Transcript-DIANE SARE:  Good afternoon and welcome to the weekly discussion of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.  Today is Monday, August 31, 2015 and I am Diane Sare, also filling in for Matt Ogden.  We're joined by Policy Committee members from across the country over Google Hangouts:  There's Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan and Manhattan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts.  And here in the studio, I'm joined by Jason Ross and Megan Beets of the  LaRouche PAC Science Team, and of course, Lyndon LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  I think the time has come for us to interpolate what we have been up to in the recent weeks.  And what we've done, we've moved into, actually shifting the actual center of our activity into Manhattan, and taking the other parts of our nation, and we're orienting them to the Manhattan base, because that's the natural center, as Alexander Hamilton would have insisted.

So therefore what we should probably do, is understand that this shift has occurred, that we are no longer a bunch of separate people floating around in different areas of the landscape, but we are a coherent unified organization, which is centered essentially on Manhattan.  And more and more, our activities will be focused on Manhattan.  This involved such things as, very typically, the fact that in the Manhattan operation we have an organization, which functions as a central point of reference, more and more in terms of Manhattan.

And that the other parts of the organization in the United States in particular, actually lie within that scope.  In other words, the orientation is like a magnet.  Manhattan is the magnet.  And the different other parts of the organization, are located and being attracted and tied to that magnet.  And that change is a very important one, because when we're dealing with small groups of people who are each trying to run their own job, it doesn't work out too well.  Because you need a policy of the organization as a whole.  And the kind of thing we were forced to do under these other conditions was, we were having: "Oh, he's there"; "Oh, yes, I remember, he was there before"; "Oh, yes, I remember her"; "Oh, we have some ideas"; "oh, yes, we too have some ideas";  "Oh, he also has some ideas."  And therefore you've had a certain kind of chaos, intellectual chaos, which weakened us, weakened our ability to do what we have to do and to show ourselves as being a factor, in the United States as such.  And for some long time that has not been the case.

Now I think we can say with recent weeks' developments that this has been fully established and we can now put it on the agenda, as, that's it.  Our center of operations as an organization is located essentially in Manhattan, in the Manhattan base.  And we are also drawing people in from different parts of the United States, drawing them into a closer immediate working relationship with the Manhattan organization.  And that's the best way to get the job done.

So that's a little change, and we'll have some fun.  I think some people who are on the list out there will have some reflections on that idea.  And I think most of them will understand exactly what to do accordingly.

SARE:  I think so.  I mean, you've done now, is it eight or ten, I'm not sure, of these Saturday discussions with this network of the Manhattan operation.  And what you see in the course of this is that these people are really delighted to engage in this dialogue with you.  And they are gaining in confidence and insight, and each week is somewhat of an upshift of the previous discussions.  And I know from, and what people here have to say, that it is definitely being followed from all around the country and having an impact.

LAROUCHE:  Well take a particular case.  Let's take the case of New England.  The New England organization was once a leading feature, of our national organization.  And after the passage of a couple of elections which didn't win out for us, we began to find ourselves disintegrating in a certain way; not really disintegrating as a whole, but the whole idea of a team work, which had been in the New England area, was then suppressed.  And many people who had been in the New England area, concentrating on the campaigns in that period, were scattered around into different places.

But that was not too bad in itself, but the fact is you need more coherent organization, nationally coherent organization. And it has to be one that works as a unit.  And what has happened for years, our organization has not been a unit.  It's been a scattered bunch of people;  some more and more reflective, and some not, some obscured, some not remembered, practically.  We had some great people who had significant talent, in scientific work, and they're stuck somewhere in the Jersey or something, out there.  But I think that's sort of terrible.

Now we have an organization.  And that fact that we have a functioning organization, with all the weaknesses that still adhere there, we now have a real organization, once again.  And that's what has to be emphasized.  And I think the people on the roster over there who are glaring at me, or staring at me, or whatever it is, will recognize that immediately.

MICHAEL STEGER:  Well, I think one way of addressing it, has been the difference that has developed with what you've done with the Manhattan Project.  And we see it very much in the Bay Area, Northern California, and throughout the West Coast.  And you begin to have a sense that we are leading the country, that the tolerance of Obama is so despicable by the nation's institutions. This President is psychotic in every shape of the term.  And yet, the opposition to him is far less than what it should be.  And what you see now with the way you've intervened, Lyn, is that you start to have a sense that the organization represents the leadership in the country.  It's not simply fighting against something, but it is actually leading and representing a higher conception of mankind, which is critical to getting this President out of office in the near term.  And that seems to be a significant difference, at least in change of direction of what we are now doing.

