Lyndon LaRouche on the LPAC Activist Call May 28, 2015
28 May 2015
This discussion took place between Lyndon LaRouche and participants in the LaRouchePAC activists’ conference call May 28, 2015. The call, in which more than 500 people took part, was hosted by John Ascher. Listen to last week’s call with Mr. LaRouche here.
John Ascher: Good evening, everyone. This is John Ascher here in Leesburg, Va., welcoming everyone back to our second "Fireside Chat" with Lyndon LaRouche....
Lyndon LaRouche: Well, we got a little problem that got dumped in my lap early this evening. Barbara Boyd gave a report and a recommendation: What has happened is that there was an operation by adversary forces, and some of us were trying to find out who the adversary forces were, and why they were doing it, and how they were doing it. Quite recently we were able to pinpoint those forces who were active and who were effectively weakening the financial resources of our organization here.
So Barbara Boyd, who of course is the relevant person in this area, for managing of finances and so forth, has suggested that what we have to do, in order to deal with this problem. We have to try to raise some funds, within the organization and from it, in order to try to beat off some of the really deadly threats, financial threats, which are hitting in this area. So they asked me to say something about it, and I said I will say something about it.
I’ll make a comment on this thing, too, because it’s very significant: The issue, which Barbara doesn’t say explicitly, but she did say on other occasions, earlier, was that we had a group of people who were operating as former, or allegedly former, members of our organization, and these people were all without doubt determined, factually, to be all actually agents of enemy forces; some of them had been people who were recruited from our organization, and were otherwise using things to try to do damage to us, especially in the Leesburg area. In other areas, we don’t have any specific problem of that type, on our registration, yet; but in this area, we’ve had for several months, a trend which was an outsides-forces’ meddling. And more recently, we’ve been able to determine that more precisely.
So that’s the point: some of the people affected by this thing, are saying we need to raise some direct money, quickly, for the general organization and from it, in order to stave off a present emergency crisis. And that’s her report, which she said to me late this afternoon. And I think the thing that she’s saying is quite appropriate in a sense, but the point is, it’s our organization, the members here, for example, participating now, who will have to judge how they want to approach this, but I think it’s something we have to do. I don’t know how we’re going to do it; Barbara said explicitly, she doesn’t know how she’s going to do it. And so I think this is the way we have to look at it.
Anyway, I think otherwise, apart from that little piece of bad news, I think we’re ready to go.
Q: This is B— from South Florida, and I was fortunate enough to hear last week’s call, and fortunately enough, there were so many good questions I didn’t get on last week. But I did contact the activists in Leesburg in regards to it, and I would just love to hear Lyndon LaRouche’s response to this: We have the Greek default with the IMF and the EU coming up June 5, and I think that it’s perfect timing to demand Glass-Steagall be pushed, rammed through, before July 4th, when July 5th is the actual, legal default, on June 5th, of Greece. Because as the EU will start collapsing, there are quite a few countries, I understand, that want to get out the door along with Greece; the United States would be wise, in my opinion, to ram through Glass-Steagall before July 4th, to protect her nation’s assets. And I would love to hear any remarks, ideas, responses.
LaRouche: Okay, it’s rather simple. Of course, Glass-Steagall is absolutely indispensable. If you don’t include Glass-Steagall in reforming the system, you’re not going to accomplish anything, because all the other features of the system would fail to meet the requirement now.
Now, let me just explain one thing about this, which is not generally taken up by our discussions, but they very much occupy my views on these matters: We’re in a situation, where we entered the 20th Century—now people say, that’s a long time ago. Yeah, that year, and from there on. In the 19th Century, you still had some of the greatest qualities of genius being generated in the trans-European area, the most famous names.
What happened was, that with the beginning of the 20th Century—that is, the year 1900 and 1901, that period—since that time, the moral and intellectual capabilities of the people of Europe, but particularly the United States, have been in a constant rate of decline. For example, in the whole 20th Century, there was only one man, as a qualified scientist, who was ever supported. And guess who? Albert Einstein. No other so-called scientist, was actually honestly competent as a scientist during the course of the 20th Century.
And after the 20th Century had passed, and we were passing into the present century, things have gotten worse at an accelerated rate.
And Glass-Steagall is a pivot: not only the content of Glass-Steagall, but Glass-Steagall as an essential instrument of the policy of returning to the economic policies of our Presidency, that is, of the United States. If you don’t push Glass-Steagall, and go from the start of it, you’re not going to save this nation. You’re not going to save our people. So Glass-Steagall is indispensable: There can be no substitute for Glass-Steagall. Anyone who doesn’t agree on Glass-Steagall, is either mentally ill, or very much confused.
Q: It’s L— from Albany, [N.Y.] and we were lobbying for Glass-Steagall at the [state] Capitol last Wednesday, so we’re very much committed.
I think the other thing that, really, I’m also concerned about, is how to generate jobs and manufacturing. I drove through Gary, Ind., and it’s a ghost town. And I am old enough to know what we were like when we produced the cars, and—in fact, we’d invent the thing, and then China’s making it right now. I need to know how to generate jobs in this country now.
LaRouche: What we have to do essentially is very simple: We have to go back to the idea of a science-driver program, as the basis for the entire economy of the United States, that is, for everything that the United States represents as an economy. Glass-Steagall is an expression of that absolutely, indispensable mode. It’s always been the case. It doesn’t mean we’ve always had that case, but anytime we were doing the right things, we did follow that case. And right now, if you don’t have Glass-Steagall, you cannot solve any of the problems of the United States.
