LPAC Policy Committee Show, December 28, 2015

December 28, 2015

LPAC Policy Committee - December 28, 2015

Join us at 1 PM eastern for our weekly Monday discussion featuring Lyndon LaRouche and the LPAC Policy Committee.


MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon, it's Dec. 28, 2015; my name is Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.  Let me introduce the members of our Policy Committee joining us over Google video: Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts.  And here in the studio, I'm joined by Diane Sare, and by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, as well as Mr. LaRouche.  So, I'm going to let you begin, Lyn.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  All right, we have one of the most crucial moments in history for the whole planet, that is what's happening through the international system, the United States, the British system, and so forth, Europe in general, is terrible.  China is less affected directly, but is indirectly affected.  So as of this time, we have entered a period in which the intention is to reduce the population's resources to effect virtual mass murder. That is what is in process, unless the Obama Administration is ordered to prevent this thing from happening.  So the existence of Obama as President of the United States is, in part, the major issue for life of all human beings on this planet.  But! In particular, the United States is responsible.

Now, in other parts of the planet, certain parts of Asia, for example, —  Europe is in a mess.  Europe is in a terrible mess.  It's a terrible threat.  The threat against the people of Europe is monstrous, right now!  And I know this material, directly, so let's not debate it in detail.  The point is, that also China and India and so forth, and Asian nations, are also implicitly threatened by this thing.  But the main thing is the major threat is in the trans-Atlantic interval, right now!  And we're looking at a threat of massive death of human beings over the first days, and into the next days.  And that's what is happening right now.

The question is, can we get Obama thrown out of the Presidency now, in time to avoid an absolute disaster?  We already are having suffering, and threats, against the people in the United States, and in Europe, and in other locations in that trans-Atlantic period.  But the question is, can we get Obama under control, or thrown out?  And everything will depend upon that.  Because if Obama is thrown out, then that makes a change. If Obama is not thrown out, that makes a disaster.  And that's what we have to deal with, and that's what we have to discuss.

DIANE SARE:  Well, I wanted to just raise something on this matter, which I was reflecting upon, which was your warning, first in January of 2001, where you warned about a Reichstag Fire, and then in August of 2001, you had a more explicit warning of a terror attack on the United States.  And your associates, myself included, were distributing this.  We were telling people this.  But then, when the planes actually crashed into the towers, it was like getting punched in the gut; because you had said this, we had said this, but when the reality of the attacks occurred, it was so much sharper than we had imagined.

And I think there is a real parallel to what you are discussing today, because people tend to be rather glib about what it means for the system to implode as it now in process. And even though we have the figures of half a million Americans who unnecessarily died, due to the policies of the Bush and Obama Administrations, and you see the death rate increasing, everyone sees it everywhere in the heroin epidemic, which is sweeping the country, in the lack of health care, and so on,  but yet, there is a kind of delusionary quality to actually facing the magnitude of what we're being threatened with.

LAROUCHE:  It's the result of the actually Bush and Obama Administrations, approximately. That's the problem; that's the source of the problem.  There are other intervening elements of this problem, special cases.

But, actually, we have to from here in our reporting here, we have to lay out exactly what the details are.  What I did with Helga, because I was actually assigned, by name, to take up the role in terms of China, the discussion.  And then they discovered that I was not supposed to do that, so I did two terms, and Helga did the last sequential two terms.  And I laid it out directly, and it caused a panic, on that account, not because I was speaking, but because I was telling the truth.  I was saying, "Look, this thing will work, provided that Obama does not make a mess of it."  And therefore we have to deal with Obama, because if Obama does what he wants to do, it's going to cause a crisis for the entire planet.

And so I just announced that last night.  And then, things happened, and Helga was put back on the schedule.  I had been initially named for the schedule, so Helga had set me on the schedule. So we had four points.  And I took the first two and I said everything exactly as it is true, and then somebody got wise to what had happened, when I raised the question of saying, "look, the problem is that Obama, if Obama doesn't change his policy, it's going to cause a disaster.  And if we can get him to stop that, prevent that, it will not be a disaster for China." And so that's where it went, and then, Helga took her part of the second half, and she said everything properly, also, but did not mention this one problem.