LAROUCHE:  I have an answer on that thing.  But the point, we have to realize, we are on the edge of a thermonuclear war, a thermonuclear attack.  This is what we face.  Obama is the instrument who, well at least implicitly, defines the problem; and we're on the edge of a thermonuclear war.

Now a thermonuclear war, and go back to what happened with the Cuba crisis.  Now the Cuba crisis was actually really a real thermonuclear war.  But!  What happened is the President, together with the Russians, actually called it off.

Now, what's happened now, Obama has called it on.  And it's active now.  It's a threat now to all mankind.  It could be even the extermination of all mankind, because when you look at what the capabilities are, of the United States' forces; and the European forces; and Russia; also China, which is not irrelevant, but it's sort of skewed from this operation.  So we're on the verge of a kind of warfare, which could occur any day or any week. We're not quite sure what the intention is.

And therefore the important thing for us is to recognize, that this situation is the immediate situation, for every citizen of the United States right now — except for the very dumb ones. No, it's true, it's absolutely true.  You  have people who say, "No, it can't happen.  They won't let it happen.  It won't come that way."

And of course, Obama is a freak.  He should never have been a President.  The man was morally incompetent for being a President.  And I followed his career very closely, and in the early part of his first term in office, I recognized what this bum was:  He's a complete fake, and he's an instrument of evil.

So these kinds of problems have to be recognized and we have to have a view, among the nations in general, that this problem exists.  Russia knows that the threat's there.  Italy trembles at the thought of it.  France is not exactly easy about the whole thing.  And the world is like that, the world as a whole is like that: We could be enveloped in a thermonuclear war.  We have to understand, we have a responsibility, to make our contribution to assure that does not happen.

SARE:  Right.  And one of the Kennedy-era strategists, William Polk, just wrote an op-ed where he discussed the insanity of these war games.  That people had constructed a scenario, where the United States or NATO launched a (quote/unquote) "limited nuclear strike" on the then, in the '60s, Soviet Union —  today Russia — and that Russia did not respond. Now that alone should be grounds for impeachment.  That is pure documentation of insanity,  that anyone would even conceive of such a thing.

It also underscores the insanity of relying on mathematics and computer models, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, and the entire human race could be wiped out if we're going to go with an assumption like that.

DAVE CHRISTIE:  Yeah, well, I think it goes also to this idea that people are presenting the argument, now these are important people, I know Jeff [steinberg] referred again, in the Friday webcast, he referred to what Gen. James Cartwright and [General Vladimir] Dvorkin of Russia had made as a comment in the op-ed in the New York Times, which was "How to Avert a Nuclear War." And a lot of how they present it though, is from this idea, the launch on warning and you'll get a kind of accidental war, just because of the limited timeframe in which to make decisions. But they're not addressing what the actual intention is.  And many of the people who are referring to this idea of the accidental nature of war are wanting to dodge that issue.

I think it comes right back to the Obama question; They don't want to go there, to recognize what, Lyn, you recognized and discussed in April of 2009, where you identified him as a Nero.  And if you don't understand the psychological profile of a madman, and that the intention is, that in the middle of this massive financial crisis, and everybody can forget about the ups and downs of the stock market, because that's not the reality. There's all kinds of fakery that can go on.  The underlying fabric of this system is gone and that's the context and the trigger for the war.  And I think if people don't understand intention and they want to just reduce the discussion to accidental nature, then they're going to lose humanity.  So I think that has to be emphasized.

LAROUCHE:  More than emphasized:  I would say that the point is we really have to do a lot of muscle work on our own part. For example, what we're doing in Manhattan.  You want to do something to deal with this problem?  Where do you go?  You go to Manhattan.  Because Manhattan is still the center of organization of the United States, as it was defined by Alexander Hamilton. And so that's the point.

We have a responsibility to focus on Manhattan as the logical center of the United States — since his accomplishment. And therefore, we have to, with our relationship to what going on in Manhattan, we have to focus the attention, throughout our nation, that this is the issue.  And say, "What are you going to do here?  What are you going to do here on this issue?  Are you going to let Obama rough all over you, in going to a thermonuclear war from which you will not survive?"

