Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, September 24, 2015

September 23, 2015

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, September 24, 2015

Join us every Thursday evening at 9 PM eastern for a live Q&A session with American Statesman Lyndon LaRouche. Have a question? Call into our National Center ahead of time at 800-929-7566, or include your question for Mr. LaRouche in the comments section of our Youtube event.

Transcript-JOHN ASCHER: Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher welcoming everyone to our 19th Fireside Chat on Sept. 24th.  I wanted to see if you have any opening comments you would like to make.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I think what's happening leaves a lot of questions to be answered, in the course of succession of days, now. And who knows what's going to start, on the first day, and the second day, and the third day?  But this is a crucial  moment in world history, because it's on a scale of importance which has never been seen or heard by mankind before in this degree. So, it's going to be a tumultuous process, in one way  or the other, and it's going to be a very, most important event in the lifetime, of most of the people heretofore living.

So, I think that's the way we have to look at it. We don't have all the answers. We have our own answers, our own questions, but, other forces are going to intervene, and we're going to have to respond, react to those forces.

Q1: Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. This is R—, from Brooklyn. I feel that the Pope's message to the Congress was quite interesting. Do you think it will have any effect, at all, on our congress, or will it be just "business as usual" when the Pope leaves?

LAROUCHE: It has a crisis feature, which can be located in one location or another. First of all, the Pope is, essentially, a confused person, so far.  And that is, itself, a problem. The Pope has been drawn into a policy, which is genocidal in its nature. And, I don't know that he intends that it should be genocidal; that's not my intention to say so. But, obviously, I think the people who are managing the Pope are doing it. Such as, well known, notorious people, from the British Isles, Schellnhuber, for example. So, Schellnhuber is obviously a Satanic figure, as most of the British Royal Family are, also. But, how the Pope got sucked into, this role leaves me with some questions, more questions than answers. So, I think that's where it stands.

Q2: This is W—, in Virginia. Mr. LaRouche, today, Vladimir Putin had an interview with Charlie Rose.  And, I forget what the question was; it was a typically weird question from Charlie Rose, but Vladimir Putin answered it as, "'Only the Syrian people have the right to determine what governs Syria." And, I think this pretty much sets the tone for where he stands, in New York this week. And, I was wondering if you'd like to comment on that.

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, you've got two problems. What you have is, you have a revolution in that area. Now, the revolution was decided by a religious difference, within the population of that nation. And it led to a rather violent conflict.  And it was involved, again, by  Obama, who became a key instrument in worsening this problem.

Now, what's happened is, that President Putin has brought about an effective solution, for that problem. That doesn't mean it's going to be all juicy and joyful, but it means that there are reasonable relationship, among these people to bring them back together again,  at least to cooperate without killing each other.

But, Obama has been dedicated to fostering killing all through the world. Every part of the world, Obama has been a mass killer. He was a mass killer from the beginning of his Presidency;  he's been increasingly bad factor of mass murder ever since. So, that's I think, where we can locate the essential terms,— I hope I'm satisfying what you're getting at,— and I think, that's the issue: That as of now, Putin has taken the right course. Putin has drawn into his associations, members in Europe, organizations within Europe, who have responded to the way Putin has approached the Syria business. And you find a very significant degree of increasing influence, among nations in Europe, on that basis.

Now, beyond that point, we come into a whole area of questions, because people have not had a chance to fully test their own views, on these matters. Many of them have optimistic views, or questionably optimistic views. What they're actually going to come to do, is not yet decided. Some people are already decided; I don't know exactly how they're going to go, but that's the case.

So, now, we're going into, really, a hot situation. The one thing that's important, is that Obama is, intrinsically, a killer. He's a mad and mass killer. And so therefore, he is no good, he is evil. And the question is, people who are not Obama,  who  is evil intrinsically, how they are going to react, the various kinds of people are going to react, to the fact of what Obama is and how they're going to deal with him.

Q3: [internet] I have a question related to this from T— from California: "On the eve of the talks between Putin and Obama, would it be a good idea to call Congress and the White House to demand that Obama fire the Russophobe Victoria Nuland for her role in causing a civil war in Ukraine, as a gesture of good will to Russia?"

LAROUCHE: Well, she is a nasty creature, and something you can readily hate, and should readily hate. She's got a very bad background, and her husband is not very good, either.

So that, in a sense, is not the issue. The issue is: Obama. She would not be doing what she's doing, if Obama was not behind her. So, the thing you have to deal with, don't worry about this woman. She will be passed over. She no longer has the influence that she had exerted, in terms of Europe, earlier.

What's important, now, is get Obama out of the Presidency. Get him out quickly. That's the issue. If you want peace, and you don't want mass murder, get Obama out of the Presidency.

Q4: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. Hi, this is E—, from the Bronx, New York. I would like to ask you, if Glass-Steagall was passed, and became the law of the land, what debts would be legal, that banks could pay, that would not be speculative? Can you name one or two of them?

LAROUCHE: I can give you a short summation of what the situation is, on that account. Right now, Wall Street, in particular,  and the British Empire also has got similar problems; but right now, the problem in those cases is, Wall Street is absolutely, totally, helplessly bankrupt. There's no possible recovery of Wall Street. It's a waste of time.

