Lyndon H. LaRouche LHLDiscussion Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, October 15, 2015 15 October 2015 Transcript- JOHN ASCHER: I’d like to welcome you to our LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, 21 on October 15th. This is John Ascher. Lyn, we’ve had quite a momentous week this week in terms of putting more responsibility on what we have to do in terms of creating a Presidency, and I wanted to see if you had any preliminary remarks this evening. LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, first of all the event which happened on Tuesday of this week, was a general fraud. Now, Hillary Clinton was, of course, the chief fraud in the whole thing, but Obama was also behind it; and you had some other people, who were also of doubtful morals, who were chief operations people in this thing, and behind it was a team of British agents which I intervened on, indirectly, but intervened on them, in terms of the Friday events, last Friday. And we knew that the British had set the whole thing up. The entire idea of fundraising, or so forth that is going on out there, was essentially a general fraud. And the people who were listed as the players, as the candidates, so-called, were actually suckered in. And probably, maybe two or three of them, not always the people you might choose will probably survive this operation. My question is, in this matter is, who’s going to survive? Is Hillary going to survive? Because what’s happened now, really has built her lack of credibility, to the point that she could be knocked out permanently, as a candidate. She’s gone too far, with "El Cheapo" swindles, to probably set up a public reaction, of resentment against her. But there are other aspects, which are extremely important. But the thing right now, is that thing was a fraud. It was set up by an organization which had no business trying to run a Presidential event like this; the swindlers who did it are well known to me personally, and they are swindlers. And the swindlers ran the operation. And the suckers were taken in. ASCHER: OK, well, I know everybody wanted to know what you had to say about that. So, I’m going to turn on our Q&A queue. [Instructs questioners] And we will probably get some reports also from the Days of Action on the question of reinstate Glass-Steagall this week, so I imagine we will hear some reports from around the country, Lyn. Q1: Hi, C— from Boston. I was wondering, I know that you were talking about the Democratic debates that happened this week. But I saw something on the news today, and I was wondering if you had some information, or could comment on that. They were talking about the Lockerbie Pam Am plane crash in 1988, and they’re saying they know who did that. I was wondering if there’s some backstory to that, or something they’re not telling us? LAROUCHE: The issue essentially is this fake convention hearing on a fake call for candidates for the President. That system was set up by an operation, and it was actually backed, which I found out about on Friday, early Friday at noontime, was actually run by the British Empire. And it was the British Empire agents operating within relevant areas in Texas and that climate area; and a whole bunch of British agents were up there, staging what was done by a faker who set up the whole operation. So there was nothing Constitutional about the character of that event. And you have to look at the thing: Here you have, a whole hooting bunch of idiots, screaming and yelling like the devil, taking a bunch of candidates and separating them in terms of their role. And the whole thing was occupying a great deal of time, relevant to the whole proceedings. The discussion was disgusting, it had no relationship whatsoever to truth, and it was run by people who were, in my view, crooks. So this was not a U.S. government campaign; it was a racket, which a bunch of people who thought they were candidates, were sucked into. Q2: [internet] Lyn, we’ve received a number of questions which we’ve combined, largely from the internet; some people have taken your assessment that the Democratic Party was a farce, and that the candidates acted as stooges, as an endorsement of their fears that the whole process is rigged, but that you can’t do anything about it. What you do say could be different about the situation? LAROUCHE: First of all, I wouldn’t allow that thing to happen. Because the way it was set up, and the arrangement of the whole setup, was a fraud, from beginning to end. The key fraudster was Hillary Clinton. She was the one who played the key role, as the sucker, the official sucker in that whole fraud. Now, you had a couple of candidates in there, who were actually candidates, several of them, the two leading ones, and some others who should be considered serious. But otherwise, the whole thing was one, giant fraud. And you had Obama was one of the players, in rigging this operation; at least he was the guy who made a speech to authorize it. But what was done, was done on a private interest, with back of the British agents who were imported into that territory for that period, at least no later than Friday. So on Friday, I knew the British were running that operation. This was not a U.S. operation, it was a British operation. And people got sucked into this thing. Now, the whole thing, if you look at the way the whole proceeding was run, it was a bunch of lunatics, hollering lunatics, hollering without articulation, hollering without any mental processes visible in that mob. It was a very large mob and howling all the time. The whole procedure was disgusting, it was immoral, in the worst, most extreme sense, and it was something that should never have been allowed to happen. We’re going to have a serious election, not a sideshow, not a clowns’ sideshow. Q3: This is W— from Virginia. Mr. LaRouche when you speak of the this process that occurs between the notes, when I was listening to the Democratic debates — if that’s what you want to call them — I guess I figured out pretty quickly, that that wasn’t anything that was occurring in that process between the notes. It was actually on the contrary, they were just being so mechanistic. And I just wondered, ever since I became aware of this process, you know, I’ve been listening to a lot of Furtwängler’s conducting of the works of Brahms, and Bach, and Schumann, and it’s amazing! It makes you think. Whereas, when you listen to other conductors, where it might sound nice, it just sounds a lot like what we were getting with the Democratic debate. And I was just wondering if you could speak more about that? LAROUCHE: Well, sure. We are working on, actually, significantly especially centered in Manhattan, because Manhattan has the greatest concentration; Manhattan and its immediate