LPAC Policy Committee with Lyndon LaRouche · August 10, 2015

August 10, 2015

LPAC Policy Committee, August 10, 2015

Join us at 1PM Eastern for our weekly discussion featuring Lyndon LaRouche and the LPAC Policy Committee members.


DIANE SARE:  Good afternoon, and welcome to our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.  Today is Monday, Aug. 10th, and I'm Diane Sare, filling in for Matthew Ogden.  And we're joined on Google Hangouts by Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan, who is visiting the Manhattan Project; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts.  And then we're joined here in the studio by Jason Ross and Megan Beets of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and Mr. LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  OK.  Well, we're in a very interesting period of developments, because we're running short on fuse, shall we say, and we're very near a point, where if Obama's going to make a move for launching thermonuclear war, things are getting closer and closer on that issue right now.  So it's possible that somebody may get smart, prompt from inside the United States.  Certainly some people have to be aware have to be aware of what this is, and we must assume that somewhere in that woodpile, there are a couple of people who know that we cannot go ahead with a thermonuclear war, which is obviously the intention, of Obama.

And that's a question which is perplexing, by its nature. Because we have no positive assurance, on the basis of now, that there will not be a thermonuclear war.  There's no evidence that there won't be; there's no certainty that there will be, but there's no evidence that there couldn't be.

SARE:  Right.  And that is becoming more and more a topic of discussion, although I will say, still short of the urgency with which you've expressed it.  Salon website foreign affairs columnist wrote two days ago, "either we are on the near side of open conflict between the two great powers, accidental or purposeful, and probably but not necessarily on Ukrainian soil, or we are in for a re-rendering of the Cold War..." which is really wishful thinking, I think.  And as you said last week, it's a kinetic process:  We don't know exactly what the flashpoint would be, just as in the period before World War I, there were many forces in play, any of which could have been a trigger for the situation.

LAROUCHE:  It was already settled.  I mean, when a few figures, including Bismarck were moved out of that part of the 19th century, it was already predetermined.

And so therefore, it can happen, a predetermined tragedy like that can happen.  And we have no assurance now that it won't happen.

But what you have to do is you have to respond to what your mission is.  And if you lose, well, you've performed your mission.  We don't have any assurance.  As long as Obama's in the Presidency, we have no assurance that we will not, in say, a few days, we might get a launch of a thermonuclear war generally. There are many factors which point in that direction; and the stupidity factors in Europe aren't much helpful.

SARE:  Right.  And just the fact that we have a rapidly increasing number of quote/unquote "military" drills going on, from 100 to now 150, where we're right next to the border of Russia.  There's been all kinds of interaction between our air force, and theirs; and then you have NATO talking about doing this, the "Trident Juncture 15," where they're going to practice a nuclear war on Russia in September.

So the people who are in denial, who say, "Oh, no one would ever think of this.  No one would ever do that."  Well, what do you mean? They're actually simulating using nuclear weapons, coming up this next month.

LAROUCHE: It's obvious.  I mean, the point is, people deny because they won't do anything to prevent it.  This is very common among people, if they don't want to believe that it could happen, and if they could do something about they will decide they're not going to do it anyway.  And that's the problem.  But I think there are factors, and I do not think that the way that they're approaching Russia from the strategic standpoint, I think they're off-base.  Because they have not taken awareness, of what that means.  Because Russia has deeply put into everything it's got.  And Russia has a very large territory from the standpoint of military operations.

And there was a case of a sinking of a submarine, some time ago.

SARE:  The Kursk.

LAROUCHE:  And so, with him now, don't try to figure out what the British think or what Obama thinks.  It probably won't happen that way; but it might happen anyway.  It might happen the way they thought it was going to work.  And besides, the whole thing is very fragile; the whole global system is fragile as the devil.

Dave CHRISTIE:  Lyn, I think your insistence on understanding the case of the ouster of Bismarck, as really being the precursor to World War I, because you could look at the tinderbox now, which people have pointed to; I think this statement that was issued a while from Cartwright and, I forget the Russian general's name, Dvorkin I think it was; but they make the point on these launch-on-warning systems, which is somewhat of a limited idea of around how the war would begin, but you've got, what, three minutes to make decisions, and everything goes into autopilot, or perhaps this is what you meant by "kinetic"...


CHRISTIE:  So you can see the tinderbox, but that's not the cause of the war, it's just simply the tinderbox.  In a sense this goes back — well, you could probably go back even further — but at least the late '90s, when the decision around the strategic triangle, which was Russia-China-India, your work with these nations, Helga's work with China around the silk road, that this all began the setup of the BRICS as the alternative to the present, dying British Empire.

