TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon, it's February 29th, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.  I'd like to introduce the members of our Policy Committee joining us over Google video, we have Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts.  And here in the studio, I'm joined by Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team as well as Diane Sare from the Manhattan Project.  And next to Diane, I'm joined by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. ...

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Well I would say that I am celebrating some experiences that Helga's been going through in her area.  I would say that exactly this kind of work is what I'm really concerned about right today.  Not just her work, but the fact is that we have to deal with the international situation as it's given, and I think we ought to respond to that question.  What is the total international implication for mankind as a whole?

OGDEN:  Well I can certainly say, that from the last few days, it's clear that Helga's work around the world, and her associates' work, is certainly bearing fruit here in the United States.  Helga herself was featured as a major guest, a speaker, during a conference that happened in Seattle, Washington, which I know Dave Christie can say more about.  This was sponsored by The Global Chinatown Summit, The North America China Council, and there was an entire Silk Road panel, where Helga was a speaker, and as well as Bill Jones from EIR, and Dave Christie was the moderator.

I had the pleasure, really almost simultaneously, of being the keynote speaker at an event that occurred at Georgetown University, sponsored by the McCourt School of Public Policy, and I gave a presentation that was titled, "The Imperative for `Win-Win' Cooperation with the BRICS and China: Why the United States Must Join the New Silk Road," which was received extraordinarily well.  Also, Mike Billington had the opportunity to be a presenter at that conference, as well.

Then, the same time, the foreign minister from China, Wang Yi, was in Washington, meeting with John Kerry, and speaking at CSIS, putting the One Belt, One Road policy directly on the table.  And I think it's also very significant to report,  in the context of all the discussion about Xi Jinping's trip to the Middle East, the need for a new Marshall Plan in Syria, and North Africa, that our "New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge" report has now been officially translated and published into Arabic.  So I think that's perfect timing.

I can also say, I think on top of all of that, that the members of the Policy Committee have been extraordinarily busy. Kesha's conference with Tom Wysmuller and Megan Beets was excellent on Saturday; and I know that Rachel's involvement in an event that involved Ted Postol, was also a very significant event.  But maybe, Kesha and Dave, you want to start with a little bit of a report on your activities.

ROGERS:  OK, very good.  So, this was quite an extraordinary event.  There were several participants in the audience.  This was hosted by the Schiller Institute.  The title of the forum was "No Limits to Growth, Mankind Must Conquer Space."  And there were several participants in the audience representing NASA, former associates of NASA, or still working with NASA in some capacity, which was very interesting.  And one of the things that really captivated the dynamic of this event, was that people left this event with an understanding of what we have to do, as mankind, to actually shape the future.

It was not just a debate over a certain scientific issue, such as climate change, or not climate change.  But the question was more, what is the nature of man?  How do we create a condition where people understand the benefit of collaboration with nations, such as Russia and China, what Russia and China are doing?  And some of the participants in this event left us saying, directly, "I've been completely transformed.  What my understanding of China, and what I thought about relationships with China, and why we shouldn't be working with them, or what I formerly thought about Russia, has been completely changed."  And they understood that there is a new paradigm underway, that these nations are leading this new paradigm, and it is in the benefit of the United States to join with this win-win strategy of cooperation.  People left that meeting, one individual said one particular thing, that he worked with NASA and he said, "I never saw myself as visionary per se, but you guys have a vision, and that's what's needed."  And so I reminded him that Kennedy had a vision, and that's what pulled the program together, and that's what's missing today, because there's no longer a vision and a mission for the nation.

And a lot of the people had questions that pertain to the importance of this effort in organizing, and getting our young people, in particular, to understand what it is that is so important about the conquest of man in space.  How do we get more young people to take on this responsibility?

So it's very interesting, and I think, coming out of this event, we have opened up quite some really beautiful opportunities, some beautiful developments, in terms of follow-up.  We have been invited to a number of events coming out of this event, related to NASA in other scientific areas.  So, I look forward to seeing what some of the continued response and collaboration will be.

But I think the key thing is that this event, as you said, Matt, that this is not just a single event.  We are creating a dynamic, and you see that the dynamic is really organized around what Mr. LaRouche emphasized in the Manhattan discussion on Saturday — that there are two voices being presented to mankind. The question of living and not living; but the more that the fact of the matter is that people are responding from the standpoint that they want to be human, they want to live, that we have a mission, as a species, to develop further, and they want to be a part of that.  And so, more and more people are recognizing that the alternative being presented by this Wall Street trans-Atlantic system is not the direction they want to go.  So, that's very good, because when you get an awakening of that nature, which we have a long way to go, we still need a lot more of, then I think we're moving in the right direction.

