LPAC Policy Committee – February 23, 2015


MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, today is February 23rd, 2015. I’d like to welcome all of you to our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We’re broadcasting today over Google Hangouts On Air. I’m joined via video by Bill Roberts in Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie in Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers in Houston, Texas; Mr. LaRouche is joining us live today. Michael Steger is joining is from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley is joining us from Boston, Massachusetts. And as you can see, here in the studio, I’m joined by Diane Sare, and also a special guest today, Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Basement Scientific Team.

So, Lyn, I’m going to give you a chance to begin our discussion, today.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Okay, fine. Well, I think the point is that Megan Beets’s presence there is an indication which people should find easily interpreted. The point is, in the period past, we have moved our organization from the autumn section of last year, into Manhattan. This was absolutely necessary, and what we’ve done is move our whole operation out of local organizations, with one qualification. We have people in California, people in two locations, which are significant; we have in Texas a case like that. So therefore, our conception is that the entire organization, the national organization and beyond, of our association, is now put into place, that Manhattan is the center, Alexander Hamilton, is the center of the policy of the United States for us, for our organization. And therefore, we want to shift everything in that direction. We don’t want to be fiddling around in some local-yokel situation in that. Which means that we will be featured internationally through Manhattan. And that is already working. It’s working effectively; we may like to improve it a lot but it is already working. And so, that’s the change.

We also for that reason have a new member, essentially, attending here. We will be doing that again. We want to have one, integrated organization, based on locality, Manhattan, and the whole organization in the United States is based on that orientation. And by doing so, we actually greatly improve the mental capabilities of the our organization. And that’s the difference, that’s the change.

We find that, for example, some people from the Basement Team, which is now, really, we’re trying to integrate the Basement Team more clearly with the whole operation, and so therefore, we’re creating a new way of defining what our policymaking processes are, and we’re not going out and begging for some recognition from some local-yokel area, we are now dictating for anybody who cares, the principles on which this organization has always been intended, even though sometimes people made mistakes, and misrepresented our operation.

So we’re back in business, on an international basis. We are located with our identity in the United States, centered in the area of Manhattan, and we are doing business accordingly. It’s a fresh, nice way to work and live.

OGDEN: Diane, you might want to say something about this rally that we held in Manhattan yesterday at Columbus Circle. There were, I think, close to 40 or 50 people there.

DIANE SARE: Yes, and that was even with a very fierce blizzard beginning at the end. It was actually joined and augmented by a group of Russian- and Ukrainian-Americans who had been demonstrating in front of the Ukrainian consulate because it’s the one-year anniversary of this violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government in the Maidan movement, which some idiots in our U.S. government, like Senator Menendez, who I saw yesterday called a “peaceful democratic movement,” with molotov cocktails and swastikas.

But at any rate, they had a protest and came and joined us. And what we were really hitting and fighting to get across is the relationship between the bankruptcy of Wall Street and London, this whole rotten, British Empire system, that that is of a piece with the drive by the British Empire to plunge us into thermonuclear war. And what I found particularly interesting at this Columbus Circle location, and I realized that the resonance had been different, because of course the other rallies have been at Wall Street, so therefore, they were not as responsive to our attacks on Wall Street! [laughter] But here, Bob Baker, who just came up from Virginia, said that the passersby were almost reverential, that people were very engaged. We got out close to 1500 pieces of literature, which means many, many of the people were stopping and engaging. They particularly loved the music, and I definitely had a sense, there is a resonance, that there is a really deep hatred, in the American people, in the people of New York for this Wall Street scum. I spoke with one guy who is a retired banker who lives in that very affluent area right around Columbus Circle, and he said that most of the people in his building are criminals. So that’s their view.

And, anyway, I think it’s just indicative of how this thing can grow and the ways that it can grow, which we don’t know yet. It’s just clear that it’s there. And yeah, there were about 40 or so of us out there, in spite of the blizzard. And then after that, went to a class given by Dennis Speed, which took up some of these questions — I mean, the Kepler question first and foremost as a challenge to the participants, and then their own thinking, in terms of how they can be not observers, but be engaged, be acting on the stage of history, which is really the key.