And that's what's required here, is, we have to have a practical focus; we pin the responsibility on some part of the United States, and I would choose — not Washington, Washington's impossible, nobody knows what goes on in Washington, really.  I mean they don't, their brains are....

SARE:  I'm not sure we'd want to know if we could.

LAROUCHE:  Yes,  I think the brain defect is probably very important in this matter.  But, you have to pin it on what the center of the United States is, Alexander Hamilton's center. And Manhattan's still there:  The tomb of Hamilton, is right there. And some people have taken notice of this thing, and that's what we have to do.

So we have to get a sense of a national identity concept, and we don't have a national identity concept.  We have, you know, local-yokels, not human beings as such, not citizens.  And what's necessary is to mobilize people who are citizen-minded, who are devoted to the nation as a whole, not to the regional considerations, and say, "No!  We're not going to let this happen."  And that would be easy to do.

The problem is, you know, we've got two terms of, now, four really, Presidents's terms, and this has broken down the integument of our nation.  And therefore, we have to build that integument back together, and this is the best way to do it:  Use Manhattan as the instrument.  And the people of Manhattan are most willing to do this sort of thing.  This is one of the virtues of the thing.

JASON ROSS: They're more willing to think than some others.

LAROUCHE:  Yes!  I'd say that's a very good way to put it.

ROSS:  You know, what's funny about localism, people's having an interest that's local or very personal, Lyn, really one's personal interest has to rise to the level of the nation. I mean, the nation is the vehicle through which to realize our greatest aspirations, and really affect society in the most important way, develop the kinds of scientific breakthroughs we need, implement economic development and justice on a larger scale; it's bizarre not to have a national orientation, even in one's personal outlook.

And that was the fight that Hamilton had, to have a national approach.  To say, we're going to choose and be responsible for deliberating on principles and directions to move in, and having a national direction.  And some people may not want to take on such a large question, and feel more comfortable leaving it to the invisible hand or the markets, but we know who runs that. No, you know, decisions are made on that broad a scale and it makes sense to be active, as your identity, in acting on a national level.

MEGAN BEETS:  And I think if you look at the source of what you're referencing, the concept of the nation, it goes back to the Nicholas of Cusa.  And that's what I found so striking in the developing process of your dialogue with Manhattan, that the essential questions that Cusa placed at the basis of his founding of the concept of a nation-state, were new ideas about the nature of man, and what this necessitated in terms of a structure of society, to carry out and fulfill that potential. And what I've been observing in your dialogue with Manhattan, is that between the questioner and your answer, were beginning to develop in this audience, the question of, what is the nature of man?  How do I go from concepts of the nature of man, to now contemplating my actions in society, today?

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we get is, I do not pose the question as such, in what my discussion was with the people in Manhattan. What I do is listen to what they say.  Then I reply to what they say.  And what I'm trying to do, is just bring a sense of coherence, to the thoughts they already have.  And that's the way, really, you improve the way of getting the nation, or people in larger groups, to understand one another; not to think in terms of their own little ego, or their own little ego opinion, but to say, "Wait a minute.  Yeah, there is a larger connection. There is a larger connection."  And my answer is to give honest answers, to questions that they raise, but I say, "Well, here's how you have to understand it."  And that's it.

And that's the best way to organize the American citizen, if they're intelligent, that is.

RACHEL BRINKLEY:  You find a lot of people have instincts in the right direction, having a sense that this is the biggest financial collapse in history, but not exactly being able to explain that, or know what the next step is.  Or, for example, understanding that there might be good things happening in the world, but if the United States does not fundamentally change, we're headed for total disaster and war.

You know, people have instincts toward this, but they really don't have the ability to think it through.  So that's why you get this sort of intellectual chaos, or ability of stupid, evil people to control the dynamic.

But you were the making the point this weekend about science versus mathematics, and you said, Kepler didn't use mathematics to discover the principle of the universe, the coherent organizing principle, of the universe.  Well, likewise, Helen Keller, for example, didn't use her senses, most of her senses, to discover how the universe functioned as well, and you made the point, she made a mapping of social processes using other people as facilitators, but that she made it in her own mind.

So anyway, just this idea, that it's this question of really being able to think in scientific terms, that the United States used to have, used to have a sense of basic scientific conceptions; that's been very much eliminated from people's thinking; but we can get, we have to get this back.  And I think we can.

