|
|
Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, July 9, 2015
9 July 2015
We have Lyndon LaRouche for our 8th Fireside Chat discussion, under dramatic and historical conditions. Lyn would you like to make any preliminary remarks to us here, this evening? LYNDON LAROUCHE: Yes, I think so, probably as a practical presentation of some things of significant implications. We’re now moving directly into the center of polar locations. One location is what this event is which you’ve been sponsoring for some time, which is a very valuable part of the process, which actually has been saving the organization, by maintaining a maintenance of that broad, nationwide process. And I’ve just gotten into this more recently, but I’ve recognized exactly the extreme importance of that. We have now, a second development, since we started this thing with me participating on it, in Manhattan. And the Manhattan part is very important, and gives us a center, which is an Alexander Hamilton center, really. There are many other people involved in this, but I think Alexander Hamilton is the essential personality who provided the United States with the legacy which we have. And Manhattan is actually, still today, despite whatever things we might regret about some things inside Manhattan, Manhattan really is the spiritual center of the United States. And I treat it that way. We hope that the other parts of the United States will recognize their affinity to Manhattan. And that’s what I think is very important. So what I’m doing now, it’s in process; we had a couple of stumbles in trying to get the thing neatly organized. It’s functioning and we will it on weekends. We will now have on Saturdays, a national program which will be probably of about one hour plus, and a lot of talk around it. We’re also looking for very important musical developments, Classical musical development, for which Manhattan is a very promising area. The musical content there and the quality of it, even though it’s been deteriorating over years, relative to what it had been, it still is there, and we’re determined to make that a resonant center of the whole national process, for all of our members, for all of our associates. And that’s what we’re up to now. Ascher: OK. I’m going to turn on my button which enables people to line up... [describes process for being in the queue to ask questions]. I’m expecting, Lyn, to hear some reports from our activists about their mobilization to make sure this Glass-Steagall development moves quickly, given the current crisis. ... LAROUCHE: I should hope so. Q1: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is R— from Bergen County, N.J. As you know, the Chinese stock market is in a meltdown mode. How do you put that into perspective in terms of the entire situation? Is that an indication that the entire world financial system is potentially going to be melting down? How would you view the China situation? LAROUCHE: The point is that’s a minor part of the whole China operation. It’s not a part of the major thing; it’s a secondary development, and it was not adequately developed. But that does not mean any problems about the main function of China. China’s main function is fine, and this little sidelight, they’re not really tiny but otherwise sidelight, had a problem where some there was speculation was going on, because that part of China’s operation was not really adequately controlled. So some people have made mistakes. And of course, in the history of China, before the present institution of China, there were problems and some of the problems were dumped into a convenient location which is the location of these problems. China’s policy generally, in the larger part, is intact. Of course, naturally, people like to make points against China, but they’re not really valid. There is a little problem there they’re going to have to solve, but it is not the main part of the China policy. It’s a secondary part, and about things which were more poorly controlled because they were not well-controlled from the beginning. Q2: This is K— in Moline, Illinois. The CIA should be completely dismantled, because they are the enemy of mankind. LAROUCHE: [laughs] That’s an interesting thought! It’s not untrue, shall we say. My history, remember, I had experienced that institution, from shortly after the time I came out of military service at the end of the World War III, and I’ve seen that, and I had the point, just to qualify that: I popped into in the early 1970s, I popped into New York City. I became a rising authority in economic affairs and this was going on fine; I was being promoted, promoted, promoted, promoted, within the ranks of this organization, and really near the top of it at one point. Then the FBI stepped in, and got me thrown out of my own organization. But from that point on I went on and maintained my own independent approach to this organization, and I became more important than the old organization had been, that I had left. So it’s not a bad situation. Q3: This is R— in Visalia, Tulare County, California. I just wanted to ask your opinion on the events of 9/11? LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm. Well, this is a very dangerous business and it has to be stopped. And I would hope that the introduction of the Glass-Steagall law which has now been presented, as a proposition for immediate action, will solve that problem. If we get back to a true Glass-Steagall law, of the type that Franklin Roosevelt had represented, then I think we would have a fundamental change. For example, what’s the particular change? The biggest rot, inside the United States economy, is Wall Street. And we should have shut down Wall Street a long time ago! It’s a gambling center, it is no good. And Wall Street becomes a force, to destroy the productive powers of labor. It’s a slave shop of a certain kind, a mental slave-shop. You have these guys in New York City who are absolute, raving idiots. And that’s a very fair way to describe them, because they don’t do anything much good! And they do a lot of damage. If we get rid of Wall Street, we would actually have an immediate explosion of progress. It would be a little slow in starting, but getting Wall Street shut down, is my number-one objective for this moment. Q4: Good evening, this is J— from Michigan. I have many times conveyed to staffers and one times was actually able to talk to a U.S. Rep. on conveying the Four Principles of Law you have been talking about for some time. And they are very much aware of what I’ve been saying to them, but in general, I wind up telling them that there has to be a harmony of interests, not just with the parties, but with the main facets of our society, being agriculture, industry, and labor, and how they must come together. And that is where the perplexity comes in. Because they all tend to go off on their own direction as to what facet of society is most important, and I always come up with disconnects with these people. Would you give me a thought on that? LAROUCHE: I understand exactly what you’re talking about. I have my own explanation of this whole process, which is really a definition of what the solution is. What’s happened is, during the course of the 20th century, that is, beginning with some bad things that happened in the beginning of the 20th century in policy, the 20th century has been — now of course, we’re beyond the 20th century, but the same thing applies still, you have a general degeneration, which has been beginning slowly, initially, but accelerating. Franklin Roosevelt, of course, actually stopped the degeneration which was in progress in the century