LaRouche: Save the Nation
From the British Empire
Here are excerpts from the second of Lyndon LaRouche's Friday webcasts, leading up to the Presidential election on Nov. 6. The webcast, on Oct. 12, was moderated by Matthew Ogden, with questions fielded by Leandra Bernstein and Jason Ross. The webcast videos are at larouchepac.com/lpactv. The dialogue which followed LaRouche's presentation is available here.
[PDF version of this transcript and Question and Answer period which followed]
Lyndon LaRouche: We shall follow essentially the pattern we established last week. It will be essentially the same subject, but it will be more amplified, and have some new things interspersed.
The first thing we have to be concerned about, always on this issue, is to understand what we mean by a policy for the United States, for the government of the United States. And there are three elements which can now be established, as the absolute requisites for a reconstruction of a badly damaged, Constitutionally and otherwise, as well as economically, United States.
We are a piece of wreckage. Essentially it began with the assassination of President Kennedy, and from that point on, the United States has, in fact, been in a continuous process of physical economic decline. There has never been a net gain in the U.S. economy since that time. There's been a lot of talk to pretend that it's better to have sandwiches than it is to have full meals, or something like that, but there has never been any recovery of the rate of growth which the Kennedy Administration had represented up until the time of his assassination.
And Kennedy was actually a revival of what President Franklin Roosevelt had done, and we had President Eisenhower who saved us from the worst of what had been done earlier by Truman. But he didn't go all the way, and he couldn't go all the way: He needed a new start. And he got it with Kennedy, who was actually steered by Eleanor Roosevelt, whose function was to demonstrate to President Kennedy how one worked to carry forward the program that President Roosevelt had set into motion before the war had broken out.
So, we we need to get back to that.
We Have Gone Downhill
But, in the meantime, as you know, we went into a long war in Indochina. We have never recovered from approximately ten years of war in Indochina. We never returned, and most of our people who went into that war didn't return either—if they returned alive, they didn't return in good mind, or with a good prospect.
We've gone through a set of social decay, intellectual decay, which has dominated the history of this nation ever since that time. You've had ups and downs, but these ups and downs have been marginal. We've lost what we were under Franklin Roosevelt, and what we had regained with the efforts of Eisenhower to defend what the Roosevelt Administration had done, and also what had happened under Kennedy. We have never recovered. We have declined.
For example, today: You really don't have jobs. Don't let anyone kid you. We're shy of 27 million jobs. Don't let the figures of Obama fool you. And we're going down. And the policy of both candidacies is to cut further. Obama to make deeper cuts, in a population where 27 million jobs are missing. And on the Republican side, the austerity package which is proposed may not be as insane as that of Obama, but there's no hope for mankind under that program either.
There must be an immediate return to real jobs, which means productive jobs, not make-work jobs, but productive jobs. Which means career employment, where you take a family, and you take the wage-earning member, the income-earning member of the family, and you begin to build up greater skills in the people who are employed in those families. Which is the way we did it in every time of recovery we've had since the beginning of our nation.
So that has all been lost. It's all been wiped out. And there's no intention in the system, now—there are no real jobs. The real jobs were shipped overseas, to China and Japan and elsewhere! And people can't find work because there isn't work. It's not provided. There is no employment in meaningful work. There's no meaningful employment in productive work. There's make-work, and that's getting too expensive, because the debts are piling up, and the rate of hyperinflation—and it is hyperinflation—on both sides of the Atlantic, is killing everything.
Right now, as it stands, you pray for your life against Obama; you pray for your economy against the Republican Party. That's our problem.
Party Politics Is Killing Us
Now, Obama cannot be salvaged. No one has a good excuse for voting for Obama. This guy is a menace. You get nothing good out of him; you'll get very much evil out of him. So, don't count on him.
The problem is, we've got people out there who are Democrats and Republicans, and, as I emphasized last week, the point here is, we don't believe in party government. We've got to get rid of party government. We've got this Republican element, whose value is it's not Obama. But there is no real understanding yet of what is required for a genuine recovery, or how we're going to deal with the global problems before us.
So, what you've got is, you've got a sane bunch of people, who are not always right—sometimes they're a little bit wrong—and we have some good Democrats; but as long as Obama's in there, they're not going to do any good at all. We've seen that. I mean, [Bill] Clinton has tried to help, shall we say, Obama, but he has not only failed to help Obama—because Obama wouldn't let him help him—but Bill has been made weaker and poorer, and less loved, and less respected, as a result of being contaminated by the touching of that Obama.
