LPAC WEEKLY REPORT
LaRouche Offers a Vision
For the Post-Obama Era
June 5—In the midst of the day-to-day struggle which is currently occurring between the British-controlled Obama Administration, on the one hand, and the mass strike process among the American people, on the other, Lyndon LaRouche chose to address LaRouche PAC's weekly video report on a higher level than the "issues" which consume most people, posing the problems that must be addressed to reverse course from the deepening dark age, and elaborating on the organizing process required. The discussion was hosted by John Hoefle with guest Nancy Spannaus. Here is a transcript of that discussion.
[PDF version of this transcript]
Hoefle: welcome to the LaRouche PAC Weekly Report; today, is June 4, 2010. With me, here, is Nancy Spannaus, the editor of EIR, and joining us on the phone is Lyndon LaRouche, so this should be a very interesting show.
Spannaus: Lyn, I understand you have some opening remarks to make.
LaRouche: Yes. Well, of course, there are two in nature; they're topical. First of all, as people know, I'm in Europe, in Germany, in particular. And we're doing some interesting things here which are quite relevant. But also I'm looking at the common problem, which, between Europe on the one side, in particular, and the United States on the other.
Europe, of course, is a mess right now. It's on the verge of a general collapse of civilization, especially Western Europe, the part which is pretty much a mess right now. There are hopeful signs, that something good might happen, initiatives in terms of Germany. Germany's the one who looks as though it's the quickest to get out of this pattern, British-controlled pattern of the euro system. Greece, in a different way, is thinking of chucking the whole effort of bailout; the Spanish and Portuguese situation is unspeakable. And there are ugly noises coming out France, as well as some other tendencies in France. But, that's on the one side.
Then you have the problem, Russia, which is a very positive factor in one sense, physically, in terms of its cooperation with China and India, and implicitly, potentially, with South Korea and Japan, and other countries, on the Asian side, has a great potential, a very important potential. And that's a potential which we, if we could get rid of this useless, worse-than-useless President, Obama—would enter into a Four Power agreement, with four keystone countries, not exclusive, or limited to those countries, but as keystones: the United States, Russia, China, and India. That combination would be sufficient to provide the initiative to getting the planet out of the present disaster which is coming down now.
So that's what I'm involved in, of course, wherever I move. And communications systems being what they are, it makes a slight difference if I'm one place or the other, but not an absolute difference.
Now, what we're working on otherwise, apart from the fact that this is our objective, is the fact that we have decided, and this was initiated by a discussion I had with the Basement crew[1] some weeks past: We were going through our estimates on the scientific evidence which we had, in which we had confidence. And so, we decided to go ahead with this evidence, and push it fast and hard, because what this pertains to among other things, is what I wrote on the basis of this discussion, which was my "The Secret Economy," actually a keystone for organizing a principled organization which can move this planet quickly out of an immediately onrushing disaster, which is what's happening globally.
There is no recovery in sight, for this planet as a whole, right now. Without a fundamental change in policy, you can not save this planet from a new dark age. Some countries are in worse conditions than others, but the chain-reaction effect, across national borders, across the continents is such, that unless we change the system now, including dumping President Obama, among other things, there is no chance of avoiding a general breakdown crisis of the economy of the entire planet. It'll come as a chain-reaction: Some countries will go first, and then, as a result of their going first, this will trigger into other countries, as we're seeing in Europe right now, with the euro system, which is on the verge of disintegrating.
So, we need a change in program, as well as a change in leadership, such as eliminating Obama from the leadership of the United States, which is a major obstacle to saving the planet, is this guy Obama. He has to be ousted, some nice way; put him away where he's safe. We don't want anything harmful to happen to him. We want him to be ousted, but out of it, but safe.
