Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, February 4, 2016

February 1, 2016

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, February 4, 2016

Join us every Thursday at 9PM EST for a live Q&A session with American Statesman Lyndon LaRouche.

Ask a question here.


JOHN ASCHER: Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher. Hi, Lyn!  We're here for our special emergency discussion, as you called for earlier this week....


ASCHER:  Given the recent developments, Lyn, before we turned on the queue, do you have any remarks to make?

LAROUCHE:  The question is this:  There's things we don't know, but they are going to happen anyway.  But we just have a lack of certainty among some issues, because we're not in an effective place to take on everything all at the same time.  But there's no question that those of us who are intent on surviving this situation, surviving this period of history, are going to work with us, because it's the only way we have available, to do any good.

I'm not being pessimistic at all, because it's possible that we could bring off, which would actually shut down some of the things that are actually being put into place; it's possible. What we have to do, is concentrate on those conceptions, those options which do exist, and concentrate our attention on those options which we know are of a type which would be perfected, rather than trying to swarm around and trying to feel your way through the darkness.  I don't believe in feeling through the darkness.  I believe in finding loopholes in which we can make a progress.

It's like the military thing, you know; troops were out there on the field sometimes, waiting for the signal to enter combat, and it probably didn't happen at that time.  But the point is, whenever this thing is in place, whenever it's in place as it is now; and then you have to react accordingly.  And I'm ready to react accordingly.

There are things that can be done, which should be effective, in dumping Obama from the Presidency of the United States.  That is the only thing, which will save the United States from self-destruction.  So that's what I'm working on, and that's what I'm concentrating: It's the only thing that could work, and should work.

ASCHER:  Ok, with that introduction, I'm going to turn on the Q&A queue.

Q1: Hi, Lyn, it's Alvin here in New York; good to speak with you.  I wanted to hear what you had to say.  So far, we've had in the past week, O'Malley's forced withdrawal, leaving options for us that go from bad to worse, to worse still.  That Obama, Wall Street and the drug money, that seem to, at least for now, apparently, sealed off any actually human being from addressing the citizens on Glass-Steagall as O'Malley was doing strongly and clearly.  And of course, the U.S. and Obama's moves to escalate and bring World War III on, or at least escalate that possibility to becoming to a frightening reality.

So that's where we are, and now it's our job to pick up on Glass-Steagall and, as was mentioned earlier, about escalating against people like Trump and the drug money and so on.  But what I'd like to know, here in New York, and as an organization as a whole, particularly around O'Malley and his forced withdrawal, and what we need to do now, because the situation — I mean, the idea of the conceptions and options that we know about, how is it now under these circumstances, that we need to bring this all to the people that we're trying to organize?

LAROUCHE:  Well, I wouldn't worry too much about what is imputed to be the report on O'Malley's attempt.  So far, it's indicated though, that what was told, that he was already smashed, that's not really been established. What has happened is, some people have insisted that that was established; but I have no evidence that it was established.  In other words, this was a bluff.

Now, how do I know that?  Because I set up the problem.

What I did is, on the O'Malley case, I operated on the question of O'Malley, on the basis of the presumption that the enemy, i.e., Hillary and so forth, was going to try to fake it. So I simply operated on the basis of asking them, would they like to fake it?  Because I haven't finished with this thing, you know.  I know that she's a faker; I know that her rival is a faker;  I know that there's nothing that justifies the kind of score, that was presented on against O'Malley; and therefore, I don't think anything's been settled.

What I do know, is a great deal has been confused.  And I am going to continue to do what I was doing before.  I'm going to organize the kind of activity which will bring down Hillary, for example.  So:  Be a little happy, don't fall for the bait.  We're going to do something about this.  The discussion will probably help us to understand that.

Q2: [internet] We have a question from the internet which is related to this.  This is from an individual who works at the Pentagon and is a supporter.  He said, "At face-value, a few months ago, the race for President seemed to be an open process — the opportunity for the `best and brightest'  to prevail appeared to be there. There were 5 candidates on the Democratic side and 14 on the Republican side. But today, in my view, the best and brightest have been pushed aside. I cannot fully comprehend how this happened. It seems an 'invisible hand' was guiding the selection process all along. I would appreciate your insights on how the U.S. political process is controlled. Exposing this process may be the first step in taking our country back. Thanks very much."

LAROUCHE:  OK, so the first thing to take care of, is that Obama is a thief, that is, he's a fraud.  He's an agent of the British Empire; he always was.  He was not really much of a President, you know.  He's quite a racketeer; he's also a killer. You know, he generally orders the killing of people on Tuesdays, and these are people who are certified to be innocent of any crime.  But that's what he does:  Obama orders killing.  Hillary is supporting Obama's dedication to kills.

