25 October LaRouche Webcast

Watch the Webcast here

Transcript:

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 25th, 2013. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be moderating tonight’s
webcast. You’re viewing our weekly Friday event, which features
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche; and we will follow the format that we have
been following, with a series of questions that will be presented
by myself and Dennis Mason, who is joining me tonight, to which
Mr. LaRouche will have an opportunity to respond.
So, we begin with a question from a source in Washington,
D.C. And it’s a short question. It reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, can the United States mold a new constructive
strategy in the Middle and Near East, by forging a more inclusive
relationship with Iran, Russia, China, and India, and other
states in the region? If so, will that be the end of the
Sykes-Picot Agreement? What approach do you envision to achieve
such a strategic arrangement?”

LYNDON LAROUCHE: There is about one way, and only one way,
that this could be pulled off. First of all, it {can} be done,
but what has to be done, it has to start from the United States,
and the United States has to put Glass-Steagall into place
{first}. Doing that first creates the basis, in the United States
Glass-Steagall system, for relating now other nations to the same
thing as the Glass-Steagall system. In other words, without
starting with a Glass-Steagall system, or the equivalent of a
Glass-Steagall system, you could not possibly accomplish this.
However, if the United States, which is a homeland of
Glass-Steagall, starts the process, then the other nations will
have very little difficulty in adapting themselves to almost an
identical policy. That’s what will work.
This is what {has} to work, because we have to realize that
we are now on the edge of thermonuclear war. We’ve been hovering
on that for some time, right now. Therefore, we need a system
which deals with that problem. And since the United States {has}
a Glass-Steagall record inside, and in fact our Constitution
actually is the basis for Glass-Steagall in the first place. So
our constitutional system sets up the pattern that the other
nations wish to agree [on], and right now most of these nations
have no choice {but} to do that, because they need a change from
a monetarist system to a Glass-Steagall system. That’s what the
difference is. And therefore, since we have the kind of system
that does that already, by the other nations coming in on the
same system, they automatically have the benefit of having that
kind of Classical program, as opposed to what they would do
otherwise.
This actually {will work}, and probably it’s the only thing
that {would} work. And I think if we take a list of the number of
nations you could identify, these nations together will actually
define the basis for an almost {immediate} clicking-in of a
Glass-Steagall type of program.

OGDEN: This next question is from Prof. Yelena Borisova, who
is the head of the Anti-Globalist Movement in Russia–or, as they
call themselves, Antiglobaliskaya Dvizhenie Rossii. First, just
by way of background, this question pertains to the widespread
debate following President Obama’s speech on September 17th,
which was three days after the Lavrov-Kerry agreement was reached
in Geneva concerning Syria. In this speech, Obama announced that
he had been forced by General Dempsey, the U.S. Congress, the
American people, to put his previously announced plan to launch a
bombing campaign against Syria on hold. But Obama ended that
speech, quite inappropriately, mind you, by invoking “American
Exceptionalism.” The following day, an editorial was published by
Vladimir Putin, which appeared in the {New York Times}. And that
editorial ended with Putin making a scathing criticism of Obama’s
usage of this term.
What Putin said was: “I would rather disagree with a case
that Obama made on ‘American Exceptionalism,’ stating that the
United States’ policy ‘is what makes America different, it’s what
makes us exceptional.'” Putin continued, “It is extremely
dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as ‘exceptional,’
whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small
countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions,
and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies
differ, too. We are all different. But when we ask for the Lord’s
blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
So, that said by way of background, here is Professor
Borisova’s question. What she says is:
“There’s great deal of discussion in Russia right now about
Obama’s assertion of U.S. exceptionalism. People are saying this
is practically comparable with the Nazis’ notion of
exceptionalism–exclusive nature of the German race.” She says,
“I think that there’s some linguistic confusion here. For us, the
exclusive nature of a country or a people violates the idea that
all men are brothers. So, the connotations are extremely
negative. But perhaps in English this word does not have such
connotations, but rather refers simply to an outstanding place in
history? Nobody would argue with that. Maybe we linguists”–she’s
a professor in philology–“need to clear things up and mitigate
this aggravation. We would put something on this subject on our
site, and circulate it widely. Thank you.”

LAROUCHE: Well, the origin of the concept of American
Exceptionalism has a historical background, and people who do now
know U.S. history are therefore at a loss to make an intelligent
approach to what this subject is. The point is: We had a
situation where Europe was going repeatedly into oligarchical
disorders. It was a terrible condition. In this process, toward
the end of his life, one of the greatest men who ever lived
[Nicholas of Cusa] set up this concept. And that concept of
{his}, was the basis which then informed Christopher Columbus as
to how to deal with this problem. And what we had in the United
States, which included the Massachusetts Bay Colony as an example
of this, we had an {exceptional} condition. Exceptional to what?
Exceptional to taking exception {against} what the European
systems were, the oligarchical systems. It’s the exception
{against the oligarchical system} that’s crucial. And Obama, of
course, fits in with the oligarchical system perfectly. He’s a
tool of the European oligarchy. He {is} an exceptional–well, in
a different sense, in the sense of what you don’t want.
But that’s the point. So the point is, this is a historic
point, that mankind has suffered from oligarchical rule, in all
kinds of circumstances. In the United States, or what became the
United States, what happened in two phases–one is the initial
phase with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and then later in the
American Revolution–we came up with this exception: that the
basis for our authority is {human}–human as opposed to
{oligarchical}.
Unfortunately, in this process, Obama has a completely
oligarchical mentality, and what he needs is an exception to
himself!

