROUCHE: Because Obama is not a black person. That’s got to be eliminated. I don’t care what the color of his skin is, he’s a bad person! And therefore he does nothing but evil. So therefore we don’t need to make him a hero. He’s not a hero. We’ve got plenty of people with perfectly black skins, who are much more preferable for doing this kind of job. And the time has come to break with it. I mean, this race thing is crazy. There is no difference among the human race — none! There is no moral difference. Except that some people get kicked, and some people get less kicked. And the point is, yes, we have to clean this mess up. The South — you know, the third President of the United States was an evil man, and he created the slavery system in his tenure. And they continued to follow that bastard, through about three more Presidencies. So yes, the United States has committed a permanent crime, against those who were called slaves, and those who were slaves in effect. And the racialist character of this thing is the greatest abomination that the United States has ever suffered. And that has to be ended. We cannot have any discretion in terms of race or anything like that! We cannot have it. Look, we’ve got a lot of yellow people, so-called — Chinese. The largest single unit of population on the entire planet, is yellow. And you want to go down through all the shadings of color of skin? Skin color has nothing to do with human reality! [applause] Q: My next question is, how do you plan on getting the President out of office? LAROUCHE: By impeaching him, throwing him out of office. Q: Okay, I know that the impeachment process has been underway for over a year, so I don’t know at what time frame do you think — LAROUCHE: We have, we have to be more quick. We had three decades ago or so, we had a new law put on the books concerning the Presidency. And under the influence of that law, we threw a rotten President out of office, and we did it on a short notice. That law still exists. Obama is a suitable target for that law. Throw him out of office. Do it tomorrow morning, or the day after tomorrow. Do it soon. He’s got to be thrown out of office, for the sake of the human species in general. Remember, what Obama represents, Obama has built up a warfare policy, which threatens the entire planet, the entire population of the human planet. We have to take him out of office. Now, the idea of shooting him is not a good idea; morally it’s a bad idea. As a criminal, he should stay safe and alive in prison. And therefore, the point is, get this guy out of there. We don’t need him, we don’t want him; human beings don’t want him. He’s an animal, he’s not really a human being. He’s vicious, he’s a vicious character! Look, how many people do you think he killed, offhand on his own right? There was no legality to that, there was no justice in that! He’s a murderer! A public murderer. He murders all throughout the world; he organizes mass murder, throughout even parts of the world in general. We don’t need this guy! The sooner we throw him out of office under the provision of the Constitution which now obtains, the better human beings’ life will be. Q: [followup] Sorry, I also wanted to ask you, if we’re looking at thermonuclear war within the next couple months, don’t you think it would be safe to say that he should be out already? LAROUCHE: No. Doesn’t work that way, you don’t understand the process of war. I’m a specialist in the process of war; I can tell you, we’re on the edge of doing it very soon. And the point is to prevent that solution, and use other methods by throwing him out of office. We don’t want to have to shoot him, we want to throw him out of office, where he can’t kill anybody, any more people. He’s killed too many already. Q: OK, thank you. Q: Good afternoon, Lyn; it’s B— from New Jersey. In the last few weeks, I know there’s been a major mobilization to break the sleepwalking going on particularly among Congress, in which we’re trying to do that through interventions into the press, the news, the radios. I myself have been moving to get meetings with Congressional staff. In fact, I had a direct call from a congressman two days ago in answer to one of my requests, and arranged a meeting coming up the early part of this coming week. But also, before Obama made this shift in Syria, I’d been writing to the newspapers, and I’d just like to give people a sense of potentially the way they can possibly intervene using Letters to the Editor. It goes: "Hillary Clinton Must Come Clean on Benghazi Now" "Former Secretary of State Clinton, and her chief of staff Cheryl Mills, faced with having to give sworn testimony before Congress in October, on events during, before, and after the Benghazi attack, should instead do so, publicly, now. The weight of existing public evidence and prepared under-oath questions shows she and other government officials were pressured by Obama to lie about that, then. Events now unfolding, require the truth. Although this will mean the end of her political aspirations, it could stop Obama, who, now unfettered by a recess Congress, is prepared to star a serial like ’I Have Decided’ confrontation with Russia. Out-of-the-blue added sanctions, confirmation of his new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has declared Russia our greatest threat, and added movement of naval and ground-based ABM and other conventional assets, right to the borders of Russia itself, have prompted the highest-level