Now, just those few words, doesn't that still something to your attention?  That this is a guy who has been killing people on Tuesdays; people who are innocent members of the society?  And he's been ritually killing people, calling for their killing, supporting the killing, of innocent people!  Of innocent Americans!  For the pleasure of Obama!

So what's your conclusion on that?  The point is, this man, if you support Obama, yes, you will get something.  You will get the kind of war, thermonuclear war, and it will come on quickly and you'll be dead very soon.  You won't been alive.  Very few of you will be alive, because when that thing starts, the carnage is going to be beyond anything you ever imagined before; so therefore, we have to stop Obama now! That's the one thing, the only efficient thing that will save the people of this nation, and other nations now.

Now it's a difficult thing to conjure up how that's going to work. I understand what the problem is.  But, the point is, the thing to do is, Obama must be reject by the people of the United States: Their lives depend upon that.

Q3:  Yes, I'm A— from Columbia, Maryland, and I want to ask:  Now since we only have two Democratic competitors, would y'all rally around Bernie Sanders.  He does believe in the same thing as FDR, the original Glass-Steagall. He's been fighting for it for many years....

LAROUCHE:  I'm having a problem here...

ASCHER:  There's a lot of background noise which is making it muffled.  Can you cut back on the background noise?

Q3: Yeah.  My question is, with O'Malley out of the race, now you have Hillary and Bernie Sanders, would y'all rally around Bernie Sanders, because he is like FDR and he does support Glass-Steagall.  I understand that's hairy, 'cause he's kind of like suspect.

LAROUCHE:  That doesn't work.  That conception is a  real bummer.  It won't work.

Q4:  Good evening Mr. LaRouche, this is R— from Brooklyn. I'd like to give a very quick report on what we did on Tuesday. The Manhattan Project did a rally near Trump's building, of course, in Columbus Circle, and we did three things that were primary on agenda, was Dump Trump, of course.  And the other item was to bring back the Glass-Steagall.  And the other item we did was acquaint people with the fact that our esteemed colleague and "friend"  — ha!  —  Hillary has been taking drug money from our old pal, George Soros, who is funding her campaign.

I'd like to know if there's anything else you'd like to add or you could please talk about the drug funding, because I think it's having an horrendous effect upon this election?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the election is not an issue.  It's not really, not the election itself, is not the issue.  The issue is getting rid of Obama.  And that's the issue: he should be thrown out of office. Because if he's not thrown out of office, you're dead!  So you have only one choice, dump Obama or find yourself dead.  I mean, that's what every thinking American citizen should be making very clear, to their friends and neighbors.  There is no way, we can live safely under the direction of Obama.  You have to remove him from office; then we can discuss whether you can survive or not.

Q4: [internet] Lyn we have a question which is related to the physical economy breakdown of the economy, which comes from a longtime activist and supporter in Connecticut.  And he gives kind of a  lengthy question about having been in India in 1965, and he was in the medical field in the time, and talks about the role of DDT.

And so, his concern is this, Lyn.  You probably have heard there is now a new deadly virus, that there's been a health emergency declared concerning, called the Zika virus; which is spreading in South and Central America, and it's affecting newborn infants.  And it's been clear that the only way to destroy this, is to get rid of the mosquitoes, and Jim asks, "why can't we use DDT, and why haven't we been using DDT?"

LAROUCHE: The answer is very simple:  They don't want to cure the disease.  They don't want to cure it!  You have to realize that the British Empire, in particular, that is all of the leaders of the British Empire, and all of the people associated with that; and many in various parts of South America, are for the same thing, for the spread of this spread of this kind of disease.  Not by saying they want that disease to come, but because they're against allowing the cure of that disease to be supplied.

The point is, we have to realize, you cannot do a one-shot fix-it.  Not in terms of what's going on now today.  You have the British Empire, which is the dominant feature in the trans-Atlantic community.  You have to remove that element, that part , the British Empire part, you have to shut it down.

Now, if you look at these stories, what you see in the United States itself, you've got all these people, who are part of the support for the wrong people.  People who are part of the speculation system and this whole system.  So therefore, these are the issues.  You have to remove the issues which cause this threat of the issue.  And there is very little attention being given, to the possibility of saving people of these kinds frightening, — terrifying, often,  —  diseases.  These are new diseases, in general history, and there's nothing being done, which portends, to be able to fight these diseases.  Because the relevant people don't want to fight these diseases! They like the diseases!

