Manhattan Town Hall event with Lyndon LaRouche, August 1, 2015 (including transcript)

Lyndon LaRouche returns to Manhattan! As the epicenter of culture, politics and economics of the nation, LPAC is hosting regular Town Hall events every Saturday in Manhattan featuring a live Q&A session with Mr. LaRouche.

Transcript-DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and I’d like to welcome everybody here for today’s dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. We’re going to start right in.  Mr. LaRouche has an opening statement, and we’ll start with questions immediately thereafter. So, Lyn?

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Yes.  With this operation we’re doing here in Manhattan has a very significant meaning to it.  First of all, Manhattan actually is the real capital of the United States. Now, some people may quarrel about that, but I can assure you that that’s the fact, and we’re talking about the initiation of the George Washington administration; but then you had another man who was also making that all possible.  So that is extreme important, and it’s important to recognize what that principle is. Because that principle, which is the principle of which the United States was put into motion, actually in motion, on behalf of George Washington in particular. And that is the standard which we sometimes lose track of, especially in the course of history, because there’s been a number of Presidents after Washington — about four of them — who were really not deserving of the position of that; and then we had one or two good Presidents, and then we had a bunch of bums, more or less; and then we got into Abraham Lincoln, and then we got into that, we got a great general, who finished his military service as such, and he became a President of the United States with two terms of office.

So, there is an unresolved problem inside the existence of our United States; that we’ve had some great Presidents, who have some great movements, Presidential movements, terms of office in general.  We’ve had a lot of bums.  And we are, in the 20th century, fortunate in one or two Presidents, or actually three, and we got a lot of bums; especially after Franklin Roosevelt left office, things began to get very bad.

And now, the condition of the United States is horrible. There’s a general deterioration in the mental life of our citizenry, since a decline which began at the beginning of the 20th century.  We have been going downhill, worse and worse, in our mental life, and the effects of our mental life in terms of voices, exchanges, and so forth. And so, we would hope that by going back to a reference to a great President, and to a great man who backed him up, that we can recover the meaning of the Presidency of the United States, as under its first President.

And that, to me, is crucial, because unless we can achieve that and get rid of some of the mistakes that came in during the 20th century, and now in this present century ongoing; we’ve been going downhill, morally, intellectually, otherwise, in general. And my hope is that by going back to Alexander Hamilton’s standard of performance,  his great genius,  that by going back to reach that level, which was the level reached by the best people in Manhattan, that the spirit of Manhattan, carried from that time can be reaffirmed.

And that’s what my mission is, here in particular. We’re now on the edge of the greatest threat to human existence throughout the planet, right now. We’re now presently, with Obama still in the Presidency, we’re in the danger of being dragged into a thermonuclear war, a global thermonuclear war, from which very few people, if any, would actually survive, even the very brief introduction of that war.  So, my immediate concern is to prevent that thermonuclear war, which would virtually exterminate the human species. And, my concern is to get Obama out of office, because the existence of Obama—if continued during this last month—would be the death, of most of humanity, and the death, of the meaning of all the history that’s come before.

So, I think that we who represent a selection of some people (and more), who are devoted to that mission, may be the forces which will lead the way, to escape from the monstrous conditions that threaten us, under the continuation of the Obama administration.

Q. Good afternoon, this is A— from New York. Your recent remarks regarding this very threat of thermonuclear war—you mentioned that we had a very narrow period of options coming up, as the summer progresses; and then we have — I wonder if you could help clarify the provocations and the setup that’s taking place within Syria; Turkey’s involvement in that, and how the United States has been coming out now, is continuing its provocations and pivot into Russia.

The Russians have been very clear that they’re monitoring this; they’re very well aware of it and to respond.  Now, in our government, we are getting the response and echoes, and a fight around Glass-Steagall — we’re aware of that—but we’re not hearing anything, from anybody, in the form of leadership about this threat. We know through you that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are doing all they can to avoid this, but of course, Obama has this window now with Congress out.

So, I’m wondering if you could help us further understand what particularly I’m wondering what is going on in Syria with the Turks, the threat of a no-fly zone (which is an act of war), and just more in terms of what’s required in terms of leadership within our house to remove Obama?

LAROUCHE: Well, the basic thing that has to happen, the keystone comes from Russia. Russia’s gone through a lot of history; I’ve enjoyed, shall we say, some of the taste of Russia’s decline, and the attempt to bounce back up. I was active in those efforts, on behalf of Russia, after the post-Soviet period.

And, I was able to make contributions.  I was associated in that effort with Bill Clinton, when he was President, during the first term and what was left of the second term after the British Monarchy got through with him, and others.

So, these conditions are ones I understand very well. And I understand precisely what the problem is: that if Obama were to have his druthers—.  And now, you have to realize that Obama is merely a patsy, he’s a patsy for the British Empire; that’s what he belongs to, why he got his job as President.  And as long as he remains in control, willful control over the policies of the United States, we are now sitting proximately to the extermination, or virtual extermination, of most of the human species.

Because, in one case, the war issue is defined by only one issue:  Russia,  including China as a part of the picture; but Russia and the United States are the essential elements which threatens the extermination of the human species. And, it is likely, that it would be possible, or likely possible, that once Obama — if he’s successful—launches a war against Russia — Russia will not launch a war; but if the United States, under Obama, launches a war, then in response to the launching of a war by the Obama administration, then we have a global thermonuclear war; in which, it’s doubtful that humanity as we’ve known it heretofore, would survive even the initial launching, of a such a thermonuclear war.  I mean, back in history, there was a time when a great President dealt with Russia, in a recent time out of the Cuba business; and this President — this Presidency—protected the United States, and the world, from a thermonuclear holocaust. The government of Russia destroyed its own nuclear arsenal, in order to secure peace and avoidance of war, and a great President of ours, who was to be assassinated pretty soon, did the job to negotiate that peace.

Now, we’re in a situation where Obama, who’s merely a stooge for the British Empire in fact, but he’s the agent right now; and if Obama is able to maintain control over the policies of the United States, during the period of this month, then the doom of most of our nation, and most of the planet will go down with it. That is what must be prevented, and that is what I’m dedicated to prompt the people who should know better, to know better, and to do the things to get Obama thrown out of office, and to realize a great peace.  As great Presidents who had been general officers during World War II did take the actions to prevent a thermonuclear war; as Kennedy did take the action to prevent a thermonuclear war of that nature. But now, who’s going to defend us against what Obama represents? And, the question is in my mind, are there still members of the Congress, and other institutions of the United States as such, which will kindly throw Obama out of office, so that we can avoid a general thermonuclear destruction of, among other nations, our own United States?

Q. Hi, Mr. LaRouche. This is H— from the Bronx. Today we have the news about the apparent default on $58 million payment of a Puerto Rican corporation, or “state corporation”; and this also involves hedge funds who are demanding austerity, cuts in education and so on.  And, I know that you are familiar with the Puerto Ricans in New York.  I once read your paper on the Puerto Rican Socialist Party, and the funny relationship between the Puerto Ricans in the United States, which now outnumber the Puerto Ricans on the island.

And, also I was reviewing that the collapse of Puerto Rico dates particularly to the 1996 period, when they lost certain tax benefits, and they lost their petrochemical industries, and their pharmaceutical industries; and this is also at the same time when we lost our Glass-Steagall, when we had free trade agreements, our NAFTA and so on.  So, anyway I was wondering, what is your opinion about these questions of trade and development for Puerto Rico, and also as a potential flank against our situation right now?

LAROUCHE: The Puerto Rican situation is one of a great injustice.  That’s a fact! Now, the fact that there is a great injustice in that case, what do we do about it? What can we do about it? Well, there’s nothing we can do about it, unless we get Obama out of the Presidency! Nothing you can do, for Puerto Rico, as long as Obama remains in the Presidency.  And there are a lot of other parts of the planet which are threatened similarly to Puerto Rico.

Now, the point is, you can say, you want to fight for that cause. Well can you win that fight? Now win that fight for Puerto Rico, you must remove Obama from the Presidency, otherwise you’re not going to succeed.

That’s mostly true for other parts of the world, especially the trans-Atlantic community. France is going into a disaster. Hopefully, the British Empire, the British Monarchy, will be shut down, early, because it was the British Monarchy which had actually organized Obama and created the Obama hate business.

So these are the kinds of problems, and we cannot take a particular issue under these conditions and say that there’s one place which is the most important place, to give relief to around the planet, or around the Americas. There is no such choice.

If you get rid of Obama and what he represents, then the gate to freeing Puerto Rico is possible. If you depend on somebody else, some other way, to try rescue Puerto Rico, you’re wasting your time. Unless you can remove both the British Empire, and in particular, Obama, who is nothing but an agent of the British Empire, you cannot save Puerto Rico in any way.

That’s the challenge: Are you willing to concentrate on taking action of a type of action, which will actually solve the general problem? Don’t try to pick one local issue, however important it may be.  Don’t presume that you can devote yourself to concentrate only on Puerto Rico, for example, or other situations similarly. That will not work. You must first of all remove Obama from the Presidency. Otherwise, you can’t succeed.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I wish to introduce at this moment a musical question for you, because I’m concerned to run down the scholarly background to J.S. Bach’s use of the tuning pitch of 432.

We know that he did not use this in Leipzig, he couldn’t. His organ was tuned a half a step higher than 440, and J.S. Bach himself had his singers and instrumentalists playing at a half tone below; and the organ part, if the cantata were, let’s say, in D minor, would be copied out in C minor, a whole tone lower, so that it would be consonant with the singers.