And you have to realize this, that the United States has been degenerating, over the course of the 20th Century, and is still going in that direction today. So that, if you don’t get the package, of which Glass-Steagall is a characteristic feature, you’re not going to save this nation.
We are now headed for Hell, economically, and also, there’s a plan now in play with the water question, which is being pushed in California and elsewhere. Now, what this governor of California is doing, is committing genocide against not only the people of California, but this is now extended to a broader area of the Western states. And on the edge, the rest of the United States area is now about to get into the same kind of problem.
There are solutions for this problem, but the governor of California is not going to allow that to happen—unless we sort of get him out of the picture. But that’s where we are.
Q: This is G— from Washington State. I’d like to ask Mr. LaRouche if he would help with the promotion of Franklin Roosevelt’s Columbia Basin project as a national project, and if he would help assign the people to help me on the promotion of that.
LaRouche: Yes, yes. But that’s just a generalization when said that way. There are very specific approaches to carrying that out, and what is necessary is to go into a discussion of what those specific approaches are. The basic thing is, that the human species realizes itself as being human, only through the creative powers of the human individual mind, the human mind in general.
Now, let’s take, for example, right now: We allegedly have a great water crisis in the United States, and the West Coast, of course, is the leading subject on this matter currently. But those people say, "We can’t do this, we can’t do that, because we’re running out water." Now the fact of the matter is, we are not running out of water! The supply of water is not located merely in the Earth area; as a matter of fact, the Earth area is a relatively small part of the total water supply which the United States, for example, and other nations and so forth, have available to them.
The basic system, for the water system of the United States, is merely a part of a much more powerful system called the "galactic system." In point of fact, the existence of humanity depends upon factors of the galactic system, of which the water supply is the most obvious. And the struggle now is to get people to understand, how to get the "juice," shall we say, out of the galactic area, which is there waiting for us: How do we tap into that, and bring it into play to solve our problems. And the future of mankind depends entirely, on the promotion of that revolution.
It is a perfectly feasible revolution; it has a precisely scientific set of characteristics. It’s this thing which follows work of Kepler, the great Kepler, who was the first person to understand how the galactic system was created. He didn’t have a complete view of the galactic system, but now that system is known, the galactic principle is known; and it’s also known that the water on Earth depends upon the management programs prescribed for the galaxy, not the local water system.
And so, if we go at that kind of problem, that kind of thinking, which is quite feasible—it’s not easy. It’s difficult to get through the process, because it requires a lot of steps of work, in order to get mankind to really realize what the water system is. But we have already existing for us now, we have the access to the kind of technology, which is known technology, that is, in terms of the system. And all we have to do, is get a little smarter, and learn how to apply ourselves to that.
Q: Hello, this is J— from Michigan. And my question is, the voter fraud with the electronic voting still going on. Now the Democrats are controlling that, and so, how do we get a hold of this? I can agree with you, if we just go back to just a single ballot, to get a fair election.
LaRouche: Well, I think you’ve got an option is coming up this Saturday: It’s called [martin] O’Malley. Now, I’ve gone through the list of candidates that are known to me, that is, all the present candidates for election, known to me presently.
Now, this guy, O’Malley is right now, the only probable case of a candidate qualified to lead the nation in solving our problems. Without that kind of approach, the approach he represents, we don’t have much of a chance, in the United States, for our people. And we don’t have anybody else on the job right now, who is committed to O’Malley’s position, as a Presidential candidate.
I also look around the issue, and I find the other guys who are considered Presidential candidates, they’re not all bad people—that’s not the point. But they do not have the kind of commitment that’s needed.
It’s just like what happened in the 20th Century. We had all these guys who were called scientists, and there was only one scientist in the 20th Century who was really competent: Einstein. The rest of them were all a little bit kooky, and were not really up to the job. So the issue now is, do we know that? Well, we do know some of that material, we do have some insight into that.
And O’Malley so far has indicated that he’s a man who’s committed in that direction. Now, I can’t guarantee him; I don’t have that kind of insight. But I do have a good idea of what he’s been doing, and I understand how he’s operating. And what I understand more than anything else, is all the other ones are no good! They’re not necessarily bad people; they just can’t do the job which we desperately need to be done!
And so, I would say, we should encourage O’Malley. And we’re looking for a Presidential candidacy which, in practice, can deliver an organization of leading political forces inside the United States, regroup those forces, and bring them into unified play. That is, create a real Presidential system, of the type that we have done a number of times, in the U.S. history.
But that’s what we require. We have to get a Presidential system: You need a good President, otherwise you don’t get a good Presidential system. But we need a Presidential system, a President who can represent that. And that is our best shot—for everything.
Q: Hi Lyn, this is A— from the Bronx. Lyn, earlier today, I received an e-mail from the organization of the 28pages.org. They’re announcing that Rand Paul [republican] and [ron] Wyden, Democrat, two Senators, will be introducing a resolution to the Senate next week, joined by [former Sen. Bob] Graham and members of the House that have put that Resolution forward, and that this would be happening on June 2. 1
Now, I don’t want to get too excited about this. We know that these things can get stuck, but I was wondering, because this is from the Saudis to the British, to the outtake of Obama, this could seemingly happen very quickly. So I was wondering if you could tell us what your thoughts are? And what we should be doing in New York, to get people like [Sen. Chuck] Schumer, who should know better, to support this resolution?