at that time. Once he died, immediately through the FBI, for example, the FBI became the agency which destroyed the mission of him; so that has been bad. The result has been, in net effect, with bounces up and down from moment to moment, and increasingly bad Presidents and bad institutions associated with Presidents, we’ve had a degeneration of the United States’ economy and conditions of mental life and conditions of work and life generally, up to the present time. And the recent period, under Wall Street’s domination, has been the most destructive force that the United States has ever gone through, more than anything else. These are the things that have to be changed. So if we want to judge the policy of the United States as a continuing existence, I think something is happening right now. First of all, there is now, a Glass-Steagall policy which has been put in by members of the Senate. If that is extended and applied quickly, that will change the perspective. Now, once you get the change in perspective, that doesn’t mean you’re going to get the benefit. Because once you change the perspective, you open new terms of approach to problems, an improvement in problems. Right now, what that team is doing in the Senate, has proposed to the Senate, is actually an indispensable, immediate point of action to save the United States’ integrity, because we’re on the verge of a disintegration of the United States’ economy. I mean a mass-killing case. Like we have in the case of California. You have a governor of California, who’s an absolute criminal idiot. He’s the governor. His father was also a governor of California, but he was a great man as governors go. And what’s going on now, is there’s a policy of mass murder against the human population globally! And this governor is now an advocate of that policy. So what we have is a war on our hands, to rally the forces inside the United States, who are well meaning, but don’t always know how to organize the forces to fight. I think I know what those forces to fight must be; you know, I’ve been at this for a long time, and I’ve had a lot of roles in this other thing. So therefore the question is, are we going to rally ourselves, our forces, practically, as an immediate practical perspective; are we going to try to make the proposal from the Senate on Glass-Steagall, immediately effective? Shut down Wall Street! Shut it down flat and permanently! And we have to then change course. The problem is, beyond that, we do not have a labor force, in general, which has anything, any memory, of what used to be the United States economic policy, say the economic policy of Franklin Roosevelt, in particular; or Kennedy, in particular. Or, a couple of other Presidents who were actually good. What we’ve had for the past equivalent of almost four terms of a President most recently, and they are all evil. So the Bush family is evil, absolutely evil; or that [inaudible 17:47] Prescott Bush was really a Nazi. He didn’t have the name Nazi at that time, but he was a Nazi in every term of fact. His sons, or his degenerates, shall we call them, are actually stupid people. But being stupid people is not a hardship, for people who want to be evil. And so, that’s the kind of situation we are in. We had Cheney, for example: Cheney is a master of a Satanic figure, actually, who operated within two terms of that Bush operation. So what we have to do now, is recognize that those are the facts, that we need to make a certain kind of turn, and now we have to muster the people who have scientific capabilities in particular, the relevant ones, in order to bring to us into practices which are available to us. Because there’s a shortage of the people who are qualified to do this kind of work, but they exist. And if they could be brought into play, and if we could get people in the Congress, like this team in the Senate now, on Glass-Steagall, we can have a very quick turnabout — not with great financial success, but with a sense of security which is otherwise presently almost totally absent. So I’m very optimistic about what can happen, but I worry about what might happen. Q5: Hello, this is R — from Brooklyn. And I’ve been thinking about something: The collapse that happened in Iceland, or was supposed to happen, and how the Iceland government worked around it. They put in a form of Glass-Steagall Act, and they got rid of the bums; they put some of the bankers in jail; and they seem to have survived in pretty good condition. Now, I’m wondering if Greece goes through the changes, if they finally get rid of the euro, and go over and maybe get help from Russia and from China and someplace else, could they possibly survive this collapse, and things would not be that bad as far as the Greeks are concerned? LAROUCHE: Frankly, the possibility of success along the line you’re talking, is within reach. The problem is — the obstacle that comes up, we can do that. I mean, if there’s a will in the United States leadership to do that, they could do that. The question is, can we develop a program, a science-driven program, which is adequate to catch up with some of the terrible things that have happened to our population? For example, the ignorance of our citizens: They do not have access to modern technology. Modern technology exists but they do not have it. They’ve never been offered it. There are a few people, in the engineering field and so forth, who do have those skills, but they’re a very small part of the employed population now. So we have to have an energizing force, of the type that Franklin Roosevelt did, back in the 1920s and ’30s, with his program then. And a program like that is what will solve this problem. That I think is the best shot we have. And I think that Manhattan — my conception is, that if we understand what Manhattan really represents, and I’m talking about the real core of Manhattan with people of all kinds of backgrounds, but they represent something between 25 and 30% of the adult population of Manhattan, still; different skills, different that, different that, but they’re all good people in this sense. And therefore, my concern is to say: Well, look, Manhattan really is the center of the United States, because it was made that way, it was built that way by Alexander Hamilton, who pulled the thing together coming out of the Pennsylvania congress, and he did it. And that thing has been always successful when applied. Now, what we’re doing now, is a sense, we say, let’s go ahead with the Hamilton conception, but let’s do it in terms of modern terms of reference, modern science, so forth, that’s real science; and if we can muster that, and I think, really a kind of convention around Manhattan can be the vehicle to stir things up. Because I have a lot of experience with the various states, through my old age’s process, and I know there are certain parts of the United States which are really very prone to progress; and we have a lot of the Southern states are quite the contrary. They are the degenerating process of our United States, chiefly. Good people there in some cases, but they’re the exceptions. And so therefore, we have to think in terms of organizing our people, especially the people who think in these terms, who think in these terms of progress, and there are many things, scientific abilities, scientific principles which are not being used now, which can be called into play very rapidly. For example, just take one of these things which I’m involved in, because I’m associated with a person who’s the leader in this thing: Ben Deniston, who’s working in the Basement Team [LaRouche PAC Science Research Team]. And he’s