The Key to the 'Secret Economy'
Now, what this requires is precisely what I have outlined as a concept which is the keystone of the thing I wrote on the subject of "The Secret Economy."[2] And the Secret Economy, to be implemented, requires us to adopt exactly what's going on on the other side, in terms of the Basement project: In other words, what we're moving for is a new conception of economy, as I outlined it in "The Secret Economy," in which we will base ourselves on looking at infrastructure in a way which is different than the term is used these days by most economists.
What we mean by infrastructure, is that the basic economic infrastructure of the planet, as typified by the development of, first of all, ocean travel, ocean transportation, which for a long time was the chief, most effective means of organizing society for some form of progress: maritime traffic was the basis. Then, with Charlemagne, he introduced a system of land-based water systems, a combination of rivers and canals, which was completed initially during his reign as emperor of what was called France, what became known as France. That started a new system.
Now, when the United States was founded, as an economy, our development was based largely, initially, on doing what Charlemagne had done but in modern terms, of building a system of canals and river-connected arrangements for inland transportation. The first drive was to get to the Ohio River, from the North American coast to the Ohio River. Then, to go from there, to the Mississippi and beyond. And at that point, with Secretary of State and President of John Quincy Adams, we had the development of the railway system. And the intention of John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State and President, was to utilize the river systems and canal systems, together with rail systems, which initially would tend to parallel the river and canal pathways, to unite the United States as a territory, from Atlantic to Pacific coast, as a single nation, connected by a transcontinental railway system.
This was copied in Europe. It was copied by, particularly, Bismarck, for example, and also in Russia, by Mendeleyev, the idea of transcontinental railway systems. But we never really completed that process. For example, there is virtually nothing of that sort in Africa—a very little bit, but nothing significant—and it's very weak in Asia. China, of course, is building railway systems and magnetic levitation systems like mad, and they're right to do so. And developing water systems.
So therefore, what we have to understand, in looking at that aspect of history, in the progress from maritime systems, to inland waterway systems, to railway systems, to magnetic levitation systems, these steps are what we call "infrastructure"—and health care and other things go along with that. So, infrastructure is not something you add, to enhance the economy: infrastructure, as defined in these kinds of terms, is the foundation of economy. So, when you're investing in infrastructure, you're not just investing in something to make things more convenient. It's not like building highways, the way we're building highways in recent times.
Infrastructure enables mankind to increase the quality and quantitative feature of productivity of labor, as a qualitative step upward. And therefore, infrastructure, as such, when it's applied in this way, to mankind, introduces a qualitative leap upward in the possibility of productive economy, that is, agriculture and industry depend for their improvements, based largely on the factor of basic economic infrastructure, as I've just identified it.
Now, we're in a situation presently, worldwide, but especially in the United States, in particular, in which we have had a breakdown of our basic economic infrastructure, during the entire post-World War II period. During the war, we built up the railway system again. After the war, we began to take it down. We started using highways, which are very inefficient compared with rail systems. We began to destroy our industry, we began to destroy the agriculture, and particularly in the 1970s, we began to destroy it. We began to destroy the development of industry.
And so, therefore, we have now lost most of our industry. Germany has had most of its industry shut down by orders of Mitterrand, Thatcher, and George H.W. Bush. And Europe is in a terrible condition. The main reason for this, is the breakdown in infrastructure, including the modes of transportation, which are signal in this process. The way in which we control land-area, we control it by efficient means of mass transport of goods and people. Railways, canals, so forth, and ocean freight. Now we've broken that down.
We have virtually no industry. The industry, industrial development of Western and Central Europe is broken down; the industrial development of Russia is a catastrophe. There is no infrastructure, essentially, in Africa: It's not allowed there. And in the East, in the Orient, India's a powerful economy; it's over 1.1 billion people. China's over 1.4 billion people. These are populous territories, and there is some very good, high technology in these economies, especially in India. But! There also is a tremendous mass of very poor people with virtually no infrastructural development in their lives.
