Britain, The Empire of Evil, Pushes Genocide and World War

June 24, 2015

As Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip arrived Wednesday in Germany for a three-day visit, the truly Satanic nature of the British Empire was on full display. Prince Philip's top aide, Martin Palmer, is the principal organizer of a French government-sponsored Paris conference in July, peddling the same genocidal program of “Earth stewardship” that would-be mass murderer John Schellnhuber inserted into the recent Papal Encyclical on climate change. The Paris conference is part of the propaganda assault, leading to the next 'Copenhagen' conference at the end of the year, also in Paris. The Worldwatch Institute, founded by Lester Brown, has just issued a report, demanding an end to all subsidies for fossil-fuel and nuclear power, as part of the drive for a total conversion to renewables like solar and wind power.

Any such reversal of the core principle of increased energy- flux density means mass genocide, on the scale that Prince Philip and Schellnhuber have been advocating for decades. Leading Italian economist Nino Galloni has penned an excellent attack on the recent Papal Encyclical, precisely from the standpoint of the concept of “energy-flux density” developed by Lyndon LaRouche.

The question that must be posed to all sane citizens is: Are you for the British Empire's genocide, or are you for the human race? Are you with Zeus or Prometheus?

This is no abstract question. With the entire European financial system just days away from potential complete meltdown, around the showdown with Greece, and with a British-led NATO explicitly provoking thermonuclear confrontation with both Russia and China, the very survival of mankind is on the line.

There is no question where President Obama stands. He is a British agent, fully committed to the genocidal agenda of Prince Philip, Martin Palmer, John Schellnhuber, and the rest. Yesterday, the internationally renowned Doctors Without Borders issued a highly unusual, scathing attack on Obama, for his Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade swindle, which, the release details, will shut off affordable medicine to at least a half billion people, under the secret clauses of the treaty, written in league with the major pharmaceutical companies. This is mass murder, plain and simple, and this is Obama.

The greatest danger to human survival is the British Empire's plan for mass genocide, as expressed by the Queen's agent Schellnhuber. This is a full-blown commitment by the British Royal Family to reduce the world population to under one billion people. Any other matters are distractions and intentionally engineered distractions to prevent any effective counter to the genocide plans.

The British Empire is a Satanic force, and is the continuation of the European Empire system that has been at war with mankind, ever since the launching of the 15th-Century Renaissance by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. The Empire's response to Cusa and the Renaissance was the launching of 150 years of uninterrupted religious war on the European continent.

The latest expression of the British Monarchy's commitment to that same mass extinction is the Schellnhuber operation run against the Pope. It is around this issue that the future of mankind will be decided in the immediate period ahead.

I'm interested, tell me more



Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, June 25, 2015

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, June 25, 2015

Join us each Thursday at 9pm Eastern for a live discussion between Lyndon LaRouche and his fellow Americans as they discuss the most pressing issues facing Americans and the world, in a live Q&A session.


John Ascher: Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher in Leesburg, Va. We're here under dramatic circumstances for the sixth discussion with Lyndon LaRouche here, on the 25th June, 2015.  And Lyn, are you there now?

Lyndon LaRouche: I'm there.

Ascher:  Lyn, we have our audiences assembling on the phone and we have people listening live via the internet at the same time, and I wanted to begin with asking if you had any preliminary remarks that you want to make ?

Lyndon LaRouche:: Yeah, I could just say one this which I presented for posting.  ("LaRouche on the Greek Crisis: The Only Way Out of This Mess")

The European Union is just stalling, economist Lyndon LaRouche said today. That should be said. They're just stalling. They know what the issues are, and the Greeks have made it clear that the issues are limited, so cut that crap out. Because otherwise, if they're not going to do that, then just call it off and move the Greeks off into a different department, and they'll leave Europe. That's the only way to put it. Say, either you guys get reasonable, and stop trying to stretch out all these things,— the only thing to do is to make a statement.

Say, the problem here, in this discussion, is that some parts of Europe are refusing to admit the fact that their governments, or their representatives, have committed a fraud against the Greek people. And those elements are demanding that they get consideration: that the Greeks have to pay the debt, which a fraud has created. Just simply say that the fraud will not be honored.

You stole the money, for pure speculation, and you're now demanding to get it all over again. And we're saying, "No. You've stolen more than enough from us already." That should be the slogan.

The fly in the ointment is, that an honest treatment of the debts which are attributed to the Greeks, would mean that we would be bankrupting major speculative interests in Europe and the United States in particular. Therefore the only way to settle this thing, is not to worry about what the Greeks are doing. The problem that Europe has to worry about, is the fact that the European debts, which are these gambling debts, are not fungible. Therefore, this would mean, for example, canceling Wall Street, and going back to Glass-Steagall.

We should be saying, "You guys miss the point. Because, what you're defending, are worthless assets. You're trying to recommit a fraud, which you had already committed previously. Now, cut it out: what you have to do, is go to a global Glass-Steagall policy. Come along with the United States, and we'll restore the Glass-Steagall policy in the United States. And we'll cancel the worthless debts. And you, in Europe, you will cancel your worthless debts, of the same nature. Especially the British." And that's the only way to handle this.

The fact is that the only way that this is going to work: the Europeans must eat, what they should eat. Because we know that much of their banking sector is purely speculation. And what they're demanding, is the protection of their thievery, in effect. The solution is the re-establishment of the Glass-Steagall policy for the relevant regions of the planet, including the U.S.A., and so forth and so on. We'll all go back to a Glass-Steagall policy.

That's the only way to get out of this mess, because if you close down the banks in the U.S. which are speculative banks, you do it under U.S. law. And therefore, you have now changed the character of the money system in the United States, in particular, to eliminate this swindle system. You return to Glass-Steagall. Now you use the fact that you went back to Glass-Steagall, to use that as a source of credit. You put that source of credit into the hands of the U.S. government, so it's now the U.S. government, which is the agency which represents the people of the United States. We recommend that a similar approach be applied to Germany, to France and so forth. In that way, yes, the swindlers lose the money. But the swindlers are swindlers. So what we do, is we take the swindlers' money away from them, and give it back, respectively, to national banks, that is to governmental banking systems. And we create a new Glass-Steagall policy of international development in a significant part of the trans-Atlantic region. That's the one thing we must throw on the table.