So we've in a situation where we have to have a change in the direction of government, directly, recognizing that there's been a long trend, especially since the time of the assassination of John Kennedy—there's been a long trend in the United States which is net downward.
And the conditions of life? Look at our children. Look at this generation of children. Aren't you afraid of them?
Look at the people who used to have jobs. They don't have the skills anymore. They're not productive. We've got a small fraction of the population which has the kind of skills that we had back during the World War II period.
Take Detroit, for example, the whole region around there; and California, particularly southern California—we had a productive capability which astonished and shocked the world. Our war machine, which we converted at the end of the war into a civilian machine, was the most powerful machine of production on this planet. And there's almost none of that left alive today. You are living in a destroyed economy.
Now, Obama is evil. That's clear. I know this, he's evil. But on the other hand, the rest of us seem to be not too intelligent. And some of the Republcan ideas I hear coming around are terrible. You need an increase and recovery of the productive powers of labor of the United States, as you do in Europe, which is in a breakdown crisis; as you do in Africa, which is in a starve-to-death crisis, and disease crisis; in South America and elsewhere.
This planet lacks growth. It has collapsed too far. We're on the verge of destruction, and frankly, this is partly intentional. Partly it's bad policy, or partly it's evil policy. But partly it's intentional.
The British Empire and 9/11
For example, let's take the British Empire. And it is a British Empire. There are two British empires in fact, but they're all one, and it's united by an organization called BAE. BAE was the organization that created, guess what? 9/11 One. BAE is the organization which created what's also in process against the United States now, 9/11 Two.[1] And that's your enemy.
And we have a President who covers up for BAE! And covers up for the fact that we're having a 9/11 Two in the United States right now. It's under the direction of Obama, under the direction of the British monarchy. Because, from the beginning, 9/11—which was organized at the time the younger George Bush first came into the Presidency, even before then; that was the intention. 9/11 was an attack on the United States by joint forces of the Saudi Kingdom and the U.S. government. That's how it was done. But with the British.
It was the young Bush who acted as the cover for 9/11, and the Bush family. Remember the day that 9/11 had happened, they took the whole family of Osama bin Laden, which was visiting with the Bush family in Texas, and they shipped it as the first shipload of people to fly out of the United States. Remember, after 9/11 everything was shut down; not a thing was allowed to move out of the United States or otherwise. But somebody did move to safety: the family of the authors of 9/11, and they were flown out in the family plane given to them, the only plane that left the United States at that time.
Now, since that time, we've had people who investigated, from the Senate level and so forth, this process. And they collected evidence which they're not allowed to say a word about. Their evidence is sealed. It was sealed by the Bush Administration, the young Bush Administration, and it was sealed by Obama. The reason you can't find the truth about things is because Obama is being run by the British. And it was the British BAE, together with the Saudis, which ran 9/11. And the thing that's running the same operation today, and much of the terrorist operation in the Middle East is the same crew, BAE—and it's also the Saudi Kingdom and the British monarchy. These are the two forces that are responsible for this crime against America. And there are people who have the evidence, which they're not allowed to reveal, which will identify exactly that information.
In the meantime, through my good fortune and knowledge, I know a lot of the facts about 9/11, which go to the point of indicating, not the complete story, but an adequate story, that the Saudi ambassador [Prince Bandar] to the United States was a key part in 9/11. He was a key figure in organizing 9/11, and he's now the chief muckety-muck in Saudi Arabia running the crimes being run from there. And the evidence is there. And this President, Obama, is the one who put the lid on it again. Obama promised, when he was becoming elected, he promised to unfold the evidence on 9/11, and then he reneged and he's refusing to the present day to tell the truth: that 9/11 was run by the British monarchy and by the Saudi monarchy; they're the ones that ran the thing. And the proof, at least sufficient proof, is already on the record, and that record is being suppressed. And Obama is the second one who did that. Obama is the one who put the lid on the cover-up on 9/11. And there's another 9/11 going on, which is going on throughout the world, and it's now being directed, in part by Obama, right now.
