|
|
Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, January 28, 2016
28 January 2016
TRANSCRIPT- JOHN ASCHER: Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher here in Virginia, welcoming you to the Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, on Jan. 28. Lyn are you there? LYNDON LAROUCHE: I’m here. I hope you’re receiving me properly... ASCHER: Would you like to make any preliminary remarks? LAROUCHE: Yeah, I think it’s appropriate, that we are dealing with a breakdown in what had been as the campaign organizer earlier, and we find out that what had been perceived as the leading forces in the election process for the Presidency, and we find that we have to make some corrections in what the public opinion had been up to now, because there’s a breakdown in terms of the two leading Democratic candidates, both of whom are failures: Hillary is a disaster, a moral disaster; and her next to that is not too bright either, not too responsible either. So therefore we have a problem where we really don’t have what we would want to accept as a prospective Democratic campaign for President. Because neither Hillary nor her rival are qualified to be President of the United States, or be considered as the President of the United States. So therefore, we’re going to have to do some fishing in terms of the process of election, which is going to be quite different, properly, than Hillary or her rival. ASCHER: Well, we’re going to turn on the Q&A and we’ll get people in line here. We’re going to get a report from New York. I indicated before you got on, in terms of what you just indicated that in terms of the intervention that you have shaped into the Presidential elections, that the Manhattan meeting is going to play a leading role in this. So perhaps it would be appropriate if we started out with a discussion with someone from the Manhattan Project. What you do think about that? LAROUCHE: I think it’s a good idea. It’s a good way to get things started. Q1: Yes, good evening Lyn. It’s Alvin, here in New York. First, I’ll start with yesterday’s activity, and that was kind of a gimme, in terms of easy organizing when you have signs that say "Dump Trump" in New York City. Not a very popular guy, and it was very, very active. I was out there for about an hour and a half, and that was a lot of fun. Because it was a good way to get people over to then talk about something real: Real being Glass-Steagall, and also exposing both Hillary and Bernie as the fakers and frauds that they are. So that was yesterday. However, last week, four activists were at a rally — I was not part of it, but we got a report on this; and they returned and wanted to bring up the discussion that they thought it would be a useful thing to begin organizing having citizen-signed petitions to place O’Malley on. And I of course have read the recent daily statements you’ve been coming out on this, so I can tell you that the New Yorkers have really begun to pick it up. Some are spending many, many hours out there, and more importantly, because we need more people, so the activists are looking to activate more people that have been a part of the network, somewhat on the fringe, but bring them in on this, because it’s urgent. And I’m taking note that you are intervening directly on this, and advising O’Malley, helping him as to how to deal with this situation immediately, and to "keep his focus" as you’re putting it, on his policy directly. So we have but a few days to go; people are putting in long hours to get this done and organize more people. But there’s a real sense of optimism in doing so. They’re really happy. As for the average person that we’re getting to sign, most know of O’Malley, and in my experience and the people I’ve been signing are quite surprised, that he’s not, or they just don’t understand the process, as I haven’t, that he’s not already on. "I thought he was already on, that he would be there." No, this is why you need to sign. "Oh. Well, I better sign; I don’t know much about him, but he should absolutely be on." So, we’ve got a long weekend up and some more people to call. But we’re doing our best to respond to your call to move on this, and so, I just wanted to let you know that. One of the things in your recent leaflets, was, you talk about the "element of a tactical surprise," and I was wondering if you could help us think more clearly if that’s actually what we’re doing in this process? And what else should we be doing? LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, let’s straighten some things out, because there’s some doubts and some confusion about exactly what we are accomplishing and what we are planning to accomplish. Now first of all, the point is that, we have the two ostensibly leading Democratic candidates for consideration, but the fact is that our conscience and our intelligence tells us that the two so-called leading candidates for the position, are bums. That is, they should not be elected. Now, I’m not pushing the O’Malley election campaign as such. What I’m simply doing, is stating that I believe, and I know that other people believe, that what we have to do, is we have to actually get a correction, to indicate that neither Hillary Clinton nor her rival, are fit to be President of the United States. It’s simply that statement: It’s a negative thing; we’re saying that this is not acceptable. Hillary Clinton is not acceptable! She’s a bum, in political terms. She’s not an honest person; she does a lot of