THE POWER TO DO GOOD:
Mankind Has a Special Destiny in the Universe as We Know It
Lyndon LaRouche gave this address on Sept. 9, the day after his 90th birthday, to a large gathering of friends, who joined him to celebrate this milestone.
As you would expect from me, you will get the best possible quality of bad news. And the advantage of that is that it's truthful. You can have confidence in that.
There are actually a number of subjects which are of solemn importance on this occasion, and I shall outline these subjects, state a few things about them, so they are clearly identified, and then, I presume somewhere in the process, if there's discussion of some of these subjects by me, you'll find some way of dealing with that.
The problem here is that, we have two candidates, neither of which is fit to run for office as President. And we are faced with the most dangerous situation in the history of mankind. The danger is explicitly that of thermonuclear war. We are at the brink of thermonuclear war. That doesn't mean we're going to have it; it means that some people are organizing for it, and it would tend to happen under certain conditions.
Such a war, if launched, would not necessarily kill everybody at once, but it would create conditions lasting years, which would generally eliminate the human species. If there's no food supply for several years, and similar kinds of problems, the human race can be rendered extinct. This has been the concern of responsible people, for many years, actually since, shall we say, about the 1950s, when, in the middle of the 1950s, we had reached the point that thermonuclear weapons, or weapons systems, existed. And if nuclear weapons, nuclear fusion weapons, are used for purposes of general warfare, what will happen in these days, is that it will take about one and a half hours, at most, to produce an effect which virtually eliminates the human species.
That is the intention associated with Barack Obama, the current President, and the one who has just been renominated for election as President. This is the ugly reality of the situation.
Now, this has implications which are, shall we say, more interesting: that first of all, the deployment, in say, the space of an hour and a half, until the U.S. submarines which deploy these missiles have done their job; the British have done their job; and Russia and China have responded to the launch—the result will be within that very short period of time, that it may not kill everybody on the planet, but it will condemn everyone to death.
This has been understood, and known in principle, since the middle of the 1950s, and was certainly clear by the 1960s. And now, the fact is, that the President of the United States has engaged himself in a commitment to warfare, which must inevitably lead to that deadly hour and a half, in which most of the human species is exterminated. And therefore, the issue here, the leading issue above all others, is that Obama must not become President again! Should he become President again, except as in a prison, then the existence of mankind is in jeopardy.
Any War Will Be Thernonuclear War
What's the implication of this? Because this is not just a fact, and it is a fact. It's known to everyone who's competent. We have, for example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, not in alliance with Russia, but in agreement with Russia, in a certain kind of agreement, together with China and other nations that are involved—that if the war starts, it starts, and the ending within about an hour and a half, is either the extinction of the human population, or of a great part of it, and the consequent death of all.
Now, the implication is, what does that have to do with war? Is there a legitimate war? Well, in general, no. Because the nature of war is such that there is no real solution for wars, especially now, since the standard of warfare is thermonuclear war, done largely with 'submarines, and everybody's in a rush to get their weapons deployed, within immediately a half-hour, and then, certainly by an hour and a half, all of these weapons that are presently in the possession of the relevant parties will be used up. And so will the human species.
So it means that the time has come, when the idea of warfare, as we've understood it traditionally, is no longer allowed. Well, why should it be allowed? Because the ratio of kill involved in the very commitment to warfare is such, that it means the extinction of the human species. Now, how can the human species agree to its own extinction? Except by madness.
So therefore, we've come to a time where the issues of warfare, as warfare, must be addressed in a different way, and this means an examination of the motives for warfare. People decide to use force to impose their will upon others, or to prevent others from imposing their will by the same means. It means that the question of government, self-government of the human species, will have to undergo a change.
Now, there are some very good changes to be made. We had recently the wonderful landing on Mars. There had been other landings on Mars, which were relatively wonderful in their time. They were genuine achievements, and some of these elements are still floating around and being used. But the most recent one was a qualitatively great uptick in the whole process.
Asteroids: Another Deadly Weapon
And what we should be doing, essentially, is we should be going to that, because we have another weapon in this, another deadly weapon in this Solar System. It's called asteroids! And it is known to us, although there are many uncertainties involved, that asteroids are very dangerous, particularly if they hit Earth. Many of the asteroid hits, which have happened on Earth, and which could happen, or which are about to happen, somewhere along the line, are very deadly. Whole city areas are easily wiped out on a minimum by these kinds of things; or several of them.
