MICHAEL STEGER: …and of course as we’ve been warning over the last five years, that there’s an increasing danger of world war under the Obama administration, the British-controlled NATO deployments, and that has only escalated in the recent weeks.
We are looking at an international deployment from the LaRouche organization at this point. As soon as Lyndon and Helga LaRouche arrived into Europe earlier this week, we’ve already seen significant coverage: both an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Itar-TASS; the main news agency of the Russian government did a significant interview with her specifically on the strategic question. And then today by Sputnik International, another Russian-based news agency there, covered in their English website the now internationally circulating petition “Petition: The Warsaw Summit Prepares for War, It’s Time to Leave NATO Now!” [https://larouchepac.com/20160530/petition-warsaw-summit-prepares -war-its-time-leave-nato-now]. And if people want to sign that they can go on the LaRouche PAC website.
The petition says, “The Warsaw Summit Prepares for War, It’s Time to Leave NATO Now!”:
“The following appeal is being circulated internationally, including on the websites of the international LaRouche movement.
“The upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw on July 8-9, is expected to be yet another provocation against Russia. By signing this call, we say “stop” this nuclear escalation, before the irreparable occurs!…”
You can find that on the LaRouche PAC site; it is circulating internationally and we have over a few hundred signers already of an international nature. So we are seeing a significant international development.
Today, based on a vote passed by the German parliament, identifying and recognizing the Armenian genocide by the Ottoman Empire during the course of World War I; the current Turkish government led by President Erdogan took such offense, that they apparently removed their ambassador from the Russian Embassy. And so obviously, Turkey is a leading factor in the in the British orchestrations for war, was we see in Syria; as we see with the downing of the Russia jet bomber.
And so these steps, the questions of NATO, the questions of the European Union, the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, really hang in the balance of the decisions that we as the United States the decisions that we have to make in the immediate period ahead.
And so joining us tonight, is William Wertz. He’s been a long-term leader and collaborator with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. He’s got a good sense, I believe of not only the strategic situation, but also our organization’s unique international role, over the last 40-45 years, but also uniquely since the end of the so-called Cold War, and these last 25 years which have really shaped the strategic situation today, and not only from a political and economic standpoint, but also from a cultural one.
Will are you on the call?
William WERTZ: Yes, I am.
STEGER: So Will, do you have some opening remarks, and then we’ll get some questions going?
WERTZ: OK. I think as your introductory remarks point to, and as Lyn and Helga LaRouche have really stressed repeatedly in the recent period, we’re at a crossroads in terms of mankind’s future. On the one hand, we have the ongoing collapse of the financial system in the trans-Atlantic region, increasing death rates, decrease in labor productivity in the sense of the productive powers of the mind; we have a situation under those conditions where the British and Obama are carrying out a provocative policy towards China, towards Russia, which can very easily lead us to thermonuclear war and the extinction of the human race.
On the other hand, and what you have is the emergence of an entirely different orientation which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have played a critical catalytic role in bringing into existence, throughout Eurasia in particular, with global impact, and even into the trans-Atlantic region. And there are major developments, I’ll start out on the Eurasian front, which are crucial: We recent had a major conference in Sochi, Russia, involving Russia, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and ASEAN. And the basic thrust of that conference was really to extend the economic cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the SCO and ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], based upon the Chinese policy of the New Silk Road, which Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in particular, has been involved in promoting for decades now.
While in the West, quadrillions of monetary aggregates are being used, in vain, to prop up the bankrupt financial system, at the expense of human beings’ wellbeing. In the Eurasian sector, the Chinese are really slated to invest perhaps a trillion dollars in economic development, from the standpoint of really the policy formulated in 1967 by a Roman Catholic Pope Paul VI in an Encyclical called Populorum Progressio; On the Development of Peoples. And the idea was embodied in his sentence: “The new name for peace is development.” And that’s precisely what the Chinese, the Russians, and the Indians, in particular have committed themselves to.
And that’s a policy which is oriented towards increasing the powers of the human mind, of the entire population, through investment in infrastructure, in major projects; not only on the planet Earth, but very importantly, they’re committed to a policy of exploring the Galaxy, starting with the Moon, something which Obama has killed in the United States.
As a result of this orientation, you have splits occurring: For instance, recently Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan went to Russia to meet with President Putin, and they discussed various economic agreements, among them. And he went there despite the fact that Obama had told him not to go until after the G7 meeting which occurred later on, on May 26-27 in Japan. And at that G7 meeting, which just occurred, Abe also broke with Obama and said that we are on the verge of a financial collapse and we need these kinds of development projects. Obama rebuffed him and argued that, “no, we’re in an economic recovery.” Which certainly nobody in the United States has been able to see yet.
At the same time, you have developments in the Philippines with this President-elect, where the Philippines, in terms of previous governments, have actually been working directly with Obama against China in the South China Sea. Now, you have a new President-elect Duterte, who, when he received the congratulations from President Xi of China, responded that Xi was a great President, of China. And he also said that the Philippines, in terms of their relations with China and the South China Sea dispute, that the quote is, “it will not be dependent on America.” And “it is tackling the west that I want everybody to know, that we will be charting a course of our own.” That’s what the new President-elect of the Philippines has said.
Virtually every day there are new development projects which are being announced. The most recent is one involved India, Iran, and then also by implication, Afghanistan, the development of Chabahar Port in Iran, with development corridors into India and Afghanistan. These kinds of developments are occurring throughout Asia, and represent, really, the future of mankind.
Now, on the other hand, as Mike indicated, you have certain developments even in the trans-Atlantic region, particularly in Europe, which reflect a sane reaction to the fact that Obama and the British are pushing for thermonuclear war, through their policy of encirclement of Russia by NATO, and their similar policies in the South China Sea. So you have the National Assembly in France passed a resolution calling for lifting the sanctions against Russia; the French Senate, there’s a European Affairs Committee which just recently passed a resolution calling for the same thing. And that resolution will soon go to the French Senate as a whole, and then to the European Council. In Italy, you have at least three regions which have recent passed resolutions, Venice, Lombardy, and one other, calling for recognition of Crimea as part of Russia; that this was a legitimate decision on the , that this was a legitimate decision on the part of the people of Crimea, in the face of a Nazi coup in Ukraine, to join Russia; and these resolutions also called for lifting of sanctions. And a resolution is also going to be introduced into the Italian region of Tuscany to the same effect.
