Subscribe to EIR Online
This transcript appears in the October 19, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Dialogue with LaRouche

This is a transcript of the question-and-answer session which followed Lyndon LaRouche's opening address at his Oct. 12, 2012 webcast.

[PDF version of opening address plus this Question and Answer session]

Leandra Bernstein: On the subject of the election, we have a remark that came in from Professor of Constitutional Law Francis Boyle, and he made the remark after seeing the outcome of the first Presidential debate, saying that if the people controlling Obama believe that the only way he can win the election is to bomb someone, well, they have several targets to choose from, be it Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, etc. He points out that the USS Stennis has now arrived in the Persian Gulf, in a three aircraft-carrier strike force. And very soon, the United States and Israel will begin massive military maneuvers, that could easily go "hot." And he says, this is potentially why they've scheduled for this time period.

After the debate with Romney, it could very well be the case that Obama and his backers believe the only way to win the election is for such a strike to occur. And as you've pointed out, and as many others have pointed out, including the Republican Party, the potentiality for an outbreak on the border of Syria and Turkey is immense, as the shellings continue, as the questions go unanswered as to where the weaponry is coming from.

So I'd like you to address, what exactly the potentiality of this kind of electoral stunt?

Obama Is a British Puppet

LaRouche: Well, if Obama is clearly seen as being defeated, between now and the relevant date of next month, then I think the risk is less. Because, obviously, the Republican Party does have representation which is influential in the whole system. And you have people in the nominally Democratic part of the system who want nothing of this sort of thing. And so, essentially, you've got to look at a bipartisan situation, and look at who is top dog in the bipartisan arrangement, and that's where this kind of thing generally tends to tilt.

And remember that Obama is not a brained individual. He is a British puppet. And as I have said repeatedly since 2009, my study of this guy is that he is a carbon copy of the Emperor Nero, and anyone who has really understood the history of the Emperor Nero in the Roman context, will recognize exactly the points that I looked at, which caused me to draw the conclusion that he was a personality of that type.

Obviously, Obama was selected. Obama did not earn any Presidential position on his own initiative. That never happened. He earned the position by being selected to do it, and he was selected as a puppet, a trained, controllable puppet.

Now, you look around you, and say, "Why could somebody come up and want to create a puppet of a new modern Nero, a stupid jerk, a babbling one? Why should they want to do that?" Well, the British Empire could. How does that come out?

First of all, if you are observant, you know that the British Queen controls Obama, totally. She created him, she controls him, she has her man Tony Blair sitting in Chicago making sure that the Obama machine is in conformity, and that they control money. They also have British money, which comes from some places in Britain, where it's basically drug money.

Without international drug money, you could not have an Obama! How do you think Obama got the vote to get the nomination to begin with? The flood of drug money! What do you think this thing about the border crossing of the drug dealers—and it's not just Arizona, it's Texas, or Tex-ass!—it's also California. How much do you think the drug lobby is inside the United States?

What about Wall Street? Wall Street has not actually paid back anybody for a long, long time. Wall Street has gambled by increasing the amount of money without buying anything! That's a fact. Why do you think the British are in a state of hyperinflation? They're about to blow up because of hyperinflation. All of Europe, Western and Central Europe, is in a state of hyperinflation. We're at the point where the crash could come, and it's a terminal crash, at any time.

We have throughout the system the same thing: The United States is in a hyperinflationary situation. If we don't put through Glass-Steagall immediately, there's no chance of the continued survival of the United States as an entity. Because the rate of hyperinflation which is shared between a Europe-dominated situation and a U.S. situation, the hyperinflation is so high, there's no possibility for a recovery—unless you bankrupt much of the hyperinflationary inflation. In other words, you've got to close this thing down! You've got to have Glass-Steagall right now.

And one of Bill Clinton's errors, was he supported the cancellation of Glass-Steagall, which was the dumbest thing he ever did. Maybe it was done because he was being blackmailed at that time. But, the destruction of Glass-Steagall has been the basis for the ruin of the United States.

