LAROUCHE PAC POLICY COMMITTEE
OCT. 19 DIALOGUE WITH LAROUCHE
Right Now, We Have Reached
a Turning Point
[PDF version of this transcript]
This is the complete transcript of Lyndon LaRouche’s dialogue with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on Oct. 19, 2015.
Matthew Ogden: Good afternoon. It’s Oct. 19th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee weekly discussion. I’m going to introduce the members of our Policy Committee joining us over video [from right to left]: We have Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio, I’m joined by both Diane Sare [of Manhattan and New Jersey], by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and Mr. LaRouche.
 LPAC-TV
Lyndon LaRouche discusses with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on Oct. 19: “We have the possibility of achievements which were not accessible to us for a long time.”
|
So, we already started having a conversation, but I think we can pick it up.
Lyndon LaRouche: Yes, well, right now we have reached a turning point, which follows on what happened on the thirteenth [Democratic Presidential candidate debate], and the thirteenth was a travesty. It was an orgy, an abomination, and all those kinds of things. But unfortunately for the enemy, that is not a popular trend. And it’s going to go in the other direction, and has gone. We have had in the past interval of a week, we have had the greatest increase of popular support among people who are voting or planning to vote, that we’ve had in a very long time.
And so therefore, now, our job is not to be abstract about these problems. We know that we now have put the spurs on Obama, that Obama is now finished. Everything globally says that Obama is finished. That’s what’s going to happen now. We find in Manhattan, and she [Diane Sare] finds in New Jersey also the same thing, a complete change from pessimism, to saying, “Well now that we’ve got all this success, are we going to get some money too?” And that sort of thing.
So, it’s great! This is what has happened with Russia. Russia’s activity has been the mechanism,—the achievement of Russia’s success, and what it’s still doing has been the trigger which has ignited a global ability to turn the tide in favor of mankind. And that’s what we’re doing! And our people have to catch onto the fact they’re going to be wearing clothes now, not rags. But it’s not going to come so easily.
But what I got on the past 48 hours is a striking blow: the nation and parts of the world are moving. And of course, what China and Russia have done in adding to that, has been absolutely crucial in this change in the circumstances of the whole planet.
So we are in a period of responsibility, not to claim great achievements, but to realize that we have the possibility of achievements which were not accessible to us for a long time. And therefore, we have to use and support those talents, recognizing that you have a responsibility to make sure that you make your contribution in the process which we’re fighting to bring forth now.
Obama is a Killer
Ogden: Well, there are a number of items that have all sort of colluded against Obama, that are all coming to a head right now. You have the publication of what’s called The Drone Papers, in Glenn Greenwald’s publication The Intercept, which just thoroughly document this killer mentality that’s behind this targeted assassination program using drones, that’s dominated Obama’s Presidency. [See Obama Indicted, p.16 in this issue.] You have the continuation of this Doctors Without Borders investigation into what they are alleging are war crimes, with the targeted, sustained bombing of this hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan.
And now you have everything around the Benghazi attacks coming to a head once again. Hillary Clinton is going to be called to testify. You had a major television special [by Sharyl Attkisson] on this yesterday that was published, and it goes through step-by-step the cover-up, the lies, Susan Rice’s role, the role of Hillary Clinton directly, and all the way to the top, to Barack Obama. And then also a thorough denunciation of the policy of regime change, what Obama did to overthrow Qaddafi, who had in fact been working together with other people to target and eliminate the kind of radical jihadist extremism that has now taken over Libya, Syria, Iraq, and so forth.
 Official Congressional photo
Former Congressman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich., 1993-2011) was one of those to blast Obama for training and arming terrorists in Libya, during ABC-TV’s Oct. 18 exposé.
|
So all of this is now coming together at the same time. And I know this is documented in a leaflet that we are distributing today in Manhattan around the vicinity of the United Nations. That’s happening as we speak.
LaRouche: Yes, and this is our organization in Manhattan, it actually has become a bunch of,—I wouldn’t say zealots, it’s the wrong word to use,—but they’ve been enthusiasts. And they’ve been going out and taking on British leadership who park their carcasses in Manhattan. And I don’t think they’ll enjoy Manhattan much any more. But this is what’s happening. We have a change in mood, a change in opportunity.