So that's what's hitting us right now.

OGDEN:  Just to underscore what Diane was saying, I think maybe people need to think through the full implications of what a total implosion of the trans-Atlantic financial system means. We're already seeing precursors of it.  You see what's happening in Italy with the seizure of depositors' money under their bail-in regime, which is about to go into effect as the European-wide policy on January 1st, three days from now.  We already see what's happening in Canada with the implosion of the shale oil bubble, but these are very, very small precursors.  If you look at the complete implosion, of something as big as a $2 quadrillion derivatives bubble in the trans-Atlantic financial sector, that is something which is unprecedented in its magnitude.  I mean, we've talked about what happened with the Dark Age in the 14th Century.  That's the kind of caliber of what is possible, a complete lack of access to food, medications; the bailing-in, the expropriation of depositors' life's savings; you do not have access to what you expect you have access to, on any given day, because of a policy to bail-out these four, five, six, huge Wall Street Banks, which are in extreme states of bankruptcy, as we speak.

And so, as people look at a comparison to 2008, or something, it's a completely non-equitable comparison.  2008 was only a tremor, or a sort of precursor, or foreshock, of what we see as the possibility, which is about to happen.  And the fact that Glass-Steagall was not reinstated, after the 2008 crash, was the personal decision, of the Bush Administration.  And now you have Obama, as President, personally standing in the way, of the restoration of Glass-Steagall.  This would have been the only thing which would have gotten this $2 quadrillion derivatives bubble under control, and would have put us in the position where this could be manageable.  And it's only going to be the emergency restoration of that, and the measures that were taken by Roosevelt, on his very first day in office, to declare a bank holiday for the entire banking system, and to audit it, and reorganize it.  Only those types of measures are going to work.

LAROUCHE:  That's absolutely correct.  And we have the responsibility: Because the United States, itself, has the means to prevent this catastrophe.  Because if the United States' President, Presidency, does it, the Europeans will be forced to comply, too.  Now then, what that means, that leaves the world, where China and Asia, most of Asia, will be actually immune from the direct effect under law there.  So therefore, that consideration is crucial, and there are other implications.

But the other thing, in the United States and in the Americas as whole, is a disaster.  This is the greatest catastrophe, since a certain time, when there was mass death throughout the world.  And that's what we're looking at.  And therefore, it is essential that the actions by the United States government, be enacted immediately to prevent this from happening.  And anyone who won't do that should be thrown out of office immediately.

MICHAEL STEGER:  If you go back to 2008, before Obama was even elected, during the Presidential campaign, when the 2008 crisis struck, John McCain had proposed a suspension to the Presidential campaigns to address the financial breakdown, in a serious way.  And in fact, Obama said, "no!"  He said, "We'll go with the bail-outs, we'll go with the program; we'll support the Cheney program."  And the only way they passed those bail-outs, you had Brad Sherman from California, come out on the House floor and say, the reason we passed this, is because they were threatening martial law if we didn't.  And that's the Obama program, and that's the Obama plan.

So if any member of Congress thinks that somehow they can address this kind of financial crisis, and leave Obama in office, as he is, they are completely delusional.  Any steps they take will be smashed, they will be overridden: The Obama program is the same as the Cheney program.  There is absolutely no difference under these circumstances, —  possibly worse.  I mean, you had the American people, they called in to stop the bail-outs, they called in to stop the Syria war, but regardless, Obama continues to push for world war and economic destruction. You've got to address that problem.  And you've made that clear, Lyn.  I just wanted to emphasize it.

LAROUCHE:  That's right.  Exactly.  The only thing is, we have to do that right here, from this place, at this time, on this day, we have to lay it out; exactly that.  We have to spread the word and we have to put this guy practically lynched, because he deserves to be lynched, politically.

SARE:  Well, the leadership, or so-called leadership, I think both parties are divided, as you've identified, but if you look at the way they're conducting, the Presidential campaign, what is being forced upon the American voters by the Wall Street wings of each party, is Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, who is Obama, for all intent and purposes; and Donald Trump on the Republican side, who is also a foil for Obama, because as much as he's a channel for rage of Americans who are suffering, he has explicitly stated that Obama should not be impeached.