a scientist, who’s been working on the question of how we can use beyond the Solar System to the galaxy, and from the policies of the galaxy which we do understand to a significant degree, by no means the whole degree, but a significant degree, we understand how mankind’s dealing with water questions can be solved. So there are things like that which we must undertake; these are new avenues of recovery for mankind, and we must use these. We must use every kind of scientific ability, which will free us from the embrace of slavery, of conditions of employment of most families in the United States today! It’s a form of slavery, degradation, impoverishment, brutality! Everything that’s represented by the Bush family, by Obama and so forth, is just plain evil! But we can’t just say, “let’s get rid of evil,” we’ve got to come in with some actual active ideas which are going to be easily successful, and will address the urgent need for progress. Q6: Hello, Lyn. I know you’re in your nineties, but you are a Homo novus to me, and always have been. [crosstalk] I want to thank you for just keeping the American System alive and the real history of the United States; but also, the history of the more saner side of the Earth, and the people who have led that fight, going back to Cusa and others. So thank you, Lyn, thank you very much. That’s all I’ve got to say. LAROUCHE: Thank you. Q7: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, I’m P— from Connecticut. Now that Greece has said no to the austerity of the euro, how will be Greece be helped by the BRICS nations? LAROUCHE: [starts mid-sentence] ... to Greeks, there will also be from Russia, it will also be from parts of Eurasia. The Greeks are not going to be let down. Now, the problem right now, is what? The problem is number 1, the British Empire, and the British Empire is the greatest pressure point, which makes the German government itself behave very badly. Now, not all parts of the German government are evil. We’ve got about three or four people and a certain parts of a bunch of thugs in some of the German institutions, which are blocking any possibility of solution. Therefore, what’s happening is that, the combination of nations which are allied, including Russia, including nations around there, but also China, also most of South America, some parts of Southern Africa which are free to do things, and other little nooks and crannies here and there. So there is a process now in place, including in our own Congress, the Senate, for example; the Senate has taken, a step of action which if carried through will change the situation, to save the United States from a terrible collapse itself. And if we can do that, then, we’ve got a winning chance ahead of us. Q8: This is B— from Tomahawk, Wisconsin. My question is about H.R. 1205 [repeals the UN Participation Act of 1945]. It’s a bill that’s coming up, H.R. 1205 about the UN. ASCHER: So you’re asking Mr. LaRouche what his view is about the United Nations, basically? Q8: Right. LAROUCHE: The United Nations is a very weak instrument right now, as I think you, in placing that question, are reflecting. It is a weak thing; it’s been stripped down of its potency, of the kind of potency it had from its inception. I think that that can be fixed, if we get Wall Street out of the United States, in a healthy way — just a healthy way, get Wall Street out. End that thing. And that means we’re going to have to tame a lot of members of the Senate, in particular. The Congress is problematic, but the Senate contains some really tough enemies of the United States from inside. These guys are greedy and contemptual toward the American people, and that’s not a good thing. On the assumption we do that, the assumption that we get that cooperation, that the United States itself, is able to resume taking charge of its own affairs, in terms of say, the restoration of Glass-Steagall, that, we can solve the problem. And that’s really one thing, the only one thing that can really solve this problem at all. If we don’t get Glass-Steagall through, as it’s being proposed now, and if we sit around without doing anything about it, we’re finished. At least as a viable nation, we’re finished. So that’s right on the table right now. ASCHER: And so people don’t get these bills confused, the Senate bill that Lyndon LaRouche just referred to is S. 1709; that is the number of the “21st-Century Glass-Steagall Act,” that was just introduced by the four U.S. Senators, and that’s what we have got to get through quickly. Q9: Hello, this is R— in Visalia, California. ASCHER: Did you have something you didn’t get in before? Q: Yes. Thank you very much. The question is whether or not you would agree with the NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] report on [World Trade Center] Building 7, which causes Building 7 to come down due to office fires, or by controlled demolition which is the opinion of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This has nothing to with Glass-Steagall, nothing to do with... LAROUCHE: Yeah. I have no problem. That is really a crucial thing. You have no problem with me on that one. But the question is how do we — we’ve got a whole package of problem, not of problems but of problem. And these things have to be done. For example, in California you can’t get anything good done right now! And the adjoining state, you can’t. They’re out there to kill the citizens of California. And that policy, from the California side, that’s life-or-death for California. If this governor continues the program of mass-killing, human killing, in the United States, which he has actually installed and is imposing, you don’t have anything. So this is going to be a fight. It’s not going to be a simply settlement of protection or proposals. This is a fight, it’s a war. And the people who are behind this war are evil, and they’re not going to do anything good for you. You’re going to have to get the force to put them under control. Q10: Yes, this is W— in Virginia. Mr. LaRouche, I wanted to ask you about the current drought situation out West, because we haven’t really heard much about it lately. I work in a grocery store part-time; I work in the produce department, and I’ve been noticing that a lot of produce that we get delivered, which isn’t a whole lot by the way — we get shipments about every two days — and most of the stuff is not coming from California. A few things, but very little. Most of the stuff comes from Mexico, Central America, South America, even as far as South Africa. And I was wondering if you could just speak to this? LAROUCHE: Well, yeah. This is something which is not just my neck of the woods, it’s also our team, our Basement Team, is working on the question of water, but from a special standpoint. We now do have a drought in that area, it’s a very severe drought. But it’s not a hopeless situation. We have to understand how the galactic system, as such, and what its powers are, and what they show us, what they suggest to us what we can do, things like that. We can [get ideas], from looking at the thing from a galactic standpoint, that is studies of the galactic process and the relationship to water on Earth in there; because most of our water supply on Earth comes from the galactic system, not from the Earth system as such. So therefore, we have access to knowledge of means, by which we can reverse this kind of calamity in terms of water supply. But they have to be based on going to a higher level of scientific technology, a technology which is knowable and which can be applied. And it’s urgent that we get to work on it, and put it into motion. The