And that was done before Bush #2 was put in! But without that, Bush #2 could not have gained the Presidency, because Wall Street paid out big money to make sure that the Bush Administration—I mean the dumbest man in the Bush family, or probably in the whole state of Texas. And they elect him President? He can't even read a children's book! And when 9/11 was pulled off, and they all know what's going on, the Bush family and so forth, know this, clearly, they ship him around the country, not to protect his butt, but to divert him, to keep him out of the way! The dumbest man who ever walked into the White House. Of course, he had taken the drugs to accomplish that status.

So, the situation is that if you have a political process which is free of the party system corruption, and looking at reality, this couldn't happen. Because, think what would happen. You have General Dempsey and his crew, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they reflect not only the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they reflect the most talented, most thinking, shall we say, of the U.S. military command. Do you think, that if their voices were heard, by the Senators and the members of Congress, as foremost, do you think they would take the risk they're taking now, when he is trying to prevent them from doing that?

We're not paying attention to our own competent representatives. We're listening to Wall Street, we're listening to London! We have people who are our worst enemies in key positions, in effect, in government.

So the issue here is, you've got to throw Obama out of office. Throw him out! And there are various ways to do that—throw him out. Now, the problem you've got left over is the Republican and Democratic Party are still based on football games or baseball games, or things like that. They're still based on this kind of rivalry. They don't care about the reality! They have a sports inclination!

And you want to look at the Roman Empire? Including that of Obama, otherwise known as the Emperor Nero? And what did they do? They had giant games. And the parties voted on the basis of the games, in the Colosseum. And these mad killings and political games that were played in the Roman imperial system were based on games, not on reality. By gambling, not reality; by all kinds of entertainment, not reality.

And we have an approximation of that coming through the British, and the British influence in Europe—what do you have? You have this crazy oligarchical system, this monarchical system, the feudal system: And you see how they meet, it's like a clown show. The number one is the British, the British royal family is now the top dog. All the other, medium-size and little oligarchies of the royal type, the Duke This and Duke That and Whatnot, they're all that. And they play the game. They make a class difference between the people in general, and their little oligarchical system.

So it's the same thing. In the United States, you have a Wall Street system, and Wall Street is the enemy of the United States from the inside, the chief enemy. So therefore, they play games, market games. What's Wall Street? What's Bernanke doing? Bernanke is playing games; he's not doing anything for the economy. The guy's a complete faker, he should have been thrown out of office a long time ago.

The best thing we can do right now, is enact Glass-Steagall immediately, because if you enact Glass-Steagall, we're out of the mess. We now have our own country back again.

Destroy the games. Look at the history of gambling, in the United States in the postwar period. Look at it since the time of the Kennedy assassination: Gambling has increased, more and more of the country has engaged in gambling, but it has an effect on their minds. If you believe in luck on gambling, you're not sane. You have a factor of insanity in your mental life. And that's our problem.

Drug Money Funds Obama

Jason Ross: I wanted to ask you about the financing of Obama's election: According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama's reelection campaign raised $180 million in September, far more than Romney's campaign. Of that money, 98% came in amounts below $200, which means that about 1 to 1.5 million people must have all, during that month, contributed to the Obama campaign. Seems hard to believe, given his slipping in the polls.

The importance of this, is that such contributions, under $200, aren't reported. Unless the FEC audits the campaign, there's no reporting of this, and the FEC won't audit the campaign, because Obama's not getting matching funds.

Now, the Government Accountability Institute, a nonpartisan group, just published a report showing that Obama's campaign has failed to have even the most basic safeguards against credit card fraud: verifying the card, verifying the address of the person supposedly giving the contribution. Which means that by creating many, many credit card numbers, or using prepaid cards purchased by other means, a lot of money could be funneled into the Obama campaign.

In particular, with Obama, one "bundler," Robert Roche, who has companies based in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, and resides in China, has created a website—to which most of the visitors are foreign—that solicits contributions for Obama; which is illegal, for non-citizens to give such contributions.