The Solution at Hand
So therefore, given these conditions, and the fact that the economy has broken down, means that we have to take this guy Obama, and get him out of there! We have to put into play, a Glass-Steagall system, again, but not only for the United States; we have to extend that to our partners in the world at large. And so, by having Glass-Steagall system, and having a banking system which works on the basis of public credit, which is an important feature of our Constitution, when the Constitution is observed, we are now at a point where we're going to have to take the possibility of developing a banking system as a healthy one again, get rid of all this garbage, and we're going to have to, at that point, start with an infrastructure program, in areas like water, power, and mass transportation—these will be the key drivers.
We're going to have to invest, quickly, largely in these areas, we're going to have get government credit to back to the regular banking system, that is, the mercantile banking system, as well as the Federal means themselves, we're going to have to use that credit to get mass employment started in production of basic economic infrastructure. By using infrastructure as the leader, we then require ourselves to restore industries, productive industries, of manufacturing and agriculture, in areas where they have been destroyed. Because we can not build the infrastructure, without industrial production and agricultural production.
So therefore, we use the Federal credit and the combination of a Glass-Steagall system and a global fixed-exchange-rate system—Roosevelt's conception—we use that as the driver to create credit to build infrastructure; we use the building of infrastructure as the incentive and prompting for development of industry and agriculture, and also, of course, local communities. So, that's the way we are going to have to proceed.
Classical Art and Science
Now, there's a cultural aspect to this thing, which is extremely important, which is what I addressed in a paper I wrote recently, which has something to do with our agreement on going with this cosmic radiation program, which we're doing from the Basement. But, what we need to do, is get a science-driver conception going, as well.
We have no competent science-driver program, generally produced in our universities, in the United States and Europe and so forth, today. We don't. We've lost it. What is called the positivist tendency, or what is called mathematical science, as opposed to physical science—mathematical science, as opposed to physical chemistry—is a disaster. So we're going to have to retrain a population which has lost creativity.
Innovation is not creativity. I mean, you invent a third sex, that's not exactly a scientific step forward. So, we're going to have to do that, make this change. It means we're going to have to restore creativity: We're going to have to change the teaching of science, to go back to emphasis on physical chemistry, which is Mendeleyev, Max Planck, Vernadsky—go back to the tradition of science, which is the Leibniz tradition, which was thrust into the 18th Century by Abraham Kästner.
Abraham Kästner, when he graduated from university in Leipzig, committed himself at that point to focus on the work of two people, one contemporary, and the other who had died, Gottfried Leibniz. On the basis of Johann Sebastian Bach and Leibniz, Kästner dedicated his entire life, coming out of university, to that purpose. He also helped get the America Revolution underway, as well. But Kästner had these two aspects: Classical artistic composition and performance, together with physical science. The combination here, is that the creative powers of reason, by which great discoveries are generated, as science progresses, is located in the area of Classical art, not the area of mathematics. Mathematics is a tool, which is used by science, but mathematics is not science.
And all the great creative work in science comes from the same area as Classical artistic composition, in drama, in Classical music, and similarly, in great architecture, these have been the great drivers of culture which have been the wellspring from which physical scientific progress has flowed.
We are now, especially since the 20th Century, we're now in a period where Classical culture has almost vanished, where the development of the minds of young people in schools and universities—they have very little contact with true Classical culture. Bach is almost unknown to most of our people, and so forth. So therefore, we have to realize that we have to reorient the attention of the population, to those ways of thinking which are Classical culture, but recognizing that Classical culture is the area of the mind, the area of the mental processes of the individual, in which the scientific creativity, true scientific creativity, is engendered.
Restoring Classical Culture
Therefore, we have a population out there, as in the United States, with a generation of young people, who have no culture at all, that is, no culture which is capable of engendering the productive powers of labor. We're going to have to give these people an incentive to develop their productive potentiality, their creative potentiality.