DENNIS MASON: Well, I have a question on the nature of
currency, to maybe clear something up there as well. In the
recent period, several books have come out in Europe, calling for
a return to national currencies. In particular, there’s a book by
François Heisbourg, who is chair of the International institute
for Strategic Studies. And in there, he calls for France and
Germany to make secret preparations, take a long weekend, and
just do it.
Now, while we have called for a return to sovereign
currencies, with your wife Helga in particular consistently
calling for Germany’s return to the deutschemark, this is {not}
that. What {we} propose, we propose it as part of a comprehensive
program for economic development. {This} would be a disaster. A
mere issuance of currency, with a different packaging, will not
solve the problem in Europe any more than Glass-Steagall by
itself, with no economic program, would solve the problem here.
How you manage the money on its own, is absolutely meaningless
without a program for economic development. And I think this is
an important concept which bears repeating, not necessarily for
those who are calling for a return to the currencies–because
they’re not looking for a solution–but for those who {are}
actually looking for a lasting solution to the crisis. Can you
elaborate on this?

LAROUCHE: Well, the idea of currency is really a
complication here, because the American System is not based on a
monetary system. It’s not a money system. We use something we
designate as money, but the money is subordinated to a higher
principle: a credit system.
The point is, you do not have a currency which you use as a
standard for measuring different kinds of products. What you have
to do, is you have to realize that, as defined by Alexander
Hamilton in some detail, in defining the constitutional principle
of the United States, and that is: We do not operate ourselves on
a {monetary} system. That is, we do not set up {money} as having
its own independent value. We rather look at the thing from the
price standpoint, as Alexander Hamilton did. You’re looking at
the price, the comparison of the process of flow, in terms of
increments of value, as the process of production and circulation
proceeds.
In other words, you can start with a farmer–a typical kind
of thing in an early period. Most people were farmers. Then they
would grow different kinds of crops, raise and manage them. And
they would find that there were increments of value that were
sort of natural increments with each one of these changes.
And so, our system, our American System, this is what the
Glass-Steagall system {tends} to do. It does not always do that;
it depends on how it’s managed and what government is managing
it. But the Glass-Steagall system is actually not a {monetarist}
system; it’s a {credit system.} In other words, the credit is
what you give for the value of what you’ve produced. If each
person in the succession adds value, in terms of {use-value}, in
that process, that is value. So, that’s a {credit} system, and
the credit system is based also on the comparative value of the
way people produce: If they’re more productive, then they are
more valuable. So, the whole point here, the reason why I
emphasized this before, is that when you’re looking at it from
a–
So, in that process of a credit system, you eliminate the
monetarist speculative value. For example, today what do we have?
We have a filthy system under Obama. And we had something pretty
bad like that before. Kennedy was moving in the right
direction–John F. Kennedy–but he got shot, because the British
monetarists, and the Dutch monetarists {killed} him–or that is,
they were the ones who wanted him killed, and they wanted his
brother killed for the same reason. And the cover-up by certain
people in this country–the same people that went into the war in
Indochina–they were traitors to the United States in fact. They
were also the condoners, if not the actual murderers, of
President Kennedy.
So, these are the kinds of criteria that people have to
learn, if they’re going to become civilized in a way that mankind
{has} to become civilized now among nations, to get rid of the
{money} system, or monetarist system, and understand what is
meant by Alexander Hamilton, for example, as a credit system. And
our U.S. system of money is based on a {credit} system, not a
monetary system. And therefore, we represent a standard which is
a {realistic} standard from the standpoint of productivity.
So, we do not believe that you should take money and
speculate on the value of money, which is what is happening on
Wall Street. That’s the hyperinflation that’s killing us: the
speculation on the value of money–gambling, in other words just
plain gambling. And this was produced in the United States during
the recent period, where gambling, in Indian reservations and
elsewhere, was spread as a way of spreading gambling {per se}.
And Wall Street today is nothing but worthless value, which is
gambling. We could wipe out every bit of Wall Street, and the
human beings would not miss anything. Nobody would be deprived of
anything worth having. The best thing to do would be to just
close down on Wall Street, because I can tell you–and I’m
certain of this–that there is no real value in Wall Street
today. We could wipe them all out, cancel all their assets, and
nothing would be lost, of any value.

