|This transcript appears in the September 11, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LAROUCHE SEPT. 5 DIALOGUE WITH
Lyn, I'm going to ask you first if you have some things you'd like to say to us all, and then we'll go right to questions from there.
Lyndon LaRouche: Obviously there is a fundamental change in the manner of society today. It's coming out that Putin has made a move; it's a very key move. It coincides with what happened with China during the last week, and that was a coincidence there. But now everything is changing.
Everything is going into a great change, throughout Europe and throughout the United States. And we have to, as a nation, pull this together, because the life of humanity at large depends upon the ability to recognize this different voice, which we are about to hear, now.
Speed: Okay, very good. So, let's go right to questions.
Q: Good afternoon, Lyn. This is B from New Jersey. Given what seems to be at first glance a totally chaotic situation in the Middle East,but clearly there are a lot of complexities, particularly around the Syria and other situations, which have to be addressedPutin and others are trying to navigate those complexities to come out with an effect which they know has to be taken at this point. So could you go through some of that?
LaRouche: Yes. Well, what's happened essentially, is that this has been going on for a long period of time, and finally it's come to a point of a crucial point where things have to change. And what's typical right now, which I think before we probably get back into this discussion a little later, because we don't want to clutter everything up and make it confusing.
But a few points: What's happened is that the meeting of Putin with China on the case of the Chinese occasion [Sept. 3 VJ Day celebration], has been echoed again by Putin. And the idea is to move the world out of Obama, and out of the British system, which are two very similar kinds of things.
Other things involve questions which can be answered. The problem is that the questions which should be answered cannot be answered by certain governments, including the United States government right now.
For example, what's the situation? The United States government is totally bankrupt. Now, how is the U.S. government totally bankrupt? It's through Wall Street. Wall Street is totally bankrupt. It cannot recover. It is dead. What is going to have to happen, is we're going to have to declare Wall Street to have been dead. And we're going to introduce a new method which is key to what Franklin Roosevelt represented, during his Presidency. It's not quite the same thing, but it's the same nature of intention.
Now, we lost everything, when Franklin Roosevelt died, because we had a series of bum Presidents; we had a few Presidents who in the meantime were alive. We had Kennedy; two Kennedys were killed. One served as President. The other was not given a chance to serve as the President; he was killed before that could happen. And over this period of time, there have been some moments of goodness, in terms of the processes of the U.S. government. But most of the time, since then, no! Everything has been a disaster.
We have to come to an understanding of what the solution is on this thing. And I don't think my just answering this question will settle it. I think, however, if we follow through on some of the questions that come up normally under this condition, I think we'll have a pretty good discussion.
Q: Mr. LaRouche, I am EM from Manhattan. On behalf of all your supporters in the Manhattan Project, I want to wish you a very happy birthday, which I guess is in two days. [Sept. 8] But I just want to say that I feel lucky to have become acquainted with you and your knowledge and purpose. And because of your dedication to keeping the planet a safe place for everyone, it has inspired me, as well to fight for the truth and the well-being of all of us, as you have.
That's all I have to say. [applause]
LaRouche: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, nice meeting you. My name is P. I just have one questiontwo questions; it's one question with two sides to it.
I was told that you were in jail for ten [sic] years for your political opinions, for your political activism. I'm not exactly sure what forI wasn't told the whole details. But I kind of assumed that it was because you were trying to do the right thing, and someone didn't like that.
My question is, sometimes I'm afraid of expressing all of my opinions that would be truth, and that would be truthful and trying to make America a better place; and sometimes I have this fear that there's always someone watching. There's always something watching everything we say online, everything that we say in public; everything that we write, everything that we read, especially with the internet. And my question to you is, what do you make of that, and what do you think is the best way to deal with it?
LaRouche: Well, in brief, my career in business, in terms of our Federal business, is that I reached a certain point in the beginning of the 1970s, which led into my appointment to a special position, to represent a new President, Ronald Reagan. And the thing which I was entrusted to do, was to deliver a proposal for dealing with Russia, or Russia at that time, which had just lost its leading member; and we had come to an agreement which I negotiated with the Russians to ensure that there would be no war between the United States and Russia. I was the one who negotiated that, and I did other things of the same nature. I also did some things which made me very unpopular with people like the Bushes and similar kinds of people, and Obama as well.
So, the effect wasdespite the fact that I was put in the jug and all these other kinds of things at a later pointthat what I have stood for is valid today totally. And the whole thing that we base this,for example, Russia is in a very crucial period. Now, Russia is not a bad nation, or something like that; China's involved. You had a large demonstration in China, a massive one. Something beyond the conventions of any kind.
And today we're at that point. Now, in this period, for various reasons, my aged process, which is me, has come to a point of contributing to the possible hope that we will bring the planet Earth out of the danger which has now threatened us, of a thermonuclear conflict, whose effect and probable effect will be extermination of the human species. And I'm very happy to have some role in contributing to that mission, to defeat the threat which is by Obama himself, personally; the effect which threatens the existence of the human species.
Q: [follow-up] But sometimes trying to fight that threat brings us some kind of threat to ourselves, as we could be put in a situation where we might become persecuted for trying to do the right thing.
LaRouche: That's true. But that goes with the territory. We have had a number of evil Presidents and some corrupt ones who are not just evil, but massively corrupt. We've had all kinds of things happen to the United States, and I've been fortunate enough to have had the experiences that I've had, so I'm able to respond to these matters. And you know, I've had a good life so far, and I probably will get a little more mileage out of it, if we're lucky right now. I don't think I'm going to live very long, because I'm kind of an old man. But! I'm determined to fight and carry out my business, and I will be content that we shall become victorious. Period.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, R from Brooklyn. I'd like to know your position on the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] agreement as a provision similar to the NAFTA Chapter 7, which means that, even if we get Glass-Steagall through or passed, the multinational funds may be able to circumvent the Glass-Steagall by the right-to-profit doctrine which they have in the NAFTA Chapter 7, and in the TPP.
