The Manhattan Project: Town Hall Q&A Event with Lyndon LaRouche, September 19, 2015

September 19, 2015

The Manhattan Project: Town Hall Q&A Event with Lyndon LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche returns to Manhattan! Every Saturday, LPAC's Manhattan Project hosts a town hall event featuring a Q&A session with Mr. LaRouche. This week's discussion: Obama is out of tune with the rest of the world's direction, and needs to be ousted. With the UN General Assembly meeting in New York in the weeks ahead, we have the potential to begin to bring the nation's of the planet into harmony. There are, of course, no guarantees, but the wind, currently, is blowing in that direction.

TRANSCRIPT

DENNIS SPEED: On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome everybody here today. My name is Dennis Speed. We're going to go into our dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche immediately.

As people know, we've now begun the extraordinary session of the United Nations, and Mr. LaRouche has said several things about that session, and about what its implications can be. I want one thing to be clear: Certainly what we want done with respect to that session, is that Barack Obama, the erstwhile President of the United States, be removed through the actions that we intend to take, including as they impact that session, and as that session impacts the United States.

So, Lyn, I want to first invite you, if you want, to give us some opening remarks, and if not, we'll go right to questions, if you would prefer that.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we are now, as you know, on the verge of the participation in Manhattan, and elsewhere, of a very important event, an event which may determine the judgments made to bring about a safe reconstruction of the relations of the planets, and together with those on Earth. And I think that in the course of time, that statement from me will stand up.

So, why don't we just take it that way, and let's see what the result is in the minds of our people here, gathered today.

SPEED: Okay, I like that!

Q: Hi, Lyn. It's A— from New York. I'd like you help regarding, in this upcoming week now that we're going to rally and intervene in the UN, this has, as you talked about or referenced, worldwide historical effects, and I'd like for you to help describe that a little bit. But more specifically, I'm working through your paper on global warming and population control, and in the process of looking to work through this with others, be it through phone calls, or discussions. So I'd like your help on that, because Obama is a focus, a center point, of this operation that we need to snap, and so with that in mind, give us a hand here.

LAROUCHE: Well, I would say that everything about Obama is dissonant, and therefore it has no real human resonance. This is true in terms of the way he speaks, if you listen to him. Listen to him when he makes speeches. You say, this man is dissonant character. When he says things, or when he starts to make proposals, the same effect comes in. And the question is, why are Americans so stupid that they don't recognize this guy's a bum?

That's a fact. Because if you think about what the role of leaders in society have been, for example in the United States, or in some cases of some Europeans, you find that the leading figure, as speaking to the population around, that these figures have a certain resonance, which attracts the audience very much as like what just happened here. The idea of tuning in on coherence.

So the easiest thing to do is, if somebody is really twisting everything around, and you don't like it,—not because you have some prejudice, but because it doesn't fit your idea of what a human being should say, in order to propose a policy question to an audience, and therefore I think the best experience is exactly that. That when people are able to convey concepts which resonate within the mind of an audience, you have to pay attention to that. And when it doesn't resonate, you have to say, uh-oh, we've got a problem.

Maybe it's something that can be corrected, but the likelihood is that there's something wrong with the works, if you can't get that kind of resonance.

Q:  [strong accent, some paraphrase] Hello. I'm from Turkey, and I'm a student. I am learning English. If you can't understand me, you can tell me. It's okay? My name is S — .

I have a question, one question.  We have so many problems. One of them is ISIS. Second one, economic problems: What are the economic problems in Turkey? So many factors turn up, so many factors to try to correct now. And also young people cannot find jobs in Turkey. Other problems: our government killed 200 Kurdish people in the last four months and also some fascist Turk people are killing Kurdish people,  too. And governments have suffered [allowed] them. Also Kurdish people killed so many soldiers, and these soldiers ages are like 21, 22 years old.

What is the question? I need peace in Turkey. Also in the Middle East. Some countries tried communism in Europe. It didn't work. And also, capitalism, it doesn't work for us. I need new systems, new economic systems for my country, meaning Arab countries also.

The question: What new economic system is available for me? Also, what is the way? Got it?

LAROUCHE: Okay, you've got quite a list of things implicitly, as your concern in this matter. I understand what the variegation is in the expression, because it's valid.

The point is, we're living in a dissonant world. That's the first thing. The United States is dissonant. It's a terrible place, not because it's the United States, but because we have Obama in it. And we had some Bushes in it, and they weren't burning—maybe they should have been burning—but the Bush family is not very good. It never was.

And we've had many bad Presidents as well, back in our history.

The problem is this: We're trying to get some kind of harmony within society. Now, obviously, I know the Turkish situation. I'm not an expert in experience in Turkey, but I know what the problem is. We see the ISIS problem cuts into there. We see the whole thing. We see what happened in Africa, northern Africa—same thing.

So, we are now at a point of a very evil condition of mankind. However, there are certain movements which are coming into shape, which can bring about a kind of harmony among different parts of human culture, and that I think is what the objective has to be. Because each part of society does have its own characteristics. But the characteristics we're looking for are those which are harmonious, harmonious for that population.

And it's a moral question. It's a question of satisfaction. It's not just that you want to have your own language and speak it. You want the ideas that that language conveys to be harmonious with other parts of humanity.

Now we're not doing too well right now on that, on this basis. But we can focus on the intention, that we shall come to that kind of harmonious relationship among different qualities of human population. And that's our best shot. It's the idea of going for the harmonious expression, among different languages, different particular cultures, different experiences. But we can bring about the harmonious inter-relationship within and among those nations, and their cultures.