You have forces in Germany which are right now also very much opposed to the sanctions, even though the official position of the government is still for the sanctions. So, for instance, Steinmeier, the foreign minister, has said that there’s growing opposition to the sanctions and he’s not sure that they’re going to be able to reimpose them once they expire in the coming period.
You have the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum coming up, and for instance, the Italian Prime Minister Renzi will be going to that and addressing the plenary meeting along with Putin, and also the President of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev. You have others who will be going to that: Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission is going; Ban Ki-Moon at the UN will be going. Numerous other people will be going there.
So while Obama and the British are trying to isolate Putin, through his flanking operation, particularly in Syria, Putin has actually emerged on the world stage, and is fighting for peace and development, along with Xi and Modi, whereas what is Obama doing? He goes to Hiroshima and refuses to apologize because his view is, as he expressed in the interview before going there, that “in war you have to kill people.” And just today it was reported that the defense minister of Indonesia, which of course is where Obama grew up and where his stepfather participated in genocide, the massacres in the 1960s there; the defense minister just said that the 500,000 people who were slaughtered in Indonesia deserved to die. And as his authority, he cited Barack Obama’s comments about how he’s learned that in war you have to kill people, which was his defense of Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on civilian populations in Japan. Now, you’ve also got what Mike referred to in terms of the vote in the Bundestag recognizing that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against the Armenians. And this is going to intersect the whole fight against the sanctions, because all of Europe, like the United States essentially has an insane, criminal policy imposed upon it, which they’re operating under. For instance, they make a deal with Erdogan, on the migrants, where it’s Erdogan’s policy to support ISIS and al-Nusra in Syria which is creating the migrants! Victoria Nuland imposed this Nazi regime in Ukraine, and yet the Europeans are ones paying for it by the sanctions against Russia.
So the point here is that we’re at a moment where it’s possible to break out of this kind of insane, criminal geometry, as we now see occurring in Asia, and we see the seed crystals of it in Europe. And this is crucial that this occur right now, given the danger that the world faces. But I just wanted to lay that out, because what we do here in the United States is crucial: NATO has no reason for existence. As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, it didn’t need to exist any longer. It should have been dissolved.
Instead, not only was it not dissolved, but it’s become more aggressive in moving eastward, despite the fact that when the U.S. under George Bush Sr. negotiated with Gorbachov about the reunification of Germany, there were guarantees given to Gorbachov that NATO would not move eastward, and that’s been violated.
And so what you have now is a policy which is bringing us to the edge of a thermonuclear war. And it’s our responsibility, here in the United States, especially, to really work to break this insane, criminal hold which the British have on the United States through their puppet Obama. And that I think is what we have to do. and this is particularly expressed in what we’re doing in Manhattan — we just had a major conference there, as people know. We have another conference coming up in the San Francisco Bay Area on June 8th; and we have a conference that’s coming up in Berlin later this month. And those conferences are crucial in pulling together the forces in the United States and Europe, to break with this British war policy, to break with Obama.
And I think the major problem we have in the United States and in many areas in Europe in particular, is that people have been miseducated as to how to think. And the only way you can really judge how to think is if you proceed from a standpoint of what a human being actually is, or what the human species is, as the only creative species, and you locate man’s immortality is that creative capacity.
And if you orient it in that way, you won’t accept the kinds of “critical choices” that are presented to you, by the British Empire, by the news media. And unfortunately most Americans, and it’s not limited to Americans; it’s also the case in Europe; really do not think correctly in terms of what the actual nature of the fight is. They don’t know about what I’ve just described, they’re generally uninformed about that, especially if they spend any time watching CNN or Fox News; they would never know anything about this, and their minds would be completely closed. And that’s exactly what we see.
But our job is to evoke that creativity in our fellow citizens in this very moment, so that we actually stop this drive for war and bring the United States and Europe into collaboration with the Chinese, and with the Russians, and with the Indians. That’s what they’re proposing; what Putin proposed at the UN General Assembly when he called for a revival of the anti-Nazi coalition of World War II, this time against terrorists, what he proposed was a united front, very similar to the “win-win” strategy of the Chinese. And there’s no good reason why those proposals for collaboration, are not accepted. What possible reason, is there for not jointly working with the Russians against ISIS and al-Qaeda in the form of al Nusra in Syria. These are the same people who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Same people, generically: which is the British and the Saudis.
And our job is to reverse a coup which took place at that point in the United States. And that is not fully understood by most Americans but that’s what we have to get them to understand and to act on.
So I just wanted to start off with that overall picture.
STEGER: Great. Well, I think there’s a lot more to discuss, so let’s get into some questions.
Q1: This is C_-G— from Santa Rosa. Actually Will already answered my question to a certain extent, but I’d like him to comment: the FBI is engaged in a real terror operation of both the American public and the Congress of the United States, and what I’ve seen, is that we’ve got about 80 people in the Congress who are decent. And numbers are being run on them; and I’d like you to comment on that. That’s my —
And then you have the general population in the United States in which you have a range, but to me, the way it breaks down is you have people who are really — and I have one perfect example is a woman that I know, that watches CNN and Fox News and NBC, that’s all she watches. And she is so brainwashed, that there is no way to break through to that person. They are in denial. But there’s also a fear factor there too.
And then you have another layer of the population who I am convinced at a certain level it breaks down to fear there, too. That they know what Obama is capable of, they know he’s a killer and they’re afraid to say anything. I have another acquaintance who basically says that, “I don’t want to call up and listen to the LaRouche forecast, because they’re listening to me listening.” So the way I approach that sometimes, and not as a gimmick, and because I want to reach these people on an emotional level without having them freak out: I say, “Look monkeys don’t build spaceships, only man builds spaceships,” to kind of, you know, break the conversation open. So I’d like you to comment on that.