Therefore, the question is—we have another physical enemy of humanity, apart from warfare among human beings—and that is: How do we defend Earth from asteroids? Now, the area is full of asteroids! We don't even know where most of them are; we know the general order of magnitude of quantity of these asteroids. We also have intimations that the rate of these asteroid passages, as our Solar System goes through its routines into different parts of the galactic system, the indications are now, or the hints, are that they are going to increase. And we know where some of the things are, but we don't know where most of them are! We suspect certain ones might hit Earth, but we're not quite sure whether they will.
Some we know about, and we understand that there are ways in which they can be diverted, so that the asteroid passes by, without striking Earth, like what happened last year, where an asteroid got in, floating between the Moon and Earth. And it didn't actually hurt anybody, as far as we know. But we're living under that kind of threat, which is not the same thing as the military threat, but it's also the idea of what defense is.
How do we defend the Earth from these things? And some of them, as in the past, have hit Earth, in the ancient past, and they're totally destructive. Others have been more limited in what they destroyed, and as we've discussed among ourselves, you could take out the Los Angeles area, or the San Francisco area; other comparable territories of the planet are subject to this kind of thing from time to time, from the relatively smaller asteroids.
So therefore, we've come to the point, as Dr. Edward Teller launched this in the aftermath of his opposition to thermonuclear war. And he was a key part of the operation which I was a participant in, in the defense of Earth, against the nuclear war. And he continued to go on this question of defense of Earth against asteroids and similar kinds of problems. And that is being continued today.
And what happened is the SDI, which is something which I had the privilege of initiating, back in the late 1970s and early '80s. The SDI has now been upgraded: It's called the Defense of Earth, and that's our commitment, on military questions: the defense of Earth, the defense of its people, the defense of its future. And the problem is one which, by its nature, lends itself, at least to the suggestion, that we could take the means which we otherwise would have used in the past for warfare—but these means could be used in various ways to defend the population of Earth.
So now, the war we have is the war against those asteroids, which might eliminate the human population, or at least a large part of it. This is the new war. This is the new policy of defense. And the policy of defense is negative, in the sense of trying to defend the Earth against an attacking problem; and also positive, in the sense of using our exploration of space, in our defense of Earth from space, and use that to increase the benefits and power of the human species.
I'm not pushing now for large-scale colonization on Mars. However, I do not prohibit mankind from developing Mars as a place of occupation. I simply insist there are other means, which are more appropriate right now, for the defense of Earth against asteroids and things of that sort; that we had a recent achievement in the launching of this Curiosity, which is the greatest achievement so far, of this type.
Mankind Will Have To Move On
And this is another reason you have to get rid of Obama. You have to get rid of all of his policies, because we need every bit of these things that Obama was shutting down, for the defense of Earth, and the defense of humanity. We've got to get those satellites out there around Earth and other kinds of things; we've got to improve our abilities to forecast the problems of these asteroids threatening Earth.
We've got to think in the long term of going beyond that, because sooner or later, the Sun's going to be gone, and long before the Sun is gone, it's going to be a very unpleasant neighbor, or neighborhood. So mankind is going to have to continue our existence in other places. We're going to have to move on, as a human species, by increasing the power at our disposal. Because we know the creative powers of the human being, which, insofar as we know, are unique to the human species! No other living species known to us has ever demonstrated the capability of creativity. The only willful creativity that has ever occurred, by any species, is by mankind.
And we have to change the policies of mankind, and instead of trying to keep people down as cheap labor, we've got to go in exactly the opposite direction. We've got to go to a perspective that we're going to manage nearby space! We're going to deal and negotiate with this system that we live under. We're going to make it habitable. Because mankind, unlike any other species, has genuine creativity, the ability to make discoveries, and apply these discoveries, that no other living species known to us can do.
And our destiny is not just to be the same ol', same ol', as we are now. Our destiny lies in the fact of the human mind, not necessarily the brain as such but the human mind, the creative powers that the human being represents, and which, for us, is also called, the power to do good. The prevention of doing harm, and the means of doing good.