But you see he couldn’t go to 430, which apparently is what he wanted, I would gather from reading Kepler—I know that one of Kepler’s books was in his library.  So that would explain my reading, years ago that both Quantz and Bach favored 430, but I haven’t been able to run that down.

We are in contact with the greatest living Bach scholar, Prof. Christian Wolff of Harvard, but he’s promised to try to look into it, to find out where this came from. I’m convinced it came from Kepler.

The point is that Bach was not able to tune at 430 simply because the organ was too high. You tune it down half a step you get 440. You tune it down another half a step—you can’t tune it down by micro-tones obviously—and you’ve got 415, a half-tone below, which is where Bach operated all the time he was in Leipzig.

The question is, where is the scholarly proof that Bach advocated 430 or 432? I seem to have read that, but I can’t get to the source. Can you help me out, here?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think so. I can give you an indication of which way to look at. Look, Bach understood what he was doing. He understood the intentions.

Now the point is, where the problem arises, when people try to take the string values of tones, that often is a mistake. Because the real issue, the underlying issue, which deals with the question of Bach, essentially, is the placement of the singing voice, as opposed to the placement of the note.  In other words, this distinction between the placing of the voice, the singing voice, and the placement of the note are not exactly the same thing.

Otherwise, everything is true as what was done by our great Italian musician, who did much of the work, most influential work, which I was exposed to, considerably, during my visits in Europe. But that does prevail.

But! Verdi — Verdi had a deep insight into the true principle of Bach. But the principle is not located on the note as such. It’s located in the placement — the placement, that, you think of this thing, like the Schubert, which is Furtwängler treatment of Schubert’s Ninth Symphony;  and you notice very carefully in the opening section of that piece, you see very clearly how Furtwängler approached the problem, by playing between the notes, not on the notes. And if you look carefully, also, you will see that Giuseppe Verdi also had a similar approach.

I never met Verdi personally, but I was part of a memorandum on the work of him, and it was held by the people of Italy, the best Italian performers. So that’s the situation: The placement of the note, between the notes, is the solution for the problem. Otherwise, the approximations which can be achieved in that way, are relevant to that. But, if you tune into the note, on the note you may miss the precise point, is important. You’ll find this in the best of great singers and performers. You’ll see that. The best performers work not on the note, but between the notes. And that’s where the placement lies.

Q: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is J— from Brooklyn.  I remember in the past that you’ve talked about strategy and outflanking the enemy. So I’m just curious, what would you say about advancing Glass-Steagall through interventions in the state assembly districts, not to create a local initiative but to force the legislators to take a position that aligns with O’Malley or Sanders, or even someone on the Republican side like Rick Perry, who is a total character, but he has, at least, come out with something positive about Glass-Steagall very recently. So, what would you think about that type of strategy?

LAROUCHE: I would say you’re pretty much working in the right direction, toward the right goal. There are technical things, and details, which are specific.  But for your purpose, in raw terms of your stated question, I would say that’s the case. You can accept that. The problem is, the placement of the tone, as opposed to the placement of the note.

SPEED: Yes.  I will refrain from making a comment about that because I was thinking that about Glass-Steagall myself. Can you go ahead, M—, with your question?

John,  you and I are going to have to get into this a little bit.

Q: Hi, Lyn, hi. It’s M—, born in Manhattan, and you put forth how important it is for the safety of the country, that we, in the next week — that would be the best — somehow or other prompt Hillary Clinton to come clean on Benghazi, to admit that what was really going on. Frankly it was easy, I knew it when it happened.

The whole process of shipping the arms to al-Qaeda and to probably ISIS through Turkey, through Benghazi. Benghazi was the seat of al-Qaeda and my sons, veterans who were in that war, were devastated when they found that there really was no adequate protection for Ambassador Stevens. My other friend who is Turkish she said to me, “you were so right, 187 villagers, Turkish villagers along the border, have been murdered, M—!”  And I told her this when it happened, that these were no rebels.

What would you suggest? How can we go about getting Senator Clinton, she was the senator when 9/11 happened, and when the parents and the wives and the husbands had to see these buildings come down on their loved ones; how can we get her to come forward and admit that it was an inside job, Benghazi?

LAROUCHE: Of course, it was an inside job. It was a complete inside job, but Hillary got to a point, and I think you probably have seen some of the record on this; what was reported at the time, where Obama had actually set up the assassination of officials of the United States in that area. Obama did it, and his crew of women, also did it.

Now, Hillary was a different case but also her complications are really significant on this account. She resisted at first, resisted Obama’s intention. Now Obama was the one who set this thing up.  And if you don’t focus on Obama, and concentrate on getting him thrown out of office immediately — that is, in the immediate future, before he can start the war that he intends to launch, or the British and other kinds of sources.

Under those conditions Hillary is a very doubtful person, morally. She is a stooge for Obama. How she became a stooge for Obama because she wanted to serve under him, and that was her mistake. And she didn’t realize who she was getting into when she got into it. But she’s a person of ambition, of political ambition, and therefore she made mistakes in various ways, which showed a problem in her judgment, a systemic problem in her making of judgments.

So what’s now, we’re left with, is the fact that if we don’t get rid of Obama, from the Presidency during this month, you’re probably going to be all dead or something like dead, within the course of this month. That’s what the threat is. In other words, it’s not a question of raising a protest. It’s a question of getting this guy thrown] out of power. Getting him thrown out of power will do the job.

We had histories of that.  After Franklin Roosevelt’s death, we had a couple of Presidents, military background, who actually did make a great contribution to preventing the United States from being involved in major wars.  About three Presidents in particular, intervened to prevent; I think other Presidents had also made a contribution in that direction.

The problem now is that Obama is a British agent in fact, that is, he got his post through the British Empire, the Queen herself, and he’s now, because he was able to pull this swindle by getting Hillary to sell herself, sell her soul virtually. She got out of office, she walked out of the office, yes.  But she refused to tell the truth, even though she knew what the truth was.  She knew it, and we have on the record.

Bill Clinton had been beside her at the time that this discussion occurred.  And she just flubbed it, and then she just went out and began to get more decayed in her judgment, her morality and judgment.  And there’s a lot of things you could say about her, if you want to write a book about Hillary and her experience in life; that’s a whole story in itself.  But I’d say the simple thing is, that Hillary has so far failed her obligation to save the United States, from the horrible thing that Obama is about to bring down on the entire United States, and more.

SPEED:  I just wanted to say one thing, which just came to mind when you were talking to T—.  There was a documentary that’s done on Furtwängler.  It’s up on YouTube; it’s available, and it has a lot of valuable footage. But it has a very specific story, which is told by a critic and a musician, Hans Keller, I think is his name.

Anyway he tells a story that Furtwängler once attended a performance of the Ninth Symphony by Toscanini.  What happened was that he heard the opening phrases; he got up out of his seat; he shouted, “Bloody time-beater,” and walked out.  Now Keller says, what had happened was, Toscanini was taking the opening phrases, which are in the sextuptlets, and he was playing the notes.  And he said, that was because he wanted to be precise. He said, “Furtwängler does the opposite.” And he has within the documentary they play the two performances;  he says, because Furtwängler understood that imprecision “was what Beethoven wanted, that the idea here was a completely different musical idea, and that the idea was the opening before the opening.” That’s how he says it, that’s what Keller says.

But the more thing was I just wanted to insert this because of what you were saying to T— before, and this issue of placement, and how you talk about it.  Because you’ve also outlined a project for people here, although you saw part of it, around the chorus, and what the purpose of it is.

Why do you think this is so central to doing exactly the things you are asking us to do politically?

LAROUCHE:  In modern civilization, particularly since the beginning of the 20th century, the 20th century was a disaster for the people in Europe and the United States, as well—a moral disaster, but a moral disaster with strong characteristics, as worse things to do.

Technically, the point is, what every great musician, composer, knew, was the principle of Bach, and the principle of those who followed Bach, such as Mozart, notably, Beethoven, so forth, and up through Brahms.  This was very well known.  There were differences in the way they approached something, but that was not a contradiction in their effort; it was a different expression, but based on following, like, for example, Beethoven followed Mozart.  Beethoven was followed by such great people as Brahms.  Brahms ended his life within the context of the 19th century.  And then suddenly Furtwängler came along, and Furtwängler provided the means to continue the mission, which had been handed down through Brahms.  In other words, Furtwängler was actually a follower, in that sense, of Brahms.  That is, he added something to what Brahms had accomplished, and it was beyond the achievement of Brahms himself.

So, that’s the way to look at these kinds of things.  What’s the point here?  The point is there’s a principle, the principle of music among other things—the Classical principle.  Why do we say not on the note? Why not between the notes?  Why do we say between the notes?  Because the significance of music, when it’s decent music, when it’s good music, is the tone is placed between the notes.  That is, in the movement from one note to the next note, and so forth and so on, there’s a process which identifies the meaning, the actual meaning of the performance, and the way the performance is composed.  And that’s the principle.

So, the problem is, is that most people today, do not have any actual efficient comprehension of what that means, and unfortunately we have terrible music and we have also terrible science.  They’re both incompetent.  Physical science, as defined by almost everybody in the 20th century and today, is rotten, from the standpoint of science, because they don’t that principle that human beings, yes they do have tones, they do place tones, and things like that, but that’s not the answer.  The answer is, what is the principle which makes a composition, of music, for example, what makes it  beautiful? and what otherwise is not beautiful?  And that is the placement of the tone which is between the notes; not on the notes, between the notes. And the fact that the orchestration of performance lies between the notes rather than on the notes.

Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I have a question about a different type of note, actually, specific to our currency.  I was wondering  if you could comment on a recent item that’s been in the news and that’s been removing Alexander Hamilton from the $10 note and replacing him instead with one of our amazing women? And if you feel it would be better, perhaps to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 note and put somebody new there instead?

LAROUCHE:  Obviously, we’ve got to get rid of Jackson. Jackson was one of the most evil men who ever occupied the Presidency.  The man was a Satanic kind of character.  And if you look at his history, this man was intrinsically Satanic, in everything about him; and also his successor, equally Satanic. And that’s the way to look at it—this guy you don’t want to waste time on him, once you know that he’s Satanic, you don’t need to run around.

And the problem is, we had in the history of the Presidency, we had the first President, who was actually promoted by Alexander Hamilton.  Hamilton was the person who orchestrated the policy of our economy, our system.  The papers he wrote, the four papers that he published, are the principles of the U.S. economy: Alexander Hamilton.  And Washington supported that, accepted it.  But Hamilton was the genius, who came up with the solution.

And over the course of the history there were occasional Presidents who were of that kind of commitment.  But the number of them — I will not go into the whole list, but the number of that character. And I honor those men, in particular.  They were great Presidents.

And unfortunately since the Bush family began to invade the Presidency of the United States, you have to understand, that the Bush family—the boys, shall we say—were really jokers, totally incompetent, stupid jerks; but they came from a father, Prescott Bush, who’s quite capably Satanic, purely Satanic. And anyone who knows that history, knows that what you had, is there was a certain kind of punishment of Prescott Bush.  That he was a Satanic creature, but Satan played a dirty trick on him, by making all his Presidents in his name, got them to be absolutely stupid, as well as nasty.

Q:  Hi, Mr. LaRouche, how are you doing.  My name is M—. Good afternoon everybody.  I want to ask you are we ever going to go back and open up the NASA program?  I worked on the LEM [Lunar Excursion Module] program in Bethpage, Long Island.  And during those years I was the ground support engineer liaison, liaison engineer between ground support equipment and the vehicle.  Will we ever have a program like this again, as far as NASA is concerned?  And the Pluto program we have now is nothing, like what we had in the ’60s.

LAROUCHE:  You’re right in pointing out the problem, as such, in practice, but the question is a deeper question which has to be faced.  What happened at the passing point from the 19th century into the 20th century—in the 20th century you had predominantly Satanic forces who were in charge of science and pretty much everything else, and they were all recruited by Bertrand Russell, and Bertrand Russell was truly the true servant of Satan, if there ever was one of that type!  So that’s where the problem lies.

The problem is that we believe, according to the doctrine of the 20th century—remember, all leading scientists, so-called scientists, of the 20th century were followers of a Satanic cult: Bertrand Russell.  And what happened was, there was only one person, in science, who was actually competent in physical science, not Bertrand Russell.  And so the problem has been, that what we had instead of having an actual physical science, we had mathematical pseudo-science.  And what has been taught during the 20th century and now during the present century, again, is a consistent degeneration in the mental powers of the typical member of society in the United States and also in Europe.  There is no competence in suggesting that mathematics is the basis for science.  That’s the point.  And until we get that thing corrected, we’re still going to have the problem.

We may have a lesser degree of the problem, but we do not have a competent standard.  We have individuals who are scientists, and they tend to feel out the principles which had been known, in the end of the 19th century.  We had a period of great scientists in that period, a few great scientists, in that period, and they accomplished something.  But since that time, since the beginning of the 20th century, science has become fraudulent, except for Einstein.  Einstein was the one man who was truly competent as a scientist.  All others are merely poor approximations of that.  And that is the issue which has to be really understood and taken up, because we’re going into what? We’re going into Galactic studies and such.  The Galactic principles are now really the principles which are now principles which are most important for us.  So we have to have a systematic change, in the way we define the meaning of science.  Get rid of mathematics.  Mathematics has a function, but it’s not a scientific one, and that’s the problem.

Q:  My name is F—.  I’m a political activist for years and my question is, you say that we must remove Obama, and impeach him.  And I work a lot to try to get the people to know what’s going on.  I was involved in Clinton’s impeachment proceedings. That was about the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, about the Oklahoma Federal Building controlled demolitions, and about Clinton ignoring a monopoly laws, and during his impeachment proceedings he deregulated media, leaving us with six corporate conglomerate media outreaches. So, the facts of Clinton’s impeachment proceedings were never brought to the public.

So how do we replace Obama?  You know, it will be the same thing.  And how do we regulate media, banks, and military?  Those are the real problems.  The real problems and the banks, the military, and the media, and the military-industrial complex and the prison-industrial complex. So, I was told to say, if we remove Obama, who’s next?

LAROUCHE:  That’s a pessimistic view of matters.  I’m not a pessimist.  I can find myself disgusted by what’s going on around me, and I have been steadily, mostly disgusted by most of the things I’ve experienced, in my lifetime.  So I’ve got a good record there of being disgusted about bad things.  And I’ve always rejected, for example, mathematics.  I haven’t rejected it absolutely; it’s a toy you can play with, but it’s not science, and that’s the issue.  So, mathematics is fake science! It’s the attempt to imitate, from a distance, what is really science, what we mean by physical science.

This is the same thing that just came up in the previous discussion:  That mankind is unique.  Mankind is not animal.  And that’s a very important point:  Mechanical devices can be taught to perform certain kinds of procedures.  These procedures which are call mathematical procedures, sometimes called science, they’re not science.  They’re anti-science.

Because the question here is, what’s the nature of mankind as opposed to being an animal?  Well, mankind is not an animal! Animals are animals!  All animals are animals, but human beings are not animals.  Why?  Because the human being, unlike any so-called natural, living personality, does not depend on practical considerations.  The purpose of mankind is that mankind — while people are going to die, that is the human body is very susceptible to being killed in one way or the other; but! the question is, what does mankind, while living, produce and generate, for the future benefit of mankind as a species?

Now, the obvious thing is that mankind is unique in that respect.  We die; all human beings die.  But the human principle does not die.  It merely passes on to the next step, preferably the next step up.  Scientific progress, not mathematics, real science, physical science; the discovery of new physical principles which give mankind the power, new powers, previously unknown powers to all mankind, which enable mankind to achieve things which no other species can accomplish.

And this is well known in terms of the history of religion, for example.  Kepler was on one of the followers of this thing and he was the first person to discover the Solar System.  He didn’t do much beyond that, because he died in the process, after having made that achievement.  But the issue here, is that mankind is a being, intended by implication, to be a creative force, a creative force which can create, in itself, powers in and over mankind, in and over the Solar System, in and over the Galaxy.  And mankind has those powers of discovery, of scientific discovery, which no animal species has ever been able to duplicate.

And the whole business of mankind, which is the actual basis of Christianity, for example, as Nicholas of Cusa, for example, illustrates this, that there’s an intention in the existence of the human species, such that even the death of a member of the human species, is not finality.  What continues is the contribution of the once-living person to bring into knowledge and into practice which mankind would never have known otherwise. New things, new discoveries.

Now today, for example, we’re talking about the water problem.  What about the water problem on United States, for example, or Earth in general?  Well, the solution is there.  The greatest supply of water for people on Earth, is provided under the control of the Galaxy, a superior body.  Now it’s only recently that we’ve begun to understand what the Galaxy is and what it does.  But that’s a discovery by mankind.  That’s a typical example of the progress of humanity:  That we live and we die.  But, if we do our work properly, we will be part of those people who make the discoveries, which enable mankind to reach new levels of achievement, just like Kepler discovered the Solar System; just like today, the Galactic System is understood to be the superior system, under which mankind’s Earth operates.

So this distinction of mankind from the animal, is absolute. And therefore, what is the achievement of mankind?  It’s to make discoveries and to make practice of discoveries which enable the human species to accomplish something useful for the future of mankind’s existence, which had never been known, or had never been knowable before.  And that is what the real, underlying principle is; when you get through all these questions, get to that point!

Don’t try to interpret what somebody says is their experience — forget it!  People talk about their experiences, they talk about their judgments they reached by their experiences, it’s bunk!  Very few people, living so far as today, has actually had the ability to foresee the meaning of human life.  But nonetheless, mankind’s progress to higher levels of achievement, is a symptom of the fact that mankind is a species like no other. And that is the principle of the Creator and the relationship of the Creator to Creation. [applause]

Q:  Hi Lyn.  I’ve had the chance to organize in Manhattan the past few weeks a couple of times, and it’s a lot of fun, but it’s also very difficult to engage people.  And one of the difficulties is as if, you know how Edgar Allan Poe describes in the Purloined Letter, where the solution in the problem is right in people’s faces, especially people who are living in Manhattan and working here, because of Wall Street, 9/11, the Saudi faction and all that, it’s all around them.  But they don’t see it.

And I think one of the problems to overcome this problem is to show people the reason they don’t see it, is because they think mathematically, like the Purloined Letter.  And whereas, the way to organize people is to be a poet yourself, and to show them that you have to approach your thinking, not from a mathematical deductive nature, but from a higher standpoint.  And I just wanted you to comment on that, because that’s what was brought up this week by some members on our debriefings and our organizing here.

LAROUCHE:  I’m certainly and fully in support of that argument that you make, because it’s valid, absolutely valid! And I’m very glad that you exist, because it reassures me that we have some people who are really, shall we say, on the ball.