SARE: One thing I'll just say on what Megan raised on Cusa, and what it means to be human: You really see the legacy, the rotten legacy of Jefferson, Jackson, the Confederate Southern outlook, by people's response to the refugee crisis.  I had a conversation with someone this morning, who said, "Yeah! Obama should be impeached because he's letting 10,000 Syrians come into the United States!"  [gasps of incredulity]

And I said, "Yeah, and killing how many?"  I said, "Do you know there are 60 million refugees because of Obama, that he has created these wars?"  And the guy actually stopped; he actually stopped.

But you know, people are crazy on what they think it means to be a nation.  Because they don't know what it means to be a human being.  So they think it's a skin color, a religion, a piece of land, all things that are outside what the actual identity of a human being is.

And I think on this war situation, what Obama has created, you really — the stench is just such a rot.  It is so evil, and people get scared and they succumb to thinking that way, and then they cannot organize themselves out of it.

LAROUCHE:  I have a special recipe for dealing with that problem, of people being afraid of something.  Because the fact of the matter is that the human species is a unique species. There's no animal which compares with the human species, not at all.  Because the difference with mankind is, that mankind dies, and does not regret the death.  They may weep about the death, they may be sad by the fact of the death; but if you have a society which is creative, in which the members of society advance in scientific capabilities, for example, then the fact that they died, becomes their justification of having lived.  And what's lost in this process, is that that connection is lost, that connection is not accepted. The point is that the people like me are going to die; so what?  The question is, will something better, in terms of scientific progress come forth, to justify my own existence, having been?  Hmm?

And when people have grasped that understanding, of the continuity of humanity, that people died!  We know heroes, for example, who died; we have whole studies of histories of heroes, and they were valid heroes; but if you look clearly, like at Alexander Hamilton, again, or you look at others, the same thing, who were great discoverers, and their discoveries made possible the progress of mankind, particularly of the United States itself, notably.  And therefore, what people have lost, with their crazy, Satanic, kind of beliefs; and they are literally Satanic, they're saying, "You're dead!"  It's over, it doesn't mean anything any more. You don't have any price. You don't have any value for mankind."

"No," I say, "No, you can't by with that, buddy!  We dead people will do something about you, to spank you if you don't stop doing that!"  Because you're taking away the meaning of their existence.  In other words, you're taking away their own meaning of existence, the fact that they were tied to somebody alive, who's a living successor of them, who carries the mission forward, into advances. But the problem is, we don't have that kind of belief; we don't have that kind of religious belief any more.  Because, where the greatest people in history, who have died, have all recognized that, as a group, recognize exactly what the important issue is.

And therefore, in this case, we face great wars, right now. We're threatened by a great thermonuclear war.  Well, a lot of people get killed in a thermonuclear war, like that, even in a medium one.  So therefore, what's your meaning of life?  Are you going to become totally dejected, say life is meaningless because they died?  No, not at all!  The question is, the issue is, are people, maybe, killed?  Yes!  Bad!  Yes, no doubt.  But!  Are people going to survive, because they created scientific and correlated kinds of advances in the human being's role.  That's been the history of mankind. That is the principle, that is the religious principle, the only decent religious principle concerning mankind, is exactly that.

Is there a consequential improvement in the future history of mankind?  That's the point!  And that is what's not discussed in these matters.  That's what Obama, certainly, has no idea of this notion.  And so, he's not really a human being.  He may be called a human being, but his ticket has not punched. [laughter]

KESHA ROGERS:  I think that's what was actually thought of in terms of the idea that shaped the foundation of our nation. And that which Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin understood, this conception of not acting for the now, but always acting for the future.  And when you brought up the importance of the Manhattan Project, that's exactly why we can look at Franklin Roosevelt and what he understood in terms of, Roosevelt's connection to Hamilton; not necessarily just because he had a family connection and one of his great-relatives was connected to Alexander Hamilton; but more so, that he understood the importance of carrying out what the intention was, which was defined by Hamilton, and defined by people, such as Benjamin Franklin and others; and carried out by people such as Abraham Lincoln.

