Manhattan Project: Town Hall event with Lyndon LaRouche, January 16, 2016

January 16, 2016

January 16, 2016, Town Hall event with Lyndon LaRouche

Every Saturday LPAC's Manhattan Project hosts a live Q&A town hall event with American Statesman Lyndon LaRouche. This week: only if Americans and their members of Congress regain the courage and leadership previous generations have mustered, can Wall Street's power over the nation truly be challenged and defeated.

Transcript-DENNIS SPEED:  My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I want to welcome you all here today for our Martin Luther King Weekend dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche.  Mr. LaRouche was unable to be here with us last week, but he's certainly here this week, and what we're going to do, is go right into our event.

Lyn I'm going to ask if you have a statement for us at the beginning and then we'll go right to questions and answers.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  It's a good time to have this kind of thing, right today.  As you probably know that some us here are watching you, and watching me and so forth.  And we've augmented some of our attendance here, and why don't we just go ahead and do what we're supposed to, and see what happens?...

We have too many blurs on the screen; if we could unblur some of the problems in the room, it would be greatly appreciated.  We could get better focus on the subject we're supposed to be looking at.

Q: Hello Mr. LaRouche ... This is Jessica White from Brooklyn, and I wanted to start off, since everyone is here, and we have all been participating in lots of activity in Manhattan, and people are participating in other ways all over the country; especially since I was listening to the Thursday night call and people were calling in from all over, even international places. And today is interesting, because, I was not able to participate in the rallies this week in Manhattan.

And the last time we had an event where Congress people were actually on a panel speaking about various things was a few month ago, and I was at that event.  My Congressperson Hakim Jeffries, was there; and it was a chance for me to confront him face to face, again, and when he saw me, he said, "Oh, hello Miss White!" And I said, "Oh hello Mr. Jeffries how're you doing?"  "Oh, fine," he said "Impeaching Obama is still off the table."  And I said, "Oh, OK,"  — well, it always has been with him.

He's a junior congressman; he speaks very well.  When he has an issue that's passionate for him, he stands on the Congressional floor and he talks about it, with a lot of vigor and lot of passion and basically his issues carry a lot of weight.  They listen to him.  And I told him that at the time. And I said, "Why aren't you signed on to Glass-Steagall?  And you need to sign on to the 28 pages.  And we need to impeach Obama!" And he just kind of said, "well, I have to run into the meeting now," that kind of thing, which does; I'm kind of used to that.

And so,  recently I tried to get a meeting since all the Congress people were back in Washington; we were meeting with local people in the Congress persons' offices, according to your instructions to really step this up, and go there and talk to them about "the now," which is something we're talking about today.  And I didn't get a meeting:  His staff person brushed me off, and so I sent an email.  And I talked all about, the Congress person needed to get this information into Washington: he needed to sign on to Glass-Steagall; he need to pass Glass-Steagall not just talk about it; he still needs to impeach Obama, even if he feels that he can't, because he's an Obama wanna-be.  And suddenly — he signed onto the 28 pages! Yea! [applause]

So!  I'm not sure why he decided to stop being a coward and at least do that.  And do you have any comments on what do you think these Congressmen are into that makes them, propels them to at least do something.  We know that's not enough, and I know that I'll still be in his face.  But at least it's some step towards him being some kind of human being and maybe we can get some of these other coward Congress people to do the same quickly.

LAROUCHE:  I think it's highly desirable, but I'm not sure that it's reliable. He may be off and on again, you know?  But the point is, we're going to have to develop our own skills a little better, in order to force the issue more consistently.  We can do it; we can do it.  I'm aware of this.

They're a bunch of cowards, you know; and sometimes more cowardly and sometimes less cowardly, but it's a cowardly bunch. And they are not willing to give too much in terms of truth-speaking.  They want to have explanations of things which are, to my best estimate, are not truthful!  They are quasi-truthful.

Q: [follow-up] Right, right.

LAROUCHE:  I hope we can do better.

Q: [follow-up]  One of the things that I was thinking, there are many events coming up, where Congress people will be speaking, or holding things on their own, and if we get to more of their constituents, I plan to talk to some of the people who are with me, some who are in this room, actually, and go to an event that's being held by Mr. Jeffries coming up soon.

So if we think in that way, to get to the constituents, to make them force, the Congress people to do the right thing also, and confront them on their territory and make the phones calls; do those kinds of things where people are actually helping us, to make them do the right thing.

LAROUCHE:  That's what we're trying to do.  It's what we have to do. And it's a tough row to ride, because they are scared.  They're intimidated, they're frightened, and they don't have much courage.  If you get a little bit out of them, it may be useful.  But you have to recognize the fact that we have a very cowardly organization to deal with.  They're frightened.

But we have to understand that Obama is the problem, because Obama's role has been that of a killer.  Look, here's a man, Obama, he kills people!  He kills people, every Tuesday, he kills people.  And that is not conducive, to peaceful and productive discussion.  And therefore, the problem is of that nature.  And I think you have to take a little bit of his scalp — now, it doesn't mean you have to take his scalp, because I don't think you want greasy scalps.  But in any case, that is where the problem lies.

In general, the citizens of the United States, are very cowardly.  They will not tell the truth, they will back off, they will duck, they will do all these kinds of tricks; and it's very difficult to get them to be honest.  And they usually are not very honest.  They'll say "Yes, but..." the old billy-goat song, "yes, but... yes, but... yes, but..."

So it's a difficult problem.  But I think from an organization such as this one here, which is a little less than cowardly, we might get a little bit of more action, here, from the people assembled here, than we did from the Congress by a long shot.

Q: Earlier this week, I participated in a Wall Street rally on Alexander Hamilton's birthday, and I went to a special talk about Alexander Hamilton.  A gentleman gave a speech about him, and he wanted to point out that Alexander Hamilton, everything he did was very courageous, everything he did was the right thing to do, and his system of economics was supposed to be put into place, but unfortunately, he named Thomas Jefferson specifically, as a British agent; he said, "the British agent Jefferson" blocked him from being able to do his civil duty.

So I wanted to tie that in to talking to our congressmen, and telling them "do not be Jeffersonian," "do not be a British agent, be an American. Step up to the plate and do what needs to be done."  So how can we do that?

Because every time we talk to Charles Rangel, he says, publicly, "Well, I'm working with you LaRouche guys!  We got meetings set up!  Things are going this way," but in actuality we go to his office, he's not there; his aides are there, they're kind of skeptical; things are not on the up and up.  So how can we get to these people to say, "do not be a British agent"?

LAROUCHE:  Even serious citizens, even members of Congress, even people who have been leading members of Congress, even who have been powerful voices in certain occasion of their functioning, in the course of time, they're now very much scared.  Now, that's a fact, the fact that they're scared. That does not mean that they're bad people, it means they're scared.

And they have much to fear from.  And yet, we have to understand that they have much to fear.  This guy Obama kills; he kills on Tuesdays; he kills American citizens on Tuesdays. And the same citizens who are being challenged by him, are frightened.  They know what they're frightened of; they know they could be killed, they could be the next people, to be killed because of Obama!

