Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, December 30, 2015

December 28, 2015

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, December 30, 2015

Join us at 8 & 9pm EST for two very important, back-to-back events, first a New Year's Eve webcast, followed by a live Q&A Fireside Chat event with Mr. LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche's warning of January 1 as Doomsday is rapidly approaching as Congress failed to remove Obama, shut down Wall Street and put in place an FDR solution to save the lives of Americans. Tune in for marching orders to avert this disaster.

Ask a question here.

Transcript—JOHN ASCHER:  Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher for the LaRouche PAC activists' conference call.  I'd like to welcome everyone back for our final call for this year, and our Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche.


ASCHER:  Lyn, would you like to begin with some opening remarks?

LAROUCHE:  Yes, I would call attention which many people, particularly around Manhattan know.  We produced a set of great performances, they are not our most perfected performances, because our most perfected performances of these choruses will be ripened as they go down the line.  We're looking for a new history in that area, a new history of development, based on choral principles and other kinds of things which are very important.

But the crucial thing here of course, is that we have to understand that we're working under a threat of extinction.  By that I mean the fact that the typical American, can have his job, his life rights, all kinds of things, taken away from him in the course of even weeks and months.  That's what's on now.  That's what's coming from Obama, it's coming from his program.  It's coming from the British Empire, the British Empire as such.

It means also some Satanic elements, like 9/11, the 9/11 crisis:  Here we had a number of citizens, especially concentrated in Manhattan, which is the central of the area of Manhattan.  And they were subjected to mass killing, especially in the southern part of Manhattan; one spot in Washington, mass murder.  The mass murder has never been uncovered.  The Congress of the United States, the institutions that go with the Congress of the United States, have always suppressed as much as possible, the fact of what happened in 9/11.

What was 9/11?  I'll tell you what 9/11 is, and it's what you're going to think about.  What happened was, that the British Empire, which was working with the Saudis, Saudi agents as well as the British agents, and they ran an operation which invaded the United States, in their own operation, and they created a mass murder operation in that time, during the attacks on particularly Manhattan.

Now, this thing was going on already, it had been.  It was run by the British Monarchy, directly, and the British Monarchy in cohesion with the Saudis.  These are our mortal enemies. And that has to be remembered. There has never been justice delivered, to the victims, in the memory of the victims, of those who died, in Manhattan, by Saudi agents and British agents. Never!

But since that time, there's always been a moot argument, that we must not offend the Saudis and the British, the ones who murdered our citizens.  And it means all terrorist screwballs and so forth, which have come up under the Bush family and Obama. And the name of Bush and of Obama, is the most hateful thought, which any honest American can experience.  And therefore, the important thing we have to say:  The members of Congress, who sanctified the suppression of the 9/11 information are treasonous agents working against the United States in effect now.

And you want to digest that a little bit, because here we are: We were attacked by the British.  It was a British-Saudi oil business, and this is the thing that led to 9/11.  And the Presidency of the United States, the majority of the forces of the Congress, and other people involved in this sort of thing, along with the British all along, they committed warfare, in effect, against the United States.  And those members of Congress, who still cover up for what the Saudis did and what the British did in 9/11, these people are not members of our government; they're only traitors.

And the time has come, we've got to clean this thing up. The first step we have to take, we have to force the Congress, in its shame, to lift the 9/11 ban.  Until that time, the United States has not been honored by its Presidents, by its leading representatives in the Congress, and other agents.  It has to be done now.

And now we're facing a great danger, to the people of the United States, a great danger; one greater than anything most of them have ever thought of.  And therefore, we have to, as people, we have to force our government to do the right thing, and stop covering up the intrinsic criminality, intrinsic to the British system and to the British system's polliwog, Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia and the British Monarchy are one piece, two parts of the same piece.  They're both evil.  And those who are acting to support 9/11, are complicit with evil, not only against the United States and the people of the United States but against humanity in general.

We've got to clean the mess up. And some people will enjoy doing that, especially some people whose families came from the southern quarter of Manhattan.

ASCHER:  OK, Lyn.  I think you've just given us our first New Year's resolution here.

I'm going to turn on the queue now.

....Q1:  Hi, my name is A—J—, I'm from Columbia, Maryland. And my question is, yes, with all the stuff going on with the financial system, I've been hearing a lot about what's going on in Puerto Rico, where they may be filing for bankruptcy.  I want to know what your all's view about what's going on with that?

LAROUCHE:  This is a crime.  Because the nature of this crisis in Puerto Rico was of a nature which the United States should have dealt with, not left for the Puerto Ricans to take the blow.  And that is a very serious problem.

What that is, is also, it warns us, that what is being done to the Puerto Ricans right now, the Puerto Rican agencies, is something that will happen throughout much of South and Central America, from now on.  And therefore, you better stop that trend, now, while you still are alive to do something about it.

....Q2:  Hi Lyn, this is Alvin here in New York.  We had an interesting meeting Tuesday, at my local Representative's office, along with four activists in total.

And the place was very quiet, there were only two people there.  In previous meetings, they usually are a pretty active place, and this turned out to be a very good thing, because there were no distractions.  But it was just the aide, who is familiar with our organization and our intervention, though she is not a part of any of the national or economic aide; it's more along the lines of public relations.  She has been friendly, and she did offer to hear us out so to speak.

