The Manhattan Project: Town Hall Q&A Event with Lyndon LaRouche, July 25, 2015

July 25, 2015

The Manhattan Project: Town Hall event with Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche returns to Manhattan! As the epicenter of culture, politics and economics of the nation, LPAC is hosting regular Town Hall events every Saturday in Manhattan featuring a live Q&A session with Mr. LaRouche.  This week: with the House of Windsor on its way out, which means the end of Wall Street and also the Obama Administration, the real key to victory is putting the last century of Mathematics behind us, and defining an institution of economy based on the science of human economy. Physical principles, not mathematical or financial principles, determine the present and future.


DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome you to our ongoing Manhattan Project Dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. The recent NASA New Horizons mission to Plato — excuse me!  — Pluto has once again reminded us of what LaRouche often says, which is that it is impossible to understand what's going on on our planet, or in our Solar System, unless you have an understanding, or at least begin to try to discover,  how our Galaxy works. And that includes understanding anything about political life.

What we're going to do is we're going to get a statement, an opening statement, from Lyn, and then it will be followed immediately by our questions.  And I know some people are here for the first time, so what we are going to do is to invite you to ask questions, and we'll go right to that after our opening statement. So, Lyn?

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, good afternoon. I'm still alive, which, I suppose, at my age is always news, as opposed to other options.

We're in a very serious situation. We're on the threatened edge of a thermonuclear war. We don't know exactly when that thermonuclear war will break out, but we do have a sense that it's fairly soon, unless certain developments occur, including those which are very important in terms of the United States itself, which now faces the question of what is going to be the termination of the current President of the United States, who must be withdrawn from his office, if we are to escape his role, and that of the British Empire, as a threat for global thermonuclear warfare.

And thermonuclear warfare today, in today's circumstances, means that the war is launched, in this case, from probably President Obama. And the war would be unfolded very rapidly from that point on. At that point, in the present plan of things, Russia would be ready to react the minute that a U.S. thermonuclear war attack had been launched. It would be in less than minutes. And at that point, therefore, there would be very few living persons on this planet.

So, the mission now is to take the steps, especially inside the United States itself, to bring Obama out of power, and to bring in forces which are now trying to build themselves, and express themselves, in the course of the oncoming election process.  And we hope that our role in the United States, in conjunction with other parts of the planet, will ensure that that thermonuclear war, which would be a real extinction war, should not happen. And therefore that means that political measures have to be taken, especially inside the United States, especially inside the United States, to ensure that Obama, or Obama's policy of his incumbency, not continue to be the ruling force inside the United States. Because that—what Obama represents—is, above all else, the immediate source of a threatened thermonuclear war, or whatever might be his successor.

So that's the real issue. We now have to consider the considerations which we, in the United States, and elsewhere, must take into account to prevent what has been heretofore the British Monarchy's, and Obama's, intention toward a general war, launched against Russia, from the United States. And so everything really centers on that issue. So, let's discuss such matters.

SPEED: Okay, very good. We have our first question.

Q: Hello, Lyndon. I am Kay S—. I am S— D— protégé, okay? I do have a question, but first I want to make a statement about what I believe. It is my opinion that we never won the Revolutionary War. It's true that we won the military part, and it's true that the British recognized that they could not beat us militarily, but they did set up a subtle political strategy that they have  taken control over this country in many different ways, very quietly. And they are still here. If, not "if" — but when the House of Windsor falls, and you say that Obama will go down too, there's still going to be a lot of their strategy remaining in the country, and how do you see it, the country being evolved into what we were meant to be?

LAROUCHE: Well, I have a very definite conception of what this is, and it comes from—you know, I'm sort of an antiquated creature right now, but I have a lot of experience as a result of being an antiquated creature, and I'm still alive and active, and I have  a lot of knowledge about these matters. Which is one of the benefits of the side of old age, in my case.

We do have the option, if we can move the political processes within the United States, on the one side, in the right way, and if we can induce the British Empire as such, to disintegrate itself. Now these possibilities are realistic, and rather immediate. The British Monarchy, the British Empire thus, therefore, is in the process of collapsing, of disintegrating, and that would be a very, very good thing. Unfortunately, most of Europe is under the influence of what has been the British Empire. There is practically no nation in Southern and Western Europe which is not polluted with the effects of the British Empire's influence over the European nations in particular. This is not quite the same thing with Russia. Russia has a somewhat better situation, because of its connection with China, and with India, and with other countries. And also some nations in South America, and a couple of nations in the southern part of the Mediterranean.

These things are possible, they're good possibilities, but we must actually create both a new government in the United States, to get rid of the Obama Administration, and the Bush tradition as such. We must quickly organize around Glass-Steagall, as a crucial issue. In other words, Glass-Steagall is important not just as some kind of gimmick, but it's important because of what it has done, how Glass-Steagall was established by President Franklin Roosevelt. Without Franklin Roosevelt's forecasting, we probably would not have made it as a nation this far.

So, the important thing is, we must have —if we want to be practical—we must have an approach by the forces in the United States, which are not those of the Bush family, and not those of Obama, and not those of any of the supporters of Bush or Obama, or allies of Bush and Obama. That's the precondition. If we do that, inside the United States, because the British Monarchy is now in the process of disintegrating, and that is a very good thing—to get rid of the British Monarchy.

Because the British Monarchy is actually a Nazi operation, or became known as a Nazi operation during the course of the 20th century. That's very clearly so. It launched World War I and World War II, and also went on before World War I, in that decade. So the time has come that we in the United States, with those with whom we can share a common intention for the benefit of mankind, for the economic development of the conditions of life of the human being, the progress of humanity to meet the new challenges which are to be met in what's confronting us now, with what's recently happened in the northern part of our territory, and in terms of the Galaxy.

We're now at a point where we must organize ourselves, throughout a new system of global governmental action and correction. We must have that, and I think we can do that. I think it's possible. I think the right ideas are shaping into performance now, the possibility. And I've spent most of my life on this subject, and I'm kind of an old geezer right now, but I'm still lively, and I'm still doing things, and I will do things. But I think we have to have a perspective among our citizens, in particular, and among appropriate selected leaders of our system of government inside the United States, in particular. That is what is required.

We're on the very edge of a threatened extinction, or virtual extinction, of the human species. And we have to be serious about this. And we have to build up, as I would emphasize, in the area of Manhattan. Because Manhattan is the last surviving area with any kind of authority in terms of our tradition—say, the tradition of Alexander Hamilton. And today, despite all the corruption which exists in Manhattan, among the institutions there, the fact of the matter—this is a last bastion of defense of what the United States has represented since Alexander Hamilton did his job.