So, if you are for Obama, you are implicitly guilty of supporting treason against the United States. That's not a good classification for a Presidential candidate. So this we can not tolerate. We can not tolerate an institution of a certain class, a certain class of people, trans-Atlantic, who conspire, as between Britain and Saudi Arabia, and conduct this kind of conspiracy against the United States, as well as against other nations. Who do you think is causing the terror in the Middle East today? Saudi Arabia, with British backing. All the bloodshed. What do you think is wrong with Turkey? Turkey has a government who is close to the Saudi thinking, not the other fraction of the Turkish population.
The Brink of Thermonuclear War
The whole issue is that, and we're on the edge of thermonuclear war. And the British are pushing it; and President Obama is pushing it. What has protected us is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and people like that in the United States, and people like that in Europe, including Russia, and China.
We're having Hell on Earth. Our people are in danger of being largely destroyed.
What does that mean in the way of destruction? Look, you're at the edge of thermonuclear war, global thermonuclear war, right now. And we're on the edge of it, and everybody in the intelligence community, on the military side, knows it. That's what the discussion is—what do you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff are talking about? They're talking about preventing the launching of thermonuclear war.
Now just to review: What does thermonuclear war mean now? The development of thermonuclear technology, as a weapons technology, came in during the 1960s. It was already known information, practice, then. We went into a period where we thought we were on the edge of a thermonuclear war with Khrushchov, and Khrushchov ran one experimental threat demonstration, and he set the thing off to demonstrate it, after he had been set back on his other plans. Khrushchov set off the bomb, the super-bomb. He set it off to demonstrate what the power of the Soviet Union was, and he set off what was essentially a super-nuclear explosion, but in its effects there was some thermonuclear fusion going on inside this explosion. And this black cloud of debris from a thermonuclear explosion, on a test area, became the basis for defining what a thermonuclear war would be known to be.
A thermonuclear war today is what we face under the influence of Obama—without Obama and the British, there is no danger of thermonuclear war. If you want to get rid of the threat of thermonuclear war against the United States and other nations, remove the Queen of England and the Saudi Kingdom from the ranks of power. And you have to pull out Obama in the process, because he's their stooge. That's what we're dealing with.
Now if this thing happens, as anyone in the military department who knows anything about this kind of business today knows, a thermonuclear war would mean that the Ohio class submarines—for one big part of it—are deployed to launch a battery of explosions, attacks from the submarines themselves. This is the greatest potential kill-power available on the planet today. And that is exactly what things are going to lead to.
Now the United States is the most powerful weapons system in the world right now, but Russia is also a powerful weapons system; China is also a powerful weapons system; India is not lacking in some of those skills, and so forth. So therefore, what happens then, if this thing comes to a showdown, people in Russia will know the minute the Ohio submarine missiles are sent, people in China will know, people in Japan will know, and so forth and so on.
So what you will have then, is if somebody is detected in launching a thermonuclear attack, all parties at that point have to launch their charges, too. The result probably will be completed in an hour and a half of lapsed time. It'll be the first launch and then follow-up launches. So, in about an hour and a half, the hard fighting part will be over, and there will be black clouds and the like hovering around the planet, sweeping around the planet. And those people who are fortunate or unfortunate enough to have survived that first blow, won't make it too long after that, because the destruction of the ability of the economy alone, the ability to grow crops and these kinds of things, under those kinds of conditions are such, that you're looking at an extinction experience, or a nearly extinction experience for the human species.
Throw Obama Out!
And that's what the Obama Administration's complicity in the British/Saudi operation amounts to. Without the United States weaponry, under the control of Obama, you could not have a thermonuclear war. Because nobody who has the power to use such weapons would be able to, without the [participation] of the United States government itself. Therefore, it is absolutely indispensable, for the sake of the planet as well as the United States and other nations, that Obama be removed from power.
That's the issue. Some people will deny it, but they're either stupid or liars, or just plain ignorant. That's the danger. That's what [Gen. Martin] Dempsey and company have been warning you against in their own way. That's the great threat that faces the United States.
Now, if you eliminate the Obama factor, and if Obama is thrown out of office, it is doubtful that that war will occur. But we're on the edge of it, because if it gets to the point that you involve Russia in a war with any of the leading fringe countries in the Near East and the Mediterranean region, you're going to set off thermonuclear war. And what's happening in Turkey right now—the threat from Turkey is the greatest immediate threat to the entire human race. Not because it's responsible for the whole human race, but because its role could set off precisely that effect. And that's where we are.