LaRouche: I think you know Schumer needs a little bit more encouragement, because he has not had much encouragement recently under the present President. So that has to be taken into account.
But on the Rand Paul thing: Rand Paul has a very specific feature in his program which is prominent at this time. Now, I don’t know about Rand Paul’s policies in the broad sense. In other words, I couldn’t give him A marks, 100% marks, all the way up and down. That I can’t do. But I do know, that what he has committed himself to, as stated, is something which is absolutely valid. It’s not the shebang, it’s not everything, but it’s an element, which when—well, let me just put my answer to your question this way:
Look, the creation of a Presidential system, which is in accord with the best practice of our system of Presidency, requires a broad team of people, gathered around a figure we call "the President." But there are many people who have to contribute to make up the combined effect, which represents the kind of President we need. We need a Chief Executive, yes; and the Chief Executive has to be a good choice. But the efficiency with which the good choice can be realized, depends upon bringing a team together, around that Presidential candidate. That is what we must do, and therefore Rand Paul is one of the figures you’re going to look at, right now, and say, "Rand Paul, are you really real?" Because I think a lot of people in the United States are looking at candidates, and looking about them, and saying, "Is this guy really real?"
And I think Rand Paul, at least on this score, and his behavior on this score, is rather real. He’s doing good things, and what he’s doing—what he’s not doing, I’m not sure about—but what he’s doing in the case right now, is good.
What we need, however, is to create a Presidential system, and a Presidential system is not a President; very rarely can a President be successful, even if they’re the best quality. You need a best President, a best option; but you also need a combination of people, whose combined talents, brought together in the proper way, give you a real Presidency, something like Franklin Roosevelt did.
Q: This is K—. I just want to say, Lyn, I thank you for your service, and your truth-telling throughout the years. And I just wanted to get your take on the situation concerning Ukraine, and Donetsk, and Putin, and the constant ceasefire, and the breaking of the ceasefire, and the United States role in backing the Ukraine government, and also the situation in the South China Sea, with the surveillance planes and China’s continuing to warn the U.S., and this constant escalation—which could lead into a thermonuclear situation. I just wanted to get your take on it.
LaRouche: Absolutely, you got my attention.
The point is, like the China Sea situation—we must get rid of Obama. We must impeach this guy, throw him out now. This is not an idea of replacing him, or waiting for the next President. You’ve got to remove Obama right now. We’ve got to find the members of Congress, and so forth, who have the guts to do that.
What you’re looking at, if Obama were to succeed in what he’s doing, the direction he’s going, you’re going to be, very soon, in a thermonuclear war, from which we don’t know who could survive, if anyone. So, therefore, Obama must be slugged out of his position. Because as long as he’s there, and with his evil intentions—and I can say frankly, his evil intentions—you haven’t got a chance. So this guy has to be ushered from office. And we have to have at least an emergency replacement, which may not be perfect; which may have a lot of faults; but we’ve got to get rid of this threat of a global thermonuclear war.
Because if such a war breaks out, and if a war of that type breaks out, we will have a thermonuclear war. And the chances of survival of the human species on this planet, is very limited. I’m not talking about something long-term. I’m talking about something very short-term. We are already on the edge. With Obama as President, we are already on the edge of the extinction of the United States, the people of the United States—and other people, in other parts of the world as well.
Q: This is K— from New York. I have been reading that Russia wants to destroy our grid. I have been reading that ISIS wants to destroy our grid. I don’t think Russia would benefit by it, but ISIS likes to destroy, and that’s all they want to do. If that happens, is this Tesla electrical system something that could be used to replace what we have now, really quickly, and do you have people who give thought to this?
LaRouche: It’s a reasonable question, but I think I would approach it in a different way.
Yes, as long as we have this situation—remember that the policy is that of the British Empire. In modern times, our chief enemy has always been the British Empire. The British Empire is the enemy of civilization, in general. Even uncivilized people are victims of the British Empire—that’s not a usual fact.
So what the problem is: We must remove those factors in international policy, which mean the threatened extinction of the human species. And the threatened extinction of the human species is something you have to talk about, when you hear the name of Obama. You also have to know, realize, that the British Empire is the chief force of evil on this planet, and has been that for a very long time. And therefore what we need to do, is take that into consideration.
Now, what are the alternatives? We have a thing called BRICS, parts of the planet Earth. China is one of those cases. China is a leading force, a positive force as a leading force, on the planet right now. It has a greatness which is absolutely amazing. India is now, despite the great starvation, the heat wave and so on, a great nation; it’s organized as a great nation. There are other parts of the planet, some parts in South America, some other parts of the planet, which are very good places.
Russia right now is a good place. It’s not perfected, but you have to look at its history and see what it’s trying to crawl back out of, and then you understand it.
What we need to do: We’re going into a new idea of mankind. It’s not exactly a change of the old way. But we know now that nations cannot just live with arbitrary attitudes toward other nations. Let the nations live their own way, but let’s find a way of concert, of bringing our intentions together, one nation to another. Let us have different tastes; that’s all right. What we want to do is learn by working together, as nations.
We start from what we think is best for our nation, and we hope the other nation will do the same thing. We may all be wrong, but not perfectly wrong. But we will, in this process, learn how to converge on things which the future of mankind requires. And of course our United States is actually, as created, by people like Alexander Hamilton and his leadership—that’s the model. For me, that’s the model. It’s the best model.