And the problem is, we have too many people in the United States who will not denounce Obama for what he is, that's the problem.  You have to find courageous people, by those standards, otherwise you will not get what you would like to hear.  Even from people who had been heroes.  And he has been a hero.

Q: Greetings, Lyndon.  You mentioned the 28 pages previously, and the lack of courage in the Congress.  And back during the Vietnam era, there was a Senator named Mike Gravel, who brought to the attention of a congressional body, the Pentagon Papers. And, although a lot of people wanted to punish him, they couldn't, because he had immunity, when he presented it to a Congressional body.

Now, today, most of our Congressmen haven't had the courage, yet, to even read the 28 pages. And those who have read it, are more or less shocked. They can't speak about the content of what they read, they can't take notes, they can't bring in cell phones, or cameras, they have to read it in front of a guard.

My question to you: Do we, or can we identify a man, or woman, in the Congress, either in the House or the Senate, that has the courage to stand up on the floor of Congress, and to basically recite what they remember of the 28 pages, to let the entire world know, who was at least in part responsible for the financing of 9/11 — the terror that we're still under, through ISIS; no doubt it's still connected — to draw that line, at least to put that idea in the American public.

So, I ask you, again, can you, or can this group, identify an historical character, that now can step forward at this great time of crisis, and speak the truth as to what they've read in those pages, and identify the terrorists responsible, at least in part, for the 9/11 atrocities. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: OK. Well, I know about this; other people know about this condition, and what is required.  But, amazingly, leading members of the Congress, haven't got the guts to say so. It's all true. It's known. We have leading members of Congress, or who have been leading members of Congress, they know this. I know this. Other people know this.  And that's the truth.

What's the problem? The problem is the problem of Obama, right now. It was the Bush family, now it's Obama. And Obama uses threats of killing. Obama is a specialist in killing members of Congress and similar kinds of people. And they're scared. Because, they think that being killed by him has a factor of futility. They're frightened.

And because of the press, the press is frightened. They are frightened. And that's the problem. It's not that simple. We have a population, in the United States, which is scared as Hell. And, when it comes to this issue, only a few will speak. Only a few.

Q: [follow up] My question, or my  response, is that we only need actually one to speak, publicly. The international papers, I'm sure, the media would pick that up, and, the United States media would be forced to pick it up. The internet media certainly would pick it up, at least to some extent.

So, we only have to identify one, brave, person. I think that many people are frightened, but that's not anything new. That's been happening all through history; people eventually step up to the bat. You've been doing it for many years, many years.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, but, they won't do it, they are scared! And their fear is not unjustified. What happens is, every Tuesday, citizens of the United States are killed, by order of the President. This President. And, it's that kind of fear.

Now, there are other conditions of cowardice in the population. Now, in other words, we're speaking of Manhattan. And people who are living in southern Manhattan, know all about his, understand it, but, there are very few, who find the ability to come up and speak it. That's the problem.

Q: [follow up] You know, I think the Founding Fathers, and the 56 people that signed the Declaration of Independence, and they knew when they signed that, they were basically signing their death warrant, if they didn't succeed in the Revolution. And, I would think that, karmically, we have a tie into 1776, and that we must be able to identify at least one patriot, amongst the Congressmen, and have that patriot stand forward, and we give him that support he needs.

SPEED: Let me just say, before Lyn may have something to say;  He answered your question, and I'd appreciate it, if Lyn responds, that we just leave it at this. Lyn, do you want to respond to that, again, or not?

LAROUCHE: Yeah sure! The problem is, we have the gutlessness of most citizens of the United States, when it comes to their standing, there. And, the problem is, it's not just simple gutlessness. They can be killed by the President of the United States, that is, Obama. Obama will kill people on a minute's notice. And, people don't know how, to get out of the threat of being killed for speaking out.

Then you get a problem in the population more generally, they become collectively terrified. And, it's very difficult to get members of Congress, or even ordinary citizens to tell the truth about tough matters. The United States is full of cowards. But, they're not cowards, per se; they know that Obama can kill them. The smartest ones know that he can kill them.  Obama can do it, and has done it, repeatedly. Every Tuesday, citizens of the United States are being killed by the order of Obama. On Tuesday.

So, it's going to take something a little tougher than we have, as an organizing process, to get this problem across. People know it! A good number of people know it. Very few people will speak it. Why? Because they think it's futile. Because they think that even their sacrifice, of their own life will not work. And, that's the problem. So, the point is, you've got to throw Obama out of office. Throw him out of office!

Look what he's doing, now. He's killing a whole bunch of citizens in various parts of the world, just killing them. And he's doing it; he's getting by with it. Germany won't fight. Other nations won't fight. Do you expect a citizen, who is not a potent citizen, to fight like that? They will talk about it in a certain way; they won't speak a voice for it.

We have turned our nation into a batch of cowards. But the cowardice is not unwarranted. And, it's going to take some tough work to solve that problem. It has to be solved, but it's not something that you can just do. You've got to make it happen, but you can't just make it happen, arbitrarily. You really have to pull it off. And, if you can build that up mentally, that is a step in the right direction. But it's not something you can just pull off on the street. Unfortunately, that's true.

Q: Hi, Lyn. Ernie [shapiro]. My question is about the Triple Curve. Now, maybe people here don't know what your Triple Curve is, so I'll just hold this up. The idea is that the Triple Curve was something that you challenged us on; in 1994 you formulated the Ninth Forecast, "The Coming Disintegration Of The Financial Markets."

Not too long after that, you challenged our members to come up with a kind of a representation of what was happening with the economy. And, none of us did. And, that's when you generated the Triple Curve ["Typical Collapse Function" see EIR, March 15, 1996]: the financial aggregates; the monetary supply; and production. And, the idea was to show the dynamic process involving these things, and their interaction over time. And, I recall, right after 2000 and the "dot-com" bubble burst, we showed how that was reflected in the Triple Curve. And, then again, in 2007, when you have the blowout, there were further, drastic, changes reflected in your Triple Curve.

It was instructive  at the time. Now, we don't hear much about it, anymore.  And what's not clear to me is, why? Is that because, at this advanced stage of breakdown, there's not much to be learned from it?  Or is there some other reason it's not being discussed anymore?

LAROUCHE: Well, it is sometimes discussed. But, the problem is, that people lie. And, they will simply just turn their eyes. I presented that, at that point, a very simple thing. I laid it out publicly, and shortly after that, they dumped me. My voice was stilled, for an extended period of time. And, that was the issue.

The point you have got to understand, in dealing with this, is the "cowardice factor" in the Congress and in similar kinds of institutions. They're cowardly. Now, what we're looking at, some cowardice is actually [audio loss 26.40] ...  afraid to even speak the truth.  And then, their children are idiots, they're very stupid;  they've become stupid.