Now, you had said in the past, and just now, that in 2008, the Obama campaign was heavily financed through illicit means, offshore funds, drug money; you mentioned George Soros. What could you say, if you'd like to say more, about the fraud of the financing of the Obama campaign then and now, and what that means for us with the election coming up?

LaRouche: There's one particular source, in the main; it has many varieties, but it has one denomination: drug-dealers. This operation is technically known, by anybody who's looked at this financing business of these under-$200 contributions: Organized crime, the gambling industry, piles up a lot of gambling money. That's part of their operation, that's how they get their money, is through this gambling racket, and the drug rackets. Drugs and gambling are the main source of the strength for the Obama campaign.

This was first notable, when Hillary Clinton was defeated in the final step of her nomination to become the Presidential candidate.

These guys are also killers, they're murderers. The Obama machine is a pack of murderers. So political people, and people of consequence, shall we say, are very vulnerable, because they're conspicuous persons to become targets. And killing one of them, in an especially nasty way, an atrocious way, and sort of rubbing it in the faces of their relatives and friends, the way it's done—just like Kennedy was murdered.

They wanted to get rid of Kennedy because they wanted to have a war, a war in Indo-China. And Kennedy, with the support of Douglas MacArthur, said no. So, they killed Kennedy, and the next thing you know, we're in the war that Kennedy had absolutely opposed. And we never recovered from that.

So the point is, this factor, the oligarchical factor, of circles of people who consider themselves under the British monarch, that is, in the pecking order, that they say, "The Queen of England is the world's power." And that's true. But the power does not come because she has power inside her. She has it because her position is such, and there's a congregation of people who have a share in that kind of ability. Therefore, they become a ruling oligarchy of the world. That's what you're looking at. You have an oligarchy, and the chief oligarch, until they kill him, or her, is respected as being the highest power in the system. And this power is what controls most of the world today.

And the drug operation is part of it.

But on the statistical reports on the way that the Obama contributions have been collected, say, in the month of September, it's impossible that that happened, except through drug and gambling operations, and mostly from overseas. And you look at the way these things are structured: Could they be caught this way? Could they be caught that way? Neither way. The way the thing is done, as long as they stick under that $200, that $190 ratio, they can do it all day long, and not have any legitimate contributors. And run up the biggest aggregation of money support for the campaign.

Wall Street: Hedging Their Bets

Bernstein: While we're on the subject, I have a question for you about Wall Street, and since we're trying to reinvigorate the democratic process, through arguments in order to arrive more at the truth, I'd like to raise your three-point proposal: the proposal for Glass-Steagall, national banking/credit system, and major productive projects like NAWAPA XXI.

Now, there's nothing really more bipartisan in this country right now, than Wall Street, and you even have bipartisan support and proposals coming from top CEOs, like Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein, who are apparently trying to hedge their bets in a close Presidential race, and hoping to realize the program implicit in the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which makes the European austerity look light.

So, you have that bipartisan proposal, and you have the people whom LaRouchePAC organizers are speaking to, especially on Capitol Hill, and they will profess their support for Glass-Steagall. And they profess it all day long. But, I'm not sure, in getting into discussions, whether they fully comprehend the credit system.

So, for example, since 2007, 460 banks have gone down, and a lot of them have been community banks, who would make the loans to small-time agriculture, small-time business in inner cities, that sort of thing, and that's where the credit came from. And that credit is, on the one hand, no longer available, and those institutions are, at the same time, no longer in existence. So where do you go to get credit? Where do you go, if you're in small business, if you're a start-up, where do you get the credit? Are you going to go to your local Federal Reserve Bank and ask for a loan?

So, that being said, you've talked about Glass-Steagall, about eliminating Wall Street. But when going to Wall Street, and a company selling their debt on the free market is the only way that people see to get credit—you're going to have to explain to people, because that's the line of thinking: The only way to get money, the only way to get credit is, via Wall Street. So, I'd love to hear your response.

LaRouche: And you shall hear it: Your wish shall be rewarded.