lying; her immediate rival is a question mark: he’s not a man, he’s a question mark. And so therefore, what we’re doing is we’re trying to say, "let’s open the gates." We’re not pushing the idea that we’re pushing O’Malley as such; we think O’Malley probably should be considered for the Presidency. But we’re not pushing him as a candidate we’re pushing. What we’re doing is we’re opening the gates, to say, we have two guys running now, for the Presidency on that ticket, and we say neither of them is fit to be in that position. So therefore, we say we’re organizing people to step out and join those people who recognize that we have to replace these two characters. We have to dump them. But we’re not involved in O’Malley’s role, we’re not involved directly in that. That’s not our point. Our point is, that O’Malley is the only thing we have available, which is fit to be elected! So we’re not going for his election; we’re recognizing the fact that the two candidates that are brought forth now aren’t fit to be elected. So therefore we have to defend the interests of the United States, by pushing a defeat for the people who are unfit, to become actually elected. And that’s the way to look at it. And this is very important, because it involves legal conceptions of election campaigns; it involves other things as well, which are related. And therefore, yes, we admire what O’Malley represents. That’s why we got around O’Malley, joined around him and are joining around him. But the reason is, we know that neither of the two rivals is fit to be presidents! And therefore we have to protect the Presidency by dumping these two, getting these two guys dumped, because "they ain’t no good!" as we say. And look at it in that way. That’s exactly the way to put it; we are now looking down to Texas and other areas, we are looking to — take one case: Remember what Obama did early on in his elected campaign, is, he shut down the space program! He crashed the space program! Now the space program was actually the basis, for the physical economic development and maintenance of the progress of the people of the United States. So what happened is, Obama, by attacking the space program and trying to crush it, destroyed the rights of the American people. Now we had a lot of people out there, who voted for Obama. They would crowd up to vote for Obama. That was a terrible mistake. It was also an evil mistake! Obama never should have been elected. Now, we’ve got a chance to dump him. And therefore, we’ve got to say, who is qualified to be a part of the leadership, of the United States government? Our opinion follows, logically, we have to really go back to the implications of the benefits, of the benefits which were inherent in the space program. Now, China has a space program. It’s going for the back side of China’s Moon; it’s a very important program. There are other things like that in the world. So we’re going to have to reorganize the system, of Earth; we’re going to have to make changes in the Earth. We’re going to have to go back to the space program. The space program is the secret, and we’re going to do the space program, and we’re going to do all the other things, that Obama tried to destroy: We’re going to bring ’em back. And I think we should look at it that way. Q2: This is E— in Delaware, and I’m happy to hear you laying out this perspective, Mr. LaRouche, that we have to play a role in neutralizing the two faces of the Obama campaign in the Democratic Party, to restore it to the FDR perspective. Now, I had another question before you brought this up. I’m not trying to change the subject, but there’s been a certain shifting, where you’re now hearing the use of the word "fascist" in the political spectrum, more frequently, where it was banned for a long time. It was being used to attack Trump, by O’Malley in a debate, apparently; and it’s also being thrown around, maybe in a more cynical fashion in the British Parliament, attacking Daesh; calling them "fascist," like we’ve got to mobilize as we did against Hitler. Which is in itself a pretty good idea. But maybe you can comment on what actually is the proper use of this term "fascism," and how to change the terms of debate, because we really need to expose Obama, since he’s the one pushing the fascist policy. LAROUCHE: I would say that Bush and Obama are both, effectively, Nazis. That is, you can call them Nazis; it’s an interchangeable term, but it means the same thing as Nazis. And therefore, what we’re fighting for, is to bring back what Franklin Roosevelt, as President, has represented. Now, the important thing about this thing, the way to located what the issue is, that if you remember, there was an election, and the Republican Party won the election against Franklin Roosevelt. And that led to a disaster, including the FBI. And the FBI became an evil force, and not necessarily inherently evil, but it was essentially evil in its effects. What we had, we had a division, for example, what Franklin Roosevelt did with his organization; what happened? Well, the FBI, was a tool of the Republican Party and a return to what Franklin Roosevelt had overthrown, came back as the power. So, since that time, you would find that things that happened to Presidents of the United States, since the Franklin Roosevelt terms, and you find a degeneration, a moral degeneration. Now, it wasn’t a complete moral degeneration, because we had leading people still in the process, and they were effective. But, when the