So right now, what is being presented to the American voters as a so-called election, is nothing more than Obama continuing. And that has to be absolutely rejected and broken and obliterated.

LAROUCHE:  So we have to do that today and tomorrow.  So this is a real decision for us to make.  And maybe we can punch a hole in this whole thing, by doing it ourselves, and getting other people to join us, in dealing with this.  That's the only answer.  But it's got to be practical; I mean it's got to be practical action that's relevant to this thing.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  You've uniquely put on the table the 25th Amendment.  This has a legal precedent in our Constitutional system.  This is a life-or-death issue for the nation, for the American people, and you have a President in there, who has the responsibilities of the office: He's not mentally fit to carry those responsibilities.  We have immediate legal means to remove him in an emergency measure in a Constitutional means, because he does not have the mental capabilities, the capabilities to hold this high office, and have the responsibility of this nation and the people of this nation on his shoulders.  He's a killer, he's a murderer, and he's got no qualifications to hold office, and in a time of crisis like this you've put on the table, we have the Constitutional means to deal with this, in a way consistent with our republic.

LAROUCHE:  Mm-hmm, that's right.  That's exactly right.  And that's what has to happen, and you can't compromise on this thing.  There's no room for compromise.  And dumping him out of office?  Fine!  It's an easy thing to do:  Dump him.  And then put him on trial for the crimes he's committed.  Because he's committed crimes, massive crimes.  His Tuesday killing program, there was no basis for this.  As a matter of fact, he should have been imprisoned for doing this.

OGDEN:  Well, there's very spurious legal arguments that have been put together by both the Bush so-called legal team, and then the Obama so-called legal team.  This is the kind of Schmitt-style so-called legal arguments that these guys hide behind.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah!  We should have a voice, and say, just plainly, "This is fraud.  This is mass murder.  This is treason. This is, in fact, treason." And all the persons who were involved in this, who were participating in this are guilty of treason, and should be imprisoned immediately.

Rachel BRINKLEY:  And we have to say it like that, because otherwise people don't address it.  It's the underlying thing which prevents them from thinking about the future and about their desire for the future. So we have to say it like that, because no one else will.  And then you can force people to address it.  But there doesn't seem to be a lot of confusion out there in the population, about the fact that this is end-game and the intention is to kill people. But it's this question of, one, inspiration, which we're doing with our music program in Manhattan and around the country, to inspire people from the highest sense of what's human; but also we have to absolutely tell the truth about the intention of Obama in this situation, and we can't refuse to address that or we'll be finished.

LAROUCHE:  That's right.

Dave CHRISTIE:  To add to that, I'd like to get your thoughts on this, Lyn, because you know, it is at least significant, the breakout and coverage that the Seymour Hersh article has gotten, which did go through the fact that Dempsey and the Joint Chiefs and then people in the Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn and others who collaborated to feed intelligence through Russian, German, Israeli intelligence services into Syria, in the fight against ISIS, which of course, Obama has backed all along, and is really a pet project of the British and the Saudis and the whole 9/11 complex, which is to use ISIS and so forth for geopolitical ends.  And if you take what their revelations were, and I thought it was important what Hersh said in a BBC interview, when they asked him about it, the BBC interviewer asked, "well, is this even legal, to have Obama vehemently opposed to Assad, yet his military and intelligence is working with the Assad government; is that even legal?"  And Hersh says, "Well, they don't swear an oath to the President, they swear an oath to the Constitution; so, yes, it's legal." And that's at least useful as a thought.

And so you look at this question of a kind of revolt that's underway, people like former Secretary of Defense Hagel; also Gates has been critical. Hagel explicitly said, I was against this policy in Syria and they forced me to resign for that

But the problem is, is my concern is that this would be a way to contain Obama, you have to get him out.  So I don't know if you have any thoughts on this, in terms of where you see this direction going, and obviously our role is to catalyze it into full action.  But if you have any thoughts on that, it'd be good to hear.