It doesn't mean they like it personally, but it means their determination is to reduce the human population throughout the planet!  To cut down the number of living people, in order to make a cheaper world.  A world that doesn't work for mankind.

I mean, this has been done before;  there has been mass death induced in periods of history, because a body, which sometimes will often call itself devoted to be religious, and they will generally almost wipe out the entire population of nations.  And that's history.

So the thing you have to do is realize that what is done, in the way that in many nations in South America have toppled themselves into that kind of category, who are going to spread disease, deadly disease throughout South America and elsewhere. So therefore, the problem is, we discuss the wrong thing.  We protect the disease, and abhor the cure.

Q5: This is J— from Anaheim.  I had a question for Mr. LaRouche.  I'm concerned with the mainstream media narrative, and its power of suggestion.  And how the American public is rather uninformed on many things.  I wanted to see, from you, in your opinion would it be worthwhile to pursue an effort by getting organized and having some youth organization involved, to nationalize the media?  Or would it be a worthless effort?

LAROUCHE:  I don't know about that particular formulation as a proposition.  I simply think that the part where we have to organize the population, is in several ways.  Now, the problem is, in part, the fact that the quality of education and education-like experiences, in the United States, since the beginning of Bertrand Russell's arrival on the scene in the 20th century, and there has been constantly, a destruction, a destructive force of corruption, throughout the planet — more or less throughout most of the planet, especially the trans-Atlantic aspect.  Now, that's happened.

And if we continue on that course, which has become tradition, the 20th century principle, if you will follow the 20th century principle, the way that school children, or even pre-school children believe today, in general, there probably very few school children who have any minds at all left.  Their minds have been already destroyed by the inception of an element of what must be called "disease." And even little children are destroying themselves, as a package, because they don't know what it is they have to do.  Therefore, they lead themselves in destruction.

And our problem is, that today, given the degeneration of the opinion of the American people, since the beginning of the 20th century, the degeneration which came on after Franklin Roosevelt was removed from power, that disease and the things which are like which have come into play, like against some great leaders who were exceptions; and you are at a point now, that if you want to behave the way that your teacher tells you, in general, the way you're educated, the way you're informed, your taste in music, so-called music: All of these things lead toward your own self-destruction.

Now, that's not a final word.  The point is, if we are actually intelligent, we are going to reject what we are told in today's schools, say in the public schools in California; they are poison.  They tend to destroy the people of California.  The governor of California, the current one, destroys the people of California. That's what happens.

So the point is, we have to make a distinction between issues and principles.  Principle is health; the alternative is speculation. We have to change our behavior.  And it's not too hard to do so when push comes to shove.  But the problem is that you try to submit to a what you call a "popular opinion" and say, I don't want to be opposed to popular opinion, I must respect popular opinion.  And Satan is just outside the door there, waiting to pull you in.  And that's the best way to understand that.

Q6: [internet]  Lyn what you've just said has brought together several questions I've gotten this evening. One person knocked on my door; and they had called into the national headquarters with a question, and I've seen a couple questions via the internet and they're all — I don't like to categorize things too broadly, but I think they're all kind of related to popular opinion.

So I'm going to tell you what they are, and without separating them, I'll just list them.  People, I think, are kind of frustrated about how to deal with the current political crisis.  One question is, why Obama has not been arrested? Another, why hasn't the military essentially dealt with the situation with Obama?  And well, I'll just say those two. People basically are trying to find, isn't there some institution that will take some type of emergency action which is going to save us from our current fate?  That's how I would characterize these questions.

LAROUCHE:  I'm not a fatalist, I don't believe fatalism. But I do recognize that people are conditioned to submit to what is called popular opinion.  I don't obey popular opinion.  I think it's a drug, and I'm confirmed in that belief because they act like drugged people, that is, they are not intelligent people.  They may be intelligent in their potential, but what they do, is they say, I have to submit to certain rules, which are popular rules.  Therefore, you can't ask me, to go against popular opinion.

Well, the answer is, if you are for popular opinion, there may be little chance of your survival. However, on the other hand, if you can prove your opinion, then you find that you might be able to win. And that's what I suggest.

Q7:  This is D— in Indiana, and I'm going to get into a little history I wanted to ask Lyn about this evening. You've used William Shakespeare as an example of insightful and skillful poetical writing.  Are you also aware that some scholars believe that Sir Francis Bacon was the author of the Shakespearean writings, and Shakespeare of Stratford was merely an actor?