So there will be more to come. Where there this week, is of course, it’s not just the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, but it’s the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. So the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, the Chinese Foreign Minister [Wang Yi] is in town — anyway, there’s a lot happening in New York, and we’re making sure to get our material into the hands of the appropriate dignitaries from around the world through their missions and so on.

OGDEN: I think this intervention couldn’t be more timely. The news from this morning is that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, who’s currently in Canada, gave an interview with the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., and he said: We are preparing for full-scale war against Russia, and the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine, quote, “in the fight against a nuclear power.” So I don’t think there’s any way of interpreting that, other than …


OGDEN: Right.

RACHEL BRINKLEY: What we seeing is a lot of increasing hotspots and violence around the world, and that’s what we’re going to see until the situation changes, because there really are no other options in this financial power. Many of the hotspots, I mean, they’re actually losing. You know there’s a ceasefire in Ukraine, the eastern Ukrainian military overcame the Ukrainian military, but is that going to stop the war drive? Likely not. We’re likely to see it continue, unless we actually change the paradigm, and this is what we’ve been discussing, that we have to supersede this failed system and failed idea of man, for a higher idea of man; and that this is the concepts that were discussed in the European Renaissance, which I think we can discuss a bit. But Cusa and Kepler, as we have discussed, and maybe Megan wants to add some things about this, but the idea of the universe and human society as a lawful, knowable principle in the idea of man in the image of the Creator, and that that was the concept applied for a scientific revolution by Kepler, and that this was not separate from the establishment of the culture of the United States. In fact, our great patriot Benjamin Franklin was a known collaborator of the followers of Kepler in Europe, and in fact, had a correspondence with Kästner who sent a young person over to meet with Franklin who was supposed to bring him a copy of Kepler’s Harmonice Mundi, which we’ve been discussing, just to give you a sense that there wasn’t actually a disconnect; that while Franklin was battling in the British Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act, he was simultaneously battling the concepts of Newton, and for Cusa and for Kepler, and Leibniz’s conception of the universe. So that is the cultural standard which this country really represents.


MEGAN BEETS: Well, I can just add on that, over the weekend in some discussions, Mr. LaRouche said very emphatically that anything good in the world that’s occurring right now goes back to the standard of the U.S. republic, which comes out of the efforts of Nicholas of Cusa and the Renaissance tradition, which was carried forward by Leibniz and some of the history you just referenced, Rachel. And I think the thing that people really have to take in, is that there is no solution to the world crisis, which is going to come out of some rearrangement, or some revival of old principles. You’re at a point where everything current in civilization has broken down and what’s required, is an entirely new conception of mankind itself. The only way the world’s going to come out of this is by making a collaborative discovery, of a new meaning to mankind. And obviously we see that with the leadership being taken by China in the space program, which really does go, in a very direct way, back to the legacy Nicholas of Cusa, who in the middle of the dark ages, battling the Venetian empire, and trying to establish a new system for Europe, was spending his time and efforts deriving a completely new idea of what the nature of the human mind was: The relationship of man’s mind to the mind of the Creator, and how it was that man’s mind could come to know — hypothesize and know, valid principles and base his existence upon that.

And then, you had Kepler, his follower, take up that concept and put it into practice, and achieve a discovery of the Solar System which had never been experienced before and which unleashed a total revolution in mankind. And obviously inspired, as you’ve pointed out, Rachel, inspired the kind of movement that led to our U.S. republic. And I just think, and people today have to realize that that’s the kind of legacy that exists in the United States, that’s the meaning of our republic, that’s our identity, and we can’t get caught in fighting any kind of lower battle, or being drawn away into fighting and bickering over some kind of lower conception of what we’re really doing.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Yeah, well, I think it also goes to the core of this whole question of sovereignty as well, because if you look at Kepler and the mission before mankind, sovereignty is no longer going to be seen from the standpoint of the old geopolitics, but rather, and I think the question of space exploration goes right to the core of that, because how could you have some limited idea of geopolitical control of space — I mean, what’re you going to do? Divide up the Moon amongst the major powers, or something? It becomes a little ridiculous when you think about it.