At that time, when I made that presentation, people recognized it. They didn't like it. They were afraid of it. They were afraid of what could happen. But then, gradually, they weren't even willing to bring the subject up. It's easily understood. It always was. But, that was about the time I was about to be thrown into prison. And, after that point, few people were willing to bring the subject up again. You were one of them, who did bring it up.

Q: Hi Lyn, it's Rachel Brinkley. I've just been finding a lot of people, recently, that are saying they're for [bernie] Sanders, but they're very panicked. And, they're quick to stop discussing the reality of the situation. But, it seems that the quality of breakdown is much greater than anything Sanders is addressing, or anyone else  That the quality of breakdown of society can is best addressed by actually what's happening, here in this room, around the Manhattan Project.  Everyone who is here, and everyone who is part of it, in any way, that there has to be something new introduced, of a higher quality, than anything in this previous, currently collapsing, dead system, and that that's what everyone here, is part of, that's in the room, and otherwise. And, I just wanted to see if you could comment on that, on the qualification that's represented here.

LAROUCHE: Well, yes. The problem is elementary, that is, what the success could be. Because it's simple. In Russia, it's simple; in China, among the leaders in China. But, the people in the United States are more accomplished cowards, shall we say. It's cowardice! Not to tell the truth is cowardice. If you know the truth is the truth, and you're afraid to mention it, you're a coward! Most Americans today, are cowards. That's the only reason that Obama can get by with what he does. Because he's turned the citizens of the United States into stinking cowards.

And they don't like to be called stinking cowards, but what am I going to say? They're stinking cowards! And they have to stop it. And it takes a little creation, of courage to do something about that. And most people will not stand up and treat that forthrightly and directly.  And that's what the problem is.

Anybody who's intelligent knows this. Anyone who's really intelligent knows this. But some people prefer not to be known as knowing this. That's the problem. Now you're saying it; other people are saying it:  Well, we've got to get more people saying it. It's that simple. It's not easy, but it's not that simple either.  You've spoken.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, my name is J—, I'm from the once great state of Connecticut.  There been a lot of talk recently about autonomous or self-driving cars, and there's been collaboration between Detroit, the automakers, and Silicon Valley as far as the technology is concerned. I was wondering if you could address how this might fit into the fusion economy and the re-industrialization of the United States and Detroit in particular?

LAROUCHE: If we could get a few members of Congress, who had some guts, or maybe a lack of brains, we wouldn't have this kind of problem. Because the facts are knowable, and the facts must be knowable in the sense that people can present them. But you have to realize what the level of cowardice is.

Look what happened to a President of the United States. A Bush family member tried to kill him, and knocked him out. And the whole organization collapsed on the basis of that action. People were afraid of the Bushes, terrified of the Bushes because of the people who backed up the Bushes, Wall Street!  Wall Street and members of the Congress, members of the Congress, the FBI division of the Congress; these are the people who terrified people into submitting, and avoiding getting involved.

So we have a cowardly nation. The United States is a cowardly nation! Other parts of the world are cowardly nations. They've given in to terror. They've given in to threats. They're trying to save their skin, hoping that they won't be killed, or they won't have some other terrible thing done to them. The world is dominated by fear  And Franklin Roosevelt, as President, made the point very clearly. He, however, had the power, in a certain part of his lifetime, to do something about it.

But then, when the new election came along, and the right wing came into power, against President Roosevelt, then, everything began to go bad. And right then, at that time, where I knew it, that is, when I was coming back out of military service back into civilian life, I knew it then. A lot of people knew it then. They learned not to tell the truth, or to avoid presenting it. And that is still the problem today.

We have a veteran hero is now coming to the microphone.

Q: Hi Lyn, this your wartime buddy, from World War II. I want to bring you greetings. What I want to say in particular, is, you notice in today's paper the drastic fall of the stock market as you have so many times predicted, it has happened again. I'm sure you're aware of that, yes?

LAROUCHE: I am.  Very much so! [laughs.]

Q: [follow up]  My next thing of mine is, what do you think would be an appropriate approach toward Martin Luther King's birthday?

LAROUCHE: I think we have a chance of doing something about it. The opening is there.  The question is how to get the mechanism to function, because the thing is knowable.  But what I'm impressed by, is the fear of citizens.

Now, if you want to understand how serious that is, you have to take the name of Obama. Obama is actually the person who is chiefly responsible for the terror, against the citizens of the United States themselves. Why? Because he kills. He kills on Tuesdays; he kills innocent citizens on Tuesdays. That's been his profession. And nobody steps in there and says, "you're not going to be killed."  What they get is the order is given, to kill them! Obama does it on Tuesdays!

And therefore you have to get a force of influence, which can muster people to stand up with courage enough, to deal with this problem. That's the problem. We have a nation of cowards, and that's the problem.

It was different back in your days. That's exactly what happened.

Q: [follow up]  Unfortunately, it's true.  I have been steadily watching the desecration of the United States, particularly the cowards in Congress.

You have a good day, sir. Always a pleasure.

LAROUCHE: Thank you.

Q: Hi Lyn. I want to give a very brief report on what we did last week in Albany, where we're now moving, and we will have the Glass-Steagall resolution re-introduced in Albany.  And this will be the third year we've had the Glass-Steagall resolution introduced, and what happens is we have a good number of people who are cosponsors, but the resolution never  is never taken out of committee.

Now, in terms of what you're talking about, about how to get people to deal with the fear, I think this is the critical question, and I want to tell you a short story.

We met with a State Senator during the summer,  who is from Harlem.  And he wanted to introduce Glass-Steagall. He was going to put it in the Senate, he was going to write a letter, an op-ed in the Amsterdam News, and everything was moving, and he was going to read about Ferdinand Pecora, and get some guts on this thing. So then we didn't hear anything.

So we went on Tuesday to his office and talked to his aide, and his aide had told us during the summer, well, there's not enough people backing it, okay, it's good, we're for it. Well, this time we walked in and the aide was very happy. The Senator had endorsed Bernie Sanders, and Sanders was just in New York talking about Glass-Steagall. And so he was ready to re-write the resolution, and he was ready to move. And then the Senator came in.

Now, just to put it in context, on the wall of the Senator's office, there's a poster. And on one side is Martin Luther King, and it says "The Dreamer"; and on the other side is Barack Obama, and it says, "The Dream."  [audience gasps]

And what happened in our discussion is, at first the Senator was talking about introducing Glass-Steagall, and how would it work, and how do you explain it. And then he became more and more and more enraged. And he was attacking the way we were talking about it, and he said, "People in my district can't understand this. They can't understand it, this is arrogant, to talk about derivatives. People don't know what derivatives are; you can't talk about derivatives."

And then the housing crisis, which in Harlem is off the chart, where people are being shoved out by gentrification,  he said "I don't see any connection between  Glass-Steagall and housing," and he said, "Look we've met for hour, I've given you all this time." And we fought it out, and we fought out that Obama was not the right thing.

But, nonetheless, what we didn't say, and I think it's very important to what you are saying today; we didn't say to him, "YOU ARE TERRIFIED!, of what you've got up on your wall. That's the problem!"