Now, you just imagine German Finance Minister Schäuble and so forth, all these creeps, pirates and burglars, are out squawking to protect the so-called interest of the pirates and swindlers. Let's go back to Franklin Roosevelt methods; and Franklin Roosevelt's method is the model. France needs it. Trying to swindle Greece is not going to help France one bit. What you want to do is have a cleanup of the situation; to clean up the monetarist system. That will not solve all problems, but it will give us a foundation from which to build up solutions. Get some production going. And we shut down this euro speculation system; these guys are all thieves. And the British most of all. So, we don't need to worry about their benefits; they don't have any benefits coming to them.

What we need is an economic system, a federal banking system, a national banking system. You need to clean the whole thing up and go back to the U.S. concept of Franklin Roosevelt, of Glass-Steagall. The point is, that it's the swindler class which is making these demands of Greece. Don't listen to the swindlers; go back to national economy, and we won't have such swindlers.

Ascher:  All right, Lyn.  I'll just mention that the statement that you had authored has already been transcribed and posted to the LaRouche PAC website.  It's entitled "LaRouche on the Greek Crisis: The Only Way Out of This Mess."

I'm now going to turn on the Q&A queue. ... Please state your first name and where you're calling from.

Q1:  My name is L—, from New York City.  I particularly wanted to call attention to the effort behind the release of the 28 pages that is happening at the legislative level in Congress. I'm sure many on the call are aware of H.Res.14 and S.1471 in the Senate.  And there's great potential here to begin to unravel the official version of 9/11, which will in turn unravel so much of what's behind the international globalist power structure, controlling events and forcing their agenda through, for instance, the passage of the TPP in the Senate, recently despite public opposition and so forth.  And, it's very necessary that we mobilize large numbers of people to support the brave legislators who have taken the initiative on this through their legislation, again H.Res.14 and S.1471.  And there's great potential here, but we need to create a massive groundswell, because they need help, they need the public to urge, put pressure on all the other legislators around the country to (1) read the 28 pages page, which they have security clearance for; and that alone will cause a major awakening to the falsehoods behind 9/11.  And then the ensuing chaos in terms of our military policy and the upheaval in the Middle East and the entire fraudulent agenda, particularly when it comes to the clash of civilizations that we're seeing in the world.

Lyndon LaRouche::  I think I have something to add on this. The subject area you presented in your statement just now, is of course fully valid.  I have no problem with that.  Remember I was watching what was happening in New York City at the time the two planes destroyed much of New York City, and killed a lot of New York citizens.

Now, I'm aware of what that was.  I have a lot of background on knowing what this is about.  I know who did it. I know it was the British Monarchy, together with Saudi Kingdom.  It was mostly Saudi agents, who actually delivered that assassination, particularly in the emphasis of New York City as a target.

Now, therefore, the question is, what's important?  What is it?  What is the so-called secret?  If the fact is known, and I've known it before it was generally told because I was working against this problem, and it just hit me when I was watching New York, as practically a reporter, and I walked through it step by step.  I saw each step, I saw each of the two towers coming down; I personally saw that, as an observer!

So there is no mystery.  I also know that the Saudis were the ones who did the bombing.  It was the Saudis.  It was the chief Saudi at the time, also at the same a representative to the United States by the Saudi Kingdom. The British created the whole process. The whole history of that, is that.

So the problem has been, that someone says, "well, you don't know the secret pages."  I say, "what're you talking about? What difference does it make?"  We know what happened and we know who did it.  And we know who the culpable people [audio loss] in both the present term, the Bush administration and the Obama administration:  They both covered up, on the truth!  They both concealed a massive attack on the United States, and they're talking about this and that and so forth and so what.  It's fake. And at that time, when I was functioning at various ways internationally, through my own work in operating in Europe, operate in Russia sometimes, operating in other parts of the world, operating with Britain, where certain interests in Britain were interested in preventing what was being produced at that time;  not all British are evil; not even British officials are evil.

But anyway, so it was British Empire concocted, Saudi operation — the Saudi Kingdom, which is a satellite of the British Empire, and they did it.  Now you have people in the United States, who were senators and other members of Congress, and they say you can't know what the story is.  But I already knew it before the story was delivered.  I didn't have to have any number of pages to know what had been done.  I already had the information before that question of the 28 pages came up.

So the point is, asking for help from the United States government, under the Bush or the Obama administration, or both, is an exercise in futility, a tragic exercise in futility.  So what do you have to do?  You have to remove those elements, of government, including from the Congress, including from members of the Houses and so forth, you have to pull the chains on them.

The Bush administration, under the control of Cheney, who was the real thug in this matter — he was pretty much a thug in all kinds of matters;  but, Obama.  Obama is a lying thug.  And the shame of the United States today, is that Obama is still treated as President.  He should have been dumped out of there a long time ago.  He has no characteristics of any good that qualify as a President.

So therefore, yes, your concern is valid.  But the point is, if we're going to win the fight, to correct this terror, we're going to have to go at the real issue, the real facts.  Whether you have access to certain numbers of pages from a reading from the United States administration's creation of this record, that is not the fundamental question.  The fundamental question is, even without those pages, we already know, those who have experience in this, we already know, who did what to whom.  We don't know some of the details, but we know enough to draw an absolute conclusion on what the truth of this matter is.

So what you're saying, your point as argument is absolutely correct.  But! you have a right, also, to get the full information, not the question of so many pages.  The evidence was already presented to my personal knowledge in a significant degree, and to people with whom I collaborated in a broader degree, in a circumstance where I had done advanced work, as a specialist investigating the British Empire and its relationship to the Saudis.  I had a track on it.  I didn't have the exact dates and so forth of this thing, but I have the evidence.  I knew the things and I knew the party that took the planes out of Boston, and brought the two towers down.  I watched that!  And I followed up on that, from Boston and so forth.

I don't have all the facts, but I have enough facts to prove the case, with a lot of details put to one side.  And the people in the Federal government, in the agencies, of the security agencies of the U.S. government have access to this story. They're committing a fraud.  So those institutions which are supposed to be our security institutions ain't very good at protecting the security of the people of the United States.  Not when it comes to Obama, or when it comes to Bush, or it comes to Cheney.

Q2:  Hello Mr. LaRouche.  My name's J—, I'm from White Plains, New York.  In laymen's terms can you tell us, does the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, also known as Obamatrade, will it have a devastating blow on America's sovereignty?  And also does it threaten the BRICS nations?  Thank you.