warnings from the Russia government, diplomatic and military officials. "This exact type of confluence of events is exactly why, after President Eisenhower’s warning of a military-industrial complex, Kennedy had his staff reading The Guns of August. "Clinton’s considerations must now rise above all others, to effect a change, whose implication by exposing Obama, could sway events with national and global outcomes. Russia Duma Chairman Sergei Naryshkin gave a lengthy interview on July 30th in which he warned that a Third World War would be mankind’s end." [as read] And I think that everyone in this listening audience, and whoever we can get to, should be making that point clear to the Congress. LAROUCHE: That’s exactly my point. I agree with you totally on the whole thing. Q: Good afternoon, nice to see you. I’m R— from Brooklyn. I was on two rallies this week and I noticed that the educational system has so indoctrinated people, that when we say Obama is starting World War III or beginning World War III, people have no frame of reference, to comprehend what we are trying say. And would you suggest a tactic we could break down this indoctrination? LAROUCHE: Well, that’s what I’m occupied with chiefly right now. I’m concerned essentially of course with the immediacy of the threat of thermonuclear war, which is embodied in the intention of Obama. That’s the first issue. The second issue of leadership, is what are we going to do, in order to shut down Wall Street? Because Wall Street is totally bankrupt; it’s hopelessly bankrupt. I can never be reconstructed. There’s no value in it any more. And the problem is, what we have to do, is we have cancel the worthless assets of Wall Street: Just shut it down. Forget it, it’s a lost cause. What we have to do instead, is follow Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, during the 1930s. What we have to do is create a provision for circulation of a legitimate, Federal government sources of wealth, that is economy, and we must do this with the idea, that of all the major parts, of the U.S. population which are virtually ruined, and in a hopeless situation, we have to create a fun of the type Franklin Roosevelt used for the 1930s. We have to use that fund and allocate it, in order to create the kinds of welfare benefits, and health care, and productivity which Franklin Roosevelt did during his terms of office as President. That model, which has been tested already, and which is now in effect there, is the sufficient law to the do the job that has to be done in developing the strength of our economy, developing the benefits of our people, and that’s all it takes. Bring back Franklin Roosevelt’s approach to crisis by that method, the same method he used, but we have to apply it in more modern terms, and we have to rehabilitate citizens who are almost without hope. Increasingly, under Obama, the rate of acceleration of loss of wealth, off loss of the chance of life itself, has destroyed things so badly, that only a desperate measure, like throwing him out of office and putting through a Franklin Delano Roosevelt-type of recovery program, using the power to create the currency, in order to provide the means for health and for employment-improvement among our citizens, and giving us a modern economy as well; that is what we must do as a minimal standard for this occasion right now. It can be done. There’s no difficulty, there’s no excuse, which will justify not doing it. Q: Hi, my name is A—. You sort of answered my question, it’s more so on the economy, but maybe you can say a little bit more on, being a physical economist yourself, you know, today, most of the world is moving towards — at least away from a monetarist, mathematical economy, and there’s a real transformation going on in most of the planet, you know, with this BRICS global phenomenon going on. And it’s through this transformation that people, even in the transformation in their minds, like what a real economy actually is and what it involves. And it seems like your idea of physical economy sort of touches upon every aspect of human life. You can say more on that. But just on the BRICS and what happened in Egypt recently, I think that’s a transformation going on, that the BRICS has actually materialized; it’s a real physical impact taking place, on the planet right now. And it’s just changing — it sort of embodies your idea of physical economics. Maybe you can say more on that? LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, that’s the point. What we have to understand about the nature of mankind, is a way of addressing what you have said, just now. The point is that mankind is not an animal: First fact. Mankind is not an animal. Mankind cannot be identified by any name of animal. Why? Because the human being, in its normal state, mankind is always going to higher levels of discovery, in space, in everything else. And mankind’s creative powers, which are unique to mankind; it’s expressed often as scientific advances, but there are other things as well. And the progress of mankind, the development of progress, the development of the spirit, of the mind, of the skills of mankind, that’s the issue. Because, what’s the meaning of all this? Well, you have mankind? Mankind dies, people die. Is that the end of the meaning of their life? It should not be; for me it is not one. Because what happens is, the normal course of life of mankind, is different generations, successive generations of people