MASON: Okay, I have two questions that have come in from Dr.
Mark Shelley. As you know, Dr. Shelley is a practicing physician
based out of Pennsylvania. He held a press conference yesterday,
where he announced his new movement, Doctors Against Murderous
Obamacare, and delivered his manifesto, the text of which can be
found on the LaRouche PAC website. He calls on his fellow
physicians and medical doctors to join him in calling for three
initiatives: Number one, to “Restore the essence of the
Hippocratic Oath as the philosophical center of the medical
professions,” rather than subordinating health care to the Wall
Street “population reduction” agenda. Number two, to “Restore the
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933,” to liberate the United States
economy, including the medical system, from the crushing effects
of the biggest hyperinflationary debt bubble in history. And
three, to impeach Barack Obama, saying: “Multiple legal
authorities have already assembled articles of impeachment. This
man has failed you, and will allow you to die, with his inept and
undeniably lethal policies that masquerade as ‘health care
reform.’ It is time for the American people and their medical
community to wake up, before it is too late.”
So, Dr. Shelley’s questions are as follows:
“One: How can we reawaken the necessary compassion and
spirituality of the American medical profession? I’m asking this
question because I was quite provoked by my recent reading of Dr.
Leo Alexander’s classic essay on ‘Medical Science Under
Dictatorship,’ which appeared in the July issue of the {New
England Journal of Medicine} in 1949. Dr. Alexander spoke with
clairvoyance regarding the current state of American medicine. I
found it chilling to recognize that the process of Hegelian
utilitarianism that Dr. Alexander described as having taken over
German medicine in the late 1930s, is the process that is
consuming American lives and medicine today. I have called upon
American medical professionals to recommit themselves to their
inherent compassion, by rediscovering and re-embracing the
principles of the Hippocratic Oath.
“What do you suggest be done to bring about this necessary
spiritual reawakening?”
And then secondly, he asks: “What is the time-frame for a
thoroughgoing change in our health-care delivery system after the
re-enactment of Glass-Steagall? What will the change be like? How
long would it take?”

LAROUCHE: Okay, well, in some cases it confuses me, {but},
the question — because I agree with it, generally — the
question is, what could I add to what he has said, as in these
remarks?  And the point is, we have to, first of all, cancel the
idea of a monetarist system, that’s the first thing you have to
do.
And you also will have to something, what’s called an
exemplary action.  An exemplary action is to bankrupt Wall
Street.  Because what you have to do, you have to get {rid} of a
system which uses usury, which is what it really is, and you have
the usury of money, and then becomes the usury of health care.
Where the purpose of the health care is, in a sense, is not
health, but it’s begging for money.  It’s swindling.  It’s
gambling.  So that the physician is put in a position, of in
fact, {gambling}, rather than medical delivery.  The medical
service delivery is an associated feature, if there’s anything in
it.  But the whole system has to be changed fundamentally.
Therefore my only confusion is, if we get Glass-Steagall in,
and bankrupt Wall Street {as it should be bankrupted}, because it
has no intrinsic value!  How could we float, in our system, a
system of gambling, and that’s what medicine is becoming, it’s
becoming gambling.  You don’t deliver much to the patient, you
don’t even have to look at the patient.  You just gamble — in
effect, gambling.
So this is what we have to go, really, back to what?  To
Nicholas of Cusa’s understanding, of the necessity of getting out
of Europe, in those times, in order to free mankind by going
across the great waters of oceans, to find a new land which is
not full of European oligarchical principles.
But the point is, the fact that we put something out there
— call it money or call it the equivalent of value — and make
that the issue of medical service, in this case, that is rotten.
Therefore, you need a nice purgative job.  “You say that you have
these assets in Wall Street, hmmm?  Fine.  How do you define
these assets in Wall Street?  {Ahhhh}!  So you’re not really
concerned about what’s doing some actual service, you’re
concerned about swindling.  You’re playing {a game of gambling}.
And that’s all it is.
So we have to destroy the gambling system.  Because the
gambling system is polluting our currency, it’s polluting our
economy.  We want a system like that which Alexander Hamilton
specified.  Everybody pays a decent price, something that
corresponds to value, and is paid for a decent job done, in a
decent way.  And that’s the only we get —  really, we have to go
to the {root} of the evil.  Don’t try to reform evil.  Eliminate
it.  That’s the solution.