So, we went into this thing and it ran for a little over 30 minutes, which really gave us the opportunity, to go through the entire Doomsday leaflet, in our own words, and going over things again, never leaving out the solutions, including China and the BRICS process.  But it was pretty thorough; everyone contributed to the discussion.

And the effects on her, especially when it came to the bail-in, was beyond sobering.  It was numbing to her.  She clearly had no] idea about any of this type of bail-out process. The triggers that Puerto Rico, as was just brought up, is in the papers, so that wasn't new to her, but this bail-in really gripped her, because that's as personal as it gets.

But she was very practical and she brought the question up, "Well, what do you want me to tell the congressman to do?" And our response was, "you're asking the wrong question.  The congressman, and Congress as a whole are fully aware of what needs to be done, the action that's required, and they know how to do it.  The question is, will they finally  — will this congressman finally stand up, and rally other members of Congress, to crush Wall Street, and to pass Glass-Steagall through?  That Congress has been gripped by both cowardice and corruption, and he needs to break from that bond, or else the blood will be on his hands."

So it was pretty, you know, a friendly tone; she was clearly shaken by it; still thinking in terms of protocol, "oh, let's see what the protocol is on this, because I should put you in touch with so-and-so."  And I said, "what you need to do, is think about what you're going to do about this. And forget protocol. January 1st is how many days away?"  And that really kind of snapped her head back.  I also said, "give me your contact information," and I gave her my number, and I said, "If this congressman wants to talk with Mr. LaRouche, he would be happy to do that, too."  And that's probably a good idea as well.

In any event, I think what is even more interesting, was, the meeting was over, and we're waiting by the elevator; I'm making a number of calls to other congressional offices, which I find out are closed that day, and the secretary, who again was the only other person  in the office and was present throughout the entire discussion, is talking with one of our activists, I happened to notice — a very lively discussion.  And this has a real image in my mind, of a grandmother talking to a granddaughter.

And I hear the subject of music come up.  So I stroll on over and ask her if she sings.  And she laughs, and says, "No, I don't, but I really like what I'm hearing here.  This sounds really wonderful to me.  I have people who like to act," and so on, and just everything that this particular activist was telling her, you could see she was very delighted by.

Now, she just sat through and listened in to this sobering, hard-hitting briefing, of what the crisis is, what we need to do to survive, and then to move out toward a better future. But she was just so [inaudible 16.20], I was very struck by that, and it's been suggested to me, that what this activist was engaging the young person in, is something we should be doing in our visits to the Congress!  Whether it's the representatives, or actual — something that hadn't occurred to me!

But so, that Manhattan Project, that whole principle, just discussing with the young people, have this great effect  on her. Now, we're going to be going back; these places need a lot of follow-up, and so we'll star that, and so we'll start that come Jan. 4th.  But I just wanted to fill you in on this, and hear what you have to respond, because it seems to me they need this, just as much as the rest of the citizenry does, to hear what we're doing, and to see it uplift them, and invite them along as well.

LAROUCHE:  I think you've got a very good beginning there, a keystone effort.  Because what needs to be understood, is avoided; that people will try to limit their discussions to things that they think are acceptable, or in some way they have a special attitude about them.  When the problem is that we have to have a population mobilized, by itself in a sense, and by whatever we can contribute to make that happen; for the people of the United States, to take charge of the United States, of the people of the United States.

In other words, the problem is that the typical reaction is the idea of, "we're only amateurs, and we have to listen to the higher authority of higher elected people or elected officials" of that type.  And the problem is that people do not have the psychology, in themselves, to realize that they cannot just simply ask funny questions of admirable people.  We have to realize that we have to get our citizens in like soldiers.  It doesn't mean they're taking guns or something, they are like soldiers, they are part of an army; an army of citizens and as an army of citizens whose power is, to chastise and inspire the citizenry in general, and especially so-called authorities in high places.

That has to be the principle.  This idea, this guy's a bigshot, he's around all the world and so forth, that doesn't really sell anything, really, to anyone who understands reality. Yes, there is a reason to appreciate the achievements of some people, in the discoveries they've made, and the fact that they may also be teachers, as well as leaders in a Congress or something like that, or officials in general.

But the point is, there has to be a reciprocal relationship, between the ordinary citizens and the medium-level citizen and so forth, and the leadership.  There has to be a process which is not a "your taste, my taste, his flavor, her flavor," this sort of thing.  That's not the way.  You have to bring people together, and bring them as groups from all walks of life, so to speak, to digest among themselves, in their discussion, and in the cross-discussion with other groups and similar groups; there has to be a commonality of development, of what kind of ideas should be promoted, and what role these ideas should contribute.

And that issue is where we've lost it in the United States in general. Very few people, in the United States, as citizens or potential citizens, have ever been able to understand what Congress, what the principle of Congress must be; what the United States is.  Most people will talk about the United States, but they don't know what it is, and they never knew what it was.  And that's what we have to fix.

ASCHER:  OK, let me just say from that standpoint, as I said earlier, there is going to be a special effort this week, to double the size of your town meeting that you conduct with the Manhattan Project on Saturday.  I was told by one of our chief coordinators, that there is a major effort to really go into this New Year with an increased participation to exactly identify and bring about the kind of change you indicated is needed

....Q3: [internet]  Now, I have a question from a gentleman who hopefully heard what you just said, but it's along similar lines, communicated through the internet.  His name is T—, and he asks: "Why has Obama been allowed to stay in office this long and has destroyed America without question?  The spineless Congress and Senate hadn't gone against him nor denied his executive orders; why are they all afraid of that weasel?"