No, it's very simple: We have to set up a credit system, rather than a monetarist system. That means that no longer will the monetarist system issue money, in the name of a political institution, outside of government. Take the case now: All the debt of the banking system out there, now, nominal, has no benefit to the economy. That benefit is less than zero. And first of all, the system is run to bankrupt the institutions that were a legitimate banking system, to loot them, and put them out of business.

So, now you have a credit-creating machine, like the Wall Street machine or similar things in Europe. And they're gambling machines. All they are is gambling. Now, you say, "This is going to destroy the economy." Yes. You're going to destroy the physical economy.

Here's where the dirty part comes in: What's the game? The British Queen has told you what the game is. You just choose to ignore that game, that factor. Because her intention is, as she has said publicly—not just herself, but her whole retinue, the whole organization, the British part, which means also European and some here—that this whole crowd has agreed to reduce the human population from 7 billion living people, to less than 1.

Now, how do you do that? Well, there are ways of doing it; you can just go out kill people, but that's messy and sloppy, it's not efficient. It's not the meatgrinder type of thing you want.

All you have to do, is take the banking system, grab the things that have assets in them, loot them, and shut them down. And then your system builds up—a sort of a system of building up gambling debts, pure speculation. And now, this speculation, which is run by Bernanke, for example, in the United States. Bernanke is the chief thief of the United States; he's the one that bankrupts the most people. He says, "QE" [quantitative easing]. Again, well, what does this buy, what's real about QE? Nothing. Nothing. It's listed money, but it's nothing. There's nothing there. There's no reality there.

So you shut down real production, disemploy people, and you pile up debt, a vast amount. The hyperinflationary debt, the ratio of hyperinflationary debt in the United States today, makes 1923 Germany look like an inconvenience.

So what you have to do, is you have to get rid of these people. Now, there are two layers to getting of these people: First of all, you want to eliminate the allowance for that: Glass-Steagall. Just impose Glass-Steagall. And they'll come out and say, "But, we have money coming to us." "You don't have anything coming to you. You have your own private banking system, don't you? If you have a debt to cover, you own the banking system, don't you? It's yours, isn't it? It's not the government's. We don't own it, we don't take anything from it.

"We go back to what happened in Massachusetts in, guess when? In the 17th Century: We go back to the Massachusetts pinetree shilling system." Which is, that money is not, itself, the value. Credit is the value. And what you give credit for, is the value, like the Saugus Iron Works. The Saugus Iron Works was exactly that form: It was the first steel-making operation in the United States, and it was funded in that way.

So the system that was used in Massachusetts at that time, before it got crushed by the British, was that system. But the problem here, today, is this: If we close down the gambling, that means that we're going to actually throw out, just bankrupt, most of these firms, because when you put them under Glass-Steagall, they no longer have Federal protection for their gambling. If they can survive, they can survive outside the government system, outside the credit system: If they can run a private bank, and run it legitimately without committing any other crimes, and they could carefully select their investments, and these investments would be profitable, in those terms, it would be no problem. That's what Glass-Steagall amounts to.

Glass-Steagall means that people who actually earn their income honestly, can do it. They have to have the skill as well as the commitment. But, as for the average person, the small banks, the local banks, these people are holding in trust money of depositors and other kinds of investors, and they're holding that in trust on the assumption that they will be protected by following the rules. And the Federal government will occasionally help them, by giving more credit in certain areas, or promoting more investments in certain areas, which will help this area to build up, in a normal way, by being more productive.

Do the Opposite of What Bernanke Is Doing

But beyond all these reforms, which have been considered and are used, the fundamental thing is, that money has no intrinsic value. Money is an instrument of investment, but the investment comes from a real commitment to a real credit, a physical credit, or the equivalent. And the banker, the ordinary competent banker, the private banker working within the Federal systems and its auxiliaries and tangents, is able to calculate whether this is a good investment. In other words, on the terms of the investment, the terms of the loan: Is that loan going to be good, or probably good, with help and guidance from the bank and others? Is it going to succeed in being able to pay its way, and grow?