WERTZ: Listen I think the key issue here is, we’ve got this issue that Lyndon LaRouche addresses on most occasions, which is the way that people think, or rather the way they don’t think, and this applies to the population, and if the population were to begin to think correct, i.e., from the standpoint of human creativity, the Congress would not be a problem. But I think the real issue is getting the American population to think. And this is why Lyndon LaRouche refers to Bertrand Russell as the most evil man of the 20th century. Because Bertrand Russell imposed a certain kind of way of thinking on the population which — this is something which is well known to those people who have looked at it historically. It goes back to the difference between Plato and Aristotle; or the difference between the German philosopher Leibniz and the British philosopher Locke. Edgar Allan Poe addressed this in one of his short stories, in a very effective way, where he said, the oligarchy can control you if they convince you that there are two ways of thinking, and those two ways of thinking are empiricism, in the sense of operating from the standpoint of sense-perception; that that’s all you’ve got, that that’s how people know things. Or, the second method is, logical deduction which is the method of Aristotle. And what Poe said is, as long as people operate within these two pathways, they’re completely controlled.
And that’s what Bertrand Russell did: it was induction and deduction, that’s all that characterizes man. Man is not capable of creativity from the standpoint of Bertrand Russell. And what Edgar Allan Poe said is that the actual nature of man is to soar. And he soars through that Plato discussed in terms of the generation of hypotheses, something new, something which has never been thought before and it’s really that which is unknown, discovering that. which you cannot discover from the standpoint of mere sense-perception of making deductions from already existing categories of knowledge.
And that’s what kills people: This denial of creativity is man’s nature and the reduction of people to sense-perception or logical deduction. And what Poe said is that the people who engage in merely sense-perception are creeping and those who engage in logical deduction are merely crawling. But the nature of man is to soar — which is what’s so important about the space program.
And you know, the fear which you’re discussing, which the FBI generates, this comes from not locating your identity in creativity. Because if you’re just operating on the basis of self-interest in a narrowly defined way, then you’re going to be fearful. But if you operate from the standpoint of what is your commitment to the future of mankind, then the passion associated with that mission will be sufficient to overcome your fears. And that’s what we have to really evoke in the population.
Q2: Hi Mike, it’s R—B— from Minneapolis, and hello to you Will. Considering the days I was thinking about this evening’s call, it’s been just over 30 years, since Lyn and Helga — and you, Will, you were involved — found me. So it’s been a long time.
I have three things on my mind: You commented on the two items from Germany. Steinmeier saying it’s time to open up communications with Russia and lift the sanctions; and also the powerful move by the Bundestag basically putting Turkey in its place.
But one item that I noticed in the briefing, was the mention that the Kra Canal project is finally under way, and I know and you know so well, Will, that that was one of the major infrastructure projects that Lyn brought to the world a long, long, long time ago, and how critical it would be to open up the sea passages, that would obviously open up China and so forth to Africa. But I’d like you to comment on the Kra Canal.
WERTZ: Well, what’s been reported in recent days is that a very significant committee in Thailand has decided in favor of going ahead with the Kra Canal. There was also a U.S. China-Russian specialist who also wrote a report in favor of the Kra Canal. And of course, we have associates in Thailand itself, who have been fighting for the Kra Canal. Actually Pakdee Tanapura has been associated with EIR for a long time, and he’s been especially active in this.
What Lyndon LaRouche said when he heard about these developments, he said “That would be the greatest revolution in modern history.”
Essentially, it’s to cut a canal through the Isthmus controlled by Thailand and would allow ships to go through; it would be the equivalent in a certain sense of the Panama Canal, and it would abort British control of the Straits of Malacca sea passage in that area, and would make passage from Asia to China to India to East Africa, just cut the time and cost significantly.
The Chinese see this is part of the One Belt, One Road policy: In other words they have the Silk Road [Economic Belt], which is land-based, but then they also have the maritime conception [21st Century Maritime Silk Road]. So this is big.
The other project which is very important, and was just announced that they’re starting it, is the Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers in India. Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have long advocated that there ben water control and water diversion projects involving those two rivers, which flood in a destructive manner when you have snow melting from the Himalayas, but there are areas of India which have no water whatsoever. So the Indian government just announced that.
So here you have two major projects which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche were actively involved in promoting, way before the Productive Triangle, or the Eurasian Land-Bridge. These go back to the 1970s, both of those projects.
And these are the kinds of projects that were being also entertained by what was called the Global Infrastructure Fund (GIF) of Mitsubishi of Japan back in those days. And Lyn and Helga intersected this orientation of Japan during that period; but later on, that whole orientation of Japan was aborted, basically under the influence of the British and the U.S. And ironically, it was China which picked up the very orientation which the Japanese were earlier pioneering.
So the Kra Canal is extraordinarily important as is this river diversion control project for the Ganges-Brahmaputra Rivers in India. And they’re both really reflective of a completely different concept: I mean, we in the United States have not had any projects that are comparable in any way to these kinds of projects that we’ve been discussing tonight, and which obviously we’ve been fighting for, for decades.
So that was Lyn’s comment on the Kra Canal development. And he very clearly is saying that if you Japan break from Obama and the war policy against China, and if they begin to collaborate with China and Russia in development projects; and then, if you have a similar development in Europe, particularly in respect to Germany, then you’ve really broken the stranglehold of the war party. And one of the things that’s very important about Germany — and Germany’s been put through the wringer number times, and of course they’ve got very strong “green” orientation in Germany.
But the one thing you really have to remember about Germany, is that the space program really began in Germany. They had visionaries, really, at the turn of the century going into the 20th century, who had this conception that man is not just an Earthling, but that we should explore space. And you’ve got people like Krafft Ehricke, or Wernher von Braun, these are people who came here, and helped us with launching our space program here.