LAROUCHE:  OK, he's absolutely correct in placing the problem exactly there.  The problem essentially is, that the idea of freedom of the citizen, that is the right of the citizen to participate in election, the process of election, to participate in the discussion of policy; that is, not someone who comes out like a beggar, "Please, Mr. Wiseguy, tell me what the news is?" Well, that's not very good influence.

You have to bring the people together.  Now, this admittedly, among the first seven Presidents of the United States, this principle was not really understood well.  And we had one good President after that, a great President.  Then he was kicked out office after the crucial, this one term.  And after that, there was a run-down up to Abraham Lincoln's role, there was a rundown of mostly fakers, in the name of Presidents. And we had a big trouble with this of course with the Southerners, because that was an extension of that problem.

We never had a unified United States since that time, since the beginning, for instance, the death of Alexander Hamilton, Washington's service in particular, as President; then there's a few good things, plus terrible mistakes.  You cannot say that at that time, there was much of anything, of solidarity among citizens.  There were a few times, you know, people would get — well, the Civil War was an important struggle.  The losers were still losers, for the most part, and their progeny were generally also losers, like the others.  But the United States has not been a clean operation.  It has not been a united nation, not since just the beginning:  Alexander Hamilton and President Washington, that was the beginning of only a Presidency. But, since that time, ups and downs, ups and downs.

And the United States, with British influence coming in, other kinds of foreign influence coming in, foreign influences from France; foreign influence from Britain, and from other quarters.

So the United States has never really been, except in momentary cases, like in fighting the Civil War, not the fighting, [inaudible 26.00], there's not really been much solidarity.  And we had some under Franklin Roosevelt,  but look what happened.  Once the Republican Party was able to win an election against the President of the United States, that he took a back seat, a low back seat, and the orders were given by the Republican Party and the Republican Party was, in other words, the FBI.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation, became the government of the United States, pushing out Franklin Roosevelt, while still President was pushed out of role, and his term of people, were pushed out of role.

And since that time, more or less, there has been no such thing as solidarity among American citizens.  And therefore, we have to take the crises that we have to deal with, and we have to make sure that those crises actually mobilize us, to a system of solidarity, real solidarity, where citizens are enabled to participate in what citizens and leaders of government at the same time, must deal with. And we don't have that.  We haven't had that for a long, long time.

....Q4:  This is K—  from Massachusetts.  Mr. LaRouche, I have done everything humanly possible:  I've been out in the rain and snow talking to people, giving them literature; and I've called, because I know Lynch's Boston office, and they just had nothing of any substance to say.  And I don't know what else I can possibly do!

I'm the woman in the wheelchair calling, you know, in a power-chair, and so, you know, I'm out in that  — it was icy, rainy, you know, snowing, and it was insanity, but I was out anyway.  And you know, nobody wants to hear it!  "Yeah, yeah, yeah..."

And I said, "what're you talking about, 'yeah, yeah, yeah'!" I'm sorry — I don't know what else I can do, to get people to — and I'm an intelligent person, I know what I'm talking about! And you know, they don't want to hear it.

LAROUCHE: That is not uncommon.  But you have to realize that this problem, without looking to pick out certain people who might be the candidates for that reprobation, you've got to realize that most of the population of the United States, has for a long time, been indifferent to the needs and concerns of other people in the United States.  And someone in a wheelchair, of course, subjected to something, unless they have a well-ordered life around them, they certainly do feel themselves abused, and they are being abused.  But you can be abused by being neglected, when you should be not neglected.  Or you should have the right to introduced yourself into matters which are important to your conscience, and to what you want to get off your chest with who are around you.

That is just normal, you know, people with some kind of injury which cripples their ability to function in some degree, you know, that's important and we should try to deal with that properly.  We should have an attitude about how we think about these things.  And what you seem to be saying to me, which I'm not rejecting, is that the fact that you are exposed to what you feel is likely an injustice, a moral injustice;  because you don't have the access that you think you should have, to be able to function within society, within the society.  And if there's a disagreement, then that process really ought to find a solution for that disagreement.

....Q5:  [internet]  Lyn we got a question in via the internet, which is from a gentleman who's a candidate, Ronald O'Donnell; and he is a Democratic candidate for State Senate in the 23rd District in the San Bernardino and Riverside County areas in California. And he says, "I have been involved in pro se efforts in court to fight the foreclosure frauds of the banks as well as running for elected office. My question is: Are you aware that all of the 'too big to fail banks' were actually acquired by the U.S. Treasury Dept. back in 2008? I have found the evidence to that effect in my efforts. The banks were nationalized back then in 2008. I believe this explains everything. Can you give us your assessment on this? Thanks very much, Ronald O'Donnell , Democratic Candidate."

LAROUCHE:  I heartily associate myself with you on that one, because that's exactly what the problem is.  That's exactly what the problem is.  And what we have to do, — look, the banking system of the United States, that is the regular banking system of the United States, is actually by and large, the big money, the Wall Street money, and anything like Wall Street, these guys are bankrupt!  They are all bankrupt!  That is, they have no ability to earn or to even sustain a fixed amount of economy. They have no right to do it!