OGDEN:  Okay, a question on taking exception with Barack
Obama.  Tomorrow in Washington, D.C. there’s going to be a mass
march against NSA surveillance.  Both Representatives John
Conyers and Justin Amash are going to be there, and remember,
they were the two congressmen who sponsored the bipartisan bill
against the NSA’s domestic surveillance program.  And, Edward
Snowden himself has written a personal message, a very rare
event,  direct communication to the American people, in which he
states,
“In the last four months, we’ve learned a lot about our
government. We’ve learned that the U.S. intelligence community
secretly built a system of pervasive surveillance. Today, no
telephone in America makes a call without leaving a record with
the NSA. Today, no Internet transaction enters or leaves America
without passing through the NSA’s hands. Our representatives in
Congress tell us this is not surveillance. They’re wrong.”
And then he calls on the American people to participate in
this march which is going to be occurring tomorrow in Washington,
D.C.  Also, a video promoting the march, which was posted on the
website, makes clear a parallel in this case, to Nixon, featuring
Daniel Ellsberg, whose leaking of {The Pentagon Papers}, began
the process which eventually led to the ousting of Richard Nixon.
It also includes footage of Robert Kennedy calling for a defense
of America’s Constitutional rights, and a little glimpse of J.
Edgar Hoover, as well. [https://rally.stopwatching.us/]
This march comes on the heels of the latest international
summit to be derailed, in which the previously scheduled agenda,
in this case, a free trade agreement between the United States
and the EU, has been forced to be scrapped because of leaks that
appeared in the press the day before. And instead, the subject of
the summit has now become desperate attempts at damage control by
the Obama Administration; and this is now being called “the Handy
summit,”  — “{Handy}” being the German word for cell phone —
because the story came out the night before the summit, that
documents from Edward Snowden showed that the NSA has been
monitoring Chancellor Angela Merkel’s communications through
constant surveillance of her cellular telephone, along with 35
other world leaders.
So this is really just the latest in a pattern of such
summits that have been disrupted in precisely this way, going all
the way back to Obama’s meeting with Xi Jinping, which was
derailed because of revelations the night before that the United
States was hacking into China’s computer systems; and also
including the President of Brazil’s scathing speech at the United
Nations, accompanied by her cancellation of her official state
visit to Washington, D.C.  And the whole time, Obama has been
forced ever-increasingly onto the defensive, and any authority
that he may have had to bully or intimidate on the world stage
has been undermined and severely eroded.
And of course, this whole process has run in parallel with
President Putin’s successful outflanking of Obama’s drive to
ignite world war in Syria, {and} President Xi Jinping’s
consolidation of global leadership towards a new paradigm of
development and attempts at strategic and economic stability.
So my question for you is, what insights could you give our
viewers, as to how to understand these developments in the
Snowden case, on a grand scale, in terms of geo-strategy and what
you referred to last night as the systemic orchestration of the
downfall of Obama.

