Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, August 20, 2015

August 17, 2015

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, August 20, 2015

Tune in this Thursday at 9PM Eastern for our weekly Q&A dialogue with Mr. LaRouche. Have a question? Call our national center at 800-929-7566 to get on the call live, or write your question in the YouTube comments section and we'll get them to our host, John Ascher.


 JOHN ASCHER:  Good evening everyone this is John Ascher welcoming you to the 14th Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche. Lyn, I'm hoping you are on the phone and can hear me.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  I can hear you and I'm on the phone.

ASCHER:  Are there any preliminary remarks that you would like to make?

LAROUCHE:  Just simply, broadly that we've had successes in terms of Manhattan and the Manhattan developments which really are complementing exactly what we're doing here, on this occasion is part of an integral process.  Obviously, this thing is not going to remain in the same form.  It's going to evolve into a more systematic form, a higher form, of discussions as actually making decisions on the future of the nation.  So I think what we're doing now is a preliminary process, of getting a larger organization, more coherently brought together, but that means that people have to become more familiar with each other.  And this is a process we have to go through in order to develop, a more coherent approach to the whole national challenge and international challenge which we face right now.

Q1: Hey, Lyn and John, this  is D— from Wisconsin.  The Greek situation, the prime minister just resigned.  I'm wondering what's going on, other than the blot on the system and they went along the looting of the fascists in Europe;  I'm wondering what's your take on what's going on there with relation to everything else that's going on?

LAROUCHE:  It has potentiality of being brought into something more coherent, but right now you have a pretty much incoherent arrangement, because everything is involved in everything, and everything else; and there is no finality here. The whole Greek movement has been of course, shattered.  It's more and more fragment.  It's understandable; look,  you have a population which is being fried essentially.  They have no real independence.  What degree of independence they had, has been slaughtered, and they cannot go on like this.  Because the Greek system cannot stand this in its present form.  There has to be a resolution.

Right now, there is no serious attempt at a resolution of the Greek problems, and many of the issues that are so-called "Greek problems," are fraudulent.  That is all kinds of swindlers have moved in and crushed the Greek organization.  The Greek organization of course had made mistakes of their own, but the problem is that they have, right now, no coherent option for trying to put their own affairs in order.

And this is a mess.  It's a mess which is created by the European system essentially, the present European system, and they are the chief responsibles for this.  There are other factors involved, admittedly, but the chief thing is, the Greek institutions have been shattered by the euro system.

ASCHER:  Lyn, actually, I'm going to do something I rarely do; but I wanted to ask you, in reference to that, the Greek situation: we had gotten reports a few weeks ago, that Putin had not acted in support of Greece because of the view that that might have led to a thermonuclear confrontation?  What did you think about those reports?

LAROUCHE:  That's not really true; that's not at all true. That's an impression, but from a distance, the facts aren't there.  You know, the appearance of something often is not what it is.  It's like a guy who's running around naked, and he's trying to choose his suit to wear; it just doesn't quite make sense.

The whole thing is a mess; it's a very deadly mess.  And the chief feature of the mess is, of course, the British Empire which set the whole thing into motion. That's where the real evil comes from.

The problem in the United States, we've got Obama.  We have two things, you have the Bush administration which preceded the Obama administration, if when you take the two things, the Bush administration and the Obama administration, you have a real mess, a real, evil mess!  And I think the word "evil" is most appropriate for this purpose.

And what we're threatened with is, we're on the edge of thermonuclear war, global thermonuclear war!  And the global thermonuclear war is under the auspices of the President of the United States, Obama.  Obama is the source of the threat, for the extermination of the human species.  That's what his potential is right now.

So I think simple explanations, do not fit this circumstance.

Q3:  This is R— from Brooklyn.  Good evening, and I hope everything's well with you.  The Manhattan Project, assuming it's successful, and assuming that we prevent nuclear war, etc., and even get rid of Obama, there's been something else that has been circling lately that has bothered me:  At one time, the Basement Team talked about an oncoming Ice Age.  Now, this last winter was a record winter in terms of snowfall and everything else in the Northeast region, and in addition to that, this coming winter, there's predictions that we may have a return of the same type of weather.  We don't know exactly when this may happen, but have you given any thought as to what reaction and what this effect would be on the economy, if we had the misfortune of an Ice Age come upon us?

LAROUCHE:  I don't think we're anywhere near an Ice Age, as such.  In other words, as a long trend ice Age, no.  Weather is different.  But, actually, most of the opinion on this thing is really nonsense.  I mean, people are given evidence and they see a fragmentary piece of evidence of a trend which they envisage, but they don't see the whole picture, and it's much more complicated than this.  for example, the real basis for the organization of temperature fluctuations lies in the higher system, and it's way beyond anything that is normally understood.