Q: [follow-up] It sounds very good, but the problem is that our government, also our system. How can I do that? I am a student. I have some contacts. I have some friends. I am socialist, actually, and we have a party actually.  And what can I do?

LAROUCHE:  Now you've got this case already there, and Putin, President Putin, has moved from where people thought he was going to stay, and he moved in to try to clean up the ISIS problem and so forth, in order to bring about harmony. Because we know that there is a disharmony in that part of the world, but we also know that with some corrections, we can bring about a relatively harmonious relationship.

We're seeing aspects of that right now. We see it in Europe.

For example: Look. Here you have this terrible threat of general warfare throughout the nations of the North Atlantic area, both sides. And suddenly, something wonderful happened. The German organization stepped forward under the pressure essentially of Putin, President Putin, and stepped forward and began to move other parts of Europe, and other parts of the world, into an attempt at harmony. We've seen too much of Europe—there are some places in Europe that are not harmonious by any means, right now.

But the tendency, the attempt to form a harmonious relationship among different cultures, which have different characteristics, that is in process. And I think the question is: Are we going to be able to carry out what we know we have as a potential? Do we have the ability to bring about that kind of potential when the nations come together?

I think the ultimate result is the fact that mankind is going to have to change. Mankind will change. We see it in South America. We see it in India. We see it in other nations there. And I think we're on the verge,—Putin has played a very key role in this, because he upset everything. And by upsetting it, he created an opportunity to bring about harmony—it doesn't exist yet—but we see it coming. We saw that Putin moved into a direction that people thought he was not going move into. And by moving into that, in that sector there, what he did has now broken and made it a cause for grave reforms in that whole region of nations.

Now I think the options are good. They're not guaranteed, but we have enough good options, to experience, to know that it is possible to pull something off like this now. It may take a little time, but we know we're on a different package. We see it in Germany. We saw it first in Germany breaking out. We've seen it now in France. We've seen it in other locations.

So it means there's a change in the winds of progress. And so, I think all nations will have an opportunity.

For example, we have the Kra Canal progress, just take that as an example of a reference. Now, right now, I was involved in pushing what was called the Kra Canal.  And this reform which we worked on, was not carried out. Japan was working to support this thing, and it could have worked. But to move the transport of goods, in the southern region of the world, and bring that about in such a way, that we could actually make a great improvement in terms of maritime traffic and in relations among nations.  We have things like that underway now, as possibilities, and in some degree, partly acceptable.  But it's there:  The options now for man, are options which go beyond anything that mankind has had for a very long time.  It's still a tough time; it's still dangerous, but there is the sign of something which is good.  We just have to work with it and hope we can win.

Q: [follow-up] All right, we'll see everything, everything will change in Europe and Asia and everywhere; it doesn't matter. But, every day people are dying. It's government's problem.  I have to focus first of all on my country.  After that I can focus on global problems.  Of course, I have to think global problems because we are living on the world, and...

LAROUCHE: Look, the best thing is—you've got to bring people into, or some people at least, you've got to bring them into harmony.  And therefore, while they may retain different particular characteristics in their behavior, the point is, there must be a harmonious relationship.  And what we're seeing right now with Russia's intrusion, in trying to save part of this whole area, which includes Turkey, that to do that, we have to do that. It's an obligation. It's a moral one.  And I think, my view is, we have the potential in the fairly short term, of possibly bringing about a general peace throughout the planet.  That is now possible.  It doesn't mean it's guaranteed, but it means the winds are blowing in that direction.  The question is whether we can keep the windstorm going up.

Q: [follow-up] Yeah. We have to, actually, we must do.  I know that.  But...

Last.  We have to; we must do.  OK, but I'm not government, I'm not God, I'm not anyone, I'm just student; I have just some ideas, that's all.  But if I don't do anything, who's going to do something?  I have to do something to be student.  What can I do?

LAROUCHE: We can do it!  We are trying to do this on a global basis.  We are trying to change the whole situation of the planet right now, the human occupation of the planet.  In China, in India, in many other nations there is a very important development.  What we all have to do is bring a certain harmony, among those nations which are trying to converge on harmony, as such, on a general harmony.

And you're a student?  All right, you know exactly what you want.  You know the kind of life you want to have, in your head, and your neighbors'.  And you can achieve that.  It's been done before in society; it can be done right now.

Q: [follow-up] All right.  I'll try, thank you.  [applause]

Q: I have been involved most of my life with music, although I'm not a musician.  That's harmony, I'm talking about.  So when we have harmony, from the beginning, then we should have harmony going forward.  I know technographically and the technology of today is wonderful. But why have we removed harmony from our lives by removing beautiful music, the Classics, all the instruments that were quite beautiful: the violins, the violas, the cellos, all of these things,  — and we go to beating drums? Which I always thought was for making war. [LaRouche laughs] I don't know if I'm right or wrong.  At my age, I'm beginning to think maybe I learned the wrong thing growing up.  I'm 80 plus. I won't tell you what the plus is, but it's plus.

So, explain to me where we've gone wrong, because I remember the Classics—Shakespeare.  I remember the music Classics, including the later ones of Brahms.  So where are we now, where we beat drums for war?  Explain it; I don't know.

LAROUCHE: Well, I think you should be more optimistic.  Or at least I think there are grounds for you to be more optimistic on this subject.  First, you have two problems.  We have a progressive movement on the part of the United States, in parts of the experience of the United States, during the 1900s.  At the end of that point, what we had was the introduction of a fairly evil influence in terms of the government of the United States. And Bertrand Russell jumped in on that, and Bertrand Russell created evil, pure evil, throughout his entire life.  And what happened is, now, we used to have science, but Bertrand Russell came along and virtually destroyed science.