Kennedy family went down, that was part of the murder which was organized by certain circles in the United States. they did it. They organized the assassination of a President of the United States; they also organized the assassination of the guy who was the brother, who was about to be elected as President of the United States. Now, I was in a relatively minor position, in this process, when I went into service for the Reagan administration; it was the Reagan term, but it was actually an organization which was built up as a committee, and I was a part of the organization together with another gentleman who was a scientist, also; and we ran a program, we created a program. We put Ronald Reagan into power in the process of our doing that work. He was a successful President until assassinated, or almost killed by the Bush family, members of the Bush family. And so, since that time, the history of the United States has been a long trend of degeneration, in the moral and intellectual and other qualities of the people of the United States. in other words, the people of the United States had been deprived, of their natural law, you know, lawful powers which Franklin Roosevelt had represented in his achievements. We’ve now come to a point where we’re going to have to do that all over again. We’re going to have to take the Franklin Roosevelt legacy and we’re going to have to make it fully efficient. And I think that’s the way to look at it. we have to fight, clean up the garbage in our nation’s own history, and look at what the future of mankind is in terms of this planet, and beyond this planet as such. And these are the things which are the challenges which come to us right now, and these are not just distant challenges: These are real life-goals, goals to be realized, immediately within the generation. Q3: [internet] OK, Lyn I have a question from the internet, which you might say, in terms of the Franklin Roosevelt legacy you just raised would be more dealing with kind of international side of what Roosevelt did. This is from a guy named C—, who is a retired construction worker. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, as I am sure you are aware the President of Iran has been in Italy and France this week signing big agreements for trade between Iran and these nations. This has included buying 118 new aircraft from Airbus, oil agreements, automobile agreements, etc. "My question is I think this is a ray of sunshine for the world. It’s much better than all the wars and threats of more wars we have had recently. What is your take on this? Is this on the level or is something else going on behind the scenes?" LAROUCHE: You have to take two views of this matter. First of all, there’s a policy which should be our policy, "us," shall we say. And that means, that we would be developing a program of the type that would be a resumption of the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. Remember that the Republican Party actually began to crush Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, and there was a deterioration under the various interests, the FBI and so forth, which destroyed, corrosively destroyed the rights of the people of the United States, dividing them by classes and classifications, putting some people down, and putting some people who shouldn’t have been promoted, up; that sort of thing. It comes back to a point where we have to actually go back to the standpoint of President Franklin Roosevelt, which is of course, this was my hero in 1930s and beyond; and he remained a hero for me, up to the present day. But so we’re going to have to rebuild all this thing. That’s the way you have to go at it. We can do it; we have, right now, if we go with the space program, the space program is a crucial thing. Remember, what happened with the space program, is Obama shot down the space program; and Obama also destroyed most of the things which were worthwhile defending, under Obama himself. There were a lot of other scoundrels involves, but Obama has been practically the borrowed Satan of today’s society. He’s sort of a little Satan, but a nasty little Satan, you know, who kill — they have meetings on Tuesdays, under his direction, and they will take innocent members of the United States, and assassinate them, on Tuesdays! And it was the most momentous assassination, cumulatively, of citizens of the United States, killed and murdered, by Obama! So therefore, the point is, today, we have to get rid of the Obama problem. We’ve got to end the assassinations of the innocent members, of our own population, and others as well. So therefore, the time has come, when we have to think about not only in the United States itself, we have to think in other parts of the planet and say, we’re going to take action to bring about a reasonable form, not only in the United States, but throughout the planet. Now, what’s going on right now, the greatest degree of success is coming from China, and also Russia and some other nations associated with them. In great part, the future of mankind depends upon the role that China, Russia, and their associates, represent. That development is what is necessary, to give the people of the United States, its citizens, the mechanism by which we can change the policies from what’s been going on recently to what must become as a result. In other words, for example, let’s take the number of people who are suicide people, and the suicide rates in the United States among the population is