But I think more importantly, when you actually engage nations into the kind of level of cooperation that’s required around space exploration, then you are getting into the type of creative upshift that is needed amongst mankind right now, to respond to where we’re at in the human civilization. And just as a reflection point, today China is going to be chairing a meeting at the United Nations, which, this is the 70th year of its founding, and I think when that was founded, it was really in the wake of the aftermath of World War II and the discussion amongst the United Nations, how do we take a world which was going to be freed from the colonial system, and how do you have a dialogue amongst nations that would discuss the problems of economic development in the wake of being freed from this colonial policy?

And in a sense, that’s the fundamental discussion right now — this is the situation with Greece. The same kind of dictatorship through the banking system, and the kind of debt slavery that Greece is dealing with now, it’s the same policies of the colonial system back in the founding of the United Nations. And I want to just make one quick point on this: Lavrov apparently in a speech today, did very much hit on the notion of what is the actual concept of the United Nations? Are we just going to allow the larger powers to dictate what the world is doing, which was what Lavrov was getting at; he hit at the question of the overriding of sovereignty in the case of Serbia, Libya, Iraq; he also then said that these kind of regime-change operations is what’s going on in Ukraine right now.

So I think in some ways, is because we haven’t freed ourselves from the grips of the British Empire, this colonial system, you know, 70 years later, we’re having the same discussion. But really, it’s only through the Kepler notion of bringing nations into collaboration around space exploration as the key example, where you can get a new concept of sovereignty that is not rooted in this geopolitical/colonial outlook.


MICHAEL STEGER: I think you can take MacArthur’s speech in 1945, on the USS Missouri, and there he references the need for a “spiritual recrudescence of mankind.” And he points out that military alliances had failed to maintain the peace. And you see that explicitly this postwar period that those military alliances were the cause and the creation of an empire to create this kind of conflict of mankind. But what I was provoked by was going back to — you look at, that this same problem existed for the last 2500 years. You go back to the wars that brought down Greece, and the Peloponnesian War, and you see the same type of problem laid out and the same traps that were set. But the problem is, people look at this and they see these military alliances, they what they perceive as cultural conflicts as the cause, and they’re not.

And you have to think, where was the insight? Where was the leadership in that process, and you look back at Greece, you see the playwright Aeschylus, and you see his play Prometheus Bound and you see an identification where the failure of civilization exists, is this question of what mankind truly is. And the same insights were made by Socrates and by Plato later, after the wars had destroyed much of Greece. And the questions today that I think Lyn’s been pointing out and been so emphatic about, is that what we see with Kepler and with Cusa is that we see a reconception of what mankind is in the universe: That Kepler gave mankind the power of the human mind, to grasp the universe itself. And that really is the way we resolve this conflict mankind’s been facing for over 2,000 years — it’s the same thing MacArthur identified; it’s the same thing Lyn’s been laying out, really since this time period, this Promethean conception presented by Kepler: How do we escape this sense of geopolitical alliances, competition for resources, dividing into political parties, or nations, or cultures, these kind types of false divisions, rather than Kepler’s conception of a unified human species.


OGDEN: Well, going back to what you said, Megan, I absolutely think about the standard, that you cannot go below the standard of what Kepler discovered as your principle. As Rachel brought up, the role of Benjamin Franklin was crucial in the American Revolution; without Benjamin Franklin and later Alexander Hamilton, we never would have won the American Revolution, because they insisted on raising the standard and keeping the standard at the very highest level, which was the question of what makes man different from the beast? And Lyn, I know you’ve pointed out that after the destruction of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the cultural level of the colonies had actually sunk, had declined. And it was only because Benjamin Franklin was going back and reviving the legacy of Cusa of and Kepler that was embedded in that Massachusetts Bay Colony when it was originally founded with John Winthrop, that he was able to raise what the American Revolution was being fought over, not something pragmatic or practical, not some sort of just political issue, not something cheap, but the real issue, which was the nature of man versus what the oligarchical principle wished to impose on the American colonies of that time.

So, Lyn, you said on Saturday, we can’t go for the “El Cheapo” issues. You have to keep the standard at the very highest level, and I think the example of Benjamin Franklin is perfect.