Lyndon LaRouche::  Both are true.  But I would think what Obama has done in particular — remember, he's made two swipes and this thing — what he's done particularly, is actually a mortal threat to great numbers of American citizens.  Because he's going to deprive them of necessary health care in terms of medications.

Remember, the whole thing has included the control of the medications, in the international market.  What this means that more people are going to die at a more fast rate than ever before, unless Obama is thrown out of the Presidency, that's what's going to happen.  That really is the short term of the thing; I can give you more if you want, but that's the short term.

Q3: This is D—, I'm in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Good evening, Mr. LaRouche and thank you for having these Fireside Talks.  What I wanted to ask you to clarify is the difference between Hamilton's National Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank; because some people are confusing it, thinking that what Hamilton was calling for is another Federal Reserve.

Lyndon LaRouche:: It's not really that.  There are elements of the Federal Reserve design which has gone through a lot of changes over periods of more than a century now, two centuries. There are aspects to that.  But if you look at it from the standpoint of what Hamilton's record was, that Hamilton was associated closely, in his leading position in the United States, with George Washington.  He was the key advisor and designer of the U.S. economic system, the foundations of it:  He did it.  He did it with the cooperation of two other members of the body which conducted the congressional proceedings which create the United States.

Now, the other part of the thing, is there's another side which is very, very ugly.  We had, after the death of George Washington, and after the fisherman from New York State [John Adams], who was a good man but he was not really competent beyond what he did in France.  He did some excellent work on behalf of the United States in France.  But after that, up until for 20 years at least, there was not a decent president in the United States, not a President who was not a crook, and implicitly a traitor to the United States.

Then we get to a great President, who had one term at that point.  Then we have Abraham Lincoln;  then we have the great general [grant] who commanded the forces against the Confederacy, and we had another President at the beginning of the 20th century, who was assassinated — as many Presidents of the United States have been assassinated, by people who share the same opinions as many in the South did, the Confederacy.

Then we had Franklin Roosevelt, a great man who was assigned to four terms in office; did not live out all four terms. Immediately after that, we had the FBI, and the FBI and Truman destroyed much of the work of the United States under Roosevelt. And we had a very evil system.

Then we had a President who was very good, but he was not really effective in trying to deal with the danger from within. Then we had another set: We had the Kennedys.  One lived for a while as a President, and the other was a Presidential candidate and possible President.  Both were assassinated.  I had also experience in this; I worked on behalf of the Reagan administration.  It was a subordinate position which I had under the intelligence section of that administration.  I negotiated deals with Russia and so forth, some of which were turned around the other way.

And then the Bushes came in.  And the Bush family has been the greatest threat, as the constant threat to the United States ever since that time.  And Obama is nothing but a copy of the same thing.  The Bush family, Cheney, so forth; Cheney was evil, probably still is evil.  And so we have had a problem with our Presidency.  And what was represented at the start, was a great start.

The root, the economic principles of Alexander Hamilton are still the only competent foundation principles for the United States still today.  But unfortunately a lot of that has not been observed. Franklin Roosevelt was typical among those who did fully understand, more or less fully, the details, of the great design which was done by Alexander Hamilton, which gave the United States, uniquely the kind of  constitutional powers that the United States was intended to have had under George Washington.

Q4:  My name is D— and I'm from East Orange, New Jersey.  And I was told that you cannot answer personal questions.  But I am being cheated by the government.  The bank will not send me my full pension check, and I just what to ask LaRouche what does he think, what can I do?  I've written to them three times, and they won't send me my full pension check, for a full 42 years.  And I just wanted to know if there's anything he can do to help?

Lyndon LaRouche::  I think we have a possibility of help.  What I mean by that is that, under the present government, particularly the two Bush governments, together with Cheney, and also with Obama.  These governments, under these presidents have been the greatest source of oppression, and corruption, in the history of the United States, other than the Confederacy itself. Their intention is rotten; you see from the practice, for example from the two Bush administrations I just referenced, and from the Obama administration which is now closing into its second term of office.  Evil!  Absolutely evil!

And we have done nothing about it.  What happens every time we get a bunch of people in Congress,  — many of our people have essentially pretty good credentials, but they don't always have the courage to carry them out.  And that just happened recently on this question of trade bill.  We had the majority against Obama, and then another step was made, and they shut it down, practically. Or tried to shut it down so far.

So you were cheated again!  Not an uncommon thing in U.S. history in modern times.  Therefore we're always in the process of fighting on these issues.  The problem is, is to get people on two point, that is the ordinary citizens.  Remember the ordinary citizen, as you must understand this as well as other people do, that government in the United States today, is rarely fair; that politics and political favors, and political solutions and so forth, come first, and justice to the citizen occurs, occasionally, but it's not reliable.  You cannot guarantee that it's going to be delivered to you the next time around.

What we do need, of course, is a Presidency.  Now, I would say, there's one thing that's missing and it's not really mentioned enough:  Glass-Steagall.  Under Franklin Roosevelt, we achieved the greatest improvement in the design of our governmental system that we have had up to the present time. John F. Kennedy was actually a hero in that direction.  There are other cases like that, as great individuals, or even Presidents I've known personally who were good people, but were not given the power, to exercise the good that needed to be done, often very urgently.

So that's where we are.  Now, we're at a point now where we're on the edge of the threat of the virtual extinction of the human species.  And so all these kinds of  injustices and evils which we have experienced in past times, are now coming down to becoming really almost a genocide, a general genocide, a mass killing of human species.  That's what's been threatened.

There's now something from Britain that's come out trying to turn the Popes into becoming murderers, you know, this is the kind of the thing that's going on right now, under the Obama administration circumstances for example.  So therefore, all I can say, and guarantee in what you're asking about which I consider a very fair question you're posing, is how do we get the job done?

And I think we can, possibly, actually win the fight on this case:  The threat to humanity is almost universal.  That is, there are forces in Europe and elsewhere, which are determined to — oh, Obama, for example.  If Obama were to carry out his current military policy, there would not be much of anyone living on the planet Earth.  Because any war which Obama would start now, would be a terminal war.  That is, in all strategic sense, the kind of thermonuclear warfare which Obama is insisting on producing, and it's Obama himself who's doing it; actually the Queen of England is the real evil, but Obama takes the joint, because he's the President.