We're going to have to have a Classical cultural orientation for the economy. We're going to have get rid of this junk that we use as entertainment, and decide that we're going develop the minds of our people, the creative powers of the minds of people, and apply that to a program which takes a global area of cooperation—Glass-Steagall as a principle internationally, fixed-exchange-rate system as a system internationally; a credit system as opposed to a monetarist system, a credit system, which we use to create the credit to fund the large-scale infrastructure projects which, in turn, will fund the agricultural and industrial development. And will give us the means by which to develop the educational system, not only to train people with scientific and relative qualifications, but also to give them an access to Classical culture, the Classical culture which is essential to foster the creative powers of the individual mind. And, that is going to be great fun.
And the driver we're going to have to have to combine with this, is the idea of a space program: The objective of going to Mars, of man's flight to Mars—successfully and safely, and returning, successfully and safely—is going to be the great objective of this century, this young century: By the end of this century, which means about three generations from now, about the '80s and the '90s of this century, we're going to have achieved a Mars landing, and Mars settlement, an advanced settlement. There are many problems, many scientific problems which have to be solved and overcome in that interval, but we're going to have to do it, and we can do it, if we mobilize to do it. If we mobilize our economy, and educate our people to prepare to do these kinds of things.
And that's what my program is: And that's what I'm working on in Europe, as I am inside the United States. I'm working on it, especially, trusting my friends in the Basement, on the question of the scientific research that's being done. In the meantime, I'm applying that vector of scientific research, and cultural research generally, to drive a rebuilding of the world economy, through the initiative of the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries which join them, in launching a new drive, which will be a global infrastructure program, which will be used to drive industrial development and agricultural development, generally, and to provide the means, and the motive, to educate our young people, in schools and universities, to develop the talents for taking the scientific drive forward.
So that's what I'm up to; that's my report.
Spannaus: Sounds like a good vision of the post-Obama era.
LaRouche: Precisely
Hoefle: I think one place we could start, that would be timely, is to send Paul McCartney packing back to Britain, and let him take Obama with him.
LaRouche: Ah! Taking Obama with him is very good! Permanently!
The American People Are Ready To Go
Hoefle: Another point you've been making recently revolves around BP. We have a tremendous need to have an assertion, an open and serious assertion of national sovereignty in the United States. If we're to get out of this mess, we actually have to stand up to the British Empire and say, "No! We're the United States; we're a sovereign nation. We decide what we're going to do. You just sit down and shut up."
LaRouche: I don't think that's a problem. Because, if we get Obama out.... Look at the temperament of the population there: You've got three layers of the population, really, to deal with politically: You have the layer which is Wall Street and similar kinds of things, the financial-monetary power bloc. Now, that's no good. But then, you have politicians, a layer of politicians, who have no guts and no morals to speak of, who are the politicians who have submitted; and also influential circles generally—who have submitted to this kind of crap as we've seen it under Obama, those who have kowtowed to Obama.
So, what we've got now, is, we've got a population out there, which is probably up to about 80% of the adult population of the United States, and the signs are, from various indications, that they want to do exactly what has to be done! It will take very little to convince them to support the kinds of measures we would want to support. They're already for it. You have a mass-strike process which is maturing in the population. They're ready to do it.
What we have is an obstacle: The obstacle is the British Empire; and its representative inside the United States, chiefly right now, is the Obama complex. So we don't really have to fight at the top and try to convince the people at the top. What we have to do, is convince them to be cautious about offending the people who are not at the top! The people who are in the lower 80% generally of income brackets and influence.
But they, as a mass force, and they're showing that force now—I'm seeing signs of it—they're ready to go! We have to get rid of the problem, typified by the Obama syndrome. We've got to put Obama someplace where he's safe, but get him out of the Presidency! And clean out this mess among the politicians. Put the government back in the hands of the people, the people out there, the 80% who are ready to push through Glass-Steagall; the 80% willing to push through an infrastructure program; the 80% who are willing to push through the basic industrial and agriculture development program, because they want food, they want fresh water, they want employment, they want security, they want health care, all these good things!