Q: The thing that needs to be taken care of is the education. The education brainwashed the children that were in the schools. I could see it in one of my sons in particular. He went to a prestigious high school, and came out completely brainwashed. Academically, it was a wonderful education. It seems to me that would be one of the first places that has to be changed. I'm sure many others as well.

LAROUCHE: I think I would say that Manhattan, despite the problems in Manhattan—I'm quite aware of them; I once lived for some time in Manhattan and had more or less important positions during that process—so I would say, yes. That Manhattan as such contains within it, a tradition of the type which is needed right now. There are some people, members of the Congress, and especially the Senate, and some candidates for Presidential or related nomination, who are valuable. But we need to get rid of the Bush-Obama legacy in the United States; because that's the particular disease.  Bush-Obama legacy.  If we do that, we get rid of some of that stuff, and institute Glass-Steagall as a law immediately, then Glass-Steagall is the only thing now which can create stability for the United States.  You have to know that in Britain, for example, in most of Europe, and throughout the United States, Glass-Steagall is indispensable for recreating the economy.  And the economy is not just an abstract thing; the economy is a process of progressive development of the economic powers of the citizen, their intellectual development, and their powers of new skills at a higher level appropriate to dealing with the great crises which are occurring throughout the planet. Because we do have crises throughout the planet right now; most of it at least.  We have some good developments in South America — parts of South America.  We have good developments in China; excellent developments in China.  We have a new renaissance of India; we have a renaissance in Russia.  And we have the possibility of surviving a re-borning of some of the nations of Europe; and so forth and so on.

So, we have the options; but we need the leadership.  And my problem has always been to get the economy organized on the basis of a principle which I know very well; which I used to know from experience.  But I haven't been too familiar with that stuff since the Bush family came into power, during the course of that period of life.

Q: [followup] I grew up under Glass-Steagall and I truly appreciate its value.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Certainly.

Q:  Hi Lyn, it's A— from New York.  On the Thursday call [Fireside Chat], your latest statement on Waking Up the Sleepwalkers was read, and I've read it a couple of times since. And I'm forwarding it and trying to now have all my contacts read this, because I believe it to be a mirror; very reflective of, first of all, how I used to think and approach things.  So, it was — I laughed a lot throughout, because it was reflective. But I really that that does capture what many otherwise good people and honest people find themselves in; and the type of habits that need to broken in the thinking of the individual. I'm not going to read the paper, but that people have too many facts and fraudulent information that clutters up their attention.  So, the reality of the impending threat of something like thermonuclear war, there's so much clutter there, that besides fear, it's hard for them to actually see this.  And now, with the Brits on the way out; this is something none of us have ever experienced before.  How do I now turn to those contacts that I wish to become more active, and show them this is indeed what you're forecasting; and how do we move to bring about that happy occasion?

LAROUCHE:  Well, first of all, you have to take into account a few facts; facts which are unfortunately rather rarely known. Now, what's happened is this:  There was a great crisis toward the end of the 19th Century; that is, before the 20th Century and now the 21st Century.  But in that period, which was a decade after Bismarck was junked by the influence of the British Empire, and when Bismarck was thrown out of office, we had the birth of a series of assassinations.  Like the assassination of the President of France at the beginning of the 1890s.  So, at that point, we came into a period of orchestrated war; because Bismarck was no longer in power.  And the fact that Bismarck was kicked out of power under the orders of the British monarchy, and by a new chief of the government of a British-supplied ruler of Germany, meant war; and a general war began.  It began in France against the President of France.  It began in other places; wars, medium-scale wars, larger wars increasing going into the beginning of the 20th Century.  And since the 20th Century, of course, you had the preconditions of World War I, so-called; and from there, we went to World War II.  And in this process, the planet went through a moral degeneration, which came in the late 1890s.  And this thing caused a shift in policy in the modern civilization which went against sanity as such.  Warfare, yes.

We had a revival of the idea of economy under President Franklin Roosevelt, with his less than four full terms of office. He was a founder who saved us during that interval of the early part of the 20th Century.  Now in that process, what was introduced was called economy; and economy was simply a racket. And therefore, what you had is, you had a continuing decline in the productive powers of labor; that is, the mental productive powers of labor have been running down at a generally accelerating rate over the course since Roosevelt's Presidency. But then over the course of the 20th Century, and now the real collapse in this present century.

What has happened is, the demoralization of the economy; the degeneration of the intellectual life of the citizens of the United States in particular.  Because you have on the one hand, you have the Wall Street crowd; who are actually a pack of thieves.  They always were a pack of thieves; and they often turn out to be Republicans, which is not a very good thing to happen to us as a nation.  So, with the problem we have, is that there's still support for a financial system of the type which now exists in the United States.  We have to eliminate the policies of economy which have predominated over the course of the 20th Century, and now into the 21st Century.  What that means is, instead of relying on the system of money — money as such; that money as such is not a legitimate basis for economy.  The basis lies in the collective powers and creative powers of the citizens of the world; the citizens of our own nation in particular.  We are now destroying the minds of our people.  We are destroying our youth systematically in the recent succession of terms of birth.  We're declining; every generation is poorer and more stupid and more corrupt than the previous one.  So, this is what we're up against.  We need a transformation in the policy of our government and other governments; the nations of the planet, the leading nations of the planet.  We have to go back away from the idea of the practical idea, with business as usual.  And we have to go back to a science driver program; that is, the idea that every person should be increasing their productive powers of labor, mentally, throughout the course of life up to the point of the end of their lifespan.  But each generation must be superior in its level of productive achievement, one after the other.  And that's the only solution.

So therefore, if you don't get rid of Wall Street, and you don't restore Glass-Steagall as a protection against Wall Street; then the fate of the United States is a horrible one.  And we're on the edge now, that we must recognize that the destructive force of Wall Street — which should never have existed — must be eliminated.  And we must go back to a principle of physical productivity, not financial productivity.  Productive, actually physical productive things; the increase of the powers of labor, the increase of the mental powers of labor, the fruits of such labor.  These are the instruments which must be restored to action if there's going to be any moral encouragement for survival of the United States in particular, but also for many other nations and the world as a whole.  That's the situation.

Q:  Good afternoon, Lyn.  I did want to let people here in the meeting and also in the audience know that as the result that we've done over the past few years around Glass-Steagall, particularly getting the introduction of New Jersey Senate and Assembly resolutions put forward, one of the co-signers to that legislation on becoming a member of the Congress, has just within the past few days, signed on to the Glass-Steagall legislation in Washington.  In fact, I've been in the last few days meeting with a number of the Assembly and Senate representatives there still.