vicinities, has the greatest concentration, of great musicians, who are actually qualified, superior concert musicians. And what has happened recently, is that in the processes which have now developed, we are having a recovery of the real, qualified, Classical musical thing, based on the most famous director in music, from Italy. And he’s now, of course deceased, but I have a deep memory, because I spent a good deal of time in Italy, on that and other interests; and also some things in German, in modern German which weren’t very good. And so we had a European and American tradition, but especially centered in Manhattan and around Manhattan. Manhattan attracted a great number of great musicians, because of the celebrity of Manhattan itself. So what we have now, is we have a base organization, of people as great musicians, who have great musician talent and so forth; and others who are not necessarily great musicians, but are competent musicians. And this thing is the basis on which we should use our nation as a whole, as like an audience, a place where people go to celebrate this great event, which is the next Presidential election in the United States. And at that point, if we take the proper approach, the proper cultural approach that’s required, we can actually change the situation now. And that means not only the change in the particular situation we’re talking about in terms of economy, but about general. When we look at what has happened to the people of the United States, since I was on the team of Ronald Reagan, which I was on for a number of years, and from about that time on and from the period of Bill Clinton, who also played a credible role in chief, actually; and still represents that today; but apart from that, our nation has been driven down, into garbage. And especially the Bush family garbage producer, and the Obama garbage producer, and also of course, Cheney, the worst beast of them all! ASCHER: Well, Lyn, in terms of what you just went through in terms of the need for a change, the other day we had a report from Paul Gallagher, on the outrageous interview over the weekend that Obama gave on "60 Minutes" where he claimed that his great feat as a President, was that he had "made America safe." And what Paul Gallagher pointed out was that in the last 270 days, that there have been actually 274 mass shootings in the United States. So, what you just pointed to, that we have to address the deeper cultural decline in this country, not just the economy, is certainly evidenced by the reality of what has happened to this country under the Obama administration. LAROUCHE: Well, you have to go back to the Reagan election as President. Now, Reagan was an excellent choice of President. Bush, who was stuck in there as his Vice President, was never any good; as a matter of fact he was less than very good. But when Reagan was shot, by a member of the Bush family, he was seriously crippled temporarily, and on that basis, the Bush family, that is the Vice President [George H.W.] Bush actually pulled a team together to dump much of what Reagan was intending to do; and I know that personally, because I was personally involved in the thing, so I know what was done, and what was taken away. So that the downfall of the United States as a Presidential system, we used to have bouncing back and forth since Franklin Roosevelt; we had some bad people, we had some good people, in the team. But with that process, once Reagan was shot, by a member of the Bush family, and what I was doing with the Reagan administration, what I was supporting which was a very important function of international negotiations, things went down. I got put in the jug, by the Bush family, essentially. And the Bush family has been no good, and the only thing that’s worse than a Bush family, is an Obama. ASCHER: OK, I’m going to take the next question, but I just want people to know, which I think is an indication of how important what you just went through is, that just recent — I believe it was last Sunday, "Face the Nation," which is CBS, had a list of about 18 people they profiled as so-called "outsiders" who have had major influence in the U.S. Presidency, over the past 50, 75 years or so, and Lyn you were listed there, it wasn’t in any rank, but you were number 11 on the list. So I think what you just went through there in terms of your role, is very important for people to understand. So I’m going to take the next question up here; and I think we’re going to get a report, also from the Manhattan. Q4: Hello, this is A— here in New York, and I would like to give a brief report on a visit we made this week, five activists to a senior Congressman’s office, that for the first time in my experience, I can honestly say that I thought it was a very useful and productive discussion — and it was actually a discussion. Initially, we were not going to be seen because we didn’t have an appointment, and we were dealing with the community relations and media person of this Congressman, who was very friendly, but informed us, when it comes to the issue of Glass-Steagall that that particular person was out for the week. But once she was informed that we had been down in Washington the week before to speak with the Congressman’s top aide on this subject, there was an immediate shift. And she asked if she could sit in and take the meeting, and my response to her was, "Yes, because you can think!" And she laughed. And everyone contributed; I think that was very useful. So this was friendly. When I was a constituent of another Representative, by the way, and was down to Washington earlier, this was much different. The response was very hostile, and even as a constituent, once it was clear to them that I was a part of the LaRouche PAC team, they refused to meet with me. Not the Congressman himself, but the aides of his. So already, we were off to a very good start. And it was a discussion: She asked questions, she took notes; you could see that she was listening to everything that people were contributing, and mentioning to her. So this had a calm, yet firm approach to the whole thing. And what was very clear to me, is when Alexander Hamilton, the notion of credit, as the blessing to America, this woman really lit up. Things were being told to her that were new, and she welcomed it, and she assured us, that for both the top aide in the New York City office and the Washington aide, she was going to personally speak to them, pass on our information, and endorse our meeting with these people. We’ll be down there on Wednesday; I’m looking to set that up tomorrow with that top aide, and when this other person returns to New York, to do that as well. Ultimately, I’d like to see if a meeting with the Congressman himself is possible. And I don’t know how human