And I was thinking on this question of how this is a magnet to unite the entire nation:  that people, as you have described in recent discussions, have lost a certain sense of confidence, because they have lost that sense of being united.  And what Franklin Roosevelt did with his programs such as the Four Corners projects; what he did to have projects of development all around, at every single corner of the nation; what this did to unify the nation.  And you look at it from the standpoint, that as Franklin Roosevelt unified the nation, what he was doing right from the Manhattan, particularly, people all over the world were benefiting from this, all over the nation, should we say, were benefiting.  And many people, many of us can talk about family experiences in Texas; if you didn't have, for instance, if we didn't have Franklin Roosevelt and his vision, we would not have been able to solve the problems with the droughts and what was going on, in terms of the loss of farmland, the loss of cattle; and these things that Franklin Roosevelt did, were saving people's farms, were unifying the nation in a way that people have no conception of today.

So I think that as we're now looking at a moment where the population is in desperate need for leadership, the leadership, the void there is atrocious, and the only thing that we can do, is to turn and put our attention into channeling the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt, and as you just said, actually continuing what his intention was in terms of giving people a hope for a new direction for society.

STEGER:  Yeah, I think this question of Roosevelt is actually very key.  He began a Manhattan Project before his Presidency;  I mean the people like Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, which were critical advisors to Roosevelt, shared a very clear dedication, not just to the economic revival of the country, but essentially the spiritual revival, this creative content of man.  There was clearly a devotion there, that far transcended  what many people would [inaudible 31:45] to Roosevelt in his legacy.  And then you see someone like Ferdinand Pecora directly out of Manhattan — I mean, there was a fight to bring down this Wall Street Confederate establishment, explicitly!

Even in his paper on Hamilton from college, he makes explicit reference to Aaron Burr's attempt to build a Confederacy in the North, and Hamilton's outright refusal to let that happen. That was Roosevelt's dedication and I think it's the same today with our Manhattan Project. Just to make that note.

SARE:  Well this week also is the 70th anniversary of the V-J Day, and I think it was this week 70 years ago, where General MacArthur gave that famous radio address from the battleship Missouri, where he made the point that after dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan, which he didn't say that explicitly, but he said, it's very clear now, that mankind can no longer resort to war as a means of resolving disputes; that if we do this, that Armageddon will be at the door. And then, he said it's a theological question, and what we need is "spiritual recrudescence" so that mankind becomes better, to find another way to settling such disputes.

LAROUCHE:  You see that with the breaking point in World War II.  That was the breaking point; and the breaking point was then reached that general warfare could not ever be continued. Because it would lead to a degree of weapons destruction, which would destroy the human species itself, and that's the situation we live in now.  So therefore, Obama is doubly, or trebly evil! Because what he represents, he represents first of all a direct threat to the existence of the human species; therefore, he must be removed, the 25th Amendment, he must be removed from his office, now, immediately.

And what you have, you have idiots and baboons, like one who's trying to get a big appointment, Trump, — or Frump if you prefer!  —

SARE:  That's right! [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  And so therefore, Trump is really something that turns your stomach.  I mean the very sight of that man, or the sound of his voice, turns your stomach! And it may also turn your intestines.  And nearby persons are going to be affected by that.

But anyway, Frump or Trump or whatever he is, is an evil guy.  He was very close to the Wall Street crowd.

SARE:  Roy Cohn.

LAROUCHE: Yes!  Not only Roy Cohn, but also the chief assassin, Hoover.  Hoover sucked!  That was really the point [laughter], but anyway, these are the kinds of considerations which we have to make current, current conceptions.

We have to get people back to find a real morality.  The people in the United States generally have no morality.  You have people call themselves religious, you have this kind of religion, that kind of religion, this kind of religion, but they pay no attention to the reality of the situation.  They don't pay attention to the future of mankind.  They weep over the dead, but they don't find a new life sprung from those who have died. And they don't accept the importance of the future life of people.  Which is what the meaning of the life of people who have died amounts to.  If they have died, was their death fruitful, in the sense that they went on, and created something new which was better, and progress.

Look at the Green policy.  The Green policy people are actually Satanic; it's intrinsically Satanic.  The Green policy is that kind of character, because it says nothing about the future.  It says, "we have too many people."  That's nonsense. You can get a lot of people, if you want to.  But you don't want to eliminate the people.  You don't want to eliminate the human species, you don't want what's being done by the by the governor of California, today, who is evil.  He's Satanically evil!  His father was not Satanically evil, but he's Satanically evil. Fact.

And so, the problem is,  that we lost the idea of the importance, of the immortality of the human species.  The members of the human species die; on the record, all have died, more or less, and will die.  But!  What if something comes out of them, through their development, as children, as young people, adults who are creative?  No, mankind goes on. And the people who are remembered, are remembered on that account.  They're remembered because they were the people, who created the opportunity, which the living person is able to realize.