Now, what they're doing, Wall Street, however, is trying, to stretch out some little bit of survival, for itself, or some people in Wall Street for themselves. It's not going to work. The whole thing is dead; it's going to collapse; it's wiped out, in law. You're going to find it throughout the world. This is going to resonate. The British system is bankrupt, totally, in a similar way. The British Empire. And, so forth, and so on.

So, the issue here, is, what we have to do, cancel Wall Street, absolutely. That is not, cancel it in a nice way, but cancel it instantly, as a piece of trash which has to be thrown away.

Now, what that means, is, that we have to have a change in policy to deal with that. What we have to do, is have a new policy of credit, a new kind of credit system, on which the people and institutions of the United States, in particular, can immediately walk in, and shut down all the Wall Street people—just shut that whole thing down—and take the same properties, the same facilities that are functional,  and take them over. And have the Federal government, under a Glass-Steagall-kind of policy, a great Glass-Steagall policy give the people of the United States, in particular, the Glass-Steagall law. And, by doing that, they will create the opportunity by which the government of the United States can organize the financing of production. And, that, in short, is the essence of the thing.

Q5: Hi, this is E—, in Delaware. I'd like to ask a question about axioms.  Because if we're going to be successful in reorganizing the financial system, after Glass-Steagall is put through, or even because in the process of getting it through, we're going to have to challenge, vigorously, axioms of monetarism in people's minds.  And I wanted to ask you to give us a few thoughts on that matter, what's the most efficient way to do that, and if you think that's the right approach to it?

LAROUCHE: You're living in the situation, now, which you can observe, since you're inside the United States, you have some close contact with what's going on inside the United States. And, if you think about what's happened in the recent period,  that is, since the Bush administration and the Obama administration, which are the two abominations which are the worst abominations the United States has suffered so far, in history.

And so, the question is: How do we get a recovery? That's the question you've got to ask. And, the point is, we've got to realize that we have a people, who are, in two generations, actually the equivalent of four terms of office of the Presidency,  that's what's happened. And that has been, the absolute ruin of the United States, and of most of the people of the United States, the system as a whole.

So, what you have to do is, you have to start with the Glass-Steagall policy, but you have to know how to apply the Glass-Steagall policy; which means, you have to know how to organize the kind of productive process, which will turn people, who are actually not capable of production;  we have people who are not physically, or mentally, capable of production, and, that has been increasing, especially over the four terms of the Presidency. It's been a degeneration beyond belief.  The starvation of people, the suffering people, the demoralization of the people;  we have to not just give them the money, give them the credit, we have to also assist them, in steering them into ways at which they can become, actually efficient citizens again of the United States.  That's the problem.

Now what we have to do, is we have to recognize several things, and I'll give you one principle, and this is the lead principle:  The question is, what happens to people when they die, because life has something to do with how people die, what the result is of dying.  And the idea is, that you want to have mankind, people, actual people, — children, adults, so forth, — what is the meaning of life for a human being?  We're not talking about animals, we're talking about human beings.  And that that is, that can mankind acquire the skills, the mental skills, the moral skills, to create a system of organization of society, of mankind, in which we all die; all human beings die, there has been no knowledge, of any person who has not died, who is living.

And so therefore, the question is, what is meaning of human life?  Not animal life human life?  And human life means that in a good society, eventually people are probably going to die, most of them.  But that's not itself bad, because if they're devoting the period of life, of duration of actual life, and are able to rise to a level, where they are contributing to the future of mankind; in other words, they die, yes, but can they in the course of their own dying, can they become the carriers of a more, better form of life, a better quality of life and achievement, than otherwise?  And that's the issue.  So that's the first one.

The second thing, how can we provide our citizens, under the same term, how can we provide our citizens, our children, and so forth, and promote in them, the devotion to making progress a form which is suited to the principle that mankind, if they die, and when they die, that mankind should have the opportunity and means to create a better quality of life for mankind in general? And that's the way we've got to look at it.

Q6:  Hi, this is A— from New York, and hello everyone and hi Lyn.  I spent a good portion during the time of the rally I was present and participating at the UN right there on First Avenue, this past Monday.  And it was very similar numerically, from the signage standpoint, so the activity, the singing, the speeches, this was very similar in style and presentation to our earlier Wall Street rallies.  And these have by far it seems to me, to have been the most effective.  And this world stage of the UN was obviously a different backdrop, since largely Wall Street now is kind of a tourist/ghost town combination.  This was much more lively, I thought.

Yet, the process that all of us have been going through, as we continue to pay attention and work through some of the things that you work with us on, on Saturday, is becoming more and more evident to me.  And it's very ironic to have fun at such a dangerous period.  I've often seen organizers that are very strong, doing that, over the years, and I would wonder, how that can actually be? I was there, but it was more out of duty but not really engaging.

And perhaps this goes along with the type of resonance and harmony that you talk about, that is required, and I think, and not only myself, but I think this is happening throughout — while we're not large in number, the idea of having an effect, on such a stage seems to me to be taking hold more and more; and at the same time, as you pointed out, never having the kind of fun where you're kidding yourself that, for example, Obama will capitulate and turn around and make a deal with Putin that he would keep.

