Every Saturday LPAC’s Manhattan Project hosts a live Q&A town hall event with Mr. LaRouche and NYC activists.
DIANE SARE: So good afternoon and welcome to the Saturday Manhattan Project Dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. I’m Diane Sare, on the Policy Committee, as people may or may not know. So, I think, Lyn, if you have some opening statements, maybe you should go ahead, and then we’ll get to questions.
LAROUCHE: I think the question is, is, what should we be thinking about, now, in terms of our organization as such, in order to deliver what is most urgently required of the audience?
SARE: Well, that’s a challenge for the audience.
So, why don’t we take the first question?
Q: [Jessica White] Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. To start off, I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to our briefing sheet, that says “LaRouche Manhattan Project Activities” on the second page.
There’s something very wonderful and important that I’d like to start off with. Syria, backed by the Russians, has just liberated the city of Palmyra, in Syria, from ISIS. And they put on a Classical concert, that was backed by Putin and his administration, in order to celebrate and memorialize the victims, the soldiers and others, that had been killed in the fight to take back this ancient, beautiful city. And, this city is the same place where the ISIS group had been beheading people, in this location of the amphitheater. And, I think it’s fitting for us to read this, and to really think about what’s going on in the world, where Putin has emphasized that Classical music brings hope and optimism, when they are needed most.
In the meantime, Obama and his ilk have been mocking Putin, saying things that Putin is trying to portray himself as this big leader, this big man; trying to portray himself a force of good in the world. And, the United States really is the power in the world, and we are the ones that really are going to defeat ISIS, and we’re doing all these wonderful things to fight terrorism.
And, I just wanted to start off by bringing everyone’s attention to that situation, where, we know that Obama has sent in 250 military personnel, He doesn’t call them “boots on the ground.” He calls them “military personnel,” so they can’t possibly be “troops,” without the consent of Congress. So, again, he’s kind of slipped by that one, you know.
And, I also wanted to bring everyone’s attention to what you had to say, under the picture of the amphitheater. I’m not going to read it out loud, because that’s going to take more time, but everyone can read it, it’s quite wonderful, it concerns the Classical music composition, and how we need this uplifting, and this wonderful optimism, at a time when our world could end, very abruptly.
So, if you could comment on that, please?
LAROUCHE: [laughs] Well, I can tell you, that anything that’s intelligent, which is done by an intelligent person, would be something which would be a challenge to any audience, because it would present a solution, of something which had not been considered before. That’s the whole idea. The meaning of existence, the meaning of what we can accomplish, is something which has to be placed in the right place.
Q: Yes, and it also tells us that Obama needs to be impeached, right now, because, well, just because.
LAROUCHE: Well, his fuzz is no good. I think he’s “Fuzz Barry,” but I don’t think he’s any good.
Q: [laughs] Yes, thank you.
Q: [Phil Rubinstein] Well, a number of people in the audience have been asking; you know, this is close to the anniversary of Alan Shepard going into space, and I guess about a month ago would be the anniversary of [Yuri Alekseyevich] Gagarin orbiting the planet. And, we’re now 55 years later, and, in some sense progress has been suspended. And, when it comes to the human species, you either progress, or, you head for annihilation. And, we have the threat of nuclear war, but, just the extinction of the sense of progress and development, in the species.
You’ve called for a space program; Kesha Rogers has been organizing for this. And, I think in some ways, the deep importance of it, in the sense that this is the evolution of the human species, it would have to be a crucial part of a Renaissance. That not only should Americans recognize this, but this is something that is at the core of our ability to succeed.
So, I wanted to ask you if you had more? And also this idea that we should be recognizing that this was the end of progress; Obama, of course, has had the role of finishing it off, or trying to. So, I wanted to see what thoughts you had, on that?
LAROUCHE: OK, I’ll respond in this way: That what mankind is going to be able to do, is to discover the meaning of birth of human beings. Now, the problem, today, is that most human beings have no mark of distinction. They’re simply things that were dropped into the case, and therefore, you just simply went along; to sing along, as if to sing along. And that is not what you need.
What you need is to understand that the human individual, is not an animal. Now, most people treat human beings as animals; they believe they are animals. The fact that they talk, does not detract from that. So therefore, they don’t understand the meaning of “human.” Most human beings, today, do not know the meaning of human. The difference of human from monkey, for example; they don’t really know the difference. They recognize there is a distinction, but they don’t know what the distinction means.