LAROUCHE:  Yes, I was very happy with that thesis.  No,
there is no possibility that this system can be tolerated. That’s
the essential thing.  It’s not a question of what are you going
to do within the system, to please the system, to the degree that
the system is happy, and you may be happy or not.  So the whole
thing is a fraud.  You go back to the basics.  The entire system
that they’re dealing with has two characteristics. One is that, I
just referred to:  The thing is a complete fraud, it’s a
monetarist system, and which should be eliminated.  And it’s
exactly what our Constitution provided, the elimination of that
kind of system.
The other factor is, that {behind} all this, there’s a
motive.  It’s not that people have just chosen to do something.
This had a {motive}.  The motive is called the oligarchical
principle.  Now people will recognize the oligarchical principle
in some aspects of its application and expression.
But they don’t really understand it.  The Queen of England
has made, a very clear statement, repeatedly, of {what that
means}.  What that means is, as she has said, the necessary
function, is to reduce the human population which is now
approaching 7 billion people, {to reduce back to 1!}   And that’s
only on the way.
Now, this is not unusual, really.  It’s unusual in certain
aspects in terms of this time in history and so forth, but in
principle it’s not.  This is the oligarchical system, is a system
which treats itself as made up of, not human beings, but animals.
And some animals who are the on-top animals, and some animals on
the bottom animals, and some in the middle.
And so therefore, the idea is to prevent man having the
power of mind, the power of the human mind, to create value, not
just value as money, but value in very sense of life.  For
example, the human species is distinct from all other animals, by
the principle of what?  the principle of increase of the energy
flux density, expressed by the human animal.
So therefore, the principle here, is look at the chemistry
textbooks.  Take any good chemistry textbook, and what does it
tell you?  You map yourself, through that process to higher and
higher orders of energy flux density; that’s the characteristic
of the success of the human species.  No animal, no animal has
that ability.  Only mankind is known to have that ability, the
ability to rise in the tables of chemistry, to higher and higher
orders of chemistry, energy flux density.  And the chemistry has
something to do with the way it works.
So that’s our intention, that must be our intention.
Now, what she’s doing, the Queen, and people like her, like
the Roman Emperor, Nero, for example, what they’re doing is
they’re saying, “we are super animals.  We are essentially
animals!  I am,” she says, “a Queen animal, an imperial Queen
animal. And therefore I have certain interests, along with the
other members of my tribe, or my species, or feces or whatever it
is.”  And she says, “We’ve got too many people.  The problem is,
if we allow people to {earn} their living by productive activity,
then they will be independent of us, the oligarchy, and we must
therefore limit the number of people we allow to exist, and
prevent them from developing skills which will make them more
valuable, more productive.”
So, yes, she’s a cheat, and a liar, and thief, all those
good things, {but!}  What’s the motive?  The motive goes back to
the siege of Troy and the genocide against Troy as an example.
Here was a form of society, in Troy, the city of Troy, which had
a productive function, and there were similar things like that
around that area at that time.
And so this productive function was what they were out to
destroy,  and they did destroy.  What did they do?  They got into
the city, which was defended, and the enemy had a problem of
getting in there, so they used the wooden horse, to put the
wooden horse in through the gates of the city, and you had a
cadre of bastards, who were waiting there, at night, who then
came out of the horse, snuck around open doors to get more of
their own people in, and then went with a massive slaughter of
the population of the city of Troy.  And what was surviving as
survivors of that massacre, were wiped out, except for a few! And
the city was now torn down, ruined, broken.
So that is the example of what the oligarchical system is.
That is what the Queen is, in her policy, as she states it, of
reducing the population of the planet, from 7 billion people to
1.  And concomitant of that, is destroying technological
progress, eliminating technological progress.  What’s being done
in terms of the Green policy, the Green policy is a deliberate
policy of {mass murder} against the population!  Green is mass
murder!  If you’re for the Greenies, you’re a mass murderer!
Because that’s what the intention is.  There is no improvement,
there is no increase in value, in the Green system.  The Green
system is the enemy of mankind.
And we have to launch a cure for this process, by developing
higher energy flux densities.  The United States and other
nations must now go — it may take some time to get there; it may
take years to get there — but we must establish a kind of energy
flux density system based on thermonuclear fusion.  That will
probably take us a number of years, a decade or so, to get there,
but we’ve got to {go in that direction}, we’ve got to get out of
this trap of the Green poison, which is a mass murder poison. And
that’s what our mission is, and that’s what the secret is.
We must eliminate, once and for all, the oligarchical
system, as was demonstrated in the case of Troy and of Rome. What
was Nero doing?  What was his productive role in society? They’re
all the same:  The Venetian system!  The Dutch system of today,
and the Dutch system which created the British system. Because it
was the Dutch who invaded Britain, and called themselves Britons.
So this kind of swindle is what the problem is.  That’s the
root of the problem.  The only way that mankind survive, under
the conditions of history now, is to eliminate the oligarchical
system, and to eliminate all government systems, which correspond
to the Queen’s principle.

MASON:  On the subject of the oligarchical system, I have a
question about the Saudis.  Early this week, Saudi Arabia
indicated that they would be turning down a seat which was
offered them at the UN Security Council.  Now, I’m not sure why
they were even offered a seat at the UN Security Council; maybe
they’re looking for a new type of renewable energy, where they
hook up a rotor and a stator to Roosevelt’s grave: The amount
he’s spinning right now would probably generate enough
electricity to power some nations. [laughter]
But with Prince Bandar, he said that the refusal of that
seat at the UN Security Council was a message not to the United
Nations, but to the Obama Administration, for failing to launch a
military strike on Syria.  This was reported by Reuters in
several {Wall Street Journal} articles.  Now, this past Tuesday,
we were on the ground at the keynote luncheon at the 30th annual
conference of the National Council of U.S.-Arab Relations in
D.C., where Prince Turki bin Faisal spoke to the same effect,
assailing the United States for failing to attack Syria, though
instead of going after Barack Obama, he directed his rage toward
the patriotic war-avoidance faction within the United States,
which helped to prevent the attack, singling out Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, saying that Dempsey
had given (quote) “comfort and solace to criminals” by preventing
the attack.
Now, [Bandar] bin Sultan is the head of Saudi intelligence
and national security, and is a known element in running the
original 9/11 attack in New York.  His wife, Princess Haifa , is
known to have provided funding directly to some of the hijackers;
Princess Haifa, in turn is the sister of the Prince Turki bin
Faisal, who went after General Dempsey on Tuesday.
Now, all of this has been packaged as a rift between Saudi
Arabia and the United States, but given the state of the
financial collapse globally, and given the pedigree of these
princes vis-à-vis 9/11 and the coverup, and given the role of the
British in consolidating the House of Saud in power in the
beginning of the last century, the role of the Sykes-Picot
agreement in the region, the British-Saudi arms-for-oil deal
which helped facilitate 9/11, I think it’s a fallacy to look at
this push from the Saudi princes, as merely expressing
displeasure with Obama’s failure to strike Syria, which would
generate a thermonuclear war with Russia if we were to have done
that; or to look at this as a rift in relations.
The House of Saud, they’re hereditary monarchy, a band of
thugs, really, running a country; but they’re an expression, or
maybe an excretion if you will, of the oligarchical principle.
And the oligarchy is facing certain death if there’s a chain
reaction of the financial system, with the collapse of finances
and governments around the world, that’ll take them down with the
rest of us.  On the other hand, if we avoid that collapse, by
economic collaboration among sovereign nations, the oligarchy’s
done either way.  So, could you give an assessment on this?