great. So therefore, we have to rebuild the population so they don’t kill each other, don’t commit suicide, which is what’s happening; or taking disease, or killing themselves by taking dangerous drugs as a disease. So we have to make these changes in that way, and for that purpose. And we are also going to have to go back, and restart the space program. Because the future of mankind depends on the space program, not only for the United States, but for the planet as a whole. You know, we live in a system which is not just an Earth system. The Earth system is something which is inside the Solar System. It’s inside the water system of the Galactic System, and beyond that. And so therefore, mankind is going to have to move out into influence and control, over the water systems, for example, of planet Earth and beyond that. And so therefore, we have a challenge, to recognize that these facts, which are scientific facts, and we have to assemble ourselves to develop the skills which are necessary to realize the benefits that that program represents. So we need a new future for mankind. It’s not in some kind of screwball new future, it’s something which is implicitly already there. We just have to unleash it. And I think China and Russia are exemplary elements, partially, of these people today. We have to think from that term. We have to think of mankind as in the Solar System, eventually. And we have to think in new ways; we have to think about the future of mankind in new ways, ways that we should have caught onto a long time ago. But we have to begin thinking of those new ways, soon, now. Q4: This is R— from Brooklyn. I just wanted to comment on the Dump the Trump rally; I was there with Alvin and the other people, and I feel we did make some progress and we did get people consciously aware that Bernie and Clinton were not acceptable. And we got quite few of the Dump the Trump leaflets out, and people were taking them, and there was less resistance. It seemed to be fairly effective. I just feel you should know about this. LAROUCHE: Yeah. It’s true. But, I think, what I’m seeing now, in terms of what I’m getting, you know, advance indications which I’m getting myself in this connection, what there is, is a very, shall we say, a surprising, immediate impulse to support our new candidate, or our new prospective candidate. And this thing can go very fast. One of the factors is, of course, the space program. You know, there are people in Texas, and other areas, because the space program was very much built in that area. And that point, we find that the space program was shut down by Obama. Now, what we need, if we’re going to deal with some of the problems of the United States, for example, and other areas, we’re going to have to really rebuild the space program. It can be done. It can be done by cooperation with China is going in that direction; Russia has always had an interest in that direction. Other nation are going into that direction — not in that direction but into it. So all these things are at our disposal, in principle. We simply have to make our wishes more efficiently known. That’s your mission; that’s my mission. We must think in a global way, of how we’re going to reverse the degeneration imposed on people of the United States; the mass death at high rate imposed on the people of the United States throughout much of the United States! We’re going to have to fight, to build up that kind of reconstruction, that we had in the time of Franklin Roosevelt. And I’m all for it, and I’m ready to go! I’m one of the most ancient men on the planet right now, and I’m ready to go! Q5: [internet] I have a question which is also related to the international situation. The gentleman says: "The British news outlet The Telegraph published an anti-Russia propaganda article recently, accusing Russia of funding European parties in an effort to undermine the European Union." He says, "there’s no shortage of mistrust in the West when it comes to Vladimir Putin, and now, by extension also to China and the BRICS. Of course, nuclear power in Iran comes into play here as well. "Could you speak about this in particular, but also address the broader principle, of how trust comes into play with your method of international collaboration around economic development?" Then he says finally, "Maybe the SDI case exemplifies your approach, or Eisenhower’s Atoms of Peace project? Did Eisenhower take into account Middle East nations’ developing nuclear weapons? Was that a concern?" That’s his question. LAROUCHE: Well, of course most of my lifetime, except for the time when some bastards — and I use the term qualifiedly — who put me in prison for a period of time; and I had grown up in a sense, in terms of my post-military service period, you know, I came in the back side of the history of World War II, and at that point, I was going into India and beyond India, and then back into India, during my U.S. military service in India; but I’d gone to other places. So I had that kind — I was a leftover. Most of the people who had been in military service, were going out of military service, in the greatest number. And I came out, landing on United States soil again, and I had very strong commitments to the future of the United States and what the United States represents. So I had a very significant degree of success, and also setbacks, in what I’ve done. But my view, because of the way I exist, as a result of that, I’m very devoted to the future of the United