So that the danger is as great as ever, yet I find it so ironic that when I left the rally to go back to work, I was very uplifted.  So it's almost a strange thing, although I'm not complaining about it, that I find myself in this type of state and it's a new experience for me.  I remember over years, sometimes listening in to some of the broadcasts you would do, where you were talking with members, and going through what the current situation was and what you were forecasting; and it was always very serious, with very serious consequences; then you would go about talking about what people needed to do, and I would really laugh hard, because at the end of the thing you would say, "so let's have fun."  And I would laugh and go, "what person could possibly have fun, everything you just said, I'm sitting here and I'm shaking in my boots?"

Yet, that's what's happening now, at least for me.  And I think I'm not special about this; I think it's happening with a lot of the other activists that are truly engaging.  And, so I just think that's something I wanted to share with you and hear your thoughts on this process that we find ourselves in the middle of.

LAROUCHE:  The problem is the relationship among people: When people are united in the sense that they have a conviction which they believe can be enforced for the good mankind generally, then they're not divided, and therefore, they can come easily to cooperation; that is, real cooperation, where they're sharing, experiences and find sharable experience which mean something to them.  In other words, what can you do for your children?  What can you do for your neighbors?  What can you do for other people around you?

The problem is that the system, the present U.S. system, generally divides people against one another; they don't have a sense of unity of purpose.  Everyone has a different class:  I'm a this class, he's a that class; he's got money, I don't have money; he's got opportunity, I don't have opportunity. Well, how do you get people together?

And the point is, we've come to a point of a great crisis, and every intelligent person, every intelligent adult knows that we're in trouble, and knows that we have to come together and create a unity of purpose.  You know, stop this business about cheating on each other, that sort of thing.  So therefore, the problem lies, how can we steer ordinary people and sometimes extraordinary people, too, and how can we induce them to recognize that their personal interest in life, depends on coming to a commonality, of purpose for mankind as such?  And that's possible.

Just think about the ways, in just go through walking around the street, and thinking about how many ways people are divided against each other?  Now, there's some bad people out there, we all know that, right?  You don't have to worry about that.  But the question is, you find that the ordinary people, you know, neighbors don't like each other;  they're in the same kind of situation, they get in quarrels, competition, they try to cheat on each other to get a little advantage of this, or a perceived advantage.

And it's the condition of mankind, of  a lack of a unity of purpose, a unity of mission, I think the time has come, right now, in this great crisis, which of course is being celebrated in the Manhattan area in particular, that I think the time has come when we can think about pulling people together by talking to each other, and saying, "what kind of idiocy do we practice, when we quarrel with people we had no business quarreling with? Looking for quarrels, looking for advantages, trying to cheat, trying to get something from other people.

What you have to do is have this kind of commonality, of purpose.  And that's been lost.  We used to have a great unity, in many periods like World War II we had a great unity among people who were sucked into World War II.  And immediately, once the Wall Street crowd, and its crew influenced, you found that the people who had been united in defending the United States and other objectives during World War II, began to be divided against each other!  As a matter of fact, the whole population of the working population was divided!  The families were divided!

And so, since that time, there has never been a consistent unity of effect, of loyalty to one another as people; it's always been played against them, Wall Street in particular, played the population of the United States, against the population within itself!

What we have to do is realize we have a great crisis, a terrible crisis, globally as well as in the United States.  And we have to recognize that we have to come to a unity of purpose, the way we did when we mobilized in World War II, recognize that. And we don't want to go back to World War II; I'm not suggesting that.  But at a time when a people are united, about their commonality of their purpose, we lost it so quickly, by the time we shut down the actual World War II, we began to lose the unity of the very people who had worked together to win World War II. And that's the kind of thing we've got to think about.

Q7:  Hi, this is K—F— from Massachusetts.  Did we write on the website that Obama brought some nuclear missiles over to Germany?

LAROUCHE:  Obama is in an operation:  Obama intends, and is intended, to cause a general warfare which will decimate the population of the planet!  That's what Obama is.  And his stepfather had the same kind of tradition.  This man is intrinsically evil.  Everything he's done since he became President, has been evil.  That is, everything that he's done. And I got onto his tail early in the game, when he first made his real pitches around; and he immediately, quickly hated me.  I think he still probably hates me beyond anything else, because he was absolutely unforgiving; he wanted to kill me.

So this guy, I know what he is.  He's, as we say, "no damned good," and he shouldn't have been around anyway; he should have been off someplace.  So that's the problem.

So the issue here is, how can we get the unity, effective unity of our own people, who recognize that they have certain intrinsic common interests.  That doesn't mean that they all agree with each other:  It means that they have a sense, that they are members of the same species, rather than being enemies of their neighbors.  If you've got a bad neighbor, you try to educated 'em; and if it's tough, why you can duck it a little bit and avoid the conflict.

But generally the point is, that society is divided; for example, the United States' society is divided!  People are fearful of each other, they hate each other.  Or they just resent each other, or they wish they could hate somebody.