LAROUCHE:  We’re dealing with a process here, and the
processes of this type have apparent complexities, because people
are playing games:  The Saudis, for example, complaining against
the United States.  Hey, c’mon!  Do you think that’s real?  This
is part of the show!  The shadow game!  And that’s the way it’s
played.  These guys  — these guys are evil!  Just understanding,
they’re {evil}!
This is what Nicholas of Cusa was addressing in his advice
to his associates, for as long as he lived. And then Christopher
Columbus got the message that way, and then did the right thing:
That is, to go across the oceans, get away from Europe, which is
a place of pollution with oligarchism, and that worked to some
degree.  Except the Dutch came in, in that century, that is in
the 17th century, and they came in with their operation,
destroyed France pretty much — destroyed the French system,
pretty much — and did other evil things like that.
So that, there’s give-and-take and play that goes on among
the oligarchy, but you have to understand what oligarchical rules
are, as the oligarchy themselves accept the idea of such a rule!
Therefore, don’t think that everyone is simpleminded and had a
simpleminded intention.  These guys get very complicated. They’re
more likely to invent several new sexes than they are to get a
clear shot at anything!  So don’t treat this as serious in the
sense of intention.  Treat it as serious, as part of the lawful
process, specific to the oligarchical system.  And look at what
happened in Egypt, with the succession of revolutions in Egypt,
recently; same kind of thing.
What’s going on — take Africa.  Africa’s the best example
of this.  Africa is one big maelstrom, of genocide.  And the
genocide is orchestrated by Saudis, orchestrated by the British,
so forth; like, take the slaughter in India under British rule,
the mass slaughter in India, under British rule. This is the
oligarchical system, it’s the Dutch system, it’s the so-called
British system.  And therefore, that’s the way to look at it.
Instead of speculating, on how we’re going spin the
interpretation of the words, why don’t we just eliminate the
oligarchical system, and then these problems will be clarified?

OGDEN:  Let me ask a question on the trilateral negotiations
that are now ongoing between Russia, China, and India.  Earlier
this week, you stated that the rapid pace of negotiations, that
are occurring between Russia, China, and India, indicate a sense
of urgency among these three nations, to step up their
collaboration at the time when Obama and the bankrupt nations of
Europe continue to push the world’s security situation right to
the edge of disaster.  You warned that unless the situation in
the trans-Atlantic is brought under control rapidly, through the
removal of Obama, {and} the restoration of Glass-Steagall, this
array of alliances that are now forming, and counter-alliances,
continues to threaten a very fragile world with the outbreak of
war, which still looms, despite the diplomatic breakthroughs that
have been made, in recent months.
I would like it if you could address that picture, as you
saw it earlier this week.  And then, maybe I can follow it up
with some more.