We don't have a problem with the people of the United States right now, not in terms of their inclination. What we have to do, is take the lid off them, and the lid is what I've described. We have the "political class" as it's called, which has betrayed the people. And the people are ready to act. They don't need to be convinced; they need to act. They just have to find confidence that they have the leadership among their own ranks, and the program among them, which they can support.
We've seen a big change in this population, from back in August of last year, when we had the first mass protests. Since that time, the same layer, which was involved in the mass protests then—and more!—have come along, and they are much more advanced in this matter than they were over a year ago. So, we should be optimistic about that.
But, the other thing: Don't wait for it to happen spontaneously. Don't make the mistake of Lafayette, when he flubbed his opportunity in France, and thus cleared the way for what became known as the Siege of the Bastille. We have to realize, we have to engender a leadership of this movement, which already exists in the United States; it probably touches about 80% of the adult population. We have to engender a quality, a mobilized leadership, which will satisfy the realization of the impulses which exist among 80% of our people.
LaRouche PAC Takes Leadership
Spannaus: Yes, we are beginning to see that emerge, as you and I have discussed, in many of the town meetings where the LaRouche PAC, and particularly our young members in the LaRouche Youth Movement, are essentially taking over the leadership of the meetings from people who are otherwise totally impotent: They could be Congressmen; they could Tea Party members who say, "Wait till November and vote this way instead of that way," you know, real impotent stuff, if not bad-meaning, in terms of that.
Because, as I understand it, what you're talking about, and you may want to spell it out more, is, being in a revolutionary situation, such as that where people can't simply submit their requests to their Congressmen and expect anything out of it—this kind of demand and radical change is a question of this month, this week, next month—you know, an immediate shift in order to prevent the otherwise disastrous results of leaving this guy in office, and having the financial system going down the hole.
LaRouche: Yes. We had this thing with some of our Boomers, in our own ranks. We would have some proposal for action, which was needed, and we would have some people say, "Well, people aren't ready to listen to you on that, yet." That is disaster. We've had that up until recent times. We had much improvement in spirit and tone among our older members, and so forth, and others, in the recent weeks. But prior to that time, the point was, "Well, we don't think it's going to happen. It's a good idea, perhaps, but we don't think it's ready to happen. We don't see anybody out there doing that." And what it was, was an abandonment of responsibility of political leadership!
You know, people think you need numbers to provide leadership. Well, you need numbers to make leadership successful. But you need leadership, no matter how small it is, and it has to be pushed ahead! Otherwise you'll never get out of a mess like this. This is where the mistakes are made in history: "We want to wait until popular opinion forces us to go...."
You know you have the joke, in Paris, during the revolutionary periods in France, back in the last part of the 18th Century, and in the middle of the 19th Century. And you would have political leaders and revolutionaries meeting in cafes, over coffee, drinking wine, whatnot. And then one would look up, "Uh-oh! I got to go; my revolution is moving past the window there. I gotta go out there and lead them."
And what you get is: "Well, the people aren't ready to move, yet." Well, the people are waiting for the leadership to move! And what you have to understand, is you have to provide that kind of leadership, in a timely fashion: You have to provide for the people, in getting themselves together, to decide that they want to do something. And once the people are ready to do something, you've got to stay on the job, and give them the leadership they demand of you! They expect you to go out there, you're the wise guy, you knew about this! You're supposed to get out there and lead this thing. Maybe there's a risk involved—yeah, you got to take it, buddy! And that's what our problem has been.
Right now, what is being demonstrated about these meetings that I'm getting reports of, is, we go into a meeting, and get a bunch of people who are going to be the "leaders" of something: And they're sitting on their hands, ready to do nothing; they want to talk about it, but they don't want to do anything. We go in, and when our people go in, and say, "Okay, this is what we've got to do...." In other words, they're providing leadership. They're not making the big revolution, they're providing leadership to put motion into the population that's assembled at the meeting, and to spread more broadly to the population.