Therefore, they should be put into court, and be processed, in due process, under law, as being bankrupt!  Now, what you've described to me, is you're describing a bunch of bankrupts; and they've got nothing coming to them!  Because their deficits, in every respect, are incapable of performing.  Therefore, when that happens, we are supposed to shut down any firm, and put them under investigation, for process of probably throwing their money out of their life.  That is, they're bankrupt; they are in principle, more or less bankrupt, and therefore, bankrupt banking institutions can be taken over, through government agencies, which promote the clearing up of these errors in progress.

Now, I would say, you can take everybody in Wall Street, generally, — maybe there are a few exceptions here and there — but everyone who's in Wall Street or closely associated with Wall Street, is already bankrupt.  That means their money should be taken away from them, for scrutiny, to see if there is anything actually valuable in that stuff.

Otherwise, we are going to throw them on the street, or give them some kind of economic relief as poor people; but they're not going to be bought out.  They're not going to be supported. Because those in that category, the Wall Street category; everybody in Wall Street, in general, there may be some miraculous exceptions, but everybody in the United States who's a Wall Street, shall we say, coherent, should be bankrupted.  And we don't pay them off; only under special conditions, where they actually have a residue that's legal. But most of the stuff, Wall Street?  you want to shut it down.  Shut it down!  It's a swindle operation.  It's a essentially pure swindle, it's a fraud against the intentions of the United States Constitution.  And all of these people, should be fired, thrown out of office, and pursued for their recompense they have to make to the citizens around them.

No:  Wall Street should be shut down, right now!  No recompense, no bail-out, no bail-in.  Shut it down!  And let 'em beat on the streets, wherever they are, and let them walk wherever they're going to go, and hope that they can find something to eat.

....Q6: Hi, this is E— in Delaware.  I've been watching how there's a massive terror attack going on, on the allies to the BRICS especially in Ibero-America, and actually throughout the Spanish speaking world:  Spain, is in a crisis — and the thing is, how can we leverage this international war against the allies to the BRICS; how do we leverage this right now in New York City where we have a concentration of forces.  And of course, we have to get Obama out, but what else we do on that flank to maybe relieve, or do something to make it known what's going on in Ibero-America now, where for instance, in Argentina, there's a kind of coup; and in Brazil, [president] Dilma Rousseff is under attack; how do we leverage this in New York?

LAROUCHE:  The way you have to deal with this thing, is to realize fact:  The fact is, that speculative investments in the name of riches, these methods have to be shut down, with no intrinsic assurance that they're going to be allowed to exist.  I mean, you know, if they're poor people, they're on the street, they've lost everything; the whole corporation that they were associated with goes bankrupt.  And most of the corporations, most of the industries of the United States and in Europe, are bankrupt!  They are hopelessly bankrupt, not just technically bankrupt; they are hopelessly, systemically bankrupt. Practically everything on Wall Street, that represents power, is bankrupt.

If you look at what they seem to have as money,  and you look at it, and you check out what's the source of, what have we gained and what have we lost; that kind of accounting.  If you wanted to understand, you would have to say, most of the institutions, of Wall Street in particular, are hopelessly bankrupt.  And they are, for the greater part, they are murderously bankrupt.

The policy of the United States government, under the recent President, the Bush Presidencies, and Obama in particular, these are agents of pure evil.  They always were.  And I know it, very well, because I was on the inside of the United States government at a certain point, and I knew from the inside, in detail, at least in sufficient detail; for example, the fraud, done by official agencies in the name of the United States, but against the people of the United States, is a problem we are going to have to remedy, as a people, no matter who we put in the hoosegow, for bankruptcy.

Franklin Roosevelt dealt with that problem successfully, while he was allowed to, until the FBI came in on it.

We've got to save humanity, we don't want to save Wall Street. The question is, where do we bury it?

....Q7:  [internet]  OK, I have a question from someone named B—; I'm not sure what state she's from, but she's definitely in the United States, and what B— writes is: "My father has pulled his accounts and his safe deposit box out of his bank. He says a bank run is coming. He was told when he was a little boy about the bank runs and locking doors in his home town by my grandfather (his father). One man went with his shotgun and told the clerk to open the doors or he will. They came to the doors and let him in and gave him his money he worked very hard for. He was a big man!! No one else came that day for their money. Here we are today worried it is here once more. I wonder if we all should remove our life savings and close accounts. Much is in 401ks and life insurance policies. Those with regular savings, will they be affected? 401ks? insurance policies?" B— ends by saying, "I am prepared for chaos, no matter what comes."

What do you think we should do?

LAROUCHE:  I think first of all you have to recognize what the nature of the problem is.  Now, on the surface of what you're describing, I can understand that immediately; I don't have any problem with that.  The problem is, is what's the follow-up? What's the consequence of your trying to do something to deal with that problem, that misuse of economy?  And that's where the problem lies.

What you have to understand that what is being done to us now, is that through Wall Street and things like Wall Street in the United States in particular what we're doing is we're jeopardizing the very existing life, personal life, of most people in the United States itself. And unless we interject action, to prevent that consequence from occurring — .

We have to throw out President Obama, throw him out of office immediately; get rid of people in the government agencies, of government function, who do the same thing:  who cheat; who steal and cheat.  And yet, they walk around day-to-day, place to place, and they are treated as authorities, authorities of the seats of government; or the members of Congress, and the institutions associated with those members of Congress. And these guys are committing murder, they're committing crimes against the people of the United States.  The Wall Street gang should be cleaned out.