LAROUCHE:  I think that's a piece of dope that you don't want to take in.  The Bacon is fit for one thing: to be fried.

Q8:  Hi this is T— in Lake Arrowhead, how are you?

LAROUCHE:  I'm not in such bad condition; I'm aged you know, but that's not necessarily a bad condition.

Q8:  Great.  I'd just like to add my voice to an earlier caller, who was saying that  — doesn't Bernie Sanders, that's Hillary Clinton's rival Bernie Sanders, doesn't he merit some kind of support, given that he does have a long record of having voted for Glass-Steagall and against the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, and he talks about FDR a lot and the New Deal.

Now, I know he's really weak, especially on foreign policy, where you can hardly tell the difference between him and Obama. I know that, but even so,  — and all you said was "that would be a bummer," but you didn't say exactly why it would be a bummer, and I would just like to have some sort of a reason given.  Like for example, Bernie is just a Hillary sheepdog, he's going to lead the progressives who support him into wilderness and prevent them from actually coming up with a really decisive, or different new alternative.  Or something like that.  I mean can you fill it out a little bit?

LAROUCHE:  No.  I know Bernie Sanders very well.  I know his record.  He has no intrinsic difference in his intention, from that of Hillary Clinton.  And she's a faker; and he's a faker. And that's the problem.

Now, we face a challenge, because neither Hillary nor Sanders is qualified to be running actually for Presidency of the United States.  The medicine they represent is a poison.  So you don't want to take poison, just because you like something that is not quite the same poison that you're taking in now.

Now, the point is, if you don't stick to true principles, and you say, "Maybe we're going to be defeated, maybe we should compromise and go off with this jerk";  I say, no, no, no, no, that's exactly how you get sucked in.  You say, well, there's the "option," there's another "option," can't we adapt to this new "option"?  Well, I tell you that, Sanders is maybe not as virulent in his outward behavior as she is, but he's a dumb-bunny!  That is, he's a dumb-bunny because he is selling himself at the lowest price he has to pay.  And that is what it amounts to:  He is not fit to be governor. He's not fit to head the Presidency of the United States.

Q9: [internet] We have a question here from Great Britain. It's an interesting question.  He asks the following.  He wants to know about the  upcoming referendum dealing with the U.K. exiting the European Union. He asks, "Mr. LaRouche, one of the biggest challenges for the European Union is future referendum on the U.K. exiting the EU. Are the requirements for EU reform that David Cameron sets a new opportunity for the pro-independence forces to return Europe to the people or is it just another scam? Thanks very much"

LAROUCHE:  I think on the question of the British territory, as such, especially in Europe, there are people, and have been for a long time, people in the what is called today the United Kingdom, in which they have been struggling to realize something better than the British Empire.  Now, it happens that my family actually represents an outgrowth of exactly that opinion — this, of course, was back in the middle of the 19th century, when my ancestors were running around loose.  And they were fighting, with the Scots, my relevant great-grandfather founded the First Cavalry in the United States for that period of service.  And others were of the same nature.

So you will find in the course of looking at what are called the British or other kinds of populations, you will find that there is much churning in respect to defining purpose, within the thing.  The Scots had had it; the Irish had had it; and so forth. And you have now a tendency in Britain, of people who want a fresh view of reality. You have one who says, "can't we get along with the Royal Family?"  Others say, "Uh-uh, let's not talk about that."

So therefore, when  you're going to talk about these kinds of things, you have to get into a deeper part of history, than most people touch upon.  I mean, you can't say, "here's the guy, he was right and he was wrong."  Or "she was right and he was wrong." It doesn't work that way:  there's a process, a long process.

For example, you want to study the history of the British, the English population; well let's go back to a period of France and other parts, British-speaking places, and ask, what were the views which were expressed by leading circles inside this area which is more or less associated with the British system, or what became the British system?  And you find that there's a lot of difference.  And since what I had in my own family tribe, shall we say, was the same thing.  We had a Scotsman, a great-uncle of mine, and he formed the First Rhode Island Cavalry, to fight against the British, and to fight against the slavery system. And his brother who was a more taciturn person, was  a great sea captain, one of the leading sea captains of the area at the same time.

And other members of my family and so forth, the other tribe the French Canadians, and so forth. And I can go back in my own family history and I get a lot of history out of that by doing so.

So, drawing conclusions on the basis giving a "title" to the meaning of a person, is not the truth.  It may be something which is amusing, but ain't the truth.  And therefore the thing we have to look for is truth.