The problem that I see, I see in our own organization. We have some people behaving like idiots, and they are not paying attention to what the reality is. And so they still go with the pessimistic attitude they’ve had for a long time. When in reality, we now have reached a higher level of influence internationally than we’ve ever had in my lifetime.
Diane Sare: Well, I’ll just say that the release, which is up on the LaRouche PAC website today as the Lead has gone viral. I mean, it’s been shared, I heard, as of 9 o’clock this morning, something like 16 hundred times. We had double and triple the normal number of people who sign up for emails, signing up to get our email. And I think people in a sense have been waiting for this break. They hate Obama, but they’re terrified of Obama, and they’ve succumbed to the pessimism. But this is irrefutable. And you did say in April of 2009 that Obama was a failed personality. You used Nero and Hitler, and the drone policy is so precisely a Nero kind of policy, that it is just undeniable, and at this point it’s irrefutable.
And you have that, and then you have his decision to bomb the hospital in Afghanistan. The Doctors Without Borders had taken all of the appropriate measures. Their coordinates were precisely known. They called NATO and they called the United States, whatever the chain-of-command was, and said, “you’re bombing a hospital,” and yet we continued to bomb it for at least 45 minutes after that. And now that there’s an investigation, we’re sending in bulldozers to cover over the evidence!
So it is absolutely irrefutable, and I think there were a number of things that were very sharp at the New York meeting. One of our activists there just said that Congress should be held criminally responsible if they don’t throw this guy out of office, based on what is now in the public domain. [See Manhattan Dialog, p.27 this issue.]
The British Ran the Show
LaRouche: We have similar things on this thing. There’s the analytical approach to this. We’re just describing the effect. But look at the analytical standpoint of it as well. So what happened is that the British actually ran the convention of the thirteenth.
Sare: Of the debate.
LaRouche: They ran it. I picked them up on the previous Friday; and I picked them up in the early morning session. And I found there were two teams of British operatives who were gathering around this area, to converge on this intended conference.
Hillary Clinton is now a destroyed politician. The effect has not been registered fully yet, but it will be. It’s inevitable. She’s finished. And several of the other people are also going to be finished, and I have to admit that I will do something which will cause them to be finished. I have some plans to do it, which I’m responsible for, and I will do that. I will engineer it.
But the thing is, what is the key to this thing? Well, you take Valerie Jarrett. Now she’s a known person; she’s a British agent. She’s totally British, and she’s a British agent, but she runs under the idea of being a U.S. citizen. But she’s not. She’s a British agent. And she’s the one who orchestrates the whole business of the Obama machine inside the United States. She’s the one who runs it. And it was very clear in the process of the way she inaugurated her position in terms of the United States. So she’s finished, for that reason.
 White House/Pete Souza
Who’s ordering who? Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett talks with President Obama in the Oval Office on May 6, 2009.
|
What that means is, Obama was not a brain. That is not his character. Obama is a killer, a professional killer, with a quality of character which is characterized by his stepfather. Now the stepfather was removed from the scene, because his mother, Obama’s, was frightened, even though she became quite evil and so forth, and that sort of thing. And so therefore, what happened is that Obama is an echo of his stepfather. He’s a perfect model. He’s a killer intrinsically. All he’s done is kill, kill, kill, when you take the number of cases of people who were killed, who outnumber the number of targets by a massive degree!
So now Jarrett, of course, was a mediator of pulling Obama into the Presidency. She was the one, and she was the one that controlled it. She’s British. She has a U.S. cover, but she’s British. And Obama is not a thinking person. He has no real intelligence, as a thinking person. He’s a killer. His whole history as President has been that of a killer. His attitude fits exactly with what his stepfather represented. He was a professional killer. He was such an evil killer that Obama’s mother pulled Obama personally, while he was in adolescence, out of his association with his stepfather. But what stuck to him was not her influence; what stuck to Obama was that attitude.