The problem is, we had a bunch of bum Presidents, and they were brought in largely by the influence of the British Empire. Manhattan, for example. Manhattan is actually one of the greatest things in the United States, despite all the bad things that go on in Manhattan. And I can tell you, I know those bad things that are done in Manhattan. But, we have within Manhattan, we have an intention in part of the population, which radiates into the best features of New York State. We know other parts of the nation, our nation, which similarly, would like to go in that same direction.
So, the way we have to approach it is that. We have to say, well, we’ve got to decide what the bad things are. And we’ve got to recognize what the shortcomings are, apart from the bad things. And we have to bring about a set of relations among nations, where the nations will live at peace with one another, while looking at their common mistakes, and trying to correct them. That’s the history of mankind. It’s called progress. And the principle has to be the principle of progress.
Q: This is D— in California. I just wanted to thank you, Lyndon LaRouche, and your organization for phenomenal success in leadership. It’s really—it couldn’t come at a better time. I have sort of a bifurcated question. I saw the Queen of England speak in front of her House of Lords and Parliament, and she said that her government is going to write a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. Since the English, as far as I can tell, wrote the Magna Carta, and the [american] Bill of Rights is based on the Magna Carta, didn’t they already have some mind, or the will, to write a Bill of Rights? Why the change? And then, the bifurcated part is: I’m also wondering why she is looking forward to her visit to Germany next month.
LaRouche: The point is ... the legacy. The British Monarchy has not been a good thing. The complications are that some of the Scots are not so bad, some of the Irish are not so bad. But the problem is that the British system is, as in Shakespeare’s account of the history of England, a pretty good picture of what the problem has been. Also, it means that the creation of the British Empire as such, has been nothing but a pestilence, a pestilence to mankind.
The British System, as an imperial system, should not exist, because there’s no way that you can have a good system if the current monarchy, or the traditional monarchy, continues. And therefore, the problem is exactly that. The problem lies not with the English people, not with the Scots and not with the Irish. The fact is, they are slaves of a certain kind. They don’t have their own rights, they don’t have their own abilities. They are simply tools, and they’re trying to survive in the role of being the tools they’ve been made to be.
I know a lot of those people from Britain; my age enables me to know that. And I draw a conclusion on that basis. Often, I find many British citizens—English, Scottish, and so forth—I find they’re evil. As a matter of fact, I’ve got some ancestors out of that breed, so I can’t be too afraid about those guys.
But the point is, the British Empire, the monarchy system, as an existent, since the founding of the United States, in particular, is something we want the planet to be free of. And the sooner it goes, the better.
Q: The question is essentially around what was just said, that the Britons are tools of an imperial system—that is what is basic, and the question is, are the words "Roman" and "British" covers for the priestly bank hegemons, or the imperial Israel bank Khazars? Are the words "Roman" and "British" covers, and if they’re covers, is a more accurate description, the Vatican Empire? Is the Israel bank Khazar a proxy...?
Ascher: I think she was asking about the relationship between the Roman Empire and the British Empire. It was very faint, but that was the basic question.
LaRouche: I think the evil is about the same. I think the Romans were better at mass killing and slaughter. We have a less bad situation. But the British system has been the most cruel, the most evil system on the planet, for all people. You could take cannibals—you might be able to make excuses for cannibals, but you could never make excuses for the British Empire.
Q: Lyn, thank you for your work. I’m an activist. My name is K— and I’m from West Virginia. One thing that bugs me a lot is the lawlessness in our government. The highest office, like Obama in office, is always disobeying the Constitution, but many of the elected officials underneath him are also the same way. And they don’t seem to live by the laws of the land, and they come up and say, "Go." I think this is probably the second-most important issue going on in our country today, excluding the Glass-Steagall.
I recently heard from a Senator’s office that Obama is about to be impeached, but it’s going to happen very quickly. Can you comment on the lawlessness, and on the hearsay that I heard about Obama being impeached very quickly?
LaRouche: Well, in short, Obama is a disaster. He’s a disaster for the United States. Every day he lives right now, is another day of disaster for many people of the United States. And the problem is also, more broadly, what’s happened in terms of, for example, the system of the Congress, as such—these institutions that we were so proud of at one point, have broken down. Like that of Franklin Roosevelt, for example, one of our most famous achievers in history. We don’t have those around any more.
And the reason we don’t have them is because the system of government, as it’s managed, doesn’t allow good Presidents to occur. I’ve known some good Presidents personally. I’ve admired some of work they’ve done. Some of them were of fairly recent vintage. But if you come to a Bush, I would think of burning Bushes—a bad smell, essentially. We’ve had many Presidents who were bad, really evil. Most of them were British agents.
For example, the Bush family. Prescott Bush was an advocate of Hitler’s policy. And certainly he was still living when his sons came along, and they got to be known as the Bushes of the Presidency. And we got a result from the Bushes of the followers of Prescott Bush, which has been pretty much a benchmark of the evil that has occurred to the United States since that time—essentially that period.
So, what we have is a system of Presidency which has some good Presidents in it, but somehow the Presidency itself fails to function. Certain Presidents I know of, they were good persons, and good Presidents, but somebody else was in the woodwork, and destroying and corrupting all the good things.
And that’s been the case. Obama is probably the worst President on record in the United States. That’s a good example of that. But all the Bushes are very bad. They’ve always been very bad, and as bad as stupidity can make them.