Now, so therefore, their problem is: What is the source of human existence?
Human existence lies in the Solar System, and beyond the Solar System. And, it’s in those areas that mankind is able to reach a voice, which reaches into a more creative form of existence. In other words, the baby is not just born, but the baby is given an ability, to develop the baby’s own abilities and futures.
In other words, a great scientist will actually create the idea of the subject-matter, as if the person had not had to be born in a normal way. And so therefore, the point is, is to get human beings to be able to think in terms that normal human beings cannot; and one way is going to space, go into service in space. That’s one way to do it. The skill to do that, on command, is very important.
And therefore, when you really get at this thing, You want to get at it? Get at the future! And, that’s the way you have to do it. You say, “What is this? I’m not a baby. But I have a future, and, I’m going to express a future, and I’m going to find a way to do that. “So, I will do something so that a parent is astonished, because the child knows better than the parent.”
Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. Hi, it’s H—, from New York. I’d like to speak, again, about the 28 pages, and also JASTA, which is how the families can sue foreign powers involved in attacks of 9/11. And I’ve been making calls to the New York City Council, about the 28 pages and JASTA, and of course, these attacks where 3,000 people were killed.
One fellow commented, from one office, that, “What is the likelihood of Obama listening to us, and releasing this information?” And, I was thinking that we already know, from other sources and documents released, that Saudi diplomats were involved in supporting the hijackers; that these diplomats were headed by Prince Bandar, also known as “Bandar-Bush”; and that these hijackers were supported in locations listed as San Diego, California; Falls Church, Virginia; Orlando, Florida; and Paterson, New Jersey. So, yes, Obama should acknowledge this; but already some of this has been on “60 Minutes” TV show.
And so, I think we know quite a bit, already, about these attacks. So, what are we seeking, with this initiative?
LAROUCHE: I think, one of the things you want, is put the President in chains, or something. [laughter] Lock him up, where he belongs, and put him in place. Because, he’s not going to do any good, on the loose. Anything that he could do on the loose, is not going to be useful. And this is it.
You have to dump the guy! Now, why can’t the people of the United States, who are the responsible parties for this nation, why can’t they voluntarily clean the messes up? And, of course, Obama’s never going to do it.
So, we have a very simple solution: We have to take Obama into some area, where he doesn’t pollute anything, and we have to keep him out of active things, which he might do dirty things on. That’s it.
We have to eliminate the authority to function of an Obama. He’s a murderer, a mass murderer. He killed people regularly on Tuesdays, in certain parts of his career; his murder record is tremendous; and he’s corrupted a lot of people, in the United States, who were members of the organization of the United States.
So, the point is: You have to clean this mess out. Clean it out. And give the authority to people who have the intention and the skill, to discover the meaning of mankind. And, that means the ability to understand what mankind has secretly hidden within mankind himself. And to say, “This is something I have discovered; my children have discovered; that other people can discover.” And, this brings forth in a human being, a power of the human society, which is not otherwise available. But, we have the potential of understanding these kinds of otherwise mysterious things. And, that’s what we’ve got to concentrate on.
Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, this is R—, from Bergen County, New Jersey. I assume that one of the things that have to be cleaned out is that organization called the FBI. And the FBI seems to be a Gestapo-like organization that completely ignores laws, has probably broken tens of thousands of laws in its history. And I believe you have had some run-ins with it.
My question is, can it be said that the FBI had a large influence on the court system in your negative experience there quite a while ago? Could you say that the FBI was influencing and maybe tampering with juries, tampering with judges, changing the rules, etc.? Can you speak to the role of the FBI with regard to the court system?
LAROUCHE: Well, the FBI did a grave injustice to the President of the United States! So, how does this FBI type of figure get the authority to dump Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Where do they get that authority? They got it from the British Empire! And the British Empire is not a good disease to have.
Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, this is a question from a supporter who has been around for over 10 years; he’s from Colombia. I was going to ask the question for him, because he speaks better in Spanish.
What he is saying is that Pope Francis received a reward yesterday called the Charlemagne Prize; and he is saying that he is for an integrated Europe with solidarity, supporting the immigrants, the children, the youth, the elderly; and the need for education, culture, and work; and for protection without the promotion of war and violence. Is this just talk? Or is it a distraction, like Trump is in the United States, where he says things, but he is a fraud? That is his question.