States, and to the world; my soul is there. It is not the turf of the United States, as such. It’s the United States as coming out of World War II, where I was a leftover in the postwar period, and I have an extension of that, and I had certain experiences and so forth, and my development, politically, intellectually, scientifically, otherwise, was influenced in that way. So I’ve always had this particular kind of commitment. And it’s what makes me tick, it’s what I would respond to, in this stuff. And so, that’s my view, and I have to express it and identify it, because it is my view. And what I’m doing, as I’ve been doing it for decades, now; remember, I’m one of the oldest men alive in the United States — not the oldest, but among the oldest still active. And so therefore, I have certain devotions and responsibilities, to fulfill the purpose of my continued existence. And that’s the way I look at things, and I think it’s the way I would ask my fellow citizens, young and old, to share that with me, and understand exactly who I am and what I do, and what I’m devoted to. Q6: Hi, this is T— from Lake Arrowhead. I’ve got a couple of questions. The first one: I listened to an interview with the former Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis. And remember, as of last July, there was the heroic struggle of the Greek people against the European central banking system, and what happened is, after the Greek people voted for over 60% to defy the central bank by a referendum, but then immediately, the very next day, I believe, the central banks closed the banks and the head of the party, Alexis Tsipras, caved in. And Yanis Varoufakis resigned, immediately. And Varoufakis is now calling a conference; he has said in this interview, that Greece could not take on the trans-Atlantic financial empire all by itself, and there has to be a pan-European movement for Glass-Steagall. And he is calling a conference of European progressives, to all united in solidarity against the central banks, the progressives from every European country. And he has invited them all to come to this conference that he’s calling which is in less than two weeks; it’s Feb. 9th. So I wrote him — I’m not the only one that’s said this to him, I’m sure a hundred people have — but he not only needs a pan-European conference, but it should include representatives of the FDR/New Deal movement from the United States. We must all unite together against this financial empire. And I’m wondering if it wouldn’t be a good thing to send one of our representatives to that conference — maybe Helga, since she more or less specializes in Europe. I think that might be a very worthwhile use of our time. So that’s just a suggestion. What do you think? LAROUCHE: Well, if we want to win, which I think is implicit in your argument, if we want to win, for the Greek people and for other people who are also afflicted similarly; look at all the people there who are from Northern Africa and so forth, who are dying by being drowned in the Mediterranean Sea, drowned! Killed! In other ways! So it’s not just the Greeks. They’ve got a larger population, which is under mass-killing roles. And the nations of Europe, in more or less degrees, the proper nations of Europe, have failed. Russia has not failed; Ukraine has failed, miserably. It’s been a murder operation, not because of the Ukrainian people, but because of the Nazis! And because the Ukrainian organization is dominated by Nazis, that is, actually heirs of the legacy of Adolf Hitler; and that’s a problem. But the problem is, of course, is there is no effective organization in Europe now, to secure any part of the proper European nation. None. Now, so therefore, our object has to be, to look at the whole picture, and how can we solve this problem? We have people come, crossing the Mediterranean Sea, the whole area, and they’re dying; they’re dying en masse. They’re being killing en masse. Yeah, the Greeks are being killed; but what’s happening to the Greeks is something that’s happening to other parts of that community. Africa, same thing. So therefore, what we need is a more comprehensive view, of how we’re going to do that. Well, we’ve got a chance there. For example, we have two areas, you have the trans-Atlantic area, that area, and we have the Russia-China area. Now the Russia-China area, China is really a very powerful force right now. What has happened to Russia, Russia has undergone a reconstruction which is very impressive and so forth, and the problem is, we have to bring those forces which are positive, together, as a united force throughout much of the planet. That can be done! And put simply, that can be done. What China is doing, is a miracle! What Russia is doing, despite the damage that was done to Russia in earlier periods, is also moving in that direction. So we have the option, if we decide to do so, to create a global process of economic recovery throughout the system. We can do that. So I think the point is, we have to, rather than looking at things from the negative side as things that have to be beaten down because they are negative things; but we actually have the ability, if we organize properly, we have the ability to change the character of man’s destiny in a positive way. And that’s not just some part, it’s the whole business. And the space program, the reconstruction of the space program, that Obama destroyed, is the key to working with China, with other parts of the world, to bring about a rapid economic