This kind of thing, we've got to get an understanding, the meaning of, as in warfare, as we did in World War II, you've got to recognize that the time comes, that you have a common interest.  It doesn't mean you all agree on the same; it means that you realize that you, as a human being, have an interest in common, with a lot of other human beings in the same department.

Q8:  Hi, good evening.  This is T—, I'm calling from Virginia.  I wanted to know more about creativity?  Many people think they're creative and people often say, "I'm an artists, or I'm a musician, therefore I'm creative."  But what defines creativity, and what method can be used to distinguish creativity from degeneracy?  And more important, how can one access their own creativity?  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Can I get a re-read on that, because there was distortion?

ASCHER:   Sure. She was asking what is creativity, and she referenced the fact that many people claim they're creative but they're really not creative; they think they're creative because they're artistic, but that doesn't necessarily mean their creative, and she wants to know how you would define creativity?

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, well, creativity essentially is, based on a principle which can be expressed most efficiently, by saying that each person in life, should in the course of life develop an ability to contribute progress to humanity around them.  That's what the issue is.

The problem in the United States today, people sort of hate each other.  Or they resent each other.  They don't understand the point that mankind has to come, to a certain commonality of objects, and the object is the future of mankind as a whole. That is, not all the future as so forth, but the fact is that mankind must function in such a way as to benefit society, the living society as a whole; and the children of that society, and those who are dying or have just recently died, in the same period.

So you have to have a sense of what we call "solidarity"; say we call it a practical solidarity, rather than going to some rich kind of description, but just that:  to recognize that your neighbors and forth, are important to you, even if you don't like your tastes, if you don't like this or you don't like that about them, they don't wear the right clothes, they don't do this; but nonetheless, you've got to find a basis for solidarity with your neighbors, and your neighbors in the broader sense of the term.

Q9: Hello Lyn!  This is C— in California.

LAROUCHE:  Fine, California is not strange to me.

Q9:  Well, I just wanted to tell you, I've been suffering from those horrible, poisonous chem trails, that's been causing me to feel pain in by glands in my throat, and I've had horrible headache pains.  And I wanted to find out if anything is going to be done to put a stop to that horrible chem train poisoning throughout the globe.  California is the worst because Gov. Jerry Brown wants to kill us all!

LAROUCHE:  He said so!  And he wasn't satisfied with doing to Californication, or Californians and so forth, but it's spread around other parts of the area.

We have, what he's doing, is you have, like the Pope, for example; the Pope was present of course at this event yesterday, and you know, the Pope has not got it right.  And what he's doing — I don't know what is going on in his mind, really; I really don't know him that well, but I know that what the policy is that's being presented, as his policy, is actually murderous! Inherently murderous.  And I don't know if he understands that. But that really is a typical part of the problem.

But we know that the governor of California is really evil. Yes, he is truly evil!  And he's an epitome of that; if you don't know what Pope thinks, you know what he thinks, and his attitude and his whole belief and devotion is absolutely evil! It's mass murderous and evil!   And I think we've got to get rid of this governor of California, because the man, everything he's doing right now, is absolutely evil.  I think the man ought to be removed from office, right away!

Q10:  Hi, good evening Mr. LaRouche, this is P— from Connecticut.  This is about immigration.  Back in the 1800s and 1900s most immigrants came to America by ship; they arrived at Ellis Island, and were processed accordingly.  Years later, immigrants came by air transportation; wherever they landed, they were given an identification number.  This number represented that you came with visa and you were legal.  My question is, how can they be legal if they didn't enter America legally?

LAROUCHE:  Well, that is a debatable issue.  Obviously, you have on the surface of the thing, the legitimacy of relationships and a process.  But you also have people who do come in without, shall we say, authorization.  Now,  what do you with those people?  Well, if they're criminal, the tendency is to get them out of there.  If they're not criminal, but simply trying to survive, because they can't make it some other way, you know by inserting themselves into society, then you really have to go back and get this thing straightened out.  But if they really do want to be a citizen of the United States, a member of the United States, and they mean it, and that's what the issue is, then I think we have to give them an opening, for an opportunity to be legitimately qualified as citizens.

It won't do any harm anyway, and it will do an awful lot of good.

ASCHER:  I don't think Donald Trump would like that answer, Lyn.

LAROUCHE:  I don't like Trump, so that's all right!  I think Trump's a bum!  I don't know how he got born.  [laughter]

Q11:  Yes, Lyn, S— from Maryland.  I would like to know, how do we get rid of Obama under the 25th Amendment?

LAROUCHE:  I am determined that we should get rid of Obama. And we don't want to have him killed, because he would like to be killed; that would mollify his rage.  What you want to do is de-rage him.  Take away all his ability to have rage, and give him a modest way of living, and make sure that his children don't get too close to him, because he might eat them or something.

But in any case, we can control that problem.  We can control it, if we wish to.  Now, this man, Obama, has done everything needed to present a solid case, where this guy belongs in prison!  Except, I don't think the prisoners deserve to have his company!