One of the things I do there, because I come from a part of New Jersey next to Atlantic County, which has the worst mortgage foreclosure rate of any county in the country.  And normally on a Monday, when they put out in the paper those notices, it runs anywhere from 10 to [audio break] pages of sheriffs' sales.

Now, in the process of that, because it's also on the same page, I happened to notice the passing of a former member, person that lived and was brought up in Philadelphia.  And what brought it to my attention was the unique name that she had — Nira.  And on reading this short notice of her passing, it turns out that her parents living in Philadelphia had thought it so memorable of Franklin Roosevelt that they gave their daughter the name of the National Industrial Recovery Act — NIRA.

Now, the other thing about that, is clearly what had occurred during that beginning of the Roosevelt Administration, was clearly a joyful period in American history.  That people were getting relief.  And it's also of note that it was Philadelphia, where when J.P. Morgan and others had attempted the coup against the Roosevelt Administration, the newspapers in that area that it published the behind the scenes goings on of J.P. Morgan and others that it attempted to bring down the Roosevelt Administration.  And I think we see the same kind of thing now going on with the exposure of the Royal Family and all of the tentacles that they had put out throughout Europe and elsewhere, including here in the United States with the Bush family, that seems to be of extreme significance now, that they are directly both looking at that Roosevelt means of going after and creating a new  world climate but [audio loss] that's the situation right now.  And I'd just like your thoughts on that.

LAROUCHE:  OK, the point is, we have to look at the focal point, of the idea of money as such, which is really a curse, because, when we measure this in monetary terms, you are acting like an animal, not a human being.  The animal has no ability to create creativity in the sense that the human species has a natural ability to advance the productive powers of labor.  By the productive powers of labor you mean the ability of one generation to be smarter in practice than the previous generation, which means new technologies—not just technologies, but new discoveries of universal physical principle.

And we're talking about something which happened back during the Renaissance period, where Nicolas of Cusa was a leading figure among others, and those  who followed him, and what the great Renaissance that occurred in  that time.  Now that was crushed in the succeeding century, in the beginning of the new century.  It was done deliberately.  And even Christianity as a belief was morally destroyed during that century.  Then Kepler came along, and Kepler discovered the Solar System.  He proved the principle of the existence of a Solar System.  Then he had a follower, Leibniz.  And Leibniz was the man of a century, a literal century, who created the greatest rates of progress of mankind, in that part of the world, at that time and later.

What is important is the increase of the productive powers of mankind, that is, the creative powers.  I mean, for example, scientific creativity, new principles.  All right, we went to Kepler; Kepler was the person who defined the meaning of Solar System.  Now we have the Galactic System.  The Galactic System—our supply of water on Earth depends not on Earth as such.  Yes the water on Earth is very important to us. But! The real source of the power to increase the power of mankind in the Solar System and beyond lies, in that kind of technology and that kind of progress—Galactic principles, following that.

So therefore, we don't do things like mathematics. Mathematics is crap, inherently,  because it's stagnant; it's inherently stagnant.  The idea that you have practical mathematical methods for progress—that is really a myth.  And you see what the result is.  The result is in the course of the 20th century since Franklin Roosevelt, the general trend in the conditions of life in the United States is downward.  Oh, there's some nice things happened, but it's downward.  The educational system—downward.  The young people entering schools are dumber than their predecessors.  And that's the policy.

So trying to be practical in these matters is stupid.  It is the development of principles of physical science and what that means—discoveries of principle—not practical stuff.  The practical people are useless people.  There are reasons for that. What you need is the end of practical production.  And high-technology progress, new conceptions of the principles of the universe, these are the things on which the progress of mankind has always depended.  And beginning with the end of the 19th century, in the United States and in Europe, there has been a rather consistent but irregular decline of the mental powers of the members of society, in general.  There are exceptions, but in general so forth.  China's coming back; India will come back. Nations of South America will improve things if they don't get interference with that.

But the problem is the people of the United States have been conditioned to accept, successive steps of degeneration in the practical application and discovery of the scientific principles on which the continued existence of mankind as a successful species depends.  And that's what the problem is.  So we need to have a driver program in terms of science—real science, not mathematical science, but real science, the discovery of principles which no mathematician heretofore was ever capable of discovering.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to ask a question in regard to some of the rumors that I've heard from military intelligence sources, very legitimate threat they believe to the U.S. in this coming September time period of a false flag operation, and I want to ask if that would be consistent with your concern toward the escalation of a thermonuclear war or World War III?  And if that is the situation, how, for example, the science-driven initiatives you're speaking of, such as fission and fusion power could be used to spearhead a course a way from this war and financial collapse?

LAROUCHE:  We're now occupying the month of July, going toward August.  We're having several developments.  On the one hand, we're having a decline of everything, in terms of the United States and in terms of most of Western Europe.  The conditions in Europe in general and in North Africa are terrible, and getting worse all the time.  The situation in the trans-Atlantic region is bad enough, but the Mediterranean region, the Mediterranean war, is an absolute disaster.

Now Russia is stabilizing itself, successfully and has a very significant military capability, which it is not going to use to launch a war.  But the war was likely to come from two sources—the British Empire sources and those of the United States, under the present government, under the Bush administrations and under the Obama administration.  The Obama administration now is the greatest source of threat to the existence of the human species on the planet right now, unless that's dumped.  That's what they're headed for.

The British Empire, which has been the source of this evil, is now crumbling, in the sense that there is a revolt against the British Royal Family, and depth of that revolt goes back to a couple of centuries, since the evil fully dominated the degeneration of civilization.

So what is required, therefore, is to get rid of the problem.  And the problem is largely, in the United States, is Wall Street.  And one of the key problems has been, is that Wall Street dominates the Senate, and corrupts the House as well.  So the direction is degeneration.  The basis for this policy of degeneration is using money per se as the standard rather than productivity, that is, actual physically efficient productivity, in the powers of mankind's labor, the improvement of mankind's power of labor.  So we're operating on the wrong policy, especially in the 20th century, especially since the end of the '90s in the 20th century.

So the question is, what are we going to do about it?  Well, the first thing is, you've got to get rid of Wall Street  Now that's a good thing to do right away.  I don't care what happens, Wall Street should be shut down and the monetarism should cease to be the standard for measure of economic performance.

What happens is the Wall Street effect is it reduces the standard of productivity and life of the average citizen.  They get lower and lower wages, lower and lower conditions of health care, and life in general, and intelligence.  Look, the educational system of the United States has been degenerating essentially ever since the death of Franklin Roosevelt.  There were some good Presidents who did some good things, but Wall Street and certain institutions of Wall Street have prevented that.  The corruption and decay, the decadence of the United States since the end of Roosevelt's administration is astonishing!  It's massive!  The educational system is massively corrupted.  The older the person is the more intelligent they are.  Why?  Because they remember something that the next generation never had a chance to know.