Now, the problem we have now, is that we're so bankrupt, that we now really have to have a massive program of credit supplied by the Federal government, especially for that reason. In other words, the exact opposite of what Bernanke is doing. Bernanke should be imprisoned, imprisoned because he's got a bad mind—that's a general category for imprisoning him, he has a very bad mind; he doesn't know how to think properly; he shouldn't be allowed running on the streets, or even in his little entrance place there.

So the point is, we're going to have get away from a money system to a credit system. That's the foundation on which the United States was founded.

Now, think about Massachusetts: If you don't understand the history of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you don't know anything about money. Because they understood what that was. And what they did is they created a pine tree shilling, which is based on private credit, organized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, private credit was organized under that kind of protection and coordination, to get people to work together, like the Saugus Iron Works, is an example of exactly this: The Boston area was actually more productive, scientifically, more advanced scientifically, than the whole blasted British Empire, at that time. And what happened, in the case of Massachusetts, is the British Empire, William of Orange and company, which was the new, second [Venetian empire] revolution, came in and disrupted that, and then drove the citizens of Massachusetts into two categories: corrupt bankers, and people. And poverty, and ruin, and corruption spread. And you had the Boston banking system, and the New York banking system, which were centers of corruption in that period. And still are. So, that's the system.

So, the point is, if we go to what I proposed, the three steps, that is all you need to do, plus one thing: The Federal government is going to have to cancel any obligation to these fake debts. Once we cut them loose with Glass-Steagall, if they can survive on their own, as what they pretend to be, fine. No objection. If they are just gambling dens, money gambling dens, and not actually investing in order to increase productivity, then, no, they're on their own. And they will pay their debts, and if they own a lot of money, they're going to have to do something about that.

So, in any case, we need to go to a credit system, get rid of the monetarist system, which is a British system, based on the system of the Roman Empire and similar kinds of institutions, brought into the United States by force, in crushing the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That's the way it was done.

Benjamin Franklin then went with the idea of the paper money system, which was a credit system, and then the actual Constitution of the United States was based on a credit system. So we have to go back to our constitutional foundations, which is, if you read the Constitution, a credit-system system. So going to Glass-Steagall is simply bringing in a credit system, a national credit system. Then, the U.S. government, on its own, will decide what, in good judgment, they can provide, as credit, for investment in increasing production, and other good purposes.

So therefore, you have to go to national banking. And once you get into national banking, on that level, you now can restore, quickly, with a single reform—with a single reform—by the U.S. government, we could restore solidity to the prospects of the United States. By establishing the credit system which is implicit in the Constitution, on that simple reform by itself, we would have taken the first giant step, toward a sudden, rapid, and acceleratingly rapid recovery of the United States.

And the key thing is NAWAPA is a typical case of that: NAWAPA is a project which, with the water system in the conditions in the West, and the water conditions of the nation, we could increase the water available in the United States through NAWAPA by a very significant ratio. Which means we would solve terrible problems that are hitting us today. We would save food supplies. Even starting the project would mean steps which would tend toward increasing food supplies, because you recycle the water. If you evaporate the water, and you let it fall as rain, and you evaporate it again, let it fall as rain, finally, you've multiplied the actual effectiveness of the water, but you're using the same water, over and over again, in the same territory. And therefore, you actually have the effect of, say, 1.7 times the water you had before.

And therefore, we can restore the United States, rapidly, by going at certain large projects of this type, which become both the center of the buildup of the economy, as such, and they then become the means of supporting the reforms which the buildup is intended to accomplish. In other words—we will create, with NAWAPA, 14 million jobs. At first, they won't be much, but as people develop in carrying out these projects, it'll increase.

If we take another thing, say, the old Detroit area, the "you can make anything, any time industry," we do the same thing. So, you've got 16-17 million new jobs.

Now, what do we have now? We have right now, a desperate lack of 27 million jobs. So, with such a reform, you immediately create the impetus for a recovery.