There's no shame in mankind's advancing to living in a condition, way beyond anything we can imagine today. But we have to think in that direction now, not to say it's something of the distant future—it may be something of the distant future, in part—but we can not limit ourselves, by our nature as human beings, when we think like human beings, rather than animals; when we think, actually, like human beings as creative beings, the only ones we know of in the universe so far, that means that it's not just defending us, negatively, selfishly: It's the point, because we, as a human species have a mission in this universe.
We don't know a lot of things about that, but we know we have this power, which is very poorly developed among us, because our educational systems stink, our outlooks stink! We are not living up to what mankind is: Mankind has a special destiny in the universe as we know it. And our job is to live up to that destiny. Not to demand that everything be limited to what we can do, and what we know today. We must not deprive those who succeed us, from realizing the greater good that they will be able to do, if we lay the basis for their achievement of that capability.
And therefore, our whole view of politics must now change! It must change on the negative side, because we can no longer have major war on this planet. It can not exist! It can not be tolerated. Obama must be taken out of office, and heads of state and government like that must be removed from office. They must not have the power to utilize these kinds of weapons systems and means. And it would be the greatest of all crimes to allow any President of the United States, or similar heads of state, to have the authority to launch thermonuclear war.
And that's an absolute: There's no room on this planet for any President, or any other major head of state, who seeks to launch thermonuclearAnd if major war comes, it is thermonuclear war. And within an hour and a half, the destiny of the human species can be all over.
And therefore, this President and what he represents, and similar kinds of people, must be removed from power! It's not because we're pacifists. We're against killing of human beings, because we're for the realization of what a human being is, the only known creative species, in existence, as far as we know. And that is sacred.
Human beings, as a species, must be defended, because of the creativity that we represent. Which means that we must defend that creativity, but we must also promote it. Our mission to Mars, for example, is a complicated question, but it's also, obviously, for many of us—or some of us, anyway—it's a feasible proposition. And it means that mankind has within its power, the power to do things which are beyond the imagination.
We can explore the universe. We can explore, particularly, the Solar System. We know that we have the potential ability, innate in the nature of things, that mankind can actually begin to take over the Solar System. Whether we're going to inhabit it or not, is not the question; we're going to take it over. Because if we use the power of the speed of light, which is what we call communications systems now—electronic communication—we can actually control this Solar System; at first, the inner part, which includes Mars, and gradually, at a later point, we'll have greater power, and we can reach further.
We can also do explorations earlier which give us knowledge. These things are innate in the nature of mankind, the nature of mankind which many politicians have no sense of whatsoever! But we, as we live and die, as persons, must have the right to access to a meaningful course of life, to the ability to do something with our lives, which we can rest upon as we die, and know has something to do of permanent value for the human species. And that is what must be protected and defended.
The Parties Are Over
Now, that said, look at what some people would call the "practical problems" of this particular occasion—the politics of Earth, the politics of the United States: Well, from the beginning of the development of our Presidency, our system of government, a very bad mistake, crept in. It was called "the party system." And the party system was a travesty, which has corrupted, and in part, destroyed the United States, by itself—by means of itself—over much of our nation's history. As in other nations, as well.
But the idea of the party system is a form of degeneration which must be eliminated, if we're going to able to cope with the real challenges which mankind should be occupied with, now. We do not need a party system.
What happens with a party system? You've got two jerks running for President now, official jerks; one Republican jerk, the other a Democratic Party jerk!
These guys—one, Obama, is the one you must not have as President! He must be eliminated from the Presidency, because he inherently is a danger to mankind. A danger to mankind! And the Republican Presidential nominee, while he has not shown any of the sheer evil that this Democratic President has done, I wouldn't trust him a bit! And I wouldn't trust the crew around him, at all!
So therefore, we can not accept either of these two proposed Presidencies! So, what are we going to do about it? One Presidency is almost as bad as the other; and we know the Democratic nominee is the absolute worst! But we don't know about some of the underlings of the Republican Party—we've got some very strong suspicions about some of them! And we don't want a Republican President to bring that crew along with him, into power!
So what are we going to do about it?