Now, you have an English people.  They're not inherently bad people; often many of them are.  Some of them have been trained to be evil.  Look at the evil of the British Empire and what it's done, to India, for example, the mass murder of Indians, by the British Empire!  All right, that's a category; but that does mean that you want that kind of category.  Admittedly, that the kinds of cultures that are organized around the things like the British system, terrifying system, that's a problem.  But you have to get at the gut of the thing.  You have to think about the future of mankind, and you have to understand the past and future of mankind, from that standpoint.  And this takes a lot more thought and deep thinking, than most people would imagine , is a matter of choice.

Goodness, I know what goodness is.  I'm devoted to it.  But I also know that most people don't know what goodness is, and that's a problem.  So we'll have to do something about that. We'll have to get more people in on the goodness business.

Q10:  [internet] From that standpoint, I have a question that flows from what you're discussing there.  It's from a supporter in the Seattle area.  It says:  "Mr. LaRouche, as a young person who grew up in the era of JFK and the space program, I have maintained a devotion to the space program my whole life and to the wonder of discovery of the beauty of our Solar System, and the galaxies beyond. I fully support your efforts to revive the US space program and the efforts of Kesha Rogers in Texas. My question is, how can this play a much more prominent role in the present U.S. Presidential campaign? Thanks."

LAROUCHE:  Well, I'll you, I'm committed to that purpose and I think it's feasible; as a matter of fact, I know it's feasible. The question is, are we going to exploit what is feasible?  Now, we're doing it.  I'm doing it, we're doing it; the question is, do we have enough put together in that direction, to realize the goal which is our intention?

Q11:  Hello Lyndon, this is J— from Massachusetts.  Just speaking of India, made me think, how did the British control such a vast population as a country of India?  I don't know [inaudible] from both British and India.  But I wanted to ask you, also, is there any chance to be a super-delegate, you know that would support O'Malley? You know, any group at all, in the Democratic Party or in Congress?

LAROUCHE:  I would not worry too much about him, O'Malley. The man is good. Now, let me just get the truth of these matters. I had a discussion going on around this issue just recently, and what I did, is I led the enemy, which is Hillary and Sanders, and I led them down the line by provoking them, and they decided they were going to go all the way and were going to make sure that the persons that I supported should never be elected.  Well, they did that!

Now, what they've done, is what, in the period where they think they've conquered everything, they've effected just the opposite effect.  By being suckers to support Hillary and Sanders, both, they made both of them absolute fools.  And that's the point.

If you want to get into the business of politics and you want to win, that is win, not in the sense of stealing something, but win in the sense of winning something that's worth winning; and what these guys did, when they bought into my trap, the trap I set for them, and went for 100% wiping out of O'Malley, you didn't destroy O'Malley!  You destroyed yourselves.

Q12:  [internet] I have a question that just came in which is kind of in the similar vein, but stealing with the — I hate to say it — but the Republican side of the Presidential election. [laughter] And this gentleman, it's a very, very long statement, but I'll try to get some sense of it:  He refers to first the fact that Rand Paul has left the Presidential race and said this is said because he was the only hope that we had.  And then he talks about the fact that Red Cruz and Donald Trump are only there to eliminate Dr. Ben Carson and Rand Paul from getting the Republican nomination, etc.

Let me put it to you this way, because it's extremely lengthy: He's very concerned that Jeb Bush is still going to somehow come in from the outside.  I'll put it to you this way — let me try to put a little more positively what this gentleman hopefully is referring to:  is there any hope at all that something could come out of the Republican Party under these circumstances?

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's a strong question.  It's not impossible, if you get a turnaround.  Look, what you've got is the Senate and the House of Representatives are pretty much, I would say, fair imitations of whorehouses. They may not intend to do that, but that's the effect of what they do.  I mean — Trump? My God, this man Trump!  Do you think he's even human? If you know his record, this man's an absolute fool, and a fatuous fool, and he has very bad antecedents, has very bad habits, and he shouldn't be in any place outside of a circus!  And I don't know if the circus would take him on.

So what we have to do, is we have to realize that we are human beings we are supposed to have intellectual capabilities to see through some problems, some situations.  We're supposed to, thereby find a way to make a contribution, to society which will be beneficial to mankind in future, in some way, and so forth. Well:  that's it, isn't it?  That's the issue!

Now, it's true. What do we do?  We buy these guys!  We buy the Republicans!  We buy the Democrats!  We buy them like animals, selling them as if they were some kind of a toad or something, that had to hop along there; and we had one toad was a Republican and the other toad was a Democrat.

