News / Brèves Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente LPAC Manhattan Town Hall event with Diane Sare and John Sigerson 27 February 2017 TRANSCRIPT DENNIS SPEED: On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome everybody here to today’s meeting, two days after our Day of Truth. Apparently, George Soros is not very happy about what we did; he had a spokesman from the Open Society Foundation — his organization — issue an official statement that he was in no way financing the demonstrations that are presently going on in the streets of America against the Trump administration. This is, yes, that’s what happened. Also, you should know that we’ve been covered so far as we know, in Vietnam, France, Germany; that is, the rally that we did on the Day of Truth here in New York. And of course, it was covered extensively in Russia. What I’m reporting about actually is the link of Radio Sputnik of the interview that was done by Diane yesterday with them; and then there was a very long story in TASS, the Russian news agency, which went all over Russia. We don’t have figures on how many persons have been able to see these interviews, but let’s put it this way; Russia was certainly grateful for what was done by us in this mobilization. Of course, all we did was tell the truth. We’re going to go right to our presentation today. We did have a chance to talk with Lyn just before; and he had a particular request for how we will upgrade our process in Manhattan. Rather than talk about it, I think we’ll just demonstrate it. So, we’ll start with Diane, and then once he has arrived, we’ll have a presentation also at the microphone by John Sigerson. So, Diane? DIANE SARE: I just wanted to start by sharing some of the coverage. For anyone who is not aware, what occurred was that about two weeks ago, Mrs. LaRouche said that we should have a Day of Truth on the third anniversary of the coup in Ukraine on the Maidan; where people will remember, the democratically-elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in a violent coup. People wearing swastikas, throwing molotov cocktails and so on, drove the government out of the country. This was called by Obama a great democratic resistance movement; and the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, was in the square handing out cupcakes to the people who were carrying out this violence. You’ll hear my interview with Sputnik, we have it. So, I won’t go through the details of what I said then, because you’ll hear it again. But the point of us doing this is that we have an assault on the democratically-elected President of the United States; who happens to be Donald Trump. The assault is very specific. As people know, his National Security Advisor, General Flynn, was just witch-hunted out of his administration by a media campaign for having the audacity to have discussions with Russian diplomats. That is the job of a National Security Advisor. Then, they said he didn’t tell the truth to Vice President Pence; so that became something that couldn’t be denied. But the idea that we are supposed to whipped into a frenzy because someone wants to have a dialogue with Russia, is unbelievable. And we should ask: "Do you think it’s better that we should negotiate with nuclear bombs? There’s no need to talk; we should just start the war, right? That’s the way to handle that discussion." As people may know, we listened to part of Trump’s February 16th press conference last week; where he was extremely clear. He said, I know it would be easy — this was about the Russian boat that was 30 miles offshore and so on — "It would be really easy for me to be tough on Russia. But let me tell you, and I’ve been in a security briefing, although you don’t have to be in a security briefing to know that a nuclear war is a nuclear holocaust." He said, "Russia is a nuclear power; the United States is a nuclear power. I want to do what’s best for the people of the United States, and I want to do what’s best for the world. Therefore, provoking a war between two nuclear superpowers is not in the interest of anyone." At any rate, we took to the streets all over the world on Thursday; and I have a few of the reports. The one thing I can say from every single place, is it is what John Sigerson reported last week about Trump’s comments about the "failing New York Times." The New York Times is definitely failing, because what we found — and many of our offices are in bastions of what you would consider liberalism or Hillary Clinton support and so on; Manhattan, Boston, Seattle, we were out in all these areas. What we discovered is that the majority of the population is actually not falling for the garbage in the news media. In Boston, what Rachel Brown reported is that they initially got a kind of a stiff upper lip New England response; but that many people came over saying, "Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on. I think we should work with Russia; why are they saying this?" That kind of response. We got from Seattle — I thought that was fun, because Seattle was just the most extreme case. They said — this is their report, I’ll just read you a little — "Three organizers took on Seattle for the International Day of Truth. We made a banner titled, `Jail Obama and Soros for Treason! Ukraine 2014, USA 2017.’ In the early morning rush hour, we hit a freeway overpass, just off the exit of the University of Washington. To our surprise, we had an equal number of honks and thumbs up to middle fingers." So, it was 50-50; they said it was very different from what the media would have you believe. Then they said when they got to the campus, they found that the students were not enraged or anything; they were just confused. They were saying, "What is going on? We can’t figure out what’s going on from the media, could you tell us what’s happening?" Many of them had the response "Well, this doesn’t make sense. We don’t think we should have a war with Russia; what’s going on?" I can report from our Manhattan rally that Art had a conversation with a young African-American veteran, who said, "I’ve been looking at this coverage. Donald Trump is rich; he’s white; he should be part of the Establishment. Why is the media going after him? There must be something going on, if they’re going after him like this." So what the news media is doing is, they are putting themselves out of business; they are becoming completely unrespected. No one believes anything that they’re saying, and they’re less and less inclined to read any of the major American press. They described the students in Washington state; they say, "These students were not Trump supporters or Hillary-Obama supporters, but genuinely confused given all the media garbage. They were thankful for the briefing, and many of them left contact information and they want to sit down and talk." They said what they’re going to start doing in Seattle is creating situations where we can actually sit down with students on the campuses and have more lengthy