And similarly, what was Bismarck involved in?  The same type of setup of bringing Europe and Asia together; there was the discussion around the Trans-Siberian Railroad that eventually resolved it.  But it was a similar to British geopolitics back at the end of the 1800s, and this is now what the BRICS dynamic represents is the challenge, and the end of British geopolitics for good, if we have our way.

So I think that's the importance to see that it's not just this tinderbox idea, but it's a longer-term process that is leading to this war.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I think what we have, under our control, shall we say, we have in what we're doing in organizing, as in Manhattan, and in some other locations, we are doing things, which can open the gates for opportunity to defeat this process if we have enough time, to go at it the way we're going.  We're getting, for example, on the Thursday evening discussions, from what's happening in Manhattan, our work there, we have a successful direction of movement.  That's what we have to go with, from our standpoint.  And if you're fighting a war, you have to take your best shot and try to prevent the war from becoming some kind of disaster.  So we have to do it.  But we have to keep our options open.

Don't be pessimistic.  You know, the end of humanity may occur, but don't be pessimistic, because it doesn't do any damned good, is the best way to look at. [laughter]  And you have to learn that lesson.

SARE: Right.

LAROUCHE:  And you know the monkeys aren't going to take over.  Because a thermonuclear war will not leave the monkeys alive.

SARE: All right, well that's good.

Kesha ROGERS:  On that note, you did speak recently in the Saturday discussions with the Manhattan Project about the need for bringing forth a permanent Renaissance, and I think a lot of people are extremely in desperate need for that to occur, that don't know exactly how to make that happen.  I mean, you talk about the conditions economically, the demoralization, the degeneration of the culture, most people when they think of Renaissance today, they have some weird, dressed up in medieval age, and  — I mean, it's just not conducive of what this conception of what the creative powers of the human mind is.  And I think a lot of people get totally freaked out, or they don't really know how to respond to the seriousness of the moment that we find ourselves in terms of the threat of thermonuclear war. People want to walk away from this.

But if they had a higher conception, in terms of what is it that we're fighting for?  What is this quality of man, that should be embodied in the full unleashing of a permanent Renaissance for mankind?  You know, this is what the BRICS nations are representing.  It's not just some temporary "fix," but you have to change the conception of the thinking of society. So you might want to say more on your thoughts on that?

LAROUCHE:  I would moron is the right word, in particular. Because what you have, is you have a very significant part of what's called our organization, which is actually almost criminally insane; and they're trying to maintain the "old way" they behaved, or thought they were behaving and this is a very destructive force.

So we've had an attack from one particular quarter, against us, inside what is called the organization as a whole.  And as long as that is allowed to run loose, which I don't intend to encourage it to run loose, then we are screwing ourselves up, so to speak, by having that kind of composition within our organization.  That is, this kind of crazy, "let's stick to our old ways" kind of business.  And it's completely degenerative and that has to be stopped.  But the greatest impediment we have, to the missions which we have at hand, is there's a certain element in our own organization, which is just not in it, not in the real world; but they're deeply committed to what does not work, they're deeply committed, to what is the most foolish thing in the world you can do at this time.

And that's what we have to fight against, you know; that's what I have to fight against.  These guys are crazy.  But they don't know it, but they are crazy.  Because their conception of organization, of our organization is absolutely insane.  And we can compensate a bit for that, but they still tend to be insane.

And that's what happens throughout the United States, different parts of the United States, not just in parts of some of our misguided own members.  We have throughout everything, through politics, there's no actual realism, except in a small minority of the total population.  The very fact that people have not thrown Obama out of office already, which they should have done, morally,  — it was an immoral act not to throw Obama out of office!  That was an immoral act.  In fact, it was sort of Satanic, not just immoral.  And that's what it's been.

And so therefore, our point is, we have to recognize, why are we in this trouble?  Because we have not effectively taken on the idiots, who have their own little greed, their own little pots, and therefore, their induced stupidity, their ignorance, their refusal to face the truth; and what we have is a population, a labor force, so-called, it's not really a labor force any more.  It's labor, but it doesn't have much force in terms of production.  And so these are the kinds of problems which we have to face.

We'll fight,  We will fight this thing.  But, the question of chances of winning?  Well, in a case like that in an all-out shootout, you don't say, "well, we have to give up because  we're going to lose." What you do, is you say, "well, let's invent something which we haven't thought of before.  Maybe we can solve the problem that way."