additional problem is, this problem could have been solved a long time ago, except over the course of the 20th century, the United States has been decaying, step by step, as most European nations have, and others, have been degenerating. And therefore, they have destroyed the mechanisms necessary. For example, mechanism: High technology in ordinary production, for example, these high technologies, typified by what the water option is, these technologies are available; they’re known. But they’re not applied, or the they’re not developed adequately. They could be. And therefore, what we have to do is kill the green policy. As long as you support the green policy, as it’s called, you are committing your own suicide. So get rid of the green policy, get the greensters out of business; put them aside, tell ’em they’re stupid, and to let intelligent people deal with the problem. We are doing nothing in practice, in net effect, to save the United States, to save the water supplies or anything else, there are technologies which can, in various levels, in various ways, solve that problem. It’s a technological problem, it’s a scientific problem; but it’s one which can be mastered. We’ve got to have a team or teams of people, who apply themselves to what can be done, based on the best scientific information which is already known, and which can be known much better, if we go to work on it. Q11: Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. My name is S—. I’m from Queens. I asked you a question, maybe about a month ago, about what can be done realistically, considering that certain truths are known, particularly about what’s going on in Eastern Ukraine, and the relationship with Russia. So, I’ve asked that question, and I’ve been thinking for about a month about a driver for, maybe a better influence and following of people, so that real action is taken. And I read the Bible, so a lot of the truths really that we know, is the only argument—it tells itself, if the people who are listening are actually seeking the truth. So, considering that we know so many things about the government, and the wars around the world, and toppling of governments, people who actually seek the truth should be driven by that. And I think we should be angry about what’s going on, just as angry as [UN Ambassador Samantha] Power was at Churkin in the UN, when she accused him of things that were never really happening. So, we should speak the truth, and we should be angry about what’s going on and spread it. LAROUCHE: A very good question are. Take the case of Europe today. Take Ukraine. Now, Ukraine is now under the control of an actually Nazi force. This is not a kind of coloration; this is a fact: that the actual controlling forces inside Ukraine, had effected a coup d’état against the Ukraine organization, put leaders of the Ukraine organization under actually Hitler-like suppression, and have been doing mass murder. And the mass murder has been directed from the United States, and directed from the present administration of the United States, which has imposed an actually, actively Nazi system. I mean, Nazis who were Nazis under Hitler, or have continued the explicit Hitler policy, as a policy imposed upon Ukraine—are conducting warfare on that basis. This is being supported by the British Empire, specifically. That’s how it works. But you have a certain part of gutlessness on parts of some other nations who should know better, in Europe and in the United States. And it’s the United States government, under the Obama administration, which is the backing force for the Nazi system, which is imposed on Ukraine. And if we cannot deal with that, from the United States, and get a Presidency in the United States which is not pro-Nazi—because Obama is, in fact, pro-Nazi in his actions—then we are not going to win anything. I think the time has come to dump Obama. And we have under our laws, our national law, we have the ability to dump this guy, and he should be dumped immediately, because he’s a purely evil force. He is a key force which may send us, and the world, into a thermonuclear war, which very few people will survive. So, we have not cleaned it up. Therefore, if you want to get this done, you’ve got to get the British Empire under control, because they’re the people behind it. You’ve got to recognize the problems in the United States administration. Under the Bush administrations, which was tending in this direction, but Obama has been the explicit tool of genocide in the United States. There are other people, in other parts of the world, who have the same thing. But this thing in Ukraine I emphasize, because this is an example of a nation which was once something different, and I knew leading people of that nation. That is, actual leaders, historical leaders, and they have been taken over and suppressed, and often killed, by actually Nazi forces. I don’t mean Nazi-like forces, I mean genuine Nazis. In other words, the children and grandchildren of actual Hitler Nazis. And the children and grandchildren of actual Nazis, are the controlling force inside Ukraine, backed up by the United States, by the Obama administration. That’s the case. If you want to do something about things, those are the things you have to address. Q12: My name is R— from Williamsport, Maryland. In your opinion, Mr. LaRouche, who, running for President at this time, do you think would be the best person to be President of our country? LAROUCHE: Well, the best color would be that which we have with O’Malley. I don’t know how perfect O’Malley is, or how imperfect he might be, but he’s the only one right now, running as a Presidential candidacy, who is actually competent. I don’t know that he is fully competent. I know he’s doing many things which are competent, and are essential, and are relatively unique—which is all in his favor. I don’t know how far he’s capable of carrying the job, to get the job finished. In other words, I think he can obviously make good contributions—he’s shown that already. He’s shown that from his previous political background. But is he capable of doing the job that I know has to be done? That’s the question. I think that at present on the horizon right now, he’s the best candidate for President in sight. But is he the right one, or are we missing something? Therefore, I say, at this time, well, keep your eye on him, and see what you can see in him; because right now, so far, he has been best performer of actual currently operating candidates. I don’t know if he’s adequate. Maybe we have to go further. Or maybe, the other thing I often say, lately—I say, well, I know he’s doing these good things, but I also know that he’s not doing some of the things I thought he’d also be doing. And therefore, I would like to see—what I’m looking for, is an idea of a President, which he might be a prospective—I’m not drawing a conclusion on this, but I think, he is the one who I see now, is the most likely person in sight, on the horizon. But is he capable of doing the job that has to be done? That’s a different question. And my answer to that is, the Presidency is not to be formed by one President. No single person can be a President of the modern circumstances alone. You have to have a team, and a team which is coherent, which has a coherent mission orientation for the development of this nation, and the protection of it. And I think right now, I say, on the horizon, O’Malley is the only one who’s made that qualification himself. If I see other people who are coming in to his campaign, and if they are the kind of people who he, in his present posture, would strengthen, then I would