And you could do the same thing, take the case of China: China now has a crisis, which is developing, an economic crisis, because its markets are collapsing. China now has much of the productive capability, or a complement of it; India has something similar, not the same scale, but something similar, and therefore, the recovery of the United States in this way, would take advantage of the productive capabilities of other countries as well, like China and so forth; and would take those advantages, and use them and mix them with U.S. interest, and that way, you get a generation of an actual, consistent recovery.

So the recovery can be done by us, from the United States, by making that change in policy.

U.S.-Russia Scientific Collaboration

Ross: Yesterday, members of the LaRouchePAC had a meeting on Capitol Hill with staffers from several Congressional offices, to discuss our planetary defense proposals. There are some questions that came up during that. I wanted to pose one to you, with some small alteration here.

Now, this is regarding saving the Earth from asteroids, rather than from man, as environmentalists would like to do. In discussion of U.S.-Russian collaboration on projects for asteroid defense, one of the things that came up, was the fact that this involves the most advanced technologies that we have. There was some concern expressed about the wisdom, or how one would go about sharing such technological innovations with Russia, without giving them the upper hand—this is, I think connected also with, I think, a strange position we have with regard to China, where there's a total non-collaboration on space questions with China right now.

So I'd like to ask you: Is there a role, is there a place for secrecy in national security on scientific matters? And if you have any thoughts on how the discussion around the SDI related to this, about how to successfully share technologies which are potentially very powerful, with other nations?

LaRouche: All right, let's take one, and work backwards from that one. Yes, there is. See, we had reached the point where the available highest level of technology, in terms of military-equivalent technology, is now thermonuclear fusion. Thermonuclear fusion, we want to have within, say, a generation; you want to have thermonuclear fusion operating as a system of transport of people from the Moon, which we should be building up as a base for that kind of operation. We should have, actually, major manufacturing going on on the Moon, because when you try to lift from the Earth to the Moon, you lose a lot. So therefore, it's much better to put some of these stations in deep holes, in tunnels, inside the Moon. On the top, they get a lot of asteroids, small asteroids hitting all the time there.

But, for large-scale operations in nearby space, such as Mars, we will obviously be using the Moon as a base for developing much of the production that has to go for the exploration and development of nearby areas such as Mars. This will probably, at best estimate, take us a generation from that point, developing thermonuclear fusion as a driver for transport among other things; which means we could probably get, with the proper conception, we could probably get from the Moon base to Mars in one week, with an acceleration/deceleration process. And that would change everything.

The importance of dealing with asteroids and the threat of comets—a comet could be the extinction of humanity, so therefore, these kinds of things are high priority, and by being high priority, they spin off, from those technologies, they spin off many applications which are otherwise impossible. These things are what we call "capital improvements," real capital technology improvements.

So our objective is to go in that direction. We know that Earth is very vulnerable. We know that the risks from comets and asteroids is a very dangerous business. Dr. Edward Teller, for example, who spent much of the remaining years of his life, in concern from the end of the 1970s on, on just exactly this question. So, it's important we do that.

In order to do this, we're going to have to build stations on Mars, which we can begin to do now. Curiosity is an example of the development of successively higher orders of stations which can be built on Mars. These stations will enable us to deal with, and develop the methods for dealing with the intelligence and other kinds of things necessary, for our operations inside the Solar System. I don't think we'll be able to go to Jupiter very soon; it's very tough place to go, by Jove!

So therefore, what we can do now, is science-driver programs, which will change the character of human existence on Earth and beyond; that mankind has a potentiality beyond anything that mankind generally knows today. And our objective is to reach that point, where more and more of our population is suitably educated to understand what these technologies are: We have a very poor education of our citizens today, relative to earlier times. People today are relatively stupid, in terms of their level of education, compared to some years ago. And the number of people who are competent is less.

And the result is, in universities, and in work places which are called "scientific," you have incompetence. Real incompetence. A cultish kind of incompetence is operating, and people are just getting jobs and positions, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of wanting to have that category of job. Much of the Green stuff is absolutely incompetent, it's absolutely fraudulent, for example.