And instead we tended to argue it out, but I think the point you're making, if people really think about it, and I'm thinking about it because I know we have to do this differently; we have to say what you're saying, and which is actually true, that there is enormous fear.  And there's fear about Obama, there's fear about you're dealing with a killer, and there's fear about the fact that you put him in office, and that you continue to try to support it. And I think perhaps if we're going to move this thing in Albany, to actually get Glass-Steagall voted on, we have to bring this question up. And I wanted to both tell you that, and see if you have any comments.

LAROUCHE: I do have a comment. The point is that, yes, these conditions exist. No doubt about it.  It happens.

Members of Congress, they are not only cowardly, they are liars. Look, if somebody comes into the office there, of a member of Congress, or a similar state, if they come there and they raise this question, therefore, the truth is that question presents the truth. Everybody knows it;  that is, if they wish to know it know it. And therefore, the people who say that are lying. The members of Congress and Representatives, who are taking that position are lying; they know they're lying, fully. And they continue to lie. Because they say their interest requires them, to lie. And the only way you can do it is,  you've got to find the circumstance, under which you can just say that outright.  "Well, we know you're lying. We know you're lying. But we'd just like to have you tell the truth a couple of times."

And that's the only way you can deal with it. Then they will get very upset, they'll denounce you in all kinds of directions, and say this was s insane, this was terrible, this was not decent; I'm a respectable member of Congress, I have these rights, you can't say these things about me!

You say, "well, aren't you lying?" [laughter] And they just walk out of the room and tear things up.  They're terrified.

Q: [follow up] That's exactly what he said, "you can't talk to me that way"!

And the other thing he said was about you. And what he said about you was, he said, "What's the organization?" And we said, "LaRouche, we're with LaRouche." And he said, "why does it have to be LaRouche?" And I said, "you brought it up. We're with LaRouche. That's what's happening. We talked about Hamilton, we talked about FDR, we talked Lincoln. We're with LaRouche!"  And so he was very upset about LaRouche. He said," look, we know LaRouche. And we don't know about LaRouche, we don't know where he is coming from."

But then what he did, later on his legislative aide called in. He put her on the speaker phone, and he said, "What do you think about Lyndon LaRouche?"  right on the speaker phone.  So she would be forced to respond without knowing she was on speaker phone. And it was very interesting, because she said, "Oh, LaRouche,  oh yes, I know...yeah, yeah, .a few years ago..." And then you could tell she didn't know what she was supposed to say. And she said, "of course I never really agreed with anything." And then she said, "I don't know, I heard, you know,  Socialist, Communist, I really duno..." But it was interesting because he ..asked her to respond, and then when she responded, she knew she maybe was in trouble.  but the obvious question was, they knew it was LaRouche.  So...

LAROUCHE:  That has been the case, in my experience, often. (laughter)  There's a problem with the truth; it's a common disease, among members of the population—they lie.  You know they say, "I'm tired, I've got to get some sleep. I'm going to lie."

Q:  Hello, Mr. LaRouche.  How are you doing today?

LAROUCHE:  Oh, I think today, I'm not in bad shape.  I've been in better shape, but at my age, I don't expect too much better shape.

Q:  Great.  I want to throw you a softball question.  All these other people have been throwing you hardball questions. I'll throw you a softball question.  I wanted to ask you your opinion on the Iraqi dinar, the currency.  Do you think it will revalue sometime this year or not?

LAROUCHE:  I think we are on the edge right now.  This is not something where it's about Iraq.

We are presently on the edge of thermonuclear war.  Now Obama and what he represents is exemplary of that problem.  But what we're dealing with is the British Empire.  The British Empire, otherwise better known as the Brutish Empire.  And these people are murderers.  They are a disease.  They are not human, in terms of their qualities of their behavior, not at all. They are degenerates.  The British Royal Family is a claque of degenerates. The British system is composed largely of degenerates.  And we have many parts of our own organization, that is, the nation's organization—we have members of Congress, who are degenerates.  They are lying degenerates.  If you look at what the issues are on the table in the Congress, they are lying, openly, publicly.  And as long as they think that they are the top dog or on the top dog's side, they will continue to lie.

And therefore, the point, it requires an insight of people into themselves, that is, citizens, for example, unto themselves, to find what amounts to, the effect of the courage to tell the truth.  The problem is often the uncertainty that they could solve the problem, that they could represent the solution. They're saying, "Not me, not this time," That's the action.  And they're even decent people.  "Not me," and, "Not this time."

And that's where the problem arises.  People will come up, they'll talk with their friends, they'll talk to others.  They'll say this is what we know, "Of course, it's true, but I'm not going to talk about it!"  And I'm so far gone, as far as they are concerned, they know I'm going to say it!

Q:  Hi, Lyn, it's Alvin here in New York.  It's kind of been an extension of our discussion on Thursday.  A couple of things came up there that I thought were very useful.  First of all, in terms of talking with people, not about seeing the stock market go down, but when you're talking as some activists were discussing, 50 schools being closed in Philadelphia; that's very physical, that's very real.  The heroin epidemic.  It's already been referenced here again.  The skyrocketing cost of living in New York, around rents and so forth. And so I just found it, and I think it's more helpful in engaging people in those stark, direct terms, as opposed this kind of, "Oh, the stock market's down.  It's crashing."  What does that really mean?

So I thought that was useful, but in your response to my comments to you in the discussion, were very quick and very direct—well, actually to me it was actually like you reached up and kind of grabbed by my shirt, and brought home the principle of Alexander Hamilton.  And that any type of, no matter how legitimate, as it's been put to me, "confederacy of grievances" that one wishes to move on, is not the way to go, but rather to thrust the thing forward, in a way where you're going to change the very nature of the Presidency of the United States.

Now we've got a big week coming up in New York.  And my question to you, in terms of the drive, the removal of Obama, we've got the two main issues:  Wall Street being crushed by Glass-Steagall, and taking the 28 pages to a much-needed higher level.  How do you propose, how do you suggest, we move, now, and in the next few weeks?

LAROUCHE:  Well the point is, you are faced with a threat, which is a most credible threat, to destroy everything that you have!  And it's there right now!  What Obama is doing, what the Wall Street crowd are doing, is they're destroying the very life existence of the citizens of the United States.  They're faced with actions, which will kill them.

Now, right now, for example they have whole categories of people who are listed as employed members of economic function. And they kill each other!  They literally kill each other, or they kill themselves; because they're terrified.  And on the basis that very few people among them has the courage to live! People tend to die, because they are afraid, and they want to get rid of being afraid by dying.  And that's what's come to the people of the United States.

And they can't trust the Congress; they can't trust the members of Congress; they can't trust the society; and they're being killed!  And the rate of killing of citizens is rising. And it seems that virtually nothing is being done about that.

Now, we're on the edge of the worst and most dangerous war that has ever been fought by mankind.  We're on the edge of Russia and China against the British Empire, what the British Empire represents; or what Obama represents, as well.  Those are the problems.  And if the citizens have the guts, they'll respond to that.