You have to go look at one thing: What did Franklin Roosevelt do when he became President?  What did he do, to deal with what had happened under Hoover and Hoover's associates? What did Franklin Roosevelt do?  He was merciless.  He put them in jail for great fraud.  And he took the people who had been robbed, all their access to wealth, even accumulation of savings and so forth, were being taken away from them: And Franklin Roosevelt intervened to deal with that.  And what did he do?  He acted to wipe out everything that was criminal about Wall Street and similar institutions.  This is applied not only to the United States itself, but Franklin Roosevelt also understood, that we had to deal with other nations, foreign nations on the same standard of judgment.

Now, we didn't always get our way on that thing from the United States, but we're in a time now, where you want to throw Wall Street out of existence, put 'em someplace where they beg, go beg, go beg for something.  Because they got nothing coming to them!  They have robbed the people of the United States, they've cheated them to the bottom of everything.

What we need to do is mobilize the people, the citizens, to look at the problem, look at the problem the way Franklin Roosevelt looked at this problem, the way he dealt with them. His action was correct.  Now, what'd he do?  The United States was bankrupt; under Franklin Roosevelt, through the Hoover system the United States was bankrupt; how did Franklin Roosevelt save the United States, from continuing to be bankrupt? By using the powers of government, the powers that lie in government, through the people, and to make sure that we provide credit, credit for people who have no employment but need it; who have want but suffer from want; and what we did is we changed the character of the United States, from Franklin Roosevelt's assumption of the Presidency to the point of the damned election of the Republicans which took the real power of Franklin Roosevelt out of his hands, and put it into the hands of really the same people within the Hoover circles.

And therefore, what we have to do, is we operate on the basis that the government of the United States will use its potential credit to assist in providing the opportunities, of work and of necessity, as well, in order to build up the per-capita capabilities of the citizens within the United States, all kinds of citizens; and to do this by aid of making investments in created construction.  One of the greatest things was so-called Hoover Dam, same thing.

So the idea is that we do not put ourselves at counterfeit money; we do not depend upon money per se.  We depend upon a system of credit, which has a valid base, for advancing in the productive powers of labor, of mankind in general.  In other words, you take a person off the streets;  they're absolutely hopeless in terms of their financial situation.  Franklin Roosevelt's administration gave provision to save people from dying on the streets!  Like the streets of Manhattan!

And what we did, is we built up and economic growth inside the United States, within the term of Franklin Roosevelt prior to the new election, Wall Street election.  And we created the most powerful improvement in human life that mankind has ever experienced, heretofore.  And that's the principle.  We are responsible for the people; we who lead the nation, we are responsible for the care of the people.  And when the care of the people is poor, because it's been stripped of its assets, it's the duty of government to promote in the advancement of the skills and achievements of every citizen and every person.  And that's our job.

We do not depend upon other people's money!  We depend upon what the United States represents in its characteristics of its institution, and we are determined to provide growth and advancement in the condition of life, of the parts of the nation and the individuals of the nation.  And that's what Franklin Roosevelt did!  And that is the only thing that is worthwhile considering, as a policy for planning, for the condition of the United States right now, and for many other parts of the world also.

We just have to get back to that principle which Franklin Roosevelt, while in power, understood and demonstrated very clearly.  We don't have to invent something new. We simply have to do what Franklin Roosevelt's administration did, by putting Wall Street in jail; with serious jail time, among other things,; and for loss of their money.  And we've got to do the same thing again, which means, also, that the Federal government must act, not to promote wealth as such, but to promote in growth of productivity of the citizens, and the results of that growth in terms of the benefits, realized by human beings who are the citizens.

ASCHER:  I just wanted to mention apropos your tremendous answer there, that the Basement team, based on the ideas that you outlined has just produced a document available on the LaRouche PAC website entitled "United States Joins the New Silk Road: A Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance," which spells out some of these types of approaches in how we can rebuild a Franklin Roosevelt approach today to intervene in the crisis.

....Q8:  [internet] Lyn we do get a certain number of international questions, because there's a lot of supporters we have around the world who are really counting on the success of our movement in the United States, and there's one particular one that we received earlier today, which I wanted to present.

This is from a gentleman from Nigeria, whose name I cannot pronounce too well, T—R—.  He says:  "First of all, I would like you to know that I have followed closely what LaRouche is doing through the Facebook, and will contribute and do whatever it takes to ensure that Obama is stopped or removed from power before the expiration of his tenure, to ensure that we stop degeneration of law and order in the world as the U.S is having a very negative effect on the world.

"To summarize, our previous President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan came into power when Nigeria was under attack from Boko Haram. Several attempts were made to get the U.S. and Obama administration to battle these so-called Islamic fundamentalist groups that Nigeria had never experienced before. Obama and [then U.S. Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton refused, despite several requests by President Jonathan to Obama to lend a hand to Nigeria. Now, the U.S. seems to be pushing and predicting a break-up of Nigeria. President Jonathan had refused many Obama demands and had increased and improved the China/Russia relationship with Nigeria. President Jonathan refused the U.S. establishing a military base in Nigeria.

"Mr. LaRouche I think that Obama is using Nigeria as an experiment in destroying Africa and African nations and I think most Americans do not understand how destructive a role Obama is playing not just in the U.S., but in Africa and the rest of the world. What can we in Africa do to help ensure the removal of Obama and the exposure of this lies and propaganda being spread now?