LAROUCHE: Trump? Oh God, don’t mention him in the presence of the Pope! It would be insulting him! Don’t do that.
I don’t know what the final judgment is on his opinions. I know certain things about him, but the Pope that I used to know, who died some years ago, so I have had no direct association with a Pope, since that Pope died. But we had some bishops and so forth from various parts of the world, and some of them were pretty good. But that’s the situation.
As of now, we do not have a well-defined articulation of what all this means. And I think, the point is, we are going to have to find out what it all means. It’s going to need some work.
Q: [Diane Sare] I was very struck by your discussion on Thursday, Lyn, on the call with people from around the country; and you said, in many different ways, that there were 3,000 people killed on September 11th, and you talked about the planes being hijacked out of Boston, that the people were captive on these planes and smashed into the building and killed. And that justice has not been done. And you had said a few weeks ago, you had spoken about the idea of a “living memorial,” in a response to a question from P—S—from Connecticut, about these people who died. And then, I was just thinking about what just occurred in Palmyra with this very moving performance done by Russia, that Putin organized.
It really struck me that, in the United States, not to say that certain of the memorial services, or even some of the more profound things that were done, like what I mentioned a few days ago, this rolling Requiem, where on the first anniversary of 9/11 you had Mozart’s Requiem performed in 180 cities in 24 countries; that there is an importance to these things. But if you don’t have the commitment to see that justice is done, they are hollow.
What was unique about what occurred in Palmyra is that Putin acted last September to say that he was going to take action to defeat ISIS. And he acted. And, with Russian action, the Syrian army and Russia and others who were involved in this were able to liberate major cities. And it was after that was done that they held this “Prayer for Palmyra,” and reflected upon the meaning of the lives of people who had been killed in this, such as the curator-archeologist of the museum, who faced torture and death to not turn over these artifacts; or the Russian soldier who called in an airstrike on himself because he was surrounded by ISIS. But the point is, there was an intent to defeat this.
And I think that what we have lacked in the United States – – because when you talked about the living memorial, you talked about the humiliation of the American people, that we have stood by, when this hideous crime was committed in 2001, and justice has not been demanded, and we have not received justice in this question. And I wanted to get your thinking on this question, now.
LAROUCHE: Well, first of all I’ve had a long history in what lies behind those conditions, because I was operating internationally. And so I happened to drop in at one point to pick up a TV broadcast, which was showing the evidence of what was going on in the 9/11 case. So, I’m an expert on that. I watched the whole process, from beginning to end, from the beginning of the plane carrying contacts from people who had been captured in Boston. The first plane went by, and then the second, and a great number of people in Manhattan were killed, at that point. What was done was, this was done bold-faced action, in supporting an action, directed by the Presidency, the Presidential system sent out the death note for the people who died in that mélange.
So that’s the case. And therefore Obama is one of the guilty parties. Obama is guilty of his commitment to the mass murder of the citizens in Manhattan! He’s guilty! He sustained a crime, which was done, on one level, done by the Queen of England herself, done by the Saudis themselves, in general, themselves; all of this is all true.
The question is, what do we do about it? How do we call this on to end this nonsense, to end any simulation of that happening? So far, we haven’t found a member, or a group of people, who would actually represent that. We have a few people, who rather courageously, have presented the case of the injustice in various degrees and forms. But we do not have one, single sign of a thorough act of justice, in acknowledgement of the condition of the people who died in that event.
Q: [avneet] Hi Lyn. Two days ago I attended a lecture given by a former Indian diplomat. It was a lecture on Indo-China, the history of India and China relationship. It was really in depth. I had no clue before I went, of the deep historic ties between the two nations, or two cultures, have had with each other. She particularly went through, from the visit of Rabindranath Tagore to China in 1924, and the discourse and the dialogue that that visit initiated; that started with Tagore, went from Tagore to Nehru, to Indira Gandhi, to her son Rajiv Gandhi, when he did a historic visit to Beijing in 1988, pretty much ending the Cold War mentality between the two governments.
Her lecture, it was a small audience with Indian diplomats and Chinese diplomats present. And in a question posed to her, where the questioner was saying, :China is not perfect, what can China learn from India? You are just talking about what India can learn from China”; and she said, “number one, you should actually visit China, and Indians can learn a lot from Chinese people. We can learn the Chinese power of perseverance.” And she said, it would be useful for Indians to wake up every morning to a China consciousness. We should not be following China, but we should constantly be keeping pace with them: What are the Chinese people doing? What are they planning to do in the next five or ten years?