development, which is needed so desperately, now. ASCHER: T—, if you’re still on, did you have another question to ask? Q6: Well, my other question, I guess it’s unrelated, is: Lyn has said that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a phony and basically treats him the same as Hillary Clinton. And I’m just wondering if he could put a little bit more specification into that. I mean, he does have a 30-year record as a progressive. Now, he’s not Obama, in the sense that Obama just came out of nowhere, and it turns out he’s a CIA insert, or a British Empire insert if you prefer. But you couldn’t quite say that about Sanders. Now, I just have my misgivings about him, too, for sure. But I’m just wondering if Lyn could say anything more about why Sanders is not fit to be elected President? LAROUCHE: Well, he’s not fit to be elected President, that’s clear, but there are degrees of not being fit. And I would say that Hillary is a very, hyperactive bad person! And I would say that he, for his part, is a fraud. That’s the case; in both cases, if you look at both cases as I look at this thing, in the detail, that Hillary and Sanders are both — one is worse than the other; I think Hillary is probably the worst, because she’s the actual agent, working for Obama, so I think she’s the number-one criminal. But he’s just useless. Q7: [internet] OK, so we got a question in a little earlier, which is going back somewhat to what you touched on a moment ago around Russia and China, from M— from Dearborn, Michigan. He asks, "Lyn is the British Empire and Obama still operating off the old Bernard Lewis Plan of creating a Clash of Civilizations to prevent this new win-win cooperation of the China-led New Silk Road World/Land-Bridge LaRouche-type system of world cooperation among all of the nations? If yes, can you flush out more on this because I think many younger people are not aware at all of Bernard Lewis and this attempt to create a deliberate Clash of Civilizations." LAROUCHE: Well, the problem is there’s so little knowledge of what the principles of economy are, that is, the practical principles of economy, what science means in that, that most of our people do not know. Now, there are two aspects to this thing about not knowing. One thing you notice is the rate of death among people who are laboring people, productive people in the United States; the death rate, which is accelerating, among people, miners and so forth and so on, and farmers and whatnot, this is the killer issue. Now, the question is, how are we going to attack this killer issue? The problem is also psychological. What has happened is, we’ve gone through a period which came with the Bush family coming into power and Obama and so forth, and they have destroyed, in the terms of that election process, they have destroyed much of the ability of the people of the United States to know how to function. At the same time, we have a massive inducing of drug practices among the people, people who were employed as operating manufacturing and related kinds of occupation; the miners, for example, they’re dying! They’re dying why? On drugs! Who does it? Well, Obama does to a great degree, and therefore we have that kind of problem to deal with. Now, this would mean we would have to act very quickly, to cause a political revolution in a sense, among our people. We would have to get them to stop killing themselves, by the increasing rate of uses of deadly drugs. And what’s happening, we’re on the verge of losing a good deal of the population of the United States, from its present population, because of this drug problem! And this thing, it’s in the newspapers now in New York City, for example, and so forth; it’s all there. We have to recognize what the problems are, and take the whole complex of problems, not just this thing or that thing, or this thing; we have to realize we have to reorganize society. How do we do it? We’ve got to take a leadership group, inside our own society, our own organization, and we have to build up an organization which decides to live, rather than to die. We have to get people to kill the drug problems, get out of it. We have to put them back to work, we have to encourage them, we have to build up a process of rejuvenation of the people of the United States. That has to happen, and that means we have to shut down Wall Street! Shut down Wall Street! Close it down once and for all. And that’s the only solution. The problem is all known to us; we’ve seen the population of the United States has been destroyed, in large degree. Whole parts of people who are working people in the United States, skilled people, farmers and so forth, they’re dying, they’re dying partly from drugs; drug practices which were induced upon them. We have to go with a full force effort to get that thing out of the system! It can be done. But the first thing you have to do, is you have to get the idea, of doing it; to achieve anything successfully, you have to catch on to the idea which produces the success. Q8: [internet] We have another question came in from the internet. It’s from a young gentleman named N—. He’s kind of searching for words here, so I’m going to characterize it a bit, he says, "Mr. LaRouche, I am a 31 yearr old man who has come to realize he is ... a modern day serf." Then he cites various things from U.S. history and he’s basically asking, where the nail in the coffin for the original intent of the United States? He’s trying "to piece together the real