And there was one man in the whole kit and caboodle who was really loyal to the principle of science—Einstein.  He was the only person in the whole century, who manifested a really true appreciation of what the meaning of his objectives were.  And he died, but  in the mean time we have gone through a destruction of the moral and intellectual development of the citizens of the United States, both in the 20th century and in the 21st century now.  We are destroying our children, our young people; we are destroying our aging people.  We are reducing them to bitterness and fear.

So that we've come to a time when a great change has to occur.  And I believe that what we're trying to do now with the new agreement which is coming into the next week, this coming week, this turn can be the opening which forces the opening of a new view of the planet.

You see what happened in Germany.  Recently Germany, seemed to be almost hopeless—the Germans and what they were going to do.  Suddenly, the leaders of Germany, that is the senior leaders of Germany, suddenly organized something which became infectious. It spread to other parts of Europe.  It helped to move, all these people who were being thrown into the water to be drowned or to be killed otherwise, and the leaders of Germany moved, together with Putin, to try to remove this problem and correct this error. We don't know how much we can count on a certain success, but we know that success is possible now.  And everything that's beautiful for people who know that was beautiful, and always wanted that beautiful kind of thing to come knocking on the door, I think we are approaching a possibility with that question.  I don't think—you know, I'm 93 years of age, [laughs] so maybe I'm senior to you, and therefore, I think maybe I can say something about that.

Q:[follow-up] Hopefully, when you mentioned Einstein, I did remember he played the violin quite well.

LAROUCHE: [laughs heartily] Yes, of course!  He did more than that. [cross-talk] ... his personality.

Q: [follow-up] ...we go forward, rather than backwards. Thank you.

Q: I'm K— from the Bronx.  I spoke to you last week about the Iranian situation. And I think I started off with when we are told a lie and we believe the lie and when we are told the truth we go on believing the lie.  I like the arena of ideas and I do flirt with different ideas from what I was first was told.  The Senator [Mike Gravel] made a response about the Iranians and it was very favorable.  He's very familiar with them.

I have a response from downsizedc.org.  It's an organization that I belong to, and they send out information that we are asked to forward to our representatives.  And this is what they are saying, and I thought you would be very interested in this. Downsizedc.org says [as read] "citizens are at a disadvantage in analyzing the claims of politicians because politicians have current intelligence that everyone assumes is correct.  How can we know if it's accurate?  We don't have agents on the ground. Often we cannot analyze the claims until years pass and today's politicians and generals are retired.

"We have two disadvantages: an accurate understanding of history and a set of principles forged over time as a result of the history we have learned.  The truth about war is that truth is the first casualty.  Politicians will bend the truth to get us into war because it's good for their industry.  Politics is about power.  War is the health of the state.

"Downsizedc gives six reasons to support the Iran agreement and not be a media dupe: 1. U.S. and Israeli intelligence agree that Iran is nowhere near having a nuclear weapon.  Dick Cheney and Netanyahu who have been crying wolf since 2006, by saying in six months Iran will have a nuclear weapon.  This is said every six months.  It's wrong to believe that Iran's government is willing to commit suicide.  It's nonsense to believe this. Iran's leaders have better reasons to distrust us, than we have to distrust them.  In 1953 the CIA overthrew Iran's democracy and installed the dictatorial Shah.  This CIA coup was run from our embassy in Tehran.  This led to Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the capture of our embassy in Tehran.  One side asks us to recognize that American politicians are a much greater threat to our security than Iran will ever be.  The Iranian state hasn't started a war for 220 years but we have.  The Iranian government has cooperated with both the U.S. and Israel in the recent past. Iran and Israel have even run a secret mission together.  This is the sixth one—saber rattling makes nuclear proliferation more likely."

I have a lot of difficulty wrapping my brains around Obama doing anything beneficial even for himself, let alone for us. What is it, do you believe, he wants to get out of this?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, he's an evil man, and that's not just an epithet.  He's intrinsically evil.  I've followed details of his—from the time he became President—we were doubting about him at that point.  But then I opened up one of the first leading attacks on him, in the first term of his Presidency, that he was a real bum. And I saw more and more he was a real bum.  He's a thug.  He has no morality.  Just look at the man.  How many people has he killed?  Under what condition did he kill them?  He sent all kinds of things in there to kill people!  When were these people given an option to reply, where they're just shot down?  And he killed all kinds of people.  And he's increased his kill ratio, throughout the planet.

He's been a destructive force, in terms of the United States. The United States has become a moral shambles, as a result of that Presidency, and it's getting more evil every day of the year.

Yes, this is deadly, and the case of Iran, I know the case of Iran. I was involved in some aspects of this at some points. So I know this. I know the Israelis. I was very close to people in the original Israeli organization, the postwar organization , where they were a quasi-military organization trying to organize a peaceful relationship, in that area, just as you've seen earlier.

And these were all good things. What happened is, when the British got control over Israel, then Israel became not so good. Because the British elements who influenced, from in the United States, influenced the Israeli policy, were actually quite nasty people.

But you're right about this whole thing. It should be corrected and it can be corrected. It is feasible to be corrected, if we're willing to do it.

Q: Hello, I'm C— from Brooklyn. I have a comment, and then maybe an idea. September 17th was the Constitution's birthday. The Constitution is 231 years old. I know that we have to fight hard to reinstate Glass-Steagall. But I think while we are holding the sign that says, "Reinstate Glass-Steagall" we need to hold another sign that says "Reinstate the Constitution."  That's it.  [Applause.]