The nominations have been placed. The campaign propaganda is in full sweep, more or less: What are you going to do about it? Are you going to say, "Well, we have to give up; we're human beings. We have to give up everything to sacrifice ourselves for the existence of one of these two Presidents?"
I don't think that's a very good idea! I think the occasion demands that we pay some attention to doing something about that. And I would suggest that some of us assembled here, might be able to do something in that direction, which would inspire some other people, in other places, to take a similar course of action! That's my inclination anyway. Some people do know I have these inclinations. I think we ought to have human Presidents, frankly! I mean, there ought to be a law that says, the President has to be human! And a birth certificate—sometimes, it's not the birth that's questioned, but sometimes, it's more complicated: We don't know whether he's a citizen, we don't know if he's from Mars; we have to ask the Martians about that.
But we know that this President in power, has shown a commitment, to commit thermonuclear war. This President is a fanatical, chronic, mass-murderer! And he should not have been even nominated again. He should have been expelled from office for the crimes he is known to have committed! The violations of our Constitution! He must be ousted; he must be put in some place where he can do no harm to mankind.
But the other case is not promising either, as I've indicated.
Well, how can we attack this problem, within the law of our system, as it stands today? I would suggest there is a remedy. The problem is, the party system.
President George Washington and others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent republic, tried to prevent the formation of a party system. And I think the time has come to eliminate the party system. At this time, it's the only way, formally, through the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of these two kinds of Presidents.
What's wrong? Why should we have party systems? We have a Constitution, which is defined; the Constitution is fine, if it's carried through as intended; it is our system. But why do we have to have parties intervening between the process of selecting Presidential leadership in national government? Why do we do that? What screwball invented this kind of nonsense? Because that's what happened. People become partisan, and say, "whichever party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!"
No party has that kind of right. There can not be a party that has the right to oversee and control the destiny of the nation. You can have a President; there's nothing wrong with that. But you can't have a President as the President of a party. Or, you can not have a conniving between two Presidential teams, or two party teams, by special agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a national government! These things are obscenities, which leaders of our nation, beginning from the George Washington Administration, recognized as evils!
Go Back to the Constitution
And the idea of going to a European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt—by its very nature, not necessarily by the intention of the people, or the intention of the politicians—they just don't know any better.
And the only way this can be done, is if we infect the population with the realization, we do not want a party system. We have state governments, don't we? Under our Constitution. We have local governments, within state governments, under our Constitution. We have bodies which the nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government, the military and the rest of it. So we don't need parties. They don't do any damned good.
If Franklin Roosevelt had just been the President, and didn't have to deal with these damned parties, we wouldn't have the mess we've got into. We don't need to have a contention, over which party is going to win, when the party was not] inherent in the conception of nation. What we need is a Federal republic, with its state composition, and other local compositions playing their role.
We don't need this party system, which is a system of inherent corruption. What we need, is the due process election of a composition of government. And we don't want people diverting the attention of the population from the issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! That's where the problem lies!
When you rely on parties, as such, you set up a kind of controversy, or competition, for power, between or among party systems. These party systems then excite the passions of the foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the party, first, and the nation, second, when it must be the nation first, and the not the party.
The voluntary part of the system, that's fine. The citizens have a right to make formations, to make agreements among themselves, and to cast their votes accordingly, and to discuss these matters accordingly. But we don't want the top-down rule of a party system, which is controlled by the money sent to them, by financial interests which control the money which gives one party advantage over the other! You want the bare citizen, as a citizen, to have an equal right, and independence of this party system.
This has been said, again and again, in the course of the history of the United States: People with insight realize that the essence of the corruption in the United States is based on, and derived from, the use of the party system. And you see it right now: The nation is now mortgaged for the selection of its government, its national government, to the party system. Everything is stopped, except which party is going to win! And one is almost as bad as the other.
And why should we be spending our time selecting a government of two parties, neither of which is fit to be our government. Why don't we have a national government selected in the way that George Washington, for example, President George Washington, had intended? We would not have that mess! And the citizen would be called upon, not to decide who's butt he wants to kiss, but rather what the issues and programs are that this citizen wishes to express. We want to engage the citizen in the dialogue! We don't want to take the competition between groups of citizens. We want the citizen to force the reality, that he or she is voting for the government. And what the citizens do in voting for a government, will determine the fate of the nation.