But the citizens have lost their guts.  They've been taken away from them.  The members of their family are terrified.  They become cowards, regularly.  Now me, old man me, well I say these things.  I have been in the practice of saying these kinds of things. But very few people—I'm not saying that I'm the greatest hero—that's not the case.  I understand, more deeply, than most citizens of the United States do.  And the only problem is the cowardice is of a very specific kind.  "Look, it's not that bad."

"You're saying it's bad; it's not that bad. IT'S NOT THAT BAD!" [pounds the table, laughter]

And that's what the problem is.  Cowardice!  And we have to help people get back their courage.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche?  I had discussion with a few friends of mine and I brought up the Hill-Burton system.  And with THE Glass-Steagall, how would rebuilding the Hill-Burton system work?

LAROUCHE:  I can identify that very quickly.  I'm very familiar with that.  Look, the problem here is, is cowardice which is induced in the citizens.  They don't want to take on those issues.  They don't want to take on, also, the issues which involve themselves.  They don't want to take on the recognition of their own cowardice.  Therefore, they don't want to admit that they're cowards.

Look, you have people who are dying; they are killing themselves.  In labor union activities, they're there; they know this.  They're being killed.  They're dying; the rate of death of people in these qualities of production, of manufacturing, and things like that—they're dying, they're collapsing.  They wish to die; they do things that show that they wish to die, because they want to get this over with.

And what we need to do, is we need to — actually, what I would do, to the degree I'm able to do so, to influence this also. But I know what the situation is.  I know it very well. And if you can induce people to become cowards, then you can make them to do whatever you want them to do.  And that's what the problem is.

Many of these people who were working people, who had professions as working people, they quit.  They were cowards. And they actually acted in order to induce their own death!  in order to end the noise, of dying.  And that's what's happening. And if you can't solve that problem, and end that problem, mankind becomes a collection of cowards, the worst kind of cowards.  They won't face the truth.

They take drugs.  They take drugs in order to kill themselves.  People who are working people kill themselves in order to get rid of life, because of their cowardice.  And this is the thing we face, and therefore the question is, how do we change that kind of reaction?  The number of people who are working people, who are trade unionists, for example, and similar categories—the death rate among them is increasing at an accelerating rate.  And to a large degree, it is voluntary.  They are trying to escape from life, from a life which is no longer enjoyable.

And therefore we have to go to a higher level of action, not practical measures.  Practical measures never worked.  Practical measures under these kinds of conditions were always a failure! They were always a bluff.  They never meant anything.  And when you take people and members of the families who commit suicides, in one form or the other, that's the most extreme kind of cowardice.  Working people for whom the conditions of life are worsening, they lose their guts.  And my problem is, how do I do things, which help them get back their guts?  Then they will do the best.

Q:  Hi, this is D—, how're you doing?  I wanted to talk about this question of cowardice, because it seems to me that since the death of FDR, the American people have been terrorized, under McCarthy, Truman's bombing of Japan, the death of Kennedy, the assassination of Malcolm X, the assassination of King, the assassination Bobby Kennedy.  And this being the celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday, I think that it would be good if we use that, when we're talking to these Congressmen, that they have to come up to that level, they have to come up and do the right thing.

The other thing I wanted to mention about FDR, is in 1940 and 1944 when he gave his inaugural address, both times, he referred to the fact that people make mistakes.  And he said that he himself, as President, has made mistakes.  And he says, but the scales of justice around this idea of mistakes is different; he says, because if you have a good heart, a warm heart, that the scale of justice is on your side.  But if you have a cold heart, that's bad.

Anyways, I just wanted to bring that up, and see what you thought about the idea of making now to President's Day or earlier, the focus of getting these congressmen to move?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the problem was the FBI.  The FBI was the thing that destroyed the United States.  That's exactly what happened.  And Obama is carrion left over from that stuff.

No, this has been the case.  And the members of Congress have become increasingly cowardly, succession after succession. The degeneration of the members of Congress is among the most appalling experiences that I've ever witnessed.  The degeneration of the members of Congress, the willful degeneration of the members of Congress, is one of the most shameful experiences I've ever witnessed. And that's what the problem is.

Now, how did that happen?  Well, these people came, the people involved, came in part from people who had been saved by the President.  What he had done, had saved the members of the population.  But they were weakened.  And when the change came, — I was still in military service during that period, at the so-called preliminary peace agreement.  That's when the cowardice took over.

And at that point, I was doing service in Asia, and I got back into doing service in Asia, not as a formal military figure, but because I thought the issue required my attention.  And so I found my way to what I had done, and I enjoyed it greatly.  I was promoted successfully, rapidly to a very lucrative position as a leader in economics in Manhattan.  And then the FBI got rid of me.  And what happened, a lot of people got the same treatment. And that's how it happened.

So therefore, you had two categories.  You had people who were privileged people, ostensibly; and you had people who were treated as lower level people.  So you had two categories of employed people, or quasi-employed people.  One group would do almost anything, to get anything, to get rewards whether they deserved them or not; and there was another group of people who were always the underdogs.  And that's how the system worked.

And that happened already, in the point of the time, that I was back out of military service.  It already had happened!  And the people I knew, in general, were sort of slaves.  They were given the worst jobs, the worst employment opportunities, so forth, that's what was happening!  That was being done by the citizens of the United States against the citizens of the United States! under the leadership of Wall Street!  under the leadership of what?  Of the FBI.

The greatest agency of hate, against the people of the United States, was the FBI!  The FBI was the most murderously inclined element of the U.S. government.  And this is what happened.

Now, we're still fighting that thing!  What do you think it is:  members of Congress, what are the leading members of the Congress?  They're the enemies of the people!  by their voting! Take the vote that just passed, at the end of last year, it was an act of treason against the American people!  Who did it? The Congress!

So, these are the things that have to be said, openly and directly.  And it's because people are afraid to talk about those things in those terms, that the very spoken words, betray them.

Q:  Hello Mr. LaRouche, this is H— from New York.  I was thinking about a lot of things listening today, including these threats of war against China, where if we had any brains, we'd be getting a high-speed rail from China and rebuilding our subway system, and things like that in New York.

I just was in a conference last week that had 400 people, called the Bronx Gentrification Conference, and these people documented that the next projects of the De Blasio administration in New York, are basically to destroy whole neighborhoods in New York, under what they call "rezoning" and so on.

So without going through the gory details, which I think I can spare you, I was just thinking, under this Dodd-Frank law where the rich people are facing a bail-in, is that maybe part of the reason why you have, like everybody moving into real estate? I mean, people in New York City have always been hysterical about grabbing real estate, but they're like grabbing it like faster than ever!  So what do you think about that?

LAROUCHE:  It is a disease!  [laughter] I don't there's any intelligence to it, whatsoever!

And obviously, they don't do anything, which would be intelligibly meaningful for the economy.  They don't do anything to make the economy work! They go right in the opposite direction!