He's an evil man, an intrinsically evil man.  Don't let anybody kid you, that's what he is.  And you have to look at what his stepfather was like, and you will find that he is actually, almost a carbon copy of this stepfather. And his stepfather was evil, and he is evil.  He shouldn't be a President.  He should be thrown out of the Presidency, immediately.

Q12:  Yes, C— from Boston.  Thank you for taking my call: I just want to thank everybody in this movement.  I want to think you, sir, Mr. LaRouche for everything you've done, and I wished I talked to my grandmother more before she passed away, and you know, it's just so good to meet everybody and all the work that's been being done.  And my family's been talking about the movement.  I have a family member who's in the Catholic organization, and all this stuff about the Pope, and I'll be sending her the climate change report.

You know, I was born in 1978, so I'm fairly young, but I find that my elders, they can't talk about certain things, and I understand they've been traumatized; I called in with the John F. Kennedy quotes, because I researched history again, and things just don't add up.  And we've been lied to a great deal.

So I just appreciate everything that is being done, and we need to get rid of Obama; we need to restore Glass-Steagall, we need to collaborate with the BRICS countries; and I'm just grateful tonight for everything and all the wisdom.  I don't really have a question, I just think that people are coming around, that's all I wanted to say.  Thanks for taking my call.

LAROUCHE:  OK, thank you.

Q13:  This is M—M— from Crosby, Texas.  I've got a question on getting rid of Obama, on the 25th Amendment:  What kind of timeline — I know he's due to be in office till next year.  What kind of timeline are we looking at to get him out of there, to instigate any kind of Glass-Steagall to put some kind of cap on things to keep it from spiralling completely out of control?

LAROUCHE:  What I would prefer, is simply to do something which we have under our Constitution.  We have a special condition which went through before, based on some bad things. And so what we have now, is we have a provision, of our Constitution, to throw this bum out of office immediately.  Now, the technique and the way to do so that is spelled out very precisely, and anyone who's an expert inside of this can tell you exactly how that's to be done.

But the point is, this guy should be thrown out of office, just the same way that other people who have been thrown out of office, in one worst case, and that's the way you deal with it.

Now, when you go to throw a President out of office, there's a little process that goes on there.  But it's been done, and it can be done, and it can be done promptly, because the evidence against Obama, is so massive on these various accounts that he can be thrown out,  — not out of the window; we don't want that mess on the street,  — but in any case, we want this guy out of office.  And we can get him out of office, if you've got enough of influence who recognize what that provision is by the United States right now.

You can throw him out of office!  You will have to start throwing, and put a term on the thing.  There's a law for doing that.  But if he's that bad, as he is, he can be put out of office very, very quickly; particularly, he is intending to use all kinds of means of killing people en masse, and therefore, they have a good cause, to want to get him out of there efficiently.  That's the way to look at it.

ASCHER:  And, I will just add for the gentleman, there, that there is an article that appears in the issue of Executive Intelligence Review, which just came out today, dated Sept. 25th, which is on the 25th Amendment, which Lyndon LaRouche was just referring to.  So you might want to take a look at that article, because I think it' indicates and spells out some of those provisions that Lyn was just referring to.

Q14:  Mr. LaRouche, this is K— in Silicon Valley, California.  Thank you again for having these sessions, they're really awesome.

My question is, I understand that former Bishop Sean O'Malley is pretty much Pope Francis's roommate, and my question is, so you feel that that may have had a significant influence on his political thinking, particularly in regards to global warming?  Bishop O'Malley came from Boston.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  I think that there are a lot of influences.  For example, when you're talking about clergy, or the Catholic clergy in particular, and around people such as some of those in the Boston area who are relevant in this case, they're conflicted; because they've been told by Schellnhuber and other British agents, that this is the Pope's position, and I can't understand in any practical way, how the Pope could take that position that he has done, under Schellnhuber.  Schellnhuber is obviously a very evil man; but on the other hand, you've got devout Catholics, in particular, tend to be very devoted to the Catholic Church, and to what it represents for them.  And therefore, when Schellnhuber, who is really a Satanic figure himself, intrinsically, gets in among them and gets a Pope to follow the Schellnhuber line, you say, what's happened?  Has the Pope been taken over by the devil?  By Satan?

And the point is, is what we have to realize, if we want to be compassionate about this kind of disorder, you have to try to say, "we've got to rescue these guys."  We've got to rescue them! And we've got to help them get free, of Schellnhuber!

Look, you've got, in California, the current governor, and the guy is nuts!  He's evil!  He's actually evil!

And so, how do we get rid, of when parts of the Catholic Church are recruited into supporting a Satanic policy, a literally Satanic policy!  And they believe that the Papacy has laid out a demand that that policy be carried out!  Which is what the case of the governor of California is:  He's actually a Satanic figure in terms of his practice.

And so therefore, it's something we have to deal with:  We can't just call names and things, you've got to deal with this thing.  You've got to try to rescue Catholics in particular, who get sucked into this thing.  And say, "No, maybe the Pope said that, but that ain't right!"

That's the way you put it, because there is — we know what the history of, for example, the Catholic Church is; we know what the history is.  We know Nicholas of Cusa, for example.  We know what Nicholas of Cusa represented, and still represents.  We know other cases of the same nature.  And you're going to say that Nicholas of Cusa, is a fool?  Well, that's pretty stupid, isn't it?