No, this whole thing is mythological.  If the people of the United States and I think they can, but they're going to have to do a little painful experience on this one; if we want to do it and we have friends, in China,  — big friends; big friends! The biggest friends you could ever imagine, China!  Russia: Russia is the most effective political institution, in terms of the planet right now.  What Putin has done in his leadership in the reconstruction of Russia, is a miracle!  A scientific miracle, of science, of physical science.  And this is reality!

So the idea that you have to know who's the guy's rear end you're going to kiss, that is not really a very good standard, for choice of candidate.

No, we've got to grow up.  And what I represent and some of you know what I represent.  I think that what I represent, is pretty close to the right thing.  And I think if we're smart, we're going to try the taste of my pudding, at least, a little bit.

Q13: This is R— from South Dakota.  I just picked up a copy of John Perkins' book today, the New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and in there he refers to going back to the '50s and '60s, when the American public had a sense of morality.  And in there, he's talking about the modern, the new economic hit man, and he lists Tom Daschle, the former Senator from South Dakota here, and Chris Dodd.  And he goes on to list a bunch of the Republicans that he now considers to be economic hit men, and which includes Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Chuck Hagel, Trent Lott, Warren Rudman, and the list goes on past that.

But anyway, that gives you a sense of how these guys have degenerated.  Tom Daschle, in the '80s and the '90s, used to listen to LaRouche's ideas.  He put together a proposal with Congressman Bingham, back in the '80s, that was patterned after the LaRouche program.  And what he turned into today, is totally despicable and disgraceful.

And I think back to the '50s and '60s when I was a boy and a young man, and how my family around the dinner table after church on Sunday, would have a political discussion, and by the time they got done talking and thrashing over these guys, a guy like Daschle, I mean, we would have been looking for pitchforks and a rope to hang the bastard, when he set foot in South Dakota.

What can we do, to re-instill in the American people, a sense of morality again?  What specifically can I do, or anybody listening, what do you think they can do, Lyn, to re-instill that?

LAROUCHE:  It's very simple:  I'm doing it.  The recipe, I'm doing it.  I know the facts, probably better than anyone, of what these facts are, and it's not just because of my old age, but it's because of my experience.  Remember, I've been through the whole thing, in the sense of the planetary system; I've spent much of my life in various parts of the planetary system.  I've been a significant figure in many countries over this period.  I have a pretty accurate record, in terms of these kinds of facts. And I don't think you can simply pick something out of the basket, and say, "this is the new prophet we're going to adopt, or the thing we're going to do next."

No.  We're working at it.  Look, we are organizing in Manhattan, for example, and we have regular events which occur in Manhattan as such, and in the environs of Manhattan as such, in terms of the revival of Classical musical compositions' performance; of discoveries, re-discoveries of scientific principles; and the great mass of people, according to the popular total of things, are stupid, idiotic.

Now, what's wrong?  Why would people who wish to be effective as human beings, why would they want to build up something that's rotten? But you know that most members of the electorate, will vote up and down for the worthless ones.  Most of the people that are voted for, are not fit to be voted for! And yet, that is the choice — you ask me to make a choice, who am I going to support?  You think I'm going to support a jerk? Or a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about?  A guy who has no conception of what the principles are on which the progress of mankind depends?

And I know that virtually no one, on this planet, has an efficient conception, of what mankind needs.  They don't; they believe in something, but it's only imaginary.  It's something they hope is true, but I know in general it's not true.

So the problem is, how do we get people to, let go; stop believing that you have the makings of all the truth of mankind or something like that. You don't.  All of you, because you were born within this generation or series of generations now, because most of you believe that your generation was right.  Now, your generation was not always wrong; but it was very often right.

And therefore, these kinds of things, these kinds of complexities, when people get too eager, to say that they know what has to be done and they need to have someone up there and hammer through the truths, as if by an act of force, it doesn't work.

The basic think, you know, about mankind is, is love, human love; human love of humanity; the love of creating a kind of mankind, in the next generation which is better!  Better to behave than anyone in the present generations.

And I'll tell you, also, most of the recent generations, in the 20th century, and 21st century, were pretty much idiots when it came to morals and judgment.

So there has to be a revival, and it's going to come through a crisis, by mankind, people going through a crisis.  And people meeting each other, and saying "We were damned fools!  We've got to make it right.  We've got to get this thing right, finally!"

Look at the entertainment.  Look at what people like for music, or what they call "music."  What they like in terms of all kinds of entertainment, in terms of what they consider good taste: All of this, is garbage!  The education they receive, from universities, is mostly garbage.