discussions. Then they said, when they went back in the afternoon rush hour to a different overpass with the same banner, it was overwhelmingly positive. The response was way more thumbs up and honks. I think because of the media barrage, people are a little bit cowed; so they won’t express support for what we’re saying. But they said if one person would honk, then all of sudden, everybody would. So, that was their report. In Houston, Kesha Rogers had another highway banner there, and there was a team of two police officers that came out to supervise what we were doing. They said the younger police officer had been scheduled to be part of the training that was being offered by the Obama administration to the Kiev regime; that is, the neo-Nazis. People may remember, two and a half years ago we were talking about sending people over there, and there were some Congressmen who introduced bills saying we shouldn’t train the people with the Nazi insignia. It’s really something. He said he wasn’t involved in any training program when he was there, but he knew something about Soros; and was interested to get our briefing. Again, the same thing in Houston; many people wanted to know what happened. They were saying they were confused by the press. They got out about 200 copies of our Hamiltonian newspaper. One of the things that happened in Boston that I forgot to mention, a young person came up and said, "Yeah, I know what happened in Ukraine! It wasn’t Russia; it was the United States! We did that! We did that!" So, at any rate, what you see is again, the "failing New York Times" is failing; it’s definitely failing. Now, I wanted to just show some of the coverage. So, this is from Sputnik — sorry, that is not Sputnik. This is from Sputnik in France; and you see the coverage. Why don’t you just scroll down so people can see what’s on there, which is the Twitter feed; just scroll down on your computer screen. No, no, that’s the Ukrainian Nazi people in the Maidan, I believe. I just want to give you a sense, because it was quite extensive coverage with a whole Twitter feed of everything that we were doing. Anyway, we’ll leave that; so, you’ll have to take my word for it, or you can go on the French version of Sputnik, which has a Twitter feed of all of the photographs from the Manhattan rally; and then at the bottom contains a link to the performance that some of us did in front of the Russian consulate when the Alexandrov Ensemble was tragically killed in the plane crash in the Black Sea. So, it’s interesting that they’re covering that. [https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201702241030216102- manifestation-usa-obama-soros-maidan/] Otherwise, we’ll just play this interview which I did yesterday morning on Sputnik Radio, and the clip that we have is edited. The interview was about 12 minutes long; and it was actually a lot more fun, especially when I talked about the fact that Obama has moved into this compound — a large mansion with 8 bedrooms, 9 bathrooms, somewhere near the White House — from which he and his wife, and Valerie Jarrett are going to actually direct the Organizing for Action. The radio show host said, "What! Valerie Jarrett? You mean next door, right?" I said, "Well no, according to Ed Klein, she’s going to live in the same house." It was very funny on the air, but anyway. The introduction to me, which you also don’t hear, is the Sputnik Radio announces that 10,000 petition signatures have been gathered to Trump, saying that Soros should basically be expelled from the United States, or whatever — sanctions against him. So, they are following very closely what is happening to George Soros in the United States; and they took great interest in our rally. OK, are you ready? SARE [audio]: The report was commissioned by Mrs. LaRouche to get out the truth about what actually happened in the Maidan three years ago; which is part of a policy of color revolution. As you know, there was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine against Yanukovych in 2004. But then he came back, he won the election in 2010. And what happened in 2013, I think there were two important developments to keep in mind as the backdrop: One, the meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil of the BRICS countries to establish a BRICS New Development Bank which in effect became a positive alternative to the geopolitical order of the IMF, the World Bank, the bankrupt Western trans-Atlantic system. The other was that President Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road policy of infrastructure and development. So against this backdrop, in 2013, Yanukovych was presented with this EU Association Agreement, and what became very clear to him and to others in Ukraine is that if Ukraine went with the European Union only, and did not work with Russia, have trade with Russia as well, that the economy of Ukraine was going to suffer a collapse. And therefore, he decided not to sign this agreement. And suddenly, you had this uprising on the Maidan, with various provocations and ultimately taken over by these — you can’t even call it "right wing" — I mean, literally Nazi, former associates of the late Stepan Bandera who collaborated with the Nazis and killed over 70,000 Poles, Jews, and others in Ukraine during that period. This was instigated and funded — Victoria Nuland, herself, in the report, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, who we know from various recordings did not hold the EU in very high regard — bragged that the U.S. State Department had spent over $5 billion in the Ukraine, setting up over 2,000 NGOs. A lot of it is Soros-related organizations — the Open Society and so on — to create the conditions that you would have something ready to go. So the images of people throwing Molotov cocktails, setting the police on fire; the stories about the snipers — and I understand now the former prime minister is identifying people from Georgia in this; in other words outsiders, foreigners, instigators. All of this was blacked out of the American press, and we were told "Oh, it’s just the nonviolent group of protesters," and even propaganda that Russia had invaded Ukraine, which is completely ridiculous. So, the idea is to set the record straight, number one, on what actually occurred there; because number two, you have a situation in the United States where the new Trump administration is being attacked by these same media, by these same agencies, because he has dared to say that the US should have a friendly relationship with Russia. [END AUDIO] SARE: So, that was the interview. So finally, I just wanted to say, before John Sigerson comes up here, that everyone received a copy of our journal. I don’t have the nice color cover on it; but the Executive Intelligence Review, which has an article, a paper that Lyndon LaRouche wrote in 1998 called "The Substance of Morality." [http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2017/4408_reprnt_1998_ crisis_morality.html] This is extremely