It was a very good intervention into the present mistrust and the present scenario, and the war danger right now that surrounds this process, this new paradigm you have helped create.
So, I wanted your thoughts on that, because you, obviously, have been in that region and have a history of collaboration with both nations.
LAROUCHE: Yes, I should say so! Quite true. I’ve been deprived of that experience in recent years. But I have a memory of all those things. And I have contacts occasionally, with people from India particularly, on this case, and of course, others as well. But more particularly, my concentration in that region was chiefly leading in India. I was very close to Indira Gandhi before she was murdered, and things of that sort; so I have that kind of connection.
But I can also say that, the interesting thing was that when I got back to the United States out of military service from India, that we found that there was not much hope for anything, of course, of success in the United States; because the United States was totally corrupt—really, actually corrupt—universities, everything and so forth. But that’s what’s happened.
But, what happened after that, or in that period, India had, — and I had worked with Indira Gandhi and I worked with people associated with her; and we went to get a program of scientific development of technology in India! We got a program going which worked very well for a while, but then there was attrition in the process. And now, because we were in India, we were dealing with really high-grade business, in terms of production, and it got set back. But there were reasons why it was set back, so and so had a problem with so-and-so. And the death of Indira Gandhi really opened the gate for a period of backwardness in India.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. R— from Brooklyn. In reading EIR, I see why you dislike Bertrand Russell. His writings and ideas through the Truman administration and the FBI dealt a death-blow to this republic, especially our educational system. Would you care to put more gasoline on the fire?
LAROUCHE: [laughs] Well, I don’t like to throw gasoline on fire all over the place. That is not one of my intentions.
I would say, no, the point is we have to understand exactly how people become stupid enough to make those mistakes. And we have to chide them and remind them, “Where did you go to school?” or “Where didn’t you go to school?” and that’s the way to approach it or to reply to that.
Q: [follow-up] The way the current universities are teaching history, I doubt if most people know even that Bertrand Russell existed, and what his effect on this society has been.
LAROUCHE: I’m afraid that all too many people remember Bertrand Russell. They should never have remembered him at all! [laughter] So anyway, there’s no hope for anything about Bertrand Russell—nothing! There’s nothing good about him and never will be, and he’s still rotting in his grave. It’s not really something that we want to waste our time on. He’s waste matter.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. My question is, Obama claims that opening up the 28 pages would invite foreign countries and individuals to sue the U.S. for bombings of families, innocents, and collateral damage, including hospitals, schools, and whatnot. Those lawsuits would be directed at his Tuesday policies and the British influence in these attacks and destabilization of countries. How can we influence these countries to speak up further and set a stage for making Obama responsible for the killings outside of the 28 pages?
LAROUCHE: Maybe we could bankrupt the British Empire. That would be a good way to do that. [applause] Just take their money away; it’s evil money. Get it away. Prevent people from getting diseased by this kind of game. We don’t want them to have any money any more. They’re not worthy; they can’t be trusted with money. So therefore we’ll shut them down. And we will go ahead with our business in a proper way.
Q: [follow-up] Thank you. One more question. Do you think that eventually the U.S. is going to use Erdogan in Turkey as some sort of scapegoat for further destabilization of the region?
LAROUCHE: There’s no danger of scapegoat. The current regime there, is fully guilty already, so you can’t call that a scapegoat.
Q: Good afternoon. This is D— from the Bronx. I’d like to know your thoughts on the Cuba normalization of relationships that Obama did. I’ve been hearing these rumblings: I’m an activist, so I listen to a lot of different things, about you mentioned the FBI. About how this lady, Assata Shakur, she was a Black Panther who’s been down in Cuba now for a few decades. But Congress and everyone has been raising a lot of fuss, she’s been put on the FBI’s most-wanted list.
The concern of a lot of the activists who are aware of this thing, at this point, is that the FBI is a group of assassins; they assassinated so many people back in the ’60s. And there are a lot of people rotting in dungeons, in jail on trumped-up charges from way back then — from JFK to Martin King, to Fred Hampton in Chicago. And I’d like to know your thoughts on that?
LAROUCHE: OK. The evil problem comes largely out of exactly what came out of that operation. And that was evil. The Presidency of the Bush family—evil! And the followers of the Bush family—evil! Supporters of Obama? Obama is a killer. He was a known killer, who has killed a great number of people, regularly inside the United States, using his office as the means for causing the killing, en masse, regularly!