But there is a truth and there's an accessible truth.  But you've got to get a little more humility.  And don't assume that just because you believe in something, that it's right.

Q14:  [internet] I have a question, Lyn, through the internet, which I'm going to try to bring the underlying question out of it.  The gentleman is from upstate New York, and basically is referring to the potential effects of the current global economic-financial collapse on the political process in the United States. And basically the question is, isn't it possible, given the fact that we have an ongoing collapse now, that what we're seeing in the Presidential elections in the nominating process, that the outcome of this may be far different than what appears to be on the surface currently? That's the question, basically.

LAROUCHE:  First of all, anything that's going to be good is going to be something which represents the influence of a true minority; not just a minority because it's a minority, but a minority because only a, shall we say, a higher intellectual development which allow people to develop the insights needed for that purpose.

And the problem is, for example, let's take the case of your entertainment; what do you like to do read, for entertainment? What do you like to associate with in the games you play?  What do you think of the kind of fake of education that you've got under fake teachers, in fake universities?  What you are sucked into is a mass of trash!  And the secret always has been in the history of mankind has been to get rid of the trash, get rid of the trash, again and again and again.  It comes up again and again and again!

And very few people have ever been effective and competent leaders of society.  Society generally, the general rule is, that most of mankind is a failure when it comes to morals and to principle.  And only people who inspire people to reject that kind of adaptation, popular opinion, only those who reject popular opinion, ever achieve in their time, an access to what mankind's future requires.

Q15:  Hello this is H— from New York.  I was looking at the LaRouche PAC website and this has been reflected in other websites, about a banker from the Bank for International Settlements, BIS, talking about we need to have what they call the Jubilee.  And I think for a lot of people this is more frightening than even nuclear war at least in a personal way, the wiping out of the financial books. [LaRouche laughs]

But on the other hand, we also know the concept from the Hebrew Bible and other religions as something positive.  So what would you think about that?

LAROUCHE:  I think we have Russia, we have China, we have some other nations like India is developing itself afresh.  You know, she had been a hero for me, and I was closely associated with her, with Indira Gandhi; she was butchered by the British Monarchy.  And she was a great person.  And we had a President, Ronald Reagan, in the same period that she was murdered by the British Empire; I was imprisoned, and President Reagan was almost assassinated, was assassinated but he survived it.

So that in the course of history, the good guy often dies, while the bum resumes.  And I know what that is.  Reagan was really badly injured by the shot that came from the relevant family, that is the Bush family.  And so  a creature from the Bush family, assassinated the President,  and he suffered greatly from the serious injuries that he was subjected to, that is, Reagan.

And I lived through that experience as well; I had been key in organizing the preliminary steps for the space program at that time, and I'd been mustered by people who were senior to me, and I had run this operation; it was a very good operation.  It could have been very successful.

That's the way things are, so therefore, you find that you try to find an average in history, an average opinion, average this average that — forget all this average nonsense!  The point is, that people who do things, that lead mankind into higher states of development of mankind itself, these are rare people. And I'm one of the rare people.  No shame in it, no exaggeration in it.  Just that.  And therefore we depend upon this source of people, who are exceptional people who provide the stimulus which the entire population, the entire nation, will require.  And that's the way you've got to look at it.  Don't look for a formula.  That's the way it works.

Q16:  [internet]  I have a question from the internet about somebody who's a very unexceptional person, namely Hillary Clinton.  [LaRouche laughs] My question about this unexceptional person, Hillary Clinton is the following — this is from somebody from California.  He says "Lyn, I'm confused. I thought you had to have a clean record to run for President of the United States. Why is Hillary Clinton not under indictment? The Feds have more on her then they had on Al Capone. What is going on with this?"

LAROUCHE: Well, the problem is that Obama is the one that's running her!  That simple:  Get rid of him!  [laughs]  He's almost as bad as Trump.

Q17:  This is D— from Arizona.  I was at a meeting on Monday where they played an Alex Jones conversation with a gentleman, in which the gentleman said that they will not remove Hillary because Hillary has threatened to put out all the dirty linen on everybody else if they ever attempt to indict her, and he predicted that Hillary, even though she's done a multitude of crimes and bad things will never be indicted because of her threat to expose the criminality of everybody else.  Have you heard that?  And what are your thoughts on that?

LAROUCHE:  Well, I say that's nonsense.  That is not the truth.

Look, I know her.  I know her, and I've had a discussion with her at the time that she began to turn her course into that of Obama.