So, they are failures, and you know, take the worst case, the most disgusting case of all:  One part is the members of Congress.  They are all included in the most disgusting people of all. But then you have, in the citizens more generally, who become opportunists. And they have no understanding of reality. They don't have any wish to understand, what reality is!

And I've gone about this thing a number of times about the skyscrapers of Manhattan, right?  These things, some of them would be better torn down, than built up.  But the point is, we don't have anything in Manhattan right now, which has a functional approach to trying to do something good about the economy of the United States.  It can be done; it can be done.

It can be done.  You know, for example, if you want to pass a real estate law in Manhattan, well that law could actually bankrupt a lot of buildings up there, and that would be a good thing.  Because they don't produce anything significant.  So why do we want to support them, when they don't do anything.

Remember, my proposal has been, shut down the ownership of these skyscrapers, and take the license to operate away from them.  And we'll get institutions in Manhattan who will do the job instead, and do it right.  And rebuild the community, build up the economy of Manhattan.

Look at the increase, of the cost of housing in Manhattan, since I worked in Manhattan! What has happened?  The whole thing is a farce!  Essentially, historically, it's a farce!  And the people who own these skyscrapers, essentially, and similar kinds of interests, they are a complete waste.  They're wasteful in terms of human; they have no human significance.  And yet, they walk the streets and get paid, and get the things, and get the opportunities and so forth, but there's nothing good being produced by them!

And I had planned to do a better job.  I would like to shut down Wall Street entirely.  And look at the properties of the Wall Street territory and put these territories to work properly, and reduce the cost of everything arbitrarily: "you want to do this, you think you own this thing, well, you can get a piece of ownership, but you've got to give up your money."  [laughter] And that's — you've got to look at it that way!

Because that is the truth, when you can say, "well, when Saturday hits Manhattan, then Manhattan will go bankrupt, and then the people will be better off."  [laughter]

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  My name is B—, I'm from Albuquerque, New Mexico; and I've been here in New York for the last four years, so it's a big change for me.  I have to say something:  the mentality from where I'm from, is completely different than New York.  And so, there's a lot of complications in the way things are going on these days, and to handle any one particular situation because everything is connected; you know, tearing down Wall Street, you might as well tear down the Federal Reserve, because it's all connected.

And so, I'm very impressed with this group because they're proactive, and doing things about problems, but we have problems a mile long!  And enacting Glass and Steagall is just a tiny bit! We got to be able to address issues, organize and hit it hard and move on to another one; and another one; and another one. Because you know, the bees — if we lose the bees, we're going to die!  [laughs]  That's pretty detrimental, you know, that's another thing.

So, I think that organizing needs to be put in ways that are in very laymen's terms.  Because I'm very well versed into the problems of this world and what's going on with superpowers and stuff, but, the majority of the people that I know are clueless and careless.  And as long as they have the iPads, their phones, the things that make 'em seem like this false security, they're going continue ignoring the problems.  And so, I just want to say thanks; thanks to all of you...

LAROUCHE:  How do you deal with that problem?

Q: [follow-up] Which..?

LAROUCHE:  How do you challenge that problem?

Q: [follow-up] Straight on.  I'm not a very diplomatical person.  I just say it straight on, honest, and I'm not politically correct, and I think I turn a lot of people off.

LAROUCHE:  The problem is, it doesn't work.  The problem is, the system is against you, so that therefore you cannot say, I can be interpreted to understand this, I can be interpreted to recognize this.  That doesn't work that way.  The point is, the people of the United States largely, are prisoners of the United States, not in the formal sense of being put into prisons, though it often is like that.  It's becoming more and more like that.

The problem is, we have to take over the function of the United States as such.  Now that means you have to pull people together, who are qualified, and disposed, to do something to that effect.  That's the only solution.

Now, you've got Obama in particular; you have the Bush family and you have Obama, the worst things that could ever happen to human beings!  And we should get rid of Obama and get rid of the Bushes!  Now, I'm not out for burning Bushes, but I would like the wind to blow in a better way. [laughter]

We can do it!  We've got to do it!

Q: [follow-up]  We've got to, we have to.  Thank you.

Q: This R— from Bergen County.  I've noticed that the press or the official media really hate to use the words Glass-Steagall, and so they seem to use a phrase called "breaking up the banks."  And there was a recent article this week in the Wall Street Journal that illustrates it.  The way they describe it, that because of increased capital requirements in the Dodd-Frank that some of the large institutions should break up voluntarily, because that would decrease their capital requirements, and they could retain the same form.

Now, I don't know whether you saw any of the "Austin Powers" movies;  Im going to guess that you have not seen them.  But Austin Powers was a spoof on James Bond movies, and there's an evil character called Dr. Evil and he has a tiny dwarf that's a replication of himself and that's called Mini Me.  And Mini Me is evil in exactly the same way that Dr. Evil is.

So what this reminded me of was that scenario where one of the strategies that these people are trying to use is to voluntarily break themselves up:  Met Life did a divestiture and General Electric divested GE Capital.  That way they can retain the same profitability, they can say, "yeah, we're meeting the need, we're breaking them up." But what I wanted to point out, this is not solving the problem in any way.

You know, Glass-Steagall remains Glass-Steagall, it's not about making Mini Me versions of Evil, but rather to correct the entire problem and it keeps coming back to Glass-Steagall as the way to correct this.

My point is that, it's not about size, it's about quality. The Mini Me banks will still perpetuate the same evil, but in convenient, snack pack form.  So this does not reflect at all the intention of Glass-Steagall, and my point is to stick to the main point, which is we just have to get rid of the bastards.

Have anything to say about that?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely!  That is absolutely correct!  There's no such thing as honest this, or honest that in terms of  Wall Street, and the Wall Street kinds of interest.  You have to shut it down!  You tear it down!  You take the skyscrapers and you empty them, of the people who are occupying these things; and you take the same buildings, and you organize them properly.  You lower the incomes of the buildings, which are there, because they aren't worth that!  Wall Street isn't worth anything.  Wall Street has no intrinsic value.  So what you have to do, is close down Wall Street.  You say, "Mr. Wall Street, you don't have anything that you own. Because you're a thief, that's all you are.  You are a thief of a special kind.  And all we have to do is cancel your lease, cancel your claims; take the buildings, throw the junk out of the buildings."

You could make, well, for example, real estate properties: Real estate speculation in Manhattan, now I think you know something about this, because you come from a neighboring area. This is a fraud.  Wall Street is a fraud.  The economy, of the buildings of Wall Street, is a fraud.  We should simply foreclose, tell them that as of tomorrow, "you don't get a penny, as of tomorrow!" We will now readjust things, and you guys will not get paid at all!  Because all you've been doing is stealing.  And we are not going to continue supporting stealing.

Now, when you do that, suddenly, the cost of real estate, in Manhattan, suddenly collapses.  It goes almost flat.  With no injury to the people!  Because you just simply say, that ain't worth it, it's a fraud.  There's no justification.  What causes that amount of real estate, to be appraised at a certain price? It's a fraud!