important, because what we’re dealing with today is a complex situation. Anyone who has known Lyndon LaRouche, known his fight over the years, understands that we are not a cheerleader for a particular President as a person or anything on that level. What LaRouche represents is a commitment to principle; and the United States and our Constitution were founded on very clear principles of the value of human creativity. Why does it say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal; endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The pursuit of happiness, as Leibniz understood it, was not about pleasure. Who would want to have a nation, who would want to give their life in terms of something so ephemeral? But if you think about the quality of the human mind, and the quality that you see if you watch a child make a discovery — or even when we’re older than children and we make discoveries of something that we didn’t know before — there’s a quality of happiness which is something that is in a different domain. This is very important, because with the new administration there are all kinds of contradictions; and we have to stand for principle. There are certain policies, first and foremost, which must be defended; such as the President’s intention to collaborate with Russia, and as he said, China and Japan, which create a pathway to end geopolitics. There are other aspects, which who knows the validity of them; it seems the British are making a major offensive. They are at least inviting the United States to join the Royal Commonwealth Society; which would be an absolute piece of insanity. But I bring it up because Americans don’t know what’s wrong with the British Empire; and they don’t know what’s wrong with the British way of thinking and why we would want nothing to do with this. So, I just want to say in this paper, there’s a section where LaRouche talks about three crucial discoveries. He said the first of his three crucial discoveries, which he dates from the period of 1948-51, is the question of man’s increase of power over nature; per capita, and per square kilometer. People who have been with us know these terms of increase in relative potential population density, increase in energy flux density; the ability for a given area to sustain more people at a higher standard of living because of certain breakthroughs. The second principle, he said, is "the apprehension that those same processes of creative mentation, ... discoveries of physical principle generated in response to deductively insoluble paradoxes of experimental physics, are processes identical in their nature to the validatable solution for the type of paradox rightly identified as metaphor; as such metaphors are unique to strictly Classical modes of musical, poetic, dramatic, and plastic composition in art. This second principle, which is contrary to the currently popular erroneous notion of a division of art ... from physical science ..." Then he says, "The third of these principles, dating from 1952, was my recognition of a relevant implication of that generalized notion of a Keplerian, multiply-connected manifold, first defined as an amendment to the work of Carl Gauss, in Bernhard Riemann’s 1854, revolutionary habilitation dissertation. From a re-examination of Riemann’s habilitation dissertation at that time, I recognized, that his discovery provides the indispensable, meta-mathematical basis for comprehending, and integrating, the function of validated creative discoveries of principle, not only in physical science, but also Classical art-forms." Now that is the crux of this paper, and I’m not going to say more. I think John has more to say which will address this directly, but it’s really crucial. Because for us to pull the nation and to lead the nation through this time, we have to be thinking on a much higher level from the standpoint of principle than, unfortunately, the majority of the American people these days; although it’s clear and what I find very interesting from all of these reports from around the world and from around the United States, is that what almost everyone has figured out is that what they’re being told is definitely not true. So, that’s the first step; the next step is to demonstrate a certain proof of principle. So, I will yield to John. JOHN SIGERSON: Did you get all that Lyn just — did you get every word? OK, every word; you really understood every word that Diane just read. That’s very good. I’m glad you’re that brilliantly intelligent, but let me present it in my own words. [chuckles] I’ve been thinking more about what struck me so much when Trump mentioned the failing New York Times. Why did I take that as poetry? I’m a trained musician, I’ve worked with works of Furtwängler for many years. I’ve studied Lyndon LaRouche’s works; I’ve worked with Lyndon LaRouche, so I think I have a certain kind of quality of insight. But I was trying to figure out myself, why I had an insight into this particular term. Take the statement "The New York Times is failing"; those three things. You have the New York Times, you have the word "is," and then you have the word "failing"; that’s three things. If you feed that into a computer, those three things. First you have this object here, the New York Times; then you have the word "is." "Is" is usually represented by what? Mathematically. An equal sign; a computer would certainly take it as an equal sign, an equivalence. This "is" this; that equals that. And of course, the computer would spit all things having to do with the New York Times and find out all of the things that are happening to its corporate entity and so forth. But, I realized that’s really not what struck me about it; because I looked at it metaphorically. I think Trump also was indicating it metaphorically; because what did he just say about the last two Presidencies of the United States? Do you recall what he said? I just heard what he said; he said it would have been better if the last two Presidents had played golf all day, and hadn’t done anything. The US would have been better off if they had done absolutely nothing, than what they did. Again, that’s a kind of metaphor; very ironical, actually. When you take any kind of a statement like "This is this"; if you take it mathematically, that’s the British system. That’s the system of Aristotle; that’s the system of saying "something is equivalent to something," and that’s the end of the story. Whereas, what is really being implied here, is that the entire Western civilization, the entire Western culture and the entire financial structure that it’s associated with, is failing. It reminds me of the Shakespeare "Richard III"; "Now is the winter of our discontent," that’s three. You have "now"; you have "is"; but then what Shakespeare loves to do is, he then also has winter of our discontent. So, he even creates a better idea; because you’ve got "now," you’ve got "winter," and then "discontent." And they’re all inter-related to each other. If you want to get an idea