So therefore, if the Catholic Church is influenced by a Satanic figure such as Schellnhuber, and he is Satanic; if a Satanic figure like Schellnhuber takes over the Pope, you don't want to shoot the Pope!  You don't want to quarrel with him.  You want to treat him kindly, get him safely put away where he does not have any more of these evil kinds of impulses.

But the point is that Christianity doesn't belong to a Pope, in particular.  It belongs to those who represent Christianity. And if somebody gets wild, like somebody becomes a cohort of Schellnhuber, and the Pope believes in supporting Schellnhuber's policy?  You know, he's nuts!   What do you with a Pope who's a nut, or is mentally disturbed?  What do you do?  You get him gently  put away and say, "Father, look you should take a little rest right now."

Q15: [internet]  I have a question which is not the same topic we've been discussing, but it certainly is relevant, given the fact that we are in September.  This is a question about 9/11.  K— cites a report from Ha'aretz, the Israeli newspaper, which says, "Netanyahu Says 9/11 Attacks Good for Israel."  And then it says that this report supposedly says that "Israel 'benefitted from attack' as it 'swung American public opinion'" in a certain direction.

He's basically asking your opinion about his view that Israel did the planning for 9/11.

LAROUCHE:  Well, of course that's nonsense.  It's absolute nonsense and it's evil. Now, what we know, first of all, is you had two major groups at the end of World War II, we had known all the genocide that happened against Jews  in various parts of Germany and elsewhere, and there was one particular part of the Jewry which I became closely associated with in the immediate postwar period.  I had some friends who were going in to colonize in Israel and the creation of Israel, as such, and I was close to the leadership of Israel at that point and I maintained that; and I maintained that for  a period of time of several years.

But what happened at that point, the Jewry of the British Empire took charge, and they took over; and the Jewry who I was associated with were knocked down.  Now after that, you had a conflict within Jewry in Israel, especially in Israel, and you had vicious conflicts within the ranks of Jewry at that point, that is, in Israel.   And I was, again, a supporter of those Israeli leaders who followed the same policy which I had supported, during my years.  The problem was, the British faction, as such, in Jewry, ran an operation and it was a very bitter operation, and it was cruel and it was often evil.

So the way you have to look at this thing, you can get a list, if you get the right person in the right Jewish network and they'll tell you which guys were the good guys and which guys were the evil ones.  This is a very subtle thing, because here you have Jews are victims of Hitler, collectively; they are victims, also, of other people who call themselves Jews, but they were a little too much like Hitler in many respects.  And so therefore you have to sort the thing out.  And you have to realize that the Jewry that I knew in the immediate postwar period where I was actively involved with them, the leadership of the Jewish leadership in Israel at that time, these were the good guys.

And the ones who came in from Britain, ain't so good.  And some of the people in the United States got sucked into following the wrong course.

Q16:  Hello this is T_ in Los Angeles.  I think a question that's been within me is sort of like, how do you deal with strengthening the spiritual ability for mankind, or the person to deal with the problem of the world.  You mentioned people are becoming disheartened of the fact that the crisis is becoming unbearable for some.  But how do strengthen the quality in defending mankind.  When things look tough...

LAROUCHE:  Yes, how would I judge how tough for me?  You know, I've got a lot of experience of various ways over various times in various places.  I don't have a problem with this, really.  I have a problem with the effects, not a problem with it.

We have the means, mankind has the means to understand mankind.  And what I said in an earlier remark this evening, that at a certain point, we are able to understand mankind, how?  We understand that, because we are all human, and we all know that we are going to die, sooner or later. And we know that the question is, what's the meaning of our life?  And many people have a big problem, because they have never been able to resolve what has been and what will be, "the meaning of my life."

So you start with that has been the meaning of your life; then you go to the really tougher question, and you say, what is the meaning of your future of your life?  And that means you have think, now, of what you are, and shape what you are going to be, in such a way that you do not feel shame about having lived. That means that you devote your life to making contributions which lead mankind to improve mankind!  That is to improve people, living people.   And rather than simply taking care of your own greed, and so forth, you've got to think about what you can do to influence people, to make the next generation, a better generation than the one you're living in.

That is a short way of saying, but I think it's an adequately effective one.

Q17:  Hello, my name's J— and I'm from Denver, and I know you were talking about immigrants coming into this country, to have solidarity with America.  But with Obama, he has had an agenda with the Muslims from the beginning, and he has, when Fort Hood, had the Muslim psychiatrist kill those men, our soldiers, he appointed three radical Muslims to Homeland Security that day. And right now, with our borders so open, and all these Muslims coming into this country illegally; and sure, there's some good ones, but if you just took a percentage of 10% that were bad, they're already talking about ISIS members and other radical Muslims in every state in the United States.

How do you think you're ever going to handle something like that?