So when you get into that thing, at that point, you say, “All right, so Obama’s stepfather was a bad person. As a matter of fact, he was a mass killer.” Now the son followed the stepfather’s practice. That’s the problem.
And the problem now is, why haven’t we thrown Obama out of office? That’s the issue. Throw Obama out of office, now. There’s no reason to justify or attempt to justify Obama’s continued role in office. He should be thrown out of office. He’s a British agent of a certain kind. Get rid of him. Put him into prison. Put him into some place where he’s safe. Just put him aside. Get rid of him.
Q: Good day, Mr. LaRouche. [as relayed by Avneet] M— is asking, why did Saudi Arabia insult President Obama three times; recently, when Obama went to Saudi Arabia, he did not get the red carpet treatment. So why do you think that’s happening?
LAROUCHE: I don’t think he deserves any good treatment. [laughter] I think the question of good treatment for him and his type is really not existent.
Q: [Diane Sare] I have another question which has really been bothering me which I think we should say more about, which is the fires in Fort McMurray, Canada. I mean, here you have Alberta, where you have record numbers of suicides, and now you have this city of 80,000 people that’s been evacuated because of wildfires. And we have been talking about this, you have been talking about this for decades. We had the NAWAPA project in the ’60s. They didn’t build it. We’ve had the work that Ben Deniston has been doing on the ionization and other ways of working to manage our atmosphere to secure the water that we need. And now you have this enormous catastrophe with an entire city having to have been evacuated. And I think it is an extremely sharp lesson, for people who wish to be idiotic and talk about things like man-made climate change, man-made global warming, or who would want us to not work with China on the scientific work that China is doing. So I’d just like to know if you have thoughts on what’s happening up there?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, it’s obvious. There’s a pattern in this process. And you had the fires in Canada, the western part of Canada. This is obvious. It was not accidental. It should’ve been prevented. It could’ve been prevented by any competent system. So there’s something wrong. It’s either done by somebody in the United States, or people in the United States, or done by people in Canada as such; or maybe a combination of both. We don’t know the authorship that spread these fires. We don’t that. But, we know that big damage was done and it shouldn’t have happened. We cannot imagine how that could happen that way. It just doesn’t make any sense to me — as a natural event, no, it makes no sense.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. My name is T—J—. My question is, I’ve been observing this Obamacare situation, and my thoughts on that are that it is a huge disaster. I don’t understand — I mean, I’ve been adversely affected by it myself, personally. And I’ve talked to other people that I know, and possibly untold millions are adversely affected by this Obamacare program. And I wonder if he could possibly do this to actually harm people, rather than help them? And that is my question.
LAROUCHE: Your information is not complete, in a sense, but what you’re describing is something which is mystifying. It’s mystifying because we don’t have the address of where the event occurred. I don’t have the location of where such an event occurred.
SPEED: Repeat your question so he understands what you said.
Q: Obamacare, I wonder if he actually brought Obamacare as…
LAROUCHE: Oh, this guy, don’t kid yourself, this guy’s a killer! Obama is a killer! He’s killed many citizens of the United States, on his Tuesday events. They grabbed up citizens from the United States and put them into a prison process and killed them! That’s Obama! I don’t think you need to get much more information on that point as such. The question is how do we get Obama put out of office? Just put him out of office, we don’t him around. He takes after his stepfather’s habits.
Q: [follow-up] Like a cancer in our society.
LAROUCHE: He’s a killer! He has no proper authority in this system, none! He’s committed all the crimes needed to have him thrown out of office, peremptorily.
Q: [follow-up] He hasn’t been impeached: Why?
LAROUCHE: You don’t have to impeach him. Put him in prison, let him find out what kind of prison he wants to join and be a member of? [laughter] Well, that would be the humane thing you know, the humane way. He would be enraged and suffering in his own rage. And he’d be getting more of it, and if anybody wants to know what the animal is doing, well, we get a zookeeper to supervise him and make sure that his evil propensities are regulated.
So, if he wants to be active, well, we’ll put him in the jug and test him out for a while and see what he’s doing; but we’ll keep him out of the public eye. Dump him. He doesn’t belong in this country.