So Obama is nothing but a mad killer. That’s what he was from the beginning, and what the point is, is that the members of the United States government, agents of the United States government, allowed themselves to be drawn into a systemic kind of murder, which no respectable society will do. No one will go out with that kind of killer program. But Obama needed it! Obama had a need to do that. He had a need to be evil! And he is a typical Satanic figure. I mean the quality of his life, from the time he became exposed, and Jarrett is his charmer. Jarrett is the one who created him, or played a key role for the British in creating him. And the whole package of Jarrett and Obama is a gift of the British Empire.
Ogden: Well, this includes Hillary Clinton too. She was pulled into that Administration and forced to compromise herself, and now she’s completely tainted by what Obama represents.
Obama’s Been Flanked, But. . .
LaRouche: Absolutely, that’s exactly it. But see, the point is, if you give in to evil, you become a member of it. And that’s what happened to her. And then we have a lot of other people of the same category. And so suddenly, when Obama is challenged by what we have done,—we have done part of our job because we’ve brought him down.
Now he has not been brought down formally at this point, but the threat of what will happen to him is almost inevitable. He’s gone, or will be gone. The only thing he can do is try to blow up the world. But you look how successful Putin is in everything he’s doing right now, and the American leaders, the American military specialists, are really awed by his success. They never thought that he was going to be able to do that. And he has picked up qualifications of strategy, which the members of the United States government lack.
So this is where we are, and I think the discussion we should have, is pertaining to this point of reference.
Dave Christie: Well, Lyn, I just want to add one thing here, because Sputnik news this morning had as one of its top news items one of our associates in Europe, Karel Vereycken, who heads up the Agora Erasmus [in Belgium]. It was a combination of him being interviewed, and covering some of the writings on the whole deployment of the B61-12s, the mini-nukes into Europe, which obviously, are being upgraded under Obama’s kill policy, the real, big kill policy. And part of what I think was being discussed earlier was,—in Seattle here, we had an event where none other than Niall Ferguson, who is a known apologist of the British monarchy, came and gave somewhat of a sleepy discussion about a book that he wrote on Henry Kissinger [Kissinger 1923-1968: The Idealist].
As he’s sort of droning on and most of the audience is falling asleep, but in the middle of it, all of a sudden, he says, “Oh, and by the way one of the most significant things about Henry Kissinger, was his brash call for the use of limited nuclear warfare against Khrushchov, to prevent him from invading through the Fulda Gap, and. . . ho-ho-ho. Sort of like Putin today.” I’m sitting there almost falling asleep in this thing, and then saying, “what is this all about?”
Then also, Fareed Zakaria, who’s known to write for the establishment administrations, and so on and so forth, echoed that same call.
So I just think we should be very clear that however much Obama’s been flanked, that if you leave him in there with these kind of weapons and this sort of forward basing, that’s not a game that we want to play.
LaRouche: [laughs] Obviously!
Sare: I’ll just say, and Rachel may have more because she was at this meeting in Manhattan, where we learned that this baron—I guess we have to give these Brits their titles—Baron Adair Turner . . .
LaRouche: Oh my God! [laughter]
Sare: . . .speaking on his book, called Between Debt and the Devil—like one is good and one is bad? I don’t know—but anyway, she went, and the blurb had this little sentence at the end which made it clear to us; it said that we have to disabuse people of the notion that printing money is inflationary. Because sometimes it’s necessary. I was thinking, this was exactly what you were warning that they were going to attempt to do.
And then they get there, and it’s a small crowd for a large auditorium, but the head of the Bank of England is sitting there in this meeting, so obviously it was a crucial intervention into Manhattan. And a few things occurred, which, Rachel, if you want to say something about it, since you were witness to this activity. I don’t think the Brits were too happy after that.
A Shift in Manhattan
Rachel Brinkley: Yes, the main thing—I’ll try to remember all the details, but one of our members stood up while he [Turner] was giving this extremely boring dissertation, and said: “Look, I’ve got a question. Are you going to let us ask questions now?”
And they say, “go ahead. What’s your question?”
And he said, “Glass-Steagall, what do you have to say on that?” And he ignored it; he said, “I don’t have an answer to that.”