And people are getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. They're now being killed.  The policy of the British Empire was to reduce the human population, as now the policy there is to reduce the population in total, from 7 billion people as allowed, to 1 billion people. Genocide.  And we have a pope, a new Pope, who's controlled by the British Empire, and they've set forth a policy, imposed upon that Pope, to reduce the population of the planet by that degree.  Mass murder.

So therefore, unless we understand that the idea of a monetarist system, and the idea of practical reduction of the level of standard of life of people, as long as that is not removed and reversed, the prospects for mankind are virtually nil, and that has to be changed.

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, how are you today?

LAROUCHE: I'm fine.  I'm old, but I'm fine.

Q: OK. I must say the Royal Family has been hiding in plain sight for a very long time.  Because when I was growing up in the Caribbean, which was part of the colonial system, they taught us about their history, and we go back to the Tudors and Stuarts , the War of the Roses, and I think if America was teaching this type of history, and they went into world geography, America would have been equipped to handle the British Empire now. I think the lack of knowledge has created a problem for America now, because education was more into the color of the skin rather than educating everyone.

I was fortunate enough to get a good education in the Caribbean, and sometimes when I told people certain things, they would say, "Oh, you think you're all that." But it wasn't that, it's the fact that we were taught merely to spy on other people. But, I'm telling you,  the time has come now for the world to understand that the British Empire has been the type of country that they come with diplomacy in the front, and they stir up some very deep trouble in the back. Diplomacy in the front. Let the Queen come and greet you, but you know she has her spies looking out to do a lot of stuff to America.

Now I must say one other thing. If a lot of those politicians were a little more educated, in the real things they were supposed to know, America would not have been in the position it is in now.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, it's true; but the point is, go back to the 1890s. The 1890s was the turning point down, in the United States. Hm.  had a President who was killed; and we had this clown, who served two terms as a clown, in the course of the 20th century.

The 20th century, on the American books, has been the death knell of progress in the United States up to the present time. Now Roosevelt did some good things, and some other people as Presidents tried to do some good things, but it's amazing, that the best presidents we ever had tend to be assassinated, under British orders.

So the problem is that we have been living in a world of folly, of believing in the dollar, in monetary values, instead of the creative, productive values. Remember, the characterization of the development of the United States, especially in the course of the 19th century, had been, despite all evils, and there were many evils, up until the point particularly of Franklin Roosevelt, but the problem is that we don't have a monetary system, shall we say, or an economic system, which is of that of the 20th century. The 20th century has been one big farce, for most of Europe, and for the United States. That is, the standard of productivity, per capita, in the population has been in decline. You can see it in terms of scientific development, people who were still skilled in scientific practice.

There's only one man in the 20th century who really understood the principle of science.  And he was pushed aside.

Now some of these people were very practical people,  I knew some of them, and they were very practical but they were  also good, but they didn't get the idea of what real human progress is. They were too much operating based on mathematics; and the best thing you can do with mathematics, is sort of burn the books, [laughs] and get back to some principled standards which are human physical standards. Not mathematical standards, human, standards.  The increase of the productive powers of labor as represented by the applications of physical principles of development, which can be applied by the practice of human beings.

And that's where the problem lies. We have to say, "Now, we have a program." China is moving, with great speed, to progress. India, is kind of mobilizing itself, in kind of a selfish way, but it's done, well, in order to get the increase in the productive powers of labor in India. We have an improvement in Egypt, a significant improvement in Egypt, under difficulties, and so forth, and things like that. South American nations are trying to mobilize themselves to move in the direction of progress. Most of these nations do not understand the scientific principle; but they understand the effect of the practice of science when it works. So what we need to do is we need a true science-driver outlook.  And that means, what do I mean?  I mean things like Kepler. Kepler discovered the Solar System, defined it. And that was a great thing. Nicholas of Cusa had earlier made a great contribution to the principles of scientific progress, as he represented them. But then, boom!  We had great contributors, who were the founders of our republic; but since that time, there's been a general tendency toward what became the 20th century.  And the 20th century has been the death knell of most of civilization.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, I'm R— from Bergen County. I was very interested in the Sleepwalkers article I read yesterday, in particular there's a paragraph, if I can quote, "People believe, first of all, in statistics. These are forces of demoralization and degeneration which have come in since 1890." And of course, you've been talking about this. They don't see the future.

So, I mean,  if you look at statistics, you can say that a lot of people look at data, and they set up a trend, and they look at the trend, and they say "Well, the trend was this yesterday, therefore it's going to be the same today, nothing will change."  And, personally I view that as being on what I would call a regression line, that's headed towards Hell, because unless they jump off that, this whole thing is going to go to Hell.

But on the monetary system, I've noticed some figures that $3 trillion are now in hedge funds. And if you read the Wall Street Journal or other papers and periodicals, you catch the drift of the type of activity that hedge funds are involved in today, and it all involves statistical techniques of playing games with trading patterns and so forth; it's all based on statistics. Some of the most profitable hedge fund strategies are in something called quantitative trading, where one of the fund managers pays himself something like $2 billion a year, [LaRouche laughs] at Renaissance Capital. And I read an article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago where, this is based on a technique called "signal processing." These are guys who came out of trying to detect signals from noise, so they view stock prices as a jumbled up statistical mess and they try to glean where some of the patterns are going to be in the next two seconds.  Of course they're not taxed, there's no kind of tax on this type of activity, and so they go crazy with it and they supposedly make money.

So the value you're talking about, the monetary value, everybody focused on money, you could have the mindset of "why produce anything?" If our society is based solely on green paper and nothing else, and all that matters is that you have these pieces of green paper, what's the shortest route to green paper? Printing it! Printing green paper! And, you know, completely forget about productivity. There's no point in productivity in a system based on that.

Anyway, let me get back to what I wanted to ask you.  I know you're a big fan of Riemann, and Riemann was obviously a great person, a great scientist.  And I've also noticed that, it also seems like he wrote a number of papers highly oriented towards physics, that don't seem to have been translated from German, and are not contained in his collected works;  but, using Riemann as an example, how do you feel that Riemann personifies, or represents, or characterizes the scientific method?

LAROUCHE:  Well, Riemann had two phases of his career, as a leading scientist. One was the first one, which was occupied attention of Germany, in particular.  And there he was of course a part of the German physical, economic — also economic — conceptions; and you can read, by reading his most famous work, one volume, you can get a very good description of understanding what was unique  about his contribution beyond what his immediate associates had been.