LAROUCHE:  Well, the answer to the question is rather, for
me, simple: But it may not be for other people, I’m afraid.
I’m just wondering how to best put the answer to this
question.  I would go back to what I said before, and would
emphasize in particular the fact that we have to have a destiny.
We can not be the “honest observers” from the sidelines, and
saying, “what do we wish to choose for these guys out there? What
are we offering them, as the game they will like?” and that’s not
the answer.  The answer is what we have to do — what {we} have
to do.
Now, I’m doing this all the time, as you know.  I’m always
looking at how we can, within principle, how we can deal with
these conflicting kinds of things, in order to get a result which
is based on what Nicholas of Cusa’s intention was!  That simple:
That we want a system, not like the European systems, not like
the European heritage of systems, but exactly what Cusa was
aiming for, to go across the great waters, the oceans, into lands
beyond, where the oligarchical system as they had known it, could
either be eliminated there, or would be prevented from developing
there.  That’s still our problem.
And we have to play the game with an idea, on exactly what
is our intention?  What {really is our moral intention, for
mankind?}  Knowing what the problems of mankind as, which I
happen to be good at, so therefore, I’m constantly thinking of
how we’re going to solve these problems.  Not in order to make
compromises, I don’t believe in compromise.  We have too many
compromised people around anyway.
But the point is, we have to think about how we’re going to
engineer the process, of getting to what is an escape from the
relics of the oligarchical system.  Now, you’ve got, China,
India, — {tremendous burdens} of oligarchical traditions! Islam,
full of {tremendous} oligarchical problems!  So what we have to
do, is define {what must happen}, and how can we get it to
happen?  And we also want to open people’s eyes, and minds, to
understanding what society is supposed to be, what the intention
of mankind is.
Mankind {does} have an intention.  If you look at the
history of mankind, as a species, and think in terms of energy
flux density, and how the human species has moved, as the animal
species never did!  Only the voluntary capabilities of the human
species have been capable of {rising to ever higher levels of
energy flux density}.  And we’re on the road {next}, now, to get
to thermonuclear fusion.  And there are things that lie beyond
that.
So we are thinking, really, about the future of mankind, not
as a fixed form of existence, but as an improvement, a
self-improvement.  Like I’m dealing with the question from some
people, about Mars:  I say, well, stop talking about getting on
Mars, putting people on Mars!  Cut it out!  If you try to start
putting people on Mars, now, you’ll get a catastrophe!
But, as this Curiosity demonstrated, mankind, from Earth,
especially if aided by thermonuclear fusion, can actually move
the Solar System, {change} it, change its character!  And we can
put machines, like Curiosity, which is only an example of this,
we can put those things on Mars!  We can use those things we put
on Mars, to engineer changes on Mars that we want to make, or we
know we should make — even without man ever touching Mars’ soil
itself!  We want a quasi-automatic system, within those parts of
the Solar System, which have cases like Mars on the one hand, or
cases like different kinds of objects in space that are menacing,
and we want to control this system, for security against
dangerous objects, in this vicinity where we live.  We have to
think about other things, longer-range threats, which we must
find out how to deal with these things.
And mankind sitting on Earth, with a real engineering
program, scientific engineering program, of this type, can
actually make all the steps we need right away, and hopefully,
what we will learn in the process of this progress, we will be
able to apply to large outreach.  We’ve got comets we’ve got to
real with; we’ve got to find out how to deal with that problem.
How we can develop systems which will give us a tip-off, of how
things are going in this matter, and tip-off as to what we might
be able {to do, to thwart} an effect we’re trying to prevent.
So these are the kinds of things to be concerned with.
Mankind has a principle, a deathless principle, in a sense, of
developing mankind itself, through its ability for creativity,
and {only mankind}, as far as we know, has creativity, {only the
human species.}  And therefore, the human species has a destiny,
at least within this Solar System, and we don’t even know too
much about that yet.  And we have to think in terms of training
our people, to become the masters of this kind of progress toward
the future.
And that’s the only way you can really answer the question
that you posed, in those terms.  What can do, what {must} man do,
if we must take over the nearby parts of the Solar System?  We
must control the objects floating out there and threatening us.
We have to deal with — what can we do, to create a management
system, including the case of Mars, like the Curiosity… What
does Curiosity tell us, about the future on Mars, and the meaning
of the future on Mars?  A simple little thing, and it’s almost a
toy, but that toy demonstrates what the human mind can cause to
happen on Mars.  And what the effect can be of doing that on
Mars, back here on Earth.
These are the kinds of ideas we should think about.  Not
victory of beating people up, or that sort of thing — but
{this}, true creativity!  The ability of the human mind, to do
what, as far as we know, {no other phenomenon in Solar System
does}.  At least we don’t know any of it.  And therefore, we have
to understand, {therefore, we} are here!  {We} are responsible!
What are {we} going to do about it? And once you get our people
with that idea, and an educational system which is based on that
orientation, you’ve got it:  The best shot you have!

OGDEN:  Thank you.  Let me just elaborate a little bit, on
the shape of these trilateral negotiations, because I think it’s
worthwhile to have this in one place for people, and then I’ll
give you a chance to answer one, final question.
But what’s happened over the past seven days with Russia,
China, and India, is that you’ve had an accelerated pace of these
trilateral negotiations, starting with Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh’s visit to Moscow, where they discussed greater
economic {and} military cooperation between Russia and India;
nuclear power was at the center stage of those negotiations.
Russia is committing to build two more 1,000MW nuclear reactors
in India, on top of the two that are currently being completed.
Immediately following that visit to Moscow, Prime Minister
Singh flew directly to Beijing, where he met with both President
Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang on the same day; and they
agreed on expanded China-India partnership, including in matters
concerning defense.  And this visit came directly in the wake of
Russian Prime Minister Medvedev’s official state visit to China,
where, among other things — I think this is crucial — he toured
the Chinese Institute for Plasma Physics, which houses the
super-conducting EAST tokamak facility, which is one of the most
advanced fusion research facilities in the world.  And Medvedev
was accompanied by Academician Velikhov, who was the originator
of the concept of an international magnetic fusion experiment,
which now has taken the form of the ITER [International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor] project of today.  Also part
of the delegation was Grigory Trubnikov, who is the deputy
director of the Dubna Institute for Nuclear Research which houses
the Nuclotron-Based Ion Collider Facility, another one of these
international atomic research projects.
And according to Russian government reports, one area for
Russian-Chinese collaboration that was agreed to coming out of
this trip, was the development of new super-conducting materials
to be used at the EAST fusion reactor research facility.
Additionally, there’s cooperation on aeronautics, nuclear energy,
agriculture, infrastructure.
And then, on top of that, you had this past weekend, the
Russian State Energy Corp. and the China National Petroleum Corp.
signing a land-mark deal to create a joint venture to develop oil
and gas reserves in Siberia.  This is in combination with the
agreements around the southern route of the Silk Road, the
Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor.
So, it’s really incredible:  It’s clear that the Eurasian
Land-Bridge idea is moving along quite nicely.  What the chief
analyst for the China Export-Import Bank Zhao Changhui had to
say, is that the “Silk Road has the potential of creating a new
economic map in the heartland of Eurasia.”  He said, “This Silk
Road will eventually be reaching to the shores of the Black Sea
and to Southern and Eastern Europe.”  And that echoed exactly
what the President of South Korea, Park, had to say.  She said:
“To make Eurasia one continent again, we are required to build a
new logistical network.  We need to connect the northeastern part
of Eurasia with railroads and roads, for a multipurpose logistics
network, which will eventually be extended to Europe.  The Silk
Road Express will run from Busan all the way to Europe, via North
Korea, Russia, China and Central Asia.”
Now, my question really originates from the fact that, you
have personally been involved for, in this case, over 20 years —
really going back to your role in Calcutta, at the conclusion of
World War II, looking out on your own, seeking the independence
movements among the people there, seeking independence from the
British Empire, — you have personally been involved for almost
the majority of your life, in setting up the possibility for this
incredibly revolutionary shift in the global paradigm to take
place.  I know that this is something you’re working on in your
newest paper, “The New Strategy for a Trans-Pacific Option,” but
in light of all of this, in light of the rapid developments
around this trilateral alliance, what’s your vision for America’s
role in the trans-Pacific world?  And, really, how can we affirm
Nicholas of Cusa’s vision for the people of today?