OGDEN:  Dave, I don't know if you want to give a little bit of a view of what happened in Seattle, with Helga... [audio loss with Christie]  We'll have to come back to you.

DIANE SARE:  Well, I would just say, along the lines of what Kesha referenced in the Saturday discussion that we had in Manhattan, I was reflecting on this question of: Do you want to live, or are you going to stick in this doomed, bankrupt trans-Atlantic system, presided over by the Queen's crazy killer-President Barack Obama?

And it is very striking, the completely opposite directions, because you have the horror in the United States, of the increasing death-rate, as we've discussed many times, the heroin overdoses, alcoholism, suicide.  And nonetheless, no matter how rotten and stupid that our news media is, and it is really rotten and stupid, the truth of what's happening in China, is clearly seeping into the United States, which you saw with this, I think it was the tripling of the number of people who were signing up to be involved in NASA.

So, there is a somewhat irrepressible optimism that is coming out.  It's not yet sufficient to where it needs to be for us to change the direction here, but I definitely found that to be very —  you know, how do you have these both in the same place, a record increase in heroin overdoses, but triple the number of people suddenly interested in the space program?  So you can see the potential for inspiration, which is urgently needed in the short term.

LAROUCHE:  There's another problem here.  Let's take the case of Manhattan.  Now, for us, Manhattan, when we're coming back to civilization, every time we visit Manhattan, but it's not quite that good. [laughter]  It's good relatively speaking.  When I get in these discussions in the Manhattan things on Saturday afternoon, I realize that a lot of the things that are being pushed, really don't work.  And I have to remind people that you cannot make a simple deductive approach to matters of importance.  You cannot apply it that way.  And people will always try to say, "oh, yes, that's the excuse.  That is what makes it work.  Yes, that's the answer."  And I try to tell people, gently, as gently as necessary, that what they're saying is not very reasonable.  We have also on our Thursday evening, we have a lot of that same kind of problem.  And the difficulty is, to take the people who we are dealing with, and gently move them to realize what was really wrong with their way of thinking, in a systemic way.

And that's what we have to do more and more here, but we're already doing that in part here with the sessions we're doing here.  But we need more of that, because you cannot go around and try to sell a pitch, which you think is going to buy you support. You've got to sometimes, as I more and more have been doing on these Saturday events, I'm getting more and more rough on the people there, at those events; because I realize that I was shocked by what some of the opinion they expressed.  And I realize we have to do something about gently shocking them. And I have done, I think, about four or five times in the most recent occasions.  But I find it's absolutely necessary.  The average person in the United States has no idea of what they're talking about.

Now, that's even people who are rather, sort of have benefit from the Manhattan policy.  But it's not that good.  But I do find that if you really are clever and mean about it, both, you can actually induce people in audiences to think, actually think, not try to cook up some thing that they think they already know. Because they say, "Oh, it's already known.  It's already known. I'm saying, it's already known."  That's what they're all replying to, tending to reply to.  It's something, "oh, yes, I know that already."  But the point is, they don't.  They try to fight against discovering what they should be discovering.  And that's where the problem comes up.

And so therefore, I think it's a general problem in dealing with society.  You've got to realize, that the people you think you are trying to appeal to, that it may be actually off balance. And it's more often than at first. This doesn't mean that it's a bad thing.  It means they need to realize that there's a real human being, a real human possibly, as opposed to something that is already ready-fixed to be spurted out of the mouth of the next person there.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think you're defining the standard of leadership for today.  We're dealing with a failed society, really, failed culture. It extends not just to the general population but also the so-called leading layers too.  We're not in this crisis because somebody made one bad decision or something. There's something fallacious in the general orientation of society and what people have been orienting towards and willing to go along with.  So if you're not actually intervening to change the way people think, you're not addressing the substance of the challenges threatening the nation right now.

LAROUCHE:  It's not just that.  It's the truth about mankind.  Because mankind, for example, is intrinsically bad, in the United States and abroad  — bad!

DENISTON:  The whole trans-Atlantic culture, yeah.