Q:  Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is E— from the Bronx.  I would like to ask you, if we were able to land the rocket, manned or unmanned, on all the other planets on our Solar System, how would that improve life, or make a better life on Earth, on our planet? Is there any relevance to doing that or would it not make a difference?

LAROUCHE:  You’re talking too closely into the microphone and it blurs what you’re trying to say.

Q:  Can you hear me well now?  I would just like to ask you: if we were able to land a rocket on all the other planets in our Solar System, would that make a difference in conditions on our planet, on Earth?  Would we be able to benefit from that?  Would we learn something from that?  Would we be able to make a better life for the people on Earth?  Or would that not make a difference in what is going on, on our planet today?

LAROUCHE:  …subject a little bit.  Don’t try to make a deduction, in the future.  In other words, don’t assume that you can make a deduction which will lead to a discovery of a higher principle.  That’s where the mistake often comes up.  The problem is, that you have a see a problem, you have to see a fallacy in the nature of human behavior, currently.  In other words, mankind is perplexed, and doesn’t know what the future is going to be. He knows the future has to be in the future, not as a product of what has happened up to now; in other words, it depends upon successful progress beyond what had been known already.  A change in quality, a higher principle which corrects the error, of the assumption that we know what the answers are.

And that’s called science, real science, as opposed to this fake science which is called mathematical physics; mathematical physics is a complete fraud, inherently, by very definition. Because it does not answer the question of creativity.  And mankind’s behavior, what distinguishes mankind from the animals, is that mankind is capable of making discoveries which change the future, that is, the future of mankind, the future of the Solar System, the future of the Galaxy.  That’s what’s important.

That means that the question is, the discovery of a new principle, which had not been known before, but it’s now known and it’s proven.  And the idea is that every generation of mankind, in the normal course of events, must be superior, in that generations capabilities, beyond anything that mankind had known up to know.  And the idea is that pursuit of the successful pursuit, of the unknown, the unknown triumph, which is the meaning of the future.  For example, someone has made a partial scientific discovery, or some other related kind of discovery, or great poetry, new ingenuity in the concept of poetry, for example can be very useful in this respect, but the point is, you have to have in yourself, the devotion, the efficient devotion, to make discoveries of universal principles, within the universe, but which mankind had not known before.

Q:  Good afternoon.  My name is R—, I’m from Brooklyn.  I’d like to know, is there anything new on the British Empire and its demise?  See I have a slightly different attitude from some people.  Some people say, “God save the Queen.”  I say, “God save the Queen, because I won’t!” [laughter]

LAROUCHE:  OK!  Well, the Queen, I think, is probably on the skids right now.  It’s not only because she and her husband are about my age, which is an embarrassment to me, to find that at my age they still got some rumpus characters like these, the British Royal Family.  But the solution is simply, the characteristic of the British system in particular, like some Satanic kinds of religious beliefs, or similarly that way; but it’s the idea that mankind treats mankind as merely something disposable, like those who say we’ve got too many people; we’ve got to reduce the population of mankind.  Well, these ideas are essentially, intrinsically Satanic, and should be rejected at all times, in all places.  And that’s what the issue is.

The point is, mankind has a unique capability, which no other known species of life, has ever been able, to manifestly achieve.  Mankind is intrinsically capable of making discoveries, discoveries of principles, not just discoveries of fact; discoveries of principle, of universal physical principles,  and mankind is able to do that with the help of education, with the help of hard work and things of that sort of things; or lucky strokes, even.  And that’s what’s important.

That when people die, you know people you know die, and it’s a great sadness comes over you in that moment of sharing the experience of the death of a person who you have cherished, or even wished they had not died, to say it simply; and the issue is, what reconciles mankind with the death of another human being?  And that is a contribution to the future  of mankind’s development and powers to solve problems, which mankind has not understood yet, before.

And that’s what the principle is.  What do we live for? We’re all going to die.  All human beings are going to die.  So what’s the meaning of their life?  The meaning of their life, is something good and new, at least for them and for humanity, which opens the gate for mankind’s achievement; just like the progress of Kepler — Kepler discovered the Solar System.  He was the one who discovered it, absolutely unique; no duplication known.  And thus, science in that sense, is the measure in that way, is the measure of a meaning of human life. That is, the meaning of the future of the person who had died, the person whose death celebrates what they had achieved for mankind.  Great art, great music, great things that impassion mankind, by which means mankind is able to muster himself, to reach out and achieve necessary discoveries and practices which will improve the future of mankind as such.

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, my name’s A—, and I’m from New York City.  I have a question I’d like to ask you:  If you were the person in charge, say, starting Monday, and we wanted to know what can be done about immigration in our country today, what’s going on with immigration, how would you handle it? What are the steps you would take, in sequences, and how do you think they would affect our politics, and our economy in our country?

LAROUCHE:  Certain conclusions can be drawn right at this time.  First of all, for a long period of time, we have prided ourself on observing the achievement of great nations, and we assume that the great nations are somehow intrinsically situated as such.  Now, if we look carefully, into areas like China, for example, into some South American nations and others, we find that the way we think, the way we talk and argue, from the United States and from Europe, is a little bit different, than what’s happening now, as in China.  What’s happening?  And in other parts of the planet.  So therefore, there’s a tendency now to produce a kind of nation-state, which is not a solid nation-state as such, but is a temporary arrangement which is called nation-state;  a national principle. We find that nations are coming together, with some difficulties. China and India have a close relationship; it’s not perfected.  There are things that are not perfect, shall we say, in relations among some of these states.

But, what you’re seeing, is you’re looking around the planet as a whole, you’re seeing a development among nations, of quasi-states, they’re conditional states, they’re temporary states; and they’re divided according to languages, and social processes and habits, and so forth.  But mankind is now moving into a unity of mankind.  There are certain things that are different.  We’re not equally practiced in all respects on all cases, but the tendency of mankind is to come to common aims of mankind.  And gradually, we will evolve into nations or groups of nations, which really becomes the planetary system.  Which we may have different accents, we may have some different memories, historical memories, so forth, all that is there.

But we can see already, in South America, in certain cases in South America, in some parts of Africa, in some parts of Asia, you see a process where the idea of the nation-state as being some kind of hermetic institution, is doomed — not doomed in the bad sense, but doomed in the sense of growing up:  That mankind is going to grow up.

And, for example, we had the discovery by Kepler; Kepler discovered the Solar System, which meant that Earth as such, just Earth, plain Earth, is not the basis, for human existence.  And then we go further, and we find, by what Kepler did in discovering the Solar System, we now find the Galactic System, which is a superior system relative to the Solar System, the old system.

And mankind now finds, man is faced with reality.  For example, water:  Now, the supply of water on Earth is pretty good.  As a matter of fact, if we used our heads a little bit more, we would have less arid conditions, but we just haven’t paid attention to things that could be improved.  I mean, the control of moisture, of circulating moisture in general, around Earth, and beyond Earth, and bringing that moisture into a useful relations to conditions on Earth, that’s not too well developed. But it can be.

And so, that’s the kind of situation that we are living with, or we have to live with.  The point is, we always have to come back to the point, that mankind’s destiny is to achieve what mankind has never achieved before in terms of progress, in conditions of life, just like the what Kepler did in discovering the Solar System; or what we now understand as the Galactic System.  And that Earth is merely a subject, of the Solar System and the Galactic System.  And other things as well in the universe.

So we have to change our values, and we have to change the way mankind treats mankind, because what we want to do is to bring a kind of unity of function, within the mass of the human species, with a purpose of reaching goals which have not been achieved beforehand.

I could go longer on that, but I think that, for this occasion on this timeframe, I think that’s the answer.

Q: [followup] Excuse me, I’m still a little confused.  Did you think I said “irrigation”?  because I said “immigration” and I don’t think you really answered the question?  I said, knowing what’s going on around the world of the immigrants and the borders and all that?  I don’t know why it went over my head, but did you answer the question, about what would you do if you were in charge?  What are the steps you would take, to control the immigration and how it would affect our politics and our economy? I think…

LAROUCHE:  I’ve been working at this goal for a number of decades. [laughs] More than a few decades.  That’s my business, that’s my profession, as I’ve indicated:  My profession is to cause the human species, to discover principles which mankind had not previously understood.  That’s my approach to this. It’s the only way it’s going to work.

Q: [followup] OK the way they are? Do you think the way the borders are now, they need improvement, or what would you do about that?

LAROUCHE:  I would say a lot of improvements!  But mankind — it’s not a matter of improvements in this — in the sense it’s too much like statistics.  And statistics is not a very good measure at all.  Statistics has much exaggerated importance.

The important thing is, mankind must progress in order to achieve powers, on Earth, beyond Earth as such, as the Galaxy; and that mankind’s power, or development of power to control the Galactic process, or to influence the Galactic process as a matter of control. That’s what the mission is.

Because we all are going to die.  The question is, what is the future of mankind?  If we are all going to die in our  time, what’s the meaning of the future of mankind, for the experience of the individual human being?  And that’s the question that’s very rarely treated.

Q: [followup]  OK, thank you.

SPEED:  This will be our final question for today.

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  My name is R—.  I wrote a letter to my congressman, and I got a response.  And he sent a response, and he’s for regulations, but he’d not say nothing about Glass-Steagall.  So I want to push this guy to go forward, to support Glass-Steagall.  What do I do?

LAROUCHE:  You’re on the right track — first of all, you’re on the right track!  No question about that.