And later on, she stood up, and said, “Look, this whole thing is a fraud. You come here to tell us what to do, when you have been running this corrupt system,” and she attacked this British policy. She said, “We are for an American policy,”—FDR, Hamilton, Lincoln,—and they threw her out of the event; they had some problem with her saying that.
Another of our activists stood up and brought up the point that Turner had said at the beginning of his discussion that he was surprised by the 2008 financial collapse, but then proceeded to say that he’s an expert on everything else that we should do now, obviously defending this debt system that’s going to kill billions of people. Our activist said, “Look, you expect us to believe you when you already admitted that you had no idea what’s going on in this financial system. Why don’t you take your ideas back to Britain and start a pig farm with David Cameron?” [laughter]
So, it was interesting: The response in the audience—there actually were a number of questions tending towards the idea of a public credit system, because we did sort of break the façade, and you found that there was a sense underneath; and one thing people brought up is we don’t just need Glass-Steagall, we need a change in the system. That was the response of one young questioner who brought up the need for a public banking system, and get rid of this whole game, although it needs to be advanced.
And another woman brought up that the only time there’s been hyperinflation in U.S. history was when there was a British ship in the New York harbor that was counterfeiting U.S. currency! So, that kind of. . . that is a question of, “look we know what you guys are here for; you can take it home. We want an American System policy. ”
LaRouche: Yes! [laughter] That was very much the tone of that, a whole bunch of Brits were there in Manhattan and they thought they had the whole thing fixed. And one of our members there, gave them a lecture; it was not somebody saying, “What d’ya think? What d’ya think?” This member got up and made a very pungent argument, which startled the Brits, and the result was, another guy, a Brit, said, “what’s going on here?” And so, this thing really took over. And I think they got a lesson on that one.
But that’s the direction we have to be going in; we are going in that direction. You know, you take the case of our own organization and the finances of our organization. What happens is, people get discouraged. They say, “Look, we’re not going anywhere; we’re not succeeding in anything; we’re losing all the way back; nothing is working any more. What do we need you for?” That kind of attitude about the citizen toward us. Now, that changed suddenly. And you find that as a result of the week, between the thirteenth and now, there has been a fundamental change in the general attitude within our population itself on this issue. We have more support now, than we’ve had in what seems to us like a century. It may not be quite that long, but the way we experience it, is, when was the last century we got treated like that?
And that’s what the situation is. So the problem is now, is not how are we going to succeed? That’s not a problem. The problem is not to make a mishap of success. And therefore, we have to be very practical in that sense of using policies very carefully which fit the changing attitudes of the citizens of the United States. Now you will get the richest response in Manhattan. There are certain other spots in the United States that will also have an advantage of getting a more immediate response.
The Southern states will be more difficult, because they are not humane. And the problem is of course, the racist attitude which is reflected most expressly in the Southern party, in the area of slave-keeping, which the certain relevant, early President of the United States set into motion.
And so therefore, it’s in Manhattan is the prime center for the recovery which is being presented to us as an opportunity right now. And we will find the greatest success in our immediate effort practically, will come in that way; will come from the New England area, and certain other areas, and northern California. Southern California is less of a prospect.
So now our job is to say, “well, this is what we have; these are the people; we have responses from our members and friends in this area.” The report we have from this morning, I think, is really enthusiastic. So the job is now, it’s nice to have enthusiasm, but it’s better to have success, and success means doing some work to bring about success. While I’m very optimistic in terms of my views of what is possible, my concern is, what are my fellow-members capable of doing? Because the opportunity is there,—how ready are they to recognize what the change means, and to recognize the mission-orientation they have to not only think, but express efficiently?
We have a wonderful opportunity on this particular day, on the date of this particular meeting. It has been conferred upon us. So you have to enjoy the day, but you have to fulfill the purpose of the day. This can be good, very good. I’m sure that we have some other people on the roster across the board to respond on what their view of that matter is.
Eradicate the Green!
Benjamin Deniston: Well, one key reference point you’ve defined repeatedly in the recent period is Franklin Roosevelt. That’s a model we have for the shift we need in the country right now. And correspondence in time between the release of the “Drone Papers” and the Democratic debate, I think, just highlights a lot about where the reality is, and where it’s not, like this crazy, freak-show debate where they’re taking turns kissing Obama’s butt! And at the exact same time, you get this devastating release showing just how sick and disgusting this guy is.
 Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum
Franklin D. Roosevelt in his “Governor’s Chair” in Albany, New York in 1930. His legacy still resonates with Americans.
|
But that’s just showing you how far this system has diverged from reality. And it put us in a unique position, as you’re saying here, to define a very unique form of leadership, to direct this nation in the right direction again. And this Franklin Roosevelt reference I think is something people can resonate with. It’s part of our history, part of our culture. And it’s not just a single policy or a gimmick,—it’s a change in culture, it’s a change in outlook. We need to return to those roots of our nation and I think that’s a key reference point we have as you’ve defined it.
LaRouche: At this point, just to make sure we follow through on that: What we have is the nature of mankind. Now, we’re working on a promissory note for mankind. We are not giving them yet, by what we’ve said so far, we are not giving them the solution. We’re giving them a promise that the solution is available as an option.
The problem is that there’s a nature of mankind and the way that mankind’s existence is understood. That’s where the problem runs. People do not recognize what mankind owes to the planet, what mankind owes to the Galactic System, and to related things which lie in between and around that.
Mankind is the only species which has a destiny to re-create mankind himself, to be a creative force in the universe. Now, the way this expresses itself is, ask the question: “In your society, what’s the death rate relative to the number of people that live?” What are you contributing to create the future, to the ideas of the future, the things that are required for that? What do we demand of our educational system, to make this gift of opportunity given to us now, to realize the benefit?”
So, I mean, you Ben, of course, have one of the best aspects of this among us on that question. What do we mean by the Galactic System? What do we mean by the lesser parts of the same system? Where does man come into the Solar System and beyond as a factor,—where does the future of mankind lie in space, and in reaching into far distant places, like the Galactic System, or various parts of the Galactic Systems?
And that is, if and when mankind, as when the people in our nation and in other nations, grasp that feasibility, that it’s real, it’s not a dream; it’s a practical reality: That every generation of human beings should, as a generation, be more qualified intellectually than the preceding generation. That’s the law. And therefore, if we do not emphasize that, you are ignorant of these opportunistic situations that we have now.
The only way you can do that, is actually, we’ve got to go to physical science. It means we’ve got to shut down everything that’s green! All green policy must be eradicated. And the people who advocate it must be given appropriate forms of occupation. If they can pick things like bugs or various kinds of beasts off the vines and things like that; if that’s the only skill they have, let them pick the bugs from the vines, and so the vines can prosper. [laughter]
But the situation is that,—because what’s the problem up to now? So far, the Twentieth Century and what is now the Twenty-First Century’s entry, present us with the threat of a doomed humanity. And therefore, we have to change the law, to eliminate everything in the nature of climate control, all these other fads; we have to increase the productive power, the creative power, of the human individual. We must not have a green policy. The green policy itself must be driven into death, now; otherwise we’re going to fail. We’re just going to make one promising note, one promising option, but then we will fall into misery. And the first thing to do is to shut down the British Empire. Because the British Empire has been one of the most efficient mechanisms, for making people stupid.
Look at Kepler and Leibniz
Michael Steger: Well, Lyn, to go back to what you said, that it’s not just a question of acknowledging where we are, but also to fulfill it. Because you just made it clear: Eliminating the green policy, eliminating the British Empire, Wall Street, the whole Bertrand Russell conception and definition of man, that has to be gotten rid of.
It reminds me of Kepler’s work, because what Kepler does, he not only identifies—first, he identifies that there is a principle, that there’s a principle governing the larger system that we abide in. But then Kepler has the revolutionary quality of mind to say: OK, how does that principle fulfill itself? How does it bring itself into being as a developing characteristic? And that’s where Kepler then falls upon this Classical musical conception; the Classical harmonies are actually fulfilling the principle which he can empirically acknowledge exists. And so it just stands out to say that what Kepler had demonstrated about physical science, is also very true about mankind’s ability to develop itself; as we see today with what we’ve done in Manhattan, and the musical takeoff there.
