This transcript appears in the March 1, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]

From the Q&A Session of Panel I


Let Us Create a New, More Human Epoch

Panel I of the Feb. 16, 2019 Schiller Institute conference, in Morristown, N.J., concluded with a question and answer session moderated by Dennis Speed, Northeast Coordinator of the U.S. Schiller Institute. A transcript of selections from the question and answer session follows.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Dennis Speed: We’re now in our question and answer session. Please announce who you are.

Question: My name is Alex from the great state of Massachusetts, but originally from the Southern Cameroons in West Africa.

I want to call attention to the ongoing genocide happening in Southern Cameroon as we speak. There are thousands of people, over 300,000, who are internally displaced, in bushes, some in foreign countries, some inside trench holes, and nobody is talking about it. So, please, at the end of this little presentation, join me, so that we can, as one, as we talk about humanity, stand up and request that that genocide should stop as of today.

The British Southern Cameroons have gone through a lot of turmoil. Southern Cameroons was colonized, first by the Germans: They taught them how to drink; second, by the British: They gave them to the French as a petit cadeau from the Queen. Can you imagine? A group of people, over 8 million of them, handed to somebody in Europe as cadeau? Cadeau means “gift.” So the people of Southern Cameroons were given to the French as a gift! And today, La République du Cameroun—that came into side-by-side existence with the Republic of Southern Cameroons—it’s annexing it and killing all its people, because the people stood up and said, “You cannot annex us again.”

So I want us, as we go home, to know that this genocide is going to wipe out 8 million people if we do not act now. We did not act in Rwanda, because it was in Africa. Let’s act now, because we have a change of mind, humanity.

I would like to speak to Queen Elizabeth. Queen Elizabeth, this is time for you to do the right thing. Admit that you screwed up and correct your mistakes. Don’t take them with you to Hell, because all the [previous] British monarchs have occupied all the space. We, the young generation will forgive you if you do the right thing. Don’t take them with you as excess luggage to Hell.

My Dear People: Let us act now, before a group of humans in West Africa are extinct. Let’s not talk about Rwanda again in this century.

I yield the rest of my time to my colleague here from Southern Cameroons.

Question: I really feel so happy to be in a room filled with people who care about humanity. My name is Harriet, and I am a registered nurse in the state of Massachusetts.

The past three years have been hell—I feel like I’ve been living a double life, like I’m here, but my spirit is dead somewhere in Southern Cameroon, given what is going on, on the streets that I grew up in. Please, I would like to take this opportunity to plead with you. Innocent, vulnerable, Southern Cameroonians—women, children, unborn children are being slaughtered, daily, as we speak right here. There are many who are being slaughtered, right now.

For some reason, it seems as if the world has closed its eyes on us, but I knew as from today, that I have met this big group of loving people, I know it is going to change. Please, I do have some flyers. I cannot say this without thanking the Boston Schiller Institute family, especially Cloret and Bill. They have been a wonderful support. Thank you and thanks to the rest of the Boston family that we meet.

And the people of British Southern Cameroon will know that there are people in this world who still care about humanity. Thank you so much!

Speed: I’ll just note that Jacques Cheminade will say something later, concerning this entire matter.

Question: My name is Bob, I’m from New Jersey. I’m a fan of Mr. Binney and I have a question that he may or may not want to answer.

I’ve heard you talk in the past about [Edward] Snowden, and you never talked about him in a derogatory way, so with that as a framework, my perception of the NSA is that they’re kind of like the good guys, and my perception of the CIA is that they’re totally disjointed from the country, and it’s like they’re their own entity, not out for our interests but for their own interests whatever they may be.

I’ve been looking into Snowden. I know he was an outside contractor, and I guess he started initially with the CIA and then he leaked through the NSA. Do you think that was provoked, to make the NSA look bad, for the benefit of the CIA?