So, we're at a point where you have a Republican candidacy, and I don't think it's so very good. As a matter of fact, it's not good. So, if you want to say it's not very good, that's all right; you're probably telling the truth. It's not necessarily bad because it intends to be bad, it's just bad because it gets bad ideas, or ideas that are very foolish. Like austerity measures. When you have 27 million Americans who fit the category "labor force," and they're unemployed and with hopeless chances, and you say you're going to cut? You're going to cut? You have to be some kind of a pompous idiot.
So therefore, the question is, we've got to have what I stressed last week. You can not go with a partisan approach. A partisan approach won't work. You can not have a recovery of the U.S. economy under a partisan system. You just can't do it, because of conflicting interests. And what we've had, we have a system of government which is becoming increasingly destructive. You can take it in modern times since Franklin Roosevelt; when Franklin Roosevelt left office and Truman came in, we began this cut process, we began destroying things; destroying our productive powers of labor. Do any of you know how much of the protective potential which had been listed under war matériel had been destroyed under the Truman Administration? Do you realize what the productive power of this United States would have been, if that cut process had not occurred? If we continued with the process of converting our productive potential from war potential into other kinds of potential, useful potential? We didn't.
Truman was a real problem. He was the enemy of the Roosevelt concept; he was a Wall Street guy, a Wall Street man. And he had Wall Street ideas, and Wall Street ideas were never good for the United States. Wall Street is essentially a British puppet, it always has been, from the beginning. You had traitors and similar kinds of skunks from Wall Street, and from Boston Back Bay, and things like that, some of the Boston crowd are equally bad. But we had this kind of destruction of the potentiality of our economy.
What happened was, with the onset of what led toward a new depression in the late part of the 1960s, we were on the verge, again, of a slide into a depression, after the interim of the highly productive role under Kennedy, and the salutory efforts under Eisenhower.
So we now come to the point that our political system is based on a system that doesn't work, not for the nation.
So today what we need is, we've got to throw Obama out of office, because he's a disease, effectively a disease, not a candidate. But the Republican Party is admittedly not a very good show for getting this problem solved. So we have to make some changes.
Politics Is Not a Sports Competition
The crux of the thing, as I indicated last week, is, the first thing you have to do, is you have to get rid of the party system. Eliminate the party system, because, when you reduce politics to the kind of competition, like sports competition, like arena competition, that sort of thing, people don't think any more. They don't really think. Most of our citizens, when it comes to politics, don't think. They think in party terms. They think, "Is my party going to win? I'm on this side." Or, "I'm—he's on that side. And we're going to see which party wins." What about the policy? "No, the policy will come second. First the party has to win." And that's what's going on with many people now. "Our party must win, and after we win, then we will decide to do some good things." That's typical U.S. Presidential, etc., campaign policy: "When we have won, all good things will be bestowed upon you." "There'll be a mystery, and all the good things that you would like would be bestowed upon you by a generous new administration. And in four years, you will be in Paradise!" That's what they go through.
The party system breeds idiots. It's not wrong to have parties, political parties, but they should be clubs, not political organizations. They should be discussion clubs. But they should not have a mission which they control as a party.
When we elect a President, and we elect other Federal officials, they are installed. The competition among them for policy is right. But when you bring in a bunch of people, and you're trying to bribe them, with saying that you're promising this, and you're promising them that, and you're going to give them the sense of victory: "Your party is going to win! Think how good you'll feel when your party wins!"
And they act like people in a giant auditorium. And you have two auditoriums—one on one side, one on the other, Republican and Democratic. And they're out there to beat the other party, the other team, the other political team, the other political this or that.
Read the press. What does the press say about the campaign? What does it say about the motives and goals of the candidacies? They're fools! They're not concerned with whether their ideas are competent or not; they just want their party to win. Just like rooting for their baseball team, or their football team, or whatever—their jockstrap team, or whatever.
And that's the way our voters think. They think like stupid people, because they believe you've got to win the game. You've got to win the sports event, and they treat the whole electoral process as a sports event.
And then, what they do after they get elected, whoever does get elected, then they compromise. They now work with the two parties, or the three parties, or whatever number they are, and they compromise among themselves. It's called, "Go along to get along." And it's a compromise all the way. What is done for the citizen? Nothing. Or virtually nothing. Some people get a piece of pie, somebody gets nothing.