of what is being said, it’s none of those three; it’s between those three, it’s between the notes. And that’s precisely what Lyndon LaRouche is getting at when he’s talking about any statement, any declarative statement that you make. People do that automatically, but if you do self-consciously, then you are beginning to grasp poetry. Just to point that out in terms of this wonderful paper that I dug up since I’ve been processing the 2005 issues of EIR to make them more available; because right now there are a couple of years that aren’t readily available. We’re trying to finish off the EIR archive. But this was from "Man’s Original Creations," which was in the June 24, 2005 EIR. [http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2005/3225mans_creations.html] He says here, "Patient review of the relevant evidence available, shows that all the principle work of all the leading Classical musical composers from JS Bach through Johannes Brahms, and great conductors such as the late Wilhelm Furtwängler, are premised on the same attention to what lies behind or between the notes of the score in providing students of music practical insight into the dynamic methods of Classical musical composition and performance. The way in which principle is expressed as a method of performance is most readily referenced by pointing to how those examples may be managed by the skilled string quartet. Norbert Brainin" — who was the former first violinist of the Amadeus Quartet and a very close friend of Lyndon LaRouche — "described this to me and also to relevant members of my circles of associates as the method of rehearsal used by members of the celebrated Amadeus Quartet, with results that can be heard from recordings by that institution. In the case of the Classical quartet, skilled performers can hear the relevant cross-voice intervals and adjust their performance in rehearsals according to the relevant dynamics of the composition. In the work of a chorus," — which is something which concerns us most here; since we don’t have a string quartet to work with right now, although we ought to—"or a larger instrumental ensemble, a director of the type which recorded examples of Wilhelm Furtwängler’s directions illustrate, is implicitly required for this same purpose." Now let me go back to a little bit more poetry. As some of you may have heard—I mentioned this at the organizers call that we did on Thursday, but Dennis asked me review it again; I think it’s worthwhile. [http://action.larouchepac.com/national_call_february_23] Here’s another example of the difference between mathematical thinking, which is definitely what the New York Times does; of course, the media, too, such as, "this is this." And of course, they expect you, even though they don’t state it, they shape it in such a way, that they are attempting to change your view of things. In this case, Trump in honor of Black History Month visited the museum in Washington, D.C., and that included Frederick Douglass, who was one of the towering figures of the fight against slavery. And by the way, he’s generally described as an abolitionist. He wasn’t an abolitionist. He broke with abolitionism. But afterwards, Trump made the following statement. He said, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice." Fine. Fine. Well, the liberal media went absolutely crazy about that statement by Trump. Why? OK, here we go. The Washington Post: "Trump implied Frederick Douglass was alive. The abolitionist’s family offered a history lesson." Let me read the beginnings of this: "The world may never know whether President Trump just got a little sloppy with his verb tenses on Wednesday morning or simply had no idea that the famous Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass was, in fact, dead. Critics seized on Trump’s comments at a Black History Month event mercilessly attacking him for statements that spoke of Douglass in the present tense." The Atlantic asked simply, "Does Donald Trump actually know who Frederick Douglass was?" and said that Trump’s remarks were "transparently empty." On and on and on. So what are they freaked out about? The use of something that’s poetic that anybody who knows anything about poetry, you can change the present for the past and the past for the present. If you’re not allowed to do that in poetry, what on Earth can you do? But they’re completely freaked out because according to the rules and the mathematical rules, if somebody is dead, you’re never allowed to use the word "is," which is ridiculous. Nicholas of Cusa is one of the greatest founders of science and he is alive today. And all of the great minds, Johannes Kepler is ever-present; and these people what to deny everything having to do with poetry, everything having to do with beauty. Let me just read a little bit of what Percy Shelley said about poetry. and I’ll end with that for now. This is in a wonderful essay, which is called, A Defense of Poetry, which the young Percy Shelley, British poet, but very much completely against the Aristotelian current in Britain and he wrote just this beautiful work. If you haven’t read it, you really ought to go home and read it; it’s not long. Percy Shelley says, "Poetry, in a general sense, may be defined as `the expression of the imagination’: and poetry is connate" — that is, born along with — "with the origin of man. Man is an instrument over which a series of external and internal impressions are driven, like the alternations of an ever-changing wind over an Aeolian lyre," — Boy, what an amazing thing! — "which move it by their motion to ever-changing melody. But there is a principle within the human being, and perhaps within all sentient beings, which acts otherwise than the lyre, and produces not melody alone, but harmony, by an internal adjustment of the sounds or motions thus excited to the impressions which excite them." There’s a lot implicit in that. For instance, implicit in that is this idea of "internal adjustments"—what are those? Well, J.S. Bach made a certain number of "internal adjustments" in the musical universe by insisting upon the so-called "well-tempered domain" of musical composition, which was entirely revolutionary—those types of internal adjustments, and it was a true scientific discovery, and as is shown in his two volumes, The Well-Tempered Clavier. That’s just one example of this kind of poetry. What I would urge people to do outside of reading these wonderful pieces by Lyndon LaRouche is to also take what you do when you are petitioning. Yes, indeed, you’re successful if you are able to get somebody to sign the petition; that’s nice, that’s good. But what if there’s something that you say to that person—can you find something to say to that person, that may upset them a little bit but it may stick with them for a long, long time, and it is something that they will come back to? It might be jarring, because exactly that is substance of irony or metaphor. If you can say something that will stick with that person and resonate