What do you mean by Glass-Steagall?  The problem is, if somebody treats it as some kind of a scheme, that doesn’t explain anything, not really.  The importance of Glass-Steagall is that mankind — or, let me go back and do something, just to make this clearer.

First of all, what’s called Glass-Steagall is not really understood competently.  That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, it means that they don’t understand what they’re doing.  They don’t understand what they’re using as an attempt to make things better for mankind in the planet.  They just haven’t grasped that, yet. Because they don’t understand the future.  That mankind’s identity is intrinsically located in mankind’s awareness, that is, efficient awareness, of the existence of the future.  That is to say, something which has not happened, heretofore. In other words, a discovery of fact, which has been unknown previously, and the case of Kepler, for example, same thing.  Einstein, the same thing.  Einstein made unique discoveries, and he was the only one who made such discoveries, within the term of his lifetime.

So the issue is, mankind’s creation, of new, higher principles, than mankind had ever known before, and that man’s purpose in existence is to achieve the realization of the future, in those terms.  In other words, to make a discovery, which mankind had not discovered heretofore, a useful discovery, a necessary discovery; and that’s what the principle is.

Now, what’s happening in the schools system, for example? What’s the education system in the United States today?  Or, take the whole period from the beginning of the 20th century on, there has been a consistent degeneration in the powers of thinking, within the policy of the people of the United States, in particular.

The people in the United States, each generation, are going through a de-generation!  Now there may be exceptions in individual cases, but the general tendency is, for example, let’s take the education in schools.  The school system, the education system, both for universities as for ordinary schools, is incompetent, intrinsically.  It’s not entirely useless, but as an intention, it’s useless.  It does not answer the question of how mankind can progress in mankind’s condition, within the Solar System, etc., etc.

So that’s where the problem lies.  I think the greatest criminal has been the 20th century notion of science.  And that notion which is commonly practiced, by people except for Einstein, is the folly of the United States.  Look at what we do. What do we do?  We are actually driving, the average citizen, as the citizen is born and educated, the citizen in the typical is degenerating.  The typical person in the United States is degenerating with each generation; in other words, every 25 years.  Every 25 years you get a new generation, or something like that, and every time, the person you are promoting, is more stupid, more corrupt, than the person before.

The education system is stupid, it’s deliberately stupid. It’s destructively stupid.  The skills for production are being lost; fewer and fewer people share the powers of competence in production.  We’re all living under the green idea, the green policy, and the green policy is tragic destruction of the human species as a whole.  But the Greenies, the Greenies are servants of Satan in fact, in their effect. So these are the kinds of problems that have to be considered.

And people would like to have simple things, which can be simply described, simply explained, but none of those simple things will do anything for the future of mankind.  We’re going to Hell right now, in the United States in particular.  We’re going to Hell!  And you look at the degeneration after generation, and generation to generation to generation; a degeneration, progressive degeneration, of the mental and moral life of the young generations as they come along.  [applause]

SPEED:  Lyn, we’re at the end for today, but I want to take something up which has come up clearly in the discussion.  I want to address it, and give you a chance, Lyn, to respond, and conclude us for the day.

What has been happening, for particularly the last two weeks, is that people are having, at least in their estimate, a helluva time getting across anything that you’re basically saying about Hillary Clinton, nuclear war, etc.

Now:  What’s actually happening is, instead of discussing this, forthrightly, and simply, and straightforwardly, we get a lot of individual issues.  Whether it’s Puerto Rico, whether it’s this, it’s that, because that’s what’s talked about in the street.  That’s what people run into in the street. And then they say, “I have this question, should be do this or that?”  Like this issue of immigration is another one, or many other issues. There’re issue after issue after issue!  People are bombarded by issue, in this and that.

Now we know, there’s a term we use to — we’re in polite company, but you know, “issues” can mean, shall we say, something emanating from the posterior. And people get continually bombarded  — and then they say, “but this is what’s really on my mind, you’re not addressing this, and I wanted to say something about this, because it’s what’s been represented as the problem.”

Maybe people don’t think that’s fair.  I think it’s fair, because I’ve been in these discussions, I know what’s being said. And so, I just wanted to ask you, since the Manhattan Project is your project, you’ve been very clear about what you wanted.  You talked about us having a several-hundred person chorus; you talked about us talking to people about very difficult musical ideas.  John Sigerson’s here with us; we’re working on these ideas, and the problem that’s coming up is [whispers], “Why are we doing this?”  Hmm?  “Why are we doing this!  Shouldn’t we be talking about things which are much more issue-oriented, or practical?” etc.

So I thought I should express that to you, as we come to the close.

LAROUCHE:  I think there are many ways I can approach this subject, so let’s pick one!  One of the ways, the famous formulation, “one of the ways.”

Anyway!  The question is, what’s mankind’s mission. Mankind’s mission is to progress as a species.  I’ve emphasized this already in several remarks I’ve made hitherto today.  We have to understand, that unless you have made a discovery, of a new principle, a real, true principle, a physical principle, then you haven’t made any progress.  As a matter of fact, if you’re operating on that basis of not doing something in that way of progress, you’re engaged in decadence.

I mean, for example, what happened?  What happened is, with Bertrand Russell, in particular, destroyed the idea of actual science!  That’s what he did.  And there are very few people in the United States today, who actually believe in physical science as a science.  They will talk about mathematics, which means they’re an idiot.  Because that doesn’t explain anything.

The issue is mankind is distinct, in the fact that we have the power, as a species, to progress, to get more power for mankind, why?  Because it’s wanted.  Because mankind’s mission is to do that, is to make discoveries and to get along the process of trying to get ahead someplace, get ahead for mankind’s future. And that is not what is taught today!  What’s taught today is mathematics, and mathematics is a design of evil, actually. Because what it does, it says everything can be explained by mathematics:  Well, actually, almost nothing can be attributed to mathematics as such.  But that’s what’s taught.  That’s what the schools system is!  That’s what the education system is; there are exceptions to that, of course, but they are exceptions.

And therefore, the problem mankind has is we have not met the challenge, as Kepler for example, Kepler defined the Solar System.  And most people would not understand that Solar System concept.  Now we understand, the Galactic System; we don’t understand it perfectly, but we understand its implication of its existence, which means that mankind must go forward into higher layers of ability of mankind, as a species, to achieve things that mankind has never achieved before.

And that’s the purpose of living!  That’s the purpose of life. And when you die, one hopes that you will have made a contribution to the future of mankind.  That’s the proper purpose.  I mean, giving birth to children, human children, is what?  It’s a contribution to the future of mankind.  It means you’ve got to get some kind of an education system for these children; that they give them the powers to go to a higher step upward, beyond what mankind is capable of doing today.  And to take any part of the planet where you find young people, or even middle aged people, who are rotting away at the same old, same old, same old.  No future, no meaning to the future of their life.

What mankind does not have, or lacks, the sense that death is not a terrible thing; it’s an inevitable thing.  But the point is, what’s the purpose of going through the process which leads to death, among human beings, within society?  And it’s the progress in developing mankind’s ability to make discoveries of physical principle, as we call them, and those physical principles are the things on which the prosperity, of mankind as a species depends.  Conquer the Galaxy, which is the challenge thrust before us, now.  The major challenge of mankind today, is to understand and to better, the idea of the Galaxy, which is so far, the thing we’re best informed on, among all the things that we’re not yet informed on.

But mankind’s progress, in effect, in terms of the effect of the role of the human species within the Solar System and beyond, that’s the issue!  And if that’s not your motive, your motive is very, very shallow!  [applause]

SPEED:  Tough and irritating messages that are nonetheless absolutely essential.  Thank you very much, Lyn, for what you had to say!

Posted in Lyndon LaRouche | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Adams pays tribute to life and legacy of O’ Donovan Rossa

Sinn Féin Leader, Gerry Adams TD paid tribute to the life and legacy of Jeremiah O’ Donovan Rossa in a speech delivered by his graveside today, one hundred years to the day and to the very hour that he was buried in Glasnevin Cemetery.

Mr Adams said:

“Who was Jeremiah O’Donovan Rossa? He was from a family of tenant farmers from Roscarberry, County Cork. In 1856, not long after the Great Hunger, he established the Phoenix National Literary Society whose aim was the “the liberation of Ireland by force of arms”. In 1858, he was jailed without trial for 6 months.

“In 1865, he was charged with plotting a Fenian rising, and sentenced to penal servitude for life. He served his time in Pentonville, Portland and Chatham prisons in England. His prison conditions were horrendous. Infamously he was manacled and had to eat his food like a dog from a dish on the prison floor.

“In an 1869 by-election he was elected for the constituency of Tipperary, but the election was declared invalid because Rossa was a prisoner. In 1870 he was exiled to America with other Fenians. There he established The United Irishman newspaper and organised a bombing campaign in England known as “the dynamite campaign”.

“He also organised a fund to support the fight against British rule. Isn’t it great that this morning the Irish government celebrated this old Fenian and his activities? He was in many ways a very active republican.

“At the time of O’ Donovan Rossa’s death, aged 83, a new generation of revolutionary republicans were organising and preparing for a Rising.They were determined to have Rossa brought home and buried in Ireland.

“Rossa’s funeral mobilised and galvanised all sides of progressive opinion. The funeral committee included 11 of the leaders of the Rising who were executed 10 months later. They stood where we are standing today.

“At that time Ireland had been dragged by England into an imperialist war. Even the most limited form of autonomy had been denied to us. Partition was being plotted and planned.