LAROUCHE: It is perfect. You just take his case. Here he was in the Boston area, and he fled from there, and was told to flee from there by his supporter. And he went through quite a bit of travel there and got down into Pennsylvania and there he set up shop and he created new conceptions in his own time, his own youth. He created the conceptions on which the United States Constitution became a reality.

Now, that’s the point: You have to rely upon people who are of that character, not the opportunists, not the fellow who’s trying to make his way ahead in a career. Franklin was not really after a career, when you take all the things he did from his youth on, and he was actually a creative force, and became an internationally creative force, so that’s what’s to be remembered. He was a creative force for the world, in his time. Without Franklin, you would not have had the United States. And then you had those who followed Franklin, you know, following him, that’s exactly what the model is.

We’ve have very few in our history, — the United States has very, very few competent Presidents. In recent times, we have almost no competence in our Presidency! We had a few people who regret what the United States is not, and that’s probably the best thoughts they can have. I’ve gone through that experience myself; you know, I’ve had a few ups and downs of being at the top of the business and of being pushed around. But that’s the way this thing goes. But that’s what we have to deal with. We have to understand things that way.

We are fighting and we don’t base ourselves on recognition as such; we don’t say, “Ahhh! You’re the guy that’s selected to be President today.” Now, that doesn’t work, that doesn’t work. The history of the Presidential system of the United States as such, that most of the Presidents weren’t worth anything, or less than worth anything! And we have, that’s the state situation right now. We have almost eight terms completed of a recent Presidency set, and these guys have contributed nothing good to the United States, but quite the contrary, they have destroyed the United States, more and more, during these eight terms of office than ever before. And that’s the greatest problem that we face inside the United States: Our Presidency for eight terms is worse, much worse than nothing.

BILL ROBERTS: To bring it back to the question of Benjamin Franklin, he was — Franklin actually had a network of young people, and they were attacking Newton, they were attacking Hobbes, this idea of the survival of the fittest, I mean these were people who were producing a fight against the Newtonian, oligarchical ideas of Europe. And it’s very important that what we’re doing is that, we are developing the capacity within Americans to identify with what that American culture is. Not a set of opinions, not set of beliefs, but actually a capacity to identify, for people to identify within themselves, the creative capacity to actually overturn [crosstalk], to actually identify with that capacity of mankind which I think Rachel raised from the outset of this show, a new cultural capacity.

Because you see, in the absence of this, when people look at the crisis, they see it as a crisis, “oh, this is the Greek crisis, this is the Ukrainian crisis”; or even within the United States it breaks down the same way, “oh, this is this city’s crisis, this state’s crisis.” And that’s how Wall Street has been very effective at picking off individual countries and localities through this method of promoting this sort of Confederate ideology, of a war of each against all. And unless you have a capacity within the individual to identify a higher idea of man, a higher cultural idea of man, people will continue to be pulled into knee-jerk reactions of that type.

LAROUCHE: I would just say one thing on this. Look, the issue here, we have moved our organization back into what its tradition really was. That’s what we’ve done, and no longer do we tolerate the idea that there are local areas which are a confederation of local areas. And I said shut that down! And what we did is, we made the policy was, we make Manhattan, Alexander Hamilton’s Manhattan, is the center of our United States for us, and our policies are based accordingly. And the dribblings of our policy are also made the same way.

And it’s our giving life to Manhattan, or that role of Manhattan, as we are doing, and we are from the area of New York, we’re doing everything possible to make New York what it really was, or what it is in its best terms, and that is to be the leadership, to provide the leadership for bringing the world together.

We’ve now entered a new period. The idea of particular states and potencies of that type, is over! What we have now, China has only a set a standard for this thing; what’s happened with China, China has now moved into space. And China is moving in the direction of Kepler’s discoveries, and based on Kepler’s discoveries. So therefore, even though, on the planet we now have different nations which are accustomed to different languages or uses of language systems, we now say, “OK, that’s all right. We can all have your little different ways of doing things in local areas. That’s all right. But we’re going to integrate the United States under Kepler, and that’s the point.” Because it’s Kepler’s work — who defined a principle on which the Solar System is actually based. And without Kepler’s concept, you don’t have an orderly Solar System.