And the danger is, we're not going to exist any more, unless we can do something, to for example if Obama were removed from office now, I think that the result would be that we would not have a thermonuclear war.  But  the way he's going now, and he's acting like a maniac, just completely irresponsible, and acting like an idiot.  And that's dangerous.

All he has to do, and he's got the figures inside his administration to do it, to set into force a thermonuclear war, which if the United States were to start it, would be responded to by Russia and other nations, and the result would be, there's no security in the hope that maybe humanity would survive.

So that's what we're living up against.  And what you're talking about is perfectly legitimate.  It's an essential element, of the kind of problem,  the kind of threats, under which our citizens live.  But beyond that, there's something much more menacing: There's a threat of the extinction of the human species, which could come as soon as this summer, and that's what we have to stop.

Q5: My name's D— and I'm from California.  I have a two part question — a statement and then a question, but I wanted to preface this with, I think your leadership is great first of all with the BRICS and everything, but my concern is when you're going up against world powers and establishments that have been there a long time, wouldn't it be a more effective or authoritative to have the identity of the United States in terms of the three branches of government behind you, in terms of like a Presidency or something like that?

Lyndon LaRouche::  I got it.  I got it; it's a question which people often ask, and therefore in that degree is legitimate. For me to say something like that would be not legitimate because I know better.

I have a certain kind of expertise in these matters.  No, what we're on the edge of right now, is we're on the edge of a general thermonuclear war.  Now, if any major power, particularly, for example, if Obama pushes Russia — now, Russia will not start a war, that's very clear.  Anyone who understands this thing, Russia does not intend to start a war.  Russia intends to discourage threats, from attacking Russia and from attacking others.

If such a war were launched, and it would not come from Russia, it would come from the British Empire, and from stooges of the British Empire, such as Obama.  And Obama is enthusiast for this thing; the great danger now is the fact that the Obama Presidency, right now, is the most likely trigger for setting off a thermonuclear war, which would occur with a launching by Obama  and his advisor, and it would be the initiative of the war, that is the thing that would provoke somebody to do it.

And the United States and Britain are the only nation, are the only nations which have that kind of commitment right now. Other nations have all their problems and all these kinds of things.

So the issue is, to prevent the Obama administration from going ahead with his advisors to launch an attack on Russia, if that were to occur, you would have a global thermonuclear war in immediate chain-reaction, and the question is, would anything survive?  This is the most insane thing that man could ever do. It's the ultimate expression of insanity for mankind.  Now that doesn't mean that somebody might not survive, but I don't think there will be survivors to tell the story, if at all.

And so, the issue now, we have to be taken seriously:  We cannot compromise.  When you have hut, like Obama, and the people who are behind him from the British royalty who are really his masters, you're not dealing with something you can negotiate with.  You can either weaken his power, take his power away from him, take the dangerous toys away from this idiot, hmm? this fanatical idiot.

And otherwise, I tell you, it is not unreasonable to presume, that if Obama is not removed from office, there might not be a human race over the course of this summer.  That's the fact, the actual fact of the matter.  And everybody who understands what thermonuclear war means, understands exactly what I just said.

Q6: B—, who is listening on YouTube, submitted the following question: “Concerning all the Executive Orders Obama has signed, aren't they illegal? In my opinion, we need to clean house from the top to the bottom, and this President has been a complete failure from the word go. It's time to get him out, along with Biden. We are in a very bad situation here. It's time for the world to know who Obama works for, period."

Lyndon LaRouche:: Well, I think that's a real fact; that's the truth. We do have to.

Now, we're not totally impotent in this matter, but the threat is so great, that we have to realize that what we're doing is, we're dealing with a potential ultimate danger. And we have to define what the ultimate danger is, if it is a reasonably serious danger. And what I've said, for example, about what Obama's policy is in terms of his relationship to his master or mistresses, the Queen of England, is serious. It is deadly.

You also have a thing which got into the British System in the name of the Papacy, which is to reduce the population of the United States, or the world as a whole in fact, from the present population level, to less than 1 billion people. And do it quickly by mass starvation.

The policy, to create that effect, is already in place. It's been announced in the recent couple of weeks. It was presented clearly. The danger is very great.

So, now what you can do to get sort of a solution, a closure on this thing, is to recognize that those who would—and that's the Queen of England, essentially, that's the leadership of this thing—the tendency to assassinate the majority of the human population, to reduce it from the present population, down to about 1 billion people, at most. That is sort of the same thing as what I've been talking about in terms of the war danger. It's a different aspect, but it goes to the same kind of intention.

And that's where we are. We have to change the world in a way which is not unreasonable in any sense. We have to do the things we call the good things.

Let me add one thing on this thing  Why is it that, in fact, as I know the facts, since the end of the Nineteenth Century, the beginning of the Twentieth Century, as with the case of some evil characters up there, we have been moving, in the United States, in Britain and elsewhere, in a long-term tendency to reduce the conditions of life of mankind, in the United States and beyond? Around the world generally. Yes, we've made some progress, particular progress. But if you look at the conditions of life of the typical American citizen, since the beginning of the Twentieth Century to the present time, the condition of life of the average citizen of the United States has been degenerating. And when you look at it in the long term, up to the present date, from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, you see that everything is threatening everybody. Employment. Conditions of life. Education. All of the things we used to take for granted, back in the earlier part of the Twentieth Century, is now being taken away.

The death rate is increasing, the corruption, the destitution is increasing. And it tends to be that way throughout the United States, and throughout much of Europe.

Other parts of the planet, like South America is improving now, in terms of its conditions, or some of South America. China has made a tremendous success. It's become the most important nation on the planet right now, in terms of its power, its capabilities, its rate of growth. Other parts of the world, in Asia, some parts of Asia, some parts of South America, are improving.

But for us in the United States, and for us in Europe itself, we are all actually falling into an absolute disaster. And if you can think back to what the conditions were at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, as I came in closely after the Twentieth Century, things were then much better. Things were going in a much better direction. Yes, there were many problems, many problems which preceded the First World War, and which continued after that. But the real bad stuff came about 1980, and after 1980, into the middle of the 1980s, then we began to go — in the United States — we began to go down toward Hell, step by step by step by step.

And we've got to change it.