acquire superior qualities of productivity at a higher level of productivity, at a higher level of skill, mastery of new skills that mankind had not known before. So mankind’s role is, yes, we’re all going to die in due course, or maybe a little earlier than due course in many times. But the point is, mankind is a creature of the future. No animal is a creature of the future, only mankind, and the purpose is that mankind must become better, and stronger, and richer in terms of effect with successive generations. The greatest period of renaissances in human history, have been periods of great originality in achieving new skills, new principles of knowledge. And that’s what makes mankind. So the devotion has to be of the development of mankind, to rise to higher degrees of power, to discoveries of scientific powers which mankind known before, and to bring those forces to bear; because now, mankind, which is not just on Earth, you know, with Kepler’s arrival we already had the Solar System. Kepler exposed the Solar System’s existence to us. And now we’re in a higher system, which is called the Galactic System, and most of the water in the system that our life depends upon, is based on the Galaxy, not on the Earth’s water system. Earth’s water system is a minor part, of the whole water system of the Galactic System. So therefore, all of this is available to us. It’s available to us, through the realization of what we call scientific discovery; scientific principles which carry man to a power over nature, which is beyond anything mankind had experienced previously. And the proper motive of mankind is that mankind must say to their children, "You," the children, "will be empowered to discover principles of nature and a power of nature which earlier generations were not capable of achieving." And that’s the attitude on which we have to operate. That’s the conception of man, mankind. And thus mankind is an immortal species in this respect. Mankind may die, but when mankind is productive, mankind before dying, contributes something, what with the next coming generations will achieve a higher rate of development of the human species than the previous ones. And the fact that people used to think that way. They’d say, "What is life all about?" The immigrants used to talk about that. People who came as immigrants into the United States. And they would think about, "Things are tough, for us right now. We’re immigrants. We don’t have the access, we don’t have the right accents and so forth, therefore we have to accept a poorer position than most of the native Americans of that time." But the point of the purpose was, well so what? You have a family, your family is integrated into the United States by immigration in many cases, and therefore you have a right to partake, through your children, a right to get the kind of education, the knowledge, the opportunities which earlier populations had achieved inside the United States. And in turn we have to give to all the people of the United States together, both immigrants, and those who have been, shall we say, regular citizens. We have to make each generation of humanity more meaningful than what the earlier generation had been capable of doing. And it’s that concept of progress, which is not just physical progress; it’s the progress of the human mind, and the human mind’s ability to make discoveries which mankind of the earlier times, had not been able to do. So what you get is a principle of triumph. Mankind is a constant principle of triumph. Mankind must always reach to higher levels of achievement, for the future of mankind, at each turn. And that is the moral principle on which we should base all our assumptions, all our doctrines. That mankind is the perfect case, the perfect mass in the system, the perfect growth which can do everything that no animal could ever have achieved. Q: Good afternoon Mr. LaRouche. My name is A— . Obama is crazy and creating situations that easily become a thermonuclear war, either by intent or by accident. Since his actions are insane, doesn’t he qualify for removal as of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or indictment under the Nuremberg World Court? Could the United Nations bring Obama up on charges before the war becomes nuclear? LAROUCHE: Yeah. Well the purpose of this thing is obvious, that’s the nature, of which we in the United States should have adopted. I don’t think we always did adopt it. But the recognition that we are all going to die; everybody dies eventually. The question is, what is the outcome of the life of the person who dies? And the person who creates a generation, builds up a generation, to a higher level than they themselves had achieved, is the great heroic statement. What is the definition of human immortality? It’s the realization of creativity on behalf of mankind’s mission? which always leads to a higher and better form of expression, of human achievement than before. This was true in the characteristic of the Renaissance, for example the medieval Renaissance, so called, was the same thing. The idea of the permanent Renaissance, that mankind should always rise to a higher level of achievement, moral achievement, practical achievement, than the generation before, as an average of the situation. Mankind thus progresses, as no animal can progress. No animal can choose a superiority over man, because mankind is the highest level. And therefore the population of a nation must be progress in the service of