LAROUCHE:  That's right.  Because you always have these fixed cultures, and the fixed cultures are the things which are the disease!  And that's the point.  And our job is to edify, if I can use that term, edify people who are self-assured; they think they know everything, they think they have the answer, they think they can come out with the answer for anything on everything, more or less.  And our problem is to induce people to realize, "Wait, buddy, let's look at what you just said you intended to say.  Don't you see what you're doing?"  And that's what's needed, because people will try to, say, "come to an agreement"; the idea of "coming to an agreement" on ideas.  "Oh, yes, I can agree with that, I can support that, I can believe in that..."  And that's where the problems come up, and the errors come up.

And people say, "be practical."  This is something which was induced by Bertrand Russell in particular, and Bertrand Russell introduced that standard of behavior, that popular opinion is truth.  And that's the point, and that's what we've got to get rid of.

SARE:  You know, in the EIR  magazine that came out last week, there were extensive quotes from former Congressman Neil Gallagher in And what he describes is exactly this targetting — I mean, why did they target and attack Einstein? Because of his creativity and his willingness, any great scientist has the courage, what's coming to mind, is Yitzhak Rabin saying, the courage to question your own axioms; so what the FBI would do is to target anybody who is not a conformist with the particular whatever it was that they were pushing at the time. And they would organize everybody against that particular individual.

LAROUCHE: The point was to destroy all discovery, principle of discovery, and to impose something upon the people that  they are going to be thrusted into saying, "Yes! Yes, I agree! Yes, I agree!"  and that's where the problem comes.

That's what you get in schools.  What's the education system?  Why are so many young people stupid today?  Or even older people, why are they so stupid?  Why? Because they have accepted a code, of going along with a precedent, a precedent of what opinion should be.  "Oh yes, I can agree with that.  Oh yes! I can agree with that.  Oh yes!  I can agree with that!"  And that's where the problem comes in.

And we are not hard enough on our own members, and their friends, especially their friends, because their friends are their biggest enemies; the guy who makes you popular is your worst enemy, because they are the ones who will lead you into destruction by their "friendly" suggestions.

ROGERS:  As you were speaking Lyn, I was just thinking about what Ben presented on Wednesday, "Gravitational Waves, from Kepler to Einstein", really gets at the essence of what we're discussing here on the question of causality and how people don't have the understanding, or should I say that it's been an ingrained policy by Bertrand Russell and this crowd, that human beings can't come to know causes in the universe, or for that matter causes in relationship to why certain policies are made.  And it's interesting, because when we had this conference the other day, that was a very critical point that I was trying to make, which was, when we look at the takedown of the space program, you can't look at it from just the standpoint of the effects that were created — how the space program was cut, what was cut, programs that were essential or any of this per se.  ("There Are No Limits To Growth! Mankind Must Conquer Space!") But, what's essential is, what is the underlying cause?  What is actually under attack? And you just said it yourself, the principle of creativity and discovery is under attack because they don't want human beings to be able to come to an understanding of what is actually causing these actions.  And when you look at it from a scientific perspective, that things are not just "happening" per se, but that there is a reason, there is a relationship and there is an intention as to why these events or these things are occurring.

LAROUCHE:  I think there's a deeper problem here.  I've said it before, and I hesitated to introduce it again at this point, but I've said it on several occasions. We have to realize that public opinion, or pubic opinion,  which is probably a better name for it, that public opinion is actually a destructive force. Why is it?  Because it takes what has been given by some so-called "authorities," and to induce people to "repeat after me" as it's called, to give into that.

And what happens is, that creativity comes, as I've often warned, creativity is created by individual human beings.  It is not created by imitating human beings; it's by discovering and making human beings' power of creativity.  That is, what you think you are taught is not what you should believe.  And that is exactly the principle, which distinguishes the great scientist from the idiot.

DAVE CHRISTIE: There's one reflection of this with this whole gravitational waves that's come up, in what we were discussing on this notion of causality, you know, something that Riemann quoted which was the letter that Isaac Newton wrote  — I forget exactly who it was, Bentley or something like that — where he discusses the idea of gravitation occurring through empty space without any sort of mediating process, as being such an absurd idea that he doesn't believe how anyone could be effectively so gullible to go along with it.