LAROUCHE:  We can handle it because we have the technology, you know, in the desperate case; we have the technology which can control — I mean Saudi Arabia?  Saudi Arabia is a center of evil.  And it also spreads evil.  So, it's a problem.  But it's one we can handle.  We just have to understand we're going to handle it.  We are not going to let people, in the name of religion, go running around mass murdering people at their pleasure.  We will not tolerate that.   We have the means of preventing it, we have to muster the means and apply them.

Now, we don't want to kill people, but we do want to improve their behavior considerably in this case.  But this is sheer evil, but you have to remember one thing:  Where did the Saudis come from?  Where did they become a force?  Where did they become the kind of force they have been in this area? Where did that come from?   It came from evil, and the Saudis have represented, essentially, a British-controlled, a British-managed, and a British-controlled agency, which had become one of the most evil forces to be found on the planet, in numbers.

Well, that can be solved; we can prevent that.  And the Saudi system, as it's presently formed, has to be shut down. Remember, 9/11.  Remember those two planes were circling coming out of Boston; they stole the planes and the passengers in them at the point of a gun, and they went circling around — you could see them; I saw them myself, the planes were circling the territory of Manhattan.  And they destroyed those two towers in Manhattan and they killed a great number of people in Manhattan. They also bombed, what?  The Pentagon, the center of our security office.  They did other things.

As a matter of fact, they were protected, by the President of the United States at that time!  They were protected, to let them get out of the United States safely, with no penalties. Since that time, of 9/11, nothing has ever been done by the government of the United States, to give justice for the mass murder of people in there, of the Saudis, who flew back safely protected by the Bush family and company.  And nobody ever did a thing, to bring justice to the victims of the people of New York, and also the military forces in Washington.

So, this has happened.  And the Presidency of the United States, under the Bush Presidency and the Obama Presidency, has defended the Saudi operation of mass murder of the people in New York and elsewhere!  And spread this thing throughout the world. These are murderers, mass murders!

Now we don't want to shoot them, but we certainly want them in prison.  We want them under control.  And who's done anything about it?  That's the issue.  Obama is a supporter of the mass murder that happened on 9/11.  No, get rid of Obama:  He has no place in the Presidency of the United States.   And Bush, too. But I think Bush is more stupid than evil.

Q18:  This is C— here from White Salmon, Washington.  I'm concerned about martial law coming with all of these foreigners coming in here and looking at what's going on over there in Europe and how they're acting, I'm kind of concerned here what we can expect in the future?  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  I think we can control the future.  But in order to control the future is not to apply force; that's not the best way to get the job done.  What you have to do, is you have to induce people to a sense of shame; but not just a sense of shame, a sense that they can get rid of the shame by adopting a policy of life, which will end the shame itself.

Killing people is not really a good way of educating them.

Q19:  Hello, this is L— from Michigan.  I would like to know if there could be, or have the Obama administration, or the officials in the United States and in Britain, have they explained in detail exactly why they would like the Assad government toppled? And also like with China, have they explained in detail these unfair business practices?  Because, you know, I'm sure they could be disputed, like if they say, why it is they really want to do these things to China  and Russia, in explicit detail, they can be disputed, can't they?

LAROUCHE:  Well, look, we have this operation which is being done, and Putin has moved in on this thing.  We had a division within people, and the division was based on a religious division within a common people.  And this became the problem which is much discussed by Obama and other people as well now.

What is being done by Putin on this case, and Putin is doing it, Putin is actually creating a situation in which the two forces inside that same name, or there was a same nation, and were killing each other; and the question was how do you bring that division, a murderous division, how do you get rid of it? Well, what was done by Obama, in particular, was the worst thing possible.  And other people, in Europe, overlooked what the reality is.

Now, what has happened, as President Putin has organized a solution to end that kind of disunity, murderous disunity.  Obama has been determined to maintain that butchering.  So the trick is, get Obama out of the Presidency, and you'll solve the problem.

Q20:  This is E— in Los Angeles:  First I would just like to say, Mr. LaRouche, based on what you said about the Saudis, that's exactly, precisely the reason why I don't call it Saudi Arabia, I call it British Arabia.  And even British America, and to a lesser degree British Israel.  It's all Britain.

Now, my question to you, is, I wish that everyone that I knew were supporters of the PAC.  Some are, but there are enough of those that aren't that I keep working on them, and giving them the information.  But here's a very common thing that I hear from people who aren't convinced yet, and it's this: Well, they'll say, E—, your man LaRouche made another prediction and he missed the mark again.  Like he said a while back that if Obama isn't removed from office, we're going to have war number three, the economy's going to completely crash; and I always tell these people, "well, look, would you rather that that had happened? Aren't you thankful that it didn't happen?  We got the warning, and it's like God's given an extended day of grace here to carry on the fight."

So, I hope I'm handling these people the best way, there. But I just wanted to mention that, that this is one of the most common criticisms I get, when people come at me and call me down for my views in this.  And yet, I have no regrets about anything of the things you say, because these warnings are very valid; anyway, that's what I wanted to bring up.  And I'll just let you take it from there.