William Binney: No, I don’t think he particularly cared for the CIA, either. Most of the people at NSA, they’re good, patriotic people, doing dedicated work to try to solve problems that would eliminate people getting hurt and illegal things happening. And also threats. But there’s a certain group at NSA that’s gone down—they’ve adopted the dark side, just like [former Vice President Dick] Cheney did. You know, I call him “Darth” Cheney, because he said he was going to the “dark side,” and he took a lot of people with him, OK? And some of those people are still in positions of power.

All photos: EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Question: My name is Mary Fagan. I’d like to state that I think it’s a really beautiful thing to look around us and see the diversity of humanity. In this room alone, we have every culture, economic background, coming together to fight for something. [applause]

My question has to do with this: Part of your speeches were about man’s mind being a “machine,” so to speak. And in our mind we have the input of our society around us that places those thoughts there, and the output of our own discernment of how it comes out, based mostly on maybe our emotion.

But there’s another reality, and it’s the spiritual reality. The spiritual reality enlightens the mind through the soul, and when we encourage that spiritual reality, we can do a lot of good in our country. They’re trying to remove God from everything, and every place. And yet, when we had 9/11, people said “God loves America! God loves America!” Yes, He does, but does America love God?

Does America love God? Does humanity love God?

So I think it’s very important to address this as well, when we address life and life situations. Because the soul is inspired through the grace of God. Thank you.

Dennis Small: I recommend to you an article written by LaRouche on this subject, “What Is God that Man Is in His Image?” I think it poses the issues that you’re raising, which are extremely important, but poses it from the standpoint, going back to the very first thing you said: Here we have people from different cultures, different religions, different backgrounds, different races, different countries, different theological standpoints. What is it that is discernible, knowable to man about the nature of the Creator which it is universal and discernible to all cultures, all human beings?

That’s, I think, the proper way to actually pose the question. Because our task is to make sure that the entirety of humanity, not one country, not ten countries, but that the entirety of the human species has access to that power of creative thinking, far beyond anything that a machine could ever do, completely different—incommensurable with any machine. Think of what LaRouche was saying about this. But to make that power, which is what makes man in God’s image, identifiable and knowable and reproducible.

There’s a huge amount more to be said on this. I would just recommend to you and to others here as well, to take a close look at this document of Mr. LaRouche’s.

Question: My name is Frank. I’m from New Jersey. One of the speakers this morning spoke about our escalating debt and how the course that we are on long term is non-sustainable. I think that the national debt, back when the financial crisis happened in 2008, was around $8 trillion. Now we’re at $21 or so trillion dollars.

The U.S. Constitution provides that only the United States government can create currency, yet we have what I believe to be a private bank, in the Federal Reserve Bank, which is affiliated with other world banks like the IMF and the World Bank, that seems to be creating money out of thin air, for their own benefit. And in the meantime, the taxpayers of the United States and the world, are becoming debt-slaves to this debt. A larger and larger percentage of our taxes goes to service the debt, instead of paying for food and housing and medicine, etc.

There were bumper stickers 10 or 15 years ago, that said “End the Fed.” And I was curious to know what Lyndon LaRouche’s view was, from any of the panelists, on the creation of money and debt—which is a necessary financial instrument; and what his views would have been with this escalating debt, which now actually seems to be accelerating. What are we going to do about it, in terms of the Fed and the growing debt problem, and where does this all end? Thank you.

Jacques Cheminade: Well, let me try to wrap up an answer to what has been raised. I think in all my life, my concern has been, why, faced with injustice, people don’t rise, don’t react, don’t do better? How is it that they are fooled?

And I think to understand it, there is something that I can tell you because I come from a country where there is this big fight between the colonial side and the republican side.

If you look at World War I, you had only empires fighting each other. It was not nations, they were all empires! The French Empire, the German Empire, the British Empire, of course, the main culprit, and other empires. The only country that was not an empire, was the United States, but you had Woodrow Wilson. [laughter]

The secret—I think, not so secret—of the colonial operation, is the destruction of people’s self-esteem. That means the power of the individual to connect to the power of creation—those colonial powers did, and do, everything to destroy that power in the minds of the people, repeating over and over again, “You cannot succeed, we know better, because we control the rules of the game, and you are an infant, you can’t do it”—that’s the way French treated their colonial subjects.