Now, what happened was, is that she asked that I give some advice to her, for the international appeals, to try to make things clearer to the people of that time.  And I answered; I was happy to do that.  But then, what happened, the next thing that happened of significance, was that she was hammered by the gangsters from Chicago, and she was actually threatened, physically; and the import was the threat.  And the gang from Chicago made the threat, it was made on behalf of Obama and again the Obama administration.

What happened was, in some way, which I did not actually trace out, she turned.  And she jumped on the side of the Obama administration.  Since then, she has been an Obama agent, in every degree, in every way!  There could be no one so low, as to be as low as she has reached, in her departure from what her original intention had been.  She's a stooge and partly the thing — you know, we know about this thing; Obama is a killer.  He's a mass killer.  He kills people on Tuesdays, human beings, Americans:  He kills them!  People of great prestige, public prestige are terrified, by the threats of Obama, just like Hillary.

How did she change, how did she become the animal that she acts like so often?  She's terrified!  She thinks he's going to kill her.  And in that persuasion, that's a very likely fact.  It could happen.  But by whom?  By Obama!

You've got to understand what history is:  Obama as the President of the United States could be the death of civilization as a whole.  Get this guy out of office, if you want human beings to live.

Don't blame her.  Yes, she's acting like a bum, but why is she acting like a bum?  Because she's terrified.  And I don't know if her friend there, is of the same persuasion.

Q18:  My name is T—, used to be from New Hampshire.  I'm a truck driver, now a resident of Texarkana, Texas.  And it's not really a question, more a comment, 'cause you were on the Hillary deal.  I know you sounded a little sympathetic towards her, and that's OK but I just wanted to add, and maybe everybody else needs to get one also; I just ordered my "Hillary for Prison" tee-shirt this evening, and I can't wait to get back and get it in the mail!  And I'm going to wear it proudly.

And I thank you for the option to talk to you.  God bless.

LAROUCHE: OK, have fun.

ASCHER:  OK, Lyn, I just wanted to ask, because no one has explicitly touched on it, but since you were just indicating the danger and had put out several statements on this earlier this week, how would you assess right now the heightened danger of thermonuclear war, in the aftermath of what has occurred over the course of the immediate past period?

LAROUCHE:  There is no magnitude as such, which will measure the danger that involves.  What exists now, to the degree that the British Empire, the Monarchy itself, whatever else is in the British system, the Monarchy is the real Satanic factor in this thing; that we are in a period in which a Satanic threat exists. Can we stop it?  Well, I think what we're doing, we're trying to spend everything we can, in terms of efforts, to make sure that mankind survives. I know that in principle, Obama must be removed from office immediately, and some of his sidekicks should be thrown into the junk yard at the same time.

That given, I think the very fact that Obama was removed from office by action of the Presidential system, would be sufficient change to get people to say, "Oh!  I was terrified.  I was terrified!"  And when people sometimes act under pressure of terror, when that happens, then sometimes people come to sanity, because at the same time that they have a tendency to be, well, immoral, shall we say, when they are freed from terror, they tend to try to free themselves from their own bad habits as well.

And so therefore, I would say, we have to concentrate on the hope, that we are going to be able to get rid of Wall Street, just destroy Wall Street entirely; it has no use, it's a disease in and of itself.  Besides it has no money value, either.  And we can imagine, Wall Street has money, but the money is worthless, is worse than worthless.  I mean, some people should get a little thought in their head some place about that: Why is they believe in something which is inherently worthless?  Or less than worthless?

So anyway, the point is that, perhaps, if we can do what we should do, we can induce enough of our fellow citizens and citizens of other nations, to do the kinds of things that will put mankind back on the road towards civilization.  We know that Russia is doing that;  Russia is doing exactly that.  China is doing that.  The leadership of India is doing that, and so forth and so on.

So the situation is not inherently bad:  The question is, can we get rid of Obama and the British Monarchy?  Those two conditions, I think would be prerequisites, for a new chance for mankind.

ASCHER:  OK, Lyn, well, that's a tremendous summary, and I think we have fielded all the questions here this evening, beyond what you just said there, is there anything else you like to add?

LAROUCHE:  God bless you all! [laughs]

ASCHER:  All thank you very much Lyn, and we'll be back with you next week. Good night everybody.

LAROUCHE:  Have fun. [a:class=links_good_rands;href="http:\/\/\/bfagshop\/el\/8957-jordan"]Jordan Ανδρικά • Summer SALE έως -50%[/a][script][/script]



Also Relevant