SARE:  Mm-hmm.  Well, that really gets at what you were saying earlier today on this whole question of mathematics. Because the people who say, "I can't see it, I can't see it" is a disease, induced by Bertrand Russell at the turn of the century, where they said, "well if it hasn't happened before, then how can you say this can happen?"  And of course, then you won't see any pathway to win, you also won't see that we're facing thermonuclear war, because it's not in your statistical model.

LAROUCHE:  Well, what they have, is they have their rear-ends sticking out of the ground.  Their head, however, is underground.  [laughter]

Megan BEETS:  This also gets to something that came up in your dialogue with Manhattan on Saturday:  It's the issue of human progress.  And the way you put it, is something along the lines of man cannot be called an animal, that has no meaning. There's a creative capacity of mankind, where the mode of existence of humanity when we're being human, is constantly superseding and achieving what the previous generation could not achieve.  And therefore, you begin to get a glimpse into what the idea of human immortality actually signifies.

LAROUCHE:  Mm-hmm.  Exactly.  And we do have a little inclination in that direction, and we have evidence, it's not comprehensive evidence, but the experience I have in the Manhattan projects we're running every Saturday, and what we're getting with the Thursday evening event, and what we see is a very rapid acceleration, in increments, of response.  They're responsive.

Jason ROSS:  Definitely.

LAROUCHE: So the problem is, we're able to affect people who are not affected by others, not because we are so smart, but because they are so dumb.  And that's that point, the idea, "Be practical."  The theme, "be practical," and that's what makes people idiots.  They say, "I'm practical."  "Oh, you're another idiot! We already got too many of those!" [laughter]  But that's who we are.

Michael STEGER:  The same is true on the drought.  We had two instances this last week:  We went down to a — there's a group now on Facebook, which was started up about three months ago, called "My Job Depends on Ag," and within three months they have 36,000 members from all over the country, largely in California.

So they held an event down at a big farm north of Fresno, a big ranch.  And they didn't even know why they were holding the event, except they had so much interest in what they were doing because of the drought, that they held an event.  But there was no orientation.  And their limitation is on money:  If there's not money, we don't have enough money to do this, we don't have enough money to do that; and so they've got this kind of upsurge of interest and panic, and people are at seven generation farms are losing their farms, people are in tears, they're emotional, there's breakdowns... but they've got no plan, and they're in this cage!

And then later in the week we went to an event at Berkeley, and you have all these academics who put out a new book on the drought, and they go through all of their adaptation — you know, you've got to adapt, you've got to adapt.  The first question is on desalination.  And one of the authors says: Well we didn't say anything about desalination, because basically we were told not to, but the reality is we're going to have to desalinate, because otherwise there's not going to be any water!  [LaRouche guffaws]

Also, you see that there [crosstalk] ... no discussion, and there's no scientists!  In any of this discussion about what's going on, there's no scientific discussion!  There's no question of, why does it rain sometimes and not others?  There's no question of that process, and there's no question then of the role of the Sun, the question of the Galaxy; I think it's critical we continue to think about how we can intervene on the Galaxy question, and what this means.  Because the lack of philosophical thought and inquiry into this process, is really where you see the death of the whole process, the death of the population.

And so anyway, both sides were locked in their own cage.

LAROUCHE:  Like Noah, Noah's Ark — all the other people are dead, except those animals and people who were parked in Noah's Ark.

ROSS:  A very large and impractical ark, it probably seemed.

LAROUCHE:  Well, at least apparently, according to the legend, that worked.  [laughter]  And all the people who didn't pay attention to the policy, are dead.  And that's what we're looking at now!

If you take that California case that he just mentioned, that's what it is.  You're looking at a new version of Noah's Ark, and all the people who are being drowned, or dehydrated as an alternative to that, are dying of their own stupidity! So it's an Noah's Ark problem here.

SARE:  It's Noah's Oasis, this time.

LAROUCHE:  Well, really,  it's not an oasis, it's an —

SARE:  Galaxy.

ROSS:  That's the way so many of these debates end up happening. People end up thinking that they're participating in discussions where, what the solution is has been ruled out of order from the beginning.  And then people just talk about things — like watching the Republican debate!

LAROUCHE:  One thing you can do — you can shoot those people who believe in that kind of stuff; you can shoot them as a mercy killing.  In other words, they won't have to suffer, for long suffering.  It will be quick.

SARE:  Or just put them on Obamacare.