within them, perhaps for years, perhaps for decades, in such a way that they are changed—because that’s really ultimately what we have to do. We change human beings for the better. Thanks. [applause] SPEED: Let me just say a couple things here. With respect to the questions, people should just line up and we’ll start right in. And then there will be a little discussion of what we have to do on petitioning, because there are events this week coming. The President will address the Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday, and we want to get whatever petitions and so on that we have that need to still down to Washington there; we also want to add some more of them today. So there will be some things that we’ll discuss a little bit later. I just wanted to state that before we get into the body of the questions. Q: This is Rick from New Jersey. I really like your comments about how the press is imploding and it seems to me that there is a trend, a new trend where a lot of things are going to implode because whatever Trump is, to me, he represents a breakaway from the traditional political system that has been holding us back for many years, and it is also opening up people’s thinking. I think that people are no longer afraid to think certain thoughts that they were afraid of thinking previously because of Trump’s statements about the media, his statements about the FBI, etc., etc. What I seem to get from the Democratic Party is that they’re never going to say we should arrest Obama and Soros for treason. They just seem to be incapable of taking that position. And I also see that if they continue with that mindset of being incapable of any kind of creativity or looking at established facts, that political institution will totally implode, and either cease to exist—unless some brave individuals within that organization break out and reestablish it. Do you have any comments on that? Do you agree with that assessment? SPEED: I’m going to take this occasion to inform people what was said by Roger Stone, a very close associate of Donald Trump, at a meeting at which he spoke in Old Bridge, New Jersey on Wednesday night. There were many things that he had to say and he had several things to say, of course, about Soros and about what was happening, including that he learned on Tuesday that for a year, he had been the subject of a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] court-authorized surveillance of all his text messages, email, and phone calls. He said many things in this context, but not from any defensive standpoint. But it was a very specific discussion that he began and we responded to this portion of his discussion. Roger Stone is one of the core operatives that is close to Donald Trump. He wrote a book called The Making of the President, 2016, which is an extensive and thorough discussion of the Trump Presidency and Presidential campaign. He also interviewed Lyndon LaRouche right after the campaign. [See transcript in this briefing.] He has a show on InfoWars and he described how he as a young man had been in New Hampshire in 1979-1980 when we were there, and he was working at that time on the campaign of Ronald Reagan. And he described how he (Roger Stone) knows, directly, the relationship between Lyndon LaRouche and Ronald Reagan because he witnessed it. And he knows what Lyn then did in the Reagan White House with respect to matters such as the SDI. I’m not certain that this is the case, but I believe he is the first person outside of a courtroom, from that time of the Republican Party to have asserted that. Anyway, that’s just who he is; somebody asked who he was, so I’d just say that. What he did was he told people (this is a Republican Party audience of about 150 people) that the Black vote had played a crucial role in the election of Donald Trump. He said where this happened and how this happened was in Michigan and Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania. He said what occurred was that Trump overall got about 3% more of the Black vote than Romney got; but that in these states, the combination of the aversion to Hillary Clinton, in general, of all voters, and a more enthusiastic response among African American voters, had resulted in their being able to take those states. He then said, and this is pretty much a quote, "So in the end, the Black voters played a very significant role in this election and therein lays a great opportunity to being the party of Lincoln. We should rebuild the inner cities. We should make sure every American has the same opportunity regardless of their skin color or where they come from or where they went to school. This is the golden opportunity to reassert ourselves as the party of Black capitalism, the party of economic growth and prosperity and opportunity for those who are in the inner cities. Here’s our opportunity to improve our urban schools. So the President had the unique opportunity to leave our baggage behind us and become the party for all Americans. Return us from being the party of Wall Street and of K Street to being the party of Main Street and middle class working Americans because the Democratic Party has forgotten them." That is what he had to say, and so that is the direction that the Trump administration intends to take a kicking and screaming Republican Party and an entirely intellectually comatose Democratic Party. But it’s not a party issue. And it’s not a media issue. If you ask the media, of course they won’t support our campaign. But what John is outlining, and what, of course, Diane showed you by the Sputnik interview, is, Lyn designed the Manhattan Project for a particular purpose and it’s doing it. We’re doing what he asked us to do. He wanted us to intervene to create a Presidency, and we did that. Trump did what he did, but we did what we did. We’re also continuing to do it. The indictment and arrest of Barack Obama, indictment and arrest of George Soros will also be our work. We will have to get that done, and elements outside of us will assist, but only to the degree that we lead that, and that’s why Lyn’s Four Laws in particular have to be a focus. But I just want to assert something here for everybody to think about and to start to have some questions about, or formulate questions; or, if you don’t know how to formulate questions say that — John is laying something out here, which you have to actually try to deal with. So, as we go through more questions, let’s think about that, and try to make that happen. SIGERSON: When we say that Obama ought to be charged with treason, I think it’s sort of too nice. It’s sort of too nice. Because as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized in private conversations, recently, the main problem is that Obama has a criminal mind: Every Tuesday he decided who would die. People who had no — you know, even innocents. He would have these sessions, and decided who would be destroyed, who would be bombed to smithereens. And he enjoyed that. And he is a criminal who needs