And winning the ability to control who passes out the goodies to whose buddy's party, is the whole game. You go to the losing party, and now, "You've lost, haven't you? Your party lost, right? Now you want something, right? Okay. If you'll do this for us, so we can help control our Republican people who are in power right now, and you do the right thing by us, and make a nice compromise, we'll give you a cherry."
And that's the way it's done.
And so, therefore, you've got a system of politics, a system of government, which at its root, in terms of the whole administration of justice and everything else, is corrupt, because it's a bunch of jockstraps running loose with people inside them, is what it amounts to. And that's where we are.
Go Back to the Constitution
If we're going to survive now, we have to go back to the original Constitution, to go back to the memory of people like John Quincy Adams, who were great creators. Remember people like Franklin Roosevelt, like John F. Kennedy, and other people who were very useful, or even heroes, like Lincoln, in our history.
They didn't do this compromise business. They would compromise only after the war had been won. After the war is won, then you can compromise. And try to reunite the nation, or try to reunite nations, which have been at odds with each other, and bring them together. And say, "We got the war over with. No more war! No more anteroom to war." And that's what we require.
So therefore, we have to think about how we, a few geniuses and other people like us, are going to help fix it. Not because we're looking for some cherry, or some great apple, or this or that, but because, it's our nature. It's our nature, of concern for our nation and for humanity, which is not blocking our view.
And therefore, we're going to have to find ways, within the terms of our Constitution, in particular, to get some real economic growth started and functioning, now.
And what we want, is to have the Democrats who will dump Obama, join the Republicans who will dump some of the nonsense on that side, and say, "This is a constituency." But we're not going to run politics on a party system. We may have parties who support a Presidential candidate, support the selection of a Vice President, select key political figures, in order to compose a government of our choice. To look at the composition and selection of members of the Congress in the same way. And bring people together based on specific commitments to workable ideas, and to work, foremost, for certain changes which are needed.
But no longer take the government and nation of the United States, and use it as a gambling hall, which is what's being done right now. Our system of government is a gambling-hall system. It is not based on principle, real principles. It's not based on scientific principles. It's not based on things you can count on, that will actually work. It's not based on achieving goals which are absolutely necessary. It's a show. It's a sideshow. It's a Barnum & Bailey circus. And that's what we have to get now.
I think we can do that. It certainly is possible. It's possible to get enough people together, to realize where this election campaign is going, at this late stage for the selection of the Presidency.
I think that the fear of thermonuclear war, which should be there—it should be the great fear, because, you know, tomorrow morning, we could be in thermonuclear war, more or less globally. And a day or two after that, you would be in Hell, of one kind or another. So it's not too late to change. It's not too late to get out of this mess, and to come to your senses.
Just think about it, as you go out of here tonight. Think about how people behave, in the light of what I have just been talking about. How many of them are really moral, in their intentions? How many are gambling? How many look at politics like gambling? That "if we bet this way, and bet that way, we can win something. Win something big. We're out for the big potato."
How many of them trouble to understand, what makes a national economy function? From what I observe, almost none. What I see in the public speeches, and I see in the press, virtually nothing. There is nothing of competence which will indicate any recovery of this nation, from the troubles that beset it now. I see nothing that justifies keeping Obama, particularly, anywhere near an office. I think that two people voting for him, even if they are members of his own family, would be too much. So therefore, what we've got to concentrate on is that.
All right, so, we're facing a nuclear winter, which comes from a thermonuclear war, and we're on the edge. And no competent military figures or centers would debate, among themselves, what I've just told you. We're on the edge of thermonuclear war, by a number of nations in concert, each feeling they can not get out of the war, because somebody else is starting it. And that's the end of mankind, as we've known it.
And it can all happen now, because you, or somebody like you out there, thought Obama was a good choice for President. And you failed to realize that you're still living under the influence of an empire, which is today composed of the British monarchy. Forget the British people—that's another thing. It's the British monarchy itself, which controls a great number of countries.
For example, every nation of black Africa is controlled by the British Empire, every one. There's not a single nation in Africa, which is not a branch of the British Empire, a subject of the British Empire. The Saudis do the same thing. Why do you think you get all these wars in this region, of West Asia? Why do you get this? Because that's who runs it, the British Empire.