LaRouche: Well, the point is that Glass-Steagall, of course, first came into being, directly [under FDR]; of course, it was always implicitly there under Alexander Hamilton, who, of course, is known to people in Manhattan; his corpse is there, still, being admired by honest people.
But the issue here is Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall was the formulation which was provided by President Franklin Roosevelt to deal with the evil that was reigning over the United States during the 1920s, in particular. And Franklin Roosevelt created this new process, which saved the United States.
Unfortunately, actions came into effect immediately after his death, to destroy what Franklin Roosevelt had accomplished. And over the period since that time, most of the Presidencies of the United States have been heavily corrupted. The most recent Presidents, the Bush family and Obama, are the most evil things that have been imposed on the United States in history to date. And only by defeating those forces, now, can we possibly save civilization, from what is otherwise a thermonuclear conflict from which very few human beings will survive.
In other words, if Obama has his will, he will soon launch a thermonuclear war which will kill most of the people on the planet in one very short time. That's the danger.
Now, because we're in a period which is beyond what we've known in wars beforeWorld War I was already bad enough; World War II was the last word. What happened, of course, in the case of our great Presidents of that time, they knew this was the case. And so since that time we've been living off and on between corrupt and evil Presidents, and evil party compositions, and trying to struggle out, and get an exception.
Under the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, the thing has been brought to an endgame. Destruction of these forces is absolutely necessary. What is happening right at this moment is that China and Russia have taken an action, which, if properly carried out, will be a great contribution to prevention of the kind of holocaust, which threatens mankind right now.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I'm JW from Brooklyn, New York. Okay. My question deals with crafty, sheisty Israel. I had to draw a little mapI don't know if you can see it, butI had to draw a little map of Syria, and put Israel where it belongs, and Jordan, and Lebanon, and you know, Turkey over here, and Iraq above Syria. I had to actually draw out a little map of that area, in order to understand the placement of these nations....
So my question is, if Israel is supporting ISIS to the north and they're also supporting ISIS to the south, and saying that they're supporting al Nusra as if al Nusra was not an actual faction of both al-Qaeda and ISIS, then what can we do, or what does Russia need to do, in order to deal with Israel, if they intend to help Syria and keep the Assad government in place and protect Damascus and the other ports that are needed in Syria? So I want to know more about this Israel thing.
LaRouche: Okay, you've come to the right address. You may be gratified.
But we have to clarify actually what we mean by "Israel." Because during the immediate period after the post-World War II period, I became closely associated as a supporter of the Israeli military force.
Now, this force, however, which was the forces of my friends at that time, in the Israeli government; you know, this was a very tough period for Israelis and others as well. But this particular force of the leadership of Israel then was a great achievement coming out of what the effect was of what the Nazis had done to the Jewish population.
Now, what happened was, the British got in on this, and there was an election. And the government which came into power was under British and other influence [Menachem Begin], and that influence overwhelmednot totally, but nearly overwhelmedwhat the Israeli government had accomplished in its defense program and its reforms during that period.
So what happened was, a group based on London of Israeli interests organized chiefly in London, but also spread from London into the United States itself. So you had a Jewish population in the United States which became increasingly brainwashed, and adopted an attitude against all kinds of things, and was absolutely incompetent.
The recent government of Israel has been evil. It is purely evil as much as anything else. But during this period, there have been leaders of Israel, during this same period, who were murdered on behalf of the other kinds of Israelis; or imprisoned, virtually, destroyed!
Clinton Presidential Library
So it is not a Jewish question. It's a British question. And there were certain Jewish circles, and money interests involved in that; they're bought, or they're desperate. They're told lies. They don't know what the story is. Honest Jewish people in the United States and elsewhere are like Einstein, they're good people.
Then you have a British interest comes in, and takes over the government of Israel, and turns it into a virtual criminal operation. Just like the most recent, new election in Israel, it was a disaster for humanity. And there's no reason for this stuff. It's evil. But it's not Jewish; it's not a Jewish question. It's a British question.
And a British question is usually also a brutish question. [laughter]
Q: Hi. My name is A I'm an activist for this Manhattan Project now. And my question is, over the past few days I've been organizing people in New York, especially on Putin's action. There has been very strong sense of optimism that I got from people who came to the table and learned about Putin's bold assumption that we can actually defeat terrorism, and have a coalition internationally to do this.
One tendency, however, that I have found, also within myself, is to overanalyze a situation and try to explain how this initiative's going to somehow have a trickle-down effect, and how things are going to work out somehow.
But it's my hypothesis that we have to use this bold assumption coming from Putin, and also Xi Jinping of China,an optimism that humanity can overcome the greatest threat that we are facing as mankind, and use this as a kind of an inspiration; meaning that, not only do we have to explain to people here what's going on, but it seems to me that we here in New York have to respond to this inspiration from the United States. Of course, that means 25th Amendment and getting Obama out, passing Glass-Steagall. But my question is how can we have this sort of mass effectnot in a way that we explain things, but how can we actually move the population, given what China and Russia have done?
LaRouche: Well, I don't think the problem is that difficult. I think the only difficulty is getting the job done in a timely fashion. Because you will notice now that there are directions and trends in the United States and in parts of Europe, where the whole system that had been dominating the trans-Atlantic period, is now collapsing. That political system is now collapsing.