Q: [Suzanne Klebe] I wanted to ask you your take on why Einstein had an approach to the composition of the universe, that gave him the ability to hypothesize gravitational waves. I wanted to make two other ideas on this: One, is that it’s amazing to me that for 100 years there was an attempt to demonstrate whether that was true or not, because that’s a long time to concentrate on this hypothesis. But now we have this verification and you have the idea of the fact that Einstein had this concept 100 years ago, basically, and his idea of the composition of the universe.
So I wanted to ask you what you thought about Einstein’s approach that gave him this concept of the structure of the universe itself, that we’re now seeing demonstrated in this way?
LAROUCHE: What happened is that, in his life, as such there a number of things which he did that were rejected by the majority of the scientific community. And what has happened in the past, intervening hundred years, is that he was right and they were wrong. The question is, why did they do the thing that was wrong? Why? Because they were suckers, and it’s an all-day sucker or something like that. That’s what they were, they were suckers.
See, the point is, people are always trying to get a deductive approach to things which are important, important enough to attract attention. And that he had a correct understanding of the way to approach developments in space, he was right. They were wrong. In other words, it wasn’t a case of people being out there, making a sudden discovery innocently. Everything that was charged against him in this respect, was a fraud against him. And finally the fraud got to squeaking so loud that nobody could deny it after a century.
But the whole thing is something that, what people think about mankind, birth and death and so forth, in terms of Einstein’s experience, that the whole thing is a fraud. The whole case is and was a fraud.
And what happened, is a century later, they got a fraud on their hands, not a croaking fraud but a different kind of fraud. And it’s a fraud! It was always a fraud. He made the discovery, he defined the discovery. He laid out the characteristics of the discovery. Then, a century later they say, “I dunno how this happened” or something like that.
You know, Einstein was unique and what you find, is that most people in science, in physical science, do not understand physical science. Why? Because they want not to offend the people who are making up the bad stories.
Q: [follow-up] I wanted to ask a follow-up on that which has to do with your proposal that Kesha and that the organization launch this big fight to revive the space program. And the way this would impact the way people’s ability to understand the universe, to make breakthroughs, the average citizen, which is what you saw in the early stages of the space program and how important that is in reviving a culture, a commitment to production and scientific advancement among the average person.
In asking that, I think that the fact that the Chinese are talking now about going to the far side of the Moon and what can be discovered by that, and how that would be transmitted to the population at large: It was pointed out to me that Gene Kranz, one of the famous NASA administrators, in 1972, in his book he talks about the fact that there was a big discussion among scientists about what to do with the shutdown of the later Apollo missions. And in 1972, Gene Kranz said, “Well, we’ve got to grab the imagination of the American population for space. Why don’t we go to the far side of the Moon?” And Kranz said in his book, we had the capability to do it in 1972.
So, now the Chinese are doing it, or they’re proposing to do it, again, to achieve it, but also to grab the imagination of people. It seems that this idea that you have to grab the imagination of the people to move the program is critical, and it relates to what Einstein did, because what do we now know about the universe we didn’t know before, and can that be communicated and inspire the average American?
LAROUCHE: That’s a difficult thing to spin that way. Yes, that happens; things like that happen. But what’s the authority on which to define the success of such a program? That’s the question. And this means that what’s happened along the way? It’s not a question of discover, in the ordinary, silly sense of discovery, not that sense at all. The point is that there’s a recognition that there’s something missing in the process. Something is already missing. Now people having found themselves holding something up, which is missing, and looking for it, now they make a discovery. But the discovery is that that they’re sitting out there, they suddenly — “Oh, I’m a genius, I just had some kind of a sexual experience or something which made me very happy.” Something like that.
No, this is not anything of that type. The point is, mankind is ignorant of his own knowledge! And these people who go out there and say these things and say this is my discovery, my discovery” it’s not their discovery. They don’t know what they’re talking about. And even the people who are doing this thing, on the so-called “discovery” of Einstein’s gravitational waves, that’s nonsense, absolute nonsense! It’s a way of trying to cover up what they were trying to hide.
Q: It’s a simple question, really, and probably I already know the answer: But just as Senator Gravel from Alaska was able to read the Pentagon Papers, what do you think the propensity is that we could get a congressman or a senator to read the 28 pages, so it would have to become a matter of record?
LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, if you just get honest people, you don’t need to have that problem. There’s no problem. Honest people who are qualified can immediately adduce what this means. It’s no big deal. So the problem is, is how do you get people to recognize what they already implicitly do know, through the skills they already have? And is it not the lack of the skills which they already had, but didn’t know how to use? And that, in general, is the case.