“But those who gathered at Rossa’s graveside resolved not to accept this, to protest, to resist and, ultimately to take on the might of the British Empire. The funeral of O’Donovan Rossa was a prelude to the Easter Rising of 1916.

“Today almost a century later we have many, like O’Donovan Rossa, who spent years as political prisoners, or were on the run or were forced into exile. We remember also all those who suffered and died in the most recent conflict, including our patriot dead, some of whom are laid to rest in this cemetery.

“We have with us also many younger people who, thankfully, have not known directly the terrible reality of armed conflict in our country.

“Let us be very clear that the Peace Process and the political progress we have achieved were made possible because of the sacrifices of countless republicans over the generations. It is hugely positive and progressive that we today can pursue the complete unity and freedom of the Irish people, by peaceful means. And we are pursuing that cause.

“Today is a reminder, as the events of the Centenary of the Easter Rising in the coming months will be reminders, that the business of Pádraig Mac Piarais and James Connolly and Constance Markievicz and Bobby Sands and Máiréad Farrell is unfinished business.

“Some people in high places do not like to be reminded of that unfinished business. Mar a dúirt an Phiarsaigh: The fools. The fools. The fools.

“The way citizens are being treated today demands another Rising – a popular re-conquest of Ireland by the people of Ireland. Our country is still partitioned. And Ireland divided never can be free. We do not yet have a national Republic. But republicanism is growing, as never before.

“The Proclamation has yet to be implemented. Equality has yet to be achieved. But we are living in a time of great change and great hope, and great potential.

“Never was there a greater need for a genuine, rights-based society, for republicanism and a real democratic revolution. Because we are as determined to move forward and as determined to achieve complete freedom as the men and women who gathered here 100 years ago today.”

Source: Sinn Féin Newsroom

Posted in Ireland | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Friday Webcast · July 31, 2015

Friday evening webcast featuring Jeffrey Steinberg. Tonight Jeff will elaborate the statement issued Thursday on, “To Stop World War III, Hillary Must Expose Obama’s Benghazi Lies” and how close the world has come to thermonuclear war.

JASON ROSS:  Good evening.  Today is July 31, 2015, and you’re joining us for our regular Friday night webcast here at LaRouche PAC.  My name is Jason Ross, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeff Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review.

This week, Lyndon LaRouche has been very emphatic about the threat of war; emphasizing since the Policy Committee discussion on Monday that unless Obama is removed from office or stripped of any authority, that he has the August Congressional recess to spark a confrontation with Russia, which could lead to general warfare, thermonuclear war leading to the extermination of civilization in a matter of hours.  He said then, on Monday, that it would be a situation “where Obama will be free to launch war without any opposition.  And that’s extremely dangerous,” LaRouche said. “That war would mean probably a thermonuclear war. Russia would not launch the war, but Russia would be prepared to react to the launching of that war immediately.  And that’s the situation, and this can mean the extinction of a lot of people on the planet.”

So, the pretexts for this are multiplying; the dangers are multiplying.  The set-up of an ISIS-free zone on the Turkey-Syrian border; the strengthening push of Right Sector in Ukraine; the phony UN Security Council resolution on MH-17; the expanding sanctions against Russia; the scrambling of fighter jets in the Baltic nations to follow Russian planes between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad.  Or, consider the missile defense system being constructed in eastern Europe, which was supposedly to deal with the threat posed ostensibly by Iran; which is moving full steam ahead despite reaching a deal with that nation.

Russian President Putin spoke about this in a recent interview with Swiss TV.  He said,

“The process of starting a new arms race again from the moment of the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the ballistic missile defense [abm] treaty, because this agreement was a cornerstone for the entire international security system.  And when the U.S. withdrew from it and began to create a missile defense system as part of its global strategic weapons system, we immediately said we will be obliged to take reciprocal steps to maintain a strategic balance of power.”

President Putin went on,

“We are developing strike systems capable of overcoming any missile defense system.  I want to say something very important: We are doing this for ourselves, to insure the security of the Russian Federation; but we are also doing it for the rest of the world.  Because this strategic stability ensures the balance of power.”

The Russians have made it very clear that they won’t roll over and die if it comes to war; they will respond.

So, how to achieve this ouster of Obama?  LaRouche has pointed to the potential role of Hillary Clinton, who has the ability to stop Obama; to stop this danger by telling the truth. The truth about Benghazi, the attack on the American facilities there on Sept. 11th, 2012.  Since that attack, Lyndon LaRouche and his movement have been on the ball on this issue, from the period immediately following them; including a press conference that we’re going to play a clip of.  On Nov. 2nd, 2012, Jeff Steinberg and Lyndon LaRouche gave a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., to address the situation there.

And now, we’re going to see a clip from that event.

(See original footage here, and the original transcript in EIR with available graphics here.)

STEINBERG: “It goes without saying that the President of the United States owes us a certain number of answers to some very obvious questions: What did he know? Was he briefed in advance? Is it actually conceivable that, as we go into the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, there were no briefings provided to him in his Presidential Daily Briefing, or that there was no special briefing provided him by John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism advisor, as to the fact that there was a heightened risk, and there ought to be a beef-up of security in many places, but certainly Libya was one of the obvious ones. and in Benghazi in particular? There was this mountain of reports piling up over a period of six months or more, indicating that the security situation was out of control, and the Libyan government had no capacity whatsoever to deal with it.

“So, that’s one area—and I think simply these documents, which, as I say, are a select, but representative indication of just how much was known about how bad that situation was—that needs to be answered by the President.

“Yesterday afternoon, there was a background briefing for a select group of journalists at the CIA, and you’ll be reading a lot in the papers today about what the CIA tried to do, did or didn’t do; but still, there’s absolute silence from the White House, and particularly from the President. Urgent Cables to Washington …

“Now, the other thing is, the day of the attack itself.

“There were three e-mails that were made public. Initially, they were leaked to Reuters, and released to the general public. And there’s been no effort whatsoever by anybody in the Administration, to disclaim the legitimacy of these e-mails. So, the first of them (Figure 5) arrived in Washington at 4:05 p.m. Washington time, and you can you see that the names are blacked out of the people who received the e-mails, but you can see the indication that quite a few of them went to obviously different locations at State; this one,, is the National Security Staff at the Executive Office of the President, in other words, the White House Situation Room. And then, you have the FBI, the director of National Intelligence, several locations at the Pentagon.

“In other words, there was a burst transmission from the embassy in Tripoli, that was received in Washington in various official locations at 4:05 in the afternoon, Washington time, and the content of it was ‘Subject: U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi under attack. The regional security officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Embassy Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots. Explosives have been heard as well. Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi and four COM personnel [Chief of Mission] are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support. The operations center will provide updates as available.’

“Now, unless I have trouble understanding English, I don’t see anything in this initial report that talks about a demonstration, or talks about large crowds of people showing up at the consulate to protest a video. There were clearly incidents like that going on in other places, including in Cairo, but this initial report, which was the basis on which the CIA, according to their account yesterday afternoon, went into action, and actually marshalled up a team of people who were at a separate building, a mile away in Benghazi, deployed over to the consulate to try to basically rescue the people who were there.

“About 50 minutes later, a second cable e-mail came in to the same list…: ‘Update No. 1: U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Embassy Tripoli reports the firing at the U.S. diplomatic in Benghazi has stopped, and the compound has been cleared. A response team is on site attempting to locate COM personnel.’

“Then, the last of the documents made public, that came from Tripoli to Washington, on the afternoon as events were unfolding, simply says: ‘Update: Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack. Embassy Tripoli reports that group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on the embassy in Tripoli.’

“So, this, to my mind, raises another very significant question that is very disturbing. How is it possible that on Sept. 16, five days after the attack, that the President deployed UN Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on five different ‘talking heads’ Sunday morning interview shows, to say that this was not a terrorist incident, that this was a spontaneous mob upsurge in angry reaction to a video. A video that probably very few people in Libya even knew existed, given the chaotic conditions in the country. The idea that everybody was walking around with access to the Internet, and closely monitoring an obscure video that was never even made public really—a few excerpts were released—the idea that somehow or other, there was a spontaneous mass outpouring of people at the consulate to protest this, is preposterous. They knew, they knew on Sept. 11, what was actually happening.

“I haven’t even mentioned the fact that there are confirmed reports, as of yesterday, as of the CIA briefing, that there was an unarmed surveillance drone that was in the air over the compound, over the consulate, and also nearby, a mile away at the CIA annex. And there was live-stream video—fine, it was grainy, but there was live-stream video coming back to Washington. We don’t know whether anybody in the White House Situation Room was monitoring it. A Presidential spokesman yesterday claimed that nobody was watching it, and to my mind, that goes to the question of competence, and why was there no concern, at the very highest level of our national command authority, to deal with a crisis that was ongoing. There was no way to know whether this thing was over or not.

“And so, five days later, Ambassador Rice went on five national TV shows and lied to the American people. Two days after that, President Obama himself appeared on the ‘David Letterman Show'; and several days after that, was interviewed on ‘The View,’ and after that, appeared before the world community in his address before the UN General Assembly, and repeated the same lie; he tried to change the subject, and divert attention away from the fact that the U.S. consulate had been targeted for a terrorist attack, and that a U.S. ambassador and three other officials were killed. And it had nothing to do whatsoever with a video, with a mass protest demonstration.

“From the very moment that Washington was alerted to what was going on, it was clear that it was an armed attack by a group of 20 or so people, and there was a follow-on attack that occurred at the CIA annex later in the day.”