But the point here is that there’s a long tradition of science, and simultaneously a long tradition of Classical music in Germany, which really defines Germany positively, as opposed to any other conception of Germany. And the challenge is to evoke that self-identity in Germany, in terms of the space program. The whole thrust of Krafft Ehricke, as Kesha Rogers has emphasized in her campaign in Texas to revive the U.S. space program, against Obama’s shutting it down, is that man has an extraterrestrial imperative, that our destiny is just on the planet Earth; but our destiny is in the Galaxy, to explore it, to develop it. And there’s a long history in Germany in respect to this, which includes Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz; then you get Gauss, Riemann, Planck, Einstein, in terms of the science. And then of course, you’ve got the German Classical music and poetry.
And that was really the reason for the founding of the Schiller Institute in the first place, which was to combine the principles of the American Revolution, and this tradition, in the positive sense of a tradition, this legacy, in Germany: And that was the basis for the Schiller Institute in the very beginning, to combine the revolutionary principles of the founding fathers of the United States, and this legacy in Germany. And that remains a crucial objective right now, in terms of the German situation.
You’ve got motion in France, you’ve got motion in Italy, and there’s a lot of motion under the surface in Germany, but the real issue is, can we really evoke that positive identity in Germany, to work again, with Russia, China, India, and to help break the stranglehold on the rest of Europe and on the United States.
STEGER: As people may know, the unofficial motto for NATO is “to keep Germany down, Russia out, and the U.S. in.” And I think it’s time to change that “bring Germany up, Russia in, and Obama out.”
Q3: There’s something that Helga Zepp-LaRouche brought up previously that’s been very problematic: In the area of Southeast Asia at the end of World War I, the victorious powers were irresponsible and neglected to do any clear delineation of the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, the various reefs in that area, which is typically called the South China Sea, but should probably be called either the Southeast Asian or the Indochina Sea.
And I guess the question I have is, right now, there’s sort of a gold rush of the various countries in the area trying to take advantage of the situation, set up military bases, do industrial fishing which is very destructive to the reefs, set up military bases, gas, oil, so forth. Really what needs to be done is what should have been done a hundred years ago: a clear delineation of which areas are international, which areas are aligned with each country should be done; and right now, all the U.S. does is impotently send our naval fleet, proving that we’re allowed to be there, but not actually doing anything about the irresponsible behavior of the nations in the area.
I wanted your thoughts on it. And also than us being strictly the ones to enforce international law, perhaps India, Russia, and Australia, who are close but not directly involved, could be the international powers that could monitor the area, and we can come up with a law of the sea resolution. Your thoughts on that matter?
WERTZ: First, the U.S. under Obama is just carrying out a provocative policy towards China, which is similar to the encirclement of Russia, including the location of anti-missile defense systems in Romania, with plans to put them into Poland and so forth; and of course, you also have proposals to put THAAD missiles into South Korea. So that’s what you’ve got and you’ve got to look at it from that standpoint.
There’s an attempt to maintain a unipolar world, run by the British Empire. And of course, one of the things that was said after World War II, that British run the world by having the U.S. as a “dumb giant on a leash.” And that’s the way we functioned, with only a few exceptions after Roosevelt’s death.
A lot of these issues could be easily resolved if the United States kept out of the situation and weren’t approaching it from this geopolitical standpoint overall. That’s the significance of this new President-elect of the Philippines: who basically wants to collaborate with, what’s to negotiate with China directly. As opposed to operating as operating as part of a war party bloc against China.
So that’s the way you have to go, like Abe going to visit with Putin, trying to resolve — you know, they don’t have a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, ending World War II! And you have conflicts over islands there.
But look at the Middle East, look at so many places in the world where the British in particular, but other colonialist parties, countries, essentially created the potential for conflicts throughout the globe. The Middle East is just the most notorious example of that.
So the only overall solution is to get out of that geometry altogether, and think of collaboration on behalf of the common aims of mankind. That’s the only way out. Otherwise, you’re going to be manipulated by the British until mankind is destroyed. Because that’s what they will do. So that’s the only answer. This ASEAN conference that just occurred with Russia had the theme of towards a strategic partnership in the common interests of mankind. And that’s the approach we have to take. That’s why I referred in the beginning to Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio, where he had argued that “development is the new name for peace.” And it’s only if you’re actually raising the labor power of populations, out of ignorance, out of poverty, increasing the skill levels, increasing the education, that you can actually lay the basis for peaceful collaboration among different cultures. That’s the key to the situation.
It’s something that Nicholas of Cusa proposed in a work he wrote in 1433, called Concordantia Catholica, or “Universal Concord” is the translation from Latin. And the basic point he made is that the only way you can have peace is by getting everybody to rise to the level harmony with the Logos, or the creative principle itself; away from the lower levels of sense-perception and mere logical deduction. And he made the further point that that the problem in the world is the number of fools is infinite.
He also proposed in this work that government should be by the consent of the governed, which obviously later became the principle of the United States in our Declaration of Independence. But the question is, how do you get a consent if the people are kept in ignorance and poverty? So the solution is, you’ve got to have an economic development perspective that actually raises people above this ignorance, out of this poverty, and into collaboration with other people, relating to each other in terms of their mind. And that’s the only way to resolve these kinds of issues.
And of course, that’s the entire approach that Lyndon LaRouche has always had, since the very inception of this organization. I remember, I joined back in 1971, that was what attracted me to this organization, was the idea of putting forward a program of what he referred to at that point, of expanded social reproduction; which would overcome the divisions among people in society. Which are the same divisions which the oligarchy manipulates to pit people against each other to maintain their control.
So, I think that’s the only way you can go about the problems such as you have throughout many parts of the world, as a result of the history of colonialism.