We want to confront the citizen, with his or her responsibility for being accountable for what government is, and what it becomes. We have to force responsibility upon the individual citizen, as a citizen, not as a sucker, playing into some kind of game.
And this has been understood for a long time by the best thinkers of the United States, that it is the party system, as typified by the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt Presidencies in our history; that's the problem. And the corruption that was done to the United States, by the election of Andrew Jackson, and the people who controlled him, who were British bankers; so, Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers: They owned him. They ran him. And it was because of the party system, that this could happen.
And we've got the same thing today: You're shacked up with a couple of clowns—Dumbo and the the insane Crook.
Now, the only thing we can do, or the only thing I can do, on this thing right now, apart from telling you about this wonderful information, is to awaken you to realize what we're really up against, to recognize what the real problems are. If you're thinking about looking at this mess out there, from the standpoint of Democratic or Republican, you're not thinking! Because you're not thinking in terms of the essential interest. Because what you're doing, whatever you do, you are imprisoned to pledging your support to a party! Not to the nation. Yes, you say, "to the nation," but it's the party that controls you.
And that is how Andrew Jackson destroyed the United States, with the party system! That's what doomed Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt would never have had this clown Truman stuck on him, except for the party system business. And that's where our problem lies.
And we have to make that clear. Because we know what the state of mind is.
What's the state of mind of the voter? He's playing football, not politics! He's playing a version of football, baseball, whatever—gambling! Racketeering, whatever! And his mind, his passion, is associated with winning this, for this party, this team, and so forth—not for the nation. The objective of our system of government must be to force the citizen, as a citizen, to think through what the national interest is. And we don't do it.
We say, "Which party are you going to support?" Well, what's the party going to do? "Well, I think it's a good party." In other words, they don't know what the hell they're doing—and their passion is involved in being sure they won't do it. And that's where we stand. And that's the thing we've got to think about.
And you've got to destroy the self-confidence of those damned fools who think that the "party vote," the vote for the party, should determine the decision of the nation. That is a false and fraudulent conception, and it's about time we called a halt to it. And right now would be a very good time.
Only One Way Out: Glass-Steagall
Now, what're we going to do? We have our organization. We have a conception of how to organize this nation, how to deal with the great crisis, the financial crisis, the economic crises which occur in this nation; and which occur, also, similarly, in other nations, which I think would tend, at this time, to look with a friendly eye at what I might propose here, right now.
First of all, the world is bankrupt. The trans-Atlantic region is totally, hopelessly bankrupt. Every part of Western and Central Europe is totally bankrupt. It's incurably bankrupt under its present system. Nothing can be done to save it in its present form. There's no way you can bail it out. There's no way you can take it out of this—except one way: Glass-Steagall.
Now, of late, you will have observed that Glass-Steagall has become increasingly popular in England, in the continent of Europe, and other notable places. So what does Glass-Steagall do? Well, essentially it says that the system of government we're running under right now is hopelessly corrupt; so, let's shut it down. Let's shut down all the bailouts. We're not going to pay it! We jes' ain't gonna pay it!
So what are we going to do? Well, we're going to have a grand old time: We're going to go to a straight credit system, which is Glass-Steagall, immediately. Now, that means, that all those other guys, the gamblers, Wall Street types and so forth, well, they have all these claims. All these values. They own all this property, in terms of titles. But we say, the point is here, with Glass-Steagall, is that you can run your kind of banking system if you want to—under penalties of law, of course. But you don't have any right to come to the Federal government, to demand that the Federal government bail you out, if you happen to go bankrupt.
Now, I can tell you, as you probably have suspected, that practically every part of the whole system in the United States, today, is already hopelessly, incurably bankrupt. And there's only one way we can escape from this bankruptcy: You want to have some money to live on? There's one thing you've got to do: Glass-Steagall! It won't solve the problem, but it will open the gates, to permit the problem to be solved.
All these things that don't conform to Glass-Steagall must be cancelled. That means these banks can still have their banking system, as long as they don't go bankrupt. We're not going to shut them down arbitrarily; we're just letting them out on their own, and saying, "This is not our business. The Federal government is not responsible for this."