Most of the talk about Ice Ages and so forth, is when people try to push on it now, is really nonsense.  Forget it.  There are fluctuations, these are measurable; but most of the systems that are presented are really not reliable.  You get a lot of opinion about weather, a lot of opinion about this.  Are there fluctuations?  Yes.  But these conclusions are not competently grounded.  There are a lot of things we don't know; but the fact that we don't know them, means that we don't know them.  And therefore, we cannot draw conclusions of things which we do not understand.  We have some partial understandings of some conditions, but we don't have, really, the kind of weather forecasting that popular opinion tries to present.  We just have to work our way through this thing, and we have to especially find out what we can do, to influence weather and other conditions.  And those things are practical considerations, which should be taken up.

Q4:  Hi Mr. LaRouche, this is E—  from the Bronx, New York City.  I would like to ask you, as you say, man is not an animal, he's creative and he's looking for universal laws, laws of the universe.  But do we really have a  monopoly of this on Earth? After all, there are about 200 billion stars in our Galaxy alone, that's the Milky Way galaxy, and our Sun is just one of those stars.  Some being on another planet, in another solar system in our own Galaxy, could look up at night and see our Sun as a star in his or her nighttime sky.  So shouldn't mankind kind of life, the most intelligent life, on all other planets in our Galaxy, for example, that are living there, aren't they also not animals, like on Earth?  Are they not also creative and looking for universal laws or....?

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's not really the way to look at it. You have to look at it — one thing we know:  We understand that the characteristic human personality is a unique species, that no form of what we call "animal life," is human.  But human life is a very specific thing and a specific quality.  That the ability of mankind to understand the Galaxy and what it represents is something which is not complete by any means.  But we have some indications now, and we can get more of them, which will indicate what the trends may be.  But the essential thing is that mankind is a unique species.  We have no knowledge of anything which corresponds to mankind, except mankind itself.

Animal life and human life are different.  We sometimes try to explain them both in mutual terms, but those don't count. Mankind is the only creature, that can create the future.  No animals can create the future as such, not willfully.  Mankind can create the future; mankind must create the future which is human progress, human development, the rise of the human species to a higher level.  No animal species can do that.

So, it's what we can do, and what we can, by putting our minds to it, so to speak, we can actually shape the future of mankind, willfully.  We don't always do it; as a matter of fact, we rarely do it, actually, but we can do it.  And the greatest human minds that we know of, have done precisely that.  They have created an action by the human mind, action by the human mind, which changes the course, of the destiny of mankind himself.  And that's the wonderful story.  And that's the basic facts, that we have to start with.

Q5: Good evening John, and good evening Lyn.  This is B— from New Jersey. This is going to be more in the form of a report.  And as a number of people, particularly in the Manhattan Project area know, I had had published down in Florida, a letter to the editor, basically saying that Hillary Clinton can do the nation and the world a big favor by coming clean on Benghazi, and paving the way for eliminating Obama from the Presidency, such that we can effect the necessary change to head off the drive for thermonuclear war.

Now, I had also sent in to the local papers here in  New Jersey, that same article, or same letter, which had not been published in the local papers.  But what I did was, I took that copy of the letter to the editor published in Florida, and I resubmitted it to the local newspapers, saying "I wish you'd reconsider not publishing my letter, and use what they did in Florida in the newspaper, to give you a little impetus to publish it."

I know there's also an even which I went to yesterday, up in Manhattan at Dante Park.  And on the way up there, I took a copy of that letter also, and a copy of the petition that Helga had written and that we have been circulating, and took that to a Congressional office on my way up to Manhattan; along with some other material requesting a meeting with the Congressman.

So, this morning I get up and one of the papers I had resubmitted my letter to the editor, published the "Clinton Must Come Clean on Benghazi," and actually put it right alongside of a letter to editor being published by one of the local Congressmen, whose office had refused to meet with me on a number of things; and in fact, when I did talk to him on the phone, had said, impeaching Obama's not going to happen.  So obviously, something's going on there, that they would publish my letter to the editor, right next to his letter to the editor.

But then, a couple of hours later, I got a call from another Congressional office, the one that I had dropped material off to yesterday, and they had requested a meeting for this coming week, on whatever matters I wanted to bring to the Congressman's attention.

So I just wanted to bring that up; I know somebody's going to give a report later on the event yesterday in Dante Park in Manhattan.  But I did want to make clear to people that perseverance can overcome.

LAROUCHE:  Well, the point is on this whole issue, is there is a fraud; Hillary committed a fraud but under pressure from Obama.  And Obama lied!  And the entirety from that point on, Hillary backed down, cheapened herself, and has not recovered her honor since that time.

I mean, she tried to tell the truth, that Obama has lied, in the matter of that; but she backed down from it when he put pressure on her.  But what he had said was a lie.  So Obama is a consistent liar; that's his most common characteristic.

But he's also a real thug.  He takes after his father, who was a thug.  And putting this guy in the Presidency, which was done by the British Monarchy, and that system put Obama into place.  Now, we had a Bush family there, before then, and they weren't much good at all; but Obama is worse than any and all Bushes combined, himself!