Now, of course, this is Isaac Newton that is promoting this concept of the empty space and action at a distance with gravity. So you have to ask, "what is the point of that?"  And I think it goes to the point of a lot of science, is, to get people to not think through an ordering principle or this sense of causality, because if you can destroy that in the very fabric of their scientific thinking, then you can destroy that in all walks of life, where they won't even seek to find out the answer.  They'll just, as Lyn you were saying, just "go along to get along," they'll just go with the popular opinion and not buck the trends.

But that was the huge brawl between Leibniz and Newton was on this question, and of course, Leibniz, very much, at the center, it was to make this a knowable process.  So anyway, I just wanted to add that.

Michael STEGER: Well, what's being described is also the very thing that happened to this organization, and that it was the FBI, but it was the attempt to undermine  — I mean, it's almost striking to me, the irony of this:  But the whole basis of any participation in this organization was really the individual's ability to act upon the universe from a creative standpoint.  And that there wasn't a basis for popular opinion, there wasn't a so-called "norm" in society that would ensure mankind's actual future.  And that you actually get an organization to accept some type of top-down social hierarchy, just to accept the consensus, to find a clique of friends and make a basis of an organization from that standpoint, is totally contrary to what, Lyn, you've always fought for as the basis for changing history.

And I think that really is partly what you're getting at now, which is so critical:  This is Putin, this is what you now see with a certain dynamic shaping on a global scale; but just because it stands so strongly out right now, what we're discussing.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, I would just say, once again, the problem is that mankind borrows beliefs, they don't have them.  And the problem is that mankind does not understand how mankind must think.  How does mankind create valid changes in the behavior of people?  In other words, anything, which my experience of course is a real target for this reason, is that, these kinds of things cannot be derived, from the lessons taught by people.  That's where the fallacy comes in!

Because everything that's great, really great in history, has been something that was created by somebody, who had in a sense, who had a policy which no man or woman had ever had.  That is, they were creative people! And they represented people whose creativity was a deeper understanding of what the function of mankind is in the universe!

Those people who are practical people, the copycats, they do not have that quality.  Don't tell me that so-and-so set a policy, a lesson so forth, for policy.  That's not it!  The truth is you've got to create around you, people who have opinions, that the rest of the society rejects!  Now, it is not in rejecting what people are taught is not in itself the problem. The problem is, that the things that should be considered the most highly, are those things which are least popular.  Why? Because they represent something which was created, through the human mind, through the assistance of the human mind, has created a new conception of the universe.  And that's what the crucial issue is.

People like to be stroked.  They like to have somebody approve their opinion.  They don't want to understand what is rotten about most of the opinion which is popular today in most nations of the world the same way.

OGDEN:  You know, one comment that a fellow made to me that I had a chance to speak to over the weekend, he's an informed person about what China has been able to accomplish economically, and he said, "You know, China is the definitive leader of the world right now.  But how did they do it?  They did it by breaking all the rules."

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.

OGDEN:  And I think that's a very good lesson.

LAROUCHE:  That lesson has always been the true lesson.  All real scientific discovery, has been based on premises which are original.  That doesn't mean that every original attempt is right.  But there are certain things, if you understand them and examine them, they are right, or they are at least conditionally right.

STEGER:  I was watching a documentary on Johann Sebastian Bach, and apparently his son had asked him if he had had any teachers, and he said, "No." [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  That's good.  A good punch to upset people.  It's good to upset people.  If you don't upset people, how're you going to educate them?

DENISTON:  I think some of the work you've done in analyzing history is critical for illustrating this, too.  I was just thinking, what enables a perpetual process of a dark age?  How can you have these periods, for centuries, where you get no progress, no development, nothing, just stagnation?  You know what allows a society just to go from generation to generation to generation with no growth, no development?  And then you see what you've pointed to emphatically with the role of Brunelleschi, Cusa, you see the emergence of these singular figures, and how that can break this self-perpetuation of degeneration that I think you're describing here, that the trans-Atlantic is tending toward.  Without these singular type of interventions, then tendency is now to just perpetuate the same failed beliefs.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, Brunelleschi is the most appropriate person to refer to on this thing.  Because in his lifetime, he was the only one to understand what he was!  And then, those who followed him, then began to learn more and more about what the purpose of mankind was.