Q7: I'm C— in Apple Valley. My concern is this, Mr. LaRouche: I was just reading where President Obama had just initiated an Executive Order number 13603, where he authorizes slave labor on a large scale, on American soil. And another thing is, the FEMA camps that they've got through this JM15.  And I don't know when they're going to start rounding up Americans, because I know one thing. If we wind up in a FEMA camp, we're not getting out of there. I've heard people say, whatever you do, don't let them catch you alive.

So, where do we stand on that aspect?

Lyndon LaRouche:: Well, I think it's up to us to come back to our senses. We really do have the potential ability, as an American citizenry, to cure many of these great threats, and other kinds of conditions. But we don't do it. The reason is, is because we look at the other guy as being the responsible person to get us out of this trouble we might be facing.

What people say is, they use the word "They." "They" don't let us do this. "They" don't do this for us. Huh?

Their attitude is that they do not take responsibility for what happens to the people who live under our government. They always want to say, "They." "Well, I'm not ready to act because I'm not ready to act to deal with this problem. I'm not going to take a risk to deal with this problem. I'm not going to solve the problem?  So, they go along. They pass the buck.

They say: "I've got a problem. Somebody has to help me."

Well, that's fine; we'll try to help you. But, will you try to help yourself too? That's the issue. And then if you do want to help yourself, don't you have to find out what the skills are you need to adapt, to do that? Don't you have to discover what the facts are that you have to take into consideration, to deal with the threat to you, and to your family, and to the nation?

And the problem is, many people just don't have the guts to step up and show leadership, when the public as a whole needs leadership.

I know this very well. I think many of you out there know that it just as well: that people duck the issue. They don't take responsibility. Shall we say, they don't make good soldiers? They always go out in the latrine and hide, when the battle is about to begin. I think we should cure that. I think we should take that seriously.

Q8:  We have a question from Professor Francis Boyle from the University of Illinois Law School, on the danger of World War III. He says: "I wish to give my personal regards to both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. We are in a very, very serious and nearly cataclysmic situation with regard to Russia over Ukraine, as well as the disintegrating situation currently in the Middle East, which also threatens to pull in Russia, as well as Iran. Obama is also threatening war with China as well. Clearly World War III could break out very soon, at any time, if Obama keeps moving in this direction. It seems to me, like all of these so-called political conflicts, including the cultural warfare we are now witnessing here at home, have been deliberately designed to distract public attention away from the buildup towards World War III abroad.

"Can you shed some light on this imminent danger, and what the citizens of our republic have a responsibility to do, given the proximity of this danger, and the lateness of the hour, for the very survival of civilization?"

LaRouche: Okay, good. The question is the practical problem that is presented by the presenter. If you want to go through the details, it can be a very long story. Because it's a story of history. It's not a story of what might have happened yesterday; but it's a story of what might have happened in the course of history. And the course of history is sometimes very deep. It accumulates; the course of history accumulates. Sometimes it goes in a better direction, the danger is moved away. And then sometimes it comes back, or it comes with a new fresh surge.

And what we have now, is we have in process, first of all, we have idiots, and we have unintentional but effective murderers. They don't intend to kill people, but they will kill people and they will suddenly cling to the actions which will result in killing people. And that's not just killing people.

Let me go in, because we're dealing with a gentleman whose powers of reason are well-known to me, in responding to this question. I want to give a fair expression to a more than fairly competent personality.

There are underlying mistakes, which have often been made in history, which are little-ly understood. What we do tend to understand, are things which our accumulated experience shows us are threatening us. That's what happens. People see the coming of a war; they become uncertain, and so forth. But they don't necessarily find the answer in time, because they don't look at the depths of the problem they're dealing with. They want to ignore it up until the time that they got scared, and that frightens them.  And that's what we see.

Therefore, what happened in our history of our Presidency, for example. We had a great President, who had one of the most brilliant minds in the world, today, still, who was the official leader and guide of that great President Washington—Hamilton. Hamilton was the great genius, who made the United States accession possible, as opposed to those who—despite George Washington—turned against Hamilton, and killed him, and intended to kill him. We had Presidents in that period who actually were enemies of the institution of the United States, even among the early Presidencies.

So, we have to often look at the deeper issues, in order to come to a competent understanding, of what the crisis is, which may threaten us in a recent time.

People find, when they wake up, at the time that they wake up, it's often much too long. And I think that he knows what I mean by that. He's had enough experience and study to know that.

Now, there are certain things I do know, and I do know what this stuff's about: it's my specialty; that's why I know it. But we are at the point, where we could be extinct within a matter of weeks. I'm not exaggerating at all. If, for example—just take for example,  the situation of Russia vis-à-vis the United States, with the United States and Britain controlling a threatened war with Russia.

The war would not come from Russia. Some of the shooting might come quickly, the minute that Putin were to act to recognize that the Obama administration and its British associates, are prepared to launch a general thermonuclear war against the United States—really, it's against the United States, but it's against Europe, in general —  the war is on. And if say it happens sometime in the early summer, which is a likely time for this to happen, everything is now building up very closely to the point of a ripeness for a general thermonuclear war; and when that general thermonuclear war occurs, on the next day, there will be a lot of people who suddenly went of existence on this planet.

That's the effect.

Therefore, we have to understand this issue, and we have to operate on that, and people trying to say, how to get rid of this thing, how to conquer this guy, how to beat this guy, how to start this war, how to suppress that—these people are just worse than fools. Because we're at a point where the potential is, that the mankind has built into himself, into man's culture, especially into a trans-Atlantic period, has built into the trans-Atlantic period an intention for thermonuclear warfare, whether they know it or not.

And the administration of Obama knows it. The administration of Obama, that is, Obama himself, knows it. So if a war is going to break out, it's going to break out, probably, because of Obama. Because once the limit—Obama is able, like others who might be involved in this, to take a step which moves Russia to a thermonuclear action, at that moment, the general extinction of humanity on much of this planet will occur within a very, very short time.

And therefore, what we have to do, knowing this fact, we're at this fact of the threat of thermonuclear war right now, in those terms, you know that in the matter of the summer weeks, we are now approaching where the interaction, the frictional processes will lead to a thermonuclear conclusion, and it will come, right now, it will come from the paws of Obama. He's only a tool, but that's the bomb. And therefore, unless we understand that, which demands that we understand what the conditions were, that allowed this threat to emerge, as it did not emerge, say, for example, when Bill Clinton was President. There was no such threat, when Bill Clinton was President. Since the Obama period, especially since the Bush family, or since Cheney, you've seen the march toward Hell in process.