It’s just very striking how you not only have to identify where we are, but what’s the means by which mankind fulfills that potential. And this Classical musical Renaissance we see burgeoning in Manhattan, I think is only an example of what we see as the potential. We’ve seen it, we’ve seen it as a response of the population to the debate. There was a sense, “My God! There is nothing, there is nothing unless I do something!” Even the source to the “Drone Papers” says, it is now upon every individual who has access to this information to do something about it. And that is exactly I think what captures the moment. But the question is how do you fulfill that potential? And Kepler and what you have said and done, are exemplary.
LaRouche: Well, I think you go back to Kepler and before Kepler, and you will find in that process that modern society’s achievements, when they were achievements,—and they weren’t always achievements; sometimes they were very evil, like in the Twentieth Century. But when you look at what Kepler represents, and then you look at what Leibniz accomplished, and take those two points of reference as a secondary reference. . . . And also, what was done in terms of China. We’re talking about Leibniz,—Leibniz’s spending his efforts in the study of science in China.
And these kinds of things have been forcing processes, which represent the essence of the existence of the creation of the United States. Now, this has not always been harvested in a happy way. But that idea of progress,—the necessary scientific progress,—and you can call it today scientific progress, and scientific progress is the precondition, for the survival of mankind. Now we have an opportunity, post Obama, to proceed with that mission.
And don’t be practical! Don’t defend anybody who’s got a green policy. Anybody running around with a green policy, should be spat upon, in a manner of speaking. We don’t want to do the act of spitting, but we’d like to feel that they are being spat upon.
Deniston: And it really is a form of clinical insanity. You have two layers: You have the British Royals and their like, who just want to kill people. It’s not about the planet, it’s not about green, they want to kill people; they want one billion people or less, that’s what it is. Then you’ve got those idiots who follow it, and the ironies are just everywhere.
 |
 |
 |
|
|
White House video
|
|
Foreign AffairsMinistry, Denmark
|
|
|
The Green Mafia out to kill: Barack Obama (left), Jerry Brown (center), and Prince Charles (right).
|
|||
I mean, they say they’re a green movement, but the whole planet is net greener today because of CO2, than it was 30, 40, 100 years ago: We actually have a greener planet, because CO2 is not a pollutant, despite what Obama’s EPA says; it’s a plant food, that’s kind of a critical part of the entire biosphere. And in historical terms, we’re in what some people call a CO2 famine. The level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is actually, in geological terms, a low period, in the very low range. You get much lower and plants can’t even grow.
So, we’ve done a relatively small increase; it’s been much higher in the past, too. It’s been five, ten times higher than it is now even, and we’ve only increased a little bit. But already that’s had a net effect in increasing the total greening on the planet. People have done studies, like global crop yields have increased by something on the order of $140 billion a year, attributed to the increased CO2 concentrations, the increase in the growth. There’s all this stuff out there.
Then you get these morons are out there, campaigning against CO2, saying this is pollutant. It is clinical mass insanity: They don’t even know what they’re following; they don’t know what they’re talking about. When you have,—the real issue is this Zeus faction which we just have to get rid of. That’s the source of this thing.
So get rid of Zeus, and then we can have a lot of re-education to do, to teach people what it means to be human. Which is what I think you’re talking about here.
Sare: The irony is, people who are promoting this green crap, I mean, from London, the British Monarchy, they’re the same ones advocating that we could have a limited nuclear war! Now how great would a nuclear war be for the planet or the environment?
Higher Qualities of Existence
LaRouche: It’s obvious that what Ben has just emphasized here is extremely important: The ability of mankind depends upon mankind’s creating the transformation of the media around us, and transforming it into something which enriches mankind’s ability! And this is on the basis of energy-flux density; which is my favorite subject, as it’s been known for some many years about this thing! And probably will be known in one way or the other, in another different way.
But the point is that this principle is the principle. And therefore, we just have to make sure that works. But if we don’t do that, then we will lose, because what will happen if the green policy is allowed to be continued, is that mankind will be destroyed. Therefore, for the safety of mankind, we have to deal with that.