DENISTON:  Mm-hmm.  And you juxtapose that to the whole process prior, when you just had nothing for centuries, no scientific development, no major developments.  And then you see the rate of growth initiated by their work, and you get I think a good case-study for the type of social phenomenon you're talking about now.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, but there are many examples from history in general, which do represent individuals, who made a creative movement, as if out of nowhere.  And Brunelleschi was probably the most appropriate example, if you want to create an example: And you say, well, what did he discover?  And you go through the list of things that he is accredited with discovering.  And you find that the list is largely unique.  And it's perpetual, and it's rather regular.  And after that time, after what he did, Brunelleschi did, the whole movement of that period was affected by the influence of Brunelleschi.  And if he had not been Brunelleschi, there could not have been all the great minds that followed Brunelleschi.  And that's the fact still today.

And therefore, the idea of the individuality, but what is individuality?  That's enough of the obvious question that you have to go at first:  What do you mean by individuality?  It means something that can be created by no other way.

We need creative people, and that's what we should mean by creative people; people who will stop where they're walking, and think; stop to think.  And suddenly it comes to them, that what they've been believing all the way, during a year or several years or so,  what they had been believing, suddenly comes to them, that this was all crap. And that's the art of creativity.

Practical people are useless people, because they reaffirm things that should have been discarded.  They're cheaper, too. That's what makes them popular.

DENISTON:  I guess that's why there's a glut right now.

Rachel BRINKLEY: Yeah, that is really what's been lost, is the ability for people to think on how they themselves think, which is what Plato fundamentally looking at; what a lot of your economic work has always looked at is, besides the hypothesis itself, the highest question is how can you reflect on your own thinking?  And that is what's left out of the discussion, is this subjective question.  And in the Einstein discovery, for example, we still, I do think, have to do a lot of work to look at the implications of this. But one thing, I thought was properly discussed around this on our Friday webcast discussion, [https://youtu.be/s6EsLukSoxA] is that you put the question of knowledge itself, what is the nature of knowledge?  Is it a discovery of — it is perception-based, or is it something that originates uniquely from the mind without any external stimulation? And that that's what Einstein represented.

This is the question for the population right now, besides what's your take on the external economic affairs or this?  How are you thinking?  Can you reflect on your own role in this process of creating history?  And I think that's what's missing from everybody, and you are seeing it in China; you are seeing it with Putin, but the question is, is the United States going to be stupid enough not to reflect on this, too?

CHRISTIE:  Well, I'll just say one thing on this question of going along, sort of the earlier discussion around causality:  I think this also comes to the question of the British Empire. Just a certain references to the discussion that we had in Seattle with this conference.  There'll be more available on that;  I believe Helga's speech that she gave will be transcribed for publication and be made available otherwise.  Although she hit very hard on the question of the war danger, the thermonuclear annihilation that faces mankind because of the collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial and the fact that the British Empire was trying to unleash to prevent the BRICS dynamic and what China's up to from coming into fruition.  So she hit very hard on that.  And then of course, went with the new paradigm, both on the space exploration and fusion question; and one young gentleman from China said, — he says, "Wow!  Who are you guys? And who is this woman here?  I feel like I've just found water in the desert," referring I think to the political climate in the United States.

But one of the things that came up, it's clear that China, they had vice president of an organization which was referred to in the translation as the "China Sovereign Wealth Fund."  And he was clear, "we would like to invest in the United States, we would like to invest in the infrastructure."  But I don't it's just simply, "we've got some spare cash laying around and we want to invest it some things,"  I think it's "you guys should get in on what the rest of the world is now moving on."  Which we're leading, of course, with what Lyn and Helga have created the conditions for, but I think it's that idea.

But when it would come up around the idea of the way the U.S. could join the Silk Road was through the Bering Strait, a number of the participants, a lot of the people at the conference had either do business in China, or were from China, and have made that trip to Beijing, and said, "Well, hey! When we fly to China, we go right over the Bering Strait more or less, so that makes sense!"  And then you say, "well, do you realize that this would cut shipping times from 30 days down to about 8 days, and then it — "Really!?"

Or, just recently, we had the first Silk Road train going from China to Tehran, cutting that travel time down to 14 days from what otherwise is about 30 days.  Or just the new route that's going up through the northern part through Russia, cutting again what would be shipping times from 40 days to about a week. And people just say, "well, wait a second, why aren't we doing this?"