Now that will reduce the debt of the United States, tremendously. It would have a similar effect in nations of Europe. The French banks would not be pleased with me. They would probably say some very nasty things about me, but...
The point is, the world now knows, and increasingly in Europe, there's an understanding that Glass-Steagall is a necessary alternative. And these guys are having a terrible time, in fighting off the Glass-Steagall popularity. But that will do it.
The problem is, because we waited so long, since we cancelled Glass-Steagall, we waited too long, and they ran up a hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming. So therefore, the result is, if we go with Glass-Steagall, we're going to have relatively little money, under our Federal system; because we wasted it by throwing it into the garbage pail, and we can't get it back. So therefore, we're going to have to go to another measure.
Now, I said, national banking. Why national banking? Because, unless you create a banking system, under the U.S. government, under the protection and regulation of the U.S. government, you can't do anything much with the economy.
We have very little industry left in the United States; it's been systematically destroyed. Especially since the last three terms of the Presidency. We have been running a garbage pail; and therefore, we have no means, by ordinary means, to save the economy. We don't have jobs.
Now, as most of you know, under NAWAPA [North American Water and Power Alliance], we would create, quickly, 4 million or more jobs—real jobs! Real productive jobs. We would create, at least, immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of jobs. We would start the process of a general recovery of the United States—but oh! Wait a minute! Got one more problem. Where's the money going to come from, that we're going to loan for NAWAPA, and loan for other high-technology jobs, and certain other kinds of skilled jobs? The Federal government is going to have to create credit, which will be run through the national banking system, so that under national banking and Federal government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these jobs.
Let's take the practical question of the food supply in the United States right now: As you probably know, food is about to be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything possible to destroy it. Because they're doing everything to destroy food for fuels.
Federal Credit; NAWAPA; Jobs
So therefore, what are we going to do? Well, what we're going to do is, by giving the Federal credit into, say, the NAWAPA system, we're going to create a flow of credit, into the various phases of this process, which will immediately charge NAWAPA, in particular, and other things that go with NAWAPA.
We have also the lost auto industry, the whole Detroit system, for example, and we're going to put that back to work. So, we're going to create, instantly, that is, by Federal decree—instantly create sufficient growth, not only to get rid of this hopeless debt, which never was really a legitimate debt, at all. And we're going to restart the economy, by taking people—when you have very few people who are actually involved in productive jobs, they're not involved in producing things; they're mostly employed in various kinds of services, which are not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value to the U.S. economy. They're simply pass-outs, under one guise or the other.
So in this case, we are launching a recovery of the U.S. economy, by supplying the credit, as we did in the beginning of the development of our economy, after we won our Revolution. We're going back to that system of recovery to get things moving, and it's going to start immediately. And the easiest way for us to do this, is NAWAPA.
NAWAPA is a project which is relevant, because it's focused on water management. And the problem we have in the United States today, is a water management problem. In the Western States, we don't have rain. We don't have the means to grow crops. And we don't have people who are employed, in actually productive forms of employment, physically productive forms of employment.
The difference is, with this kind of reform, of three steps: NAWAPA as a driver, an incentive driver, which will save the organization of production in the Central and Western States of the United States. Then going back into the Detroit area, with several million jobs, immediately, will have a similar effect. Which means that we then can use a credit system, managed under Federal control, as we've used credit systems, like Franklin Roosevelt did in the past, and use that kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall-type government system, and we can start the regrowth of the U.S. economy.
We also have, as a byproduct of this: If we as the United States do this, you will find that the nations of Eurasia will join us. You will find that nations of Europe, who are now being destroyed by their own system, will now go back into functioning, and we will use international credit, which is an extension of the national banking concept, instead of speculation, in order to restart the economy. And that can be done.
So there is a practical solution, a sane practical solution, as opposed to the other kind, for this problem we have as a nation. How far are we from getting it, is the question.
Promise Only What You Can Deliver
Well, that depends. It depends how desperate people are, and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of attachment to a solution. Our job is to present the solutions. You know, society is actually led, when it's led, by a tiny minority of the human race. We have not, because of our underdevelopment, built up nation systems, which are actually rational, and truly represent the will of human beings.