these next two will be, but this I thought, and everyone else that was with us, we had a good feeling about it. I think we’re all concentrating on what this principle of leadership is, not just information. And hopefully, if we keep this up, this Congressman — and this Congressman has been a cosigner for Glass-Steagall; he knows Mr. LaRouche very well, and this organization, but is not taking the action and the fight. So hopefully, if we keep this up, and our activists continue, perhaps we can have him step up and show some leadership. LAROUCHE: I’m sure that we can do something about this, particularly in Manhattan. The importance of Manhattan, is that it is actually the center of our government, originally. That was established by the key official of our government, Alexander Hamilton. And the Hamiltonian principle is still the most vital thing in Manhattan, really. If you look around it, and get some of the stories that are written there, real stories, and trace the kind of people who built our Presidential system as a viable one; we had a lot of bums in there, too, you know. But in general, we bounced back a number of times from the bums, like you’ve got the great Abraham Lincoln, and others of that type, and like Franklin Roosevelt. And they were great Presidents, or the same thing as great Presidents. And so, that’s there. And Manhattan is a center of that tradition. That doesn’t mean that the other parts of the nation don’t have that quality; but Manhattan has a very special, historical feature, because it was the melting pot. It was the melting pot for creation of the United States. And so therefore, I think if we go for that approach, but particularly when you see what’s happened in the United States as a whole, especially since Franklin Roosevelt died, and even worse, since what’s happened under Bushes and under Obama, which have been absolute evil. So therefore, I think that people who are actually people, not monsters, in Manhattan and also in other locations, but especially in Manhattan, we can find that Manhattan can be and, and should be, and in my determination, shall be, and that soon, that New York City and New York as such, shall once again, be a place of acclaim. Whatever else there is in Manhattan, and I have no illusions about Manhattan, at all; I’ve lived there, I know what goes on there, the ups and downs. I’ve seen it all, I’ve been at the top of the ranks and I’ve been in the lower ranks. So I know the whole thing. But I think that those considerations taken into account, I think we’re on the edge: If we have the stamina to carry it through, we have the ability at this point in our hands, if we do the right thing and carry it out, we have in our hands, the ability to bring the United States up to what it really is intended to be. And the place to start, is from there, is from Manhattan. ASCHER: I know one other report from someone who’s involved in a couple of major activities this week, from California, so I’m going to call on him next. Q5: Hi Lyn, it’s B— from L.A. The last time I spoke to you, I spoke on the basis of the spirit of mankind, how do you actually awaken it? And you made it clear that we have the tools to understand humanity. I was reading some of Nicholas of Cusa’s De Docta Ignorantia, and the reason why I bring this up is because, in the past weeks, there were these incidents of putting myself out there and getting the devilish, shall we say, reaction; because we bring up the concept of the future. In one activity, I got an interview with a host on Monday, and the direction was leaning towards the future. We got a call from a person who basically was pessimistic: he was so angry that he couldn’t calm down, to see that he could actually do something, like the implementation of Glass-Steagall, thinking of a credit system; but it was this interaction of trying to organize the population so they see themselves as a vehicle to lead mankind, and to actually progress in such a way that they see themselves and others around them, that they could actually be forced in order move mankind into the direction that we did not see at all in the Democratic debate, so-called. And we could go through, our team on the ground in the Las Vegas, and for me, it was like what you just said about how everything was, even before the debate started, you had these protesters, everything was just fake, all around! And the only real thing was our intervention on some of these people, in talking to them, and you could tell, they needed leadership! They needed an awakening in themselves, to see that they needed to take responsibility. Nobody else will actually do that except themselves. And just seems like, our sense of doing that, you know, A— brought this up with Manhattan and you brought this up about what’s the role of Manhattan, essentially what it is? And it’s like I can give them a brief, you know, some of my interventions with others, but it just seems like, without Manhattan; it just seems none of this intervention which are effective, in order to bring mankind out of their dark age mentality, it just seems like there would be nothing less, except, without the LaRouche PAC, it just seems like we have to ignite the power to get everybody onboard with your conception. I want to get your response if you can. LAROUCHE: Sure. The point is, I think the keystone is the fact that Manhattan is still the center, recruiting people into Manhattan, from the United States into the United States. The fact that this has been the chief point of mobilization, for citizens of the United States, or people who became citizens, and that is very important. The number of competent citizens who became citizens, and who became part of the stream of families which gathered around Manhattan, and had the effect of their influence, in New Jersey, in other places and other parts of that coast, and into California, especially northern California, and the farm section of California. These were very important things. What has happened is the character of those colonizations, from then, in the past up to now, have been discouraged. Why? Well, it’s obvious. When you have Bushes, elected to be President, and for example, and then you had some bad people like Obama, along with the Bushes, and you think the number of years that Bushes occupied the dominant position in the Presidency of the United States, despite what Bill Clinton did. And then look at what the Bushes came back to do; and what came out of Obama, who is the most evil and most Satanic of all those Presidents; and still is the embodiment of Satan himself. He’s a killer; he kills people! He kills them arbitrarily; he has a kill score. He appoints people to be killed, citizens of the United States to be killed, on his caprice! Well: The time has come, to