"Thank you very much, T—R—, Nigeria."

LAROUCHE:  OK, on this case, let's take the case today of China, take the case of Russia, look at what India is doing, and look at some other things in this area.  Now, if you look at most of the trans-Atlantic community, the trans-Atlantic community is not necessarily bad people, but the governments of the trans-Atlantic community, generally, with very few exceptions, is actually a piece of folly, and sometimes, often it's worse than merely folly.  Often, governments are based on crime, against the people or against other nations.  So that's the issue.

And obviously, somewhere, and soon, what I would like to see happen, because other people who think as I do see the same thing, is that we simply reorganize the political system.  Now we have something good in China, for example; China has a so-called "win-win" operation.  China is doing, relatively to other nations, it's one of the best nations on the planet.  Right now it's better than the United States by far, in terms of the rate of improvement, whereas in the United States everything is the United States for the citizen in general, is getting worse and worse at an accelerating rate. That's what's happening.

And right now, beginning with this new year, it's going to get very, very ugly, and many people will not only go bankrupt, be wiped out, they will begin to die, begin to get more sicknesses, and more despair.  The people of the United States are being destroyed, under the Obama administration.  And that's true in other parts of the world.

It's something, we see problems in Spain, in Portugal, you see it in France, you see it elsewhere in Europe.  And other parts of the world: real evil.  Saudi Arabia is an evil place; Turkey has become an evil nation in what it's doing.

So what we're dealing mainly, is we're trying to find a governmental system which will get rid of things like Obama, get them thrown out of office and the kind of evil that Obama represents in general in various parts of the world, and people like that.  We have to get this crime wave [interruption] — anyway, so that's the issue.

I know what the problem is; there are other people who are privileged as I am, to know what this is; and the problem is, we've got a bunch of gutless wonders in charge of the government of the United States.  Maybe we should get a new government of the United States, or at least or at least eliminate some of the bad apples and let the remaining useful people continue.  But certainly eliminate Obama, and eliminate people who are his intimates.

Q9: Hi S—A— in Big Air Lake, California, and Elkhorn, Nebraska.  Mr. LaRouche, I want to thank you very much for your many dedicated years of service to the truth and also your loving wife, Helga.  I met a man in Omaha named J— M—, who was honored to know you in the penitentiary, and he said you were talking economics for a year.  J— told me he did time for being caught with 101 marijuana plants, and he said you did time for being a very truthful, outspoken, American patriot, and he called you a "political prisoner."  So he thinks very highly and any time your name comes up, you're well taken care of in the positive manner.

My question was, would you please review the connections of the economic warfare, the terrorist warfare, the global warming fraud, etc., and again show your grasp of power and greed and who are the players?

LAROUCHE:  Well, that I know about the fighters; the fighters are the things I'm most familiar with.  I find myself in those ranks myself, often.

The problem is, is that you have a part of the population which is, I would call "alien."  That is, they look like human beings, but they don't think like human beings, that is, in the real sense.  They don't think about the benefit of mankind, they don't think about — they think about what they get in, while they're in the light.  They depend so much on what they think they're getting within the closed conditions which represent their birth and death.  They don't see the future of mankind. They don't think about children and grandchildren  and great-grandchildren, and look at the idea that the progress of mankind, the development of mankind, and the freedom which is required for that purpose, they don't recognize that; most people don't recognize that.

And what happens is people become demoralized, because they don't recognized the fact, that they really do have a right to certain abilities, to improvement.  The idea does not exist in the United States, among young people today.  I mean, the ones who were recently born and so forth, the young adults or the young pre-adults. They don't have any conception, they're not allowed to have any conception, which corresponds to reality, of human reality.  And therefore, the problem is, we are so restricted into thinking what we're going to get yesterday, or what we might get actually get [inaudible 1.04.18] on the streets someplace, maybe the day after tomorrow.  They don't think about the future of mankind.

Now, mankind — people die.  Eventually people die.  We sometimes regret it, because they have a life, and we miss them, personally.  But! Mankind does not have immortality, physical immortality.  It does not exist for mankind; there's no knowledge of such a phenomenon.  What we have is, the development of the human members of society, that the idea that within the human members of society of a given generation, that there should be progress in successive generations, where mankind achieves things in the future, which mankind could never have achieved, in their own, mortal life.

And therefore I think that is the principle, the moral principle, on which real morality depends.  We are not going to be immortals in the physical sense.  We can be only immortal in what we contribute, to the building up of the future, the benefit of the future.  And all of us, who care, we don't expect to live inevitably; we know, some way, somehow, or you're going to die. But the question is, how you're going to live, and to what effect, when you're able to live,  that's the issue.

And therefore, we have to have families, successions of families, neighbors, groups of people who come and die, but we remember them with a certain deep regret when they're dead, they're lost; we are sensitive to the fact that illnesses will destroy your ability to be what could have been effective, things of that nature.  Therefore, our compassion for mankind as a future phenomenon, the human species as a future phenomenon, in that every human being has a right to give birth to a future, which hopefully will be better than anything seen before. And you live for that purpose.

Q10: [internet] Well, Lyn, I doubt that we'll get all the reports that are out amongst our activists on the call of those who responded to the call for vigilance and mobilization in the face of the current civilizational crisis.  People have been on alert, going to Congressional offices over the course of even this so-called holiday period; I do have one such question from B— from Fair Oaks, California.  He wrote the following:

"First of all, I want to let you know that I have visited three of the Congressman in my area...."  he lists the three of them. "I have given all three of them the LaRouche PAC materials on removing Obama and passing Glass-Steagall."