LAROUCHE: [laughs] Okay. Well I can answer on the one thing on that which I think has to be put on the record for this purpose:  Is the fact that we are in a situation right now, with this United Nations operation in place.  I think we have entered into a period of opportunity, and a certain zeal involved in that. I think that in the coming week, and the week after that, and maybe the week after that, we're going to find there's a fundamental sweeping change in terms of many things, about the United States, and also certain other parts of the world. [Applause.]

Q: I'm R— from Staten Island.  And I'm a student of history, I work in a National Park, and recently President Obama changed the name of Mt. McKinley, and also there's discussion and suggestion that Alexander Hamilton be taken off the $10 dollar bill. What's implied by these actions, and what do you think of them?

LAROUCHE: Well, very simply, Alexander Hamilton was the founder of the United States. His role, of course, was manifold, but his key role was in the Philadelphia convention, which preceded the formation of the actual Constitution of the United States. He'd played a key role in shaping the principles, or actually the four key economic principles of the United States; that he was the one who induced the President of the United States to become the President, the first President of United States, Washington.

Then he was shot! And then things weren't so good. And the people in the United States at that time who were evil, who were promoters of slavery, and a whole bunch of them were promoters of slavery. About four of them [in the Presidency] at one swoop. And then we got a great President back in there.  And then next we had a real bum, evil bum, who liked to kill Indians, things like that. And we have a very poor record, with few exceptions of our Presidents in that reel, until Abraham Lincoln became President. Now that was good. But then they killed him. And by killing him, they disrupted the entire effort of Abraham Lincoln, by killing him.

Then later on there were a lot of ups and downs and so forth. We had a great general who led the fight, the warfare to defeat the enemy, to defeat the British, in fact. And then we had a great President here and there. But they get scarcer and scarcer.

Abraham Lincoln would have been happy to see some of these things. And certainly our greatest President, Franklin Roosevelt, achieved great things. And we had a few Presidents who were not too bad. But then, recently, we've had nothing but terrible Presidents. We could enjoy some relief from that sort of thing. But that's the sort of history of the United States in short. And Alexander Hamilton is essentially the monitor of that history of our nation, of our republic.

Q: Yes, I'm A— from Queens. My question relates to the Constitution and the legal system as well. The worst Supreme Court decision of the 19th century was the Dred Scott decision. In the 20th century we have this abhorrent decision know as Stump v. Sparkman. The event went as follows. In the 1970s, a 15-year-girl was called into the courtroom. A judge tells her, go to the hospital to get your appendix removed. He secretly tells the surgeon, do a tubal ligation on the fifteen year old girl, cutting off her fallopian tubes. A comparable operation on a 15-year-old boy is to remove his testicles. So the girl was 15 years old, she did not have an attorney representing her as a minor. She did not know what was going to happen. She was told her appendix was going to be removed, and she did not have a chance to appeal.

In a few years, Linda K. Sparkman married, and found out she was permanently sterilized, and could not conceive. She sued the judge and everyone involved, for violations of human rights and due process. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States, where, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court conferred immunity upon Judge Stamp, and basically said, "Judges can do whatever they want." This is still binding precedent today.

In the decision, there were three dissenters, Potter Stewart, Lewis Powell, and Thurgood Marshall. They said a judge is not free like a loose cannon to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever he proclaims he is acting in a judicial capacity. But this is still binding precedent today. I'm going to propose that this group, in the interests of justice, join many other groups that are working to criticize and overturn this abhorrent decision of Stump v. Sparkman, which is still binding precedent, and I have some material on the tables outside about the other groups.

So I think it complements the efforts of Ramsey Clark to hold the Bush Administration responsible for the war in Iraq. The groups are trying to take the legal system and complaints about it to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, and it resonates with many groups that are advocating for accountability over the police, prosecutors, and every other citizen in the United States is accountable. It is terrible when judges do not have accountability and we have this terrible Supreme Court decision that says they can do whatever they want.

LAROUCHE: Well, I think that's relevant. Highly relevant. I don't know all the details of the cases you're describing, but I know that kind of thing goes on, and that's something that I think, yes, this is worth considering, seriously considering.

Q: [follow-up]  Thank you, I agree. I hope we can collaborate and work on this together. Thank you.  [applause]

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is R— from Brooklyn. On Friday we did a deployment at 43rd Street and Sixth Avenue, and at any given time we had five to seven people there, and at the same time, Sen. Bernie Sanders had a Town Hall Meeting at the same location, and I was giving out Glass-Steagall leaflets, and there was a less resistance than in the past. It seems like a lot of people have, are hearing more about Glass-Steagall. Several people made a comment to me, "I'm on your side, I think they should bring back Glass-Steagall." And I heard from some of Bernie Sanders' supporters, that at his meeting, he supported and recommended Glass-Steagall. How do you see Bernie Sanders at this time?

LAROUCHE: well, I see him in a positive light. How far he's going to get with his election campaign I don't know. This is the very tricky period. We have a couple of people who are Presidential candidates, who would be useful. I realize we need a new Presidential system, and we need certain protection to ensure that those things will be handled properly, so we won't get the usual kind of swindle we've had recently. Because this system now, of recent Presidents and recent procedures, are not decent operations.

And what he's trying to do, I sympathize with what he's trying to do in this thing. I don't know how successful he could be, but I see what he's doing. This question has to be really dealt with.

We must absolutely get rid of Obama, and anything like him, from the United States. We have people in the Congress who don't belong there; people in the Senate who don't belong there. Because, they, in a sense are crooks, or are feeble, feeble in their moral qualifications.