to be put away and taken out so that he can’t do any more harm. And all of these other things, in terms of charges of treason, which is aiding and abetting an enemy nation; I mean in this case, aiding and abetting an enemy system, which is the British system, I think it comes down to ways in which we can go after this guy. But ultimately, he’s a common criminal, and we need to get him out of the way. That’s my main point. SARE: See, part of the problem, and the reason I why I think we ran the "Substance of Morality" paper in EIR, is that we have become so culturally decadent that we don’t have a reaction when something is evil. And evil is not just something that happened in the past. For example, why do you impeach a President? If they committed a hideous crime, you would say that was grounds for impeachment, but what’s the point of it? The point of it is to prevent them from doing worse in the future. And if you think about what Mr. LaRouche has defined, and by the way, it’s the same thing as incarceration — the point of incarceration is not to punish. I’m afraid it is in our society. But punishment doesn’t cause good; punishment does not give a person an opportunity to change their identity. There reason why supposedly incarceration might be required, and I think we might be advanced enough to come up with other things that are maybe not quite so barbaric as what happens in some of the prisons today; but at any rate, is that you cannot trust that the person is capable of not committing more harm. So you want to restrain their ability to act. Now, what LaRouche laid out, is the question of morality is not a question of just what happens here in our personal day-to-day life. It’s a question of the future. That is, how do you determine if an action, if a policy is a right policy or not? You ask, "well, if we continue this policy, where does that put us 50 years from now? Where does that put us 100 years from now?" So you take something like legalizing drugs: Now, if we want to have an economy that’s based on the development of thermonuclear fusion energy, or a space program, are people who are high capable of doing the work in such an economy? Are people who are on drugs capable — would you put them up on a scaffolding to build the Brooklyn Bridge? In other words, so the crime, it’s a crime against the create potential, that is the future potential of the human being. So Obama, and LaRouche’s point, these questions of you can measure, does this policy allow you to have a future generation which is better than you are? And I really mean that. We’re so ego-centric — what kind of person would want to be the "best"? of all time? Wouldn’t you hope that your life was given so that people in future generations could be better, that are smarter, kinder, more creative, know more languages, know about the Galaxy, make a discovery. Wouldn’t you hope that the human race would continually become better?! That we would become less like animals? That you would figure out all kinds of ways to sustain billions of people with a higher standard of living, better food, a better dialogue? And so, if something is destructive of that future, that is evil. And we don’t think like that nowadays. So the problem with Obama, and why he should be locked up, is like why they’re going after Tony Blair and trying to impeach Tony Blair, after — he’s not even in office! But he is still running around the world, he was helping to advise Obama’s second election campaign, and what Obama is doing is he is threatening to cause further harm, because he is leading — in however he can lead — an operation to destroy the government of the United States. And that is a crime against the future. And so therefore, part of our work in music, the work that we do in science is to remind Americans because we have become desensitized to what it means to be human, and therefore we don’t react when we see something is evil, because we say, "well, that’s just normal, that’s how human beings are." Well, no, it’s not. And we have to recreate that sense that human identity and then you will have the quality of passion and commitment, which would be required to actually prosecute someone like Obama and Soros and to put them in a place where they cannot harm the development of mankind further. Q: Hi, good afternoon [B. from New Jersey], I just want to go back to what John had said, but also reference the first question. Because clearly there’s a huge battle going on in the Democratic Party over which direction they’re going to decide to go, either as President Trump had said, either we can waste our time and basically do more golf for 16 years, or we can get something positive done. And they just had a recent state chairmen’s convention, I believe of the Democratic Party, in which there’s a huge fight going on over that same question. And I believe it was the chairman of the Louisiana state party who came out — and obviously there’s a huge fight going on — and his response was "This is 100% bullshit." Basically attempting to continue to have a Democratic Party that goes in the direction which has wrecked the Democratic Party and to continue to help wreck the nation, and create more crises around the world. So, I’d also like to go back to, I think what the Trump administration is trying to do, specifically, like what the Kennedy administration tried to do coming out of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where literally, I’m sure the entire population of the U.S., and probably Russia and a lot of other people when we came down to virtually literally launching Armageddon; and he stepped back from that, and people, probably their stomachs were in knots for days at a time. And with people pounding on his desk telling him he had to launch a nuclear strike against Russia right now; and instead of that, what he did, was try to abandon that and go in a direction in which we could find areas of agreement — the "space race" for example was a race in which the entirety of humanity benefitted. And you know, just from my own perspective of having worked in the nuclear industry, a lot of people don’t know, that when there was a change in Ukraine when they decided to take the nuclear warheads that were stockpiled in Ukraine, on the launch pads, and decided to dismantle them. Well, they didn’t just ship all those missiles back to, at that time, the Soviet Union, but they said, "we’re going to do something else. We’re going to take that concentrated plutonium, and we’re going to reprocess it and we’re going to cut its strength down to where it could actually be used for nuclear power plants" — and they shipped ’em here! To be used in nuclear power plants. So a lot of people don’t know that a lot of the nuclear power plants in the United States are running on Russian warheads, the remnants of that. [laughter] So, this is really the way we should be addressing the direction we should be going; as a nation, we should find areas of cooperation, find areas of development that we can go