We also at the same time have to add a positive element to that business, and that is true creativity. Human creativity. The important thing is that the death of a person, or the death of human persons, is not a problem for mankind. If the condition is that mankind is able to generate a new layer of human population, which is capable of leading members of that generation to a higher level of achievement, scientifically, of physical science than ever before.
As long as mankind is progressing, and perhaps able to get in control of the Solar System, or to get control of the Galactic System,—those are the things that define morality. And if they’re lacking, then all your thing about worshipping God and so forth ain’t worth anything! If you cannot perpetuate what the Christian principle is supposed to mean in terms of the history of mankind’s progress, to higher qualities of existence, to higher levels of understanding,—without that you are nothing! And everyone there, including the Governor of California, should be told and reminded that he’s unfit to serve in any responsible capacity as a person.
And that’s the way to do it: just say, “You’re a faker.” I don’t care who you are.
The way it will work is, Obama is going down. Now, Obama is one of the pieces of crap, which has been the bad part of the history of the Twentieth Century and now, by getting rid of Obama, we will be actually energizing and activating the progress of mankind, not to simply recover from the disasters of the past, but to remove the obstacles to mankind’s progress. And without mankind’s progress for the future, there is no future.
 Official Congressional photo
Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, a leading voice of revolt against Obama’s tyranny in the Democratic Party, and murderous insanity in Syria.
|
Kesha Rogers: Yes, and the obstacles to mankind’s progress and mankind’s creativity are Obama and Wall Street. And that’s why Wall Street has to be brought down, and Obama has to be removed and impeached. And we have to actually get the population to see themselves more as citizens of the universe and of the Galaxy, and that that’s where their power lies. That’s where the power of the population lies in terms of getting out,—as you said very strongly on Saturday,—of this “little me, I’m the victim, I’m the slave” to “we can now transform mankind to a whole a new era, to a whole new plateau of the breakout in the progress of mankind.”
And you’re sitting here having to deal with the insanity of a mass killer in the White House, while the reality is that we have the potential of even greater forces coming in to wipe out the population, which we can take on, such as the threat of galactic forces, such as the asteroids, which has become once again a very prominent factor, Nations have to work together at this point in time to make sure that we save that which is the beauty and creative powers of mankind, to free mankind from these threats and these disasters. And as long as you have these, as you said, “impediments” in the way, then we will not be able to do that. And I think we’re on the verge of removing them, very quickly.
LaRouche: Except you’ve got to remove the Pope, this current Pope. If the current Pope were to prevail over the reign of people who are Catholic, and if they accepted what he was teaching, that would lead to the destruction of mankind. That would be a Satanic act. And actually a Pope who would take that policy, unless they abandoned that policy and purified themselves of their evil tricks that they picked up,—you’re going to have a destruction of mankind. And therefore that Pope, and his doctrine,—either the Pope has to change, or the Pope has to be changed.
And that’s a very important factor. And it’s international. And if you start that kind of thing, that kind of religious doctrine, you’ll get people of different religions all over the planet killing each other. And that is not going to do any good.
China and Russia Are a Moral Force
Bill Roberts: I think that’s right, because it goes together with this Wall Street problem, that people believe in this mythology that there’s some way that they have to survive by allowing other people to be destroyed and to be killed. And that is the slave mentality. That is—you know, someone said the slave has half a mind. We still have this subjective problem with the American population, even though the Empire is largely being brought down internationally,—the American population has to be induced to decide to be human, and decide to be human by saying “we’re going to have a future.”
LaRouche: Tell the Pope.
Steger: Well, Lyn, I think it’s interesting, in light of this collapse of Obama and the move by Putin, that you’ve also seen the disintegration of both of the political parties’ leadership. You’ve got the revolt in the Democratic Party; you have a revolt in the Republican Party. And you raised specifically this question of a Manhattan Party, a nonpartisan effort to shape the Presidency. And really, this question of both Wall Street and this green ideology,—the destruction of both of those has to be a unifying principle; also with the affirmation of a development program, but that characteristic really does defined this Manhattan question.