say, well, wait a minute. Maybe we caught a live one. If somebody doesn’t shoot him. ASCHER: In that regard, Lyn, I’m sure you got the report from Tony Papert earlier today, that Martin O’Malley issued a very, very strong statement, an open leter to Wall Street, entitled “I Will Not Let Up On You.” So, I think in the direction you were just indicating about his at least positive potential, what he put out today was very, very strong, including his endorsement of Glass-Steagall. LAROUCHE: Absolutely, that’s true, no doubt. But you know I’m a hard taskmaster on these things. I want to make sure we win. Q13: Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. My name is D— and I’m from Chicago, Illinois. My question is, probably I might sound politically incorrect, but most of the people are afraid of asking those questions, about same-sex marriages. I don’t know how much farther we’re going to push that [inaud-49:29]. And I thought, why don’t we bring that to a national referendum? [audio garbling] ASCHER: His question was, he is asking what you think about all this business concerning same-sex marriages. LAROUCHE: Oh, I hate it. Look, how do you make babies? And if you’re not going to make babies, and you’re not going to develop babies into growing young people, and eventually adults and so forth, highly skilled—if you don’t make babies, you’re not going to have people! The point is, we’ve got to get off this question entirely. It really is a diversive question which should not have come up. It’s obviously a play game, trying to screw and scrabble things up. People should keep their noses out of that business. Q14: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. from Chicago. Just a quick followup on the question that the gentleman asked about same-sex marriage. I would look at it as being part of this whole genocial, depopulation British operation, because, like you said, if you can’t procreate, if you can’t make babies, then what’s going to happen to mankind? Now, my point I wanted to ask a question on, is this whole question that you were talking about, the degeneration of the educational system in the United States over the 20th Century. And being a Baby Boomer born in 1950, coming up to be 65 next week, actually a week from today, I’ve experienced that, and I experienced it from the standpoint of, when you try to speak to people about the reality of the situation, then they don’t get it. They come with some crap that they’ve heard from the media, and what have you. The way that I’ve summed it up, is that through this degenerative process of the educational system, combined with the culture, the degeneration of the culture, the overwhelming majority of our people in the United States have some type of emotional, psychological or mental problem. So, actually, how do you deal with overcoming these emotional, psychological and mental problems, to be able to get people to actually see, and respond to the reality? LAROUCHE: Well, the only way you can do that is you have to, in a sense, promote people’s outlook, and develop their powers. That means, in a sense, that it’s not just that you’re going to sit there and have these developments, and have these powers. The question is, you’re going to practice these powers. Which means that you are going to identify yourself as having a meaning for mankind in your community. And therefore, you’re going to find an occupation, a productive occupation, or something equivalent to a productive occupation, which may be nursing, for example. That’s an occupation. It’s an actually scientific program which people need, which society needs. So, if you have people who are employed, in things which have that quality, that use value for mankind, and for the progress of mankind, you’ve got the optimal situation in which to operate. However, if you get into some areas of Chicago—you get conditions which permeate whole sections of a major city in the United States, and you see a process of destruction, of murder, insolent, absolutely meaningless murder, and all kinds of things coming out of rage, out of pure rage. Because there’s no one cause; it’s just plain, pure rage, with no sense of any meaning to life itself. And when you get a person who’s enraged, has lost their meaning of life itself, human life itself, then you’ve got the worst kind of policy you can have. Now, our problem is, we’ve got to actually create a shield, an environment of opportunity, among all parts of our nation. Look, we’re backward. The United States has been going backward in its economic policy and its economic practice, for a long time now, especially since, I would say, 1980s, 1990s, and so forth. We were going down, down, down, down, down. We had a few good Presidents. Bill Clinton was a good President, both two terms. His second term was really damaged, because the Queen of England actually destroyed him with an operation against him. And his Vice President doublecrossed him, evilly. It was pure evil. So, Bill Clinton went out of office with a little bad tinge on this thing, but he wasn’t the one who created it. It was the Queen of England herself who did it. And I know the facts, that is, the detailed facts. It was the Republican Party and the Queen of England combined to try to sink Bill Clinton, and he was pretty much roughed up, heavily, as a result of that. And he was actually an heroic person. He has his own style. He comes from a certain part of the nation, with that style, and so forth; but he was really a very talented, accomplished, and well-meaning person. And we miss him, because we would be much better if we had a Bill Clinton in the Presidency again, but that’s not going to happen. But maybe he can play a role that’s important. But that’s the fact. We can do that. We must do that. And what we must do—take the fact. Look, the whole world is on the verge of a general genocide against humanity, a threat of genocide. You have, China’s progressive. You have other parts—some nations in South America are becoming progressive quite successfully. So forth and so on. We have some elements in Europe which are excellent, useful, but they’re not functioning well, because the interlocking relations among these institutions just don’t function properly. If we can make the thing function—and how do you make it function? What you do is you present to a population, an image, which is a realistic image, which they recognize is realistic: Get out of this dump. Get out of this Depression. Get out of this grind, and enjoy life. Enjoy what you can do in life. Progress! Make new achievements! Things you can be proud of. Make children that you can be proud of. Make them successful in turn. Which used to be the American policy. And we’ve got to get back to that real fast. Real fast. And the love of fellow man, the care for fellow man, where you say, “Brother, Sister, we’re together. We’re working together. We’re going to make it work together." And that’s the only thing that’s going to do any good. We can yell and so forth, all the things we can do. But if we can’t get that thing moving inside our population, we’re going to have a tough time of even surviving. Q15: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. This is W— from the Bronx, New York. The question is, when I talk about Glass-Steagall, the question I get the most is, how is Glass-Steagall going to help the deficit problem, the debt that we owe? How would I explain that to them? LAROUCHE: Well, what it is, is it eliminates all the speculative stuff. It would mean the death of Wall Street, for example. Glass-Steagall will be the death of Wall Street, and the death of Wall Street