after and get down to the business of real future for humanity. So if you want to add anything to that. Q: My question is really about Obama but we do have to pray for Trump, because he has gone in the direction of JFK, and we know where JFK ended up. So we do have to pray for Trump. But Obama couldn’t have done all that he done, without the One World Order standing behind him, without them paying off a lot people, without the secret government being able to give people a lot of money to go along, to play, and put us in this position, and open the gates for all sorts of people. Obama’s not going to jail; he’s protected. There’s no way he’s going to jail. I wish he was, but he’s not. So unless we can actually tackle the root, which is the financial elite, and break down the banks and do other things, I don’t think we’re getting at Obama. Because he will be protected. And that’s a problem, that’s a huge problem. And so talking about just locking up Obama is trying to just take the whipped cream off of the real issue. And the real issue is not really Obama. It never was really Obama. Obama couldn’t do a quarter of what he did, without all of the power behind him that’s protecting him. So that’s my position on that. And the second part is education: we’re raising a bunch of idiots! The education system is in the toilet. One of my favorite things to do is to listen to interviews on television when they’re asking our public questions, and they’re college graduates, and I’m listening to them and I’m saying, you know what? I don’t have a degree, and I have common sense. This is a moron! I’m sorry but we’re paying a lot of money to put people in... an education that’s non-existent. I took a look at history books, the ones that I remember reading as a young student, and the ones that they’re reading today; they took out all the pages! They may as well put blanks in there. So the education, what we’re bringing up isn’t going to help. SPEED: Wait, you asked a two part question and John will answer. OK, so John’s going to go — my only comment is that, the second part of your question is the answer to the first part of your question. But John, why don’t you...? SIGERSON: Well, I could just answer it with one sentence, which is that if you want to kill off an attacker, you aim at the head. You have to aim very carefully, but also it’s a question of musical composition. If you want to get an idea across, there’s something that at one point, Mr. LaRouche noticed that one thing that Furtwängler would do, at the very beginning, if he was to get up to do a performance, he would stand in front of the orchestra, and rather than just what a lot of directors do is that they just get up and they go — like this and they just start —. He would literally lunge at the orchestra, and create an electric effect which completely changed not just the orchestra but also the audience. And in general, what one must do when we’re trying to change things is, although you have to find something which is extremely condensed, poetical, but at the same time has lots and lots of implications, the worst thing to do, is to go on and on and on about all the different things that are problematic, because then you end up with a laundry list. And yes, it all may be true, all those terrible things, but you have to think from the standpoint of poetry. I mean, in German, the term for poetry is Dichtung, which is more appropriate really than poetry, because Dichtung, dicht — when something is dicht it’s related to the work "thick," but what it means is you thicken something or you make it condensed. You condense it, extremely. It’s like an inertia confinement fusion reaction, the same kind of thing, that is, what in the shortest amount of time can produce the greatest potential power? And that’s really what it’s all about, and that’s the way we shape things; that’s the way Lyndon LaRouche has shaped all of his interventions over the years, and we pick our battles very carefully; we pick our polemics very carefully from that standpoint. Or we attempt to. The minute we start degenerating into a laundry list of things that need to be improved, we’re not going to get anywhere. I agree, we’re not going to get anywhere by changing this, this, this, and this. But going after Obama is a way of also changing people’s view of what evil is, as Diane went through. That’s pretty much what I want to say. Q: Jessica White from Brooklyn. I’m not exactly sure how to phrase this but, the young lady that just spoke, and you seem to be in my generation so, I understand where you’re coming from. I’m a teacher, and I also understand that, where you’re coming from. Yes, there are many issues and I wanted to address that part that John just spoke of. There are so many things that are so wrong with everything, that we can get stuck in that issue-oriented place. But one of the things that struck me that Lyndon LaRouche has said, is that we have to really think of a future-orientation, the immortality of what we’re trying to do here, and what we should be doing in our own lives to try to bring about a better future, for everyone else and while we’re here, for ourselves. But that future orientation, that immortality, is what I was thinking about when Dennis was saying that Trump spoke about Frederick Douglass as he is an amazing person, instead of he "was" an amazing person that these idiots just jumped all over. If we think of that "is" as the immortality part, where this person still lives with us, his ideas still generate certain positive things in how we react to slavery, and how we react to injustice, how we react to things that are going on right now, then we understand that this "is" is what really makes the difference. So instead of becoming issue oriented, we need to think of how we can approach this as something that we want to prevent from continuing to happen; we want to prevent the horrible things that Obama and others did, from happening on and on and on. So that’s basically what we have to think of. And I went to a town meeting recently and everybody was issue oriented. But when you stand up and you say to them, "this is the real issue, this is what we really need to be fighting for. We need to bring our economy back into shape. We need to make the world better for our children; we need to prevent war. And if we have someone in the White House, even if we don’t agree with everything he’s saying, or we have someone out there, that is trying to do that, then those are the things we have to help make happen. And that’s just what I wanted to say. SPEED: OK, fine, if there’s any other questions fine; otherwise we will go to a couple of matters. I have a couple of things to say in general to this, but I don’t want to cut any discussion. Does anyone else have a question? Sure. Diane has something she wants to add. SARE: Before we move on, as I think Dennis mentioned earlier, President Trump will address both Houses of Congress on the 28th; and as people know we very much intend that he will take