the Almighty, in the end. Q: Can Obama be brought up on charges, before it becomes nuclear? SPEED: Lyn, he’s asking whether Obama can be brought up on charges by the 25th Amendment [crosstalk] LAROUCHE: Yes he can, in the period of the 1960s and ’70s there was a bill was put through which dumped a President out of office in midterm. And right now, and any time you want to, there is a statutory provision, under the Constitution of the United States presently, that any President, such as, for example, Obama, who’s no damn good, shall we say, and therefore can be dumped out of office suddenly, by the proper means of our Constitution. And that should happen. Q; Hi Lyn, this is A—. I wanted to, in the context of the Manhattan Project as it were, talk about music insofar as, early on in the process as I am, and being a part of the chorus, and even my participation has been somewhat limited, the idea is finally starting to register in my mind; because of the challenges that the work requires, the fears, one has to either decide to run away from it and not come back, or return and work through, the tensions that are there. And I mean it’s all very friendly, but those things exist. And I find it very challenging, but I’m beginning to get the understanding that if you can work through this with a group of people, and develop yourself, then the question of confronting your fellow citizen on the threat of thermonuclear war becomes less fearful. [LaRouche laughs.] You’re facing your own fears. So it’s early on , but it never really made sense, I just went to sing; but the thing is starting to come together. And then the idea of doing what we need to do, which seemed impossible, begins to seem more possible to me now. So I just wanted to share that and get something back from you on that. LAROUCHE: Okay, well the point is, is that the composition of progress, and composition of musical composition, Classical musical composition is a miracle event, in the sense of ordinary opinion. Because creativity, true creativity in music, for example, depends upon a development of the idea of music, which is always perfect. That is it goes ahead, the general history, the course of history from Bach, on to the present time, there has always been a current of progress up until the beginning of the 20th century. At that point we had a general degeneration in the quality, intellectual quality and moral quality of music. That is the form of music that in the later generation, as of the 20th century, what was generally provoked prominently, was a degenerating process in terms of music. Now the significance of that for music is, that the effect is, that bad music, that is poor music, that is music that is not fit for mankind, shall we say, has created a degeneration of everything in terms of the moral aspects of human life over the course of the 20th century and beyond. It became more and more acute, particularly after Franklin Roosevelt died. But then, there were heroes who stood up again, like Eisenhower, for example, stood up was one of those heroes, and they represented a defense of the principles of United States where certain Presidents of the United States had failed, brutally. The point is that the importance of music is a moral one, in a very special kind of way. It’s a moral force which leads to improvements in all the qualities of the human individual. And when they’re deprived of that, it’s like bad education, bad schooling, which destroys the morality and destroys the rights, of the citizen, — the child and the citizen in general, — and therefore there’s a kind of a sacred implication of the sort of magic which is expressed by Classical artistic composition as such. And this, as through Brahms, for example, and through Furtwängler, for example, who are leading examples of this thing, that approach to music, is not a mechanical one, is not a practical one. It’s a moral principle, that mankind’s ability to think in terms of what we call music, rises and lifts mankind upward; whereas bad music, or junk music destroys the creative powers and moral powers of the population. So there needs to be a moral drive which compels people to find a greater virtue, in their life than before. Q: I guess you’re making me think two things. This creative power that we have has gone too far into weapons. And I’d be willing to bet that most of these weapons in Syria and other places were manufactured in the United States. And, one of the brightest young men I ever knew graduated from the State University at Binghamton, then went into the Army to finish a degree as an engineer. And then he must have been sent to Iraq; and he came back, and he looked at me, and said, [overcome with emotion] "I killed 12 people" and I know that so many of our young men are coming home and committing suicide. We have to get those positive elements back into our country, and our education too. LAROUCHE: Absolutely! Q: Sorry. The best education I ever had was in a New York public school, and we have one year to get our kids really understanding civics and the responsibility of living in a democracy. LAROUCHE: Yeah, good. Q: I speak. Q: Hi Lyn, this is M— in Manhattan, and you’ve made abundantly clear for the last week that the key within the United States and everything we do is obviously about Hillary Clinton coming clean about what she knows about Benghazi, and therefore getting Obama removed as President of the United States? LAROUCHE: Well, she is not the biggest problem. She