And the issue here is, Hillary has not come forth, to reaffirm, what she said and knew.  And by her playing a game, of not challenging Obama, when she had the facts to challenge him, she corrupted herself, and she's going through spinning, and spinning, and spinning.  She's destroying herself in every respect by submitting to a lie that she knows was a lie, because she identified it!  And that's what the issue is.

The point is, you have to get Obama out of the Presidency now, or you're not going to have a United States of living people in it.  And that's really the short thing, and that's the real story.  The thing became more complicated, more complicated; explanations, explanations, explanations around it, but none of it's true!  Obama lied!  Period! And he intimidated Hillary into lying, too.  And she's suffering the fact that she submitted, to the lies imposed upon her by Obama.  And Obama is the criminal. And we will not have a Presidency much longer, unless we get Obama thrown out of it.

ASCHER:  Now tomorrow, there will be a statement on LaRouche PAC, which was discussed between Tony Paper, Editor of EIR, with Lyndon LaRouche which will also be the Editorial of the next EIR, entitled,

Q6: Lyndon, this is J— from Fredericksburg, Virginia.  My question is, is John Kerry recently made a statement about the reserve currency of the United States;  I don't know if you recall that or not, but do you actually agree with this statement:  If we did not find that Iran deal, that the United States would no longer be the reserve currency?

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's a complicated way to put it.  It's really rather simple. Look, what we have is, Franklin Roosevelt provided a standard for our currency under his administration. Now, what happened then, is that was cancelled.  And what came in was this business of speculation, Wall Street speculation particularly.  That destroyed us.

Now, if we're going to get a U.S. currency which is functional, we simply have to shut down Wall Street, because Wall Street's mechanism is the thing that has destroyed the integrity of the U.S. economy; and put it into an actual chaotic situation that has ruined the people of the United States.  So therefore, you have to go back to a Glass-Steagall policy, which Hillary will not accept — so she's a menace, too!  We've got to get back to a Glass-Steagall standard.

Now, what would that mean? This requires a little explanation; what's that mean?  That means that the Wall Street money is worthless; it's absolutely worthless.  It's phony money. And what would happen is, if we did the thing properly, we would essentially cancel Wall Street; we'd cancel all those games. Because that's what caused the problem!  From a process from Franklin Roosevelt, who has actually solved the problem; then you had various steps to undermine what Franklin Roosevelt had accomplished, which was the Glass-Steagall principle as such.

If we go back to Glass-Steagall, that means we wipe out, all of those kinds of debts, Wall Street debts, just cancel them! They're worthless, they are presently worthless.  They are worth nothing, or less than nothing.  And Wall Street is totally bankrupt; the British system has a similar kind of problem, the total bankruptcy of the whole system in its present form.

A reform, in the case of the United States, or in the current case of British system right now, if you go back to a Glass-Steagall-type of approach, Franklin Roosevelt type, you would immediately cancel most of the debt,which is claimed to be the property of the British system and of the current U.S. system. Now you just wipe out that, because Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt; it's worth less than nothing.  That's the problem.

All we have to do, go back to a Glass-Steagall standard: The minute we do that, we can now start the march toward an economic recovery of the United States system.  That's the simple story.

Q7:  [internet] And I have a question from the Internet from YouTube which is related to this, which is the following: "China recently devalued their Yuan can you give your opinion on how this will impact other emerging markets such as India and what it will mean for the economies of the United States and Europe?"

LAROUCHE:  Well, I think the problem of China, is limited to a certain aspect of the China economy, which was not adequately reformed.  The other parts of the program  are essentially sound. But the unsoundness comes from the international markets, in which the United States, among others, is one of the chief offenders.

So that what has happened under the Obama administration, the United States government has tried to wreck the economy and disrupt the economy of China.  That was not something that had to happen; it was not something that was caused by China. It was caused by the Obama administration of the United States.  And if you look at it in that way, you can see exactly how the characteristics of Wall Street, and its speculative operations, and what is happening under Obama in respect to trying to mutilate the China economy, it's easily understood.

Q8: Hi, this is A— in Minnesota.  I'm curious about the Iran issue.  And it seems to me like Obama is contradicting his past behavior on most all international agreements, relations; it seems like he's always on the side of chaos and destruction. Well, what exactly is happening with this Iran negotiation?  And I know Congress has to OK it; and it seems like Obama is — he's on the right side, for what reason I don't know!

LAROUCHE:  Obama's on the wrong side, always.  It's the only side he has. [laughs]  No the man really should never have been President.  There is big doubt to be placed on how the British system created the Obama administration.  That was a British operation.

And what he's done, on the record, what Obama has done, in his candidacy and in the results of his candidacy, is largely fraud, wild-eyed fraud.  And what it's done to the conditions of the American people is monstrous.  Therefore, this guy should be removed from office, and we should investigate whether he's committed crimes or not, which [audio loss] penalties, under law for the crimes he's committed, and they are massive and extensive.  The lies are abundant; the whole thing is a fraud.