LAROUCHE:  I have a very clear thought on this.  The evidence of this kind of behavior is a crime itself!  The very proposal of this is a crime!  And anybody who upholds this proposal, is a criminal who should be permanently kept in custody, if not shot.  Because that's mass murder! Mass murder of the citizens, and the consent of the citizens, is being deprived! No!  This is a fighting issue of the most profound implications. And there's no way, that this can be allowed.

And therefore, we have to put these guys under indictment. That any member of the Presidency or the government, which tries to produce something like this, saying, well, they have a technical interpretation of this thing which will work.  Well, it doesn't!  Because the effect is what the truth is! The truth lies in the effect!  Not in the intention, but in the effect. The intention is not the thing; it is not the highest authority.  It is the effect of the intention, which is the highest authority!  And therefore, you have to say, "well, as citizens of the United States, the President of the United States should be imprisoned, thrown out of office, immediately. Suspended!  Because he's making a proposition, which is against the Constitution!"  Read the original Constitution, and the sustaining of that Constitution up until recent times. And that's the only weapon we really have.

SARE:  Well, I think Rachel touched on something on this music question, because part of the challenge we face is the very deep pessimism and despair of the population.  And partly that's challenging to overcome, because in the last 50 years, the culture has so degraded, that people look within themselves and they have a hard time locating a certain quality of emotional strength, and emotional determination, to persevere whatever the obstacles.  And I think in that regard, what we saw with the incredible response to the performances of Handel's Messiah in Manhattan, is people grappling, for something greater, something which they haven't known about themselves for some time, that will give the strength necessary to actually persevere and to resist the incredible degradation of tolerating and going along with this.

LAROUCHE:  We have a whole century, after the Renaissance, the collapse of the Renaissance and that whole century and beyond, has been the kind of destruction, which has occurred.  We have over a century of this kind of thing.  Over much of the planet, it's mass murder.  And therefore, it's mass murder.  So what's the law?  The law is, mass murder is illegal.

CHRISTIE:  The other obvious point that has come up, and I think Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has raised this point of the imminent danger of nuclear war, and obviously the need to remove Obama in this kind of a crisis.  Because, Lyn, as you have identified, the British Empire, seeing their end, they don't have a problem collapsing the system to kill people off, because it's all been a mass murder program.

However, in light of the fact that there's a new dynamic on this planet around the BRICS, and everything that you and Helga have done to organize the nations of Russia, China, and India to move in this direction, that's where the danger of war comes into place, and obviously nuclear warfare.  Just to add a little to this equation, the known proponent of mass murder, Prince Charles, apparently there's a loophole in British legal code which gives him access, or he's immune from criminal prosecution around setting off nuclear devices.

So I think we have on multiple fronts, the danger of British puppets and puppeteers on that warfare front, so all the more reason to get Obama out.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  And because the incumbent authorities, and the British Imperial authorities are senile.  And therefore, Charles, who is not necessarily senile and unable to function, but his morality is beyond, or beneath belief.

SARE:  Too many bats in their belfries.

LAROUCHE:  I don't think that has it.  I think the bat is Charles.

Look, he got his wife killed!  He was the one who arranged it on behalf of the Royal Family.  And she resigned, because of his sexual problems, with his new wife, his replacement wife; and he caused the murder of her, in France.  What do you expect?

And this is again, the same British animal.  The British animal has been the dominant factor, and the British animal is Obama!  Obama is a creation of the British system, that was the way it was done.

And what was before then, the Bush family, well, the Bushes should have been burned.

But we're at this kind of point: this is reality.  And everything that we can do that is right in nature, should be done.  Law is not supreme when it violates the principle of law.

DENISTON: You mentioned this thing about the effect.  What Diane referenced earlier, this increase in the death rates, half a million Americans dead now, who should not be dead, under the policies of Bush and Obama.  And it's the whole thing, it's the whole policy, it's the tolerance of the Green policy, it's the zero growth policy, it's the defense of Wall Street above everything else.  The sum total effect of the past two Presidents and their administrations is at least a half a million, probably more,  — but at least under this study, at least half a million Americans dead;  and middle-age Americans, people who should in their prime, dead, as an effect of the treasonous nature of these last two administrations.