Then he says, "I have been treated very rudely by an aide in [one] office and very ho-hum in the others. My really big question is does LaRouche PAC have Congressional support for the current effort?. All I see thus far is I cant see Congress taking action until after a big event of financial crisis or total executive misconduct. What do you think? Thanks, B—."

LAROUCHE:  Well, he's right.  The point is the present government, under the Bushes, in particular, the Bush succession, and Obama, is the worst of all possible Presidents to be considered so far.  He's actually of a character of a Satanic characteristic.  That is, his morality, or substitute for morality, is Satanic intrinsically.  Every Tuesday, Obama has on the record so far, has had kill people, ordered them to be killed, with no valid protest of this, on this account.  And they died; and Obama does that generally on Tuesdays. So you have a President, who kills innocent citizens, on his own impulses, and does it regularly.

Now you have a Congress, Congress in general; the Congress is fully aware of this!  And what do they do about it? Nothing.

So what kind of a government do we have? We have a government on the one hand, of professional Satanists; on the other hand, cowards.  And that fact has to be rubbed in without remorse; rub it in!

You've got many members of Congress are gutless wonders, and yet they call themselves, the policymakers of nations. I don't think we need gutless wonders, as members of Congress.

Q11:  [internet]  One other question we have gotten from the internet is in reference to the recent revelations from the former New York Times famous reporter Seymour Hersh, who wrote a recent article in the London Review of Books, where he revealed his information that elements of the military under former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey were directly going around Obama, to get information to Syria to fight ISIS.

So, this gentleman, S—, writes in:  "Will the recent Seymour Hersh revelations of U.S. military giving Obama the middle finger and sharing intel with the Russians on the Daesh [isis], inspire Americans to take back their country?"

LAROUCHE:  I think I would read that a little bit differently.  First of all, the entirety of the government of the United States, today, pretty much, all the officials and so forth and especially Obama; Obama's among the worst misrepresentative of the United States:  he's evil.  Obama is an evil person.  He should not have been President, ever!  He's evil!

Now, the question of whether he's a President or not has come into doubt; of how Hillary lost the election for President from Obama.  Now, that's a very strange thing, but in any case at a certain point I still thought that she was a valid person, and I spoke to her, and she asked my advice and I gave her my advice. But then she got under pressure from Obama.  And from that standpoint on, things began to get pretty bad.

Now Hillary is not exactly a genius, not when it comes to science, or not when it comes to the profession of science;  she never did.  She was a lawyer, and she worked as a lawyer.  And you have lawyers sometimes who are disenchanted by anything except the law profession.

Now, the law profession in the United States is filled with a lot of corruption.  The courts are fill with corruption, because they treat legal matters, of law, they treat it in a certain way which is contrary to morality. They get by with doing things which a decent person would never allow to happen.  And so, that's where the problem comes in, is that we don't have really checks and balances, in any real sense, in terms about how the U.S. government is composed and about how it is to operate, we don't have it.  Nor do we have in our practice, in general. The United States is dominated by Bertrand Russell's legacy, a kind of corruption, inherent corruption.

So the problem is, is how can we get a system of government inside the United States which is fit for the use of the government of the United States?  We have a few individuals who have a conscience in these matters, but those who have consciences have two problems, of two varieties:  One variety is, they're very concerned; their conscience is stricken by what they did not do that they should have done.  And the other is, like Hillary, who doesn't give a damn what the truth is, when she's working for Obama, as she is now!

And she has no moral conscience, in that sense.  She may have a conscience of her daughter, a conscience of members of her family, this sort of thing, it's all personal stuff.  But when it comes to the interaction among members of government, or bodies of government, these standards are corruption.  And she's corrupt!  She's inherently corrupt, morally corrupt!  There's no doubt of it.

And so, there are a lot of people in the Congress and in the courts, who are corrupt in that way:  they outnumber the people who are not corrupt, not necessarily in numbers, but in terms of influence.  Some of the most powerful people in legislation, law generally, in government in general, are the worst, absolute worst among the members of government of the United States. That has to be change, and it must be changed.

Q12:  Yeah, this is B— in L.A.  Lyn, I think the issue that's the confidence in people to take up the authority; you keep bringing up the authority of human mind, I suppose; how can we lead in a way that I supposed that  — what if our human authority of a conscience to lead the population?  I think you bring up that power that was within the authority when FDR moved in and threw Wall Street out.  It almost seems like we have to shift; it really is like a consciousness that we have to awaken, but it is a way to lead a moral aspect of ourselves forward, without any compromise, like you said, of giving up the aspect of humanity.  I think the intention will be, how can we actually just lead and have others who, whatever they're going through, have them also to join us at this moment?

LAROUCHE: Well, you know, the Puritans had problems, but the Puritans were more right than their opposition.  Now, because the point is, what is the basis that defines a true conscience, an appropriate conscience among people?  What's the requirement? Now, if they don't improve, if they don't make progress,  — you know, a child, any child, you want that child to progress, you want the mind of that child to progress, you want the environment for that child to make progress in that child's abilities.  But you don't want to have what you get in California in the school systems right now, because they actually impose ideas. You have the same thing in certain — it comes up in New York, but much less than in San Francisco.