will be one of the happiest moments in anybody’s life in the United States, who is still sane. What we’ve got is now: being practical about this whole thing, to make it clearer, I think. Sometimes you have to be practical to make the point clearer. You can’t just generalize. What’s happened now, we’ve got four specialists who have introduced Glass-Steagall, with a sense of urgency about getting the matter done. Now, Glass-Steagall, done in that way, would shut down a great part of the present membership of the Senate of the United States—we call it the sen-house; senate sometimes means senile. And they’re greedy. And they really are the agents of Wall Street. You have lots of senators who are agents of Wall Street. You have some Democrats who are also agents of Wall Street. So this idea of Wall Street—we’re going to work with the government, and we’re going to rip off the rest of the population. That’s exactly waht the attitude is. We want money, we want money, we want success, we want this, we want money—that’s what goes on in much of the Congress, heretofore. Now, the four Senators who joined together, to push forward the necessary bill, are serious. They’re not all of the same temperament, but they’re serious. It’s not just that they’re serious. They recognize that the situation now is desperate. They’re not talking about a long-term, drawn-out effort to eventually get some bill through—that bunk is not going to work. We must immediately take steps, remedial steps, which in effect shut down Wall Street. Now if we do that, and we go back to a Glass-Steagall policy, with that intent in mind, we are going to have a turnabout, for two reasons. First of all, we will eliminate the worst evils in the United States economic system, and the social system as well. We’ll end those evils. We will also inspire people by proving to them that certain options which they thought were unattainable, are now given to them. That is, we will create a change in the economy of the national government, to get the garbage out, which is wasting our attention, and get something needed in. And that is a positive policy, not a negative one. We can do that. So, the important thing is, this is not a long-term, this, that, and so forth; this is very serious and very immediate. The entire United States economy is on the verge of collapsing. Wall Street is now collapsing. Wall Street has been rotten for a long time, but right now, it is actually collapsing. It’s bankrupt! Wall Street is openly bankrupt. A bankrupt is about to go—Wall Street, go! We need immediately, action. So, what’s happened is, some Senators have come together, of different, shall we say, hues—hues in political outlook—and they’ve come together for a common purpose, to save the United States economy. And the way to save that is to put through Glass-Steagall. The institution of Glass-Steagall will, by itself, if it’s just plain done, will change everything. It won’t get everything perfect, but we will eliminate the poison which has been destroying our economy since Glass-Steagall was repealed. Q16: With the conversation about Wall Street, how in the world do we bring Wall Street when there are so many corporations, people and corporations, that have billions of dollars invested in Wall Street? I mean this seems like almost an impossible situation; and nor do I believe that this—I don’t see how this could possibly help our economy. LAROUCHE: It would, it’s the only thing that would. You puncture this balloon and the balloon collapses, and you have free area in which to operate. And Wall Street has been the major cause, of the degeneration of the economic life, and other life, inside the United States. Wall Street is the greatest enemy of the United States from the inside. It’s also from the outside. Get rid of that, and you have an opportunity. And what this new law, being proposed, by the four Senators, that will do it. That in itself will do it. And on the same point, remember, that right now, Wall Street is on the verge of blowing apart. It won’t be there much longer. It’s over, it’s dead. ASCHER: Right, well, this week they tried to tell everybody that it was a computer glitch that shut down Wall Street for part of one day. So, we got a question in which was partly answered by you, but partly not answered directly, but I’ll just put it forward to you. It’s somebody who’s listening on YouTube, Q17. T — in California. The first part is "How can China control the speculation that has created this stock market bubble? Does China need a formal Glass-Steagall law?" LAROUCHE: Well, it could probably benefit from one, but the problem is, what China did, in order to create the system of government which the new administration which is now in force, did, there was a certain area of business effects, in China, which were reflections of an old habit. That’s the best way of describing it — it’s an old habit. So, the government of China put to one side, this particular kind of operation, a kind of an opportunist operation. It’s a typical capitalist-type operation, really, is what it was. Where the main policy in China does not go under modern capitalist setup. It goes on a certain different sense of freedom: they locate freedom in the development of the mental life of the individual, in China and in other nations. It’s not an economic/money thing — that’s not the concentration. In China the cultural development is largely inspired; it’s inspired by remembering the best features of old China culture, and trying to bring them back to life, and to bring other nations into cooperation — like the "win-win" policy of the Chinese government, for example. Now you have some leftovers, still operating in China, of certain policies, which are protected sort of by the China government. So, they’re put in a separate category, but they’re not following the same principles as the leadership of China does today, in terms of its economic policy. Therefore, what happened is, some gamblers got loose — virtual gamblers — got loose in the idea of how to run the local economy, their little niche, their small niche in the economy. So, what you’re getting in the international reports are fake. This is not a big deal; it’s a small deal; it’s an annoying deal, it’s an annoying problem for China, but it’s not a big problem. China is the most powerful nation on the planet right now. And it has an internal problem? So what? The biggest nation on the planet right now, it does not have a real threat against it; it has a little problem, like cleaning up a dirty windows, or cleaning up little mistakes here and there. They’ll do it sooner or later, anyway. Maybe they should have done it sooner, but I’m not going to pass judgment on that. I know what China’s policy is — I’ve become well-informed about China’s policy. I know what the policy is; I understand it to a certain extent — as far as a foreigner could — from my history, experience in that neck of the woods, in Asia, for example. So, I’m not worried about that. I let China tell me, what they worry about, about that. They probably don’t want to talk about it. They’re going to just clean the problem up, in their own way. So, I’m not going to involve myself in it. Q18. Hello, I’m B— from Louisiana. And Mr. LaRouche, I have been with your organization, following your organization for, I guess about three, four years now. And, I’m just so thankful about everything that you all are doing for this country — we need you! I wish you were President! [laughs] LAROUCHE: Well, I’m an old geezer, you know. I still have got my legs on; I just had a brief medical check-up, but I’m in fine shape — bad news