Then, but he had a second term: He became very ill, with a common, systemic disease, and he was in the process of approaching death from that disease. He moved his habitat from Germany, the German territory,  where the weather was not favorable to a person with his diseases, and he moved together with some friends he had met in Germany, who came from Italy, and these people were the leaders of the great movement in Italy for science.  And he lived through that process, he was dying, of course, of the disease which hit him.

But I had some lucky deals in terms of what I was doing in terms of some scientific work in my position under President Reagan, and with other scientists who were involved in that.  So we were working on the question of science, scientific progress as such, not the so-called mathematical science, but physical science.

And so that created the great Italian scientific work, which Mussolini didn't do any good for, shall we say, and Italy decayed.  But Italy had a great culture in terms of musicians, the musical culture, and that kept the population going pretty well, despite the things that happened.

But Riemann was essentially the founder of a completely new conception of physical scientific principle; and he expressed that most notably, in the most advanced terms of reference, during his work in Italy. He would go to Italy during every winter, to get away from the cold in Germany; and eventually he died.  But some of the contributions of the scientists, who came out of his training was one of the greatest movements in progress.

So, despite the fact that he died, what you had in the last decade of that century, were people, geniuses of the first order. But at the end of that century, political considerations caused a suppression of actual, physical, scientific progress. And the degeneration of science began with people like Bertrand Russell, and the followers of Bertrand Russell which dominated the 20th century; even more, worse, the present century in progress. That has been the disease. We have to go back to getting away from mathematical physics, into physical physics.

[Start segment 5 to end]

Q:  Hey, Lyn.  Longtime no see.  I'm a little bit thinner now.  I've joined the organization in 2006 when there was a youth movement, and I'm old now.  And I've developed some good habits over that period of time, till now, and I've developed some bad habits.  And I want to point out one bad habit, and ask you a question. This bad habit is, I tend to let others stand in front of me to say what has to be said, and with that being said, I wanted to ask you, where do you locate your sense of leadership? Or where does one locate their sense of leadership?  If that makes sense.

LAROUCHE:  Essentially you have to start from the standpoint, that our generation is pretty much stupefied, from the 20th century and beyond:  stupefied. The school system, based on mathematics.  Mathematics became a cult, from the beginning of the 20th century.  Mathematical education has been a corrupting cult.

Whereas scientific terms, that is, the discovery of physical principles which were not based on any mathematical calculation; mathematical calculations may have come as a result of those discoveries, but mathematical calculations had not created that. Only ancient science, corrupt ancient science believed in mathematics, as a physical principle.

The question is, scientific creativity, the discovery of principles, physical principles, not mathematical principles, is the basis for progress.  And in short that's it.  We have destroyed the development of the mental powers of creativity of our citizens, and substituted instead mathematics; and mathematics is always decadent.

Q: Good afternoon, my name's Jim D—; I'm from the once-great Constitution state of Connecticut.  Recently you've talked frequently of the deterioration of science, and more specifically how there's been no great scientists in the last, almost hundred years.  I was watching the webcast last night with Ben Deniston, and I was very intrigued by the pictures of Pluto, and especially the heart-shaped feature that the New Horizons spacecraft showed pictures of, and my initial reaction was like, "Well, that looks like ice."  And I said, "Gee, you'd think our scientists would know of there was water on Pluto, but again maybe the people at NASA are like Jerry Brown, and why in the world would you look for water on Pluto?" But evidently it is ice.

But this seems to be a pattern, that's reiterated all the time, where our so-called scientific experts, whenever they're presented with new evidence, are always surprised by what they've found, which means that maybe their science is based on faulty models and assumptions.

Now, maybe you wonder if maybe Albert Einstein would have been able to predict something like what they found, or at least he'd be able to explain why it was like that.  Late in the 19th century and early 20th century, both Albert Einstein and Nicola Tesla moved to the United States to practice their science, and in fact Nicola Tesla moved to Manhattan itself.  I just wondered — I'll maybe just ask my question, which is where do you think the next great scientist will come from?  Do you think, like Tesla and Einstein, they'll maybe move from eastern Europe to the United States, or maybe they're going to come from somewhere and move to  — I dunno, say, China?

LAROUCHE:  Well, there are several things on this.  First of all you have a great Renaissance, in terms of progress, practical progress, in the case of China right now.  You have an intention in certain nations in South America to undertake a genuine scientific program.  India will, because India of course, was one of the first nations to be involved and committed to, nuclear power.  As a matter of fact, I prophesied that would happen, because of what I knew from my friends in India at that time.

But the flux of success and failure in India was such an up and down, with various kinds of conditions and external conditions influenced them and so forth and so on, and other things.  But in general, what we have now, is India, while it's sort of independent of China, in terms of its way of looking at things; they're just taking an Indian view as such, which is not absolutely bad by any means, but it's necessary in point of fact. But China is also more significantly effective in this respect.

So that, we do have a possibility, and the possibility depends on shutting down Wall Street and going to Glass-Steagall. Because if you go to Glass-Steagall and look at it in a realistic term, it's always based on scientific practice.  And what it's based on, on trying to improve scientific practice by introducing original scientific contributions, to practice.  And that is what we must do.

I don't think there should be any difficulty in doing that, in fact, that is, in principle.  I think that if we have Obama out of office, , get rid of the Bushes — or shall we say, "Burn the Bushes"?  Moses might have like that; burn the Bushes, get rid of what they represent.  Get 'em out of our system!  And get mathematics as such out of our system.  Because mathematics is not inherently productive.  That's a mistake to assume it is. Complicated mathematics is not necessarily an improvement in anything.

What's important is physical experimental development, of root principles, which had no name.  They had no name!  Nobody knew about them.  They weren't born of somebody; they were born like spontaneous generation or something.  And these discoveries, of practice, which occurred in various parts of the world, and tend to develop now;  China is going to do things.

What's China's doing?  The back side of the Moon, for China, they're active there!  And you're going to find that the Galactic System, is now on the eyes of every good, competent scientific mind, presently.  We understand that the Solar System is not the nth value in our system.  The Galactic System is superior.  We aren't doing much about that; we're studying it, and this little unique thing that we discovered, and renamed as Pluto again, is also a unresolved question, but it's a very startling question, and very amusing at the same time.

So it's actual scientific practice, the discovery of new principles, but not the discovery of new mathematical formulas.  New principles, not mathematical formulas, and that's what the issue is, and that's what the practice is.  And that's what we want to do with our young people:  We want to create an educational system, which is based on physical science, not mathematics.