We have to get rid of the Obama administration.  We have to return to a Glass-Steagall policy, and which we call the Glass-Steagall which is the name given to it by Franklin Roosevelt; go back in that direction.

Now, what that would mean, we would strip out a lot of claims against American citizens in the U.S. economy.  And we would immediately create a credit system, which would encourage actually investment in productive endeavors.  It would mean an improvement in terms of the economy on the economic side, on the educational side; it would mean we would go to a much higher rate of productivity per capita; it would mean a recovery from most of the things that we suffer from in recent times here.

So what we have to do, it would not be difficult to define a program which would represent a true pathway to recovery of the United States system.  That could be done.  It has not been done recently, but it can be done:  Just simply take Franklin Roosevelt's policies.  Now, these occurred under varying conditions, but what Franklin Roosevelt did, given the conditions under which he was operating was good.  It was excellent.  It was a recovery, it was called a "recovery" then, the Franklin Roosevelt recovery.

And since that time, there's been a continuing drift further and further away from that policy.  As a result, terrible things have happened to the welfare of most people, of our people.  And we need to get back to that.  We can solve the problem:  All we have to do, is get rid of some of these laws that were stuck in there, contrary to Franklin Roosevelt's plan.

Franklin Roosevelt saved the United States during his service:  After that, there was disruption, erosion, corrosion, some successes, and some failures; more failures than successes. We could, if we understood the history of our nation, the United States, we could easily pick out, at least from experts as such, pick out the exact measures needed to start a general recovery program for the United States.  And it would not be just a recovery program in the economic sense, but a sense of development of the powers of mind of the human personality.

We have been destroyed, to a large degree, by the things that have been imposed upon the American people, and we simply have to do those things that Franklin Roosevelt had pioneered in doing, and do it all over again.  And that will be a tough road to go, but it will be a road to success.

[Next caller dropped the line]

Q9:  [via internet] Lyn, in the meantime, I have another question here which is somewhat is line with what you were just discussing.  This is from G— from Minneapolis wrote in a question: "I have a question from a comment going back three years or so. The comment was that if Glass-Steagall were to be passed then this would be perceived as a declaration of war. Now in thinking about this idea, it seems to me that a war declaration against the Anglo-Dutch is long overdue. I see Glass-Steagall as coming again in our future however I would like to press the idea that a formal declaration of war would be warranted after 230 years of assaults on our nation. How should a declaration of war be constructed? What are the key items? How is a formal declaration of war put into force?"

LAROUCHE:  Well, we don't have to call it war.  What you have to do is recognize that in the misfortunes of the United States system, there have been many Presidencies within that system, probably a majority; some of the Presidencies of that system have been on the wrong track.  This happened from, well, after George Washington's administration, you had a series of terrible administrations that ruined our economy in some degree or other, damaged it.  You had a few people who had been Presidents who were great, who did great things, but they were exceptions, unfortunately.

But the few exceptions were brilliant; but then, in the course of the 20th century, we had a bigger problem.  What would happen, you get assassinations of Presidents, or similar kinds of things, and guess what you would have?  You would have the Confederacy, which was terrible!  It was ruinous!  You know, it was just evil in a sense.

So we have very few Presidencies among the total number of Presidencies we've had, most of the Presidencies of the United States have been as a disaster for the United States!  There have been Presidents who were not disasters, who were great Presidents, but they were the exceptions.  And most of the time the influence of the British influence, expressed in various ways, have been able to fool people into sucking into something which did them no good;  just misguided.  So we've had very few Presidents who were fit to be Presidents.

Those who have been fit to be Presidents have done a pretty good job, but we don't have enough of Presidents who were doing good jobs, and that's been our problem.  And people just don't understand it.  And well, I guess the educational system, the cultural system, and so forth, many parts of the system, the American citizen is often completely misled; they think they know what they're doing but they don't, because they're given some recipe, some explanation, something they can swallow; you know, false investments, and things like that.

And we could have a more competent system;  I would hope that once we get out of this terrible situation we have now under Obama, and get back to being a real Presidency system, we could recover, and maybe we could fix it, so we don't go back again to repeat the old, same nonsense we went through so many times before.

But, I mean, for me, from my knowledge and so forth, the principle of a successful reorganization of the U.S. economy, is a very elementary thing.  It can work.  It will work, we just have to find the people who don't screw it up!  Which they've done pretty successful most of the time — Wall Street is the good example of that.

Wall Street is the typical example pure evil. You know, because they're bankrupt now; Wall Street is totally bankrupt. And yet, the Wall Street interests is the interest which the government of the United States tends to most support!  And that's what's been going on;  most of our Presidencies recently have been corrupt.  They don't have to be corrupted, they are corruption embodied as corruption, intrinsically.

Once we understand what this American System was, what the system was as founded by our system, once we get back to that and if we can stay to it, we can do just fine.  But the problem is you have four people who misled, misguided, don't understand what the interests of the economy is, what the interests of the American people are; they just don't know it! Probably because they weren't told what the truth was.