LaRouche: So does Russia. And so does China. China is actually a moral force relative to the devilish force of Obama and the British. Therefore, if you look at what the progress of China has been so far, and the reconstruction and resurrection and rebirth of Russia under Putin’s leadership, we see it now in practice. And these are things which we have to be conscious of. Because we will have a system of nations, but these nations will not be of the kind of selfish nature that we’ve been taught to have. It means that we will bring what we know, in our ability and in our knowledge,—we’ll bring that to use for all mankind, but especially right at home.
 il.ru
Putin’s intervention in Syria has been trigger for turning the tide in favor of mankind. Here, a Russian plane takes off from the Hmeymim airfield in Syria.
|
And beyond that, we have to create a future for mankind. Which means, what we must do, in every generation of human life, that generation of that level of life, that scale of life, that generation of life has to be superior in its creative powers to any national condition before. And that’s the law: Mankind must produce generations which are creative relative to what already exists. And you must take the leadership of the best leaders, of the greatest progress of mankind and say that those people are the proper leaders in spirit, of mankind as a whole. How do you think we’re going to do what Kepler thought he was going to do, the unfinished business of Kepler’s achievements? What do we think we’re going to do about what Leibniz did? A lot of that got forgotten in the process.
So therefore the question is, are we going to breed generations of children, and train them to bring a population whose creative powers of knowledge and practice are greater than any previous generation? That’s our mission. That’s what it comes down to.
Will Mankind Be Allowed to Progress?
Sare: I think what you’re saying about the Pope,—I immediately was thinking about what’s happened with these refugees coming into Europe, and the attack on Angela Merkel, who, for once, has got something right which is her decision to accept the refugees and the humanizing effect this has had on some substantial portion of the population of Germany; where people have decided, “No, these are human beings, we may not understand their language but they are human; many of these refugees are well-educated. They have a contribution to make to mankind, and we’re not going to lower ourselves to treat another human being as an animal.”
And I think this is really a profound question, because I’ve been picking up from various emails and things here in the United States, that there’s a trend among some of these Tea Party and other circles; they were getting all riled up against the immigrants. And of course, all of these problems come from Obama! I mean, he’s arming and supporting the Mexican drug cartels; he’s arming and supporting ISIS; he did these wars, he overthrew Qaddafi—he has caused this! But you have a very nasty, evil line, even in the United States now against Merkel, for her decision to accept these refugees, and I think it really is just very sinister and cynical about what it means to be a human being, and what our relationship is to the rest of mankind, therefore.
LaRouche: Well, take the Southern population, the black slavery, and similar kinds of slavery, and these are evil forces. You know the third President of the United States, who was a very evil person, Jefferson; and we had his followers, who were similarly evil. Maybe not as actively as he was. That’s the same thing.
And that’s the point. That we have to remove those kinds of factors of behavior in the people in the United States and in nations in general. Like [Finance Minister] Schäuble in Germany is a model case of a man who just wants to kill and eat people, out of his own problems and own frustrations, and he takes his frustrations out, with extreme bitterness, on the basis of the fact that he was crippled and injured and so forth, as he was. But he hates people! And you have other people in Germany who have the same problem. You have a lot of French people—the French got a lot of Nazis in there! They don’t call it Nazis, but they are Nazis.
You take the history of de Gaulle, Charles de Gaulle: Charles de Gaulle escaped from the British influence, went out and organized. What happened with Russia? If Russia had not fought as it did, there would not be a United States. Without Stalin there would have been no United States.
Ogden: Franklin Roosevelt understood that.
LaRouche: Yeah, very clearly! And other people did. But, of course, the forces in Germany were a problem, but Russia had big problems. And it was only when Russia was organized in a way which had a mission orientation, that it could do something.
Now he was killed; he was murdered, Stalin. Stalin was actually murdered. And a lot of my friends who had known of the Stalin level, leading people, they were snuffed! But this was what the kind of problem is. We have to think about the nature of the people who live,—will they allow human beings to progress? Or will they try to do everything possible to destroy the ability of the progress for mankind as, shall we say, the Creator would intend mankind to progress?
Let’s win!
Ogden: All right! On that note—I think we can bring a conclusion to this discussion at this point. I want to thank everybody very much for joining me. And stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