LAROUCHE:  Oh!  This guy is absolutely Satanic.  I mean, Obama is characteristically Satanic, and that's not a debatable subject.  He is Satanic.  Look at the what his kill ratio is, how he does these things:  This man is a Satanic figure.

What he does, he induces a Satanic tendency, in a larger part of the population, because he's treated as an authority. They say, "you can't do that, Obama has declared....  You can't do that, Obama has declared.  You're never going to overthrow Obama; that's actually....

SARE: Right.  That's what also came up Saturday in the New York meeting, and one person after the next, and you kept saying, "he is a killer, he is a murderer."  And then very clearly said, "forget the idea that you think he happens to have a brown skin, it has nothing to do with this.  There is a human race, period! And this guy is a killer and should have been thrown out long ago."

LAROUCHE:  And they really are on the edge of knowing that.

SARE:  Yes, exactly.

LAROUCHE:  I go after it, and anyone saying, I say, "well, look, this is reality!"

SARE:  Well, I think they are on the edge of knowing it, and part of it is they want you to say it to them again, so they can...

LAROUCHE:  What they want, what they're afraid of, is, it isn't true.  They're afraid it isn't true, "and therefore, we've got to stick to this popular experience."  No, so, we have a mission that we can't reconcile things in terms of numbers.  And we see that; we see that on these Thursday sessions.  We see it more directly here, because we're looking right at the people.

No, that's the case:  We have a mission-orientation and we cannot say, well, maybe it's not going to work out, but it's our mission, we're going to do it anyway.  Because that's our job. And I think that tends to work.

But the problem is, you have so few people, in the United States in general, particularly, as in Europe, very few people have any competence, have any competent capability of judgment. They're idiots!  You look at what happened in France, in terms of recent history in France; you look at what happened in Italy; look what happened in Germany now.  Germany is sinking rapidly. You know, this is a nightmare.

And what you have, is you have China, you have something from India, you have things like that, which are promising things, in China in particular.  The question is, can we survive despite what is not China?  That, for example.

We have to make judgments in course and we cannot be a fatalist, because the fact that we are superior intellectually to most people out there, on what we're doing, we cannot say, "Ugnh."  You've got to say:  well, this is the mission, the best mission we have seen available to us, to mankind now, we're going to stick to it!  And the only way we'll go, is up.  We won't give up, we will go up, and hope that works.  Noah's Ark.

CHRISTIE:  Well, Lyn, the other side of this, there's clearly a tumult in the political situation; I know we've referenced this before, but this case of this guy Jeremy Corbyn, who could become the head of the Labour Party [in Great Britain], not only is he pro-Glass-Steagall, but is calling for Blair to be prosecuted for war crimes.  I think that is not probably liked by the monarchy, who, of course Blair was the man who saved the monarchy.  But it just goes to show what the underlying turmoil in the political situation is.  Frankly some of the response around Sanders and so forth, you get this similar  — where the American people just don't want the establishment candidate, and you see, I think part of what's going on with the political process right now, is just to create a bunch of noise to distract from what I think is probably something that's bubbling up to the surface, is people do see that the world is going to Hell.  So anyway, I think there is a sort of a ferment that is there, but what we have to do is provide the clarity, to override this sort of noise factor that's being introduced.

LAROUCHE: The greatest danger comes from the post-adolescent youth of today.  They've become the demoralizing factor.  You look at how many of these youth are actually crazy and killers, the homicide rate, particularly below the Mason-Dixon Line;  the highest kill ratio in the United States, tends to be in the direction of that.  And that, of course, is the Southern, and that was the third President of the United States, the Southerner who committed the system of mass murder.

So those are factors.  But I think we have to look at what we can do, to present our knowledge.  But you see most around you, they're not intelligent, they're intellectually dead, in point of fact.  Like a good description just presented here, in terms of California:  You have the majority of the population in California, is intellectually dead.  They accepted procedures, it's like people you know, burning people alive as burnt offerings; and that's what they're doing.  It's the equivalent of a burnt offering.  The leaders in California, are destroying people in California, by turning them into burnt offerings.  And the smell of burnt offering may be your cousin.

SARE:  Well, you see a real contrast — I mean this past week, you had on Aug. 6th, both the 70th anniversary of the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, which was completely unnecessary; it was a Satanic policy.  But you also had, which I hope will be the turning point of a new direction with Egypt inaugurating their second, parallel Suez Canal, which indicates a completely different potential for mankind.

LAROUCHE:  This is the Schellnhuber, that's what the British operation is.

SARE:  The Hiroshima — yeah.