And I think this comes back to the British Empire:  It's not something that it just "makes sense" and people were just dumb about it.  It's the fact that the British Empire has prevented this kind of development and this kind of collaboration between nations, and were it not for obviously, Lyn, what you've done; Helga's presentation where she clearly identified at this conference, why this was happening, then people just assume that this is their reality.  And they don't realize that their reality, the way they think about it has been be defined by the British Empire which has prevented them from thinking and developing these kinds of collaborative relationships between nations which normally would be the way that mankind could go.

So I just think, you have to identify the role of the British Empire in preventing this quality of development.

SARE:  That reminds me of the story we read just last week, of this railroad that China has constructed in Ethiopia, 800km from the port [djibouti] to Addis Ababa, the capital, where in previous droughts, the loss of life would be thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people; but because you now have a railroad there, no one is dying, because a trip that used to take three weeks, now can be made in five hours!  And so, you can also see, knowing the proclivities of Prince Philip and the Queen, and the idea that the world really should only have a billion people, their extraordinary hatred, their rages against this kind of policy, which is I think something we cannot let go of; the reason why this is such an urgent fight we're in right now, and why it's so timely, is that it is the case, the trans-Atlantic system is collapsing; it is finished, it's gone!

China is not collapsing Asia is not collapsing.  And what they're putting on the table is a potential for mankind to make a leap out of a dark age into something better.  And therefore the desperation and the rage, of this empire, in scrambling to try and figure out the next war, the next division, the next you know — and we have a President, who is a tool and a puppet of that: We can't ignore it.

LAROUCHE:  Just look on the back of the newspaper, today's New York Times and it has a feature there. And the feature is that she, Hillary Clinton, what she was actually in on the assassination of the Presidential team of Qaddafi in Libya.

SARE:  Yeah.

LAROUCHE:  Right.  So now this is plastered all over the place in the New York Times and it's done with a certain, special kind of candor.  They're saying it, but they're saying it in a funny way.  But that is the fact.

Now, I think perhaps some people have felt that this is already a fait accompli and therefore it's harmless to mention it.  But the other part is, when you look at this thing and you say, "Well, Hillary?  What is really Hillary?"  And what happened, the New York Times this morning, in its broadcast of its efforts, was saying essentially, implicitly,  "What is Hillary, after all?"

And I had questions about her at times, but this kind of thing — which is so self-evident, once you hear it, once you look at it,  because the evidence now suddenly all comes together!  You would get a part of it in one way, and you would get a different part of it in another way, and they would never bring the thing together!  But, the point is, popular opinion does not bring it together.  But sometimes, they get stuck in doing it.

And what she authorized, in this morning press report,  is one of the most ugly, most evil, most astonishing kind of thing, ever seen.

DENISTON:  You know, Obama is famous for saying he never realized he could be such a good killer.  So I guess some of that rubbed off.

OGDEN:  I think this intersects with the fact that there's a significant aspect to the fact that Tulsi Gabbard, the Congresswoman from Hawaii, dropped out of the DNC. She was the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and at the same time this New York Times report came out, she, as a twice Iraq War veteran,  said:  I'm dropping out, because the DNC is implicitly a racket for Hillary!  To put her right back in the White House as a continuation of this Obama, perpetual war legacy.  And Tulsi Gabbard said: Look I have seen war.  I was involved in the disastrous Iraq war that Hillary herself authorized and if we have a continuation of this policy — I mean look at the heroic efforts to stop that from happening in Syria. Imagine what would have happened, in Syria, with the complete takeover Damascus by ISIS, if the same thing that Hillary had accomplished in Libya with Qaddafi, had taken place in Syria with Assad.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah, that is the message that we have, — that the New York Times has delivered to us today.

She is a little bit on the Satanic side, shall we say.

CHRISTIE:  Well, Lyn, what do you have to say concerning the fact that Kerry and Lavrov, they put this ceasefire together. This was against the desires of Ashton Carter and John Brennan and others, that voiced opposition to this as a policy.  But if, on the one hand it does appear that Obama's being boxed in; on the other hand, as long as Obama's in there, and the British who are desperate, behind him, I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this?

LAROUCHE:  They represent the easy version of the action. She represents, as represented in the Times today, has shown us the real reality of this process.  That's what you've seen, you've seen reality.  And we know how this works.  It works on this idea of this killer principle.