We’ve got to think in those terms. And that’s what we’re doing. We, in the United States, we who base ourselves as an organization in terms of the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, as a follower of the great leaders who founded our nation, and that’s what we’re supposed to do. We are supposed to, as our organization, set a standard to challenge people, to bring about an integration of work, within the United States, and to extend that out to other parts of the world.

Our affinities are to places like China. China is the nation of the world that has come up again, today; with South America, the BRICS nations and so forth, they’re all important. We wish to integrate that process. Not in the old way, but to integrate it on the basis that they’re doing their job, and our job is being done by sharing the experience with them. We’re now creating a unity of mankind in the Solar System. And we have different departments, but the departments are all seeking to maintain the fruits of their achievement in a single principle, the principle of humanity.

KESHA ROGERS: I think it’s very important when you just said that we have to return the United States to the principle on which it was founded on, when you think about the fact that there’s a certain truth and a discovery process to that, that really gets at the conception of the nature of man as not an animal. And my point in saying that is that, what you have been discussing on the “Manhattan project” as the rallying point to unify the nation against this states’ rights, Confederacy type policy — I mean, there are still a lot of people out there and I can tell you from living here in Texas and in the South, that think that the history of Northern aggression and states’ rights, is something that is acceptable and is something that can be seen as, well, this is my right to believe in this. It’s my right — you like national policy, I like states’ rights policy, I like the government out of my business.

And my point in bringing this up is that it gets to a more fundamental question on the nature of, what is man? What is… [interruption]

OGDEN: Kesha, I think we lost you for a moment. Your audio just cut out.

BRINKLEY: It seems like she lost her connection. Maybe she’ll come back in a second.

But just one thing about this question of the Chinese and Kepler, is it was — you know, Kepler dies 400 years ago, but he’s still moving the Chinese off the planet. His mind and his ideas are still moving…

ROGERS: /video%20cuts%20back%20in … human beings are not animals. It comes with a conception that is really defined within the terms of the universe as a whole.

OGDEN: Rachel, go ahead and continue.

BRINKLEY: OK. I think Kesha dropped off.

Just the point that Kepler, as I mentioned, died 400 years ago, but he’s still moving mankind, his ideas, his existence is still moving mankind off the planet, through the United States to China; when the space program was developed under Kennedy, under NASA, and now it’s being moved to a new level by the Chinese. But this was the pathway of the idea and you get a sense of that quality of immortality through a new idea, which is totally manifest in the Chinese actions on the basis of Kepler’s discovery.

SARE: And in stark contrast, I would just say, the culture of the United States has become so deeply degraded. I mean, if you think about what are the front-running moving, for example, these things, whatever it is, “40 shades of chartreuse,” I mean deeply hideous. And Americans, because they have become demoralized because they’ve been cowardly and stopped — see as soon as you become a coward, then your mind is not your own any more and you become malleable for all kinds of insanity. And I think part of the reason why these developments of the BRICS or what the Chinese are doing with the space program are so blacked out the U.S. media is because Americans would get a glimmer of a quality of fight, a quality of defiance which is very American, and it would really spread. And they are terrified of that, which is why, even at this late date, we have such a great potential to win, probably greater than most of us realize, although our enemies are certainly aware of it. And I just think it’s very important to bear in mind what has been brought to bear on crushing the American identity and commitment to truth and a certain defiant, revolutionary quality.

LAROUCHE: Well, I could intervene on one thing, that what’s happened is we’ve turned the United States into a Bush League. Look at the history of our Presidencies and look at the cases of Presidents who did try and do a job, and got tumbled out of their position of control, of leadership. I’ve had quite some little experience with that.

You know, I was working with, some of our Presidents I was very close to, and they got jumbled. And once, you know, Bill Clinton was humiliated by the British Queen, and I don’t know why anybody would want to be a British Queen, but anyway, the point is, we have not had a competent Presidency, since that period, except for Bill.