The population wants leadership. They want ideas that make sense to them. They want to hear things that mean a solution for the problems they face! They don't want to wait for you to call upon them: "Come on out and lead us." You have to be a leader, already. And then, when they recognize that you're providing leadership, they're going to change their thinking. That's the way politics works.
But you have all these cowards who want the masses to come to them. And when they see a big mass coming there, outside their door, saying, "We want you for this office, and that office"—then: "Oh the people, we got great stuff...." Right? The leaders come forth. But we know what these leaders are, because we see the leaders in the Congress, today! And they ain't fit to do nuthin'!
They're not leaders! We're leaders! And we're finding other people out there who are leaders, including a few politicians, who can be rebuilt, and re-encouraged to become leaders again. But we have to provide that leadership. We don't want to wait until the masses come up to us and say, "You must lead us." That's a good Romantic story, it's a good fairy story, but I don't think we want that kind of story.
Building a 'New America'
Spannaus: What you're saying is really important for the people who are watching this show, who are our LPAC activists, LaRouche PAC activists. Because this is a process which they, as leaders in their own communities, in their own unions, in their own local chambers of commerce even, and so forth, are the ones who are going to have to lead! They have a Glass-Steagall resolution; they have your ideas on economy, and how we can build a New America. They have the concepts that you've been putting forward, but it is there that they can't afford to wait, either, for people to come to them. They have to move now, and we're totally ripe for it, as you indicate.
LaRouche: Yeah. You can see that in the World War II period, where you had a mass of people who were willing to go to war—not too willing, actually, but the mood was out there.
Spannaus: But feeling morally compelled somehow.
LaRouche: You had to appear to be willing! And to appear to be willing, you had to act as if you were willing.
Now, I was on the inside of that kind of experience, back during the war. I can tell you, from my experience, I can tell what leadership is, and what it isn't. And it's the leaders, who actually do have that sense of initiative, who sense their responsibility for the people who they—you know, people would suddenly realize that they had to lead! And we had a whole promotion scheme that would go on there, where people were appointed to lead, because they had shown leadership, and because any group of military commanders want leaders who will show competent leadership. And some people who had shown leadership, generally, under those kinds of conditions, were encouraged to express those capabilities. And the same thing is true now: This is not exactly a war right now. We're not in a shooting war, we don't have large armies out there to worry about as such. But we do have this question of leadership.
And it's people who are actually able to lead, when needed, who will give inspiration to the others, who would like to see the victory, for the cause, but can't get started on their own. And they need the quality of leadership that will give them the courage to get moving. And that's what our situation is, I think, generally right now. It's in a different form, but it's the same principle.
Hoefle: Well, leadership—it's a verb, you have to act; it's not a "position."
LaRouche: Yes!
Hoefle: And many of our Congressmen, you know they call themselves leaders, but they're just holding down a position. They're really dysfunctionaries on the behalf of some power structure, that is, the British Empire and Wall Street and things that are actually alien to the principles of the United States.
LaRouche: And bureaucracy.
A New Group of Leaders
Hoefle: Yes.
And you have the emergence of a new group of leaders, who don't want to be leaders, never really thought of themselves as being leaders, but the course of events is causing them to step forward and take on a role that they never took before. Which in some ways is similar to what happened with the American Revolution. And so, these are the people—it's like, when you go into war, and you have to get rid of all the political generals and bring in the people who will fight.
Spannaus: The best refraction of this is the response to our organizers, and our political campaigns and so forth. But, there is, overall, a sense that many more people than usual, are running for office in these upcoming elections, because they feel the sense of responsibility—they see everything falling apart, they feel a sense of responsibility.
LaRouche: They also feel a sense of disgust. And they're into something, and they see their so-called leader, their political leader, or other similar kinds of leaders, and they find that this guy is doing nothing! He's disgusting! You see the rejection of a lot of politicians by the voters is exactly that form. They react to the fact that the guy who is incumbent, who is the elected leader, or whatever similar position, is not doing the job—and is not inclined to do the job. And they say, "Get him out of the way! I'll do the job!"