story" of our nation and he greatly appreciates our movement and our "quest for the truth." So, he’s asking you to say something about what the core is about what makes a real United States citizen, as opposed to what we have today? LAROUCHE: I can give you an example. First of all there was a whole period, Franklin Roosevelt had a great achievement; when the Republican Party took over the control of Franklin Roosevelt’s organization, then there was a degeneration in general. And the FBI was the institution which became most prominent, as a destructive force, to destroy the productive powers of labor, in all senses of the United States. so there has been, — or say, what I was privileged, to be brought into a key role of the Reagan administration. It was an arrangement; it happened before Reagan was actually installed. But I was involved with another scientist, a major scientist; I was involved, and the two of us were the center for a space program of a very special kind. And we had got to the point, where one of my roles was in particular, at that point, was to get Russia make an agreement on the use of nuclear weapons; that is, to end the conflict of nuclear weapons usage between the United States and Russia. I did that. And other people backed that up. President Reagan did very well, because he was building up his organization at that point. And at that point that I was involved in doing the supporting role, for his development of his organization; we achieve in other things. This was what we did then, and it’s what we can do again, maybe not the same way, not quite the same thing, but the idea, the principle of that exists. And that’s the way to look at it. We had a great chance. But when Reagan himself was subjected to an attempted assassination, from which he suffered for an extended period before he was able to get back to full force. And shortly after that, I was dumped into prison, too. So I’ve been through that kind of thing, I know this kind of thing; I’ve experienced it, I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it around the world. I’ve had fun all around the world, in things I’ve done in various parts of the world. So I’m fully aware of these things. And I can’t just give you the list of everything I’ve done and everything I do, but you get the gist of the thing: That from the middle of the Reagan administration, the Reagan administration was generally successful despite the fact of the assassination attempt from the Bush family against Reagan. I was then knocked out from toward the end of the Reagan term, and they put me in prison for a while. I’ve been out of prison for quite some time, and I’m probably one of the oldest surviving men still functioning today! But the issue is, what I’ve known and what I do know, will solve the kind of problem which is most urgently needed not only for the United States but for the population of the planet as a whole. We’re going into space. We’re going into space more than what people would understand as "space." We’re going to move great masses of water, floating out there, outside the passage of Earth. We’re going to go into larger areas of the Solar System, and we’re going to do that. We can do, and we shall do it. It’s an extension of the space program; we’ll do it. And what we have to do is say, "well, there’s only one thing you can do, do that. Do that, and then all the good can become available to you." Q9: [internet] Lyn, in your initial comments I think you made it very clear, the nature of the type of intervention around rebuilding the Presidency and not accepting the current rigged nature of the Presidential election campaign. A gentleman wrote in who is a former state legislator from Maine, and he asks if you can give some direction to our activists around the country many of whom are on this call right now; and whether it would be appropriate for them — what kind of activities it would be appropriate for them to do? He’s suggesting getting people to call into talk shows on the radio and to basically find various ways to communicate our proposals, like the New Silk Road, Glass-Steagall, etc.? So this former state legislator is asking for some kind of direction in terms of what you would be calling on activists in our movement to do, to assist in shaking up the Presidential elections? LAROUCHE: Well, you include the state of Maine, hmm? You include the effect of the state of Maine in its own peculiar characteristics, which are different than those of New Hampshire — which I’m well aware of in this thing! And it also goes next to Canada! I have of course, my family has a whole history of Canadian French people who migrated into the Massachusetts area, and joined with a bunch of people from the Scotsmen, during the period of the Civil War in the United States. What happened is, there was a swarming in there of people from the Civil War period; my Scottish ancestors and many of Canadian ancestors all came from that area. So things like that often happen. And they go into larger areas than the initial basis in which people get into them. So I have an active sense of this kind of thing, which means, to me, that I do understand — we’re talking about the Civil War period; my ancestors, the active ancestors that I’ve known, were dated from the period before the Civil War. And so therefore, I have an understanding of this, and the understanding of the experience that my family and so forth have experienced in their time, in the Civil War, fight there; there