You saw a reflection of this in what happened in China recently, and what's happened in Russia, and other things. What's happened in Asia. You find that all of these things that the British Empire had represented for its long period of existence, are what we've seen in the Presidency of the United States under the two sets of skunksa Bush skunk and an Obama skunkwhich have occupied virtually four terms of the Presidential office.
So that mainly, no young person in the United States knows what a human being is, because they haven't met one yet. It's true! They don't know any better. Look inside the United States, what do you see? In Hollywood, what do you see in the United States, what do you see on the streets, what do you see as habits? You think, "This is the United States?!" This is not a United States; it's a disease!
And what's happening? Well, diseases sometimes get cured. And what's happening now, is, we have a movement inside the United States, which, if you measure things carefully, as weeks go by, you find there are trends now which are moving against this kind of evil.
But that does not mean we can sit there and just wait for victory. But it does mean that the American people, or a good part of them, and especially in New York City,there are lots of people in New York City, not the majority, perhaps, but in New York, you see a different kind of person. And they're trying to scratch, and find out what the answers are.
No, but we have to have confidence in the fact that their humanity, has a profoundly underlying good view, or at least has had in modern history. And therefore, you have to count on that, but you don't count on it by looking at it. You've got to get out there and help promote it. And if you promote the kind of things that people are capable of, then we can win. And I would say now that what's happening, particularly with what Putin and China have just done, has actually brought us to the brink, of reversing the evil which has menaced us, under the Bush family and under Obama. These things can be removed. It's going to take a little bit of nudging to make sure that that change occurs.
Q: Lyn, hi. This is M from Manhattan. [sings] "Happy birthday to you." [laughter]
You know, I have to tell you, back in 1998, I was so dismayed after teaching a day of class in science, and this and that. I have three questions. And I was standing in my kitchen, yelling at my skylight: "I want the truth, Buddha! What the hell is going on?" And I had three questions. My son's 15 years of age, and he's sitting there going, "Ma, you're crazy."
And I said, "My God, I'm late for the post office," and I got out there at the post office and there were your guys. The three questions were answered for me, so ever since I've been working with you. And I had an education in Flushing, Queens from the Catholic school and the nuns. I believed in the United States of America and the goodness of mankind. Even though I'm now a Buddhist, there's the goodness of mankind. Within each human being is the essence of absolute goodness, compassion, and compassionate action, that's the thing, action based on wisdom....
You know, of course, I always associated so much of my information as from the LaRouche organization and what we have done. When Benjamin Franklin said, "you lose the press, you've lost the Republic," and this is what we are now in danger of.
And I know, just as the young gal who spoke ahead of me, when you mention Putin's name, they look at you as if he's some sort of a criminal....
I will say one thing. I called up, I think, Senator Schumer and I said to the fellow that answered the phone, "You've got to face it. This President ain't no Christian. He's a Wahhabi Muslim. He's those same guys that were on the planes that went into the building on 9/11! This guy's holding hands with the watchamacallit of Saudi Arabia...." "Oh!" he said, "no, no, no"; he got so upset at the thought that Obama is really deep in his heart no Christian. He is a crazy, radicalized, murderous Muslim! And not my kind of Muslim friend, you know, because I want you to know I have nothing against the Muslim religion.
But what can we do, coming up, to somehow or other in the next week-and-a-half make this clear to the American people, that they have to stand against the President and get him out?
LaRouche: [laughs] That's a good point here. I think what you're saying, is something which I understand very well. It's, that if you want to become successful in influencing other people, you've got to commit yourself to the mission which does that.
And when you're talking with people,it's like ordinary family and community discussions,these discussions reflect something. Some people will say, "Yes, perhaps you're right, but I don't think you're right. I think they're right. I think you have to learn to keep your head low, and don't take any leadership roles that might embarrass you or embarrass your neighbors." And therefore what happens is that their good intentions are no longer good intentions, because if something is right, and you know it's right, and you have evidence that it's right, you don't dump it.
The typical American, today, especially those young people today, two generations or so, they're degenerations: Look at the culture of most of our young people. Look at Californication, since Schwarzenegger got in on this mess, and brought Satan there, to other places, huh? This kind of thing.
So the point is, it's your own devotion from inside you, to have a mission-orientation, which is appropriate and relevant, and is something that will not let you go. When you get to that point, someone says, "Well, you know, but that's not practical. That's not practical."
"Well," I say, "maybe your life is not practical." Maybe you should change the course. Maybe you as a human being, have an obligation, to make a contribution to the advancement of a function of humanity. You have to defend humanity as a principle. Don't sit on the sidelines and say "It's not practical. It's not practical."
It has to be practical. Because what do we have? We have a situation, where we don't have a real economy in the United States any more. We don't have it! It's been destroyed. What happened? Well we had a couple of degenerations, a Bush degeneration and an Obama degeneration, making about four terms of Presidential office; and this is what has destroyed us. This is what has done it to us. We didn't have the guts, or many of us didn't have the guts, to fight against this. And, what you're fighting for is not fighting against someone; you're often fighting against yourself. You're fighting against yourself, so you don't become a skunk like the guy in the neighborhood was.
Q: [follow-up] All right, yes! That's got it. You've got it. Happy birthday, Lyn [laughter, applause]
Q: Hi, Lyn, it's A. I wanted to talk with you about what is now, I think, the Nero effect of Obama being on full display, with every nation now, and all the reports coming in on how nations are being destroyed, one by one,Syria, Ukraine, Libya, and so forth. The Green policy that Obama embraces. He's entertaining the murderers and accomplices and partners of the British in the White House, while all these events are unfolding. And here comes Putin now to intervene on a military basis, strategically, to counter the destruction of Syria.
I wanted to know from you what is your analysis of that intervention? And how can this help to offset this global drive for destruction that Obama sits by and allows to occur?
LaRouche: Okay, a couple of weeks ago I presented a case to some of my associates and others on the question of the policy of Putin. I also followed that immediately, this past week, of course, with what China had done with its demonstration. Now, from a military standpoint, when you see this marching among the China organization; these were general officers, generally, and you would have these swarms of China's military specialists, and there were actually general officers commanding what would normally be a regiment. But they're out there setting a pace which I have never seen the like of before.
The way in which that march, which was done this past week, that march by these soldiers, by these officers, was absolutely amazing. In the records of military science and drill, there's been nothing like that, in any part of history, recently. It's amazing!
But then you see the end of the thing; they go through the process, the whole march process, which itself is a military miracle; but we understand how it was done. But now we turn up with this whole weapons system China has. It's amazing. It's first rate! And that's only the obvious stuff.
So you have a situation now where China has now mobilized itself together with Russia, to change the course of history, in general, very seriously. And Putin has, in this same context, I was going through this thing and of running estimates of what Putin was going to do, and I came to a conclusion; and I found out recently that I was totally right in my conclusion: Putin is moving by proper approaches of strategy, he is moving to move forces inside their neighbors, and it's going to move. And Obama is going to scream; and Obama is going to blow, because he will not stand for what Putin is trying to do now.
And I think Obama is going to lose. That's a fact. But that's a fact which is of the type which is a possible fact, a feasible fact. That depends on the next stage, which is of actual fact, an efficient fact.
You know, war has changed since I had military experience in wartime. It's changed. It was changed by what happened with MacArthur. See, MacArthur had beaten Japan. But what happened is, the Presidency of the United States launched thermonuclear war against two cities of Japan. And since that time the possibility of thermonuclear war has been on the table.
MacArthur was totally against it and did everything possible to prevent it. Other generals of our command did the same kind of thing. They had the same kind of attitude, but you'll find that the skunks in the electorate, the skunks are the ones who create those kinds of wars.
We've come to a time in history, when general warfare as it has been defined before, in the various wars in the Nineteenth Century, Twentieth Century; this kind of warfare is no longer possible. Because the weapons of warfare, thermonuclear weapons of warfare and similar kinds of warfare, are such that you cannot have general warfare without rushing into killing most of the human species.
So Obama, and the Bushes are killers; the supporters of evil, the Saudis. The Saudis are a British agent, which is a matter of pure evil. The Bush Presidency was a full supporter of that evil. We had some people in New York City and elsewhere who were killed by Saudis; and the Saudis did it, under the orders of the British, and I know a lot of the details of how that happened and how that worked.
So we've come to this kind of a period. Obama is a stooge, but he's an evil stooge. Bush was a fool, President Bush. President Obama is an evil force; and if you cater to him, you'll get an evil force. Because Obama is prepared now, if he can get by with it, to launch a full-scale thermonuclear attack on Russia and other places. Such a launch, which will be responded to by Russia, would virtually exterminate most of the human population, within a day.
So we've come to that kind of situation. And warfare as we've known it before, or as MacArthur knew it in his service in Europe, that's no longer possible. That kind of warfare is no longer possible. Because thermonuclear war makes it impossible, and other kind of weapons system makes it impossible.
We've now come to the point where the relations among nations have to be changed: nations must come to a moral standard of productivity, of creativity, of rising to higher achievements; of exploring space, developing the galaxy, which is an essential task before us in the times to come. So, it's a new period. And therefore the important thing is to mobilize the population of the United States, of Germany, of Russia, of China,and China and Russia are very much on this case right now.
We have to bring those forces together. Because we are not going to go on the old kind of national system, because the national system cannot be based on warfare, not modern warfare. There have to be other kinds of alternatives. And some parts of the world are seeing that, they're seeing that change. Because, what's the purpose of mankind? What is mankind? Well, the idiots don't know what mankind is. Mankind is a superior being. There is no form of animal life which can match the principle of the human being.
The difference is, we are all going to die as human beings. We can't live on forever. We won't live on forever. So what's the meaning of human life? If we're all going to die, what is the meaning and the virtue of human life?
The fact is, we are able to contribute discoveries of principle, in the course of our work, to enrich our people in terms of their capabilities of creativity. And mankind therefore lives, yes, in order to die. But, what does that mean, in order to die in those terms? It means you are fulfilling the span of your mortal life, and that you are devoting your life to making contributions to the future of mankind, scientific discoveries, new, real great ones.
Kepler discovered the characteristics of the system. He did it. We now know there is a higher form, the Galactic System. We know that we have to master the Galactic System, which is our water supply; mankind's water supply is located in the Galaxy, the major part of it. We have to develop those things in it. China is engaged now in many things, in space programs which are of this nature.
So, the point is, mankind has a mission which no other living species has ever had. The ability to serve the Creator, through service of what we call scientific and related discoveries, great artistic discoveries, moral discoveries. The idea of the principle of God, a principle to which we are indebted. And what we must do is use that capability which is given to us, to enable mankind to go through successive generations of birth and death, but in the process, to always bring mankind into discoveries of principle which mankind had never known before.
Mankind is the only truly immortal, living being that we know. And mankind's job is to have performed a mortal achievement, which brings forth capabilities of mankind, scientific and other related things, which have never been known before. And our devotion to that purpose, gives us, anyone, when they die, or are about to die, and they say "This has been the good fight." Because in the course our life we produce something new for mankind, which brings mankind to a higher levels of achievement for a mission which mankind can never fully appreciate, but which is the mission which inspires people to a purpose, which is the real true meaning of humanity.
No animal species is immortal. Only mankind is immortal in terms of mankind's ability to create new conditions in the Universe from which mankind will advance to higher levels. Just as Kepler went up and discovered the Solar System, we now have discovered the Galactic System. And we don't know how far or where that is going to work out. But we know that mankind has a destiny, a sacred destiny, to achieve insight into what mankind can learn to create. And that's the way to look at it.
Mankind is not just an animal. Mankind is something far better, far richer, far more important. And we should aspire to be an example of that. [Applause.]
Q: [follow-up] Lyn, I just wanted to follow up. I mentioned early on, in first talking with you now about Obama and this Nero condition, clinical condition, that it's been over six years since you hauled that out. And it's typical amongst these types of cases that their condition only worsens, never gets better, and becomes more and more dangerous. So, for over six years he's been qualified to be removed from office by means of the 25th Amendment. But I don't think we're really thinking in those terms, but rather more like it being some kind of a tactic, as opposed to like our very lives depend on it.
LaRouche: [laughs]. Well, I don't accept that condition, you know. I think that we are responsible,collectively, if not individually,we're responsible to find a solution to these problems, this kind of threat.
Look, it's been done before. The founding of the United States, even before that,Alexander Hamilton, for example, is a case of this thing. And his corpse is living down at the tip of Manhattan there still today. He still is the exemplary standard of devotion to service for mankind. He was the guy that got George Washington to run for President. George Washington was not going to do it otherwise. He did it.
So we had a British agent who came in and killed him, because he refused to lift a gun against a citizen of the United States. So he was murdered, slaughtered, by an evil man.
Now the problem is, we have the access to knowledge. Now I've lived through this thing, I know what's there, I know the failures of the United States, and the failures of the trans-Atlantic community. These failures are not necessary. They were never necessary. It was only the weakness of the people who lacked the development, and lacked the passion, to realize what mankind's destiny is.
And we've had great people, in the Nineteenth Century, great achievers, and we've lost this quality of achievement. We had it with Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt gave us this kind of policy. The general officers who commanded service in World War II were typical of those people who performed an essential service, which they didn't like, but they had to do.
And we had the murder of great Presidents, or the assassinations of people who were almost great Presidents, who were part of this thing. There is no excuse for accepting this kind of condition. I will never accept it. I cannot accept it. I never will. And the best I can do is to try to encourage some other people not to do it either. [Applause]
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this EB from the Bronx. First of all, I want to wish you a very happy birthday next Tuesday.
I would like to ask you what is your opinion about Senator Bernie Sanders. He's also running for President, and he's against the rich corporations. He would want them to not get away with tax loopholes, and he's fighting for the poor class, and the working class, and the middle class. He's a Democrat and a Socialist. I would like to know, do you think he would make a much better President than Obama?
LaRouche: [laughs] That's not even fair to the voter! Obama is a bum. He should be removed at any time.
Q: [follow-up] Also the Glass Steagall. He [Sanders] supports the Glass-Steagall. So, what is your impression of him, your opinion about him?
LaRouche: I think he's probably not the strongest Presidential candidate. Right now he has a certain degree of popularity coming out of where he lives. But there are others.
The way I put the thing: The idea that you have to have a President as such, and that that President alone is the Presidency of the United States, that, in fact, is a mistake. There have been great Presidents of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt was a great President, for example.
But the idea is, if you want to have a Presidential system, the first thing is you don't want to have a one-only President; because a one-only President is too easy a target to kill, among other things. And therefore what you want on that kind of lesson and warning, what you want, is you want to have an assembly with a President, who is a President, and the leading figure of the United States government. But then you want a whole team of people, who, with their assorted capabilities put together, represent a government. But they have to be people who are committed to that service. Now Franklin Roosevelt was pretty successful in that respect.
Other cases are not. Look at what happened to Kennedy. John F. Kennedy actually saved the United States from a thermonuclear war. Kennedy did it! And what did he get paid for it? He was assassinated. What did he get? There was his brother. Then his brother was assassinated, because the brother could have actually become President. He was also assassinated.
The President I served, they tried to assassinate him, Reagan. I was part of the official team of Ronald Reagan's government. And that's one of the reasons I got sent to prison. Because I did things the Bush family didn't like.
The point is, these are the facts that have to be dealt with: we need to have a composition of people who comprise a real U.S. government, who have the talents to do that, who have the devotion to serve in that way. This would be something like a Franklin Roosevelt government, because that's what the Franklin Roosevelt government tended to be. Roosevelt was very careful of this stuff, and that's what we need.
So I think the answer is, we need a Presidential system, and I think we might have one or two people; or one, two, or others, who would be a leading President, ahead of the official President. But we need a team, which is a team which represents the kind of knowledge, interplay of knowledge, which qualifies a government, a Presidential administration to cover, shall we say, the ground of what has to be considered in, say two terms of a Presidency, or more. That's what we need.
I don't think the Sanders thing is crucial. I think he's a useful person; he's running for office now. O'Malley is also a more active one, but he has less voting popularity at the moment.
But so what we need is a Presidential system, which is composed of people who are qualified to fill the various duties and tasks which a Presidency requires. And you need to have some kind of protection so you don't have one guy out there, or two guys out there, who are both vulnerable to assassination, the way Kennedy and his brother were assassinated.
Remember, Kennedy saved the United States from thermonuclear extermination in the Cuba crisis. He organized it. His brother was a key agent in assisting that. They were both murdered. Why were they murdered? Because there was a contrary force of evil which deliberately assassinated them, and I think we had a famous leader of the FBI who played very significant role in bringing that about.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, this is Mr. C from New York. I have two questions I want to ask. The first one is, can the passing of Glass-Steagall stimulate the economy immediately? And what would be the first shovel-ready project to start on? Would it be NAWAPA, infrastructure, agriculture or nuclear power plants, fission or fusion? And the second question is, how on earth can we get other people involved in organizing instead of being bystanders? Do you have any suggestions?
LaRouche: Yes, sure. We don't need that. We don't need to worry about that kind of stuff. I think we can pull it off, right now. I think there's a mood now in the U.S. population. You know, most of our people are poorly educated. I mean, most of our young people aren't fit to be educated; they're too busy doing other things that are not going to take us anywhere important. But no, the issue here is, we do have a policy. It's called Glass-Steagall; it's the Franklin Roosevelt policy.
But, here's the problem. The problem is that we don't have the kind of leadership actively now, which we need to carry out a Glass-Steagall policy. That is, we could, with a good election process, immediately, create a Glass-Steagall system. We could do it. We could get the United States out of the bankruptcy.
But then the problem is this: most of the people who are employed in the United States, or would be employed if they were able to do it, are incompetent. Look at the condition of skills of our labor force. These young people are not competent. The kinds of things they like to do, are the worst things you should ever want to do. You have a minimum number of people who really want to do something right, in terms of productivity and skills, but they don't have the chance to do it. We don't have a program for that.
AIP/Niels Bohr Library
So it means we need a combination of, on the one hand, a Glass-Steagall law, period, absolutely. There's no way you can't accept it. That means you've got to wipe out Wall Street. Because Wall Street is impossibly bankrupt. Wall Street is complete fraud. It's more than a complete fraud. It's past death. Right now. There's no way that the Wall Street banking system could survive, unless it took the people with them, into death.
So we have to do something about getting rid of the Wall Street crowd. And Wall Street and what it represents must be thrown out of office now. If you don't do that, there's no chance of solving the problem.
On the other hand, we have people who don't have the skills, didn't get the skills, didn't get the education and skills, to be able to do this kind of work. So therefore, we have to have a program of reconstruction of the U.S. economy which corrects these errors. We've got to get people educated competently. We have young people who are not competent. You know, at your age, and so forth, you know what this is about. We don't have the competent people. And what people who could be competent are not being educated, aren't being backed up. We don't have a productive process now. We're being destroyed, and I think we could solve the problem.
But we're going to have to move quickly; we're going to have to take a Franklin Roosevelt approach. Glass-Steagall, yes, primarily. But what are we going to do to make Glass-Steagall work? We can do Glass-Steagall; we should do it, immediately. How are we going to make it work? I know something we can do about it. But that has to be what's on the subject.
We've got a lot of people in the United States, who just are completely lacking in all real skills or they're downgraded skills, which don't mean much of anything. The education system stinks. This is terrible. Yes, if you and I and some other people are angry enough about this thing, in the right way, I think we could organize something. We just have to be given the latitude to do something about it. Which is simply a matter of leadership. You've got to find people who are determined to be successful leaders. I mean this happened, for example, in history of Abraham Lincoln. Suddenly we got a bunch of people who had been slaves, and suddenly a number of them turned out to be geniuses. That's the way you have to look at it. And if Abraham Lincoln had lived longer, then everything else would have lived longer.
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is R, from Bergen County, New Jersey. My question to you is, what is wrong with the EU? [laughter] Are they a bunch of morally corrupt degenerates, or is it the case that they really don't have two nickels to rub together? Because, this thing, this entity, this freak show, that is labelled as the EU is aiding and abetting some of the most outrageous criminal atrocities, ever imaginable with the refugee stuff going on. These are war crimes. And these people who have been through major wars don't seem to even have it within them, to be able to accommodate taking care of a million or so people.
There seems to be something hugely wrong with this entity called the EU. It looks to me like it really should be broken up. It is a complete failure. First, there was the Greek thing; now there's the refugee thing. Isn't it a disaster? What would you say on this topic?
LaRouche: Of course it is. But I think we could do something about it, we can do something about it. I think if we just extend our capabilities now, and get some teamwork going, I think we can do it.
Obviously, Manhattan is one of the areasI mean, we know what Manhattan is. We know what the sins of Manhattan are. We know what some of the talent is of Manhattan, noweducation, science, so forth, to the degree that exists. Yes. If we want to, we could get the people rousted up to do the right thing.
You have to have the infectious drive, doing that. Most of my life has been spent on doing exactly that kind of thing, and I've found out that I could succeed, unless they really tried to kill me. And we don't have enough people who are doing that kind of fighting, they have lost their ambition.
You know, they would say, "be practical." Did you ever hear someone say, "Hey, come on, be practical, be practical, be practical?" Wasn't that cry to being practical, not to offend unpleasant people, or something like that? That's the problem.
The problem, is you've got to get the American people to come together in sufficient degree that they have a sense of a mission in life, not a career, but a mission in life; when people have a mission in life to make discoveries, to make achievements. When they just want to make money, and the problem is the American citizen is corrupted by saying, "You want to make money? You want to have a successful career? Well, shut up and be careful what you say."
What is needed is a mobilization of leading citizens or citizens who are passionate to make things happen that must happen. We did that before. We've done that before; I did it a number of times. And when you do it, it works. In prison, it doesn't work so good. But we can do it.
I think we are on the edge of a circumstance whereyou take in the New York area, I think there's something going on there now; that people are wondering, if there isn't an option to change things. Because, remember, what's going to hit Manhattan is Wall Street. Wall Street is finished. And Wall Street is totally bankrupt and cannot be recovered. It is exceeded beyond all possibility of bailout. The only way to do this is to cancel Wall Street.
Now what would be happening with cancelling Wall Street? Well, suddenly Wall Street would be shut down, because there's no value in it. It's a complete fraud. But people are afraid because Wall Street controls money. It controls money in banks; it controls money in other kinds of institutions. People say, "Well, I need a career, I need an income." "What are you going to do, take my income away from me? Shut it down? You're going to take Wall Street away from me? I depend on Wall Street. Look, I have a brother-in-law who has a career in accounting here and there. You want to take his job away from him?" Or do you want to say, "Joe, stop being a jerk. What's your skill? What do you know?"
And the problem is people get sucked into popular opinion, and I'm an advocate of unpopular opinion, and I think that's the right career to have.
Q: Hi, Lyn, this is D in New York. I just want to consider what's going to happen over the next few weeks in New York, as the United Nations General Assembly begins, in the context of what you're saying is coming from Russia and China. Because, it's funny, for example, that all of these Presidents that are going to come into New York, and heads of state and government, and a few days ago, Russia took over as President of the United Nations Security Council. So, Putin's going to be here, and he's going to be like the President of all the Presidents in New York City, which I think is pretty ironic.
So therefore, these actions to be taken by Russia and China in the lead-up to what's happening here, I was reading in this week's EIR, some of the article by your associate Mike Steger, about Franklin Roosevelt's First Hundred Days. And he emphasizes in his conclusion the relationship between Roosevelt and Shelley. And considering that we have this moment that has never occurred, for this 70th anniversary of the creation of the UN by FDR, I mean, my question is, what would Percy Shelley do, in this moment, in New York?
LaRouche: I don't think that's a legitimate question. Because, look at what the situation is. Right now, Wall Street is bankrupt: That means the entire banking system of the United States, of the Wall Street banking, is hopelessly bankrupt. It's gone beyond all possibility of bankruptcy. Hmm?
So, now, on the other side, we have an issue, where Russia and China, under threats from Obama, in particular, are faced with a war, thermonuclear war. Obama is now committed, to launching thermonuclear war!
Now, what's happened of course, is that Putin and China, and other nations, have made a pact, in effect, now, to throw Obama effectively out of office. So therefore, going out with neat plans, schemes, is not the answer. The principle of the flank goes to rank; we have to shut down Wall Street. Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt! The United States cannot function under a Wall Street regime. It's worthless! Absolutely worthless. What do you do? You shut down Wall Street, which was done against Hoover by Franklin Roosevelt. Shut it down!
Now, the problem here, today, is worse than Franklin Roosevelt faced in his election, when he was made President. So, you can't take a model, and say, this is the model and this model and that model, or whatever, will work. You've got to be much more practical than that: You've got to sense exactly what can be done, and I think what's happened right now, what I know has happened, because I went through this thing: that Putin's suddenly made a change of his operation. And he moved into Syria, and he moved in to defend Syria against what? Against whom? Against the forces of evil. So therefore, the action against the forces of evil which is coming on right now, is coming on from China; it's coming on from Putin; and so forth. And there are other forces like that, same thing. Same center.
So there's something already in process, and it's the question of whether that process will continue successfully or not, which is going to determine, already, what the fight is of humanity for the immediate period head. It's already been established.
In other words, the idea that we can go out with a scheme, and this scheme by itself is going to provide the answer to the alternative we desire, history does not work that way. You have to make history. And what I'm saying: The Wall Street case, Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt! There's no way that Wall Street can survive! It's beyond all possibility of salvation; it's going to collapse.
Now, what are you going to do about the Wall Street collapse? Are you going to be able to go in, and say, "shut down Wall Street"? "We're going to establish a new banking system." Replace that? We can do that. Well, that's what we have to do. We can do that!
What we need right now is a Presidential candidacy which will move in that direction. I think there are a couple of people in that process, who typify what can be brought to bear, because the nation is going to have to face the reality: "Wall Street is dead!" It's gone beyond the possibility of its continued life. If you don't do something about it, you're going to cause the worst kind of disaster that mankind can possibly have: So therefore, we have to act to get rid of that problem. Put it into mercy death,that is, Wall Street as such. There's no way you can bail it out; there's no way you can salvage it. It's gone.
And we have international capabilities in terms of nations, like China, India, Russia, and so forth, other nations who can be taught to behave themselves, and get us out of this problem.
So we have to take the situation, not with a scheme, but we have to take the situation and say: What does the situation demand of us?
Q: A blessed afternoon to you, sir! We have a President who is beyond description; we all agree on that. I have two questions to you. One, I realize he would do anything to hold onto power, which I don't think he's going to be able to do; but he may do some struggles in that direction and I was wondering what you thought we have to look forward to, and possibly prevent from the White House as Obama tries to hold onto power, and change the country as much as possible, before he leaves? That's my first question.
LaRouche: I would say, you know, this kind of thing is absolutely necessary. You have to come out with positive, creative contributions, to the benefit of mankind. You know, like Nicholas of Cusa! Here was a person who was a brilliantly modest man, that is, personally. And you get examples like that, and you find that these kinds of people, who take that view and vow in life, have been the people who have created the kind of culture of modern civilization. Yes, sure, in the following year, after he died, terrible things happened in Europe.
But then, the same spirit still exists, and that spirit is the one which led us into all the achievements that the United States in particular has given. And the greatest men and women in society have always had that quality. It's a not self-serving, it's serving mankind; the idea of a devotion that mankind needs direction, and to solve the problems that mankind faces. And those who can do that and can contribute to that, they are absolutely necessary.
And we have to, if we can, become part of that kind of devotion. We have to have a devotion in ourselves, which compels us to see that we have a mission that's given to us, a mission for the future, a mission for a new quality of mankind.
Q: [follow-up] The next question I have for you is kind of a humorous one: Elections in the United States, and you're a student of history, you know some greatly in the past, over a 100 years ago, were extremely colorful! That we have had in the past, we have had some very colorful elections. Recently, some of them have been a lot duller.
Right now, I think we're getting into a more interesting one; I think, where you've got large numbers of candidates on one side, the whole thing, is fun to watch. I wanted to know where you think it's going? And where you think it should go?
LaRouche: I actually am persuaded that I have a mission to perform. And that mission is to try to get people to understand what they have to do, and that's the best shot I know about. I've gone through a lot of experience; and I found out, I've made a number of discoveries, scientific discoveries, other kinds of discoveries, other kinds of things. And I find that my function is what I can contribute to mankind's ability to solve mankind's problems.
Q: [follow-up] [inaudible] has been leading us to be doing that for thousands of years. And you'd get a kick out of it: I was telling some friends earlier that I go to about the closest place to Hell, once a month to lead prayers. A group of us lead prayers in the New Jersey Statehouse! And that's about as close to Hell as you're going to get on this planet!
LaRouche: [guffaws] Sehr gut! Very good!
Speed: So, Lyn, we're now at the conclusion again. I think this week's dialogue has poised us very well for what's about to occur, what we're going into here in Manhattan. You're going to summarize anyway, but one of the things that certainly keeps occurring,and you hear it in many of the questions today,is how the idea of courage, and the idea of intelligence, are one and the same thing. It's an interesting thing, because Diane, of course, in the solfège, but also just in the general music discussion we're dealing with, before we come to you, this is one of the implicit matters that you're always hearing. You're always hearing it actually in the Furtwängler and other performances, that this idea of courage and intelligence is one thing.
And when you were answering someone saying to you, "listen, I'm scared. We have all these things to be scared of," and you said, "Yes, well, that comes with the territory. That's like, what we do."
So, I'd just like you to give a summary, recognizing that we're going to be poised to go into a real acceleration in the next few days.
LaRouche: Well, I'll give a short explanation of what I think that means: First of all, mankind is unique. No animal is a product of mankind, it's different.
You know, what happened is, you have all these forms of life, living processes, which we can trace in ancient history and so forth, and the origins of mankind and mankind's development. But most of these things, while they were useful, more or less useful in their occurrence, were always, in one sense, failures. Even our puppy dog is a failure. Because, why? Because they're not human.
Well, what's that mean, "they're not human"? That means that mankind represents a being which is unique, to our knowledge. The idea of a Creator, of course, is a very important part of this thing, but it's very difficult to reach the idea of who the Creator is; yeah, you can understand what you mean by mean that. But you can't go out there and say, "I'm Mr. Creator's cousin," or something like that, that doesn't quite work.
So therefore, the point is, mankind is the only species which has a kind of devotion to the progress of the human species, the only species which has that devotion, to create a higher order of knowledge than mankind has ever known before. And the major thing in life for mankind, is to make a discovery, or to make a succession of discoveries which actually are new; that is, they never have been known before.
For example, let's take the case of Johannes Kepler, who discovered the Solar System. He didn't do it by any deductive methods; he did it by an insight. And now we have the Galactic System, today. We know the Galactic System is superior to this process.
And therefore, we realize that mankind is a different kind of creature. Mankind is the only creature which is intrinsically immortal. Yes, we die. But what we have done is immortal: that's the point. So you're looking at the idea of a Creator out there, some place, and the Creator is inspiring people to become creative, that is, to make discoveries which mankind has never shared before.
And that's the best thing we can do. We do as far and as well as we can. I've had a lot of experience with this sort of thing, and I can tell you, from my knowledge, that's exactly the way it works: You get on the inside of history, when you find out you think there's nothing. I've gotten that often in my scientific work; you often get to a barrier where you think, "Hmm! We've reached the limit. We don't have any way of knowing anything new beyond that." And then, if you go and do hard work and so forth, you find out, "yes, I was wrong. I was wrong. I did have a new discovery, a new principle of discovery."
And that's what makes mankind, mankind. It's that mankindyou know, Kepler is this. Nicholas of Cusa was an example of the same thing, exactly the same kind of principle: The ability to see beyond the future of mankind into what mankind can now, next, achieve. And it's that kind of spiritual power which is expressed in people who have that power, and I've shared that power, made a number of discoveries. So, I'm very satisfied that this works.
The problem is, we haven't educated enough people, stimulated enough people, to understand what creativity is. To them, creativity is a word, it's a word which is favored, or not, but what you have to do, is, you have to devote your life, to the purpose, as long as you can live, and never stop doing it,what, one thing: always make a new discovery, which is valid for mankind. And when you've gotten that done, go looking for the next one.
And somewhere in the process of life, old people, for example, will die; but if they die wisely, they will die by uttering a discovery which enhances mankind's future. [applause]
Speed: I want to thank you, very, very much for that, Lyn, on behalf of everybody here. And we're going to get to work, and we'll see you, definitely, next week. [laughter]
LaRouche: OK. I won't be a phantom!