If we want to talk about other nations, you can talk about them. But I think the thing which is ours, which is the United States, we, of the United States must take the responsibility to make sure that forces of the United States are not used for the purposes of the extinction of the human species.

Q9: This is R— from Brooklyn. One of the factors that I discussed at one meeting, was that Obama put the 173rd Airborne and the Screaming Eagles as advisors in Kiev. And that's a highly unstable thing that he did. Is there that we can undo some of this, even though his administration may still be in power?

Lyndon LaRouche: I would say the only thing at this point, which gives you much chance, is impeaching Obama, throw him out of office. I'm talking about what I see in actions around the Congress. I follow somewhat the decisions of the U.S. government, or at least some of the things that are most attracted to my attention. And I would say, yes, we could—I would say if we could throw Obama out of office, in the right way, right now, we could probably prevent World War—Four, Five, and Six, and so forth.

If we can't do that, we're in real deep trouble. And so everyone says, we're on the side of the United States. What do you mean, you're on the side of the United States? We're talking about thermonuclear war. Hey buddy, you're the guy who's going to get fried. And all your friends will be fried too. And it will be done quickly, and you will not be able to do a damned thing about it.

And that's the issue. The question is, how do we mobilize the forces? I think, as I just mentioned in response to a friend of ours, that you have to look at the deep roots of any threat of this nature. The deep roots. The deep historical roots. They sometimes go back to decades, or even longer.

Most people don't have any knowledge of what history is. They may sometimes be able to get a chronology and say that at this point this happened, at this point this happened, at this point this happened—but they don't understand what the process was. They don't understand what the causes of the process were. They don't know how you change the causes, that lead into something which is good, or something which is bad.

And so most people are left ignorant. They have no knowledge of what this process is. They're a little bit like victims, living on the assumption of hope, when they lack knowledge. And therefore, often, mankind has gone from brilliant periods of history, as with Nicholas of Cusa, and people like that—and then what happened later? They suddenly have the outburst of one of the most wicked and evil wars, fought as religious wars, in that period, into the time of Leibniz, and beyond.

And what happened when Leibniz died? We had the underlying of the United States, the future United States, was reversed. And a stroke of evil struck what was becoming the United States, the future United States, and we had presidents who were rotten. The first four Presidents of the United States [sic] were rotten—most people don't know that, but that's the case.

So therefore, the issues here, on this, is, we have to understand the deep roots of the great movements in human history. We have to understand what our relationship is to those great roots, and most people don't. They haven't been educated. Or they've been conditioned to accept indifference, or to assume that everything is confused until some short-term development occurs. Or an accident occurs. One of the favorite fantasies of people is accidents, fatal accidents included. Automobile accidents, other kinds of accidents.

The issue is, yes, those things do happen, but what are we doing in anticipation of the fact that they might happen? How might they be prevented? How may poisoning be prevented? How may the accidents be reduced? All these kinds of things. And I think the point is that mankind is poorly educated these days. It's not because of the individual as such; it's because of society, which no longer gives much care for members of society.

And a few of us, who had our hide torn up a bit, do understand these things, because we've had the experience, we know what happens.  And other people hope that they don't have to know what's going to happen.

Q10: This is K— from Massachusetts. About our humanity, and it states in the Constitution that—of course, you just don't do it for any old reason, but if you're under like a tyranny, the citizens have the right to get rid of that tyranny, get it out. And I don't understand why we're not doing that.

Lyndon LaRouche::What do you mean by right?

Q10: In other words, it states that if you have an overbearing government, that the citizens have the right to get rid of that overbearing government, and get a new government. For example, as you were explaining, Mr. LaRouche, about setting up a new Presidency now.

Lyndon LaRouche: Oh, great, great! I think we could probably improvise one right away, if somebody would politely and kindly supply us with a replacement to Obama. Frankly, that's it. If we could get a President who comes in, stumbling as he or she may be, at least if they stumbled around and it leads to some kind of reasonable—like, does the person know how to drive an automobile; they may not be the best driver in the world, but if they intend to avoid contusions and so forth, they might be preferred over the madman who is a reckless driver.

I think in general, those considerations are true. But I would not like to have our citizens dependent upon accidents, successful good accidents.

Q11: Hi, this is K— from Iowa. I was just wondering, what is going on with the 28 pages?

Lyndon LaRouche: I don't think that those pages, in and of themselves, are going to solve the problem. Because what's happened is, the 28 pages have been around for a long time, and they've been available, as such. But the pages are not, really, the important issue, of fact. They're an important issue about the way the whole thing was handled, but they're not the issue in fact. The issue in fact is what I saw, via video, looking at the two planes, successively circling the southern part of Manhattan. And I saw the destruction of those towers, and the killing of the people in and around them. That's what I know is the fact.

Also, as I said earlier, I know some of the facts behind this thing, the facts that are not discussed. Like, "Who did it?" Well, I know who did it. It was the Saudis. It was the Saudi forces that did 9/11.

The Saudis are the key agents of the British agency. I knew this before it happened! Because I was following the British operation. I knew the forces in Britain, which were operating out of Saudi Arabia, were the forces which created 9/11. I knew that the official representative of the Saudi Kingdom, in Washington, D.C. was a key element in causing 9/11. I also know also a lot of other evidence, which I've received by sharing it on side issues which are related to this, how the thing happened, why it happened, and who did it!  I know that!

Now, then someone comes along, and says, "What about the pages?" Well, that pages thing is, yes, a true case. But why are the pages suppressed? See? You can't say the pages are the problem. Why are the pages suppressed? The Federal government has them suppressed. The Bush administration had the evidence. Obama has had the evidence. He has had the evidence that the Saudis, working together with the British, committed the crime against the United States. Why is the United States, then, hiding the identity, of the murderers, the mass-murderers, who attacked our citizens in Manhattan, in particular, on that occasion?

That's the issue! And the whole thing's a swindle. You say the 9/11 issue. That is a swindle. It's a fraud; it's a fraud, an act of treason by the Bush administration. It's an act of treason, as continued by the Obama administration. If you can't say that, you have no credibility. You may know the thing happened, but you have no credibility, which allows you to walk in with the proof, that the Bush administration and the Obama administration have both been responsible, for the effects — the murderous effects,  on our citizens in 9/11.