developments after that. The setback, World War I, World War II, so forth, I’ve lived through most of that, in the sense of my birth in 1922. And so, I’m familiar with this thing. So I would say, if we want to be practical, take the state of Maine which I believe was mentioned in this discussion; now take the state of New Hampshire, take the state of Massachusetts, begin to look around here, and look backwards a bit and see what people had done in earlier generations, because earlier generations are still very significant. People who lived in the early 19th century, in and throughout the United States, their bodies, their role in life has been an important part of what made possible today. And we have to think that through and think about building up something which is doing to be a continuation, of progress to that direction. So I think that the state of Maine, as mentioned in this discussion; New Hampshire’s there, Massachusetts is there; there are other things. You can go throughout the United States, and similar locations. And what we have to do, you have to get this kind of spirit, where you think like the pioneer spirit, that happened also in the United States in various cases in parts of the thing. Or the history of mankind, which goes back into earlier periods of life. And once you get a sense of smell of that, as I have from my own funny way, you get a smell of that, you have a sense of confidence and security, that this will work. And it has worked pretty well, in most of the history of the United States in particular. We just have to get it moving again. Q10: Hi Lyn, how are you sir? This is K—S— in California. I like share my nightmare with you — ASCHER: K—, let me just say, I’ve read your note. If you could just really formulate a brief question, I would appreciate it. Q10: OK. My question, sir, is, as you said that Wall Street must be shut down. And I am with you. It must be shut down, because they have stolen everything from us, the homes, the pension money, and what I’m asking is, I’ve gone from post to pillar in the country to my Democratic Congressmen, to Senators in California and even on the Banking Committee, the financial committee in Washington, D.C. Nobody wants to listen to us. Wall Street has taken over political Congress and Senate, and they’re putting whistleblowers in jail by charging us with the simple crime of making harassment calls, and FBI and Eric Holder have turn the Department of Justice into prosecutors for Wall Street. How can you fight back, when the Congress has sold out, the Senate have sold out? How are you going to bring the change at the Presidential level, sir? LAROUCHE: Very simple, very simple. Is you have a demoralized population of the United States; it’s demoralized in several aspects, and in several ways. If we do what we can do, with what may happen soon, particularly with an election campaign which we are proposing to support now; if we follow the track of that campaign, which we have recommended, shall we say, effectively, to people who are political leaders, if we do that, we can trigger a mobilization of the spirit of citizens, particularly of citizens who are demoralized. You have to realize that the biggest problem we have in the United States, is the general demoralization of the main part of the population of the United States. The demoralization, which was done by Obama! And what Obama represents and by the Bush family. Once you get the thing going, once you inspire people to recognize, that the United States once had a capability, and to see that that capability can be reactivated, then, we can look for great things. But it’s going to take a little time, to make sure the greatness gets into motion. ASCHER: OK, well, Lyn, I think we’re maybe still overcoming this snowstorm a little bit in this area, but I was wondering — you covered a lot of ground tonight; you gave very clear direction in terms of the intervention. I know we’re going to be coming up with this weekend an important Manhattan Project Town Meeting which is coming up Saturday, to discuss our intervention into the Presidency, so I was wondering if you could make some kind of summary comments for us, this evening? LAROUCHE: Well, the question is getting a spirit of understanding what is required to unleash a recovery of the spirit of a large part of the American citizens. I believe, that on the basis of the experience we’re going into right now, which I’m not so much directly involved in, but I’m aware of and I’m dedicated to support; that, the O’Malley case could become, very readily, an ignition point to get the people of the United States to begin to move, rapidly, at an accelerating rate to save the United States. Once we get engaged with that kind of commitment, and I believe that commitment is feasible, it’s accessible and feasible; once we do that, you’re going to find a change in the spirit of the United States. You’re going to find that those people who dominate the politics in the United States, can be kicked back; you don’t need Trump. As a matter of fact, you shouldn’t have any Trumps, and that sort of thing. But we need to get organized a sentiment, which I believe is possible. I see all the signs of how it can work, and I’m out for victory. ASCHER: OK Lyn, thank you very much. And good evening to you, and we’ll get the recording out of this discussion. And that concludes our fireside chat here for this evening on Jan. 28, 2016. We’ll be back with you again next week. LAROUCHE: OK, good. Bye. |