STEGER: Yeah, this question of the Kra Canal that was raised in the previous question, Will, anyone looking at the South China Sea has to incorporate the Kra Canal conception into their overall strategic perspective; and that really demonstrates the question between looking at what’s already there from a deductive or inductive approach versus looking at what could we create, introduce into the situation that transforms the entire strategic relationships among nations. So I would encourage the questioner to look into the Kra Canal project; we have an video production on the LaRouche PAC site that very well could be reposted soon. [https://larouchepac.com/20130923/kra-canal]
Q4: Good evening Mike. This is P— from Greenwich, Connecticut. This is kind of a mixed up scenario of a point: I was in the Army, stationed in Germany when the Cuban crisis started in Oct. 22, 1962. We have “Honest John” missiles which had nuclear warheads. Russia was provoking nuclear war against the U.S. Here we are in 2016, the U.S. is provoking nuclear war.
Popular opinion from Obama, is that Russia and China are provoking war. After the Cuban crisis was settled, I asked my Sergeant, “Will we get a medal for standing up to the Russians?” He said, “There are no such medal honors; no matter what side you’re on, using nuclear weapons, there is no honor for the annihilation of the human race.” And that was it.
WERTZ: Well, that was absolutely true! What he said that’s the case. But what we’re faced with right now, is the situation where we have to get people to actually understand that it’s the President they’ve allowed to remain in office who is provoking this because the guy’s a murderer. And beyond what Lyndon LaRouche has said, what we’ve said about this, you had Ben Rhodes his guru and spokesman give an interview recently before Obama went to Japan, where he said that Obama is unique in that he grew up in Indonesia during the massacre of 500,000 people. And he didn’t say it, but the reality was, Obama’s stepfather participated in that massacre, and Obama in one of his autobiographies recounted this discussion with his stepfather, about “did you see people being killed?” and the stepfather said, yes. Obama, at least in his account, didn’t say that he apparently failed to ask his stepfather, “did you kill people?”
But the basic point is that Obama’s stepfather said, essentially that you’re weak if you don’t kill or work with those who kill and that that’s what power is. And what Ben Rhodes said in that interview, was that Obama got to know power intimately, unique among U.S. Presidents. And what he said is, that Obama, although he liked Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, because he’s President and has power, he has to kill people. And that’s precisely what Obama said when he went to Hiroshima in defending Truman’s dropping the atomic bomb on a civilian population!
So the only thing that I would say is that, that was in the middle of the Cold War, you had the Soviet Union. And now, Putin is not the Soviet Union. Putin and Xi and Modi represent the people who are actually trying to defend the world from the war policy which has come to dominate the United States, in terms of all of the wars of regime change, of coups, and so forth!
Obama just gave another interview in which he said, about Libya, “it’s kind of a mess.” I mean, this is the same criminal indifference and lying that you get from Hillary Clinton. And he claims that his problem was that he didn’t coordinate it with the European forces after, to carry out the coup. But the problem was, that they went in and they carried out a coup against a sovereign country, and they killed a head of state!
So that’s our problem right now: We’ve got a murderer in the White House in our own country, and there’s been a progressive reversal of Roosevelt’s policies going back to Truman and this has included assassinations in the ’60s of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, others; it included the attempted assassination of Reagan, and the jailing of Lyn! If Lyn had not been jailed, you would never have had 9/11: Because if Lyn had been in a position that he was in, going into the Reagan Administration, the world would have been completely different.
So, but you did have 9/11. And so it’s incumbent upon us to have the courage and the commitment to reverse this coup, this British-Saudi coup, which we’ve been living under for the last 15 years. And I guess in answer to what you’re saying is, it’s just that now, as opposed to the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis now, you do have a situation where we’ve got a murderer in the White House and we have a responsibility to ensure that the human race is not destroyed, and there is honor in that, in stopping that, and that’s what we have to do.
Q5: This is J— from Massachusetts. I don’t want to get off the subject, but just quickly the other day I heard Robert Reich talking about — because of all of the bailouts and the less funds that are divvied out to the states and mainly universities, — I think he said Berkeley — had to raise their intuition and at the same time that the cost of education has gone up, the quality of education has gone way down. I didn’t want to get off on that too much, but I was thinking about the one party system. I know that Lyndon LaRouche has said before what George Washington had said about the two parties or several parties that we have today, it’s really criminal, it’s such a farce. And people should be more afraid of the system that we have today, it’s not only bankrupt but it’s criminal, and killing people here in the United States; I mean, suicide rates in this country is the worst, that’s the number one killer in the country right now! And it’s unbelievable!
My point was, I know we’re supposed to have the two parties, but it seems like they’re all the same; like we have a one party, almost like the reverse of 1962; we have almost a one-party system today, it’s run by Wall Street, London or whatever you want to call it, you know, a fascist system, really. I just wondered what you thought of that.
I mean if we could really get a true one-party system like what Washington was talking about, how can this country survive the system we have today? It’s just not possible, I don’t think.
WERTZ: The obvious point is, the party system as it developed in the United States essentially just meant that you had people were divided — I think it’s been bad historically, but it’s especially been bad certainly in the recent period. I know we’ve had some Presidents, even if they were associated with a particular party, who have been — obviously Roosevelt was a Democrat, and that was a real leader; or Lincoln who was a Republican who was a real leader. You had Kennedy. You had certain positive features in terms of Reagan and Bill Clinton, particularly insofar as they worked with Lyn.
But the basic point is that you’ve got to be above party. I don’t think it’s so much a question of having one party, but it’s a question of being above party in the sense of above faction, and you’ve got to operate from the standpoint of the wellbeing of humanity; both in your own country, as a patriot of your own country, but also as a citizen of the world, as Friedrich Schiller was wont to say. And that’s what’s required.
Somebody like Putin is defending the sovereignty of Russia, but he’s also acting outside of that, on behalf of humanity as a whole. And the same with Xi and Modi. Unfortunately that’s not the case in the United States. So I think the key thing for us, is, in a certain sense, to function above party, from the standpoint of what humanity requires, both in this country and globally.
And those few great Presidents that we’ve had, and those rare individuals who may not have been President but by their lives, perhaps qualified themselves to be President, that’s how they’ve always operated. That’s how Lyn operates; that’s how Helga operates. They’re not in a position of power, but they operate from the standpoint of humanity, and they operate above party. And that’s really, I think the key approach that you have to take.
Several years ago, we had a 90th birthday party for Lyn, where he actually addressed this issue, that we have to really be above party in the way we approach the thing, because now it comes down to these “critical choices.” There’s this Tavistock Institute which is a British intelligence psychological unit, and their whole approach was to essentially to force people to look at politics from the standpoint of so-called “critical choices,” and they were always bad choices and you never had any choice! Within the political system to the extent to which the British controlled it.
So the point is you’ve got to really operate from this higher standpoint, the higher standpoint of principle. If you operate from the standpoint of principle, then you create the political movement based on the ideas which can reshape the geometry of the whole. But if you operate within the system as it’s currently defined, you will adapt to the system, and you will be confronted with so-called “critical choices,” and then you’re controlled. And it goes back to this thing which I mentioned about inductive and deductive thinking — creeping and crawling. And it’s very hard to define the difference between creeping and crawling, but there is a difference between creeping and crawling and what makes man man, which is to soar, because of his creative powers.
And that’s the only thing we have is those creative powers, and that’s the only power we have to change the situation either in the United States or globally.
Q6: Hello, this is L— in Michigan. I get most of my information in staying in contract with the LaRouche PAC through my phone, cause I don’t have internet for financial reasons. I work really long hours and I’m sure a lot of other people are in a situation where they work very often or have very little time to follow certain kinds of political issues that we all need to get more involved in. So I was thinking if you had something on the website, that would show a profile of all the individuals, like Barack Obama, Victoria Nuland, all the people involved in these international events and the national events, you know, like have their entire histories. Like on the website, an extra page that I can go to, or something on my mobile app so that I can look at and follow these people, so that when somebody’s trying to defend them, I have all the information on the people that’re bad. You could even do it for the all the people that’re good, like Elizabeth Warren or something, or like Putin or Xi Jinping, or whatever his name is. And have this either in the website or an extra link or extra page you can go to to follow the bad individuals to have information about them.
Do you want to address that question?
WERTZ: I don’t know about the specific idea. The basic thing is, I think if you go to the website now and you really apply yourself to being educated by it, that those questions would be answered for you. Part of the problem is, it’s not just an “informational” question, it’s more of the issue I raised earlier in terms of the way people think; it’s really a question of judgment. As opposed to what happens, most people are so bombarded with information, it’s not the information, it’s the question, is your mind organized around a principle which would allow you to judge, even on the basis of what you see, the value of some individual.
Lyndon LaRouche saw right away, without having a webpage anywhere, in April 2009, that Obama was a narcissistic personality in the image of the Roman Emperor Nero, and he was absolutely right. Much of the problem that people have is that they’re unwilling to break with their peers, people around them; they’re unwilling to break with popular opinion, what you run into whenever you try to actually say something that’s different, true but different, to people around you. And everybody — and this goes back to the FBI issue back in the 1950s — people basically, even if they may not have believed what they were saying, but they were saying it in order to be heard saying it.
And so, this is much more the problem; or, do people really have a sense, based on this conception of man, of how society should be organized. If you have that, then you would be able to distinguish, what’s lying behavior, what’s not really human behavior. I mean, if for instance, if you look at certain things in history, for instance, the German writer Schiller, writes an essay on the Laws of Solon of Athens and Lycurgus of Sparta, and what he’s describing is two different systems: The Spartan system is the closed system based on slavery; the system in Athens at that point under Solon, was a system which valued human beings. The person before Solon was a guy named Draco, from which we get the term “draconian” measures from Draco because he was as bad as Lycurgus of Sparta; he was destroying human beings. The debt was more important than human survival.
And what Solon did, the first thing he did when he came into power was, he cancelled the debt, so the people would not be slaves to the debt. And what they did, is they encouraged human creativity. So, it’s a similar distinction between the British Empire and any imperial system, which destroys creativity because it’s modeled on the Greek god Zeus, who didn’t want human beings to have any hope, to have any education or anything; versus the American System of Alexander Hamilton. If you read Hamilton’s works on the Subject of Manufactures, for instance, what he’s discussing is, the importance of increasing the labor power of each individual in society.
So what I’m trying to get at is a deeper issue, than just the information. You know, how do you judge various people? In terms of what are the values that they operate on. Are they operating on principles, or are they maybe good on one issue, but horrendous on something else, because they haven’t really thought through a higher principle which would give them a coherent perspective in respect to the world. I mean, we have people who are good on one issue, but horrendous on another one. Or who don’t speak up about issues that are existential for humanity.
So I think the issue is, what I tried to raise at the beginning as well: in terms of how do you think? That’s really the most important thing from our website or by being in contact with us and coming to classes and conferences, and listening to webcasts on Friday nights and the various presentations by Lyn and Helga; I think that’s the most important thing. So that’s how I would answer you.
STEGER: There’s also a question that Lyn has raised over the last year and half since October 2014, we’ve gone through a complete reorganization of our organization. Will knows this intimately: We’ve moved the center out of Leesburg, VA, out of the Washington, D.C. area; we’ve centered the organization in New York city, in the Manhattan Project, which has been oriented by a cultural orientation around the question of Classical composition and the choral principle. And there’s been a series of concerts; I’m sure there’ll be upcoming performances, we have, like the performances of Mozart’s Requiem on 9/11, but that choral principle in Manhattan tandem with the revival of the manned space program in Houston, and the orientation toward the Pacific, of Russia, China, and India, through California and the West Coast, have really become the key orientation of our organization. And to a certain extent more of the country, more of the political process of the country has to orient towards that. That really is what should define the Presidential process and is defining our international intervention today. So it’s worth considering that.
OK another question here, I think from New York City.
Q7: Hello, this is H— from New York City. I had some time today in Lower Manhattan to go to the rally and circulate the petition about dismantling NATO. I really had a little bit of an eerie feeling which is, on one hand it was somewhat successful in that people did sign, people took literature or gave small contributions, but are we getting these signatures to show at least to ourselves that people in the population do support this idea of dismantling NATO, and having sort of a new deal with Russia and China? Or, perhaps some of these petitions could be shown to our senators in New York, Schumer and Gillibrand, who haven’t been that bad on the 28 pages or something?
But it’s kind of eerie, that we’re appealing to somebody, but we’re sort of lacking the authorities in the United States to appeal to on this issue of war and peace and the nuclear war threat.
WERTZ: Well, the key thing on this is to organize. The petition addresses the imminent danger of war, as a result of the policies of the British and Obama who basically control NATO. And again, as the petition says there is no raison d’être, no reason for the existence of NATO: It shouldn’t have persisted after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That was the argument for it in the first place, so it’s become a monster.
Our problem is, we can’t just operate on the basis of mobilizing a petition to give to members of Congress, because — the real thing you’re doing with this is mobilizing the American population. The only way that we’re going to change the situation in the United States is by doing that. You have to create a self-organization, a movement; that’s what Mike was referring to in terms of Manhattan, what we’ve got going with the Manhattan Project, in combination with Texas, where Kesha Rogers has fought to revive the space program which Obama shut down; and that’s a fight for the future of mankind. And the West Coast. It’s main concentrating in the Bay Area of California, but also up into Washington State, Seattle.
So the way I think about it, is, you know with the civil rights movement in the United States, they didn’t go in and just lobby Congress to bring about change. What they did is they organized a political movement. And it wasn’t within Washington, D.C.; it wasn’t in the Beltway. And that’s what we’re doing in an actually bigger way with the Manhattan Project. We’ve gone into the city which is the center of the political life of the United States, from its inception. And by organizing there, which also intersects the whole world, because of the nature of Manhattan, we have the potential of moving the country and the world.
The other way of looking at this: Lyndon LaRouche started the Manhattan Project in October 2014, and of course, where did Putin go when he went to the UN General Assembly? He went to Manhattan. And as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized, you have a parallelism between what Putin has been doing since the war in Chechnya in 1999 and what Lyn has been doing, since he produced a video called Storm Over Asia, and there’s a parallelism here, both in terms of the overall economic policy. Lyndon LaRouche had a concept, he called the Four Powers concept, which was that you could defeat the British Empire, if you have Russia, China, India, and the United States. We now have Russia, China and India, but we haven’t yet gained the United States. And Manhattan is critical to that.
So what I’m getting at, is, what you’re really doing with this, is organizing the American population. Depending on how this goes, if we want to do something with this petition, we can make a decision on that at some point. But the only way you can really move Congress, or the U.S. government as a whole, in a certain sense, is you got to get them to get Obama out of office. And then, because we’ve got lots of support for Glass-Steagall, we’ve got lots of support for the 28 pages, — but you still have Obama in office, who’s opposed to both.
And so in all of these things, you’ve got to organize, you’ve got to get self- organization, you’ve got to get a movement in this country if you’re going to change this country. And so, it’s not just a question of getting a name on a petition, it’s question of are you changing the way that the person thinks whom you’re organizing. I think that’s our biggest job.
STEGER: It looks like you’ve got a trifecta to end up the call: you’ve got two more questions here from New York.
Q8: Hello, this is E— from New York. It seems like the Shanghai fix is in: In April 2016, China decided to defy tradition and set its own gold price in yuan. Then in May 2016, echoing the LIBOR fraud by major banks a few years ago, Deutsche Bank and three European banks are fraudulently manipulating the gold exchange rate. Now, there hasn’t been much in the news about this. I had a hard time finding it on the web, so I might not have all my details straight. But what impact will these events have on the world reserve currency, the U.S. dollar, which is not backed by gold nor silver?
WERTZ: Most fundamentally, the U.S. dollar is not backed by productive investment, and increases in actual productivity, as measured by increases in the power of the mind of the citizens. You know, a person earlier was talking about the educational system, and we have an educational system which is oriented towards people giving the answers desired in order to get a grade on a test; as opposed to an education system which oriented toward creativity.
So the point is that the entire trans-Atlantic region is bankrupt. The currencies are effective bankrupt, and ultimately, as I was getting at, the thing that backs up a currency, because a currency merely should serve the purpose of promoting scientific breakthroughs and technological advances on behalf of humanity as a whole. That’s not what the dollar is doing these days.
And I think the key thing is Wall Street has to be shut down, the system is bankrupt. They’re a bunch of crooks. It’s a criminal enterprise, the financial system in the trans-Atlantic system. Whereas a number of countries are moving towards barter arrangements in terms of trade, or using their own currencies as opposed to the dollar, and that process will continue. Because the dollar is worthless, and they’re actually investing in real production, creating real wealth and that’s what ultimately backs up a currency
So I think basic thing, is, that the entire trans-Atlantic sector in terms of the banking sector, has to be put through, as Lyndon LaRouche has said, bankruptcy reorganization. Wall Street has to be shut down; City of London has to be shut down. And unfortunately, under Obama, and since the collapse in 2008, and Greenspan talked about the stock market as “irrational exuberance,” back in an earlier period, it’s now going on twice as irrationally exuberant — and there’s no production!
We have an increasing death rate, through suicide, drug overdose, and so forth, and no real production: No steel, no trains, no nuclear power plants. As opposed to what the Chinese and Russians are doing.
So what we need to do, is shut down Wall Street, put the system in the trans-Atlantic region into bankruptcy reorganization, which entails Glass-Steagall, and move towards a Hamiltonian credit policy, for real production as China and Russia are doing, and join the BRICS! Join Russia and China, in terms of developing the globe and exploring the Galaxy and learning things we don’t know now, which will benefit mankind. And that’s real! That’s actually real, in terms of production of real wealth, which means developing the human mind, that’s the only real source of wealth.