dump any memory of Obama, and to pay any attention to the claims of the Bushes. And taking that as the top of the list of miscreants, I would say that, we’ve got a pretty good perspective, if we can pull ourselves together, and remember, what this nation is and was, as Alexander Hamilton, in particular, exemplified that. ASCHER: The fellow who just asked that question, he was involved about a week ago, in a major intervention at big political event in Los Angeles, which was followed by the radio show that he just referenced. And then this past Tuesday, B— was also part of our team out at the hall in Las Vegas where the Democratic debate took place. Q6: [internet] Lyn, on the theme that you just brought up, I have a question from YouTube. His name is B— from Newport, Washington. He asks: "Since Vladimir Putin spoke at the United Nations and then met with Obama, and then began an assault against ISIS very quickly, I have noticed that Obama seems to be acting more and more delusional in his statements and actions. The question is, ’What does Obama see as the endgame for himself and for this and other nations? Is he conscious of the dangers of war that he is provoking? Is he doing this deliberately? Or is he just a fool and a tool of someone of higher rank whose orders he carries out?’" LAROUCHE: Well, Obama is, essentially a British agent. Valerie Jarrett was one of the people who steered his road to Presidency. She was a very important figure in that respect, and still is. But the whole institution of the Bush family is one thing; but the fact that that Obama administration, has been the most evil thing, in the recent experience of the U.S. Presidency. That’s the evil that has to be removed. And you have to free the people of the United States from any lingering attachment to a process of reaction, support reaction for sympathy for Obama. Obama has nothing good coming to him. And that’s the way to look at it. Q7: This is R— from Brooklyn. I’d like to report on the demonstration that we did yesterday, Wednesday, on Wall Street. The demonstration on Wall Street was put together pretty well: We had music, we had singing, etc. We had, also a sign of the BRICS which had the picture of the people to pose with the BRICS, so a lot of tourists and other people are snapping photos of the sign and posing with the BRICS, supporting our position that the United States should sign on to that treaty. The other factor, the Glass-Steagall Act: I and a lot of us handed out literature, maybe 100-200 pieces within an hour and a half or so; it went pretty well. A lot of people were responsive to the literature. Some of the people wanted to know about Glass-Steagall. The tourists and some of the foreigners didn’t quite understand; they thought it was a strictly American issue which had no effect on them. They don’t know the ramifications if the legislation’s passed here in America, what it might mean for them. We had a full discussion going; I had a couple of young people from Wall Street, who work there, who took some of the literature. They were very happy to get anything on Glass-Steagall, because they heard it mentioned in the debate last night, and they had no idea what it was. So much for our well-educated financial workers. [laughter] We did get a fairly good response; some people who gave contributions, and I think all in all we did fairly well, considering. LAROUCHE: Thank you. Q8: My name is J— from Fredericksburg, Virginia, and my question tonight is, we all know that the deficit is out of control, and this November the Congress is going to have raise the debt ceiling and that’s going to push it up to about $22-23 trillion. Are we actually at the point of no return? And understanding of Glass-Steagall, what are the ramifications with this deficit being at $22-23 trillion, and where do we go from there? LAROUCHE: Well, look at what happened this past Tuesday. Now, it was a big shampoo there, but nobody was cut clean. It was a racket; it was a setup, he was an America, but really his soul was British, in the worst sense of the term. And he was the chief organizer of this roddy-ta. And what you had is that giant stadium full of screaming idiots. They didn’t say anything that meant anything, that was apparent to the audience that was doing the yelling and screaming. None. So the respect was, you had this crazy operation, everything was a fraud, and the people who asked the questions, were not part of the Presidential system! They were not any active part, certified, to be citizens in the management of the economy of the United States, under those circumstances. They were mostly liars, fools! And we had our array of candidacies, so-called candidacies; I think some of them have just lost the quality of candidacy, recently, as a result of these events. We could probably salvage maybe three of those people; maybe four. But it would be the relatively more obscure people who would get that benefit; you had about two people, not Hillary Clinton. She is ready to be wiped out, politically. She’s too much: She’s gone too far, she’s told too many liars, she’s pulled too many swindles. And she has too many secrets which she shouldn’t have. So that so-called Presidential campaign, was not a Presidential campaign. It was a flood of sewage, by and large with a couple, or a few honest people in there, being contaminated by the flow of sewage. And some of them will survive I think; a number of these ostensible candidates will probably survive as being important statesmen in the next turn around. But in general, Hillary has lost it; she’s made too many mistakes. She’s gone the wrong way, and ducked too many important issues. So it means that the United States is going to have to get through this little experience of the past Tuesday: Put that stinking shock out of our minds. And into some real political, and serious political dealings, not the show, the fake show that was run out there on Tuesday. Q9: Hello, my name is E—J— from Columbia, Md. And my question is, during the Democratic debate, they did mention Glass-Steagall, but, it was only from two candidates The other two, they should have said something. If you had to vote, would you support O’Malley, or Bernie Sanders; and it was Bernie Sanders who believed in the idea of socialism. LAROUCHE: Well, Bernie Sanders to my knowledge is not an appropriate choice of candidate for President of the United States. O’Malley is a different case. O’Malley is a man who has intrinsic honesty, in the way his history of his politics has been; and everything I know about him is honorable. There are possibly other people who should be considered. You see the point at this point, people usually think, we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, a President, one President. We also get a