Spannaus: Right. And this has been demonstrated, now, I guess four incumbent Congressmen have lost their primaries, just in the recent period; we also have had the phenomenon, which was shown in Alabama just the other day, where there was a massive rejection of a gubernatorial candidate, an incumbent Congressman, Artur Davis [D-Ala.], on the basis that—not even that he was endorsed by Obama! But that he "acts like Obama," like a disengaged, Harvard-educated, lying buppie, you know? And therefore, he was thrown out on his ear, including by the black population of Alabama, who didn't want him anywhere near this office, that their lives were entrusted to.
I think it would be good, if we go a little bit more into the BP situation. You've put out some proposals—they've been more than proposals, demands, that there be executive action to expropriate this company.
One way I was thinking about it, was, in the course of an organizing discussion last night, when someone said, "Well, what do you really mean by receivership and expropriation?" I said, "Well, think of war, think of World War II, if you had a Japanese company in the middle of your country, and they're working for the enemy, you would just take 'em over! You wouldn't allow these people to continue to destroy, or even threaten to destroy your country. We have that power in the United States, and if we had a President who was a patriot, who wasn't controlled by the British Empire, you would have precisely that kind of action."
LaRouche: I think Obama—quite a clinical case could be made for Obama: It's not a simple case, in the sense that one or two words can describe him. I understand the man: I recognized what he was in April of last year, when I was preparing for that webcast I did then. But then I watched, bit by bit, week by week, month by month, afterward, and I find that my assessment of him, as to what his nature is, what his problem is, what kind of an animal he is, has been borne out consistently all the way through.
I've never made a mistake in assessing his behavior. Because his behavior is always consistent with that image I had of him, when I looked at his policy on health care: I knew exactly what this guy is. I mean, here he is: He's making a proposal of a health-care policy—the health-care policy is identical with that of Adolf Hitler, in 1939-1940, which later was the seedling for what happened with the mass-extermination of people after that. And here's a guy who has this.
Now, a man who has that impulse, that Hitler showed, then, knowing what the background was, how he got selected, how he was used, how the British used him; and then, of course, once the British found out that the French had failed them, then they turned against—recognized that Hitler was a danger to them! And so they stopped supporting Hitler directly, and went to war with him! And we got involved in that war.
But when you look at what Hitler was, when he was a British asset earlier, and then, in 1940, when the British sort of "un-assetted" him. And you get these types, pathological types. Just like the Nero type, and that's what Obama is. He's a Nero type! He belongs to a certain specific kind of psychological type, very defective, very dangerous.
And the man simply has to be taken out of office, because without being in office, if he doesn't have some power, he's not a threat to anyone. Or, he may be a nuisance to his neighbors, but not really a threat.
It's putting a guy with that personality in power—because he was picked out of the dump! What was he before then? He an idiot-savant at Harvard. He went out to Chicago; he was nothing but a bum, he's an also-ran, with no particular future. Then a couple of women, who were close to each other, decide that one of the women is going to marry this guy, and they realize they've got a certain kind of property on their hands, a certain kind of pathological talent. And they put him in a position of some power. He gets promoted.
Then, Hillary ran for President, and they freaked! So suddenly, this guy, this Nero type, was pushed, with a great amount of money and other kind of support, to get him in as President! In the meantime, he was also a British agent, and the Chicago crowd that adopted him have a well-known connection to the British monarchy; and also, Tony Blair had a base in Chicago! Tony Blair's base in Chicago, was the base for Obama.
So you have a distinct type: You don't have a guy who has a little problem. You have a guy whose nature is that problem. And you never want a guy with that problem put into a position of power. Because he will act accordingly. And you say, "How can we influence Obama?" You can't influence him! Get him out of office, it's the only way you can influence him! If you put him on the street as a bum in the neighborhood, he's not really going to be much of a public danger: Put him in the Presidency? He's a major danger!