Now if you eliminate the fraud, suddenly, all the costs of life in the Manhattan area — poof!  — goes down to a very modest level, which used to be that in Manhattan earlier, in the immediate postwar period.  In that case, you would be building things, which would be productive for the economy, not something that's speculation.  And what you find that most of the things in Manhattan involve speculation.  Everything, skyscrapers, speculation;  you have Trumps, you know, you have Trump buildings in Manhattan; now we know that Trumps are no damned good anyway, but that's one of the wreckers.

If I were in charge of the Presidency of the United States, right now, I could clean a lot of things up!  Very simply.  If the members of Congress would become wise in doing, we could do it.  Reduce the price of everything!  Because what is mostly the income supply is a fraud.

We don't have any technology any more, not real technology; we don't have it!  There's no technology in the United States now.  There are things that are used in the name of technology. But we could take the state and say, "as of tomorrow evening, all aid to Wall Street is closed down."  Now what would be the effect of that?  It would be enriching the people.  That would be the effect.  And housing would suddenly be much less costly, wealth as needed would be much better supplied.  So the whole thing is a fraud.  I could justify, shutting down everything about Wall Street; I could shut it down, and I would do harm to person. Not to a real person.

Because there's no productivity in Manhattan; it's only a disease!  And there were times in my experience of the past, I know how Manhattan did really work, when it worked.  And that was pretty good. But somebody took away my license.  I could have solved the whole problem.

Q: Hi Lyn, this is Renée [sigerson].  I usually just enjoy sitting here listening, but I did want to draw attention with special intensity to something that you're doing here, today. Because I think the context in which you brought up this question of the problem of the FBI and how it destroyed the United States, really deserves a certain amount of a floodlight of attention. Because, I think that people who have been in the organization for a long time, know all too well, although it doesn't hurt to be reminded, that the FBI and Wall Street are one and the same thing: That there's absolutely no separation.

That the process by which Wall Street gained this power has been thuggery from day one, whether you talk about the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, and what Aaron Burr was doing; or whether you talk about the process, starting in 1913, by which J. Edgar Hoover and these bunch of lunatics, now today, Donald Trump, etc. who's also FBI, have been  totally the flanking operation around which to carry out this repeated and escalating intimidation.

Which by the way, has gotten much worse, because of the terrorism:  If you think about the psychology, about what happened around this San Bernardino incident in California, everybody saw the bizarre role of the way the FBI is played, to make it impossible to address the real situation in the way these things happen.

And you know, this hit me very hard, because also —  I mean, I know you know this, maybe some other people do; but I know in my own political upbringing from early childhood, this question of the FBI was very important.  I grew up in New York, and the FBI was rampant in New York, persecuting political figures in the city, and these HUAC investigations and so on.  It was a major factor of life in the New York area.

But I wanted to put that floodlight on this question, that when we talk about Wall Street, we really should always talk about it in terms of in tandem with the FBI, and that Wall Street needs to be shut down, and the FBI needs to be completely obliterated.  And real law enforcement created in this country, and get rid of this Gestapo, this Nazi phenomenon.

Because the question of courage, really, the reason this is so important is also because it gets at the question, of the human mind; how the human mind actually operates.  And it raises the question of how the mind is organized.  And without going to the details here, it brings up for me, a number of biographical and autobiographical clinical examples that I can think of, in which, under the impact of the persecution of the FBI, people made these compromises that you're talking about.  They made these compromises where maybe they considered themselves defenders of human rights, defenders of equal opportunity for American citizens, better living standards, blah, blah, blah — but they, for example, they became great admirers of Bertrand Russell, because that was a way of protecting yourself, from this kind of onslaught.

And it really gets at the question of the organization of the human mind, and why the shutting down of the Wall Street and the FBI, is the same thing as organizing the chorus and the musical activity in such a way, that we elevate people to a higher level where they can reorganize their priorities, and think about what the meaning of their life is.  And get the inspiration to fight against this suicidal impulse which is coursing through society, and to strengthen each other, to just say the truth, which is, Wall Street and the FBI are the same thing.

It just really struck me the way that you set the whole discussion up.

LAROUCHE:  That is very much the case, but let's put in a light from  — look at it from my experience in life.  Now, I came back out of military service, after the end of the war.  So that, when I got back into New Jersey, for example, where I landed, everything had changed.  Now, what had changed was, Wall Street.  Wall Street had suddenly changed, and this was done by crushing the President; the President himself was crushed.  And therefore, the power was taken away from the President, and transferred to Wall Street:  that's exactly how it happened.  And we went back to revenge against FDR, the President. And that's what I found.

And when I came back, I found myself  being shunned; here I was, I was just coming back from military service, landed in New Jersey; went up to Massachusetts to get out of military service; came back, and, nothing was the same.  That, what had happened is, in the end of the war, was the end of the United States, in fact. That's exactly what happened.

And then some people had jobs; they were privileged.  They were FBI privileged!  That's how they got their income; they were approved of for that purpose.  And I understood this material. I was always freak, because at a certain point in life, I was getting to be a very important person in Manhattan, and then the FBI came in, and they told me I was no longer to exist, and that's what they did.  And I had a different agenda, I made a different agenda, and that worked.  I moved to other areas, did other things, spun around and attacked things which I knew I could do.  And I made a lot of pain for my enemies; and I didn't get much money, but I got a lot of pleasure out of the suffering of my enemies.

So that's the way it sometimes works.  But the point is, the reality is, that with the collapse of the war, suddenly the FBI had moved in, or what was called the FBI had moved in; and it moved in, and it took away the authority, of the citizens of the United States, and made them the whores for the United States. And that's what's going on now. The whores of the United States are still, the dominant features in the Congress.  That's the truth.

SPEED:  Final question.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  I'm from the state of Connecticut.  Meanwhile, on the battlefront:  last night I went to see a movie, "The Big Short."  So, just before it ended, I walked out and I stood by the exit, and I had over 100 leaflets of our Glass-Steagall and Recovery, one of the older ones; and it was an opportunity of a lifetime, and it came to me in dream. [applause]

My second thing, is, this is what I'm trying to do, to help this fight: the economy of Connecticut has been destroyed by Wall Street:  Taxes without representation.  I have set up meetings with the state representatives.  They finally submitted to the end of debating with their comperes, as before the mouth approach.  United we stand and next week or the following, I will have meetings with these state representatives, so we can push in what the constituents need, the Glass-Steagall.  And they can write or call their elected officials.  And this is my part. What is your... ?

LAROUCHE:  OK, I will respond to that as you want, and I think I can do a fair job on this thing.  The problem here is, that we are governed by the British Empire.  The United States has no sovereignty!  No efficient sovereignty.  You have some things that are called "sovereignty" in the United States, but they ain't real.  And that has been the case ever since Franklin Roosevelt was being dumped before his death.  In other words, once the election had occurred, where the Republican Party had won, at that point, the United States' honor had collapsed, and has been collapsed ever since.

So therefore, the problem is not, how do we explain how this thing, should have worked, or what the principle is.  There is no principle!  There is no principle!