Vice President, and we hope he’s not a President of Vice. But then, on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution, of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, "this is the President, now everybody’s going to listen to him." That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified, to lead the nation. But! No one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team, based on the kind of team that had when we compose a Presidential system. It also means we depend on the way we can deal with our members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth. So we need that office, of people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the people of the United States find that they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit requirements of the Presidency. Now, the other part of that has another feature to it, when we try to create a Presidential system, we don’t try to create a Presidential per se; we try in the best features of our existence, and our history; our intention is to introduce new conceptions, more appropriate conceptions, more brilliant, more fruitful, than any team before. Maybe some who are only rivals. But our goal is to go to the highest level, of achievement of the improvement of our system of government, and create a team of people, who are qualified and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it. Q10: This is R— in Oregon, and concurrent with what Mr. LaRouche just said, I think we’d like to see a vision of collegiality come back to the Executive Office. We’ve had enough of this so-called unilateral executive agency which really turns out to be not much more than just a curtain, behind which Britain gets to manipulate the Presidency. But, my question was, there’s been a lot of talk over the last 10 years or so, about reinstating Glass-Steagall, and now you’ve got the BRICS system pretty much under way, Mr. LaRouche. And I wonder if the BRICS agreements that are taking place, if they’re going to supplant the need for a New Bretton Woods conference, which we often used to hear about. Or whether currency exchange agreements are part of the BRICS banking proposals; or if you’re still going to need a New Bretton Woods conference as one of the items on your agenda? LAROUCHE: I think one of the key things on the agenda is Glass-Steagall. Because if you have a money system which is not in accord, or similarity, with Glass-Steagall, you’re not going to have a modern society which is qualified to function for the benefit of any nation. So, we have a change which is now in process, a global change in progress which is not yet generally discussed in the United States, but it’s a very important consideration. What we have now is that China, is the greatest nation on the planet. That’s a fact. The rise of China, again, because that did have a rise and fall at various points, but China is the most powerful nation, in terms of people, on this planet right now. Now, there’s also India with over a billion people; and they are a power, and they will become a power, under the current new leadership, if it’s continued. And we find that also, in the course of this, we can affect nations which are now at great quarrels with each other, we find that it’s possible for us, as Putin as demonstrated for the area he’s operating in now, to demonstrate that we can make peace, where strife and bloody strife has been a problem. These changes will occur. The idea of national sovereignties, and the protection of individual national sovereignties is a required achievement. But, mankind is not just a collection of competing states. These different states have different coloration, in terms of their history and their character. But eventually, as we see in South America, in the best developments in South America, in other places, we find out that the idea of "my nation as itself, for itself" is not acceptable. We must have national standards, which lead into an efficient accord, with other nations. In other words, our sovereignty is our sovereignty; we will not give it up easily. And exactly will not give it up; we don’t have to. Because we will find that we will go into more and more stages, of international cooperation. And therefore, what we want to do is, take that idea. Use that for the United States, to revive the United States from the mess it’s become. And build a kind of system back in the United States, our Presidential system, our Constitutional system, and make that work for a change! It did work at times in the past. We now have to make it work, and we have to make it work as being a part of a family of nations which are seeking to find ways, not only to cooperate, but to make achievements, which take the power of man beyond the limits of the Solar System; and into areas which are beyond, the larger part of the system. So the time has come for us to realize that the accelerated advances in technology, creative technology, not the usual stuff, but that kind of development is the future of mankind. And you find that in the case of China, for example, there is a mood in China now, at an accelerating rate, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, but it means an accelerating rate, it’s the leading nation on the planet and it’s moving in a direction which seeks cooperation with such as our United States and other nations in that group. So we have to understand, we have to have an honest, and truthful vision, of where mankind, where the nations of mankind, must go, how they must achieve new levels of cooperation and efficiency. And that’s what we ought to concentrate on. Q11: [internet] Lyn, I have a question which is somewhat similar to the theme that you just brought up, this is from M— from Dearborn, Michigan. He says, "Lyn, I have noticed that there have been many meetings between Israel and Russia lately, and Saudi Arabia and Russia. My question is what is being discussed in these meetings? Is it just short-term how to stop terrorism and prevent wars from expanding? Or, is there also a discussion of mutually beneficial relationships that can create a lasting peace in this region based on real universal principles? Also, is China involved in this discussion? Thanks very much." LAROUCHE: China’s very much involved in these matters. My wife is very familiar with a lot of the important details of what has happened in China over much of her lifetime in particular. And that kind of development, as in Russia, today: Russia, revived, for example, revived itself from the tumult and trials it went through. And Putin has brought the thing into order. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect order; but I wouldn’t say that Putin would say it’s a perfect order! But the point is, the idea of the cooperation between Russia, now, and with nations in its neighborhood, its relationship to India, its conspicuous relationship to China, and so forth, this is something, which is of precious value, and can lead to that result. And that’s the way we should look at it. Because what we have to do, we have to understand, that the basis — let me lay this out because this is something which is touchy, but it’s also true and I believe in it: The question is, we all are human — we hope! If we’re not human, we don’t extend that courtesy to other strangers. But, we know that mankind dies. Every human being dies, on the record so far. And there has been no recipe to say that human beings will not, sooner or later, die. Well, you say, what’s the meaning, then, of human beings, if they’re going to die? If that’s the trash-end of life, as it might be called. The point is, if we as human beings, develop what we call technologies, by which I mean really scientific technologies, real scientific technologies, not gimmicks, then mankind is capable, and has the power, and we know, as those of us who are, in on, shall we say, the scientific history, we know, that mankind is not going to be confined to living on Earth. Now, we don’t know all the complications that involves, but we know that what mankind is able to achieve, as mankind, for the future of mankind, for the human species, for meaning of the human species as a continuing process, depends upon a process of development. It’s not just a process of getting rich. It’s a process of achieving something which is greater than had ever been achieved before. That’s the mission of life. We all live. We will all die. There is no known exception to that rule. [But! If we have lived in the proper way, and devoted our living in the proper direction, then we have an answer, an opportunity of an answer, to go out in beyond the bounds of Earth as such, and realize that mankind is already, ready to go back to space; despite Obama, we’re going back to space. We’re going to do things about Mars, we’re going to do things about other things. Why? For a joy ride? No! Because we know that we have to deal with the challenges which are embedded in the existence, of the planetary systems, like the Solar System, the Galaxy; these things cannot be ignored. Even the idea of the Moon, the Moon system, the Earth system, we have to have that. So mankind is going to depend upon the development, of the powers of mankind which are supplied in increase, by scientific creativity of mankind. And that would tell us, that mankind is a beautiful devotion, a devotion to the heavens. Q12: This is F— from Washington. I had a question on Iran and how they seem to come up with all these ICBMs undergrounds, if you’ve seen that. That’s about it. ASCHER: He was asking about, is Iran a threat, about these reports of Iran developing strategic missiles? LAROUCHE: Intrinsically no. Intrinsically it’s not a threat. I can become burly and can become nasty, if it gets roughed up or something. But I wouldn’t say that would qualify as a systemic problem. Q13: [internet] Okay, well, I have a question from someone named V—, and it says: "There was news today that Obama wants to U.S. Army stay in Afghanistan for many more years. He promised to leave Afghanistan while was campaigning for his first Presidency. So, it became one of his false promises. How you recommend U.S. citizens to recognize candidate who isn’t a liar and isn’t a fraud?" He’s asking if there is such a candidate who is not a liar and not a fraud? LAROUCHE: I think we could probably dig up one, a whole living one, but I don’t think we want to cultivate, as leaders of our governments, I don’t think we want them on the business end of running the U.S. economy, or the economy of any other nation. We don’t want ’em and we should disqualify ’em. Because the point is, doesn’t mankind create something. Now, this is a simple kind of thing, also among people ordinarily, in my neck of the woods in history. If you’re going to do something good for mankind, or useful for mankind, which you would consider as tantamount to good, then, that’s doing something for mankind. And if you’re not doing something for mankind, if you’re trying to get a ripoff against mankind, I don’t think you deserve much consideration! We may give you some sympathy, but we’re not going to give you much consideration. And I think the point is, we assume that we’re going to use the education of children, and the development of those children in particular, and hope that we’re going to get a generation coming along sooner or later, which is smarter than the earlier burdens of children. And therefore, we would hope that we we’re going to achieve progress, where mankind will reach elements which mankind has never reached before. That’s the point, that’s the meaning of being human. Animals cannot do that! Only human beings can do it! And human beings have a distinct mission, not only on Earth, but in the regions of nearby space, and beyond. And that’s what our listening requires. That’s the role we require. Q13: Hi, this is E— in Delaware. I wanted to just ask about the Democratic campaign process, and also to inform you that having been working with the O’Malley people a little bit, it’s clear to me that, he’s trying to — he’s probably being run a lot by his fundraising right now, because they’re struggling to stay afloat as a campaign. In the O’Malley campaign, like most Democratic Party campaigns, you’re getting all different kinds of people rallying around different campaigns. One of the things I’ve noticed is that a lot of the Gore people are working with his campaign down in Virginia. Some old Gore operatives are working in the campaign in Virginia. LAROUCHE: I’m getting a lot of distortion. ASCHER: He was basically asking really more about the nature of O’Malley’s campaign, and to what extent these candidates are influenced by who they have to raise money from? LAROUCHE: Well, that’s true and not true. It’s a lousy way to describe the problem. O’Malley is probably, of those who were listed on that unfortunate list last Tuesday, — I don’t blame them. I blame the swindlers who organized that affair. And I know who they were working for. They were working for a nominal American chiseler, and they were working on behalf of imported, British agents. And I picked up on the early part of last Friday, and I picked up the fact that there were two teams, of British agents who were assembling to form the organization, which created the announcement, the game that was put on a show, as a political show, as an opportunity for the election. It was a complete fraud! The whole thing was a complete fraud. Now, O’Malley was by no means a fraud; others were not outright frauds. Hillary was a fraud, no question about it. Because what she did was a