You take, for example, political parties in Europe. All major nations in Western and Central Europe, again, are controlled by the British Empire. We're controlled by the British Empire. What do you think Wall Street is? Wall Street is entirely a British institution. And the Saudis, with the BAE, particularly, if you understand what the BAE is, and that the BAE is actually the author of 9/11, because it's a part of the Saudi operations which ran 9/11, and are running it now.
These are the kinds of things we have to understand, and we have to deal with.
So I say, get rid of Obama. Just throw him out of office. There's no way he's going to be useful to humanity. Now, you've got a Republican administration, but we don't have to look at it that way. We're looking for an election of individuals, who may be members of parties. But that party thing should be put behind the doors, someplace else.
And the question is, what can we do to restore the United States, to restore our economy, to get a big chunk of the 27 million people who are desperately unemployed, and promise them, and give them jobs and other kinds of conditions, of education and so forth, which will enable them to come to the objectives of our nation? Forget the objectives of the parties. Take the objectives of the nation. Take the objectives of other nations. Take the importance of work with other nations.
A High-Technology Future
We have entered now into a world of thermonuclear warfare, thermonuclear capabilities. That's never going to disappear. Because thermonuclear technology is not the danger. You need thermonuclear technology for reasons I can indicate to you today, and I shall, briefly. We must deal with the threats from satellites floating in space. These satellites have the potential of causing the extinction of the human species. That doesn't mean we expect it to happen immediately, but we know that these rocks are swarming out there, in unknown numbers, between Mars orbit and Earth orbit. And they hit the United States sometimes, in small drips, a little shock here and there, a small piece survives through the atmosphere and hits the Earth actually. Once in a while you get something bigger, and you could get a rock, say, that could knock out the whole San Francisco Bay area in one stroke, or the New York City area, in one stroke. Or you get bigger ones, more calamitous; and then you can get a really big one, which has happened on this planet, Earth, where a big rock, a big satellite has hit the Earth, and there's a general extinction of life as we know it on the planet.
So therefore, we can not ignore these things, and we have to deal with them. That's one of the things. So we have to develop the power to deal with these challenges, which is needed to create the conditions of life for our human species.
We've got to look beyond that, but I think that's enough to emphasize at this point. You have two options, and thermonuclear technology defines it. On the one hand, the equivalent of thermonuclear technology, is the way on which we on Earth can reach to places like Mars, and maintain development in nearby space. Not only that development, it's only by the aid of such resources that we can actually defend Earth against what would otherwise be inevitable, which would be satellites hitting, asteroids hitting Earth itself and causing more or less extinction among human beings.
So therefore, we have missions with high technology, in terms of power for mankind to do things that mankind can not do yet, the power to defend mankind against dangers which exist out there between such places as the Mars orbit and the Venus orbit, actually, or some great comet that comes in and we don't know we can stop it in as near a time as a year. And if one of those comets hits Earth, the calculations have been and continue to be, it would be the extinction of life on Earth, or human life on Earth.
So therefore, we have real missions which involve the highest degree of technology. Also, contrary to the environmentalist movement—which is a movement toward death organized by the British, largely—it won't work, except to kill people. Because the evolution of processes in our part of space, is such that we have to constantly change the conditions of life of men, because the Solar System is changing. We can not rely on a fixed kind of organization of a Solar System. It's going to change. It is changing, it will change, and therefore, we have to develop the more advanced technologies which meet human needs, and meet the needs to counter these changes.
And therefore, we do need thermonuclear technology; but we know we can not use thermonuclear technology ever again for the threat of war. Nor can we tolerate, systems of government which allow this to happen, systems of government which are based on party systems. Party systems can not be the basis for government. We've seen all the wars, in the recent period, all the wars in known periods of history, have been wars which are strewn around by party loyalties or partisanism.
And when you think about it, just look at the newspapers or hear the debates on television or whatever, and realize that you're hearing the voice of an idiot, in practically every political party debate you hear. They're not thinking about reality. They're thinking about baseball, they're thinking about basketball. They're thinking about other kinds of false realities, and they're voting for their team. And what they want, is their party's team to win! And they don't give a damn what else happens!
And then you have people around them who are suckers, for this game, and the people around them, will—well, say, go along with it. They receive it as entertainment. What they're receiving is, they're becoming jerks.
[1] The reference is to the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. See "9/11 Take Two," EIR, Sept. 21, 2012, and the October 2012 EIR Special Report, "Obama's War on America: 9/11 Two."