You got problems in New York in the school system.  And people are actually corrupted, because they don't meet the requirement of being an educator, the actual requirement.  And therefore, they will content themselves with basing themselves on what they call "popular";  popular opinion, popular this, popular that; be practical.  All of these kinds of things suggest, strongly, degeneration, moral and intellectual degeneration.

The school systems in the United States, in the course of the 20th century and it's spilling now into this new century, this half-century, is degeneration.  The school systems, the educational systems, inside the United States generally are, in the majority, are promoters of degeneration, of the morals of the victims, the students and the teachers, and the practitioners.  That's where the problem lies.

So the question is, how do we then avoid that evil?  What's that mean?  It means that, you know your neighbor's wrong; now this is not a question of unfairness.  The neighbor, the person you're looking at, is wrong.  Or, they're inferior in their capabilities.  They have retreated from the standard of achievement which they should have had, from their parents, and from their school institutions.

But they've been going backwards.  The morals and the intellectual power of the citizens, people in the United States, is largely degenerating, and very few people in society are exceptions to that.  So therefore, what we have is a corrupt government; the United States is a corrupt government, and you see it in the education systems, in the schools, in the higher schools, in the scientific community; competent and honest opinion is a strictly exceptional case, that is, in general in terms of the population.

And that's what some of us have to fight for.  We know that people, even in our own organization, they have corruption, but that comes from the stagnation and degeneration, of the mind, of our fellow citizens.  And that's what we have to fight, we have to fight that issue out.  And we really have to work on that.

Look, Saudi Arabia:  I don't think there are many people in Saudi Arabia in the total population who are worth anything.  I think they're a menace to humanity, in general.  For example, all the terrorists groups, and there are lots of them nowadays, they're all worthless people.  Because they dedicate themselves to a criminal activity, a criminal commitment.  Just think about all these people who have got their children, got their heads chopped off by Saudis and people like that.  And what are the Saudis?  The Saudis are nothing but a British agent.

And the British Monarchy brought the Saudis in, with the close of the 19th century, and they got worse ever since.  The British are full of this crap.  So if you've been dealing with the British leading circles, you're dealing, in the majority, with these upper-class people, you're dealing with degenerates. You're dealing according to the schools:  The school systems today, tend to be degenerate.  There are exceptional people inside that process, but the books you read destroy you; your musical entertainments destroy you!  And you become an inferior person to what you should have been!  And could have been, or even go actually backwards, not just stop.

So therefore, it's necessary to take the crisis we have before us right now, when the entire financial system of the United States is ready to disintegrate, and that's what's on the head right now.  So therefore, you have to have a leadership.

Now, we're getting in Manhattan, in particular, and Manhattan has often been an exceptionally good place to harvest things, and we produce great music in Manhattan. We've produced some great ideas and great education in Manhattan.  Now, other parts of the United States in other localities, will have relevance; but Manhattan is, together with Boston and things like that; there's not much worthwhile in the United States any more. There used to be.  But when Bertrand Russell got control over the minds of the people of the United States from the beginning of the 20th century, the people of the United States have been busy, mainly, in learning and practicing personal degeneracy.

And we have to fight for that, because we have to fight for morals of people; we have to fight for the benefits of the future generations.  But we've been going backwards, ever since Bertrand Russell got into power in the beginning of the 20th century; the world, in general, especially the trans-Atlantic period, has been going down!  Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency was an exception; there were some other attempts at such a leadership, but very few.  And most of them tended to get killed.

This is the crisis and it is serious, it does have objective features, but the essential thing is that mankind, in the United States, in the trans-Atlantic community, is undergoing a general trend toward degeneracy.  And what you're getting in Manhattan, in the United States, you're getting an accelerating rate of degeneracy, moral and intellectual degeneracy.

And what our cause is, is not to do this or that; our cause is to try to turn the tide, to get people to make progress; and destroy their bad toys.

ASCHER:  OK, Lyn, I want to say, first of all, on behalf of those who I know are part of the Manhattan Project, and those who might consider going to the meetings, that I was told that the Saturday discussion with you from Manhattan, the effort is under way to double the size of that audience, obviously for the reasons you just spelled out, in terms of the type of process that these dialogues represent.  And obviously, Lyn, in terms of all those who have participated over the last seven months that we have been having these Fireside Chats, I will speak on those who have been participating, that the effort has been on their part to fight exactly against the type of downward pull of popular opinion and degeneracy that surrounds people; and to instead, provide the kind of leadership and upward looking and uplifted type of outlook that this movement is committed to.

So I'd like to first of all, Lyn, thank you very much for leading these discussions over this last seven month period, this being the last discussion for 2015.  And as I have done, Lyn, you have the final word, so I wanted to see if you had anything to say to close this evening's discussion.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah!  I'm committed to making sure that we do what our mission is, and our mission is, is to improve the minds of people, to improve their spirits, and to improve their satisfaction with life.  That's the important thing; that has a lot of implications beyond that, but that's what it amounts to. Down in simple terms, that's exactly what it's all about.

ASCHER:  That's a wonderful note to end this evening with, Lyn.  Again thank you very, very much.  This is our last call for 2015 and we will be back with you next week.

LAROUCHE:  Good evening. [a:class=links_good_rands;href="http:\/\/\/dedyshop\/muzhchiny\/nike-air-huarache"]NIKE AIR HUARACHE[/a][script][/script]



Also Relevant