And so, this whole idea of death and man and so forth, is really rotten, because it does not recognize reality.  Reality is that the human mind is the only kind of living creature, which has an actually, active creative mind.  No animal has an actively,, willful creative mind.  And it's important that we have people with creative minds, living as long as we can keep them!  And when we run out of them, who are already living, we want a new, fresh batch to resupply our needs.

It's true!  It's a reality!  When you look at society in those terms, and say, "Yes, everybody dies,  so what?  But let's talk about what they did.  Let's remember what they did.  And remember, well, maybe we should think about what they did; and use that as a basis for going into the future."

That's what an education system is supposed to be; it's not to teach people how to burp.  It's exactly that!  And our attitude about mankind is what's rotten in the United States, largely today!  I'm sure there are people who are exceptions, in that respect.  But they're discouraged.  "We have too many people," they say.  "We have to reduce the human population."

Well, I want to reduce the population of people who don't believe in promoting human beings!  I want more human beings!  We can get rid of those guys in due course.

SARE:  But they don't volunteer.

LAROUCHE:  No. [laughter]  They may do dirty things to each other which cause that effect to occur.

ROGERS:  Just a quick question on that, which is, that this brings up the question of the importance of art and Classical music.  Because the intention of the enemy, of the oligarchy, to destroy that commitment and those discoveries, which in those contributions to the progress of mankind, which are what is necessary to keep that human being who has passed along, or those human beings who have passed along, alive, I think becomes the ultimate question right now, in what you're saying.  So I wanted to see if you had any more on that, in your emphasis on Classical art.

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely!  Just take the case of Furtwängler. Furtwängler was the last great composer, and last great conductor. There were other people who had the same ambition, who admired what he had done.  Others who had admired the similar kinds of effort.  But! What he did, in teaching so firmly, so aggressively, together with those who were very close to him; a number of people were very close to him, at that time.

And so this expresses what I've been talking about here, about what is the future of mankind. And Furtwängler understood the meaning of the future of mankind.  And the people he was very close,  — same thing.  They were all of that same view of the matter.

And what she just said, is that of that nature:  You assume that you must do something, to create a better future for mankind, before the living people die!  And that's what's important, and when you have that kind of value, you're not despondent; you're not despondent, because you know there's a future of mankind.  And you have an idea of what the future is, because you have the example of people who created new principles.

And therefore, if you live in that kind of life, you just say, "OK, well, I'm going to die.  But, we've got some people around there who are going to do things which will make up for that."

CHRISTIE:  You know, Plato in the Meno dialogue and others as well, discusses the idea that the ability to actually create other people that can think is of the highest intellectual standard; in other words to carry out that tradition of intellectual life is really the greatest intellectual achievement.  And it's also notable that the commitment to do that, is also — or the commitment to actually have a culture that enables future people to be able to think as an intellectual challenge, is also the foundation of all creative breakthroughs. Because no scientist or artist ever does anything just for their own benefit; they may benefit from it, but they're always committed to the future.

LAROUCHE:  We have two examples:  You have Kepler.  Kepler was the first one to discover that there was some kind of order in the Solar System.  Now, you have the question of the more advanced consideration in the Solar System and beyond, and that's present now.

So we know that the water supply available to us, is much greater than we had ever known before; the water supply needed by mankind, is greater than we had ever known.  As a matter of fact, there's more water, coming from the Galaxy than there from the planet Earth:  What're you worried about?  And these kinds of considerations I think are the ones that motivate optimism.

ROSS:  And you know, the Greens, first off, they want to kill people.  And then, the people who aren't dead have had their humanity removed if they agree with the ideology which says that the reason we have to kill off people, is that if we don't, we'll become overpopulated, because we'll never discover anything new. So that's the basis: They're saying, there's too many human beings when you remove their humanity.

If we eliminate, — and this is the point that you made, in the '70s, when the book Limits to Growth was published with these ridiculous extrapolations about how pollution would have killed everybody by now; actually decades ago we would have all been dead, according to this stupid book.  And then, when you refuted that, in your There Are No Limits to Growth and in your economics work, you point out that what these guys have done is, they've said, "Let's study a false human economy in which nothing new ever happens; there's no new science, there's no technology," they conclude that the result is a destruction of resources, an overflow of pollution, and their conclusion isn't to have scientific development, but to just die more gently! Or die sooner, or kill people off, so that we don't reach that point.