What we approach is the conditional will of human beings, by providing them with promises, which we hopefully can keep, and that they will be satisfied by trusting us, by the means of the measures we offer to them as suggestions. A very tiny minority of the human population in all nations, actually has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of how an economy runs, or how it should be run. We have to bring them to us, to our ideas, our conceptions, based on the fact that they need precisely the solutions that we present. It may not be exactly what they would dream of, but it's what we could deliver. And if people understand that that's what the game is, they'll accept it, at least in large part.
It's what they can believe that we can deliver. And it's our saying that we can deliver this, but we can't do that, yet. And if you promise everything, they're not going to trust you, and for good reason. If you give specific promises, that will work and make sense, and can be explained to the people, it will work! And if they don't accept it, that's their fault.
But our responsibility, which is limited—we don't run the world; we don't have powers to supervise the world as a whole. We can only argue. We can only argue as an intelligentsia, that we have done some thinking that the other people have not yet caught onto, or didn't know about. And we can tell them what we can do. What we understand, what will work for them; and say, "We're going to have to work harder and better, in order to fulfill the kind of promises we wish to deliver." And say we need their cooperation in doing that.
We've got to give them a sense, that whatever we're promising them, we're committed to delivering, and that our promise of delivery has been made credible to them. And that experience, as in the case of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery in the United States during the 1930s, the same program, the same policy that Franklin Roosevelt used in reviving the U.S. economy, worked.
But we have to tell these guys, "Stop being the kind of idiot, who believes in the party system! That's number one. Number two, don't believe in Obama, get him out of there, and make sure he's removed quickly." And we're going to have to figure out what we're going to do about this Republican. Because that's a real weak point, there.
However, I believe this: If we can establish a functional Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the United States under George Washington's Presidency, if we have a President, and we use our system of government, our constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem. Not the way people would like, by a "wish factory" or something, but by the fact; we can point the direction, and it's up to the people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the direction.
But we must do what is not done right now: The problem with government now, is that the U.S. government and its functions, are chiefly one, big, damned lie! They promise things that do not exist, or will not exist, and make rules which make no sense, and are willing to get into wars, by which civilization and mankind in general could be destroyed. And we have to use that argument and that bill of particulars, as a method of convincing them, this has to be done.
We Need Leadership, Not Parties
And the key thing is this, to come back to the theme I started with: Space. It's obvious that there's a limited time frame within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system of the Sun. The Sun has a limited—some people say 2 billion years; some would say, long before 2 billion years—the Sun is going to act up, and life is going to be most unpleasant on this planet.
So, we as mankind, have to address this question. And it's obvious that to address this question, we have to give new attention to space, the questions of space. We have to find ways of intervening in the space system, or the Solar space system and so forth, and this is possible. But we must turn to that direction, to think, "Well, we can't stand around, following a fixed recipe, like a kitchen cookbook recipe, forever. We have to anticipate the problems which face mankind in the future; we have to search for solutions to those problems, and we've got to convince people."
And the big thing you have to do, is this: Most people in the United States today, behave stupidly, and this, of course, is helped by the educational system; it's helped by the terrible conditions of life of children, as well as adolescents; and there are many things that have to be done. And our job is, as a minority in society, and with other minorities in society which wish to find and initiate true solutions for these problems, we have to get out, and convince people, and educate them.
And in particular, get them immediately to understand that these two Presidencies that they've stuck out there for voting, ain't shucks! And we've got to do something about that; and the best way, is to go out and say that these guys aren't fit to run anything, and give some indications of what we're thinking.
It can work. It can work because the situation of all humanity on this planet right now, is almost a hopeless one. The war danger, the thermonuclear war which is hanging over us right now, is threat number one. The shortage of food in the United States, for people, citizens of the United States, is another. The conditions of health care, are another. All of these conditions are intolerable! And nobody's doing a damned thing about it, from the standpoint of government on down! I don't hear of any big riots coming out of the Congress, against the lack of such needed reforms! They're going by the party system. And I think we have to just treat the party system as the kind of fraud that it has always been!
We should have a system of representative government, in which the citizens can use those other citizens who are the most qualified, and the most committed, to provide leadership, to provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the rest.
If you can't be something, inspire it in somebody else.