I mean, because you know, the history of children is that — what do we want as children? Do we want a little child who’s now going to grow up and become very smart and teach us a lot of things? No! No.
What we’re going to do, is we’re going to discover that something under our noses has happened, and we know that we didn’t do that ourselves. And therefore, you will investigate that thing accordingly.
No, all these kinds of things are just games. And they can be dealt with other ways, in much better ways. Real scientific discovery does not depend upon what comes out of the baby. It doesn’t work that way. What happens is that a human individual, realizing how stupid mankind in general is, goes out and says, “well, look, I’ve been fooled. I’ve been told that this was the way things work. Now I discovered that that’s not the way things work!” And therefore they begin to discover that —
Well, let me put the thing very simply, when a child is born, when a child is developed and begins to develop, that child will go beyond anything its parents can do. They will make discoveries which their parents always failed to do up to that point. And therefore, what you want is you want geniuses, true geniuses, people who are not born geniuses, they’re born as human beings; and in respect to society they are geniuses, because they are unique in the society, and they were people who developed uniquely beyond the rest of the society through their development. And this is the way the thing works.
So the question is, how do we get the education and development of children, to enable to those children to become great scientists? And this does not come from some coddling of this or coddling that; it’s simply that some children, in schools, who unfortunately might have been victims of California schools, out there, or something like that. But, the point is that mankind has the ability, to make discoveries, actually make discoveries, which are genuine discoveries, and to work the way out to understand what those discoveries are.
Very few people do that, because they’re not trained to do that. The typical university today, for example, is incompetent, intrinsically incompetent, because instead of looking for the tools by which they can make discoveries, they try to play around with something instead.
Q: Hi Mr. LaRouche, I wanted to ask a question in particular about the mind, again. I’m reading a book about The Power of You Subconscious Mind, and it’s stated in the book that most great thinkers develop their ideas by tapping into their subconscious, and also tapping into what’s called the “super-conscious” or the “greater intelligence.” I want to know what you think about that?
It also says that most great innovators also did it outside of the field.
LAROUCHE: Aww, no! I think there were people who rescued themselves from bad schools educations. [laughter] Or ignorant parents. That’s usually… You’ll get a child being taken into the laundry room, and hit across the rear end, repeatedly, several times, that’s what you’re talking about.
SPEED: Even though there may be one or two other questions, at this point I have to step in. This is too rich and too funny a discussion for me to stay out of. I got to get in this!
Because, I remember you telling me a story — people here would have no reason to know this; this was in 1973, and it was at your house, about how you used to go up to Malcolm X’s talks — I don’t know if it was at the Audubon Ballroom or where it was — and you heard him in Harlem, and what he would do in the individual talks. Now, he wouldn’t do this in public, but he would do it there in public. And what he used to do, is he would imitate the pimps, the prostitutes, the various other characters, the drunks; and what would happen is, people would at first be uncomfortable and then they would begin to laugh, uproariously, and then he would turn to them and say, “You see what you’re like?!”
“You see what you’re like?” — that is the core of real intelligence. That’s what made Malcolm important, and that’s what’s missing from this issue, when people talk about, like the things about Einstein and the gravitational waves. Now, you have attacked Bertrand Russell continually as the most evil man of the 20th century. People then say, “Oh what does that mean? Do we have to look at this Four Essays on Philosophy, do we have to look at what he said at what he said about Riemann? Do we…?” And you just said: Look, the whole way that people are talking about discovery, thought, all of this is a game, it’s a fraud. It doesn’t work this way. You’re being as, as Malcolm used to say, “You been took, you’ve been bamboozled, you’ve been baffled.”
And what I’m hearing, Lyn, and what I’m reminded of, and what you’re laying out here now, is you see, last week when you spoke here, and you laid out this whole thing about the FBI, there was real, real awe, — meaning terror, as well as admiration — but like “Yeah, well, maybe he can do that, but I don’t know, I mean, is this really what we’re all supposed to do?”
And I’m saying this, because this issue of our actions in Manhattan and the way in which you understand how ideas and intelligence works, this is what, this is more, — to me, I think that’s what I’m hearing from you. But you can tell me if I’m wrong.
LAROUCHE: Well, I always have been very opposed to my parents, and to about everybody else that I was associated with, because I had known very quickly that they were wrong. So, when you go through life knowing that the people who are trying to teach you something are wrong, that has an effect. And I found that I had some things that I had discovered, and these other guys didn’t know what they were talking about. But I did.