So that's the nature of the problem. We should not assume, that this is some normal guy in any sense. He is a disease! He's more of a disease than a person, in terms of his mental profile. And I assessed that. I recognize that—you know, with my experience in consulting and so forth, you recognize these types. And I recognized that in him, and that's what he is: You have to get him out of there! Just summarily put him into retirement, and he is not going to be a major problem any more.
Find the Leaders Among the Citizens
Hoefle: Well, he's taking every step he can, to block any attempt to actually solve the problems we fact. You know, we saw that with his assault on Glass-Steagall, to make sure that there's no real financial reform; we see this with the health-care plan, we see this with the complete inaction of the government in the case of this oil spill in the Gulf, where there are a whole range of things which should be done immediately, on an emergency basis, in which they're not doing any of them, to try to clean up and contain it. So it's completely dysfunctional, and—
LaRouche: Yes, but he's a British agent! He's a British agent! That's the problem. It's not that he's failed—he hasn't failed.
Spannaus: He's done his job.
LaRouche: He's done exactly what he's programmed to do! You have to remove him from office! Because he's a British agent! Otherwise, he has no significance at all. You take the British toy away from them!
Spannaus: Right. And then you've sufficiently crippled them, with what's the only asset this bankrupt empire has? The United States government! A negative asset.
LaRouche: But with him, if you take him away from the British, they collapse.
Spannaus: Right, absolutely.
LaRouche: And that's our job. That's how you orchestrate history: Is, you recognize a singularity of this type. And now, he's a British asset. But the British have now put themselves in a position of depending upon him.
Spannaus: Right.
LaRouche: Pull their toy away! [laughter] That's strategy!
Spannaus: Right! At the same time, that we put forward the inspiration of the post-Obama era, which you did so eloquently at the beginning. You know, people need that sense of optimism, and to muster the courage for the fight that is required to carry us through this transition and get this guy outta there.
LaRouche: Yep! Well, we've got to find the people out there, who have the qualities of leadership, which will turn them on to playing the kind of role which we need to have citizens do. You know, some citizens will come forward as leaders in their area, and they recognize that they have an implicit moral responsibility to assume that function of leadership for that purpose, that mission. And what we have to do, is encourage people who are potential leaders, to come forward and be leaders, just like we're trying to find some good Congressmen, future Congressmen, to replace some of the trash that's being thrown away now.
Spannaus: Absolutely.
One thing that I should just point out to those who are watching, in light of this discussion of the space program, is, there was a new video put up on the LaRouche PAC site last night. I understand it was only 10 minutes, but a very high-quality 10 minutes, on "The Extraterrestrial Imperative," as an introduction to what is going to be done by the Basement crew and others, on the space-science-driver program. And this will be very important for organizers and leaders to take a look at as soon as possible.
LaRouche: What we've got—I've been looking at this question closely, and what we've got from Oyang Teng, we got from Peter Martinson, we got from Sky Shields—the three reports we've posted there— this is brilliant!—Peter's was great; Oyang, of course, was great; but, what Sky did, Sky really went all out on that thing, and if people want to get a real thrill about somebody's who really thinking, look at what Sky did! Not to downgrade Peter in any way, Peter did a brilliant job. But what Sky did, and went into, on how the universe is organized, he's going to shock some people into thinking more seriously about science.
Spannaus: Mm-hmm. We're going to need to do that! Especially after all the pollution we're experiencing at the present time!
LaRouche: Yes!
Spannaus: So, unless you have some final statement, I think we've given people a lot of food for thought.
LaRouche: Well, feed them, and take them out and give them some dessert.
Hoefle: Okay, thank you, Lyn.
LaRouche: See you soon.
[1] The "Basement Team" is a group of young people collaborating with LaRouche on the investigation of fundamental scientific questions, focussing currently on the matter of cosmic radiation.
[2] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "What Your Accountant Never Understood: The Secret Economy," EIR, May 28, 2010.