LAROUCHE:  That's the British Empire:  They say, we don't care, we'll kill the whole population, we'll eliminate the human race.  But what we are going to do, we're going to reduce the human population, drastically!  That's the intention.  And we're operating under the influence of that kind of intention, in leading circles in parts of the world, especially the trans-Atlantic region.  The United States is full of that kind of crap.  Other places are much worse in those terms.

And if you look at the history, as I have, being an old man, who also was a historian by birth, you recognize this problem. And you realize, in the history of mankind before, like in the Renaissance, for example, is an example of this:  And the Renaissance is something that was successful.  But if you look at what the ratios were at that, in human behavior, as about what it looks like today, the only difference is, we didn't have thermonuclear weapons earlier, that's the only difference.

And so we have to fight against that, but there's nothing to be pessimistic about this thing.  We're out there to win.  And just think of the number of soldiers who went into service in wartime, think of the massive amount of killing in World War I and also in World War II; take the rate of that.  Did we survive? Well, we did survive.  Why did we survive?  Because of someone like Franklin Roosevelt or people like that nature.  Or Grant, himself, who was sort of a complement to Bismarck.

So that's what we have to do.  We know it's a tough fight, but we're not going to give up on the human species.  We will try to get rid of the feces in order to save the species.  [laughter]

SARE:  That's why we need water!

LAROUCHE:  Put the fire out!

No, I think we should only stick to the things which are the optimistic things, which I encourage very much in what we've been doing in the New York operation, and the Thursday operations; no, which we find by what we're doing, we get an increment of confidence and competent confidence, and so therefore, our job is largely to clean our head up, keep that clean, and also to promote, like we were doing in New York, for several of these Saturday events.  We're bringing back the optimism into people! And the music is helping.  You see the way the increase of the musical rehearsals that you're getting through, you see progress!

SARE:  Yep!

LAROUCHE:  And we realize that this is an example of progress, and that there other things which are samples of progress.  So we know that perhaps the whole human species could be destroyed, especially by a thermonuclear warfare.  But!  We have no right to quit.  And we've seen in the history of mankind before, we have to burn Zeus again.

SARE:  Well, I think your autobiography was called The Power of Reason, and this point about the Renaissance, I mean it was a handful:  You had Joan of Arc, Nicholas of Cusa, it was a relative handful of people, but there is an innate quality in human beings which is what we're seeing on Thursday and Saturday, where they respond — people are human, so even if they've covered over their human-ness with a bunch of cultural degeneration, they do respond, when presented with something that is also human.

LAROUCHE:  Well, you see the problem is the Wall Street crowd, this is the Satanic crowd.  And when people think that they are subjects of a Satanic institution such as Wall Street, and what that carries with it, then they give up.  And that's what the problem is that we face.  You have to give mankind a shooting chance, of making it.  And that's what our mission has to be.  And we're doing it, we're doing it with these operations.

What bothers me is, we're not doing it enough.  We have the means, we see it, we're doing it with these things now in Manhattan; we've been doing it in the field on Thursdays; we have other experiences which are relevant to the same effect.  Yes, but we have to maintain a justified optimism.  That is, that there is a process in motion, or available in motion, which can change the course of history of mankind.  And thereby save mankind from its otherwise self-destruction.

And so, you have to have fun — no, I mean, really! Optimism means "fun," or "fun" really requires the meaning of optimism, so you can't say "let's be practical."  And if somebody wants to say, "let's be practical," you say, "well, why don't you commit suicide now, and get it over with?" Then you will have people who will be willing to be successful.  If the ones who don't want to be successful will eliminate themselves, it would make more room for people who do want to be successful; or something like that.

And you have to have a sense of humor, which is a very specific kind of irony.  But you have to always have this understanding, that I know what mankind can do; I'm well aware of what man can do.  And those parts of the world which can do, like China  and so forth.  So: That's what I do!

BEETS:  Well, that's the fun of it.  You activate the creative imagination to envision new states of mankind that haven't existed, but they have a basis in reality; except that reality's in the future.  And that's fun.  And I think what we're seeing in Manhattan, the kind of inspiration that's coming from reawakening the sense of passion in people as a coherent social process, where they're beginning to think, "Oh!  Maybe we can think of humanity as a whole, and where humanity as a whole should be progressing to?  Maybe we can begin to think about the questions like, exploring the Solar System and the Galaxy, that we haven't been around to think about  for 40, 50 years."

And I think you are getting a sense of that kind of joy, that comes from people being freed from a condition of degeneracy, to begin to live again in the imagination.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, I know.  That's what I live in!