We need a new Presidential system, which means with a President and a coherent team around that President. We need that now. We don't want, like these jokers we're getting from other locations. We don't. And what he's doing is a contribution to expressing what must be considered. And I think he's generally on the right track. As I say, I don't know how much qualification he has to actually achieve the actual nomination and election. But I think his efforts have merit, and should be treated accordingly.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is J— from Brooklyn, New York.  I'm approaching things a little differently today. I was recently speaking with some friends of mine, and we were talking about the things that we need to do when Glass-Steagall is put in place — not if it is put in place, but when it is achieved.

And some words came up that seemed to evoke a lot of emotion in people.  And one of those things that I thought was a good idea to do, when Glass-Steagall is put in place, is to have a Manhattan Project, like the Manhattan Project of old that produced a nuclear bomb, the A-bomb, but in this case we would produce nuclear energy. We're going to need nuclear energy to power all those buildings that are going to be vacant, that you talked about once before, that we'll need to put hospitals into, and schools, and other residential buildings and homes for people.  And kick Trump out and put people in homes that they can afford, and we could use those buildings for that.

Well, we were talking about this new Manhattan Project that would not be a destructive A-bomb, but would be to get nuclear energy on the table, to actually come together with scientists to produce this new amount of energy that we're going to need to power New York City.  People are afraid of this "nuclear" word, nuclear energy.  And I just thought about it for a minute, and I'd like you to kind of put in perspective why there is such a fear of the idea of nuclear energy.  I know that with the Cold War and all that business, we were brainwashed into thinking that "nuclear" means something really terrible.  But we know we have the technology to produce nuclear power plants, and to produce them safely. And so if you could kind of, tell us a little bit about what you know on this nuclear thing?

LAROUCHE:  Well, I can do also the other part of what you made in your remarks, and take the two of them together.  First of all, Wall Street is presently hopelessly bankrupt.  That is, there is no way that Wall Street can continue to live.  It can't. Just look at the figures, and go over this period where they have this "easing" story;  I don't know if you were following this "easing" story: Every week we were getting a new "easing" story. And what was this?  It was nothing but a fraud, a complete fraud.

Now, Wall Street is actually hopelessly bankrupt.  There is no way in which Wall Street can actually exist.  There would have to be a Nazi occupation, for Wall Street to survive, and that might not even survive then.

So that's the first thing.  So therefore, is going to go! Now, we're trying to get Wall Street shut down, permanently and in a peaceful way, because we don't want a big fight.  We want it to be just be absolutely bankrupted, thrown out of office, thrown out of their positions, because all they're committing is frauds. There is no justification for the defense of Wall Street.  It's a disease; it's an enemy of mankind.

So now, at the same time what are we faced with?  What is our construction method?  How're we going reconstruct what has been destroyed by Wall Street, and by Wall Street's accomplices? All right, well, that's simple, and you're right, it is nuclear power:  Right now, we have some very bad news, not relevant to this directly, but indirectly.  First of all, we have people who are trying to produce, a reduction of the population, and it's being done by a Pope; and the Pope is to reduce the population by a method of mass murder, and that's what it is, there's no doubt of it.  The governor of California is now a spokesman for this kind of mass murder.

Now therefore, what we have to do, then, is we have to say: Look, we have to increase the power per capita, of human beings, the power of creativity, to enable mankind both to sustain larger populations, to correct evils, and so forth.  Our education system stinks, and has for a long period of time.  You know, you have some people who are teaching properly, but the institutions don't do that; they don't practice that.

We are a degenerate nation and I think at the time that President Ronald Reagan was shot, but lived afterward, the effect of his being shot ruined what became his election; and therefore at that area of the shooting of Ronald Reagan, who I was actually working for; he was a good guy, but he really was weakened by the shooting of him, and so, the Bush family took over.  We've had the Bushes; the Bushes are kind of stupid, except for the grandfather.  They were just stupid; he was evil.  The effect was about the same, I guess.

But anyway, the point is, the development of higher forms of energy, we are now in a process, are we going into the new space operations, we're going into a new layer of future science, and also nearby space, within the Galaxy.  So we are now working on developing a Galactic System which will be controlled, directly or indirectly by mankind as a developing system.  That is now a feasible proposition.  It is not something we are able, yet, to work, but we do know the water system of the United States and Earth in general, depends upon this water system of the Galactic System.  So in order to do that, you have to go into the nuclear areas, otherwise you can't accomplish that project.

So these are things which you're talking about, which are highly important, as well as feasible.  It's going to take a little work to get it moving, but that's possible.

Q:  Hi Mr. LaRouche, this is R— from Bergen County, New Jersey.  I preemptively apologize if this question is not well formulated because I just started thinking about it.

LAROUCHE:  [laughs] OK!

Q: [follow-up]  There was an article on the website where the first part of the article says that in a Glass-Steagall system of physical economy, prices will have to be completely reconsidered, and adjusted, if I read that correctly.  In other words, pricing in a non-Glass-Steagall system seems to be based on what the market will bear, which means that prices are manipulated, unnecessary goods, entertainment, for example, is created and purchased through brainwashing operations; quantitative easing creates bubbles, and monopolies and cartels are formed, etc., in order to set prices at whatever levels people can use to collect the most possible money, because money is a primary value in a non-Glass-Steagall system.

One can argue,  I would argue that a lot of pricing that's being done in a non-Glass-Steagall system are artificial and false because they're not based on productive value; they're based on speculation.  So if money is the only value and it doesn't matter if you're selling steel or if you're selling pornography, whatever is going to be the most profitable is what you're going to go after.

Do you have anything to say on the readjustment of pricing in what hopefully will become the Glass-Steagall physical economy system?