fraud. She’s been told not to do that; she’s been repeatedly told not to do that. But ever since she became an agent of Obama, she’s been doing that! And I don’t think you want to elect her, because she is habitually an agent of Obama. That’s what happened to her. And I think the reason she left Obama, is because he terrified her. Because Obama is a murderer. You have to understand: Obama is, intrinsically a murderer. He practices murder, against citizens. He practices outright murder! By his own, personal choice! Not by a process of lawfulness, lawful terms. So anyway, she’s not fit, you can’t trust her. She’s thrown herself away. OK, O’Malley! O’Malley, I would trust him morally. Whether I would agree with him on everything he would say, I would say many of the things, I would agree with; I don’t know if I would agree with all of them. But my view is, that particular event, this past Tuesday, was a travesty against the United States itself. It was a frameup, a fraud! It has no correspondence to our record of the process of a hearing, of a candidacy; that is the public hearing of a candidacy, for the choice of a President. None of these people were qualified by their actions, to become chosen to become President. They met no standards. I think as an example, not the only one, but O’Malley is outstanding, for the fact that he did not do anything, which would have shamed him. And that’s a fact. The problem is, that the people who got into that slate of trying to contend, were suckers. They were set up by a fraudster, an American national fraudster, but of British direction. And that’s what the problem was. So we don’t want any more, of that pseudo-convention. Forget it, shut it down, it never happened! And the audience of screamers in that location, who were trying to drown out everybody, with unholy screaming, we don’t want that ever again! That is not an American thing. That is a travesty, and should never have happened. And anyone who tries to defend that event, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Q14: [internet] OK, Lyn, I have a question from P— from the San Francisco Bay area. He says, "Can you comment on what I and many others see as a real danger and not just some paranoid claptrap. Under conditions of Wall Street blowout and financial chaos, that Obama would try to stay in office by using a manufactured terrorist incident to have a legal excuse for a ’third term.’ Do you see this as a real potential danger?" LAROUCHE: I don’t think about a third term as such, as being the nature of the threat. I think the existence of Obama right now, is a grave threat. Q15: Hi Mr. LaRouche. This is K— from Massachusetts. I’m in a power chair so it’s difficult for me to get out; it rained a couple of days. When I can go out I do go out with papers and information. I was calling everybody down in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they were saying how Obama would never sign his name onto Glass-Steagall. I said, "Then, slap the 25th Amendment on his desk!" LAROUCHE: You got it! That’s right! [laughs] That’s an absolutely appropriate tactic! Q15: They said, "How would we do that?" I said, "What d’ya mean, how would you do it? You just have it in your hand, and slap it on his desk. I know that’s what I would do!" LAROUCHE: That’s a good idea. That’s an excellent idea. I think you’ve got the spirit to know what to do about that. Q16: This is T— from Lake Arrowhead, New York. I guess I just need to report that I went to the debate and stood there in the shadow of the golden Trump Tower there, 500 foot tall with gilt windows, and watched one group of suckers going into the casino to lose their money that way; and another group of suckers going into the Democratic convention to lose their money and their souls that way. And I’m watching people go through the motions, and there were a few people — well, there was on particular lady, that I just was wandering among Hillary supporters, trying to talk to somebody, get through the shouting, you know. And there was one lady standing there, and she didn’t have a Hillary shirt on, but she was carrying it. And she seemed open somehow. I handed her your seven-point program, and she told me, "I’m not interested in cheering for a candidate, I want to hear about ideas!" And I go, "Oh my goodness, have I got the ideas for you!" And then I was able to sell her your full recovery program for five bucks, and your Join the BRICS one, so she’s like someone you could talk to — but like one out of how many? And I wish I knew how to spot those people or how to get through to them, because I know there’s a lot of people there who’re just going through the motions; in their heart they know it. LAROUCHE: Well, some of us have to take the leadership in a competent way. I’m an old man now, so I have obviously some more experience than some other people do. Particularly, I’ve been professional in this whole field anyway. No, it can be done. It depends upon having a teamwork, or creating a teamwork system, which can discover among themselves, how to proceed to get their voice being heard; and that means being efficiently heard, where people have to turn around and think and listen to what you say, as teamwork. And that works; it will work. And I think that in the case of Manhattan, for example, which I spend a lot of special attention on, not only because it is Manhattan, but because Manhattan is a leading element in the process of the United States as a whole. If we understand what Manhattan represents, in terms of its influence, over the nation as a whole, you appreciate that. You don’t turn down other parts of the United States as such, but you recognize that Manhattan has a very special authority, since Alexander Hamilton brought the United States into being, by his leadership. So I think that view of Manhattan, as being a center reference point for the nation as a whole, stands pretty well. And from that standpoint, you operate on that basis. Wherever you live, wherever you work, you may have to have certain respect for Manhattan, because you know it has more influence, on the national functions as a whole, than any other part of the system. Q17: Hey, Lyn! Thank you for everything you’ve done to get us to this point. It seems like right now, Putin as at a point where the surprise of the United States with the new Sunburst-30 missile, the improvement of the 27, is a game-changer. And his presence is legitimately recognized in the Middle East as the authority of the region. Therefore, we’ve lost our authority there, and for good riddance. There’s reports coming out now that the United States, and some minor sign, is going to try to rush to Raqqa and try to take it over and be in control of it, and continue to finance our Saudi allies through there. In my opinion