SARE:  That may be why Goldman Sachs pays her so nicely, to open her mouth.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah!  Exactly.  It can only be that way; because it had to be some potent agency which would get by with it, who could present that kind of thing, and that's what's happened. And so now our chance is to blow the whistle.  To say, "Who is the real Hillary?"

DENISTON:  Or maybe, "what"?

LAROUCHE:  Or maybe "what"; or, is it "Hellary"?  [laughter]

SARE:  Right!  I don't think it's the one that Schubert was writing about.

LAROUCHE:  No!  I think this is what I've been concerned about, especially when I saw the New York Times.  I was, "Oooh! This is something I hadn't really touched on, but boy it touched on me!"

OGDEN:  Yeah, absolutely.

ROGERS:  Well, interestingly enough, you may find Biden — given the fact that Hillary may be soon exposed...

LAROUCHE:  Yes?  Is the line blocked?

DENISTON:  I think she was asking about Biden coming into the scene, with all the trouble around Hillary.

LAROUCHE:  See, all these things are possible, but the point is you've got to go to the essence of the matter.  The essence of the matter is, what is the product we're being delivered? What're we buying?  What're we being sold? And I think that's the thing you have to look at.  And once you see that, once you understand what you've seen, now you begin to understand what this problem was.  Now, you can open the gates, and you find the people saying "wait a minute — we were sold out."  And that's what's happened. So, she has been presented by the New York Times has having been a sold-out person.

OGDEN:  Yeah.  And I think the bigger question is that we are definitively reaching the very end of a paradigm. We need a radical new paradigm shift, for the entire policy of the trans-Atlantic.  And Hillary's commitment to bailing out Wall Street and intervention/regime-change war across the planet is a continuation of the paradigm that's gotten us to the point where we are on the verge of thermonuclear war, and a blowout of this trans-Atlantic financial system.  And it's only going to be by embracing the win-win New Silk Road paradigm, that the United States can survive.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, I think we have the call on this thing right now.  Because that discovery was not original to us.  The experience of observing it is most convincing.

OGDEN:  Mm-hmm.  Well-timed.

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I think were going to have to put some marks here or there, in the right places.

OGDEN:  And Diane's old adversary, Chris Christie, has certainly shown his true colors by endorsing Donald "Mussolini" Trump.

LAROUCHE:  [laughs] Well, the only thing is,  he's got to find the right place to dump her.

BILL ROBERTS:  Well, this whole election process has sort of been, multi-car pileup with, you could say, Donald Trump is sort of the jack-knifed semi in the front of the whole thing.  But if you look beyond that, this is the first time in human history, and I think it's completely natural and if people were not so distracted by the elections, more of these opportunities exist for what we accomplished past week.  Because it's the first time so strickingly, one, entire failed imperial global system is collapsing at the same time its replacement exists.  And for Americans to be able to say, "well, this leadership who thinks it's our leadership has lost the Mandate of Heaven," you know, it can happen very quick.

LAROUCHE:  What you've learned is, with Hillary, it's not the blessings of Heaven, but the habits of Hell. I think that that's one motto I can put on the table right now, with great sincerity, and I'm sure, with great conviction of most of us, when we think about these things.

ROGERS:  Yeah, and it puts directly on the table, Obama. That's the real issue at hand here, is, Hillary and her actions, are a continuation of Obama's crimes.  And if he's not out, then they can expose all these things, but the question is, who is going to take that stance to remove him?

LAROUCHE:  No!  What was Hillary?  No, what was him, Obama. What was Hillary in the beginning?  What is clear now, today, is that Hillary was the author of Obama.

ROGERS:  Huh!  Ok.

OGDEN:  She played a central role in the decision to move in and take that action against Qaddafi.

LAROUCHE:  She was a Presidential candidate.  As a Presidential candidate, when she lost the election, to Obama, she did all the dirty work for him.

SARE:  Mm-hmm.  And that was what Defense Secretary Gates had said a couple of weeks ago, that she was the critical one making the decision to go into Libya in that way.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  That does it.  That does it very clearly.

OGDEN:  And I think the converse of that is, now you have China, you have Xi Jinping moving in with the Silk Road development, and you have Russia moving in with the critical role in the ceasefire in Syria: Cleaning up the mess that Hillary created in that region.

LAROUCHE:  Well, that should be a pretty powerful message to send around.

OGDEN: Good!  On that note, this is a conclusion to today's broadcast.  So, thank you very much for everybody joining us today, and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.