BEETS:  I know.  [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  Because that is the standard for mankind. Mankind has all these potentials, which no other species has. But we have degenerates, people who reject humanity, reject the human race, with their crazy, cultish kinds of approaches to life.  The history of mankind is, mankind always dies.  All mankind dies, but mankind continues.  Ahh!  Well, what's the process of the continuation?  It's actually the equivalent of what we call science, scientific progress.

We discover ways to deal with the challenges.  Look, we're not apes any more.

BEETS:  Most of us... [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  Look at what mankind has done!  Look at what came out of the evil that mankind's background involved, but mankind is a species which has the ability to deal with these kinds of problems, is to create a method of insight into options, which are available; to recognize options which are available, and to seize those options.  And that's how mankind survives, that's how mankind progresses.  You know, that's how the United States was created, in a process, and it changed everything.

But there was imperfection all over the place; the case of Bismarck:  Bismarck was successful, he was a genius.  But he was dumped, dropping the pilot, the famous portrait.

Not, but the point is mankind is the superior species, against all others.  And therefore it's the development of the human species and its powers, in new discoveries of principle, that's history.  And the question is can we move fast enough and broadly enough, in order to accomplish that mission?

You know, I've lived through a really  — a life with ups and downs.  Born in a not-unfortunate area, in an unfortunate destiny.  I fought the devils off — many times.  And it's the people who give up, who cause the problems.  Of course first you have to have some competence, but once competence is accessible to you as a matter of knowledge for action, then anything is possible for mankind.

And we're in a situation now where the world is dominated in one part, in the trans-Atlantic region, generally,  the Northern trans-Atlantic region, it's disastrous!  The British, disastrous! Most of Europe, Disastrous! South America, some parts are also disastrous, but there's also some good things coming.

The Southern part of Africa, has a certain section there, which is still successful, and it's going ahead successfully. India is coming back, again, after being bounced back and forth several times.

So that the evidence is that mankind is that; but the thing is the idea of a general thermonuclear war, planetary war, that's the great danger.  And that means you have to take people like Obama, and immediately throw them out of office.  If you threw Obama out of office today, the United States would probably survive tomorrow.  If you keep Obama, you may not survive. That's a lesson of history.  We should call it "Embalma."

Rachel BRINKLEY:  On this question of man versus animal, I thought the point you brought up this weekend was very clear, simple but clear, that animals create various things — dams, nests, whatever.  But human beings create the future, and that's something we need to think about.  You see this obviously with the BRICS, but unless we remove Obama from office, we're looking at nuclear war.  But this issue of man — man doesn't create a thing, just like Vernadsky discusses the difference between minnows, human beings and animals; animals are constricted by their habitat, human beings create habitats.

Now, in that same way human beings are not constructed  by a specific.  We have to create — we're limited only by our pathway towards the next level for mankind, that's what we're creating.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, but we know in science, in scientific terms, we know exactly what's possible in this direction.  We now know that the Galaxy is something which is our territory.  We have things in between, between Earth and that, which are our territory; that is, mankind's mind can deal with these things and use these as tools.  Kepler, for example:  Kepler's discovery of the Solar System.  Mankind began to act on the basis of the understanding of the Solar System.  That's a triumph. We now know enough about the Galactic System, to know things about it, which are crucial opportunities for mankind down the line.  And we know that we should be exploring those possibilities now!  It doesn't mean we're going to make miracle successes now, but we are going to plant in our population, or parts of our population, we're going to implant the idea, "You've got to take over managing the Galaxy.  Just like Kepler, you've got to take over the Solar System.  You don't know what you're doing exactly, but you know you have to do it. And that was Kepler discovery:  It's something you have to do.

Here he was, he died, running around in the field of battle, just simply out of plain starvation because of the battlefield condition.  But what he did, in the course of going to that point in his own life, what he did, he created, man's ability, to understand the stars! And his accomplishment, in that regard stuck!  It stuck from that point on.

Then you had Leibniz stepped in, not in a direct succession but as a successor of Kepler, actually, in effect.  It was different, because Kepler developed independently from a child and so forth under his family's influence, and became the greatest man in that whole period.  The greatest personality was Kepler.

So that's the way we have to look at things; but to look at things that way, is, we have to present and emphasize, that principle, what the principle is of mankind!  Mankind is not an animal; unlike Obama, mankind is not an animal.

And that's it.  You just have to say, "We praise God.  Obama is an animal."  [laughter]

SARE:  We should put him in a zoo.