is a serious problem, she’s her own serious problem. And the Benghazi thing is obvious, and she knows it, and I know it, and other people know it generally. But what happened to her, is she became a victim of Obama, President Obama; she became a stooge for President Obama. She lied in order to support Obama, on those lies! OK, and you had a serious effort, to challenge Obama on his crimes. He was the guy who willfully murdered, American citizens working abroad. And he killed many people! He, on his own whims, pronounced the death of people! And he didn’t care who they were, he just wanted a target. And would target somebody and shoot them down and kill them. A lot of people that way. So this man is a man who is unfit to be President at any time in his life! He should have been prevented from getting into the Presidency, absolutely. I don’t know how he got there; I think the British put him in there. You know, I know enough about this stuff to know, so that’s not speculation, that to me is knowledge, scientific knowledge. So that’s the problem. The problem is now, we now have a choice: If what is happening with Obama, in his direction, his intention, the steps he’s making to encroach more and more, upon everything that our life means, that we have to remove him from office. And we have a provision under law, for which he is satisfied that he must be thrown out of office immediately, just as a President back in the early 1970s was thrown out of office. He should be thrown out of office immediately, automatically. He’s committed all the crimes; let him endure the pains. And that’s the answer to this. She is simply an unfortunate — and I’m afraid that she might die, because I know Obama. And Obama knows she’s no longer useful to him. And when somebody is not useful to Obama, and the figure is important, I pity the person who Obama is trying to get rid of. So it’d be her own life’s safety as at issue, in her dumping Obama now, while she still has the means of doing it. Q: So, on that basis, now we in the United States, we here, when we talk to people, should be clear that that’s the idea. But oftentimes, we speak to foreign people, whether in positions of power or not — say, you talk to someone from Egypt, from Brazil, from Sudan, from Greece, and oftentimes, they reflect the idea that, well, we’re just as afraid as you are of nuclear war. We understand what the situation is, or even if we don’t understand where it’s coming from, we’re afraid of it; but, the point they may make is, we don’t have access to Hillary Clinton. Or, we don’t know how to go about communicating to the proper people to get to her in this way. So my question to you would be, is there another flank, so to speak, that the international community or people from outside the United States can take, to effect the necessary outcome? LAROUCHE: Well, that’s what I’m more concerned about. That’s what I’m actively involved in. You know, I have a certain amount of power in this nation, which is not direct power, but it’s indirect power; that I know a lot of things that can’t be hidden from me, and things like that. And I also have a scientific view, I have a military experience, but I was not very important at that point. But since that time I’ve been very active in these matters. I know all these matters, essentially. I mean, I’m not a perfect person in this thing, but I know most of the things that most people don’t know. And therefore, from my standpoint, getting rid of a President who’s not fit to serve, is not a difficult challenge. And the problem is that you get people of this Congress, for example and other institutions, don’t have the guts to stand up and risk their careers, by challenging a monster like Obama. The people who support Obama chiefly, are not Obama-lovers; they’re Obama-fearers. And if you get the people with guts, they’ll do it. Q: Hi Lyn, this is D—. I was reflecting on the development of our force here in Manhattan, as the germ of the national center of this organization, and at this moment in our community chorus in New York City, and also in our New Jersey chorus, we’re working on Jesu, meine Freude by Bach. And my question to you is, I know that before I became a member of this organization, the youth movement that you created did a lot of work on this piece. And so in a sense, I think it’s very fitting that as this chorus comes together right now, this is what we’re working on. And my question is, what is the significance of Jesu, meine Freude? LAROUCHE: It’s obviously topical. But what it represents is a principle, in which people can affirm a relationship with the process of life and death combined. In other words, what is the meaning of Jesu, meine Freude? It represents the fact that mankind is living in a struggle, a struggle of life, and mankind has to find a standard of behavior, self-imposed behavior, which is in accord with what they believe to be the right means, of bringing about progress into the future of mankind. I mean, everything that is serious about religious belief, Christian religious belief in particular, is all based on that principle: The presumption is, everybody dies sooner or later. But! Some people actually advance, despite death, to a higher level of achievement, than they had represented even in their own lives. And that’s the meaning, of Jesu, meine Freude. Q: Hi, my name is C— and thank you for having me. This is my first time here, and I find it very interesting. I love politics. My