Q: E— out here in Southern California. Lyn, it’s a pleasure. Lyndon, I have a question. I’ve been listening to several of the recent discussions over the phone over the last month or so, and I’m bewildered because it appears to me that, relative to the drought that you cited here in California, that, on the one hand, it doesn’t appear that LaRouche and company are acknowledging that humans are the underlying problem, or that humans, by changing their behavior, represent a part of the formula for the solution to it.
When we have, for example, the burning of the jungles in South America, the impact that that has had on the Northern Hemisphere is a rather documented scientific fact, and yet, I hear about these galactic solutions, which seem to be rather ambiguous at best. I thought you may be able to comment upon that.
LaRouche: Well, there’s nothing wrong about the galactic solutions, if they are solutions. That’s obvious.
The problem has been that mankind in a primitive condition, tends to be a destructive force for mankind. That progress, as such, real progress, the evolution of man’s skills, the scientific progress, these things are essential. And these are the things that make mankind different than beasts. So therefore, there are certain things that are essential. Progress, scientific progress, and so forth is absolutely essential.
For example, without a galactic system, you are not going to have a successful population of California! Because with the present trend, which is going into a long trend—and if we sit there and just watch with California, and don’t change it in the needed way, by applying galactic principles to the galaxy, California is dead. Because it will be a long time before the terrritory called California today, will come back.
So, therefore, progress is essential. And the progress of man, and man’s ability to make the changes... For example, what’s the problem with the water system in California? Well, two things. First of all, what was good beforehand, when the previous governor of California was there [Gov. Pat Brown (1959-67)]—but after the Apeman [Arnold Schwarzenegger] got in there, and some other people, California shot itself to death by bad governors. And that’s the recent case.
But on the broader thing, the problem is, we do need to go to scientific progress, scientific progress. But the problem is, that in the 20th Century, the economy of the United States has been degenerating at a rapid rate. Look at the condition of your people in the United States here. What’s their condition? Comparative to what the condition had been earlier, the United States and the people of the United States are in the worst condition they could possibly be in, up to this time. Oh yes, they had spare times before, but they don’t have any progress any more.
Our own people are insane. Our children, in the 20th Century, school children, and products of school education, are becoming more and more worthless, in terms of their powers to accomplish things. They don’t know what to do. Look at the condition of our labor force today. What condition are they living in? What kinds of life are they living? How much better was life 20 years ago, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years ago? Everything is much, much worse than then.
Why? Because we didn’t continue progress. But the problem is, you’ve got to use real progress, not imitation progress.
Q: Good evening. This is D— in Berkeley Springs, W.Va. I have a simple question; I’d like to elaborate just a little bit on it. How do we actually get this guy out of office? What are the steps we have to take?
Last year, my wife and I—in fact, it was K—, who spoke to you a few minutes ago—we had two different copies of articles of impeachment that we tried to present to Members of Congress, and nobody had the gonads to even talk about the subject. The only encouragement we had recently was, when we talked to one of the staff members of Sen. Joe Manchin, our Senator, and he said, impeachment is going to happen; it’s going to happen, and it’s going to happen quickly. Does he know something we haven’t heard about yet?
LaRouche: I think the intention is for that to happen. I think what you’re having is, the O’Malley candidacy, which is coming up on Saturday, it could be a turning point. That is, it could be a turning point, not because it’s a question of whether he’s reluctant and so forth to do what he’s promising, but the point is, he might be prevented from doing it. Whereas, I’ve watched this thing carefully: O’Malley is, on the scale of things, the most prominent figure who might save this nation, as President.
Now, that would mean he would have to have some—not just himself; he would have to have a team. Because a single person as President is not a very effective person. Because the other guys may be going in the other direction. But the point is, we have the possibility of winning this thing. What it takes, it takes what’s sometimes called guts. But guts is a crude word, and it may not really tell you the real story.
The real story is: Are you enabling and encouraging our citizens to do the kinds of things that will produce the kind of results you want? I think we can do it. I know we can do it, because I’ve seen it being done before. Our problem has not been that we were a failure; the problem is, we let people get into power, like the Bushes, the Bush family; we let those kinds of bums in the 20th Century, we let them run this place for a while. And I could tell you some things about the Bushes that would terrify you—but it’s all true.
So, therefore, the problem is, we have to have, always, two things: guts, and the teamwork to create a leadership, a political leadership, a practical leadership, inside the United States. And we have to pull people together and get them to decide they’re going to stick together for that mission. And I think we might get lucky. Because, if you look at what’s happening in South America, if you look what’s happening in China, if you look what’s happening in India, looking at other places like that—progress is keeping progress. It’s here.
And it’s here on a good part of the planet. The majority of the planet wants progress. And we can pull the team together of those who already want progress. We have the means, potentially, to create a better way of living, very soon. And it’s going to take a lot of work to make that thing happen. That’s all. That’s our best shot.
I’m confident that what man is capable of doing, in terms of science, in terms of the understanding of mankind himself, in terms of coming to understand what the Solar System is all about—mankind has those powers. Mankind has developed those powers. We can develop them. But it’s difficult to educate people if the teachers aren’t there. Or if you have fake teachers there; then the students are helpless. If the social life in cities and other communities is degenerating, it’s very difficult to maintain a civilization.
But what we must do, if we’re human, really human, we must be devoted to doing the things that would bring that kind of progress into being. That’s what I’ve been doing most of my life. And I can tell you, from my experience, it works. We just don’t have enough people doing it right now.
Q: Good evening. My name is S—. I’m calling from Queens, N.Y., and I’m a Russian-American from St. Petersburg. And this question relates to Ukraine and the events around it. Mr. LaRouche, I do respect you in many ways, and I agree with your economic assessment of the U.S.—cultural, educational, etc. Conceptually, I think we understand what needs to be done, in terms of science and policy.