Q:  I was provoked by your discussion last week, and just have a question, because we're obviously faced with an incredibly revolutionary moment.  And although people are participating in it, I think it's still a big question in their mind, as to how you actually achieve victory.  So, my question is about these revolutionary moments as such?  Because it seems like time is going, society is going according to trends, or principles, or ideas, and then all of a sudden there's a big change; it's almost like of a magical nature.  So yeah, my question is what, then, is it?  What creates that potential, for a system overhaul, and what is the substance then of these revolutionary moments?

LAROUCHE:  Well, you are addressing me directly, aren't you? [laughs]  The point is, that we have to develop physical revolutionary progress, not so-called scientific progress in the deductive sense.  We have to discover new principles, which means we have to go to various parts of space and discover what's going on out there.  And we find out that these kinds of changes, physical changes, not mathematical ones, physical principle changes which are progressive, or which can show themselves to be progressive; and that's what the whole thing is, has to be about.

We have to change the thing.  Look our educational system, a university educational system is largely, increasingly disastrous, because there's so much on mathematics that they have no competence and no interest in science — that is in physical science, real science.  And that's what the problem has been.

And what we're doing now, what you're doing right now in assembling in this meeting which is now ongoing, is exactly that, because that's what I'm doing with you!  I'm trying to create an institution and support the creation of an institution, inside Manhattan, itself, and not exclusively inside Manhattan as such, but there, right now; and we want to create an institution, which thinks, an institution which actually thinks.  It doesn't copy things, it's not a Wall Street institution, but creating solutions which are physical solutions, not mathematical ones, but physical ones, for the improvement of the productive powers of labor of mankind.  Or, for health care —  you know, science for health care, for example, directly applied as medicine, to the scientific requirements of health care.  To promoting longevity, of useful people, in particular.  Of having more children, who are better educated, better developed.

Not on the basis of mathematics, but on the basis of discoveries of physical principles, not mathematical ones as such.  Mathematical functions are really tertiary matters; they may be useful, but only in a tertiary way, not a direct way.  And that's the way to look at it.

Q:  Hi Mr. LaRouche.  My name is Eugene B—, and I live in the Bronx, New York City.  I would like to ask you, how would you define marriage?  Is it a love contract between a man and a woman, the traditional method of defining it?  Or can it be a love contract with someone that you love:  It could be gay, like a man with another man, and a woman with another woman.

And I would also like to ask you, should we give mathematics no credit at all?  After all, how did NASA go to Pluto, or land the rover on Mars, if mathematics would not have been used? Don't we need scientists, great engineers, that operated on mathematical principles of engineering, shouldn't we give arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and calculus the credit that it deserves? After all, how could you do physical science, like in physics, for example, without using mathematical principles? Doesn't mathematics get some credit in the world in the universe? That's my question to you.

LAROUCHE:  I would say, mathematics per se is of very limited value, if at all. And the so-called  practical values are not solutions at all.  They usually have been failures.  What's important is the great principles of creativity, discovery of new principles, which is not mathematical.

Now, mathematics does come into play, in one way, not as a positive factor, but as an attempt to interpret something that has been created.  In other word, mathematics is not the creative force, in any way, in terms of human development.  Mathematics is merely an estimate; it's like a chit, which shows things.

And if you go back to Nicholas of Cusa and people which associate with him, you see the history of that thing very clearly.  You also see the difference between Kepler and some of his opponents.

Now, mathematics has a very bad record in every respect for mankind.  It's not an instrument of progress.  It's simply an effect and you have to interpret the effect, and it's the interpretation of the effect of progress, which is unfortunately blamed on mathematics.  Mathematics is not that important.  It has no real authority in and of itself.

Science does have an authority in and of itself; not mathematics.  Mathematics is sometimes useful, but it's useful as an also-ran, not as the foundation of human progress.

SPEED:  Let me just say, we're sort of running up on some time constraints, so I'm just asking people to be efficient in asking their questions.

Q:  This is Mrs. George T—.  My question is about the U.S. dollar.  President Nixon removed the U.S. from the gold standard and the dollar has lost a great deal of its value since then, and there's lots of suspicious things going on in the U.S. gold market, precious metals market.  The U.S. dollar became the world's reserve currency after World War II.  Are they trying to collapse the U.S. dollar, and thus the world's economy, because it is the world's reserve currency?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the problem is the dollar has been pretty much a failure in performance of late.  It becomes less and less valuable, the more you get of it.  [laughs] So, I don't think we can start on that basis.  I think the point is, what is important is physical principles, not mathematical measurements; physical principles.

In other words, you have a substance, say it's a chemical substance, and you have an invention by a discovery of this added principle, which is, in one sense, either duplicates or replaces what man's progress has been.  You know, like there are lots of basic inventions, completely new inventions in the course of man's history, have been decisive.  But it's never mathematics as such.  It's never these kinds of calculations as such that determine that.

See, the problem is, that people think that there's some magic potency, that if you have a quality of this and a quantity of this potency, called money, or something tantamount to money, that you will have a miraculous benefit on your back.  Nonsense; absolute nonsense.  Mankind's progress is based on the human mind's ability, to make discoveries of physical principle: physical principle, not mathematical ones.

The judgment on mathematics is based on physics not the other way around.  Mathematics is merely a convenience, which is provided by science, or the principles of science, and things like that.

Q: [followup, mid-sentence]... how to deal, how to have commerce with each other, if they don't have money to trade with, to buy things, to buy food, to pay rent, to buy electricity? What will they do when the dollar is worth zero, and half the world is depending on it for their livelihood?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the problem is that the money, the dollar, is fake.  Isn't it?  Isn't the dollar ever less worthy?  Isn't it more costly than ever?  Don't you get less than ever, for the use of the dollar?  Isn't the increase in the circulation of dollars a cause of the impoverishment of the people?

Money per se has no intrinsic value.  It is the creative powers of mankind, the powers of invention, of principle, not money, which is the source of the growth of the actual wealth, of the human species.  This is not something which is the primary agent:  Mathematics is not the primary agent of science. Mathematics is a kind of shadow which may be cast by an agency of creativity.  But science per se is never based on mathematical considerations.  But rather on the effect of the increase of the mental powers of the population.

Q:  Good afternoon Mr. LaRouche.  My name is A— from Brooklyn.  Basically I have a question but formulated in two: The Obama administration in the past weeks basically, they made a deal with Iran.  This kind of deal set actually in the region, it's set for an imminent nuclear war.  So my thing is that I don't believe that Israel will wait on Iran, they will take proper action. That's the [inaudible 1.23.44] treason of the Obama administration.  I would like to know what's your take on it?