Bill was the only President, has been recently, the only President that did any significant good. All the rest have specialized in doing very, very bad things! And we live under a remain of bad Presidents! People who are not fit to be President, but they happen to be there. We had two Presidencies, a total of eight years each in office, and we haven’t had anything good, coming out of those Presidencies during that entire period. We will pray for the day, that there is no longer a Bush or an Obama in sight for the Presidency or anything like that. That’s the issue. And when we understand that, then we understand why our citizens for four terms under these crooked Presidents, rotten Presidents! The Bush League! And then you got more Bushes in there. And Moses should have really finished the job, burning off these Bushes, but that’s what’s happened to us.

And we had bad Presidents very early on, people who were opportunists of one kind of another. We had two good Presidents, very good Presidents during a period of the better part of a decade. But — and then we got Lincoln. And then we got a few other good Presidents. But most of the time, the United States has been under the yoke, of the British Empire, and it still is today. And we want to get rid of that British Empire because we know that without getting rid of that British Empire and everything like the Bush League stuff and so forth, we don’t have a chance of having a real United States.

We don’t have a population that really stands up, with clear ideas and strong terms of action. We just have to fight for this thing.

OGDEN: You mentioned Lincoln, this really was the direct legacy of Benjamin Franklin in a very specific way. I had been provoked earlier, you had mentioned Ben Franklin’s international role, which was obviously absolutely significant in winning the American Revolution, including not only his relationships with France and others, but very much his relationship with Russia. He had been the one who worked out the League of Armed Neutrality with Catherine the Great, but also his scientific relationship with such people as Lomonosov and others. And it was Ben Franklin who directly selected John Quincy Adams to be our first Ambassador to Russia. And then, of course, John Quincy Adams was the direct mentor of Abraham Lincoln at the time that they overlapped in the United States Congress.

And then, you look at the role that Russia played in supporting Lincoln during the Civil War, against the British who were taking the side of the Confederacy at that time. And it’s really very clear that the small handful of great presidents that we have had, have all come out of the legacy of what both Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton represented, that their influence during the life was immense. But the influence that they’ve continued to radiate after their death has been even more significant. And Rachel, you were bringing up the exact same thing about Kepler.

BRINKLEY: And Franklin Roosevelt adhered his philosophy to Alexander Hamilton, so going back to that same intellectual tradition and dialogue amongst our great leaders.

BEETS: I think all of this does really does go to the issue of passion. And you know, you bring up the idea of much longer, sort of eternal power of the human being who acts according to the principle of mind. And I think it really does speak to what we need today, because there’s a certain kind of leap of faith, which isn’t really a leap of faith, it’s a certain act of passion to act for that which has not yet been experienced, but which is true. And that’s exactly what Kepler did in his discovery of the Solar System. Nobody had “experienced” the Solar System — they had experienced the observations of planets. Nobody had ever experienced a physical astronomy: And Kepler put his life on the line to fight to harness and control the Solar System for man. But it’s the kind of act of passion to insist upon the truth of that which doesn’t yet exist for mankind, and to place the meaning of your life there. And we see that in all these great figures, in Franklin, in Kepler, in Lyn, in what you’ve done with your life. And it’s that kind of real passion that is required today.

STEGER: Yeah, that same passion you see in people like Hamilton and John Quincy Adams. They were shaping a nation for the first time, in a completely new way. It was a new idea that had never existed before. Cusa had put it forward, people following Cusa, Franklin, but they had to put it now to a real framework. They had to demonstrate that mankind under a higher conception of what man was, would prosper, would develop and would advance beyond anything previously conceived. And both of them, Hamilton, John Quincy Adams — John Quincy Adams’ foreign policy was clearly, he was aware that you could not have the same problems mankind had faced for the last 2500 years. That the same problems that had basically burdened mankind of geopolitical competition, that these questions had to be freed and it had to be towards a collaboration and towards a unity. And Hamilton had the same conception for the nation.

And I think it’s interestingly, Lyn, that this is really what you’ve been fighting for, with the organization and for the United States, and even for our discussion — I mean, the collaboration with the Basement in the scientific questions, and the questions of policy for the whole country, that this is a critical part of what we have to introduce now into the American policy process.