Now, we understand that there are facts that are available to anyone, including video footage of what’s going on in Ukraine, shelling of civilians, the use of Nazis—which is being covered up—and considering the facts of the U.S. toppling governments, creating chaos and sponsoring radicals globally, which are in fact illegal, as far as I understand. What can be done to stop this mob mentality? Practical, realistic, effective steps, which will definitely achieve results. Eliminating the model of perpetual war, so that no one can take over and continue the legacy.
LaRouche: We’re coming to a point, right now, at which the decisions to be made that will secure the future of mankind, as opposed to the continued destruction of mankind, are now on the table. Take the case of Ukraine.
Now, I have some intimate, fairly intimate, connections to people in Ukraine. I also have quite a bit of history in terms of Russian history, modern Russian history, especially. I know what’s happening. You know probably, as well as I do, that the Ukrainians are not what they are presented to be by the Ukrainian government. And I know people personally, leading people of Ukraine, who agree totally with that.
We have a bunch of Nazis, and they were actually Nazis, on the record, during the Hitler period. These Nazis are running Ukraine today. How? Under the direction of the British Empire—that is, the British monarchy—and other forces like that. I know exactly how it’s being done.
Now, the problem is this. Look at what Putin said, for a moment. What is Putin doing? Well, on the one hand, he’s doing everything possible to avoid a general thermonuclear war. He probably is doing almost as much, or more, than anybody on this planet, to try to prevent thermonuclear war. Because thermonuclear war, if it were to occur—and there is no such thing as non-thermonuclear war, particularly in this kind of warfare. You have to use those weapons, those kinds of weapons, or you lose the war. Unless you can stop the war.
And to do that, you have to get rid of the Nazis. And you know—I think you do know, from your experience—that Ukraine is now under the control of a bunch of Nazis. That doesn’t mean the Ukrainians are Nazis. It means they’re intimidated into playing a role, or trying to survive, despite the fact that the government of the United States, among others, under the current President of the United States, is promoting a Nazi regime in Ukraine.
And also, similarly, to be realistic, we’re at a point where, if Obama stays in the Presidency for much longer, you’re going to have a thermonuclear war, and there won’t be any civilization coming out of it. So, getting rid of Obama, getting him out of there, and getting people like him, even getting the British Empire out of there, is absolutely essential. Because the rest of the world, which is being more and more influenced by the BRICS movement, as in China, as in India, as in some nations of South America—the movements there are the kind of movements which are needed in order to build a decent condition of life for humanity.
And I am sure—I’ve studied it well enough to know—that Putin is actually trying to do a very good job, with good intentions.
But how can he express those good intentions, when the British Empire, of the Queen and company, as well as the Nazis, are now controlling Ukraine? How can we have peace? We have an Obama who wants to make world war. How can we have peace? And therefore, this depends upon the intellect of people: to understand that there are certain missions which the present age, the present generation, must complete in order to ensure the survival of humanity for the future.
Q: Hi, this is S— in Orange, Southern California. This whole thing we’re discussing is very hard to grasp, but let me just ask a few questions. You know, I’m a ex-engineer, and I worked in strategic planning in my day. My question is: What is the plan?
When we worked in business, we had a strategic plan, and we had an operating plan. The strategic plan is what we wanted for the long-term; the operating plan is what are we going to do this coming year; who’s going to do it, what are the goals, what are your checklists, and let’s identify people that are going to carry it out. Now, I don’t know if we have anything like that. If O’Malley’s our man, is he going to take a month to sit down and figure this out, and come up with something? I don’t ever hear anybody come up with a coherent plan. So how do we get this plan, and how do we...?
LaRouche: Well, we do have some people who do have some good planning. But, when it comes to the present system of the present Presidency... And you know, you go back: Bill Clinton wasn’t too bad, you know. He was stuck with a lot of handicaps, and I know him, very well. We have had other Presidents, who I’ve known, or been associated with, and they were good guys, but, what happened was, the Bushes got in there. The general history of the modern 20th Century in the United States—it’s had too many Bushes there. Bushes that you would like to burn, so to speak. Prescott Bush was practically a Nazi, himself. His sons were trained to think like Nazis, or sloppy Nazis, or weak-brained Nazis, huh? We’re getting more of thay. Obama’s a mental case. This guy is not fit to be President. Why is he there? Because the British Empire put him there! And we let it happen.
So, the point is coming now, that the issue before us is that the enemies of mankind, the enemies of human culture, the enemies of progress, are now at the terminal end of their ability to control the planet. And they are now determined to stay alive, so they can control the planet. How do they do that? By killing people.
What you’ve got right now—let’s take the case of California. What’s the policy of the current governor of California, in direct contrast to his father? The present one is a killer. What’s his policy? Reduce the population of California. That means mass murder of the population of California. Well, they say there’s a water shortage. Then why is the current governor trying to kill people? His policy is killing people. He’s not limiting it to California. He’s got neighboring states there. You’ve got some people in Texas, who are thinking in a similar direction. We also have a policy of a President, who works in the same direction—Obama! Now, what are you complaining about? If you’re not complaining about what I’m complaining about, what are you complaining about?