ASCHER:  Well, Lyn, I think when we dump Wall Street, we might dump Trump at the same time.

LAROUCHE:  Well, Trump — don't people know what Trump is? Don't they know what he represents?  All the way back the end of the Franklin Roosevelt period?

Trump is simply a part of a mechanism of, I would say, crime; that is, the intention is to produce an effect which would be tantamount to a crime.  And Trump is simply one of a group of people who came roaring out, once Franklin Roosevelt died, they began to wreck the U.S. economy in one way or the other all the way through since that time.  Trump?  Anyone who votes for Trump, is a dump.

ASCHER: J—, we lost your connection before, so if  you're on the phone, please call back — here we go, my plea worked.

Q10:  [J—W—] Hi. Sorry about that. The phone call dropped, or something. But, what I was saying, I was giving a report on the rally that took place, yesterday, in Dante Park at Lincoln Center in New York City. And, I was saying, that, there were, at any one time, about 20 to 25 members and organizers out in the street. And, a very nice area. We had lots of people going by, gave out hundreds of flyers. People came over to the table; they gave information, so we lots of contacts, people that we're going call back, that we're going to invite to things, that they need to more education on, like the Saturday meeting.  And, as B— was saying, it was really a successful rally.

I also want to talk about a disruptor, that came into the rally area. Of course, he was immediately handled by our organizers. The interesting thing was, he came off first like he was just some kind of a nut person, kind of a crazy person and he might have been homeless, or on drugs, or something like that. But, as he went away, and then he came back— I was thinking, and this needs to be confirmed by several other people  —  that this may be part of some type of operation being run against us.

And, I wanted to say, to everyone, what I think is happening, is that the closer we get to success, and getting rid of President Obama, and getting Hillary to tell the truth, so that we can get rid of President Obama, and stop the threat of thermonuclear war; the closer we get to actually succeeding, the more we may see these types of things going on, these disruptors coming out of the woodwork.  And we have to be, not afraid of it, or leery of it, but aware of it, and able to understand that, we are succeeding, and that's why  these things are happening.

And, we have to stay on top of what we know, and getting the truth out, and the organizers will be aware of how to get rid of these people. But, as a member, I am really thinking about it, and saying, this must be happening, this operation against us, because we are succeeding and we have to keep that in mind. We have to keep doing what we're doing, in order to see the success; and keep them running, keep them afraid of us. We cannot be afraid of these kinds of things that are going on. We have to keep up the pressure, and keep doing what we're doing.

And, I just wondered if you could comment on that.

LAROUCHE: Yeah.  The disease of the American people is called populism. That is, people say, "popular opinion, popular opinion, popular opinion." Well, popular opinion, on the record, has been a fraud. [laughs] That's the problem. And, people have bought into things which should not have been bought into. For example, bad education: Bad education destroys minds of people. The kinds of cultural developments, which have been recent trends, have destroyed the morality of our citizens. They don't know what morality is any more. They're sex freaks, of one kind or another. And this doesn't do any good.

So, the point is, mankind must have some standard of intelligence, to recognize what the values are that lead to the purpose of mankind's existence. And that's been changed; it's been confused. The education system has been corrupted, very seriously. All kinds of diversions, populist diversions and so forth have come in.  And morality is shattered, or meaningful morality has been shattered. And it's difficult to maintain that.

But, I think, what now, if we have a movement, and we see traces of that coming up, which does try to understand what the principles are, which mankind requires— or society to be successful, I think we can do it.

The problem is, we have to fight against those who are going in a different direction, like Wall Street, for example. Look, Wall Street is totally bankrupt. Absolutely bankrupt, hopeless. As a matter of fact, it's at a point where it would just explode by itself; it's on the edge of that kind of thing. So, why are we still tolerating Wall Street? We should just simply cancel Wall Street, because it's a fraud; it's a fraudulent venture. Why are we to be enslaved by something which is totally a fraud, worthless? All of Wall Street is a fraud; in general, that is the whole mass of Wall Street, there may be exceptions, here and there.  But the overall thing is a fraud. And this fraud is destroying us. Yet we tolerate it. We respect it.

So, the problem is, we are confused; the American people are confused. Their values are wrong. They're terrible. And, the things that would lead to progress, are prevented. So, what I'm doing, and other people like me, with me, understand these things.  But you have resistance, resistance, from what's called popular opinion; popular opinion is the destruction of mankind. Or, what we call popular opinion, is the destruction, and that's where the problem lies.

Yeah, we're fighting against it and we have some successes, in Manhattan, for example. We find we can get successes in Manhattan, and they're functional. It may not be the total population of Manhattan, but it's functional. And we know that we can get that; we know we can get that back into place. It's going to take continued effort to do so. But, what's been happening to the United States, is there has been much in the history of the United States has been going in the wrong direction, and it's destroying everything that we really thought we wanted.