And the second thing is regarding Glass-Steagall:  all Congressmen, Democrats, Republicans, and with the exception of a few of them, actually, they committed also an act of treason.  So they made a deal with the banks, Chase Manhattan Bank, Citibank, and others; they refused to pass the Glass-Steagall knowing also that Obama is implicated in that. So my thing, is what do you think is to be done now, actually, because World War III is around the corner, the country is thoroughly bankrupt, the people have had enough?  What's the proper solution now?

LAROUCHE:  The proposition is a very practical one, which is one I'm very much involved in, as a commitment.  We want Glass-Steagall in.  Now, why do we want Glass-Steagall in for? Well, we want to bankrupt the people who shouldn't be getting money!  That is, the money support.  We want to get rid of the thieves, especially those of the Wall Street variety, who are actually worthless!  I mean, they are less than worthless, far less than worthless, so what do you want them for?

Why do you allow these bums into the Congress?  Why do you elect them to Congress? What do you want to do that for?  How stupid can you get? You want to put people whose beliefs rest on dollars, as such, mere dollars as such — how many dollars do they have, how many dollars do their local thief have?  This is nonsense!

What we need, is the productive powers of labor, not the money powers of labor!  The powers of labor are the ability of mankind, to predict and to create new powers of individual mankind; of the individual members of society, their productivity, their skills, their scientific skills essentially, or what should be properly estimated as scientific skills.  It is the inherent quality of scientific skills, properly applied, which is the basis for economy.  And wipe out all other interpretations, as Alexander Hamilton did, for example.  He dealt with the questions of banks, money, and also with physical economy; and it's the physical economy, as Hamilton understood it, which is the foundation of the proper understanding of the principles of the United States.

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  My name is Juan B— from the Bronx, New York.  I've up a few times to Albany and we spoke to some of the aides and some of the Reps.  And we noticed that those who studied finance were familiar with Glass-Steagall.  And I spoke with some of the people here the city, and although some of them are familiar with Glass-Steagall, they have a lot of facts, but they just don't believe that Glass-Steagall can be reinstated. They have a lot of knowledge but no faith that things can change.  What you have to say about that?

LAROUCHE:  I have to say, reverse that relationship. [laughs]  If they don't have any faith in Glass-Steagall, what are they living for?  Because what is Glass-Steagall? Glass-Steagall is a process, to limit the circulation of money, to things which are intrinsically useful as being essentially productive, either directly or indirectly.  Like health care, is not a direct solution, but it's a necessity in order to allow progress to occur, better conditions in life to occur.

That's it!  We need Glass-Steagall, as a matter of principle, not of opportunity.  It's intrinsic.  And what should be given value is that which is physically an improvement, in the conditions of life supplied to individual members of society, and in general.

Q:  Thank you.

Q:  I'm Rob, and I recently tried to purchase some property, and I found the regulations since Dodd-Frank, this is what everybody tells me, were so daunting and nearly impossible, I couldn't get the paperwork filed in time for all the deadlines they put on it, and of course, the deal fell through.  Now, was this done intentionally, to discourage people from homeownership?

LAROUCHE:  I think Dodd-Frank is an abortion which should never have been allowed.  I know one of the principals of Dodd-Frank, Dodd, and Frank, and those are pair of fakers who should never have been born. [laughter]

SPEED: This is going to have to be, I believe, our last question.  We're running up on time.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, thank you.  I agree with everything you're saying, and I understand the need for physical productivity.  But there's a situation in this country now where the American citizens are just completely fed up with the ineffectual people that are in Washington, right now. And so, although it's in theory it's great to say that we need to be physically productive, people want something to really sink their teeth into, and they really want to know how this thing is going to get implemented, when everyone in Washington is even — for instance, the Republicans:  they said if we have a Republican Senate and a Republican House, they'd be able to pass bills that the American people were passionate about. So we voted all the Republicans into the House and Senate, and nothing got passed that we were asking for!

So now we have Glass-Steagall that's been reintroduced, and so, how does it get passed, when the people in Washington, are tied into the banking system in the way it is now and are profiting from it?  The politicians, and the Senators in Washington now are only concerned, with maintaining their power and keeping their positions.  And their pockets full — exactly.

So how do we turn this thing around?  We — your solution is great!  I agree with it a hundred percent;  people need to be more physically productive, that's great!  But right now, there's a sense of expediency, and we feel that we need to know how are we going to get these politicians to really understand that our country is in jeopardy?

If we get a President like Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, or God forbid, Bernie Sanders, we might as well put the last nail in America's coffin.  Because we are really in dire straits now and there's a sense of revolution going on!  I mean, I'm online all the time!  I go on Facebook, I go on different sites, I listen to conservative radio.  I'm conservative, I have no use for the liberals — I'm sorry to say it, I hope I'm not offending anyone here, [LaRouche laughs] but [crosstalk] they've destroyed this country!  They've degenerated it to the point that it's at now.

In my neighborhood, there was a woman walking topless down the street a couple of weeks ago, and she felt that she had the right, because  men can walk around with no shirts; I mean this is what this world has come to now!  [laughter]  I mean —

Again, I respect you, I respect your ideas, and everything you're saying, but  — and you keep repeating it, and I understand that there's a real importance there and a desire; America has no longer has anything, no really great achievements to be proud of.  Because this President especially, has really — I mean, Common Core, there was a small window of opportunity in 2013, and I was not working for quite some time; I had been laid off, and diligently seeking work.  I wasn't event getting opportunities to go on interviews, which never happened to me in my lifetime, but that was just part of the whole thing.  But, so I was online all the time, and I was seeing all these people just calling out for people to oppose Common Core before it was really implemented fully in 2014, [interruption] who really have a desire to do anything about it.  And now everyone's complaining that the educational system is destroyed.

So what I'm asking you is, how are we going to get people in Washington, to really focus, and put through legislation, like Glass-Steagall, to really turn the country around?

LAROUCHE:  Actually, the position right now is a little more optimistic than it has been for a very long time.  We have some candidates for President, two of them at least, so far,  — not Hillary, by the way; she is a real failure when it comes to anything like that.  She's absolutely opposed to Glass-Steagall.

But the point is, we have a couple of Presidential candidates, one of whom is more outstanding than the other or others, who actually could be the choice for leadership of the next Presidency.  Now, if that were to occur, and I believe it may occur, and I'm certainly in support of its occurring, so far, that we do have on hand, the preconditions for dumping Obama, President Obama, and that's a very specific thing.

Now, if you get rid of Obama, Obama is actually an agent of the British interests.  That's what he is.  He was created by London, by the British Empire.  He was stuck in there; and you had Hillary Clinton was trying to run for President, and the British Empire moved in, with agents inside the United States and so forth, who worked with the British, closely, as in California. There was a figure in California which was imported from the British circles in Europe and brought into Hollywood; and he became a leading figure there, for a period.  And he produced all kinds of things, dirty sex operations, and everything else like that; so we had a factor of corruption, serious corruption.