I mean, we have to shape the Presidency now! This idea of Jeb Bush is intolerable! And I think some people have pointed that out, but this is really Satanic that they would even bring this up! [LaRouche laughs] I mean, this guy’s — he’s the Satanic kid picking his nose in the back of the class, and he should be relegated to that, for the rest of his life.

LAROUCHE: [laughs] He should be directed to somewhere else, whereever that is!

CHRISTIE: You know, he was one of the signers of the Project for a New American Century, which in its founding document did cite the antiquated notion of John Quincy Adams, who railed against going out in pursuit against monsters to destroy. And of course, now, we see with the neo-conservative policy, not only are we out in search of monsters to destroy, but it’s being done by monsters like Victoria Nuland — or maybe more accurately, the Cookie Monster, who openly backs coups in nations.

But you see that real continuity through the Bush clan, now through Obama, and this is what we’re dealing with as long as we let Wall Street run foreign policy through these types of agents.


STEGER: You know, this thing you mentioned at the beginning with Lavrov at the United Nations, this is the same conception, it’s a new idea of mankind, that Roosevelt had in shaping in the United Nations, that China now has in their space program, or what the D.C. bureau chief of the China Daily made the point: China doesn’t have military alliances or allies, but it has friends. And its friends are according to a win-win policy of collaboration of development. That’s a Kepler conception of mankind. And that’s what we have to look at as defining a new paradigm for mankind to go into, and that Megan, you just developed. It’s clear, this conception does not exist in anyone’s experience. It has to be conceived of in the mind, and it has to be brought forth through a collaboration towards a mission in that sense.

And that really is — people are unaware even what a mission is! This culture is so depraved, you know what they think a mission is, is a sex position! [laughter]

CHRISTIE: Well, just to reemphasize again, because I think this thing that Lavrov had said a month or two go on the 85th birthday of Yevgeni Primakov, where he said this idea that, before there was the BRICS, there was the “RIC” [Russia-India-China strategic triangle] of what Primakov had said, which frankly was a development, Lyn, of obviously what you and Helga had done with your work and bringing the world together in the fall of the Soviet Union or the fall of the communist system, which could have been the beginning of a new era sovereign nations but who are oriented around the common aims of mankind, and that was what the original idea of the RIC was; and if I’m not mistaken, Primakov’s announcement of that as a policy, of Russia-India-China, the RIC before the BRICS came on later, was around the same year that the Project for a New American Century was formed. And if you look at that target list of nations, of Libya, Iraq, Syria, Iran, all the way up to the so-called human rights abuses of China, which was in the founding document of this Project for a New American Century, you see this is the same target list that Lavrov mentioned this morning. So this is what this crowd represents.

LAROUCHE: Look, let me intervene on this thing, because it’s something which I know probably better than most people alive today. What happened was that, I was framed up and out of business, so to speak. But we had some friends, and I did my job, and the job came at a certain point, where I was out of the jug, and I went into Russia. Because Helga was one of the ways I got into Russia; she’d been already doing the work. And but I had quite a play in Russia for a while there, when Russia was going through its agony. And Russia went through various agonies, and I shared some of the agonies with them; and I had an opportunity, the opportunity was the President of the United States at that time, Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton was the last decent President we’ve experienced so far. And when he was ruined by the order of the Queen of England. It was a setup by the Queen of England, and her staff. The usual kind of thing. And so they discredited him, they set him up — they set him up with a woman of uncertain virtues, or lack of virtues. And when Bill Clinton was downgraded by this thing, we lost, we lost everything that Russia had accomplished up to that point.

Remember that I had been called in to duty by the leaders of Russia at that time. I was familiar with them, I had worked, I talked with them and so forth and so on. We were trying to find a solution, for a global solution for mankind generally. We had a meeting, and the people at the meeting were all the leading Russian figures of that time. And they turned to me at the end of the meeting, and said, “You have to do this; you have to set the standard.” And I, “OK, I’ll do it.” And what I was doing was actually responding to an option which Bill Clinton responded to, was adopting. Bill never talked to me openly, never represented me openly. He represented me in a different way. And we were going for this policy to solve the Russian problem, the Russian financial problem; they played a gambling role, and we had the ability to do that. Bill was going for a new system, and the British Empire and Wall Street just killed him, killed his policy.