question is, if Hillary doesn’t move forward, and I feel that she may not, if she’s really concerned about being President; but if she doesn’t, what can we do at the local level? I’m in local politics, and I’d like to know, what can we do at this level? LAROUCHE: Well, I think what’s going to happen, is, as of now, and what I can give you is only a qualified guess as to what the outcome would be. Hillary is a failure. She blew it, shall we say, in various ways, by keeping her mouth shut in one case, which really sunk her; and then she killed herself more by the things she did say, after the mess she made of not saying. So she’s finished, implicitly finished. And that’s regrettable, because she at one point was a fairly, more than reasonable person. But she had a certain weakness, which is a, shall we say, a political problem. But anyway, that’s the nature of the problem, and there is a solution immediately, and the solution is, she should withdraw from office because she’s going to be sinking deeper and deeper at an accelerating rate, in the competition for campaigns now. She’s finished. But she can have a decent way out by admitting that she had lied, under pressure from the President, in what happened in North Africa; and that’s clear, she committed a crime. She lied, under pressure of the President; well, the criminal is actually the President, Obama. He’s the criminal. So he should be put out of office and other arrangements, we should have Hillary going into a different career, because she’s not going to become President. But then, we have to take this case and not leave it there, and say what is the standard? What is the standard of behavior which is required, by the citizen, when the enter into the idea of election campaigns? And there are certain standards which are implicit; they don’t have to be detailed, they’re implicit. And when they make the wrong move, as she has done, then she’s going to take a back seat. But I’d be happy to see her still living, and I’m not sure that Obama will not kill her, because I know him. Q: I agree with you. Any thoughts on the 2016 Presidential race right now? LAROUCHE: Well, I can’t draw a conclusion. I can draw a very good estimate. We have a couple of people who are, right now, already credible appellants for the Presidency, as opposed to things that I know aren’t fit to run for the Presidency. But see, when I talk about President, I don’t think about President, I think about the Presidential system. Because contrary to myth, it is not the President that defines the character of the administration; it’s the combination of people, who are the combined forces of the Presidency as such, and if that combination of the right Presidency comes into place, then you will get a corresponding benefit in the next round of elections. And that I think is the rough guess of what the best possibilities are. I think we have — O’Malley has obvious potential; some others have some significant potential. And I just think we’re going to have to live it out: If you want to choose a good Presidential candidate, you better get in there and work with them. You have to make it a good Presidential system. Q: I agree. Thank you so much. Q: Hi how are you. My name is J—; I’m from China. My question is, how can you forecast the relationship between China and the U.S.A. in terms of politics, economic culture, and education? LAROUCHE: Well, you just touched upon a very important issue, which is beyond the actual question that you’re posing. Because what’s happening, is, China of course is undergoing a great step of progress, under the present administration of China. This is good, very good. There are problems in China which are nuisance values, where you have a big speculative thing of some groups of people, who are placing in financial speculation. But the China system is a very good system as it stands now; it’s been a great improvement over what the deep potential of China has been for a very long period of time. And China has a great history, one of the greatest histories of any living nation. And they’ve gone through various ups and downs, and fights and quarrels, in certain factions inside among the Chinese population, or different parts of it. But in general, the present administration of China is a miracle of the century. It now is bringing India back to life; it hasn’t been fully brought back to life, but it’s going back to life. Take the whole region, like the new thing that just happened Egypt, the canal in Egypt, the canal in Egypt, has opened up the world so that you no longer have an Atlantic nation as opposed to an Asian nation. Everything’s going to change suddenly as a result of what happened by the Egyptian change right now; everything’s going to change — beautifully. Parts of things in the southern parts of the planet, different parts of the planet, are going to improve as a result of this thing, given a chance. So this is a great moment, and most of the problems we face are not really net disasters; they are challenges. And it’s up to the people who have the opportunity to seek that kind of success, it’s up to them, to demonstrate their ability to seize upon the options that are presented to them; and the current China administration, it’s very well qualified in this respect, the achievements are very great. We would wish that, for example, other parts of Asia would go the same way, for example, look at Japan. Japan, you know, coming out after the defeat of Japan in World War II |