up the question of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall which is an extremely important principle. But part of the way we get there, again, is in terms of this thinking of the future, what should the future, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche challenged us a week or two weeks ago, that you should think about where mankind should be in 10,000 years. And we should think about where the United States could potentially be, that is, if for example, if Donald Trump were to attend the One Belt, One Road conference coming up in China on May 14-15, this would so potentially shift the world, because the effect of President Trump meeting with as many as 70 other heads of state, and many nations who have turned the corner that we have yet to turn; that is, we have been in a decline in terms of the standard of living, in terms of industrial production and so on, and people have come to take it for granted that your children are going to move back in with you, and that they’re going to be saddled with zillions of dollars of debt, and things are going to be worse — where, it used to be the case that everyone thought, you know, "My child is going to grow up to do very well, and to be better off and etc." So, if you think about what the potential actually is of the U.S. joining with these nations, we wouldn’t be talking about fixing potholes or simply rebuilding inner cities; we would be talking about building entire new cities, out in the Midwest, in Alaska, — what’re we going to build in Alaska once we get the Bering Strait Tunnel connected? What is it going to look like when you can take a train that goes 300 miles an hour between Boston, New York, and D.C.? What is it going to look like when we can build some vacuum tunnels where you can take a maglev train that goes a 1,000 miles an hour? And you can take a train to California in three hours? And I’m not saying that that will necessarily happen in the next two years, but if we imagine, if you have in mind that this is where we are going, then there’s also a certain confidence in the future: That we can create a future which we’re on the cusp of the turning point, which is why they’re going so absolutely bonkers, to destroy this Presidency! Because we’re at the moment of a turning point, where we can change the direction of the way that everything has been going. And I think that should inform us in this action. It’s not merely preventing — and I’m not saying that we’re proposing that — but preventing a perpetuation of these evils, but we can actually turn the direction to creation a direction for the Good. SIGERSON: One more thing on a subjective note, in terms of 10,000 years from now. One thing that I know is that we will have succeeded is if, in 10,000 years, marriages will last a long time. [laughter] I am astounded as I’ve seen a number of young people run into marriages, — I mean sometimes weeks, sometimes only months, they last nowadays. A marriage is based on — it’s a mutually love, but it’s based on a sense of a purpose, a jointly shared purpose. And that is sorely missing in today’s culture. People get married for crazy reasons or for no reason whatsoever. And we will have succeeded as a society if marriages are — I mean, you know, things happen, we know that, and so forth; but if marriages generally last a long time and are based on that idea of shared purpose, which is completely in line with a purpose for the pursuit of truth, truth being defined as the way Lyndon LaRouche does it, as increases in the relative potential population density, which can only be done through sacred love, otherwise known as agapë. SPEED: So we’re about to summarize, and here’s the idea: Now, we’ve heard some things about why Barack Obama will never go to jail and other things, and I’m not going to respond so much to that, but let’s say something about the issue of what we need to do, coming out of this meeting right now. The President will speak to the Congress. We know, from people close to him that he is committed to the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. We also know, as Diane has indicated, that there’s a proposition that’s been put to him to come to a conference in China, and he has to get there. And there was also a reference to the problem of JFK, and "we know where he ended up." Well, actually, JFK ended up on the Moon. OK? You say, Martin Luther King, we know where he ended up. Well, actually where he ended up, is, in history one of the most important leaders of the world in the 20th century. And we know about Lincoln: Well, Lincoln knew, before he even got to Washington and when he stopped by Philadelphia, that there was an assassination attempt against him. He escaped an assassination attempt on his way into Philadelphia. That’s where he ended up, is in the White House. And the transcontinental railroad, that happened in America and is now happening all over the world, is his — not merely legacy — that is Lincoln. The problem of the issue of whether Barack Obama will go to jail has to do with who we are, not who Barack Obama is. So that’s what Lyndon LaRouche is talking about, about the American Presidency. That’s not Donald Trump. The American Presidency is also Donald Trump! The American Presidency is what we do, in relationship to the dynamic of self-government! That’s the whole point of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution! That whenever any government "becomes destructive of those ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new forms of government." I won’t go through the whole thing, not important. But this is the notion, and this is the dynamic that actually existed in the United States today! People don’t like it because they don’t like the package it comes in, it’s Donald Trump and there’s a lot of things you can dislike about that package. That’s the ironic part of the situation, OK? [laughter] So that’s why when we do the things we do on poetry and music and humor, that’s why we’re doing them! because you have to understand, as Ben Franklin said, "You have a republic, if you can keep it." He didn’t say what the conditions were, that you might find, under which you’d have to keep it. But, we have a method, and Lyn has defined that, and so, coming out of this meeting right now, one of the things we want to make clear, is we want to continue to collect the petitions particularly in the next few days. We’ll be sending them down into Washington; I know Diane’s going to be taking some of them down, and we have a means of getting these directly to the White House. So I wanted to first encourage people, but to underscore that there’s action that’s needed. And if you take these actions, you’ll be surprised how elevated the morality of the American people will suddenly seem to you, to be. So please just think about this. And we’re going to conclude this portion of our meeting now. I’m going to thank everybody for coming to this dialogue, and please see us afterward for your assignments. Thank you.