If you take the humanity out of what we are as a species, you get a catastrophe.  The answer is:  Be human.

LAROUCHE:  Well, the answer is, beyond this, is a process that mankind, as with the Galactic System now, and as was with Kepler before that; is, that what's the purpose?  It's not a thing, it's a purpose? How did it happen?  Mankind did it! Mankind created the possibility of a development of mankind which otherwise would have been impossible.  We now have with a Galactic System, and looking at it, we know that that is a future opportunity, beyond what we had ever thought before, and this works.  And we look back at Kepler, and do you think we'd ever understood anything about the Solar System if Kepler had not done what he did?

And so, these kinds of scientific discoveries, are essential for the existence of mankind as the human species; otherwise, he's just animals.  And I would say, anybody who doesn't agree with me, is worshipping animals.

SARE:  That's also where you find courage.  Because in Schiller's On the Sublime, you know, "No man must must."  And then you say, wait a minute, doesn't everyone die?  But once it's clear, what the meaning of your life is, which is in the perpetuation of mankind, then you are truly liberated, because you no longer are afraid of anything when you don't fear death. And this was very clearly evident in Martin Luther King's "Mountaintop Speech" the night before he was assassinated, where he knew that the threats were against him.  And he said, "Longevity has its place, but I'm not worried about that now," because he had seen the future, and therefore, he had no fear.

LAROUCHE:  He had no doubt of the merit of his having existed.  That's the point.  And that's what people have lost. You know, invention:  What's the importance of an invention? Invention is the future of humanity.  And as long as you see the future of humanity coming along down the train, then you still have an optimistic view about mankind.  If you don't see a future for mankind, but you're just going to die, period; that's the end?  That is very depressing.  It's not a good idea.

And therefore, the time has come that we have really emphasize this right now.  Because the greatest threat to mankind, is the people who are, shall we say, opposed to progress, who want to limit the human population.  These guys should be immediately removed.  Because if they're going to try to occupy the positions of power, then we don't want them to have those positions, at all!  Because they're an impediment to the future of mankind.

SARE:  We can put them in one of those skyscrapers.

LAROUCHE:  We have a candidate now, an ambitious candidate, Mr. Frump, who's one of those unnecessary people.  [laughter]

But we have a challenge, and the challenge I think we have to address is — we have been discussing this right here, right now — is, we have to understand what the meaning of life is. And what the meaning of mortality and immortality on that basis; then if everyone has a mission for the future, and if there is interrupted in the process of things, and other people are continuing the process, then we look, say, "Well, he died, but look what we're going to see as a result of his having lived." It's that view.

And when you get the other view, you get so pessimistic! You become satanically evil just by the way you think about life. And that's what's happened to a lot of our people.  They actually have become Satanic like in the sense that they don't believe that there's any future that means anything;  they just say, "We're occupying space, and we're going to die very soon and that'll be over.  Nothing is going to come out of that."  And this is really unique for the United States, it's unique in the United States, this kind of evil.

Because we always — you know, our tombs in Europe and so forth the same way, our tombs, our burial places, a whole ritual, was to presume that the person who had died, had been a continuer of something to come. And therefore, you revered them!  You didn't weep about the fact they died, you revered them, for what they had contributed, to the process of progress of mankind.

And if you lose that attitude, you really become a skunk; really, you can only come out as a skunk.  Because you don't think about mankind in the same way!

That's I think is one of the most important issues, the most fundamental issues of all, is to understand what the meaning of the future of mankind is.  And what the role of the individual is, in contributing to the future of mankind.  That's the most important thing.

CHRISTIE:  Yeah, and I think not understanding that is the basis of fear, too.  I think this is why most people right now, they don't have any vision of what should be the future, particularly in political life; they succumb to the fear; they cower under Obama and his intimidation.  Maybe we should just say that, rather than FDR, what he said that there's "nothing to fear but fear itself"; for these guys, there's nothing to fear except Obama. So, get him out, you know!

LAROUCHE:  Make them happy, by getting rid of Obama.

SARE:  Well, that seems like a good place to conclude.

LAROUCHE:  Bury things that are worth being forgotten.

ROSS:  Like Barry. [laughter]

SARE:  Sounds like a job for cats.

LAROUCHE:  Precisely.

SARE:  All right.  So I think that concludes our discussion for this week, and I hope everyone will join us again next week.