And if you want to go out and be in schools, and educated in schools, by and large, with some exceptional cases, people will be able to recognize what the truth is. Most of the population, does not have the ability to distinguish the truth from fraud. But when somebody helps them and comes along and gives them an explanation and they go through it and begin to reexamine their notions, then it’s when you get that kind of an effect.
SPEED: Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. And one follow-up on that: You were able, in the period of ’70-’71-’72, to pull a bunch of us out of campuses, in which this sort of fraud was not only practiced, it had been nearly perfected. And it was sort of nonstop fraud. And we used to like watching you deal with these people, which I think is how a certain disposition was passed on to some of us; because it was fun, it was great to do. But I want to ask you: You’ve also seen the degeneration in the United States, and at the same time to say “hey, in New York, we can still get something.”
Now, here’s what I want to know from you: How do we go about creating that disposition, where people like the idea of actually beating up, destroying fraud?
LAROUCHE: Well, you have to find some people in Manhattan, and it was a very peculiar kind of environment, in those days, but you would have people who would actually, as I would do it, and did it in schools earlier, and things like that, recognize the thing is a fraud. In other words, they’re laying out a solemn foundation for a great discovery, or something like that. And you turn around, and you look around and you say, “where’d this damned idiot come from?”
And so we would have people in a community, Manhattan in part, other places, and internationally also, and we would succeed in making discoveries. And the way we made the discoveries is we rejected the opinions of foolish people.
SPEED: Right. OK, are there other questions?
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, it’s P— from Green-wich, Connecticut.
LAROUCHE: Aha! Very good!
Q: The reason why I say “Green-wich” is because when I was growing up, it was Green-wich, Connecticut. And then when, I guess, the higher echelon came in, they changed it to Greenwich [pronounced “Grenitch”]. But I’m still from Green-wich.
A little report on what we’ve been up to: R— Mc— and I went to Brooklyn to the fire departments. We introduced ourselves and we told them about the 28 pages. And they really thanked us for bringing out the truth, and it’s starting to snowball now. More and more companies are getting the word out, because of other companies. So I think we have an excellent movement going. And I know we’ll get the 28 pages released. Thank you.
LAROUCHE: Good. Good achievement, if you can deliver it.
SPEED: OK, we’ll just take this as the final.
Q: It’s M— here. We were down there at the World Trade Towers, and I decided, “hey, it’s very difficult to get into the fire departments, but I’m going to do it, try it again.” And I took a whole bunch of the 28 pages and a couple of other things that were pretty indicative of what’s going on, and I went down to my father’s firehouse. And rang the bell, because it’s all locked up, all these firehouses are all locked up here in Manhattan, and finally somebody came down, and I said, “Hi, my dad was 40 years in the fire department, and that hook and ladder that was smashed on the front page of Daily News on the day of 9/11, that was my dad’s truck. He rode the tiller, and then he rode the caboose, when he was in his sixties and seventies.”
And the guy’s sort of listening, and he said, “Really?” he said, “what was his name?” So I told him, and I’d like to come on down here and bring my son, but in the meantime, I want you to give these out to the firemen there, because it’s about time that we, the firefighters, understood exactly who did this whole thing.” And he thanked me and I’m sure he did do that.
And then next door is a museum, and he told me — somebody came over to me on the street, and he said, “Oh, by the way this museum was set up by a retired fireman. His son was there, on the force during 9/11, and he wanted to do this for the families and for the firemen.” So I went in and I looked around a little bit and I left some literature there. And I’d be glad to go back. And C— and I would do the Upper West Side, for P—, and you have to really be persistent to get them to open the doors.
Just wanted to report that.
LAROUCHE: Thank you.
SPEED: So, Lyn if you have any final words for us here?
LAROUCHE: I don’t like the term “final words”… [laughter]
SPEED: We-ellll! Then [laughter]…
LAROUCHE: You idiot! To my age, you don’t talk about “solemn words”!
SPEED: Fine, fine! If you’d like have a conclusion for today’s session, prior to the next one that we will hold — with you.
LAROUCHE: Yes! I’ll be glad to be there.
SPEED: OK, he said, he’d be glad to be there. That’s it, all right? We’re finished, we’re out. OK, we’ll see you next week. [applause]
LAROUCHE: OK, à bientôt!