for my enemies! Q18: Well, I pray for you every day, because we need you. I’m just so thankful for LaRouche PAC and you. I have a very strange question tonight: You know, I’m from Louisiana — and I speak French. I’m 61, so I have been raised at the time when President Kennedy was in office, and I saw a lot of controversy, and a lot of liberal actions — civil, and everything. So, I understand all this that’s going on with this Confederate stuff, and it’s a little fearful. My question is: I would like to know, do you think that the British Empire is working hard to try to cause another Civil War within our country? LAROUCHE: It always has been, in a sense. You’ve see it also in the Southern states, for example, which have been often seedbeds of dissension, in one part. For example, you get in the areas of the hills of certain Southern states, you’ll find that you’ll think that you’re back in the slave system. I’ve been there and seen that, and lived there in that environment for short periods of time, and I know what it’s like. The Southern states are a mess; they are inherently a mess. For example, you have the highest murder rate, the death rate is in Florida. People think of Florida as a paradise, but it’s not, look at the death rate in Florida. So, the problem is the states have lots of problems; the Southern states generally have the greatest problems, the worst problems, and that’s a reflection of what the Civil War was all about. It still does. You get something in Texas, which is a problem. And you get some good things in Texas. You get some good things, in some various parts of different states in the United States. So, the problem is that we have not done enough. I mean the Presidential system, as it has been developed — especially since my time — I served for a short time under a President. Indirectly, I also served, under another President. And my experience is, this probably exists. I believe, however, that if we can introduce a true Glass-Steagall law, which is now on the agenda, that by doing that we will find that we can reshape the economic policy, and also the social policy, of all the states in the United States, and that’s my intention that that should happen. And therefore you’ve got a nest of people here and there who are people who have good ideas, may not be perfect ideas, but, they’re good ideas. A few people have some not-so-good ideas, running around! And, we haven’t sorted that out yet; we have to sort it out. But I think since the corruption is not really located in the local cities or the local space; the problem is located in the United States as a whole. And people like to blame one state, blame another state — well, these states do have problems! But, the problem is, the failure of the Federal government. If the Federal government follows the policy of Alexander Hamilton, for example, this thing would not continue as a problem. Q19: Hello, my name is P —, from Queens, New York. I know you’ve been talking a lot about Glass-Steagall; I just wanted you to quickly reiterate how quickly Glass-Steagall can change the country? And why the people of the U.S. should care about it enough to get out of their own way, to make sure it’s passed? LAROUCHE: If the people of the United States today, are not willing to get Glass-Steagall into motion fairly quickly, then the United States isn’t going to be around much longer! If, on the other hand, we install Glass-Steagall, as it has been proposed now for immediate action, and that is, to implement it, since Wall Street is already bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt, which is a real urgency for that action. I mean, you’ve got these Senators are making a sudden decision, to go to Glass-Steagall after all these years; why do you think four Senators, leading Senators, had come together on this issue now? Because they know that if Wall Street continues to run the United States, as it has been doing, the United States may disappear! And anyone who’s for Wall Street right now, is really not a patriot of the United States. And, that’s a solution. Glass-Steagall is the solution. It was the solution for Franklin Roosevelt, it’s the solution for today. Q20: My name’s S — from Maryland. I heard today that China was going bankrupt. What was that all about? LAROUCHE: That’s a puffed-up story. There’s a problem in a minor section of the Chinese economy, which was not changed when the new policy of China was put into place. And they just set it to one side, without getting a quarrel; because China has the habit of not getting quarrels within its own position, at least today; being soft. Don’t try to force things too much: influence, influence! You know, China’s an ancient nation. It’s one of the oldest, functioning nations that’s ever existed. It’s had its ups and downs in various parts of the time; and great leaders in the modern era, worked closely with China at times. And China, we have some access; if people were students in this, have some access to know some history of the ups and downs, of China’s history. And, China is one of the leading cultures in depth, of all the nations of the planet. Now, in that country, they came along with a reform. The reform was done by the present administration of China, or the continuing administration of China. And, there were certain problems which were not convenient to be taken head-on at that time. They had other business to do, which was much more important business. And therefore, they just put something, "Ok, you can go in that little niche, and we won’t hurt you." Well, then little niche began not behaving itself. And, so they had some problems. And this caused this separate section, which had been given a privilege to run its own business, ran out of control by speculative investments. Which meant, as anything, like Wall Street is, Wall Street’s an incompetent industry; we have to eliminate it. Well, this case, China has to get this thing back in order. They didn’t touch it, really; they just let it work as a niche, all to itself. But the necessary reforms, which for that niche were not installed by China at that time, because they had other business to attend to. Much more important business, for the world as a whole, because China is really a driver of the international processes today; China is the most important nation right now, on the planet. So this nation, is that. But what the problem comes is the gossip; the gossip comes from the United States and from other sources, saying that China’s having a great crisis. It’s not having a "great crisis"; it’s having an unpleasant experience, which will be sorted out in due course. But you’ll have people, like in the United States, the Obama administration will do everything it can, to make a mess in China. That’s his policy. So you can’t be surprised that this little problem arises, because there are forces which will, in the sense of "free economy" and so forth, who will use that as a way of causing some trouble. But China will deal with that problem. China is capable of dealing with the problem; it’s a bastard thing. China is much more skilled at these things than the President of the United States is. Q21: Hello Lyn, my name is A — from Los Angeles. I started with your original Youth Movement, or, second youth movement, pardon, in ’99. I wanted to thank you, deeply, first of all, for giving me a soul back. Before I would have just been lost in this world, without any real understanding of Classical culture, what’s going on, or any of that. So, thank you, thank you, for giving me a soul, that was very helpful! The very first thing that I heard from you was at the cadre