LAROUCHE:  Sure!  I do.  The facts of the matter are sufficient; it's not a matter of speculation, it's a matter of facts, and the need to recognize those facts.  All right, so Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt right now.  There is no basis for the sustaining of the existence, of the Wall Street system at this time.  If you look at the so-called easing program that was going along for some years, every week, a new "easing," a new "easing" program, well, what was this?  This was pure inflation. The easing program was pure inflation and fraudulent.

Then we got into a later period, where that whole thing has no capability of surviving; no intrinsic ability to survive.  So the thing is, if we act, and we act on the basis of a government finding, that Wall Street is a fraud, complete fraud, today and if the United States acts on that basis , there is no more Wall Street.  Wall Street disappears.

Now, that would be my joy, to watch this process, but I think it should occur anyway, whether I'm there to see it or not. But we have to get the United States free of this kind of great fraud.  It's a complete British-style fraud that's being played on us!  We are being destroyed, as a nation, by the effects of what is done by Wall Street.  And Wall Street has no merit, it has no reason to exist; there's no justification for it to exist.  And people who sponsor this in the Congress, should be shut down in the Congress!  Because we can't have that any more.

And as our speaker earlier said, the introduction of the proper higher order of energies, nuclear energies, and super-nuclear energies, these things are absolutely essential; and we have to fight against the fact that there's a scheme to try to reduce the members of the population of the United States right now, in particular, to kill us by these methods.  The governor of California, is an advocate of mass murder against the citizens of not only the United States, but also of California as such.  He's very active on this thing.

So these problems have to be treated accordingly.  There are evils, such as these and others, like the drug problems, like the lack of a competent school system any more; the education system is poisonous;  the culture, cultural factors in most parts of the United States, are terrible.  We're going to have to rebuild!

But I think we're at a point, what is the point?  The point is now, we have a new international agreement in the making. This agreement, this negotiation can be the mechanism by which we change things very quickly during this period of international negotiations.  By doing that we can change almost everything that has to be changed.  All we have to do is get the people to see, and I think many people do see; many governments see; many parts of the world governments, they see this has been a terrible problem, and they're approaching a point where they're about ready to do something about that.

So I think our function here, in our more modest work, in Massachusetts, or other similar places, that the time has come that we can actually do something about this.  the option is there and the means is understood.  I'm familiar with the means that can be used.  I think we can do it.  and I think this period, or this period of this international event for the next coming weeks, this does present the option of getting a sweeping change in these conditions.

Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, H— from the Bronx.  I appreciate this discussion on the economy; we in the Bronx, we have a lot of problems with housing and it seems under the existing conditions, almost impossible to build new housing.  We have other problems with the Greenies, but I'm trying to get to the point of your presentation, which is the international agreement.  And do you think that Mr. Putin of Russia and forces that he has at his control can defeat ISIS, the Islamic State, in Syria and other places?

And we have to be concerned about the strange super powers of the so-called ISIS thing,  and why it continues to expand. And we are told that there there's a coalition out there, that's fighting ISIS; we had the Kurds that won their little battle in Kobane; but then there were certain setbacks, which may be to do with some of the things going on in Turkey at this time.

But anyway, what's up?  Because it seems to be good, but then not so good.

LAROUCHE:  No, it's good right now.  What happened is, is President Putin changed his program in a couple of phases, including being a sponsor of a marching order in China; and this was a real military power show by China, there, in China.  But Putin was one of the people who set it up! But immediately after that, Putin also moved, to deal with the other part of the show.

So, now we have, inside the present system, have now, Putin has moved thing south!  And is going to take over.  And what's happened is Germany, the leaders of Germany have also supported this in their own way.  Officials in France, have adopted that; others have adopted that policy.

So right now, there has been a fundamental change, in the alignment of major forces, in terms of the trans-Atlantic region in particular, but also beyond.  So now that you want to happen, it probably can happen. Now, we're having this great celebration among the nations, where they're coming now to their seasonal bit on that subject, and it's probable that they will succeed.  And therefore, these things which are achievements which are being done in part by Putin, who's been a leader in this operation.

And you see this whole change.  You just watch what I've seen in the past three or four weeks, the change in terms of the trans-Atlantic community, it's big.  And I think that this new event coming in the following weeks to come right now, I think that's the occasion, for bringing that issue more to the fore, and bringing it around to certain actuality; I think we can do it.

Q:  Good afternoon  Mr. LaRouche, how are you today?  I have a question:  The BRICS  countries are aligning themselves to work together and there is the Caribbean region, of which people are using it as a way to go and have fun in the Sun, but the Caribbean has more to offer than just fun in the Sun.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.

Q: [follow-up]  And many of the islands are former British colonies, where you know people have this affiliation with England.  However, do you have any suggestion, what you think those island-nations should do, in order to keep up with what is going on?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the problem is of course, the main thing is we have a BRICS faction, and the BRICS faction has stymied in part by some of the nations in South America and other points. But the basis for that is coming out of the United States itself, out of Wall Street and the United States, and this main [inaudible 1.04.36] chiefs.  So therefore, what is needed is to challenge these corrupt justices, in our Federal system who are pushing this kind of thing against the BRICS nations in particular.  And that is wrong!

I know, I've had a lot of experience in various parts of my life, with various parts of South America and Central America and so forth; I spent a good deal of time in that sort of occupation. And my strengths on this, my passions on this are still active, very much so.  The question is how can you get the formula going together to get the result?  And I see right now, there are options which have come up to the surface again, because of the collapse of the credibility, of certain parts of the world's governments.  That is, the loss of credibility, of certain parts of the world's governments has now created an opening, in which things which could not have been dealt with as easily beforehand, may now become open options.