LAROUCHE:  Yes, very simply:  I never made an error on this issue.  Those who think I made an error obviously are not aware of what they are doing.  They're already doing it.   That's the problem.  I didn't make a mistake on this issue; I know what the issue is, I made no mistake on it.  They did.  And they should be ashamed of themselves.  And they not only should be ashamed of themselves, they should go out and practice a little bit on publicly saying, "I'm ashamed of myself."

I tell the truth;  they didn't.

Q21:  Hi Lyn, this is M— from Manhattan.  And first, I'd like to tell you something really hopeful:  We had a wonderful, wonderful chorus rehearsal this evening!  And it was a lot of fun and invigorating.

I'd also like to tell you an experience I had today:  I was out there on Fifth Avenue in front of Bryant Park, the New York City Library, that wonderful, extraordinary building.  And there were crowds going by and we were handing out things; and things started to quiet down, and then I saw this gentleman conservatively dressed, staring at everything and his camera out, and his wife sort of hanging back.  And he wanted to take a picture of "Putin Is Right about Syria, Obama Is Wrong."

So I asked the fella and gal that he was talking to, "could you just please move so this fellow can take this picture?"  And they said, "Oh sure, we're happy to do that!"  And he took his picture, and then I said to him, "we are promoting peace as opposed to nuclear war; and Gen. Michael Flynn was very clear with the President three years ago about how we — in fact, how he and his administration, are backing al-Qaeda, and much worse coming up."  And no matter where he went, he could not get this, "well, what did the President do?"  "Oh, the President, who knew exactly what he was talking about, fired him! And he went here, and he went there to try to get people to broadcast what happened, and finally the only way he could get this news out was to go to Al Jazeera."

The gentleman looks at me, and this is by way of corroborating the things you've been saying about Obama, and he said, "I'll tell you something," he said.  "I have been with the military for many years," and he's obviously retired.  And he said, "This President has done everything in his power to get every fine military mind, expert, done away with; they have come up with things, little cases against them, whereby they have had them removed."  I said, "Oh, yeah?"  He said, "Yes.  Yes," he says, "and now what has replaced them — all I can say to you is, start praying."

And that is the point, that we suddenly have, instead of a Martin Dempsey and a Gen. Michael Flynn, and I don't know about Petraeus — he mentioned Petraeus' name — but we have these other fellows.

Now, on the other hand, as far as with the Pope, interestingly enough, on the web, I was reading today actually, that the people out there in Illinois, and Ohio, and places like that are very concerned, because they're very concerned that the President is going to sign a bill that the reduction of carbon is mandatory; and from their point of view, this will cost 1 million point some-odd jobs; and companies will either have to go out of business, some will shut down so they do not have over-carbon monoxide [sic] or what have you.  And this was something they were very concerned about, and what this would do to the American population.

And for me, it made clear what you have been talking about, and how absolutely, and you see the effect and everybody listening and looking to the Pope, devastating the Pope's acceptance of this; how he came to accept this, I don't know, asking other people "what do you think about this?"  But one of the most important things now, is that we can actually really begin production, and we can find out how we can have the kind of energy that we need for these productions in clean energy; we don't have it right now.  And I just wanted to contribute that. Because sometimes people really don't comprehend, that you have basically been right about everything, absolutely everything!

I have been following you since 1998, when I began to participate, and I want to thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Okay, well, thank you.  This is my history, this is my life's history in a large degree.  And on the generals, yes, I know this business.  I've got some skills in that matter, and I know the business and what you're saying is absolutely true.

But I think on the practical aspect of the thing, I think that right now, we have the potential of turning things around. I think the time is ready for it.  You look what's happened: We have a situation in Europe, and everybody was turning against Russia.  That was the party line; it got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger: party line.

Now, what happened is, in coincidence with the point that Putin moved in to deal with the problem there, at that time, suddenly, Germany and other nations began to get closer to Putin. So that is going to happen.  And you look one thing, think of the most populous nation on the planet is what?  China.  And it's a wealthy place, and it's a growing place, it's very vigorously growing, and achieving things.  Putin has been holding up very well, and he's now moving very well.  You find people in Germany who are moving in a different direction — not all of them, but some.  Some nations are really, smaller nations tend to get pretty nasty at times, but we are winning.  We are in the goal of winning.

Now, winning does not mean we are going to get a victory delivered to you; it means that if you persist long enough and well enough, you might win.  And I think that's what we're trying to do.  The point is, Obama's put himself on display, and the more that he speaks, the more that he presents himself, the more that he's forced to come out in the open, the most he's defeated. And our objective is to get rid of him!  Get him out of there! And if we get him out of there, we will have the ability.

Two things we got to do: One, get rid of Wall Street; number two, get rid of Obama.  And there you will find the way home.

ASCHER:  OK, well, Lyn that brings us precisely to the end point of our 19th discussion here this evening.  You summed everything up  in terms of where we stand.  Did you want to say anything else beyond that?

LAROUCHE:  I say, we have to keep fighting and don't forget anything we talked about.

ASCHER:  OK, well, to help that out, we're going to get the recording out to everyone; you can listen again in case you think you forgot it.

So, thank you very much Lyn, and that concludes our 19th Fireside Chat discussion.  We'll be back with you next week. Good evening everyone, and thanks again, Lyn.



Also Relevant