school, where you said, we have to take out Enron. And I thought, hah! Yeah, right! We’re not takin ’ out Enron, but we’ll try. And, as you know, events transpired, and so forth, and that was very motivating. I’m having a hard time keeping up with the optimism, and the motivation, and not getting stuck in the ugly—, instead of focussing on solutions, focussing on problems, and things of that nature. Also, I never shied away from the Obama mustache; I never shied away from the Children of Satan pamphlet; and, I know it’s true, but every time I hear, "thermonuclear war," I personally cringe! And I retract, instead of actually, fully taking it in. Because it is of an incredibly serious nature. I was curious if you had any thoughts on these two things? LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. We’re on the verge of thermonuclear war. The origin of thermonuclear war, is the British Monarchy, the British Empire. The present instrument of thermonuclear war, is the President of the United States Obama. And, for example, that’s one of the reasons some Senators are pushing Glass-Steagall, now. Because, if we don’t create a moral effect on the people of the United States—and, the best place to do it is in the Senate of the United States. If they put through a law, which is going to change the circumstances of the United States, at the same time that Wall Street is going bankrupt; Wall Street is now fully bankrupt, it’s hopelessly bankrupt. It can never be revived, again. It’s finished. So now, we have a bunch of four Senators, who have moved quickly to put in Glass-Steagall. Why are they rushing with that thing with Glass-Steagall, after all these years? Well, because Wall Street is bankrupt, and virtually dead. And the corpse has to be buried. How do you do that? Glass-Steagall. Return to Glass-Steagall. We have a system that’ll work. Don’t believe the propaganda. I mean, if you know economics as I do, and I’m probably one of the best known people in that field, on the planet right now. I mean, you know, at my age, and so forth, I have a lot of experience; and, I know this system. We can solve the problem very quickly. It requires willingness to solve the problem. But, what we’ve seen with those four Senators, members of the Senate on Glass-Steagall, with the rush in with that thing, at the same moment that Wall Street is going hopelessly bankrupt, dead! — guess what? Some members of the Senate said, "Let’s get rid of the corpse," i.e., Wall Street. Q22: Hello, I’m K —; I’m an activist from Los Angeles. And I just have a quick question. That little escapade that they did yesterday morning, on the news, with these computer glitches, with Wall Street shutting it down for three hours, and some of the airlines, and stuff: Was this just some kind of ploy, to distract people, or was this for real? LAROUCHE: Well, of course, on the one hand, it does have effect of the kind that you would expect from that kind of problem. But also, there is a real crisis, in terms of what the airlines are trying to do. Some of the airlines, in particular, are trying to do, is pull a swindle, which is done for money purposes, or peculiar kinds of money purposes. You know, you have, for example, the planes that are flying, in some airlines, don’t have full passenger supply. In other words, they limit the number of passengers, far below the level of what the plane’s capacities are. And this has become a very peculiar kind of thing, for which there is really no adequate explanation, to my knowledge. But, I know it’s a creepy something-or-other, and it’s caused a problem. I think, that what we have to recognize, is that the disorder in the financial system of the United States, has had a great effect on making the problems of the airline industry. And, the fact that, these effects have acted on the industry, as I’ve seen the evidence—I mean, the evidence of the confusion is obvious to me, even at this distance. So, obviously, they are trying to do something, which is some kind of economic "jimbo mungo," or whatever, and it’s screwing things up. And so therefore, that incident has occurred. The full details, I don’t know; but I know what the general principle is. When you get an airline that’s an airline system, and the airline system is a system which is, naturally functional, and it becomes dysfunctional, not for any reason that you would think of airline operations, but because somebody’s trying to make some "mungo jungo" or something, out of the airlines system, and that thing backfired. Whatever it was, it backfired. ASCHER: Well, I think your theme from the beginning has been absolutely clear. And although we did not get any reports yet from our activists on their mobilization around Glass-Steagall, I think by next Thursday, we certainly shall have that. So, I’m just encouraging everyone, we’ve heard Lyndon LaRouche here repeatedly indicate that we have got to kick these people in the U.S. Congress; it’s going to require a full-out mobilization of our entire movement, throughout the states, labor unions, state legislators, calls into Congress. ... There’s no time to waste, so I’m hoping by next Thursday, we will get some reports.... Lyn did you want to make any final remarks here, this evening? LAROUCHE: Essentially, we are, as I mentioned elsewhere, we are now moving to support the functions of Manhattan, as a really, purely centralized function for the nation, which is what Alexander Hamilton intended. And we’re trying to make that thing work. Now, we find that, in the New York City area, and the adjacent areas, we have the greatest relative degree of coherence, on this. And I’m familiar with the New York population— I haven’t been there, directly, for any long time, but, for many years, I was based in New York City, in part of it, and sometimes successful as a businessman, and otherwise. But now I am, where I am, and I’m still doing it. So, from here, I still realize that this is the case. We’re trying to find focal points, in the United States of localities, which can be used as building blocks for larger parts of the United States as a whole. That is, how do we take each part of the United States, with its peculiarities, as a state? How do we assess what the potential is? How do we put the potential into motion? Because we’re a broken-down nation. The United States has been affected by the breaking down of our economy. It’s been going on for a long time; it’s been getting worse, and worse, and worse, and worse! You look at the employment opportunities, look at the lifestyle opportunities; the degeneration of the conditions of life of the average citizen of the United States, and the children, and so forth, is getting worse, and worse, and worse, and worse. So, the problem is to reverse that trend, by taking measures which we know we can handle, that is, measures that we know by principle will work, and get those things into motion. And, we’re concentrating to a great degree, on Hamilton, himself, you know whose tomb is located in the southern part of Manhattan. But he was the founder of the nation. He was the actual founder of the nation. And George Washington became the President, whom he pushed to become the first President! And he made the policies on which George Washington worked. And quite well, on the economic issues, in particular. And also strategic ideas. He was one of the first-rate geniuses of his time, a great genius of his time. And he was murdered. He was murdered by a British agent. And that’s what happened. And British agents are things I despise. British agents are the intrinsic enemies of the United States. And that’s my view on the matter. |