And therefore, you have to have a proper sense, for what the principles are of our system. And those principles are generally lost. It's productivity, the increase of productive powers of man, to make things better,  in a true sense, for mankind. And, the point is, the deeper principle, is that the human species is the only species, which is human. That mankind's ability to create discoveries of principle, which mankind had not known before, but mankind, discovering those principles, and knowing them, has always been the road for the creation, of advancements in the condition of the human mind, and the human welfare. What we have, we've lost that. Why? Because contrary values have come in, opportunist values, so called. And, what we're doing is, as in New York City  and other places where we're working, we are bringing people back to assemble themselves, for these values, which always did work, when done, and we're going back at it again. And, that's the best shot we have.

Q11: [via internet]  Lyn I have another question from YouTube from T—, who I believe may be from Texas.  And he says that you've previously pointed out that we have to define the next step in, as he puts it, "human self-evolution."  He asks you, Lyn:  "How would you define a mission for humanity from a Galactic perspective?"

LAROUCHE: Well, the Galactic perspective is a very good place to start from. Because the Galaxy is—well, probably I should explain something, so as not to confuse anybody.

We've had different ideas of how mankind could progress. We had, at a certain point, under Kepler, Kepler defined of that system itself. And that worked, but it was not adequate. But the fact that what his discovery was, was absolutely essential for the progress of mankind. But, it wasn't the complete progress of mankind.

So, therefore, we now realize, there was a higher level of standard for measure of the progress of mankind. We now recognize that as being the Galactic Principle; that is, the Galaxy has a superior force, in the universe, with respect to mankind and other kinds of things, is a standard which we now use as a measure of the methods we must apply to the continuation of the existence of mankind in the Solar System, and so forth.

And, what's involved here, is that mankind is the only creature, that can make true scientific discoveries, that is, discoveries of scientific principle. And these, generally, are in accord with the legacy of the Galaxy, also Kepler's own work. And this progress of each generation to rise a little bit higher, in terms of understanding of and mastery of the universe that we're living in, is the name of progress. And that's called scientific progress, true scientific progress.

And true scientific progress, physical scientific progress, is actually the difference of mankind from mere animals. Animals have certain abilities, but they're fixed by species. Mankind, unlike the animals, mankind has the ability, to rise to a higher level, successively; to make discoveries, which mankind has never been able to understand before, and to use those discoveries to bring mankind into a state of power within the Solar System, within the universe, to make discoveries by which will make mankind will advance greatly into higher levels of operation. Like the discovery, for example, of Kepler —  the discovery of the Solar System by Kepler, that was the great step; you have the discovery of the Galactic System now, another great step.

And by understanding these great steps in knowledge, and the practice of knowledge, mankind is able to have seemingly limitless opportunities for its future. And that's really, I think, the most inspiring thing what we can think of.

Q12: [via internet] Well, inspired by that idea, I have a question from M—, who says, "I'd like you to say something about the connection between the national policies that you are advocating and the nation's educational policy. What should we be teaching our youth, and how? I have been using your 1986 essay, 'Saving Our Children: Reintroducing Classical Education to the Secondary Classroom,' as a grounding for my course work towards an education degree."

So she wants to know if you could say something about how these things would apply in terms of bringing them into the education system?

LAROUCHE: Well, the first thing is you have to look to a fundamental principle here, that is, that mankind's progress is expressed in mankind's discovery of a principle of action, that is a practical principle of action, which will enable mankind as a species, to make a step up to a higher level of achievement within the Solar System or whatever.  That's the issue.  And the education system is to promote the education of students, young people, students, etc., etc., and to bring each of them into a higher understanding of something that mankind had never known before.  In this experience of discovering a truth which was never known before, is the distinction of the human species from everything else.

And the educational process, or what we should consider the educational process corresponds to that.  Einstein, for example, in the 20th century, Einstein was the paragon of a mind which understood the future in a conception; where all the other scientists of that period, or that century, were a little bit, not too smart, Einstein was uniquely superior.  Why?  Because he was looking into the actual creation of the future.

And that's the distinction of mankind, of human beings from animals, is that mankind progresses through the human mind into higher levels of existence than had been known before.  That is, to know principles, to discover principles of action which mankind had never known before.  And the purpose of mankind is to discover the experience of those things, those effects, and that is what human progress is.  And that's the distinction of the human being from a mere animal.

Q13:  Hi, Lyn, John; this is A— here in New York.  There are two things I wanted to bring to you.  One, you referenced it in your opening remarks, and John also:  I was part of both the webcast on Saturday and the music program that took place afterwards.  And just a couple of things:  The seamlessness of it, and ending as the program did at night, beginning with the musical practice and everyone participating in the webcast, going through the webcast and then into the night program, as you stated, Lyn, really indicated the level that the Manhattan Project is shifting into.  And being a part of it, that was both seen and felt  throughout.