So I think, I'd be optimistic about the thing, but I would say the optimism that I share depends upon certain kinds of actions on larger parts of the world.  And I think those options are now coming open.

Q: Hi Lyn:  Bill Roberts [of the LaRouche  PAC Policy Committee] from Detroit, — from the Galaxy, but Detroit, specifically.

So, on Tuesday, there will be an EIR seminar and press conference to announce the release of the special report that's been published by Executive Intelligence Review, "Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, not Science"; and this will be part of a series of interventions going into the UN General Assembly meeting.

You raised, I think, importantly the connection within the 20th century, of really the twin evils of Wall Street and the Green population reduction/climate change fraud.  It's often the case in popular political terms that oftentimes people will be soft on one of those, and see the other one as evil.  Europeans are more infested by the Greenie ideology; I wonder if you could just address the importance of what can actually along the lines of the defeat of the British Monarchy which occurred at Copenhagen [UN COP15] a number of years ago, and the importance of this particular question in terms of what has to be done to actually bring together a harmonic association of principle in the upcoming United Nations General Assembly.

LAROUCHE:  I think you just put your finger on the issue: The General Assembly.  That assembly, I think, is pregnant with intention to make some radical changes, or what would seem radical changes.  Look, the crisis of France, for example, and you have the crisis of Germany; other crises in Europe.  The crises which you see in other areas, in the intermediate areas; the operations and opportunities we see in areas, such as the Kra Canal project.  The Kra Canal project, which is a very feasible thing and has been; I would push for this thing and actually some Japanese institutions went to get the channel through the Kra Canal; and the Kra Canal channel would change the character of much of the international trade in the Pacific and related regions and the Oceanic area.

So all these things are there; they're now ready to go! And we simply have to find the catalyst, and the catalyst I think involves the General Assembly.  I think the General Assembly defines the option, of launching exactly what most people would think is impossible.  But what I see is very possible.  I can't say it's guaranteed, but I can say it's very, very possible.  And you could give us a few weeks before we close down the General Assembly I think within that period you're going to find some very important action, gratifying action, on this matter.

Q: [follow-up] Great, thank you.

Q: [strong accent] Good evening, Mr. LaRouche:  My question, ISIS is the problem.  I was thinking about how the Syrian people that suffered ISIS's disorder, that suffered Bashar Assad.

SPEED:  How are the Syrian people thinking about Assad or ISIS?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the point, first of all, Assad is Assad, and the problem is that region has a problem of a division within the government there.  And it led to some bloody quarreling as well, in the different sections of that government.

Now, what's happened recently is that Putin, President Putin of Russia has moved in, to consolidate the situation for there, at that point.  And this thing is being backed up fully by Russia, and backed up by other people.  The United States present government is resisting, the relief from that warfare situation. And Obama is defending the devil, because that's what's going on. Obama is practically the devil, in terms of his effect.

So that we are on the edge of the possibility, combined with this General Assembly thing we just referred to here, we're on the option of successfully bringing about a great change in this region.

I mean, the Turkish government has been a real problem, for example.  And the problem is not the Turkish people; the problem is the Turkish President, or the Turkish dictator in effect; that's the problem.  If you could overcome that, and overcome some other things of the same nature, particularly, that would solve the problem.  It would solve the problem in the sense of saying there's an end to this kind of nightmare, in Northern Africa and in that region that your referred to.

Q: I think you are my hero, along with Putin.  It's wonderful how things worked out this way.  I worry about the security of him, because he's a prime mover in the whole mix of the thing, as that happened.  He has changed the basics, and it has to continue to go that way.  I hope he has a team for backup and security. I think that it's a great thing that has happened. That's all.

LAROUCHE:  Can you give me just... it was hard to follow him, but I got the general gist of it?

SPEED:  He was just saying that it was great thing that had happened with Putin, and that he was very concerned about his security and hoped that he had a backup team.

LAROUCHE: Oh, excellent, excellent.  That's fine.  I was just concerned about exactly what the denomination of what his concern was.  Yeah, that's fair.  Putin actually is playing, a very important role in global history, presently, of every part of the planet.  He's playing a very important role.  And I guess, just leave it there; and he has so far had some pretty good success.

Q:  [Megan Beets of the Basement Science Team] Hi Lyn.  You saw the opening of our [music] session today, when we were doing some work on Kepler and the issue of harmony and the origination of harmony in the human mind.  So I was just wondering if you could maybe say a few more things about that, but I wanted to put it in the context of what you had brought up in a discussion that we had had earlier this week on Tuesday, where you were insistent that man's not a creature of the senses; he doesn't live from the present into the future, but the creative impulses of the human mind, are in the future.  They make and create the future.  So I was wondering if you could say a few things about that in the context of what we were discussing today?

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, I understand exactly.  No, the issue here is, what is the nature of mankind, and how does mankind's nature differ from that of animals?  That's the issue.  And it's a very important one.  Because only mankind is capable of being mankind; others are just animals.  Now that doesn't mean the animals are bad creatures, but it means they're not human.  They don't have the essential qualities of humanity.  And so, this defines the concern of that account.

The way — I'll keep it short: The point is, do you believe that there's a meaning to the death of a human being?  Do you think that there's a positive meaning, in the death of what had been a living human being?  Because there's no animal that can meet that standard; no animal, no species of animal.  Only the human species has a reason for existing in the future.  In other words, you live a life which comes to a point of death, and is there a future of that person?  Or is there some continuity of the presence of that person? And in a good human society, a real human society, there is an immortal principle: that the dead when they live in an appropriate life, will bring about the discovery of creativity, the discovery of creativities, which give mankind a higher standard, of achievement than mankind has ever achieved before, in that circle.