ROSS:  So, that was Nov. 2nd, 2012, less than two months after the Sept. 11th, 2012 attack there. I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to give us an update on the importance of this, in regards to the war threat today.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks Jason. Well, I think for starters, we’re now nearly three years beyond when that press conference occurred, and when the Sept. 11th, 2012 attack occurred in Benghazi, and we are still, yet, to have any plausible explanation, or answer to any of the questions that Mr. LaRouche and I posed at that National Press Club briefing: from President Obama, from Susan Rice, who is now of course the National Security Advisor to President Obama.  And so, we’re in a situation today where quite a bit of additional information has come out.  None of it has come from the White House, but this puts the question of Hillary Clinton very squarely on the table.

In the spring of 2014,  Edward Klein came out with book called Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas, dealing with the rather tumultuous relationship between the Obama and the Clinton families, and there was a particular chapter in that book that was based on interviews, with a number of people who were directly involved in the events of Sept. 11th, 2012, including people who were in close proximity of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and people who were on the ground in Libya.

So, in point of fact, we know a great deal more about what occurred, what’s only missing right now, to fully corroborate and fill out this picture, is commentary from Hillary Clinton. Because that is sufficient, right at this moment, to block the drive towards war, a war that could become very quickly, a general war, and in fact a thermonuclear war that would represent the extinction of mankind.

We’re in a countdown because as of yesterday, the House of Representatives has left Washington, not scheduled to return until after Labor Day in early September; within several days, the U.S. Senate, a week at most, will also be gone, and so, you have an extraordinary dangerous window of time: August of 2015 could very well be the window that President Obama uses to provoke a confrontation with Russia, that would lead to a general thermonuclear war.  And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our conversations earlier today, that war would be very fast.  It would be over in a matter of hours, and the net result would be in all likelihood, the extinction of human life on this planet.

Now, that is a very, very, serious threat, and it’s therefore incumbent on Hillary Clinton, to step forward and say what she actually knows.  Because only that kind of action in the absence of Congress being in Washington, can put the kinds of limitations, literally launch the impeachment process, or forced resignation process of President Obama, that is the necessary precondition to be genuinely confident, that we’re not on the cusp of World War III.

Now, we had the statements made by President Putin that Jason quoted a few moments ago.  There are some other elements of this situation that are also worth taking note of:  Russia, since the beginning of the drive for confrontation with Russia, beginning with the coup that overthrew the Yanukovych government in Ukraine and started the process of military actions, right on the border with Russia; from that point on, the Russian leadership came to the obvious and appropriate conclusion that there was a grave danger, that there was going to be a major war provoked against Russia.

And so not only did President Putin publicly say, last week, and on a number of previous occasions that Russia has the ability to launch an absolute, unquestionable, second retaliatory strike against anyone attacking Russia, but we know a great deal about what they’ve been able to accomplish.  There’s been a substantial investment in the upgrading and modernization of Russia’s entire strategic nuclear force.  There have been in the past months alone, dozens of incidents in which the Russian air force demonstrated the ability of fly strategic bombers into the airspace adjacent to NATO territory — all done in international airspace and in international waters, so there’s been no formal violations, of any sovereignty, but the message was intended to be delivered very clearly, that Russia understands that they are under threat of attack, and that they have an absolutely, unquestionable second-strike capability that will survive any kind of attack that they might be subjected to.

In recent months, there have been instances of Russian submarines being as close to U.S. coastal waters as the Gulf of Mexico; again, fairly and legitimately in international waters, but the message is clear.

This past week, Russia declared the National Endowment for Democracy to be a persona non grata organization in Russia. They’ve been kicked out.  And of course, NED is the “mother” of all of the color revolution organizations, all of the private-sector groups, like Freedom House and Human Rights Watch and all of the various entities are all tightly affiliated with and funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.  The Vice President of the NED, Nadia Diuk, is part of the Banderist networks, here in the United States that are allied with Victoria Nuland, and allied with those Right Sector, literally neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who represent one of the potential instrumentalities for launching this confrontation with Russia.

So make no mistake about it:  This period of August is not just something that we view as a particularly dangerous moment, but is something that is widely recognized.  It’s recognized in Russia.  There is a strategic analyst at the U.S. Navy War College, who released an email that he received from a European NATO official, saying that if we are lucky, we will avoid having a general war begin during the summer of this year. And parenthetically, the European NATO official said, “and furthermore, we’ll be specially lucky if it’s not a thermonuclear war.”

I had personal discussions with a number of NATO representatives posted here in Washington, D.C., and they’ve confidentially said that they are scared to death, about the density of NATO deployments and maneuvers right on the Russian border, in the Black Sea, in the Baltic Sea, in land areas adjacent.  And so the danger of that kind of intense deployment, particularly under the circumstances where Congress is out of Washington, and there’s very little check and balance on President Obama.  This is a matter of grave danger, possibly an existential issue, of survival.

Now in that context, what does Hillary Clinton know? According to the Edward Klein book — which is based on public statements and interviews conducted with a number of actual, live participants, eyewitnesses, to these events — we know that the State Department Operations Center was receiving updates virtually every 15 minutes, from the time of the first report of the initial attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, right up through at least 6 o’clock p.m., at which point it was known that Ambassador Stevens and one communications officer from his Embassy staff were dead. And of course, very soon after that, the assault on the CIA compound a mile away began, which resulted in two other people being killed.

Now, at 10 o’clock that night, according to eyewitness accounts, President Obama placed a telephone call to Hillary Clinton, and ordered Secretary of State Clinton to put out a press release, announcing that the attack on the mission in Benghazi had been spontaneous, and had been an outgrowth of protests over the release of a video that slandered the Prophet Mohammad.

Now as Klein pointed out, and as the several hundred pages of documents that were already released at the time of Mr. LaRouche’s and my press conference on Nov. 2nd, 2012, State Department, White House, Pentagon, CIA, DNI Office — all of the relevant national security agencies — knew that there had been a premeditated, planned-out, heavily-armed attack that had been launched.  There was no protest demonstration.  There was no connection whatsoever to the video.  What had happened, is that the head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al Zawahiri, had put out, number one, a call for attacks against the United States on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks.  And he had put out particularly an order to seek revenge against the fact that number-three in al-Qaeda, a Libyan by birth, had been killed in a U.S. drone strike in June of 2012.

So in other words, it was transparently clear — it was clear in Washington by no later than 6 p.m. on Sept. 11th, 2012 — that the United States had been subjected to yet another deadly attack from al-Qaeda.  Ansar al-Sharia was the local al-Qaeda affiliate in the Benghazi-Derna area.  The State Department had produced in August of 2012, a detailed timeline of terrorist attacks that had taken place in Benghazi, in Tripoli, but particularly in the Benghazi area, for months and months leading up to Sept. 11th.  The British Ambassador had been subjected to an attack on a car caravan, when he was visiting Benghazi.  Things had gotten so dangerous that the Red Cross had pulled all of its personnel out of Benghazi.  There had been previous attacks on the U.S. diplomatic missions in Benghazi; and one of the State Department documents, which obviously reflected intelligence shared with the CIA, with the Pentagon, and with the White House, indicated that emissaries of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and Pakistan had been deployed into the Benghazi area, and had already recruited several hundred locals.  Some of them were being transported into Syria, along with large amounts of weapons that had been captured by various forces when Qaddafi was overthrown and murdered, back in the end of 2011.

So all of this was known in advance.  And when Secretary Clinton received the phone call from President Obama — according to the news accounts and according to Edward Klein’s book which was based on, again, interviews with people who were witness to that discussion — Secretary Clinton said, “Mr. President, this is not credible, we know what happened here.”  Obama said, “Forget it, I want you to issue this press release.’  Hillary Clinton said, “I’ll call you right back.”  She got on the phone with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.  They mulled over what the implications were.  Bill Clinton apparently obviously said the same thing, this is not credible, nobody will believe this, this is ridiculous.  This was an al-Qaeda pre-meditated attack.

They considered the fact that it was September of 2012, less than two months away from the elections.  At that time, President Obama’s re-election chances were by no means a certainty, and the President had campaigned aggressively on the fact that al-Qaeda had been destroyed, that the killing of Osama bin Laden had represented the routing of the organization.  And much of his Presidential campaign in 2012 was centered on that one event, the killing of bin Laden, and the fact that al-Qaeda had been defeated.

Suddenly, Benghazi meant that in fact al-Qaeda had not been defeated, and if you fast-forward to today, and consider that al-Qaeda in Iraq morphed into the Islamic State, and the United States is back on the ground in Iraq, in Syria, now in Libya as well, fighting against a new iteration of al-Qaeda, you get an idea of the magnitude of the lie and the fraud that was told by President Obama, on that night when the Benghazi attack occurred.

We still don’t know what happened between 5 o’clock in that evening, when the President met with Defense Secretary Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, and then retired to the East Wing, to the residence; and then to the 10 o’clock phone call that was made to Hillary Clinton.  We really have zero idea of what the President was doing in that critical five-hour period.  We know that there was no adequate military response, even though there were options that were available, options that could have at least been in place in Benghazi, prior to the time that the second phase of the attack began against the CIA Annex a mile away from the consulate that had now been burned to the ground, basically.

So at 10 o’clock that call happened.  Hillary Clinton considered her options.  If she resigned and went public, and made clear that the President had ordered her to lie, and that she was not going to do that, number one, Obama would be defeated for re-election, unquestionably.  Number two, she would be blamed for it by most Democrats. And number three, whatever prospects she held out for a future Presidential run post-Obama, herself, would be down the tubes.