Q9: This is A— from New Jersey: We have the 25th Amendment. Why isn’t Congress using it? Are they afraid of this puppet that’s in there? He was put in there by the British puppeteers as a figure that would be beyond criticism, and I think they had the situation sized up well. Because it seems that our people in Congress are afraid to do their duty; they’re trembling and cowering while carnage is going on all over the world. How do we know how many people are being killed right now, while we’re speaking? So this is the first thing we have to do before we go on with all the productive things that we know we can do in the future.
WERTZ: I think they’re afraid, but many of them are corrupt, in the sense that they’re addicted to money and the trappings of power, and they’re not really committed to a mission. I mean, how many congressmen are really committed to a mission, in the sense that, you look at Lyndon LaRouche or Helga, in terms of — Lyn in his nineties, fighting for humanity for all of these decades? Without external trappings but just on his own commitment and his own developing himself so that he can provide that leadership? Or Martin Luther King, same kind of thing?
And of course, Lyn was jailed; King was killed. And you basically have people in Congress who are, as I said, they’re sort of addicted to their niche in life, their career. Some are better than others, and will move on a particular issue. But in terms of moving on the 25th Amendment, thus far, they really haven’t had the courage, because that would shake up the whole applecart. But it’s a thing that needs to be done.
And so that’s why you really have to see that there’s a task before us, which there’s no substitute for, is mobilizing a movement in this country, in combination with what’s being done internationally. Because as Lyn has frequently pointed out, you have to take advantage of what Putin and Xi are doing. Look at the motion towards lifting sanctions in Europe. Or this move against — Erdogan is trying to revive the Ottoman Empire, and the Bundestag just denounced the Ottoman Empire that he wants to revive for genocide.
So, what Putin is doing is creating openings for us, in Japan, in Philippines, in Europe, and — here, it’s just that we’ve got to seize those openings, and we’ve got to do it very quickly. But the point is, we’ve got to develop a movement, here, we’ve got to actually get the population to stand up and just say that they won’t tolerate these things, and not fall for all of the traps that are set for them. Not fall for secondary issues, that are defined by the media, defined by the politicians who are worse than idiots. And so, it’s the toleration of this lack of true humanity that’s the problem.
We have to really rely on ourselves and what we create, in combination with the international forces that are in movement, and are our best allies.
STEGER: Good. Just so people know, we have an upcoming strategic seminar in San Francisco next Wednesday, June 8th; it’s a day-long seminar in downtown San Francisco. We’ll have direct participation, live via video with Lyn and Helga, as well as a number of other top-level speakers: Kesha Rogers, Dr. Howard Chang, and a number of others. So it’s definitely going to be a high-level discussion, probably of the greatest level of discussion anywhere in the United States happening on that day. So if you’re in the area in the Western States I would definitely suggest coming in for it; contact your local organizer, and we’ll get you the invitation.
We also have a major conference in Berlin at the end of June. This is the BüSo conference, the political party led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. And of course, we’ve got a significant development in Europe generally. We’ve seen the shifts by Abe in Japan, we’ve seen the changes in discussions in Southeast Asia, and of course, now Europe has become a major question mark in terms of which direction will they go? Under the yoke of Obama and the British? Or into this new direction?
And so the weeks ahead of us are of an utmost strategic quality and I think as Lyn has stressed, we can expect the unexpected. There are going to be things outside what we currently know, which will be acting upon the process, and the question is to recognize that and to act accordingly.
So those are the upcoming events, and as always we’ve got the Saturday event in Manhattan, so people in that area should participate in that discussion — one hour earlier this week — and we’ll be obviously active in having this call next week.
Will, do you have some comments or thoughts regarding the upcoming weeks and the strategic situation, and what actions people can take, I think that would be a great place to end.
WERTZ: I would just go back to something that Lyndon LaRouche emphasized in the most recent Manhattan meeting, where there was a young person, who went through a list of all of the crap he was being subjected to, in school and in his environment; Lyn just basically said that you have to free yourself from all of these attachments which are suffocating you. You have to destroy them, and you have to be a “volitional inventor,” or a “volitional creator.” And that I think is what’s really required of all of us, which entails a certain self-development. That’s what Lyndon LaRouche has done all of his life: He’s developed his mind so that he can provide leadership, and I think that that’s the responsibility that people have to assume.
You know, you look at the political geometry in the United States, there’s some people who can be induced to do some good things, but most of them are operating within this dying geometry of the trans-Atlantic sector. And so, what’s really required is for us to emulate Lyn and Helga. What’s required is the kind of commitment that our founding fathers had, which entails overcoming your fear. They went up against the British Empire, and they beat it.
But that’s the issue that’s before us in the United States, and elsewhere in the world. And when you look at what’s moving Putin, you saw this with the Immortal Regiment: This was the 71st anniversary of victory over the Nazis and similarly over the Japanese militarists. And it’s that sense that we have that in our own history: Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, that “they shall not have died in vain.” And we have to be motivated in that way. I think the events in Manhattan last week were very moving in that respect, because that’s what we were moving towards, the creation of a Living Memorial. Not just as a memorial, but as a call to action, to defeat fascism in this world today.
Adopting that kind of mission in terms of defeating fascism, but also a mission in terms of the future of mankind not as an Earthling, but as — Nicholas of Cusa calls man the “microcosm of the macrocosm.” And that’s man’s real identity. So we have to fight for that, for the future, for our posterity. And we have to evoke that in people, the best in people for this fight. That’s what the founding fathers did, that’s what the best aspects of the civil rights movement, that’s what Martin Luther King did. That’s what Kennedy did, that’s what Roosevelt did, what Lincoln did, what Hamilton. So we have a legacy in this country which we have to evoke in the population, and bring them alive. And I think that’s the fundamental issue before us.
STEGER: Great, thanks Will. That wraps up the LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat for tonight. We will have the call again next Thursday, and we have the Friday night webcast tomorrow night, streamed on www.larouchepac.com.