that doesn’t seem incredibly plausible, because the Russians have already won the hearts of the world, and they’ve proven that they really are the power there. So I’m not quite sure what to make sense of that. Two, it seems like Putin is going to play a real stabilizing force, and, in relation to the question earlier between Khamenei of Iran, Netanyahu of Israel, who needs to have a muzzle put on him (so does Khamenei); and of Saudi Arabia, in particular, by being an enforcer, saying "No, you’re not going to get to run this any more," it seems like he has the clout to do that. And finally, in relation to that, is the real end goal here that we’re looking at, with Putin and China and the BRICS in Syria, is that they’re going to join Syria into the BRICS, redevelop it, get peace through development, and then get Israel and Iran in the BRICS? Redo the Oasis Plan? And that would bring a massive stability into the region, while letting Saudi Arabia cry in the corner and join? I don’t know. That’s the view I have. I’m trying to figure out a solutions, and what we’re looking forward moving to. So these were some of the questions I had regarding that — take whichever you like, thank you. LAROUCHE: Well, there’s not much of a problem there, really, in those points of argument; it’s not really that hot, it’s not that difficult. Putin is actually a Russian. Now, what’s that mean? Well, Putin was caught, his family was caught, in an area in Russia, at the time, — then called the Soviet Union — and many members of his family were murdered. Also, in Russia, generally, as in the famous defeat of Germany in that theater, many Russians died, a great number, the great total of loss of life in any major part, was in Russia. And Putin is a product, as a young child, of a family which had really gone to it. And Putin, as I had known him — I never met him personally, but I happened to operate against the discovery of the Chechen operation at the same time that Putin, was doing one; and so I knew this very well. And I knew from what I knew of my experience of what Putin was doing at that time, I knew exactly what he was and where he was, and what he was up to. He was on the same thing; I was working on the same issue, but from a different standpoint. And I was coming out of a health problem at the same time, so I spent my health recovery devoting myself to this issue that Putin was also working on, on the other side. So this is the part of history. This is reality. And what happens is, you have to have an approach which I think Putin now represents, partly because of the seasoning from which he came, to become what he is today. And what’s happening is, is that the effort here, on the part of Putin, on the part of China which is the largest nation in the world; India which is sort of second rate in that thing, something in that order; and other nations, and smaller nations. And the tendency now is, if we don’t let idiots get involved, like Obama — Obama is a murderer! He’s a mass murderer. His stepfather was a mass murderer. That’s what he is, he’s a killer. He kills people. He doesn’t find people guilty, of some crime, he just kills ’em. Or orders them killed: that’s Obama! And we’ve been living under a regime, the Obama regime! And the Cheney regime was pretty much like the Obama regime; and the Cheney regime of course, meant the Bush regime at that time. And we lived through four terms of the Presidency under the combination of Bush/Cheney and Obama! What’s happened in the process of this period, has been that we have destroyed the morality of our citizens, to a large degree. Take, for example, 9/11: no President, no Presidency in the United States, under Bush or under Obama has ever done anything to correct the mass killing of people in Manhattan and some other locations, nobody ever did anything about it! Yet everybody in the White House, everybody in the Congress, knows this was done. Yet to this date, no one, has ever acted against Saudi Arabia, which was the chief killer against our citizens in 9/11, and against similar kinds of things. And that was the British! And what happened with the Saudis were simply tools of the British. And it was a British-Saudi deal on oil speculation which caused this whole event! I was also in the actual experience of that, before it actually happened that way. At that point, I was working with some people in Britain, many of whom began to killed, because they were working against the element of the British system which was the same system behind what Obama represents today. ASCHER: Well, Lyn, you’ve covered a tremendous amount this evening, and given us a very sharp sense of where we have to go from here. I think we’re drawing to close. Do you have any final remarks you’d like to make? LAROUCHE: Well, the issue is very simple. It’s not the negatives that are important, it’s the positive ones that are important. What we have, is we saw the travesty that occurred this past Tuesday, a shame which is difficult for us to ignore; it was evil. We had people who were not qualified to be Presidential candidates, and some who were qualified to be Presidential candidates for election. Mostly we were poorly treated, shall we say. So, now the time has come, is for us to recognize what the evil was , and how it was structure, to pull off that fake election — and it was a completely fake election according to our national law! And they staked this fake-up into the public. Now we had some members there who were standing as candidates, or I would call them also, "victims." Because they were the subject of something over which they had no control whatsoever. These were agencies over which they had no control; the agencies that did have the control, ran the operation, and it was one giant fraud! And the people who set that whole thing up were criminals by that standard. And they should be punished for that. But get rid of this thing. This thing never happened! This was never an election, a Presidential election; not really. It was a farce, and a travesty! It was disgusting. It’s still disgusting. So therefore, on this thing, what we have to do, is go to the obvious: We have to move now, quickly, to create a new, valid, Presidency, based on valid Presidential considerations. And someone like O’Malley, who I just picked out as an example, — and I’m only picking him out as an example — but he’s a good example; and he was the one who stood out as being the least tarnished of the whole bunch, standing up there on Tuesday. ASCHER: OK, thank you very much Lyn. We’re going to have this available on the LaRouche PAC website later tonight, and we will send the link out to people as well. Thank you very much, Lyn. That’s it for our 21st Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche. LAROUCHE: OK, have fun!