We’re at a point that we have to fight our way through, to save this nation. It doesn’t mean going to a bloody war; it means trying to avoid all kinds of warfare—but it means going to higher levels of technology. But I can tell you one thing probably most of you don’t know. I’m an old enough man to be able to say that. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, with the beginning of the 20th Century, in the United States and Europe, the civilization that had been achieved, over the course of the 19th Century, with all the problems that existed in those periods, was better, in direction, than we’ve had in the 20th Century, of the 21st Century, presently.
Why? Well, I think there was one genius, one and only one true genius in physical science during the 20th Century. His name was Albert Einstein. And everybody else, who pretended to be a great scientist was a failure. And, if you look at the history of the United States, over the period of the 20th Century, what we have been doing is, we have been degenerating. Oh, we’ve made some accomplishments, we’ve done some things. We’ve built some nice machines, but something in the process was going on, a direction of development. While we were doing the good things—and some of us were doing good things—the other guys were destroying everything for which we were working.
So the time has come, in which you have to realize, that mankind does deserve a good future. But sometimes, if you want to have a good future, you have to fight for it.
The 20th Century Has Been a Failure
Q: Hi, this is S— from New York. My question for Lyn, is, should we get any sensible candidate for Presidency, how do we insure that that candidate won’t be a target of the British Empire, for assassination, as so many of the other past Presidents?
LaRouche: I’m not too much afraid of the old stuff, I think that the old stuff that we’ve talked about in the past—that’s all worn out anyway. You have to realize that we’ve come to a point, at this point in the 21st Century, where all the things that were done, in a recollection, of the 20th Century, into the 21st, have been a failure. What the problem has been, therefore, is that mankind has, people in general, have lost all confidence in the future.
That’s why you’re seeing the kind of drug addictions you’re seeing. The kind of obscene behaviour, which is common among our young people. Degeneration. Why? Why are the young people becoming degenerate? They don’t have to be, do they? Well, maybe something compels them to do that. The point is, they’re trying to fit in to evil. The smoking habits, the drug habits, that kind of stuff. It’s destroying people. Destroying the people, that are doing it to themselves. They’re destroying the idea of a future with children, real children. They’ve become almost cannibals.
And the problem is that we, who are supposed to be the leaders of society, have, in the large degree, failed. Because we went along with the Bushes, instead of the great Presidents, like the Kennedys, or Franklin Roosevelt, before that. What did they do? Well, I think Roosevelt died of old age, and work. The Kennedys were murdered. Nobody was going to wait around for them to be successful. And, you look at the Presidencies—look at the number of Presidents who were actually, really, bums, degenerates: The Bushes were all degenerates. All Bush Presidencies have been degenerates. Obama is a degenerate. He represents the principle of degeneracy. He’s a British stooge.
And therefore, we’ve got to take the score, properly. The problem is that we allowed, in the 20th Century, with the turn from the century before that, into the 20th Century, the United States, and other nations, to go into a general direction of moral, economic decline. Cultural decline. And the entry beyond that, into the new century: The rate of degeneration has greatly accelerated. So, you want to say, "What’s the problem?" The problem is, the people who are running society. How do we cure that? Replace the people who shouldn’t be running society. Like Obama.
And, I think the case of O’Malley—O’Malley does typify a prototype of a Presidential candidate, who could possibly turn out to be the President who turned things around, back to the way they’re supposed to go.
Q: This is J— from Michigan, and talking about the four-point program that you’ve come up with, starting with Glass-Steagall, and bringing policies into play for moving on to increase the productive powers of labor, I see it as a problem for all strata of the population, from the general labor, right up to the people who would be the scientists. And I’d like you to comment on how we could overhaul our education program so that we could achieve that goal of increasing the productive powers of labor. And secondarily, would you agree that we should go into—like Roosevelt did, beginning of 1942—where we had price controls introduced to stop speculation?
Would you comment, please?
LaRouche: Yeah, sure! Well, Franklin Roosevelt was actually one of the greatest Presidents we ever had! Here’s a guy—he had this disease; he was barely able to even live; he fought like the devil through a whole decade, the better part of a decade, and he became the greatest President who we’ve had in all modern times! And, he died of exhaustion! And he partly died of exhaustion because of what he was working against.
I used to have an association with some people who were working with Franklin Roosevelt. I wasn’t of any significance at that time, but I had contact with people who were in that position, of leaders in fighting the war, for example, and so forth. And, what happened is, by a process of assassinating Presidents, and doing all kinds of evil things, which are done by the "financial interests," shall we shall call them, we destroyed what we had actually made through the aid of Franklin Roosevelt.
And you had the Kennedy brothers, they were both very positive elements. You had other people who were more or less positive elements; you had some people in the 1980s—some of them had some positive elements, but they tended to get shot by assassination attempts, and things like that.
And, then what I saw later in the process: I saw Bill Clinton come into power, I saw him in a crippled role—I don’t think he was a crippled person—but, he was in a crippled role, as the President at that time. And the British got rid of him! The British destroyed him. They set the whole thing up! I was involved personally in dealing with that. I was associated with him in that way. And, actually, despite the fact that we never got to meet directly, we were always in touch indirectly. And, I can tell you, this guy would’ve saved the nation if he hadn’t been trapped. He was trapped. He was trapped by whom? By the British queen. It was Queen Elizabeth II, who did the job to sink Bill, to discredit him.
And what do we get for letting him be discredited? You got Bushes ... more Bushes! What have you gotten since then? And if you like it, you’re insane!