And therefore, you have a quality of immortality of the dead human beings, which can be achieved, because they live a life, and when they died, they are able to have supplied a contribution to the future of mankind, and only human beings can do that.  And the shame is, when human beings don't do that, when the human beings think they can't do that.  And the point is, they should all be developed to be able to make that kind of contribution to the future.

Mankind is essentially, virtually, the immortal species. And even death of the individual does not end the meaning of their life, if they give a meaning to their life; if they're creative, if they make discoveries that mankind has not known before; they make steps in progress in that direction: All of these things are that virtue which is specific to the human being's opportunities.  Mankind is the only immortal species of which we know.

SPEED:  Lyn I believe we're at the end of the questions, and I — not so much by way of conclusion, but I want to bring up something:  A friend of yours, you invoked at your birthday. Some of us from New Jersey gave you a recording of the work of Bill Warfield.  And some people wouldn't have a reason to know, but William Warfield was one of the members of the board of the Schiller Institute, and got to know Lyn, actually. One of the very first things we did, which I think was in May of 1994, that's when Lyn met Bill Warfield.

Now, many people don't know who he is, but he was one of the great singers of the 20th century, and he wrote an autobiography called My Music and My Life, and on this question of dissonance and harmony, I wanted to bring something up and have Lyn respond to it; because Warfield compares how he dealt with the racism of not being allowed to sing on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera, and how other of his contemporaries, didn't deal with racism. And he makes an important point, which I think is something, Lyn, you may want to comment on.

So Bill says this — Bill was born in 1920; he was a World War II veteran.  He says: [as read] "When we remember the Civil Rights revolution of the 1950s, we forget that it got its momentum in the 1940s."  He than talks about a friend of his named William Marshall who was also an actor.  He says, "Marshall was up to date on all these movements, and his involvement was an important part of my education.  In particular, he was following the ups and downs of Paul Robeson's career.  I was particularly interested to know more about that.  Where Marshall and I were of different mentalities, was in our perceptions of personal slights due to racism: I was generally oblivious; he was easily insulted. In Boston, in Cleveland, in Chicago, it could be as simple as buying a newspaper from the corner stand.  He would look at me with a kind of wonder.  'You're very naïve,' he'd say, 'Look around you.  Did you see the way that person looked at you?' and he would laugh a bitter laugh."

Bill says, "Marshall was often right.  I had simply not noticed before he mentioned it, and would probably never have paid any attention.  I would ignore it; he would fume.  That was the climate that was always around us then.  Neither William Marshall nor I were on the barricades of the movement. Each of us in our own way worked out our commitment on a different kind of stage.  But temperamentally, you could say that Bill Marshall and Bill Warfield represented opposite extremes within our own band of the spectrum.  He didn't miss a single nuance of even unconscious racism; I shrugged it off.  Racism was going to be the racist's handicap, not mine."

Now, I put this here, Lyn, because you've referenced harmony, dissonance; Obama as a dissonant personality, and so on. And Bill — I was listening to a recording he did of the Four Serious Songs, Brahms, that whole first one, particularly.  And as we go out, as we conclude, I just wanted to see if you might want to say something about, not so much him, but this issue of what it takes to be creative in the face of great adversity, and how, when we go into this UN session, we might be able to overcome any of those problems any of us have?

LAROUCHE:  You have to really study Bill Warfield's behavior.  Look, he was very, very clear in his sense of what his mission was.  He did not feel that he was somehow shortcoming in any of the things he did.  He was a bitter man as such.  He was a man who could become angry, but if you know what his personal life was like and what he went through in the process of this life he lived, you see a man who was not reacting, personally. He was reacting impersonally, on the question of music, on the question of art, on the question of everything, yes, race, too. But it wasn't like an angry thing; not a rage thing.  It was something that was plain fact.  Everything he did was plain fact.  Even the abuse he was subjected to under certain condition: plain fact!  Because he devoted himself to his mission, and that's what made the difference.

He was a person who lived and died, for his mission, which was largely music.  He performed in Europe, he performed in the United States.  He was a major figure in the trans-Atlantic community, in his musical abilities.  But he did not have the fault which many ambitious singers and others would have under the same circumstances.

He was a friend to me, in my relationship to him; we were partners in spirit.  We worked together, we talked together, and, he was a friend.  [applause]

SPEED: Thank you Lyn.  So if you'd like to give us any summary; I think we got a very clear idea that you think we have a mission for this week, but if there's anything you'd like to say in closing, we'd be happy to hear it.

LAROUCHE:  Well, fine.  Look, this is the great assembly that's going to be brought out over the weekend, and this is probably one of the most important, precious opportunities, to get mankind out of the mess that mankind has been in up to this point.

Much of the world does not want to continue the kind of things that mankind has been subjected to recently and for a long time.  And I think, that if we succeed, and I think we can succeed, with the General Assembly, because, what we've seen in Europe in terms of changes in temperament in Europe, in parts of Europe, what we've seen in other parts of the planet, it is now possible to make radical changes in devotion to service, which had not been experienced by me, very much for a very long time. And now it's just happened, recently.  And it came to the surface at the time that President Putin made a shift in his policy, and upset everything that Obama was working for.

And I think that the dumping of Obama under this process, is the thing that is required, if you want to save humanity from a horrible fate.  And I think a lot of the world would agree with that.  They may not think of Obama himself as the focal point of their concern; but  whenever they would see something smells like Obama politically, they would have the same reaction:  Get this guy out of here.  [applause]

SPEED:  Thank you, Lyn.  And that is the conclusion, for today.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Also Relevant