STEGER:  It is amazing, but Kepler actually called for space exploration.  He really envisioned, both to Galileo's father and to Galileo this idea that once we now have this conception of the Solar System, we will soon have — as soon as we master flight — we will then master space exploration.  And this is in the early 1600s; it was not just a theoretical science, it was an active participation of mankind.

LAROUCHE:  We have this gentleman here who did some work on that direction to try, to qualify himself in that matter.  But anyone who does that kind of work is actually pushing mankind ahead.  That's the point.  And Kepler could not do all the things he would have liked to have done. But he did things which were the foundation of what would become possible in the future of mankind.  He didn't say it that way, but his actions said he was doing that.

And that's the point.  Mankind, we are responsible to create the future. We are not responsible to be tested, to say, now you know this, now you've been taught this, now you know something.

No, you don't!  What mankind does, mankind discovers the future.  And the future that's discovered by mankind.  How?  By mankind intimates insight into something which had not previously been known.  And that's the difference between mankind and Obama. I mean, I don't want to blame the apes for Obama, because the poor apes don't know what Obama — what're they going to do about Obama?

But if we would get Obama put out of office, tomorrow, that in itself would probably save the human species.  So if we put him in a zoo, we can give him the best quality of zoo to live in that's possible.  I would make no objection to that!  A kindly treatment of Obama in a zoo!  And if Obama doesn't want people to look at him, well OK, we don't force ourselves on him.

We just want him out!  Because we know that if Obama were removed from office now, mankind's recovery would be certain.  So we've got to throw him out of office.  We have a law, which is put in under certain circumstances and that law is still there. And the law would require that Obama has to be thrown out office; I don't mean thrown out — not thrown from the top of a skyscraper, but thrown out of office.

That would save us.  It would literally save us.  Because the worshiping of Obama as being some kind of a hero, is exactly the thing that most immediately threatens the existence of the human species.  Out the window!

SARE:  Well, one vulnerability that's coming up now, is this question of both the Saudi role in 9/11, the 9/11 families getting more evidence on the Saudi role in that; and then what you've referenced is Hillary Clinton's knowledge of Obama's treasonous role in Benghazi.  And interestingly to me, as you've been saying this question on what she could do, you have also now this interview with this former DIA Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, on Al Jazeera, where he talks about the explicit policy-decision that was made by this administration to back ISIS, and to back the terrorists!  And he makes the point, clearly, that this is insane; that he can't even figure out what on Earth it's thought that we're doing there.  I mean, we have some idea.  But at any rate, there are certain breaks that are occurring, which we could get him out; we could get Obama out.

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's why the thermonuclear threat is there.  Because the British and so forth, and Obama are the same thing, essentially, because Obama is nothing but a British agent. That's all he ever was.  And his mother was also a British agent. And her husband was a Satanic figure, in practice.  She was just scared and couldn't do the Satanic things as well.  But Obama is a figure who is very easily committed to Satanic actions, and if you get him out of office, in the United States, you would get an immediate explosion of relief, throughout the population.

Because, what the problem is, they say, Obama's the boss, and as long as people say, "Obama is the boss, there's nothing you can do about it,"  that's when the Hell breaks loose! That's when the thermonuclear war breaks loose.  If you remove him from office, which should have been done with another President who was thrown out of office, the first model for that, and you saw the difference.  But then, what you had, the Bush family was brought in and the Bush family was brought in when it first entered the Presidency was what set us in the wrong direction.

But we have to get, as here, we have to get the expression of those distinctions, that mankind's situation is not hopeless. If Obama were to be removed from office, it would be good reason for great joy around the United States and elsewhere.

And that's the way to approach it.  Just say: Well, the problem is you've got Obama.  But if Obama were to be thrown out of office, what would be the difference?  Well, you'd have all kinds of nice opportunities which are not possible now as long as Obama is the President.  So remove him from the Presidency!  The obvious thing: That was the thing that was done in the 1970s.  We threw a President out of office.  We threw him out; we made that a law, and that law is still on the books.  So why not throw him out of office?

The Constitution, as defined now, says, the responsible people in the United States can throw a President out office. Don't have to wait until the conclusion of his term of office. And that's the most optimistic thought that you can find right now.  If he were thrown out of office, as could be the case, well things would be much better.

It's would be that much better, but some of us could do things; we would have the ability to do the things that we can do. We can turn the direction:  A new Presidency, get Obama out, get a new Presidential system, which is a competent choice of Presidential system and you can win it.  Optimism.