Lyn, John Sigerson's historical placement of the geniuses, particularly of the music he was about to sing, but of all the music that was performed, and giving us the situation in Europe at that time, while these works were being developed and performed, as he put it, "these were not practical people."  So this was very important, since we had so many and such a mix of, say, older, intermediate and new people there.  But if they were part of this process, something happened and it stayed with them; and indeed, coming out of the chorus today, we saw an increase of participation and new members.  So I just wanted to reference that.

But I also was at the rally yesterday and was not present during the harassment period; I was only there for about an hour. And I would say that it was fortunate, because my understanding — I haven't done a lot of street deployments, compared to many others; but I have been present at deployments where harassments took place, the tossing of tables, of literature and so on.

Now, this is little setup yesterday was, they were miked; so Bill Roberts and others were speaking, they could be heard very well.  J— mentioned there was a good turnout from an LPAC standpoint.  So we were really loud in essence, beautifully, but loud, and we could be heard and felt.  And there was singing as well, on a smaller scale, but nevertheless singing; some of it humorous stuff, and then some Classical pieces as well, so this takes a whole dynamic.

Then you get a person who may be an agent, or an operative, or just a lunatic; and it's one thing, for me personally, because this really does unnerve people;  I don't think J— quite went into that, and it's to destabilize.  Now, when you have a lot of people, you have power in numbers and that really helps.  But my understanding is that one of these guys — there were two — got physical; put his hands on one of the organizers.  Again, I don't know who or what, but I say, it was fortunate that I wasn't there, because I will not allow that.  If anybody puts a hand on me or particularly any of the women there, as far as I'm concerned, they're going down and we'll deal with the tension of that moment and problems that people have; but I want to share that I just feel very strongly about this, and J—, I think was right:  We're heating things up and more of these things are going to happen; and I think personally, I draw the line on when anything becomes physical.

By the time I got there — it was only midday — everything was fine and people were functioning and talking and singing, and we were engaging. But when these things happen, I'd like to hear what you have to say, because it is really unnerving, and I guess that's why we're singing and going to a higher level, so we don't react in a street-like, thug-like manner.  But once a person lays a hand on anyone, I think all bets are off.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I hope not.  I hope we can control the situation, but we have to have an insight into the fact that, you know, when this stuff is done, when this kind of disruption is done, nobody's fooled I think about who's doing what to whom. It's a deliberate thing to disrupt this operation. We're having an assembly, we're discussing things, and somebody comes in and just starts roughing things up.  Well, we know what that is: That people are being deployed to rough people up — it's that simple.

So this is really a police matter, once this is started, that has to be permitted and we have to probably get some evidence, get some identities of the people doing it, track their identity and expose them.  That's the best way to do it.  You know, say this guy did it, well, who is he?  Get his identity. "What kind of a criminal are you?" Is the best question.  "We don't do that kind of stuff here, what're you?"

But what happens is, it happens when the crowd itself says, "No!  You're not going to do this here, you're not going to do this here!  We're not going to let you do that here.  We don't do that, here.  You behave yourself."  And you know, it takes a little bit of opportunity and insight to understand how to deal with that.

But these guys often come in, and they're actually operatives, of one kind or another; they're in there to disrupt; they're there to disrupt.  They're not there to do any legitimate operation, they're there to disrupt;  and you've got to get some intelligence on that, who these guys are, what they're doing and so forth, and when you can identify them in that way, then you can bring them under control.  But you've got to get their identities, and publicize their identities.  Like enforcing law.

Q14: [internet] I have a question here, Lyn, from E— who I believe is from California, but in the question from YouTube, he's described as a  "former advisor to  Ronald Reagan's Presidential Campaign in 1980  and political activist." And he asks the following: " I have just signed the Call your organization is circulating to "Stop the Immediate Danger of World War Three," but I fear because Obama uses the tactic of 'leading from behind,' I am afraid that many, many people have a difficulty seeing Obama's central role in this impending catastrophic doom we face.  How can we break up this brainwashing that the American public is being subjected to? Thanks for all you do...."  That's the question.

LAROUCHE:  Well, obviously, that's exactly what you have to do.  You have to say, "this is this, and this is what the Obama people do."  You know, if you can correctly identify it as the "Obama people," and say so — "well, these are the Obama people, they do that"; and that's a very good deterrent against the spread of that kind of practice.  It's not an absolute security, but it does encourage....

You know, you don't want to let the people you're working with experience defeat.  If they're right, they're right.  They should have a sense of having been right, or being right; and of saying, "we don't allow that here, that's not done here.  That's hoodlumism.  We don't allow hoodlumism here, in our meetings." Hmm?  Period!

And that is a good deterrent.  Because if you popularly say "hoodlum," that has a certain effect.  "Oh, who's that hoodlum?" "Oh, that's Obama."  "Oh!  OK, he's well known for this."