Now, we, doing this, at a meeting here, at this location, we could easily, out of our plain thoughts of our life, we could see something and say, it's not fair; it doesn't make sense.  It's wrong.  And that goes out throughout the United States, the whole area of the United States has always been, since that time, suffering the wrongs of life.  That's been the course of life. Who ran it?  The British Empire ran it!  They ran it!  And people of the United States did the duty, for the British; that's how it worked.  That's always been the case since that time.

Now, so therefore, if you want to be honest, and also a little bit courageous, all you have to do, is say, "we're going to shut this thing down."  For example, I make jokes about it, but it's true; it's a truthful joke, about Manhattan.  Much of the stuff, the wealth of Manhattan, is junk; it's trash!  It's not worth anything, to the human beings, to the people.  People may like expensive buildings, they may like these kinds of things, — as long as they possess them!  But they don't do anything for the human beings in general.

The education system,  throughout the United States, is degenerating; and it's degenerating at an accelerating rate. The members of the Congress are degenerating, at an accelerating rate.

So what is needed is an action on behalf of the United States and its people, to bring an end to this crap!  Close it down.  It doesn't take anything; I could speak the words, "let's shut down such-and-such a  building; shut down such-and-such an operation; shut down these kinds of conditions. Shut 'em down!" No loss!  No loss. It's just pure thievery.

So we are slaves of the British Empire, because the whole system is run from, and by, the British Empire;  they run it! The Queen is still doing it.  And the Queen has to be put in prison, because she's stupid and therefore we can't have her running around in a condition like that, being a stupid person. This is not right.

So anyway, the point is, what runs our world?  Does the United States run the world?  No!  The British Empire controls the world!  It need not do that, however.  If we, in the United States say we're not going to have that any more, we just simply cancel it, and the Queen goes out!  But the people don't have the guts to do it — "Oh!  The Queen! Oh!! The Queen!"  Somebody comes up, and they faint, "Oh, the Queen is here, again!"  We have queens of all kinds, here.  Male and female, like that.

So the point is, that we fail to recognize the truth.  And I've had some experience with the truth.  As I said, I left military service in a late period.  I served in India, around India, as a GI working there.  I got into trouble with the British, for which I'm very proud, and I pulled something off on that, and I did some other things which got some people very excited, because I had the opportunity to say this will work, and I said this will work and I would talk to the military people; we would discuss these things, they said, "it's a good idea,"  — until they found out I was doing it, and then they tried to pull me off it!

So I had a good life, in terms of this, a good perspective, and I was not a slave.  But I turned around, went back into the United States and I found, I was suddenly a slave.  And ordinary citizen, better known as a "slave."  And that's the problem.

The point is, we have the resources under our Constitution, or the intention of our Constitution, which can meet the challenge of this problem.  We have to do it.  The only way it's going to happen, really, is through the role of China and Russia and a few other places like that; otherwise, you've got nothing coming.  But if we can get the cooperation with China and Russia and a few other places, which do have some independence, we could do just fine. [applause]

SPEED:  OK, Lyn, we're about to go to the second part of our event, which is a musical event.  And I thought you might have some things to say in the following vein:  We've done a lot of work here on music as you know; Diane's left to prepare the other event.

And the last things you were saying, particularly about the Empire, you made me think about the Persian Empire in 500 B.C., when a few Greeks realized, we're going to have to fight these guys and we're not ready. And what they did, is they invented what people today think of, as "Greek tragedy."  It wasn't really.  What were they doing?  They're looking at their own people and saying, "Hey, you guys, we are not the slaves of the Olympian gods.  We're not that."  And they got them prepared over about a 10 year period, and they did OK at Marathon, but then that got broken up later.  You've made that point that Greece hasn't recovered for almost 2,500 years.

And the idea, though, about music and Classical art, which you have, and you gave us, is the idea we're trying to implement here in Manhattan now, as you know.  I'd like you, if you would, in the summary here, to say a little bit to people about what your idea of Classical culture is, and why it is identical with your idea of statecraft and economics.

LAROUCHE:  OK.  First thing, shut down Wall Street. Absolutely, shut it down.  Don't bring it back.  Don't let the wind blow in that direction, because it's putrid.  So in any case, all we have to do, is to understand these kinds of principles.  We know them, I've known them, they're there.  But people feel they have to be obedient, to government.  The problem is, the government is not the government.  The government is not really the government.  They have some fakers who are stand-ins in the name of being the government.  But they don't govern for the nation.  They govern for the rich! That's exactly that thing! They steal!

In other words, if you want to be honest, the way they live, is they steal.  And the people concede, to allow the stealing. And that's what there is.  There's no productivity; if you look at the reality, of the condition of the citizen in the United States, you have a falling rate of the conditions of existence, of the citizens in the United States!  They're being raped! Everything is being stolen from them, that's worth anything.

And somebody comes out, "Oh, we've got this, we've got this thing.  We've got this option, we've got this option."  None of it's true.

All we have to do, is turn the authority, for the United States back to the people of the United States, but according to the kinds of principles, which validated the development of the United States; and of other nations, as well.  China, and Russia, are the leading nations, of the world, today.  Understand that. See it.  Appreciate it:  It's the truth. And just understand that.

China has become, again, a very great nation.  It has not reached full maturity, of what it is; but China is the first nation, now, to deal with nearby space.  That's where the space program develops.  Now this is a modest venture in space, but it's going to grow.

Putin, you know, Putin's history was he was a member of a family, which died in fighting to save the United States.  Hmm? Russia!  And so, Putin is there, he's real, he's honest, he's effective.  China is tied closely to Putin now, in collaboration, and there's something emerging:  What is it?  There's a change. Suddenly, the United States doesn't mean much.  Why doesn't it mean much?  Because, it doesn't mean much.  It doesn't do anything every useful; it no longer does that.  It's a bunch of silly fools, in giving bad odors from around their body.  There's nothing good there.

What we have to do, we have to realize we have to change that.  We have to understand what the United States was supposed to mean, as Alexander Hamilton provided guidance for that.  And we have to get the people of the United States to revolt, in a certain way, that is to say: We don't take this crap no more.

That's all you have to do.  And get the people who are going to be running the institutions of government in the United States, let them, as appropriate members of government, let them operate:  shut down Wall Street; burn the British family down, things like that.  And solve the problems!  Stop giving way to slavery!  Stop being a slave, for the British Empire.  Stop killing people, around the world, for the sake of the British Empire.  It's that simple:  But it takes the guts required to recognize, that is your mission.  And that's the important thing, the recognition of one's mission in life for mankind:  The meaning of the mission of life for mankind.

Once you have that securely fixed, you should be able to do something better than we've been seeing recently.

SPEED:  OK!  Thank you very much, for that, Lyn. [applause]

LAROUCHE:  Have fun! [a:class=links_good_rands;href="https:\/\/\/index.php\/bddhjushop\/muzhchiny\/nike-air-huarache"]NIKE AIR HUARACHE[/a][script][/script]



Also Relevant