The Bush family has been a family from its beginning; I'm talking about first of all, Prescott Bush, who was actually a pro-Hitler prototype!  But all the other Bushes that followed from him were kind of stupid. Prescott Bush was clever, a clever thief, a clever everything.  But the Bushes otherwise, who got into the Presidency were all characteristically stupid jerks, to use the right terminology.

But they were useful, for whom?  For Wall Street!  You put dirty jerks, like the Bushes into the Presidency, what're you going to get?  Then they ran out of Bushes.  So they got Obama. And Obama's a British agent, pure and simple.  Look at the record:  The minute he got elected, what did he do?  He was the Queen's own maid, or something; he still is!  He's a creep, an evil creep!  He should never have been the President.  It was only a sick government which would allow Obama to become President.  There were other sources available:  Hillary would have been a much better President, than Obama would ever be.  But unfortunately, she became a slave of Obama, and therefore, that option was knocked out.

No, the same thing: We have the means, now.  You know, there are people in government, there are four members of the Senate, who acted in concert, on behalf of, in fact, Glass-Steagall.  So this is not something that's an impossible dream:  It's something that can happen, and must happen.

Now, the problem is right now; Hillary is going to disappear.  I mean, there's no way, by the discredit she has already placed upon herself, and by the fact that she is a stooge for Obama, that's been the way she has worked.  When she tried to get into the Presidency, and accepted a position under Obama, she thought she was going to be an influence, and she found out she was not going to be.  But she didn't resign then, but rather tried to stay on, and she kept keeping in, trying to cater to Obama to keep her position inside the Presidency.  And she got cheapened, and cheapened, and cheapened ever more since that time.

Then she had to back up, she was forced by Obama, to back up with the willful assassination of U.S. government leading agents, and she whimpered around it;  Obama did it!  Obama ordered the killing, of the agents who wiped out American agents, wiped out on the scene!  And she knew it, and she fished around with it, which meant, what happened?  She became nothing!  In the Presidency — nothing!

Yeah, that one thing on the Glass-Steagall issue, that shot her down. And she's spinning downward, all the present time.
 So we have some other alternatives:  we have members in the Congress, in the Senate, for example, who realize that the Glass-Steagall issue is a crucial one, now. That Glass-Steagall has to be uniform, and we have to shut down Wall Street.  Wall Street is collectively, absolutely bankrupt!  Put it in bankruptcy!  Cancel it!  All the money of the Wall Street gangsters is worth nothing anyway, in reality:  Cancel it!  We don't need it!  We don't need that kind of money!

What we need is the means, to employ people, in employment of various kinds, which are essential to the progress of conditions of mankind's life!  And if you support Obama, or support the Bushes before him, you're doing that, you're an idiot or a criminal.  A mistake:  Cancel them!  Get them out of there!

You've got four members of the Senate, which have moved in that direction.  I don't know how deep  their commitment goes on this thing, but it's something real, it's something important: Let's get it done.  Now let's work to find a way to get not only a President elected, a new one, — get rid of Obama, get a new President;  right?  That's what you have to do.  And there's the impeachment of this President, Obama, is a very easy thing to do, once you get at the job properly:  You get the right members of the Senate, some of the right members of the House, you can get the job done.  Impeach the bastard!

Q:  Well, so you feel optimistic.  You feel optimistic that Glass-Steagall will be passed?  And you feel optimistic that there are things under way to impeach the President, because he has so many impeachable offenses. He has a long record of impeachable offenses, and still to this moment, he has not been impeached.  And people have been calling for his impeachment for over, as far as I know, more than two years; probably since he started his second term, at least —


Q:  He can do a lot more damage in the next year.  He's got one year left and he can do a lot more damage.  So do you feel truly optimistic that things are underway to get this going?

LAROUCHE:  I don't believe in being optimistic, I believe in being successful.

Q:  I like that!  [applause]

LAROUCHE:  The point is:  That's what we have to do, and we can do it.  And in Manhattan, right now where you stand, as you stand before me, that is possible.  Now, the question is, once we recognize the fact that that is possible, then we have to do something about it, and we have to be very clear.  I think that we can get the motion going.  I think it is already going.  But what the result will be...

See, what we need, of course, to make it as short as possible, what we need to do, is actually establish a new group of people, who will form the actual Presidency of the United States, as their mission to do, to replace Obama.  Get him out of there!  That can be done, if you give the people up there, a sense of their confidence in the fact that you will get that job done.  Now, we have some members of Congress, of the Senate in particular, who are committed to Glass-Steagall.  The implementation of Glass-Steagall will wipe out Wall Street, and the kind of scoundrels in the Senate and elsewhere, who are responsible for these policies.

It takes people to organize people with the guts to do something about it.

Q:  You said it Mr. LaRouche, "guts"!  We have a lot of weak ineffectuals in Washington, and we need strong-minded people that are not afraid to stand up to this President.

LAROUCHE:  That's right!  And I believe in that doctrine, thoroughly.

Q:  Thank you for your time.  Thank you.  [applause]

SPEED:  OK, Lyn, we're now at the conclusion.  And I'm going to ask you for some summary remarks, but I wanted to remark about the fact that several times today, we heard the idea of "revolution," that we're in revolutionary times, that people are thinking in terms of revolution, and you said last Monday, in particular, you began talking about our organizers about the notion that real history works by interruptions; it works by disruptions; it doesn't have a smooth tiling; it doesn't have a smooth set of postulates and axioms and so on.  So I would just invite you in summary, to tell us, as you already have done, what you want us to do.  But a little bit about this principle of interruption.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, well, simply, we've got a situation where, if you allowed, the current process which has gone on in the United States so far in the Presidency, allow that to continue? First of all, you get two actions:  If Obama remains in the Presidency and is not removed from the Presidency, you're looking at a summer time breakdown of thermonuclear warfare burst, which will probably depopulate most of the human population.  That's what we're faced with!  That's the fact!

On the other hand, at the same time, even if this wouldn't happen, you would find the worsening conditions of life of the citizen inside the United States, and also in most of Europe, would be terrible, awful.  Therefore, the time has come that people who can't step forward, to get Glass-Steagall in place in the United States, and to take comparable actions and reconstruction in Europe and elsewhere, without that measure, mankind has a very poor chance of surviving.

So let's just do it!  [applause]

SPEED:  Thank you very much Lyn.  And I'm sure we're going to see you next week.  I think most of us are going to be enthusiastic about that proposition!

LAROUCHE:  [laughs]  Wunderschön!



Also Relevant