Q: This is T— in Northern California. The question that I have for Lyn—thank you for being on tonight—the question that I have is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership fast-track thing went through Senate last week, I believe it was. And what can we do to get the House to turn the corner and get the Trans-Pacific Partnership stopped, and get the BRICS substituted?
LaRouche: I think this O’Malley attempt, which has been going on, I guess a couple days from now, right? That attempt I find to be a very credible proposition. In other words, I can’t guarantee what he’s going to do, what all is going to come. But I say, of all the Presidential types, or proto-types, that I know right now, he would fit the match. How he would go from there, I don’t know.
But there’s also another consideration: That there’s no such thing as a President, who, by himself, makes a good Presidency. Any good Presidency in the United States, involves a joint grouping; people who share a common mission.
Now how does it work? Well, you get a President in there, he’s accepted; once he’s accepted (you’re not quite sure yet), but when he’s accepted, and you see him doing what he promised to do, or is committed to doing, then you begin to see a Presidency emerging, with the teamwork among the people responsible. You see this in the history of the United States, all over the place. Then, you find you’ve got a President.
Why is the President so important? Is he some miracle man, or something? No, it’s not that. He represents a team of people, who have a destiny in their eyes, looking out at the world. And that destiny increases and develops, as it did with Franklin Roosevelt. And that produces something, which makes for a great nation: the United States! As Franklin Roosevelt did.
And some of the people who were assassinated; assassinated by whom? Well, key figures of the United States did that! They assassinate Presidents, you know! How did you get rid of a President you don’t like? You get somebody to assassinate him, and we know who the assassin types are! We know the record.
And, so therefore, the question is, we have to understand that it’s our responsibility, as individual human beings. If we can grow up to understand what this whole business is all about, as I do, then you can bring people together to cooperate, to create a true Presidential team. And this is not by magic; this is a process, a social process. And if it works, if the team works, then you’re probably going to get a good Presidency. It may not be the perfect one, but it’s a good one, and the best thing you can do is get a good one, if you can’t get anything better.
Q: This is E— from Wilmington, Del. My question to you, Mr. LaRouche, is, well, you made this provocative statement about Albert Einstein being the only competent scientist in the 20th Century, and I’m not disagreeing with this, but I’m just saying, wouldn’t you have also wanted to add, notwithstanding Vernadsky? And I want to see you make a comment on how Vernadsky sizes up in your estimation.
LaRouche: Well, Vernadsky, of course, is a different person. Vernadsky is a genius, a true genius. He was the first one to actually define, systematically, what the practical distinction is of man from beast. Because just think about it. What’s the difference between an animal and a human being? Now, some people get confused on this thing. The difference is that the animals don’t do any better than they’re taught to do. Maybe experience teaches it to them. But they don’t create a species, a form of species, which is superior to what the species had been before.
And so, he understood that principle, and he understood a lot of derivatives and benefits from that insight that he had. But he was one of the greatest geniuses that we have in modern times, particularly in his generation. And people still today, as I do sometimes, have wondered how this guy happened to become such a genius. Because of a lot of the kinds of things he discovered, as opposed to all the other kinds of people who didn’t do that sort of thing.
No, there’s no question about that. Vernadsky is one of the great geniuses of modern history. And his achievements, insofar as they were achievements, have been remarkable. It’s unusual, absolutely unusual. No, he’s a man I’ve learned a great deal from.
Q: This is W— from Virginia. Mr. LaRouche, I read the transcript on the discussion you had, on what really is music, and I’ve also had a CD of Schubert’s 9th Symphony, conducted by Wilhelm Furtwängler for a long time. I’ve listened to it; I really enjoy it. I’m not a music student, and I’m not an expert in Classical culture, so I just wonder if you could do us a favor, and specify the importance of Classical music.
LaRouche: All right. Classical music is sometimes over-rated by looking at it the wrong way. What happens is, you have to look at mankind as such, as a species. Because no animal can do what mankind does, and Classical music expresses, in its true expression, precisely that kind of feature.
Furtwängler particularly—he’s the greatest surviving composer who lived into the 20th Century. Furtwängler’s understanding—it was something absolutely known. Brahms was dead; the greatest composers of the earlier period were deceased, and here comes along Furtwängler, who, of course, has quite a family background, to add to his knowledge and his accomplishments. And what he did in the few parts of the decades that he lived, is itself remarkable. This man was a true genius. And his famous 9th Symphony of Schubert is, as presented by him, is a real jewel. It’s absolutely unique.
What that means is not that he was the greatest genius of that period, in music, but the fact was that there were so few who were able to approach the level he had achieved. And this reflected an effect of a degeneration in music, and in the quality of musicians. Their ability wasn’t bad; many were bad, but they weren’t necessarily bad ones. But he had a special capability of doing things that had not been done.
He was a continuation of something like Brahms and Mozart and so forth. It was a continuation of something great. And he represented, essentially, with a few friends of mine, who were great musicians, he represented a quality of achievement which is relatively unique. And the great suffering I feel, in my experience of music, in particular, is that we didn’t get good musicians. Oh, we got people who had competence, yes. But I’m talking about composers, real composers, ones who create a mark ahead of anything that had ever been done before.
That’s what I like. That’s what I would really emphasize.
So, the point is, the history is, that mankind, when mankind is developing, whether in music or other departments of human achievement, the name for mankind’s purpose in life is achievement. It’s growth. Growth of mankind. Mankind’s rising to a higher level than had been achieved before. And mankind rejoices when somebody in mankind comes up, and achieves something which others wish they could have done, but on the other hand, they rejoice in the fact that it happened.