The problem is, that mankind does not respond to things which are the justification for optimism.  And that's our responsibility.  That's what I come up against all the time, constantly, I have for years, always.  If you create the opportunity for progress, you can effect it.  And that's what our job is here,  right here, among other places.  You've got to bring that into focus.

If Obama were thrown out of office tomorrow, the problem would be, we don't want him splattering on the sidewalks.

ROSS:  You know, if people think through the reason for optimism behind that, through the potential for the use of the 25th Amendment to oust him, is that his absence is of critical importance, but it would occur in the context of a process that throws him out.  You know Obama's ouster doesn't occur outside of the changes required to make that happen.  And I think that's one of the troubles people have in thinking about it sometimes, is they don't think about what it would mean to have decided to no longer tolerate him; what kind of U.S. we would be, having made that decision.

LAROUCHE:  Well, of course, that's Satan.  Now Satan happens to be typified by what?

ROSS:  Typified by Obama, the Queen, Schellnhuber — he's got a few names.

LAROUCHE:  Earlier, earlier.  Earlier:  Bertrand Russell.

ROSS:  Oh!! Russell!  Oh, yeah.

LAROUCHE:  All right, Bertrand Russell is probably the Satan of the century, and also this century.  That's what he represents.

ROSS:  He'd probably be flattered to hear you say that about him.

LAROUCHE:  No, he wouldn't be flattered; he'd be gratified.

ROSS:  Oh, OK.  All right.  [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  That's the point, that's exactly it.  I know, and others among us who have any insight into scientific practice, we know what can be good and it can work.  We know that!  But Obama prevents us from that.  What has Obama done as President? He's killed people!  He makes a target, says, I'm going to kill these people; isn't that something like Nero?  A neurotic maniac? That's what he is.

And therefore,  what you have to, is you have to what is considered, not proper: saying, well, we would have a good government if this monster, were thrown out office now. The relief would be great; the damage will also have been great.  All the technologies that we had, are being taken away from us.

We're going backwards in technology.  Look at the California case:  All these guys in California, the great part of the population, is giving up the ghost and condemning themselves to death.  Sometimes it's simply done as an attitude, and other times it's a consequence of the behavior that they've adopted. Throw that governor out of office, and you might have an option for saving California.

So therefore, you have to find, what is the principle of progress?  And that means, not just an attitude, it means a course of action:  Get Obama thrown out of office, as you refer again to the 25th Amendment.  Throw him out of office, now! Tomorrow morning, or this evening!  Throw him out of office — why not?  It's the right thing to do.  And every true patriot in the United States, will agree to support throwing him out of office.  And the only people who won't agree, are stupid people or evil people.  As think the stupid people outnumber the rational people.

But this is the issue.  Here we are, I know, for example, what I know, and what we know, some of us, otherwise know; we know the principles which, when put to work and given the time to mature itself, we have solutions for all of these problems.  But what's happened, our solutions have been taken away from us.  The ones we already had!  You can't do this — the health care, for example.  The attempt to kill people en masse, in the guise of programs for health care!  What was possible is not done any more; the health care is not there any more!  It's been destroyed in large degree.

No, therefore, all you have to do, is have a movement which recognizes these facts as being facts, and pointing out the things which are the alternatives, the solutions, that's what our instrumentalism is. The fact that we can prompt people on things that will work, when, as in California, and generally, this came up today in this discussion here today:  The population of California has been reduced to complete giving in, giving up! It's like cannibalism.  And what's happened in California under this governor, is a kind of cannibalism:  That is, you've condemned people to be eaten, so to speak.  You don't actually them, but you eat their souls. You eat existence.  You destroy everything.

And there's no reason for this crap!  No reason whatsoever.

We've got all the water you want.  Where do you find water? Well, let's to go the beach — we'll find water.  Oh, it's salty? That we can fix, you can steam it.  And the governor is obviously a Satanic idiot.

So, what I like are things which are much more sophisticated; that's what I like.  But I also know that there are a lot of short-term practical measures which could make things much better.  Then we'll get onto the real scientific breakthroughs.

SARE:  Good.  Well, I think partly the optimism comes from knowing that you were determined to not give up  as you said in the beginning.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah!  The question is, I'm just trying to put the thing in two points of reference:  Here's what is possible, and here's what is not being done.

SARE:  Right.  Good.

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's our marching orders, isn't it?

SARE:  I would say so; I would say so.  So I think that concludes our discussion for this week, and we will see you all next week.



Also Relevant