Q15:  Hello this is Y— from Niagara Falls.  Martin O'Malley cut through public opinion last Sunday on the "Face the Nation" program:  He said, "I would ask Hillary Clinton, what sort of ideas she has to make our economy work again?  Does she have the kind of independence to rein in the recklessness on Wall Street that tanked our economy?  I am in favor of reinstituting Glass-Steagall; I will put in robust prosecutional efforts back on Wall Street.  As a candidate for President, each of us needs to state unequivocally, whether we are for reinstituting Glass-Steagall, whether or not we're for our against the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Pact.  Where does she stand?  These are things you have to have answered only in the debate."

That was on Face the Nation.

LAROUCHE: That's true; that's absolutely true.  And it's quite efficient I think.  I think you must recognize that, hmm?

Q16:  [via internet]  I have a question, Lyn, from K— from Milwaukee.  She says, "My question is very simple.  It's one minute to midnight on both the Danger of Thermonuclear War and Thermonuclear Economic Blowout.  If the blowout of the trans-Atlantic system comes first," that is, the economic blowout, "are the BRICS Nations of Russia, China, etc. strong enough to withstand that, or will they be blown apart and go down with that collapse which will swallow up the whole world? Thanks very much, I have been supporting you for President for a long time."

LAROUCHE:  I think that our ability to sustain the fight against hoodlumism, of various kinds, is — no matter whether you win the particular conflict or not, the fact that you maintain a defense against this kind of hoodlumism is itself the best treatment, the best source of treatment that you can supply.  You don't always have to be successful, but if you're putting the pressure on in the right way, you probably will be successful, in the balance of matters, and that's what we have to do.

It's what we do, do, isn't it?  We often lose a particular battle, but by being persistent, in terms of principle we actually can, in the net effect, ultimately win.

Q17: This is K— in New York.  Is that loud enough?  I don't know what I can do.

ASCHER:  If you have a short question, I can repeat it.  Go ahead.

Q17:  Yeah, it's short.  I've been thinking, in Washington, I went last week; particularly Miss W— commenting on her report, talking to her congressman, and I've seen it through the years, where the Congressmen respond in a way that you know they are not serious at all, and their attitude is, "well, we're not breaking any law, we don't have to be different than what we're being. [inaudible 1:15:30], I'll be out of the way, and we'll promise you anything, but you really know they're not serious about matters.

So what I think, is that they may be breaking positive law, but the Preamble to our Constitution isn't positive law....

ASCHER:  Well, K—, listen.  The connection is bad, so you either have to ask a quick question or try to call back on another line.

Q17:  That it's natural law that our congressmen are violating.?  That's my question.

ASCHER:  So, Lyn, he's really asking the difference between positive law and natural law and what is the basis upon which we're fighting?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the point of law is, the principle of progress.  In other words, the intention of mankind is in life, mankind as a process also, not just as an individual but as a process, the problem is that mankind must rise to higher levels of achievement in terms of effect.  You know progress, economic progress, cultural progress, all these kinds of things which are well known to us as phenomena.  That's what the intention is.

Because the point is that mankind is a unique species, when properly understood, mankind is always going higher, to a higher level of achievement, in science, in technology, in every other way; and that's the standard, and that's what the difference is of mankind from animals.  Animals are not capable of rising to higher levels of development of practice.  Only human beings can do that.  The object in life, therefore, for mankind to progress, to rise to higher standards of achievement; and for example, scientific principles for example, the practice of scientific principles, is one of the most characteristic features of progress.  And the way in which through educational process, through higher experimentation and so forth, these are means by which mankind becomes mankind, as opposed to merely animals.

Mankind is not an animal.  Mankind is defined as a creature which rises, always, to a higher level of existence, whereas no animal can do that. And that's what the standard is.

ASCHER:  Lyn, I think that's a good point where we can conclude here, this evening. I just want to mention one thing to people on the phone, which I'll send out in my email tomorrow following up from our call this evening, the video of the musical performance that A_- mentioned before, the Music Evening, the Musikabend that was so beautiful and held last Saturday night in Manhattan. So I would encourage people to make sure you look at that, because we want to radiate this process from New York throughout the country.

Lyn, is there anything you would like to say in concluding remarks?

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, the point is, we are in New York, right now, we had an achievement — we must call it an achievement — in bringing together a chorus, a choral phenomenon which was quite successful.  The fact of that success is not merely something where you get pats on the back or something, but is an effect in which the people participating, feel themselves, as being uplifted by the process which they have shared in going through.  And that thing that happened in that New York meeting, which was excellent, and the spirit was excellent; the improvement in satisfaction among the participants, was excellent.  And we must expect to go to still higher levels in the coming weeks.

ASCHER:  The statement which I'm sure will be out in leaflet form as well, entitled, "An Insane President Will Launch Nuclear War in August; What Democrats Must Do To Prevent It."  So I encourage everybody to take a look at that statement that was drafted earlier in a discussion between Tony Papert and Lyndon LaRouche.

And Lyn, thank you very much, this has been our 14th discussion here.  And we look forward with being back you next Thursday.   That concludes our 14th Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche.  Good night, Lyn.

LAROUCHE:  Good night.



Also Relevant