So, the issue is, we can not any more tolerate the idea of using thermonuclear fusion or related things as a weapon of warfare. That can not be tolerated, ever. There's no way that mankind could survive it. So it can't be tolerated.

But. Great power. I mean, after all, the Sun is a great power, among other things, and other things in the Solar System are great powers; by using this technology, we can actually cause, within two or three generations, a revolution in what man represents in terms of the universe. And it's what we should do. It's only the crazy, misguided egos that want to do anything different. What do they want to do that for? For what purpose?

Human Morality; Human Creativity

Human morality is what's at stake here. The flaw in human morality today is the way that people think about death, human death. Because what they think about is, "Well, I'm going to die, or he's going to die, and then that's over." But if you take a society which is really human, which is based constantly on advances in what we call technology, scientific technology, not just technology, mankind's requirement is what makes them feel human, is if the children and grandchildren of a generation have the sense that they are participating in improving the conditions of life of humanity, not only on Earth but in the Solar System, down the line, then they have a different sense of morality. Because, if you have a zero-growth society, what happens is, every person who has a child is essentially dead, because nothing is going to be produced by them, which will make a difference in the universe.

And what happens in scientific growth and progress of this type, is that we change that. Instead of having poor people, who are treated like animals, who live and just die, and the next specimen of that generation is just wiped out in its time, too, what's the meaning of life, then?

The difference is, the human being has the capability of creativity, of discovering principles in the universe which can change the way the universe functions around us, and beyond. And if we think that we may die, but our children will be doing things that we weren't capable of, as a species; and our grandchildren similarly, if we see that life is not crushed in death, but the meaning of life is expressed in the achievements of later generations beyond the present one, that's when humanity understands itself as humanity. And immorality, in the history of mankind, is not based on zero growth, because man would be reduced to the category of a mere animal.

Only the creative powers of mankind, which no other known species possesses—if there is any species that possesses that, we don't know about it, and we haven't seen any manifestation of it; and we're not seeing much manifestation of it from people right now. The reason that you get despair and corruption in society, is because people think that when you die, it's all over, and it didn't mean anything, at all.

Whereas, if you have real human beings, who know they're human, and know what it is, their concern is, they want their life to have been useful, in advancing the condition of mankind, knowing that they died with fulfillment of purpose. Not just their selfish little greed or lack of greed. And this conception of man, which is essential to mankind—without that, mankind could not deal with the future.

We're coming into the time, when the powers that we require for the needs of mankind, as the landings on Mars show, we're reaching powers way beyond the imagination of earlier generations. And that is good. But we're not doing it fast enough, and that is unfortunate.

But you have to have a sense, the person has to sense that their personal life, while it survives, is building something permanent, in what happens in coming generations. And you find the best people used to think that way. Just think about the people who came to the United States from Europe during the 19th Century: What did they do? They came, poor. They came to New York City poor, dirt poor. Off the boat. And then, their children, at least in a certain ratio, would rise to a higher position, higher skill, a higher power. They would tend to think in terms of scientific programs, or scientific modes of achievement. They would think about progress; they would think about what their children are going to be. They would think seriously about their children having a life which means, "You are going to do what we couldn't do."

And it's only when you get the "you're going to do what we couldn't do": That's morality. And if you don't have that, you don't have any morality. If you have a zero growth or a Green conception, you don't have morality. You may be alive, you may have satisfaction from some things you eat or chew upon, or spit on, but, you don't have anything human in you. Because you don't have the thing that separates the human being from the animal: the determination to contribute something in your life, which contributes to the advancement of mankind in the next and coming generations.

And that's where the problem is with us, today, that we, in the United States, have more and more lost the degree of that sense of what the meaning of the future is, that we once had before. We have corruption, we have entertainment—not creativity. We're producing monsters. Look at the children on the street, with this system, with 27 million adults, qualified adults, unemployed and living in desperation: What kind of a future are you building? What kind of a future is this government building? What does Obama represent?

Get that guy out of there, now!

Back to LaRouche Opening Address

Back to top