And therefore, neither Bush, nor Cheney, of course, nor Obama, is actually fit to be President of the United States, and never was. That's your problem. If they'd been removed, If Bush had been removed, for his crime; If Obama had been removed, for perpetrating the conclusion in that same crime; why are they in the Presidency?

Don't ask me about the pages; I know about the pages. I know about the pages; I support the people who are trying to force the effort to try and expose the pages,  to bring them out, as against those members of Congress, and the White House, who refuse to allow that to be exposed.

That's why the pages thing is clear — I know what happened. I don't know all the details; I may not know some of the delicate details, of the pages.  But that's not important. The question is, "Who did it?" I know who did it. It was the British Empire steering its puppet, the Saudis. That's what the story is. And everything else is a distraction; it's a fraud.

Q12: Hello. My name is C— and I'm calling from Maryland. And I just heard about Mr. LaRouche last week, when I met two guys I see, at the MVA in Gaithersburg. And I have a question, though; actually I have two questions.

The first question is: Since we have been looking at the activities of the Presidents, especially, Mr. LaRouche was talking about what President Bush did, and all the activities which have been actually against the people, and the will of the people, and then just giving it names and all that, and wars, and everything. And I know it's against the people's will. And Obama came into power and he did the same thing.

How do we know, and what guarantee do we have, that the next President, of all these candidates that are campaigning right now, are just not going to carry on with the same sham of a show?

And, the other question that I have is: How would we mobilize the people? Because this is actually a serious threat to the existence of the people. And how would this beautiful act that you are doing, carrying on right now, how is it going to be known to the rest of the people, if we have to mobilize?  Because the change actually comes by mobilizing enough people, and then people will act upon the principles being propagated by an organization, such as yours. How would we have to do that? Because, I mean, nowadays people, all they do is watch TV, play games, and go to work. But it seems as if they know much — I mean, I would do as much as I can, in order to influence my peers, so they can see what's happening, really.

I have friends in China, I have friends in South Africa— I have friends everywhere. And we talk about these things every day, and, you know, we think about what could be done, in order to end this madness.  But the rest of the people seem rather to be, you know, they're caught up in a wave of dreaming, and just not wanting to do anything. You know what I'm trying to say?

Lyndon LaRouche: Yeah, I do.  Well, the problem is, largely, that the people in the United States have become increasingly ignorant, among other things. That the level of intelligence, on all levels, even scientific intelligence;  you know, we had one scientist, serving in the United States, in the Twentieth Century. Now there were other scientists, who were capable people, who made contributions. But as to the profound underlying principles of science, Einstein was the one man who qualified for that, Albert Einstein.

We have access, now, to new knowledge, which was not possessed by us in that century, which we know now. We know the solution for the water problem. We know what the solution is, we don't have the practical solution in hand; but we know what the principle is. We know how we can improve the moisture level, management of the moisture level delivered to mankind, on different parts of the planet.  We know these things.  We know many other things, which are very useful, as scientists.

But most ordinary people, in terms of education, in terms of experience, have almost no knowledge, of these matters. And therefore the ignorance of our people— See, the idea of the individual, is sometimes exaggerated. You say, "individual opinion"; what about the individual opinion of a person who is totally ignorant? Do you want that as a standard of government? Do you expect that that standard of government will protect the nation against mischances, and terrible effects? No.

Therefore, we depend upon a social process. We're not talking about individuals, so-called "rugged individuals." There are no rugged individuals. There are only successful ones, and unsuccessful ones. There's the ones who are able to do something for mankind, and those who can't.

And our job is to become, a part of a group of people, who knows how, to help people to become competent in their own affairs.  I mean, why do people have stupid ideas? Because they're ignorant. Sometimes because they're a thief, and that's their profession; or they're murderers, and that's their profession. But, for the most of time, mankind's problems lie from a lack of intelligence. And the lack of intelligence is that society has failed to provide their young people, and so forth, and older people later, with the kind of knowledge that will give them the ability to make competent judgments, to make competent judgments. And I'm saying, today, in today's society's moral breakdown, which has gone over the last half of the Twentieth Century. The Twentieth Century was already a century of decline, in the moral and intellectual quality, of mankind. In the last half of the Twentieth Century, the late half, things began to go down.  And you know, the Bush administrations, the elections of Bushes to Presidencies, is actually a marker, of the degeneration of the American people and their population.

So, the problem is, now, is  —  you can't control human behavior by authority. You can try. You may be able to stop some things that shouldn't happen, from happening. But, in general, as a policy matter, you have to develop the qualities of creativity, and good judgment, in the general population, by good education, by good practice. You're not just supposed to know something; you don't really know it unless you can practice it. So, it's not knowing about something, it's knowing how to do it; or how you have a friend who can collaborate with you, and do it, have friends who can do it.

And, so therefore, the question is really, one of, the development of the human mind. The moral development of the human mind. The scientific development of the human mind. Without those accomplishments, mankind is a dumb animal. Despite all the good means that they may have intended in their own life, within their restrictions of their own judgment, they have been cheated out of the access of the goodness that mankind should be inherently expressing.

Q13: Hi, this is J— and I'm from Orange County. On the note of education, and people staying informed,  it is true, people do have to know what's going on in order to make sound judgments.

Not everybody lounges around without staying up to date, and reading all the materials that they can get their hands on. ...

My question was, what about the drought in California, and do we, or you have any news or any ideas as to what the solution is going to be? Anything would be great.

Lyndon LaRouche: Okay, I have some expert sources , on these subjects. First of all, what most people are telling you — take the case of the governor of California: He's a bad man, and he's also an ignorant man. He's a bad man because he's actually a murderer.  He's saying that the people in California have to be deprived of water, even if it means killing them. That's a bad man.  He's the governor of California; his father was a good man. So, it's not the race that's the problem here, it's the lack of brains.

So, what are we talking about? About goodness and about achievement, these kinds of things? The point is that mankind does have tremendous power, in the mind. We have for example: Look at the history of successive modern history.  Go from the period of Jeanne d'Arc and so forth, that period, Nicholas of Cusa; great inventors, like Nicholas of Cusa himself; or, like Kepler, or like Leibniz: These are great people. They actually improved man's ability, man's insight into the principles of science; in the broader sense of science, the true sense of science. In the sense of principle, not gimmicks, principle!