LAROUCHE: Well, I have one standard, because it’s a highly
personal one:  It was my rage developing over time, with the
school system.  And people don’t know what’s really wrong with
the school systems.  Because the sense of wrongness requires a
sense of a comparison with what might be the right answer, as
opposed to what the wrong answer is.  Now, most people in the
school systems, they don’t know the difference.  That’s the
problem.  And only exceptional people, individually — mavericks,
real mavericks, who do not accept the standard educational
program, they don’t accept them, as I didn’t, and I was always in
trouble, but I always did just well, when it came to finding the
answers.
So that’s really where the issue lies.  It’s the ability to
see what is really happening, to see the future, and see the
errors that people are doing.  Because you think of — most
people in schools, and it’s worse today than it was in my time,
shall we say; now, the educational system is {rotten}, evilly
rotten!  They’re getting the best teachers which still remain
around and they’re getting rid of them as quickly as possible.
They’re introducing programs which are not fit for animal, animal
use, even, if the animals could use them.
And so, my concern has always been, the fact that when you
try to get a predetermined, “right answer,” imposed upon students
in the educational process, you destroy their creativity! Because
they’re looking at the teacher, or looking at the classroom, or
the textbook, they’re looking for some answer {there}, rather
than looking for inside their own mind!  And that’s been the
great criminality which has increased, with the educational
system, as the educational system became {more efficient}.
I mean, for example, in the immediate postwar period, I’m
back from military service, back in the United States, and the
crap is worse then than it was before!  The education that they
were shoving down our throats {then}, in the postwar period, was
vastly {inferior}, to what we’d had shoved down our throats in
the pre-war period!  And so, this {incompetence}, the lack of
understanding of {what the meaning of dedication is to success,
to progress, to discovery!}
And you think about all the history of mankind, who becomes
mankind in the time in South Africa, for example, where mankind
uses fire, perhaps for the first time, there.  And then, when
mankind understands fire, as such, and then goes to higher forms
which are equivalent to fire, chemical forms, chemical actions;
certain kinds of training, biological developments — and that’s
what reality is.  When you try to go to a {predetermined}, fixed
program, obedience training, to do as you were told and {taught},
{you lose the ability to see the future.}
And that’s what the real issue is:  because human beings, if
they’re conditioned to {meet the challenge} of answering the
question from {inside themselves}, and will take hints and so
forth, but will realize that {they have to make the decision}.
Whereas, in the typical school, you’re told, you have to {learn
the answer}, which is predetermined, to be given to you.  The
result is, that we have people who are well-educated, {but they
can’t think!}

OGDEN:  Thank you very much.  On that note, I wish to
conclude tonight’s webcast.  I would remind people, before we
close, that LaRouche PAC needs your donations.  You can
contribute to LaRouche PAC on our website, which is displayed on
the screen; or, by calling into our National Center, which is
also displayed on tonight’s broadcast, the 800-number.
So, I thank you very much for joining us tonight.  I thank
Lyn, for addressing us; and thank you very much, Dennis, for
joining me in the studio, to pose the questions.  Thank you for
tuning in.  That brings a conclusion to our webcast tonight.

 

This entry was posted in Friday Webcast, Glass Steagall, Lyndon LaRouche and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.