This thing is the same in our civilized country. It means what David Riesman referred to as the “other-directed” individual. You don’t believe any more than you can be directed by your sense of justice, you have to be subjected to the oppression. This is what I call “mutually-assured cowardice.” You become a coward.

Then, to be promoted, you have to lose your identity, you have to lose your esteem, you have to lose your moral identity, because you accept the rules of the game. Then, what comes later, is that you lose confidence in yourself, in your moral identity; you lose confidence in your neighbor, you lose confidence in other people.

If people lose confidence in the utterance of currency, of their own money, they lose confidence in themselves, and they are debased. This is what’s happening in Europe right now, and it’s happening in the whole world. The dollar is no longer an American currency, it’s a currency of the world markets and the British Empire.

So, you have the situation, where you paralyze people in diverse identities. You divide to rule, and there is no more esteem for what connects people with the laws of the universe, with natural law. It’s destroyed in a set of particular identities. And this process is being accelerated now, in the whole world.

To raise an issue, as our friends from Cameroon did, is extremely important: But it should be raised to the issues of all issues, and to move.

I was very moved, myself, by the condolence sent, which was one of ones that moved me most, by our friends in Yemen, who said that Lyndon LaRouche gave us the best of all armies, the army of ideas. And they are involved—believe me—in Yemen, in a terrible fight!

What’s happening in Yemen is one of the worst things. The French and the Americans and the British are giving everything to the Saudis to destroy Yemen, not because of Yemen in itself, not because it is under Iranian influence, but because there is, in this part of the world, a genuine insurrection for something good for humanity. So, I think this goodness of humanity, that you as an individual are not only enabled, but you can fight for it—this is, I think, what Lyn has left us as a mission, and this is, I think, how you should react to all other injustice that we see.

And our work in art, our work in music, our work in all areas of human creativity nourishes that, and people in Yemen have understood it. And, believe me, Yemen is probably one of the worst places in the world to understand it—and they do.

So, let’s follow this lesson, and fight. [applause]

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Question: This is José. I’m from the Bronx.

In American media and in politics, you often hear: “There’s not enough money for this project.” “We don’t have enough money to do this, we don’t have enough money to do that.” I ask myself: “Well, how much money does it take to fix education in the country? How much money does it take to fix the corruption in the country?”

So, this has me re-thinking, “What is money? What is the point of money?” Not having enough money to pay rent versus not having enough money to build a high-speed rail are two different things, and yet you don’t bring that up. So, what is the Chinese perspective on money? And what should it be?

John Gong: I think in the U.S. it is kind of regrettable that we spend a lot of money on studying, looking into environmental impacts, into investigating the feasibilities, a lot of money spent on this, instead of money spent on concrete and steel. There’s a great article published in the Washington Post some time ago by George Will, talking about how the litigious society of this country has been destroying infrastructure investment. Just look at how much money’s [been] spent on that high-speed railroad between San Francisco and Los Angeles: Billions and billions of dollars have been being spent on this for I think over a decade now, and not an inch of railroad has been built so far. [laughter] This testifies to the problem I think, in this country.

In China, it’s very different. I’ll just give you one example: About how much time does it actually take to build a railroad, physically from the time of breaking ground, to when the trains are running and carrying passengers? Between Shanghai and Beijing, which is probably the busiest railroad in the world, in terms of traffic carried, it took two years! It took just two years to build this railroad.

In the United States? Lawsuits go all the way to the Supreme Court, taking decades to resolve. In China, the government will provide a [compensation] package [to the property holder] based on the average pricing in the nearby real estate prices, and that’s it. Is it fair? Is it just? Well, you know, to some people, it might not be fair, and it might not be just. But a country cannot be held back by a small group of people arguing over their property values.

This is a trade-off between efficiency and liberalism, or a justice system, but who is preventing it here, right? This is a very good question.

So I think there’s a fundamental difference. When the American side criticizes the Chinese government for being non-liberal, for not going through the due process, for not having comprehensive studies about the real impact about all these infrastructure projects—back in China, we don’t have the time to argue about these things. I think that pretty much summarizes my answer. Thank you very much!

Small: That’s good, that’s good. How much money does it take to do that? Nothing! It doesn’t take money. Money is like artificial intelligence. Its purpose is to insist on the lie that science and morality are separate: That’s the purpose, to put a monetary value on things—as LaRouche was fond of saying, a million dollars for a whorehouse and a million dollars for a steel mill, well, if it’s all dollars, what’s the difference? Well, there is a difference!

And the whole idea of quantifying and measuring things in terms of money, as if that were actually a metric of the economy, it’s not just inaccurate and wrong, it is fundamentally immoral! How can you look around the world and not do something? It’s what Jacques was just saying: How can you tolerate the kinds of things that are going on, and say, “Well, that’s what the market is saying.”

Maybe I’ll state a disagreement with some of the views of some other people on this panel, maybe not—but it is not the case that China is the second economy in the world. China is the first economy, because you cannot measure an economy competently with GDP. The United States is not the most powerful economy in the world. Measure it in terms of Lyn’s science of physical economy. Look at directionality, look at intention, look at morality. Look at what’s happened with poverty.

To resolve this issue, and to actually answer all the questions, on the fundamental, underlying issue of the unity of science and morality, is what’s actually posed. You don’t need money. You need intention. You need science, you need physical productivity. And that springs from the same source of morality: human creativity. The reason we are moral, or have the potential to be moral, is because we are creative, or have the potential to be creative.

Cheminade: I just wanted to bring up a quote from Lyndon LaRouche: “Money is an idiot! People who believe it, are at best idiots, at worst, traitors.” [laughter] And that’s the truth with money. Money is something you can create; it’s a potential. And you create the basis, if you create money credit, for the reimbursement. You create the basis for a platform in the future, which permits you to reimburse the credit that you have generated. This is Hamiltonian economics. We wrote a lot of papers on that, that should be read and thought about.

The key, as Dennis said, is intention, direction, and who controls the utterance of credit with what intention and toward what direction. And then, absolutely, money should be superseded by the moral intent, and the physical economy of the future corresponding to this moral intent. [applause]

William Binney: I had a simple solution for the arguing bureaucrats: I never told them what I was doing. [laughter] And so they never knew until it was done, and then if they got mad at me, I’d just say, “Oops.” It was really cheap, too. [laughter]

Question: This is for William Binney. I’m a retired programmer and I followed the Russiagate business fairly closely. Tell me if I got this right. I’m not saying I do. The first I heard about Trump being involved with the Russians, was when that file was stolen and given to WikiLeaks. It was taken by, I believe, Seth Rich, a DNC insider, and transferred, I believe, via Craig Murray, to WikiLeaks. There was that file which had the real embarrassing data on it, concerning the Clintons and the DNC that was very embarrassing to them.

As far as I understand, as soon as they found out that the file had been taken, they decided to blame it on the Russians. There was some guy, I think he was a DNC techie, Guccifer 2.0,who made up a totally bogus file, and they tried to make it all about the Russians doing this, instead of just [admitting] the data being stolen. Tell me if I’m right about that part of it. That this other file, this Guccifer 2.0 file, didn’t really matter. Did the VIPS actually analyze the real file? The one that went to WikiLeaks?

Binney: Yes. We did, and that’s why we found the FAT formatting, saying that it was read to a storage device, before WikiLeaks posted it. So, somewhere before there, that would fit with somebody inside the DNC doing it, doing a download to a thumb drive.

And the rest of it, the Guccifer 2.0 is pretty much, it was crap, it was a manufactured thing, so that’s basically right. Yeah.

We just published another article, “Why the DNC Was Not Hacked by the Russians.” Larry Johnson and I wrote it, and it had to do with the file formatting that proved that it was downloaded to a disk, to a thumb drive or some kind of disk, storage device.

Question: My name is Ernest Washington from Chicago, the second city. I’m looking forward for the Manhattan Project to gravitate toward Chicago. I would just like to say, “Thank God for Lyndon LaRouche,” because his wisdom was reflected in the fact that he established an international organization of dedicated, committed people, of all ages, all nationalities, and like that, that will continue his work.

I wouldn’t say it’s ironic, but I think it’s just, that we are holding this conference in “African American History Month,” and the fact that, as the leader of that movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, stated, the movement wasn’t just for that time and that period, but it was universal. It affected what had happened before, and what came after the movement. I think Lyn used to say about what happened to the movement, is that it stopped moving.

On the point of Black History Month, when I first came around the organization, you used to have a lot of the older guys from the civil rights movement come in and give presentations and introduce him (LaRouche), and tell funny jokes about various things. They even named him “An Honorary Negro.” [laughter]

I was blessed to have met Lyn before they started to try to kill him and put him in jail and everything, and I’m glad to be here, and glad to see all of you. Thank God for Lyndon LaRouche. [applause]

Speed: His incarceration earned him that designation.

Question: I’m Philip McMannis. I’m the President of the Rockaway Republican Club in Queens, [New York]. Mr. Binney, how do you avoid the FBI locking you up for lying? Do you just remain silent? You have the right to remain silent. You don’t have to answer the questions.

Binney: No, no, I’ve got the goods on them, so they don’t bother me.

Follow-up: If somebody from the FBI asks you a question is it best to just tell them, “I’m not talking”?

Binney: Yeah, it is. If they say you need your lawyer present, then that will end it.

Follow-up: I’m a big supporter of Trump, and I’m absolutely all about pro-life. I think what we need to do in this country is to remind people of certain laws, and one of those is the Ten Commandments. I live by the Ten Commandments as best as I can. We shouldn’t steal, we shouldn’t lie, and we certainly shouldn’t murder people. Especially, when we all started—we all started where? Conception in the womb, and we must protect that. We fought slavery, and did what we had to do, because it was morally right.

I really believe that we need to have absolute truths and reality. I think the problem now is we have radical relativism. We need to fight for truth, and I just want to bring that up that that’s what we need to do for our country.

Speed: Dennis Small, one of the people who, together with Lyndon LaRouche, went to jail for several years, is going to respond to you about your concern.

Small: Sometimes you can’t avoid going to jail. And sometimes it’s worth it.

The only way to deal with this issue, is to defeat the enemy. Can’t hide. You can’t be “smart,” you can’t lawyer up—that’s a large part of the problem, lawyering up. [laughter]

The enemy has to be defeated! The people behind the frame-ups and the setups have got to be destroyed: The British Empire has got to be destroyed. And if sometimes it takes going to jail to do that, so be it. Some people, Martin Luther King and others, gave their lives. The question is, is the cause, are the ideas, is that for which you’re fighting worth dedicating your entire life to doing, or not? And that’s an individual decision, which every single person in this room has to make.

So don’t start from the standpoint of, “How do I avoid going to jail?” Start from the standpoint of how do we destroy the enemy, to free the entirety of humanity! We’ve got seven billion to worry about! [applause]

Question: I’m Patrick from Connecticut, and I’m glad to be here with everybody. Lyndon LaRouche taught me one thing, out of the short time I’ve known him and the group: Be audacious, bold, and extraordinary. I’m working on something in Connecticut. I’m calling it a seminar series, because I really believe you have to bring people in to an educational program, in order to know what is out there.

I had the pleasure of having one of our top young scientists come and do one of these seminars in Greenwich, the first of many that are going to be taking place. That’s all I wanted to say. You have to teach people the truth. [applause]

Speed: Patrick is also raising money in Connecticut. He may have more to say about that tomorrow.

Back to top    Home