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Exactly true.

DENISTON: And I think that can go to what you're saying on natural law.  That's the effect of policies that go against the natural necessity of the existence of a growing economy, ends with this result.

LAROUCHE:  I think your point on natural law is the crucial point to emphasize.

DENISTON:  Mm-hmm.

OGDEN:  Well, even though it's nominally legal to bail out Wall Street to the tune of trillions of dollars, that is against the natural law of the Constitution, which says the primary responsibility of the United States government, is to protect the lives and livelihoods of its people.  And that's exactly something that — I mean, if you look at the precedent of Franklin Roosevelt, I think we've talked about this:  How many administrations preceded Franklin Roosevelt, which were treasonous in their effects to the American people?  You had not only Herbert Hoover, you had Calvin Coolidge, Woodrow Wilson, I mean, everything from before World War I, all the way up until practically the election of Franklin Roosevelt to the Presidency, was a disaster for the American people!

So the revolutionary effect that Franklin Roosevelt's election had, and that was also, despite the efforts of his own party!, to keep him from the nomination—.  I mean, this was the fight of a lifetime, for Franklin Roosevelt to secure the nomination and then to take control of his own government! Because even though  he was President, didn't mean he had the ability.  He had to identify who the people in his own party were, who were working for Wall Street, and to say "these people are not in charge.  I'm in charge! My team's in charge."  Most of his team had come with him from New York State when he was Governor  —  Harry Hopkins, and others; and to take this policy and put it into effect with the span of less than 48 hours!  That is absolutely unprecedented!  And that is the kind of President that the American people, who have been so demoralized over the last how many decades?  To say, "my President doesn't do that! My President doesn't defend me, in that regard."  That's the power of what a President can be.  And I think the Franklin Roosevelt precedent is still the most relevant.

LAROUCHE:  Except when the Republicans took over. That was the problem.

OGDEN:  Absolutely.

LAROUCHE:  And that's how the FBI was installed.  So, we have a subject-matter under consideration.

BILL ROBERTS: Well, I think this is the nature of the entire problem that we face, is this issue of the moral decay in the standards of thinking of our population.  And some people simply do not understand the role of Classical music, in terms of what we just accomplished with the two performances of Handel's Messiah.  And especially given the crisis that we're immediately facing.  Some people are going to say, "why would you focus on having beautiful culture?  Why would you put so much effort into that, when we really just need to take these steps, Glass-Steagall, reorganize the financial system, throw Obama out — why would we waste any effort on beauty?"

And I think this gets exactly to and raises the issue of, why is a Renaissance necessary?  Why is it that the whole problem that we're facing, is that when people say, "it's not practical to be able to... it becomes less and less practical to accomplish anything [audio loss] ... the degraded state.  And of course this currently degraded state, as we've been discussing here, is that the standard is Obama's will!  It's actually that.  It's the murderous will of Obama!  And I think the only effective way to deal with a member of Congress at this point, is that if they are too frightened to actually take on the will of Obama and save the American people, then they have to resign.  We have to demand their resignation.

Because this, as Michael raised earlier, this crisis is the will of Obama, when he intervened to impose Dodd-Frank and block Glass-Steagall, that was an intervention on behalf of creating this crisis.  So it's not just a financial crisis that Congress finds itself admitting to, but kind of shrugging their shoulders and having to kind of deal with the implications of it and whatever standard they feel like adopting; but that this was created by the cultural norm that they accepted, the degraded state.  And so that has to be take on, top down.

LAROUCHE:  Well, there's another, deeper issue here in terms of history.  The problem is, that we take laws and we use laws which are wrong laws, and we don't understand what the real law is.  They say, "well, human beings have made a choice, that is, ordinary society's human beings have made a choice, and this, therefore, is law."  Now, that is not true!  It never was true. Particularly when you look at the appeasers of evil, in relatively modern history, that is, since the Renaissance.  And what happened with the renaissance was the introduction immediately afterward, they shut it down, and they created degeneration.  They created mass murder! That's what happened.

Now, what's the point?  The idea of the law is not the true law, that's the problem.  That was the problem then, after the closing down of the Renaissance, and we had a big struggle to get something in Europe and elsewhere, which was not evil.  And we fought evil, repeatedly.  And we don't say that the law, the letter of the law as provided by some people, because they happen to be in power, that that defines the principle of law for the human species!  In other words, the other law is a responsibility, of mankind's security and development, and progress:  that is the law!  And if that law is defied, if that is defied, then the crime has been committed!

OGDEN:  You know, I think Putin addressed that very clearly, in his speech to the United Nations a few months ago, and then also more recently, where he's taken the question of what is the standard of international law, and how that's been violated repeatedly by, for example, the Bush and Obama administrations, with the overthrowing of sovereign governments and the imposing of the will of one nation on another nation, which is a definition of aggressive warfare.  I mean, that's the kind of thing that the United Nations was set up, in order to prevent, in the aftermath of World War II, which was really a major reason why Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the entire American people, alliance with the Russians at that time, to defeat what was coming out as fascism in Europe in the 1930s. There is a standard of international law and there's a standard which the United Nations is intended to represent, and that's exactly what Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been addressing very clearly in their recent interventions on that question.

LAROUCHE:  But there's a higher question here, which I've raised occasionally, which is not raised usually, when it comes to technicalities, it's not raised; it's not treated.  The problem is, that mankind cannot really make the law!  That is, mankind does not, by mankind's own authority, as such, by terms of individual members of societies, does not really make the law. Because the law is the principle of the progress of the human species, and if the human species is not progressing in its development and its fruition, then the law has been violated! And that's where the problem lies.

You look at the terrible things that have happened, under various Renaissances, been crushed; look at what the mass murder was of that.  Now we're talking in a mass murder problem, right now.  What we're talking about is the policy of the United States government right now, at least under the current President and the preceding two Presidents:  Mass murder!

So therefore, there is no law, which justifies the existence of the people who do that thing!  And therefore, you don't go to say, "there's a technical law, there's a law on the books."  That is not the law!  Because the worst, the most Satanic forces on the planet, have been the law!  That's how it worked!

And the point is that mankind is to a higher law, because mankind is not an Earthling!  Mankind is based on a principle, which is not that of Earthlings.  It is the responsibility of mankind, to develop future populations, are more fitting.  The assumption is that every generation should be moving progressively, in terms of its natural law, and the natural law is the improvement, the self-improvement, of the human species. And only mankind, has the power to do that.

So when we have somebody comes in, in government, and says "we're government, we have a law."  Who made the law?  Who sensed the law? What's the law?

Well, you had in Christianity, for example, under Christianity; what happened was, the idea of law governing mankind per se, and that's the higher law.  The higher law is mankind, must produce secondary generations which produce superior, for the purpose of mankind, for the progress of mankind. And mankind must rise to higher levels of achievement: That's God's law!  And we call it God's law, not this petty law that people gossip about.

But that's what it is.  Mankind has to make progress and the obligation of law, among nations, is progress for mankind's condition, better intellectual development, newer, higher levels of knowledge, higher levels of achievement; higher meanings of the existence of mankind, of successive generations of mankind.

And that's the law, that's the real law.  The technical law, the book law, the strip law, that is not the law.  The law is that mankind must progress in its nature.  That you know, people die; all right, fine.  What's the law?  Well, did they get better people produced in their families?  Were their families able to be progressive, in going to a higher levels of achievement for mankind?  Are we not responsible to take care of the Galaxy, for example?  We are responsible!

So who's going to shut that law down?  The law is that mankind must progress, that mankind's achievement must progress, by that higher standard.  You know, we've got even other cases on that thing.

OGDEN:  Well, one thing that comes to mind, Alexander Hamilton, absolutely.  That was Alexander Hamilton and his associates, that was their discussion in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, was absolutely the question of natural law.  That was the birth of our nation, based on that idea.

LAROUCHE:  But the point is, what about the Galaxy?  Mankind is responsible to improve upon the Galaxy, that's implicit.  Who could take that away?  Who has the right to take that away?  Who has the authority to take that away?

DENISTON:  I think this message needs to go to the Pope, pretty quickly.

LAROUCHE:  I think the Pope should probably be put into suspension.  His existence should be in some kind of suspension. He should not be Pope-ular.  [laughter]

DENISTON:  Well, the precedent of Cusa really sticks out in my mind.  Because you see his work on science, also his work on the nation-state, the idea of a government of a republic, it flows from the discovery he made, a higher conception about mankind's creative mission and existence in the universe.  And that was the basis then, for him to develop and take further, conceptions about how must society organize itself to facilitate this progress?

LAROUCHE: You have to look at Brunelleschi, too. Brunelleschi was very important in this; the Renaissance would not have occurred without Brunelleschi.  It was going to be one of the old, usual kinds of systems of government. And Brunelleschi forced it and what happened, the Renaissance as such was continued.

But then, that got crushed!  It got crushed in the beginning of the next century, which became an evil thing, just like what we're talking about now!  That's what happened after that, after the end of that century, it came down.  And what's happened, in the various stages of Renaissance efforts, after that point.

No, there is a higher law, and we have to really specify there is a higher law for mankind.  And mankind is not limited to being an Earthling; that's also the case.  Mankind goes out to higher levels of achievement, beyond what we call nature, natural nature.  And the development of mankind, through the progress of the development, of mankind's ability to create, and that is the directly pertinent precedent for law.  Are you creating a level of achieve, for subsequent generations?  That's the issue!

And this thing is Satanic!  And that's the only way to say it:  "This is entirely Satanic, directly Satanic.  That Obama and everything he represents is a Satanic personality and therefore, should not be considered human.

Because the right to have rights depends upon your humanity. And humanity is something which is dependent upon, the reconstruction of the birth of new generations of human birth and development and progress.  And that's the principle of law, and that's the only law that mankind has ever been able to define. Does mankind become a better, more powerful force for good, in the history of mankind.  That's the issue!

And this is Satanic! And we have to use the word Satanic, to describe those who are making these orders.  You say, "well this is the law"; well, you are operating under Satanic law.  We are under the order of anti-Satanic law.

And we have to do it that way.  If you don't do it, if you don't  go to this question of what's a higher principle, and you say, "well, assume we have a human order of principle."  But that's not the principle;  the existence of mankind does not depend, upon these kinds of caprices!  It depends entirely upon the progress of mankind, as a species!  And mankind has the only power that has a willful capability, of improvement in species.

OGDEN:  Well, that's what's so unique about the American republic.  Because our Constitution was the first ever system which was explicitly based on an idea of natural law, and the constant perfection of mankind, and the perfection of each generation, upon generation.  And this is the tragedy of the fact that the United States has now lost its birthright, has lost its identity, as the only great republic founded in the image of exactly what Cusa had established during the Italian Renaissance, for example.  That's what people have to hold as precious.

SARE:  No, I just had wanted to say that it's very important, that this is unique to human beings.  Because where the whole environmentalist insanity goes bonkers, is their hysteria that a mosquito might go extinct; or, really, they have somehow lost this!  And then of course, you have people like Donald Trump, who make it very hard to tell the difference between human beings and animals.  But it really, —

DENISTON:  He's a bloodsucker.

SARE:  Yeah, right.  It is crazy that this should be a controversial point right now, but it actually is, that human beings are unique.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, well, that's what we have to say!  All we have made statements on this subject; here on this occasion and about the passing close of this session, and that's what we have to do!

OGDEN:  Well, I think that brings a close to 2015. [laughter]


OGDEN:  Not the greatest year on the record books.  But let's look forward to a better 2016,  — this is the kind of discussion which I think people have to reflect upon over the next coming days.

So thank you very much for joining us, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com. [a:class=links_good_rands;href="https:\/\/reddebibliotecas.org.co\/bdaxshop\/busca\/nike?tipo-de-produto=tenis&tipo-de-produto=tenis-performance&tipo-de-produto=chinelos-e-sandalias&tipo-de-produto=chuteiras&mi=hm_ger_mntop_C-MAR-nike&psn=Menu_Top"]Nike[/a][script][/script]



Also Relevant