So, what's happened is, we have a supply of water, and the chief the supply of water for mankind, is located in the galactic region, not in the next door neighbor. There is no shortage of water for mankind.  There is only stupidity by mankind:  Because the technology of dealing with the alleged water shortage, is entirely a product of stupidity, or malicious stupidity. The governor of California is a malicious mass murderer! The governor! Because he's taking steps to induce the rate of death rate in California, and there's no need for it!

There is need, for supplying the relevant solution, for the problem of the water management in California, and around adjacent parts of the southern United States. Yeah, that's needed; there are also other things that are also needed similarly. But mankind, through science, has the access to the ability to understand these things. Kepler discovered the Solar System. No one knew what the Solar System was until Kepler, Johannes Kepler. And, Kepler was followed by Leibniz (and was a follower of Leibniz in a sense, in a scientific sense). Now we have more higher development, and we've gone into the higher layer of the whole galaxy system. And we know some things about the galaxy system, not everything; we don't know what the dark areas in the galaxy system really mean, for example.

But we know these things.  We know things about the Moon for example.  We're learning more, China's showing us more things about the Moon. So, we're finding out all kinds of these facts through scientific exploration, and study.  But so-called practical measures, or rumors, or opinions aren't worth anything, if they're not grounded on something which is tantamount to science.  And I know some of these matters, some more indirectly and sometimes directly, and that's the case.

So, there is no excuse, for the continuation of these problems. there's only the need for the urgency to look into what the solutions are that are available to us.  And, like Kepler's discovery of the organization of the Solar System, for example. That was a great discovery, it was unique. He did it! Nobody else did it, until after he'd done it. What we're getting now on the question of the water aspect of the galactic system: We know that the galactic system provides most of the Earth's water! And if you don't know how to deal with the galactic system, that's your mistake.

So, these are the kinds of things, without a competent understanding of the meaning of science, it is not possible for us to deal with these problems. But! So far, considering the progress of man in science, up to this present time, there is no excuse for the kinds of problems, which face us right now on the question of water and other things.

Ascher: Lyn, I guess that is just about drawing to a close.  I was wondering if you wanted to take a few minutes here to outline some concluding remarks?

Lyndon LaRouche: Sure, why not?  It's a good idea to do it, and it's a fun thing to do.  I always enjoy working with our people and our circles of people, because the discussions that we can sometimes get into are profitable for them, and for other people as well.  And it does help the process of man's happiness about having fellow-man around someplace.

What we're in, we're in a gravely endangered period of American history and world history.  And what we're seeing recently from around the Pope, actually from the British, the Pope's intention now, or the British intention now, is to reduce the population of the planet to about one-quarter of what the population is today and to do it rather rapidly.  Now this is simply mass-murder, and it's done on the orders of the British Empire, the British Monarchy.  It's being done in that phase, and it's being pushed now.

The Pope is being pushed to commit genocide.  I mean, this means a reducing of the population, as the stated intention of this action, the intention is to reduce the population of the Earth, permanently.  Now, what the effect will be of doing that, would be worse, worse than that, but it's being pushed. It's being pushed chiefly by the British Empire.

Now, to understand what the means, means you have to understand what the British Empire is.  Now, let's take the current British Monarchy, including the British Royal Family: These people are on the record as being mass-murderers in the extreme, and as long as the British Empire has any significant power of influence in society, mass-murder in society will spread.  It is now spreading rapidly now!  Reducing the population of the planet, now, from the immediate size of 7 billion people to 1Mass-murder of citizens throughout the planet.  And that is what the British Monarchy has as its leading policy, and it has been the leading policy of the British Monarchy, ever since the current British Monarchy came into existence.

That is Satan!  The British Monarchy is a Satanic force! And it's the chief force of evil, living in the planet today. And we're on the verge of an attempted mass-extermination of the human population currently from 7 billion to 1 or less; that's what's on now. And it's the British Monarchy, the Queen herself, her whole shitten caboodle.  And that's what the problem is.

That is the example of what the policy of evil represents in the course of human history during this century, and now.

Ascher: And I think Lyndon LaRouche has given everybody here a level of marching orders to go ahead, and what we've got to do to change what's going on in this world.  So thank you very much again, Lyn.  And we look forward to talking to you again next week.

Nino Galloni: The Encyclical Is Wrong

Italian economist Nino Galloni has refuted the Papal Encyclical Laudato Si' in an article in which he calls for higher energy-flux density as the alternative. The article has been published in the progressive Catholic journal Il Domani d'Italia and on, a website run by anti-euro economists.

The Encyclical proposes to solve the crisis by "equally redistributing resources" which means "proposing a model in which those who have more, alienates one part so that everybody gets enough." But, Galloni says, "the world has never worked that way."

A brief excerpt of Mr. Galloni's remarks:

"Today, as before last centuries' democracies, scarcity — a real one in the past, an artificial one currently — suggested an unfair distribution of resources and of income because only the rich would make investments necessary to the survival of the entire society; with democratic regimes, instead, which were dropped about 30 years ago, a general growth was pushed, which improved the lower classes, promoted the middle class and satisfied the affluent.

"The same goes, in the Encyclical, for perspective of strategic resources, first of all water: It does not call for developing desalination capacities, capturing water from glaciers, or for a different regime for the Nile River (only a few among many examples), by exploiting current technological capacities of humanity, but it only calls for accepting a fairer distribution of resources.

"True, technological progress has not given an answer on defending biodiversity ... but since the Congo Basin is mentioned, this allows us maybe to deepen our reasoning. The Congolese, despite wars, genocide, sicknesses and misery, have grown in number: Consequently, it was their poverty, multiplied by the number, to determine the elimination of almost all the local fauna. If the population grows in misery, determines catastrophic effects on the environment and on biodiversity that can be avoided only by increasing the intensity of the energy flux and technological development. A small community can survive on a certain territory by cutting wood and chasing animals, until the number jeopardizes the balance.

"As the population grows, the model must be changed: The energy flux must be intensified, productive techniques must be modified; it is useless to reduce individual consumption of resources if the population grows; we need to reduce the amount of resources per unity of product: exactly what technology, i.e. human intelligence, is able to guarantee.

For additional discussion on the topic of science, technology, and the Laudato Si, watch the June 24th New Paradigm for Mankind Show.