As a result of that, we have not had, as decent Presidency of the United States, since what Bill was subjected to, by almost everyone. But especially the Republican Party! The Republican Party was the instrument used by the Queen, in order to destroy the United States dignity and its ability, and never forget that! Never lose sight of that! It was the Queen that did it, and it was the Republican Party who did it, and they were working for the Queen of England! And there are a lot of things about some Republicans, or certain types of Republicans, who tend to be the Queen’s own stooges. And therefore, we have to understand that Bill Clinton was the last competent President that the United States has ever had, during this whole period. Because it was the discrediting of him that led to all the things that were done by the Congress and others, that screwed up our system. And the Bush family, of course, was a key feature in this. You don’t want a Bush anywhere. Bushes are for burning, as Moses would tell you.

And this is the history: We have not had a decent President, since Bill Clinton, not really, since he was disgraced. And right at that point, everything that we had built up, as a system to protect the American people in their rights, their economic rights in particular, and related things, was destroyed! And has been destroyed! And our job is to get it back.

I’ve been involved with Presidents, or Presidential circles or similar kinds of people, for some time. And I can attest, with great authority, and great certainty, that we have been almost destroyed. And Bill Clinton was our last chance. And since Bill Clinton was disgraced, the way he was done, and what was done to the system of the United States, after that, while Bill was still President, we have not had an honest Presidency since that time.

BRINKLEY: I think you made the point that it was a Bush associate that was behind the attempted assassination of Reagan as well?

LAROUCHE: Yes. That’s how it worked.

I was there. Why was I framed up? By the Republicans, by the wild Republicans. They framed me up. But you know, I had a certain kind of authority and resolution, and therefore, I couldn’t be exactly crushed out of existence. And I’m still doing things now, or proposing things now, that I was doing back then.

I became a significant figure in the beginning of the 1970s, and from that point on, I was on the way up in terms of leadership. It was always a rocky road, but it was there, and I was proposed and supported by a President of the United States, otherwise I could not have done what I did in the name of the United States. And I’m still that person. I’m a little bit old, a little weary sometimes, but I have not lost any of that. And that’s the reality of the situation.

What I’m looking for is always, I mean, considering my age — I’ve come into the 90 class — that I’m looking for people who like my wife, who is an exemplary person — I look at the people who are going to succeed me, not that I want be succeeded, but I will be succeeded, one way or the other, and therefore, I have a mission to perform. And that mission is based on a long history of my years. And that’s where we are now. And I think, by going back into the New York City area, and saying: Cut out this silly, absolutely childish notion, of local organizations as semi-independent! Get rid of that crap! Unify our organization, and unify our organization for the purpose of unifying forces inside the United States and beyond.

And that’s why I push what I do. I’m an old guy, as people would say. I do have certain memories, which are very important, and we’re trying to rebuild that kind of thing, again now. And I think that if we were not doing what we are doing now — we, we! us! — if we were not doing what we’re doing now, I don’t think the United States would have a chance, of coming out of this alive. Because we’re on the edge, with the aid of Wall Street and London, we’re on the verge of a thermonuclear war. We’re very close to it. If we can get Obama thrown out of office, and his team out of office, we might have a chance of avoiding the extermination of the human species. But you’ve got to do that. Otherwise you don’t have much chance of outliving a full-throated thermonuclear war! And I’m doing everything I can, within my very limited capabilities to do this now, to get New York City functioning, in the tradition of the United States, the Hamilton tradition, and maybe we can save civilization. That’s what we’re doing, and that’s what we should consider ourself as doing.

OGDEN: Well, I think that’s very clearly stated. I’d invite anybody to add anything that they think is necessary, but if not, I think I’m going to bring a conclusion to our discussion here, today. Thank you very much, everybody, for joining us. And thanks a lot Lyn — we were happy that you could be part of the discussion today.

And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

This entry was posted in LPAC Policy Committee Discussion 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.