So she made a very unfortunate decision: She issued the press release sometime between 10 and 10:30 that night, and used the formulations that were ordered to her, by President Obama. The net effect is that we’ve been living a lie ever since, and now we’re at a point where that’s coming home to roost.  There was an agreement reached just this past week, between Hillary Clinton and Trey Gowdy, who is the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, that she will appear to testify under oath, on Oct. 21st or 22nd.  We now that some time prior to Hillary Clinton’s testimony there, her chief of staff as Secretary of State, Cheryl Mills, will be also called to testify. Cheryl Mills was the White House Counsel under President Bill Clinton.

So sooner or later, both Secretary Clinton and her key staff people are going to be forced to tell the truth, under oath, and the question is, will that truth come out in time to prevent the Guns of August from being unleashed?

It’s not a question of whether or not the truth will come out.  Right now, we’re dealing with an account, that is from everything that we’ve been able to determine, highly credible and quite accurate.  What’s missing is the eyewitness statement coming from Secretary Clinton.  Regardless of the consequences, she has a profound moral obligation to basically correct the terrible mistake that she made, on the night of Sept. 11th, 2012.  She knew what her options were, she knew one option was to go public, to resign; and to let the American people know what actually happened!

Now of course, she tried to do things “after the fact,” after she had committed that terrible mistake.  The State Department did release hundreds of pages of documents.  She was the first administration senior official, cabinet official to actually call the attack an “act of terrorism.”

President Obama refused to do that for quite some time. Susan Rice refused in her interviews on the 16th of September of 2012, to say anything remotely resembling the truth.  She was ambitious to become Secretary of State.  Hillary Clinton, who would have been the person you would have expected, to go on national television, one of her own diplomats, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, had been murdered, and she knew the score. But because she was being told to go on national television, and lie to the American people, she refused to go on television. Susan Rice did, and delivered the script exactly as it was formulated through a combination of State Department and CIA and White House NSC people. (By the way, one of the key State Department people involved in crafting the “talking points,” was Victoria Nuland.)

So here we are, it’s  August 2015 in just a  matter of hours.  We’re in potential countdown to an Obama provocation against Russia, that could lead to thermonuclear war, and the pressure is on Hillary Clinton:  Will you come forward, now, at this point — don’t wait till Oct. 21st or 22nd — come forward now, in the interest of the survival of mankind.  If the chances of this happening were 5%, were 1%, what would be the right thing to do, if it was in your power to make sure that such a confrontation can be avoided?  Could you possibly ignore the responsibilities, and defer from coming forward, right now, at this moment, and telling the truth?  That’s what’s required.

It’s not even a question any longer, of whether or not the truth will ultimately come out of on this.  She will be appearing, before Congress in a matter of months.  I can assure you, that the Committee will be asking these questions.  Carly Fiorina, who’s a Republican candidate for President, came out in the last 24 hours, and said that when she’s in a position of debating Hillary Clinton, the first question she will ask, is for a full and honest accounting, of what happened in Benghazi?  What she knows about the actions and behavior of President Obama?

So there’s no doubt that this is going to be an existential issue for Hillary Clinton, particularly, as she still considers herself a serious candidate for President of the United States. This Benghazi issue cannot be postponed:  It can happen in October, in which case the full extent of what she does will come out, whether she tells the truth, whether she lies and once again, makes the tragic mistake of falling on the sword, for President Obama, who deserves no such sympathy!  Or, whether she comes out and tells the whole truth, October may be too late.

So, now is the moment of truth.  Now is the point that we are calling Hillary Clinton to step forward, and in an open and public and transparent way, tell us what you know.  You are in a unique position to bring down this Presidency, at a point where the survival of mankind may be actually what’s on the line.

ROSS:  Thank you, Jeff.  I think tonight, we’ll leave it with that.  We’ll stick to this very focused message.

Thank you for joining us, thank you for your past and your future support:  We have quite a job to do.  Good night.

Posted in Friday Webcast | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche, July 30, 2015

Tune in for our weekly Q&A dialogue with Mr. LaRouche. Have a question? Call our national center at 800-929-7566 to get on the next call live, or write your question in the YouTube comments section and we’ll get them to our host, John Ascher.

Posted in Lyndon LaRouche | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Eisenhower Blocked Nuclear War; Kennedy Blocked Nuclear War; Does Hillary Have the Guts?

Hillary Clinton probably has the fate of the human species in her hands. If she acts now to expose what she personally knows about Obama’s lying criminality concerning the September 11, 2012 murders of four United States government representatives in Benghazi, Libya,— then Hillary’s Presidential campaign will be at an end, because she will be forced to betray her own complicity (even if it was reluctant complicity), with Obama. But she will have saved humanity from probable extinction, in a thermonuclear war which Obama will otherwise launch against Russia and China during the month of August, with Congress out of session.

Now it is only that one voice, that of the hitherto complicit Hillary Clinton, in breaking with her own complicity, which can either throw Obama out of office during August,— or else bring him so close to impeachment and conviction during August, that he is unable to launch the war which his mistress, the British Queen, demands.

Hillary’s personal situation,— that of her awesome personal responsibility at this instant,— may be unusual, but it is by no means unprecedented. If there has been no international nuclear war since 1945, causing hundreds of millions of casualties or worse, it has been because some US Presidents, and others, have passed the test which now confronts Hillary Clinton. They passed it because they came to recognize that absolutely no personal consideration, no sacrifice,— even that of their own lives and more, if it comes to that,— could remotely be compared with thermonuclear war. And today, unlike in those past decades, that war might be as short as two days, and would likely end the existence of our species.

Eisenhower had said in 1946, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.” When Eisenhower decided to run for President, he recognized the drift of Truman and the Truman Administration towards nuclear war, and was determined to reverse it. In the 1954 Dienbienphu crisis, as in the 1956 Suez crisis, he understood that descent into nuclear war was around the corner, and acted accordingly. Eisenhower inspired the institution of the U.S. Presidency for the truth, as he stated it in 1956, that “The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.”

The true facts of how close we came to nuclear war in 1962, and of everything President John F. Kennedy did to avoid it, are even today only known to very few. How he used his brother Robert as a totally-secret channel to the Soviet leadership, circumventing his contaminated cabinet and even his White House. He knew that their advice would probably lead to a devastating war. How he persuaded the Soviets to give up a large part of their war-making capacity. For all those critical days, only that one single objective dominated him totally. But he reached that objective,— even at the cost of his life.

Nor should it be forgotten how Pope John XXIII, then just as close to the end of his own life as was President Kennedy, himself boldly intervened into that crisis, totally on his own responsibility and against the advice of his Curia.

The mention of the Pope should remind us of how the office, or, better said, the responsibility, changes the man. It should remind us of St. Paul’s conversion on Damascus Road. This change, or the potentiality for this change, is the only meaning of being human. Those who deny that Hillary Clinton can make this change are guilty of a criminal cynicism about themselves.

Posted in Stopping WW III | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Putin Prepares Russia for War with West; Shuts Down U.S. NED

On Tuesday Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the shutdown the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Russia, under a law passed by the Russian Parliament and signed by Putin in May. The Russian Parliament declared the NED an “undesirable” organization under that law, which bans groups from abroad which are deemed a “threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities, and its national security.”

The NED is clearly not simply an NGO, but the very heavily funded “mother of all NGOs” being used in British/Obama “color revolution” operations for regime change around the world. Thus the Putin government’s banning of it has unmistakable significance.

In addition to the reorganization and modernization of the entire Russian defense triad, and Putin’s denunciation of the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty as a war threat, the shutdown of the NED is another loud and clear warning that Russia is aware that it is facing an existential war threat, brought on by the Obama Administration-run coup in Ukraine and declared intent to place NATO weapons on its border. The May law on “undesirables” follows a law signed in 2012 that gave Russian authorities the power to declare organizations “foreign agents” if they engage in any kind of politics and receive money from abroad. Yet after that law, the Obama Administration flagrantly supported a “color revolution” against Ukraine’s legitimately elected government.

With the outright Banderite Nadia Diuk being the vice-president of NED with responsibility for Eurasia for the past several years, the NED was in the center of 2011 attempts to stage a “color revolution” against the Russian government and its elections; and of course was a guiding force in preparing and carrying out the Banderite overthrow of the Ukraine government. “The U.S. would like Russia to cease to exist as a country,” said the director of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolay Patrushev, on June 22 of this year. He also said, “The Americans seek to dominate the world…. It’s clear that the hidden agenda of destabilization of this country [ukraine] is creating an instrument to radically weaken Russia.” President Putin gave a similar assessment of the situation, and the need to take actions against it, to the Security Council meeting of July 3.

In a lengthy editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, titled “Power Mad,” with a large picture of President Putin, the Post feigns incredulity that NED programs to bring down the regime through education, fighting “corruption,” and promotion of “human rights,” could be outlawed. Demonstrating its “high dudgeon,” the Post also runs an op-ed by Carl Gershman, the President of the NED, called “Putin’s Fear of Civil Society.” It might better be titled, “Putin’s Internal Preparations for the West’s Launching of War.”

Posted in Stopping WW III | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

LaRouchePAC New Paradigm Q&A: Logic, God, and Darwin

Should we blame logic for its misuse? Do we blame guns for shooting people? How should we think about Creation? Have we been negligent in not praising Darwin as we have Vernadsky? Join us this week as we field questions from you, our audience. Questions can be submitted in the comments section on YouTube or via Facebook or Twitter (@newparadigm).

Posted in New Paradigm Show | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment