LPAC Policy Committee with Lyndon LaRouche · June 1, 2015 Web Cast


Lyndon LaRouche will be live on today’s show. Join us every Monday at 1pm Eastern—We’ll define the week’s most important ideas and events.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it’s June 1st, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. I’d like to introduce the members of our Policy Committee who are joining us over video: We have by Bill Roberts, who is currently in New Jersey/New York area; 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 Diane Sare, and Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team. And, as you can see, Mr. LaRouche. So, Lyn, I’ll let you begin.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: We have an interesting situation now. It’s a process in process. In the recent elections of campaign elections and so forth are doing that.

Now, what has happened is that, the President of the United States is running a policy which is aimed at leading the United States, at an accelerated rate, into a thermonuclear war. That’s what he’s trying to do, he’s doing it under the direction, naturally, his mistress who is the Queen of England. We don’t know what the quality of “mistress” means in that case, because sex and all this kind of stuff is all confused as far as innocent people are concerned. But the point is, the obvious thing that this President is doing, in effect, is setting the world up for thermonuclear war, which will be the extermination of most of the human beings, if not all of them.

So therefore, what’s happening? What’s happening is a process which is going on in places such as the Congress and around the Congress, which realizes this is going, and somehow you have to strip down this President, and strip him down from his capability to launch a thermonuclear war, to set it off. And you see that tendency is manifesting itself. It’s all too slow for our liking, the process of doing that. But throwing this guy out of office is finally the only solution, for avoiding the extermination of the human species throughout the planet. Because if that thing occurs, as you McCain and so forth get a little bit wild in his attitude, and some other people as well, that we have to get rid of this crap.

And we’re seeing that, one at a time, a strained effort to get one more key figure in the Congress to move in a direction, to move away from thermonuclear war.

In the meanwhile, the President of the United States is under the direction of the British Empire, in pushing full speed, to organize an immediate thermonuclear war. Look at what the situation is: The U.S. forces next to Russia; look at China, how that’s being closed in. So we’re on the edge where this guy, this clown, Obama, is pushing the world toward a thermonuclear war, and if it happens in terms of China and Russia, it will go throughout the entire planet; there’s no way of stopping that.

So what you’re seeing is a trend, within the Congress and other circles, who are concerned about the madness that’s going on from around the White House in particular, as well as the Queen of England, and therefore, we have the gratifying tendency, but not good enough, where some members of the Congress are actually moving, taking steps, along with other people, candidates and so forth, to prevent this from happening.

I think this is the immediate issue, where we, in particular, as assembled here and other places where we do things actively, we have a great responsibility, in being voices — but not just voices — but having an insight into what is wrong now. Because we should have the ability to recognize that we’re on the edge, of a thermonuclear war right now. And as long as this President is in there as the position of President, we’re in that tempo, right in that tempo. So we’ve got to do the job.

Now, we have the other aspect is what’s the alternative. If we get him out, from the right to launch a war, then we have different kinds of problems to concentrate on. We shift the attention to the economic issues of the planet, as opposed to the war issue. And that’s necessary. That’s where I think we’re on, really on this point right now. We’re very close to it. You realize how close we really are to Obama’s ability, to make that next step or next step beyond which sets off thermonuclear war.

You see what they’re doing against Russia, you see what they’re doing against China: This is this. And both of these things will go simultaneously; they’re not separate. And if that happens, the possibility of the end of the human species is possible. We have to take the fact that that risk exists as an active risk, and I think our policy has to be based on that, but not just our own policy, but also what we present as the policy publicly.

OGDEN: Well, of course, this is intersecting your heightened role that you’ve assumed in terms of the public spokesman shaping the institution of the Presidency, especially with these last two Thursday night discussions with the general LaRouche PAC organization nationally, activists and otherwise; which, the third of those discussions is going to take place this Thursday. And I know this will be an ever-expanding group of people engaged in that. Also, I think not coincidentally, just as a part of that, you’ve had accelerating of very significant developments that show directly the influence and the impact that we and you have had had, on shaping this Presidency: You’ve got O’Malley’s announcement on Saturday, where he declared war on Wall Street, with Glass-Steagall; you do have the right around the NSA/Patriot Act, which the expiration was forced last night by Rand Paul. Rand Paul is coming out again tomorrow morning, with the introduction of the 28 pages resolution into the Senate, a live press conference that we will be live-streaming on the LaRouche PAC site; and then, of course, this is all going towards this D-Day Conference which will be happening in New York City project which is happening this coming Saturday.

LAROUCHE: Well, the significance, in my particular role in this thing, what we did is we had a discussion with the team, which is operating on a nationwide operation within our organization, and what we did is just emphasize, that instead of saying ‘we have to make concessions,” on questions of finance and so forth, I just made the obvious two points: One, no, we don’t do that; number two, you define exactly what we are going to do. And my thing is to pull this thing out now. You have to say, we are not begging for support, from some people. We’re telling them, you’re not allowed to withhold support from what we’re doing. And we eliminate the acceptance of that kind of attitude, where people say, “well, let’s be practical, let’s be practical, let’s be practical.”

And I said, “I want to hear nothing any more from so-called practical-minded people. Because practical-minded people are good for one thing: Getting you to get killed!: As well as being ruined. [laughter] But I think being killed is also in there, because if we don’t do that, and if we don’t that, and if we don’t give our effort which we do have an influence in, we can set off an chain reaction effect in the U.S. economy; because there’s a vacuum right now, and people are looking for new changes in policy.

Therefore, we are in a position to actually move this thing, to get rid of the President as he is now. And the only thing I did was, I put my voice in, and because for our members I had the case, the actual case which is the winning case. And that was my function.

So I just tell people, “you can’t do that any more, you can’t go around and say, ‘pity us, pity us, pity us.'” We’re not going to be pitied. We don’t need to be pitied. The enemy may be pitied by a fear of what I might do to them.

DIANE SARE: Well, I think they are afraid of what’s going to happen this Friday in Greece, for example, because the newly elected government made a pledge to the people of Greece, that they were not going to put the interests of the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, ahead of the general welfare of the Greek population. And then, after that rather spectacular display strength and unity in Russia on V-E Day, Putin extended an invitation to Greece to become part of the BRICS process.

So they are not the ones who are backed into a corner. However, the trans-Atlantic system is on the brink of total disintegration, which is the factor that is driving Obama’s controller, the Queen of England, the British Monarchy, into plunging us into this war drive. But that is a major factor coming up here.

LAROUCHE: Well, there’s no basis in what they’re trying to do, because the Greeks — a fraud was being run against the Greeks, and they owed nothing, virtually nothing! And so, the demands which are presented by the Europeans and the United States are fraudulent. These were frauds. And you had a Greek government earlier, which submitted to the fraud.

But the problem is, on the other side, is that the British system, much of the European system, the united system, in terms of this issue, is totally fraudulent. Wall Street is a fraud, a complete fraud. And the same thing applies in most of the European system. Everything they have, that’s money, is gambling debts in effect. In other words, it’s not something which is production, it’s a gambling debt, and they’re demanding the right to collect on gambling debts.

So now that’s the situation. Okay, so this is going to be a crucial issue, because they cannot get through this thing now, with what Russia’s doing and the way other things that’re happening. No, this is an explosion, and that’s what the danger is. The danger is that the British Empire, which is behind Obama and everything else like that, they are determined to save their power, their power over the world. And they’re not going to give in; we have to make them give in.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Just a note on that, because what you’re laying out Lyn, that obviously this whole thing is a fraud, of Wall Street-London financial system is a fraud at the core, which of course, is what Glass-Steagall addresses. And O’Malley’s announcement for Presidency, took that up directly in his campaign speech. But as part of what this body here is intending to shape, as what Lyn, you’ve done throughout your entire career, which is to shape the institution of the Presidency from a policy direction, and obviously, right now Glass-Steagall is one of the core elements of that.

But, I was just reflecting on it, that there is a movement, and it is being reflected in a statement of anti-austerity, which on its own is right, but it doesn’t take the full impact of what the potential is. And my guess is that the British Empire would like to just reduce things down to something like, it’s a fight against austerity, or what they’ve done around this race issue to try to reduce it down to these sort of issues. When, what actually is facing mankind is something much more grand right now: It goes to what, Lyn, you’ve often addressed on this Prometheus versus Zeus question, that it’s the end of the slave system for good, and that we now have an opportunity with what the BRICS dynamic represents, for this new paradigm.

LAROUCHE: There’s one thing that has to be emphasized very clear: The one thing what I did — all I did on the Thursday operation was to say, we are in charge; we have the right to be in charge. And so I just said, we are not going to accommodate, to the conditions imposed upon our organization; we’re not going to allow members of our organization, to submit themselves to that kind of standard. So we had a leading person who was doing that, for us, and he was getting very, very much discouraged, because he was not getting the result. Because the rest of the organization, so-called, was actually saying, “You have to submit, you have to submit, you have to be good; you have to win influence, you have to influence the ‘bad guys.'” And I said, no.

But I realized we had a key representative who was representing the position, did not have the solution. And he didn’t have the solution because he was never given the options of the solution. So then I stepped in, and said, OK let’s do it. And so I just laid out the terms, which are the perfectly fine terms, the only decent terms anyway, and said, “we’re going to do it,” and they were quite happy with the fact that we did that. And so, we’re now going into the third stage of this thing, and it’s going to work. And you find what the votes are coming out of the Congress, they go in the same direction. We demand a change in what the demands on the people are, on the system is. And that was lucky. We had an organization which was submitting, to saying, “we have to give in, we have to be practical, we have to be practical, we have to give in because we don’t have the power to impose.” I said, to hell with that; and we don’t do that! We go and mobilize the people as a force; we don’t let the negotiators to take over. I said, I don’t want any negotiators. I want to hear directly from our people. I want them to have it clear.

And all I did, was I had the technological capability which did they didn’t have, that’s all I did. I just realized this had to be done, and I dealt with the technology problem, which they were not read to deal with. They wanted to deal with it, but they didn’t know how to do it; I said, no, just go in there and do it. And they found out, once, and then twice; and now, we’re going for the third time.

And so that’s what we have to do. That’s what has to be our policy, for the entire nation: we have to say, our organization is doing this. We’re doing what a nice guy is not doing yet; we’re doing it.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: And I think these events this week are showing us the success of that method. We’ve been making the issue on Glass-Steagall for years, now. We’ve made the issue on the 28 pages, for years now. You know, this didn’t happen by trying to kiss somebody’s butt to try and get them to support this issue. We went on a mass effect approach, said these are the life-and-death issues that the nation, that world hangs on right now, we’re going to make these the subject of discussion. We’re going to make these issues the subject of the fight.

And that’s what we’ve been doing for the past years: Now, you’re seeing more, it’s been a building response, but now some breakthroughs now are occurring on these issues. But it’s because we’ve taken this approach that you’re defining here, of going out and taking the leadership, and moving the country.

LAROUCHE: See the organization could have done it. But the organization, as long as it was divided, and you had these unscrupulous people and others, involved in the organization, they were vetoing anything to make any such assertion. And so, I just moved in on the thing, and said, “OK, I’ve got to put, — all this presentation of our whole organization, and why are we putting up with are we putting up with this crap?” Because the majority of our organization had one sentiment in the whole thing, which was correct; what they needed is my technological competence in dividing the thing out. So I just went through, one after the other, just answering questions; and when you answer those questions, then the people themselves find out what the reality is.

So we have to ignite the same kind of thing on a broader basis than just our own association. We have to say, “here’s what we, representing the legacy, of our American tradition, our Constitution, we apply our Constitution to the question of what policy shall be.” While they were doing begging, begging, begging, begging, “don’t crush us too much.”

And that’s what the difference is.

OGDEN: And those who are participating in this discussion represent a real cross-section of the United States as a whole, every area, every age group and so forth, and it’s an extraordinarily high level of discussion in terms of response to you, and then the feedback from that. And you were making the point this weekend, how do you shape the Presidency? You raise the intellectual level of the American people generally and create the atmosphere around which the candidates, even the good ones are forced to become even better. And that, I think is exactly the ….

LAROUCHE: That’s the weakness, that if their defensive posture, instead of seeing the evidence, the scientific evidence, and all I did was based the scientific evidence, here’s the scientific evidence, and here’s the history of the issue; and it was all waiting.

Now what we’re got, this goes into an area, which is our meat: What’s happening with the developments in the Senate, and other locations, these things are working in our direction. And all we have to do is keep this thing going.

But we have to get it going fast enough in order to succeed.

No, we do have to — it’s like what we’re doing in Washington, D.C. area, supposed better by New York City. The New York/Manhattan project. The only way to build this thing is the Manhattan concept. So you operate on the basis of the Manhattan policy. Just go back, you got it. Okay, you got four books, four schemes, which were laid out by Hamilton, and Alexander Hamilton’s program is exactly what the solution is! I mean, we may have it in more modern terms now, but the root of principles, principles are Hamilton’s principles. And the place where these principles were introduced against the Southern States, against them, hmm? And now we’re saying, well, we’re the patriots, you guys are the slobs, the slave-masters and people like other degenerates.

But this is what the case is. It’s this, we’ve got to take — while of the members of the Congress are beginning to move in that direction, because they know it’s the only answer. So you push it, push it, push it. They’ve got the right idea.

OGDEN: And it doesn’t even have to be a majority, as you’ve often made the point, it’s an expression of the power of the minority. I mean, frankly, the institution of the Senate was built around the capability of someone like Senator Paul, to be able to singlehandedly shut down the Patriot Act, like he did yesterday, against the will of the majority. Similarly with these other questions.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. That’s [exactly what it is. You have to show leadership, period. You don’t have leadership, what’re you doing? Shut your mouth, your mouth is not being useful! [laughter]

SARE: Well, I think that’s crucial for the American population right now, because I think people after the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton, and then, the 9/11 attacks, and then, you’ve had Bush and Obama, and there are many people now who are young adults who can’t even imagine what leadership is; they can’t even imagine what a President of the United States is, and how it functions. And therefore, in a certain sense the question of leadership is everything. Because it’s a way in which the population will find in themselves, an ability to self-transform and to transform the situation. Which I imagine must be the dynamic that’s happening in places like India, with what Modi has done, or what’s happening in Egypt with the Second Suez Canal, and the leadership of that President el-Sisi is taking.

LAROUCHE: Well, I’m emphasizing something which actually has to be thrown in on this as a factor: Look, what’s happened is, is the beginning, of the 20th century was the beginning of the destruction, of the morality of the United States, and also other nations. So you had all the good things were happening, like the role of the Civil War issue, what followed that; what Bismarck did; these things. All right. Suddenly, in one date, a single date, the entirety of science and so forth was thrown into the garbage heap. And that’s what was the problem.

And therefore, what’s happened is, since Hilbert and the evil Bertrand Russell, since they got into operation from the beginning of that year, the first day of the new century, the 20th century, and up to the present time, has been a period of constant degeneration of most of the culture of the planet. There have been exceptions, but they’ve been only exceptions. And the United States is that. The mentality of the average citizen of the United States, has been in a process of degeneration, since the beginning of the 20th century.

We’ve had only one competent scientist in the 20th century: Einstein! The rest of the so-called scientists were not scientists, they were failures! They did not understand what science was. So now we’ve got to a point where the issue of science becomes so urgent, that we can get that across to people. Because at bottom, what we’re stating right now, what the situation is: Obama is pushing, under the British direction, is pushing for thermonuclear war globally. That’s what this thing is. Everything that’s being done by Obama is done from the British, and is an attempt to get a thermonuclear war. A thermonuclear war, now, which is what kind of war which is threatened, by our President, that’s what he’s doing, it would be the end of civilization, and probably the end of the human species.

So therefore, you’ve come to a point where you must take action. And you have to realize what the root of the problem is. It’s not the fact that, this mistake was made, and this mistake was made. Look, the average student, the average person who comes up as a student and graduates from university, is absolutely incompetent! Scientifically incompetent to make decisions. Why? Because they accepted these kinds of conditions. And therefore, they’re incompetent.

All right, what do we do? We have to get — people will respond, given the right direction, will respond to recognize, with pain, and with reluctance, that what they’ve been believing for more than 100 years, what they’ve believed for more than 100 years in the United States, is a delight of idiots. It’s essentially what the American people have become a bunch of idiots! They may have pretentious claims, but the results of what their claims are, have been consistent degeneration, a pattern of consistent degeneration, in the per-capita development of the members of the United States, and also in Europe, generally.

So therefore, we’re at a point where we say: We have to go back to the 19th century, and look at the things that were important, that were attempted to determine for the 19th century. We have to say: The 20th century has to be reviewed, it has to be redefined. And that’s really what the mission is. And what it breaks down to, you know, in practical steps, which represent the changes that have to be made, and the errors which have to be removed. And that’s all I’ve ever based myself on, is that. That I knew the 20th century was a disaster, a mistake.

OGDEN: You experienced a big bulk of it!

LAROUCHE: Yeah! But you know, we had the period of World War II, which I had the advantage of, and experience in coming out of that, to be able to see exactly what the difference is, between what had been true in the previous century as opposed to what was going on then. And it became obvious to me, by the time of the 1950s, I had completely understood this thing. But, all it was, it was just getting people to understand this. Science is clear: Here we are, we’ve got the whole world is threatened with the extermination of the human species, and it’s being determined by the British Monarchy, by Her Majesty, and the Stooge of Her Majesty, Obama. That’s what the great danger is right now.

And once you turn around and say, “this is not the right way to do it, this is not the right way to do things. This is what you should have done. You should forget the stupid education you had!” It’s true: Most people who consider themselves educated, even geniuses, are really idiots, when it comes to practice. Because they believe in things which are an idiot’s belief. They say, “you’ve got to be practical.” When I hear somebody saying, “you’ve got to be practical,” I say, “You’re stupid.” [laughter]

But that’s the problem, that we have a cult of stupidity. Which is a characteristic of the 20th century, especially in the United States and in Europe. Other parts of the planet, sometimes are somewhat better off; they don’t share this belief that people in the United States and so forth do. So they’re prisoners, they’re victims of their own delusions. And our job is to stimulate in people what the truth is: To free them of the delusion. We don’t have to go to war against China! We don’t have to go to war against Russia. There’s no reason to do so. It’s the most stupid thing you can possibly do. To take a great hunk of the entire human species and condemn it to mass death, in the United States and in Europe, and so forth, and in Russia and China.

Therefore, you say, well, what have we got? We’ve got a government composed of people who are idiots, in practice.

DENISTON: And there’s been an open offer on the table for us to join in collaboration with this new dynamic. China’s made it clear, we would like to cooperate with the United States working towards this future. Russia’s been saying this for years. They want strategic cooperation, things like space, things like asteroid defense, things like the Bering Strait: These are all options available to us, to create another whole stage of development on the planet. And you have these disgusting degenerates in there, holding us back from that future.

LAROUCHE: It’s all the British Empire. It’s entirely the British Empire, and it’s the fact that the United States betrayed its own achievement and gave in to this crap.

OGDEN: Mm-hmm. I mean, the greatest Presidents of the 20th century such as Kennedy, or Reagan, on this front, had a deep-seated personal aversion to the idea that you would have to condemn billions of people to thermonuclear destruction. And that’s what drove Reagan, absolutely, to adopt the SDI. The idea that Mutually Assured Destruction or the idea that “balance of power” or this kind of idea, was a negative idea of peace, that’s how you’re going to maintain the relations between nations? That’s idiotic! Nuclear deterrence, or something like that! And now you have, putting on the table, for example, Xi Jinping, a completely new idea of relations among nations: “win-win,” a positive idea of peace, not just a negation of war! Something much, much more human, less animalistic.

LAROUCHE: It requires a revision of the name of science, because science — you know, you have one man in the 20th century, only one, who was qualified as a scientist. Only one! Einstein, the only one who was a real scientist. And he was excluded essentially.

So since that time, you have almost no one, who’s actually been a scientist, in the real sense of the term. And the problem is, it’s the same thing we get all the time, if you can get people to see that this is a fraud, this is not what they should be doing, and indicate to them what the solution is for this problem, and point out to examples which demonstrate what that solution was: And that’s what we have to do, and that’s what our existence as an organization is dedicated to, is to get the spark. And I watch around the world, and so forth, and I see the United States and elsewhere, I see the spark is being spread. And I just say, “we’ve got to get the bellows in there, get the fire turned up!” [laughter]

BILL ROBERTS: You know people think about the Presidency in terms of the “President,” but I think this point that you’ve been making, Lyn, and sort of your whole career has been based on this intervention into the institution of the Presidency. The reason why you can have this coming from the Congress, for example, like you are, is because the real process of the institution of the Presidency is the way in which the population can become encouraged. And I saw this yesterday in an interesting way around this 28 pages question. There was a conference in Manhattan, organized by the left; it was this Left Forum, and there was a panel discussion on 9/11 and it basically was around the question of why it is that the left is so stigmatized and against generally identifying the fraud of 9/11 and fighting on this question.

But my point is, the whole discussion process was set off by the fact that you now do have a certain section of people who are inspired by what these members of Congress have done, and it allowed them to consciously discuss the problem that you had in this particular case, in the left, where it opened up the whole issue of how politically people are controlled in this case, through intelligence operations, you know, going back to all of the CIA/FBI operations into the left, and how people put themselves into a psychological electrical fence, where they won’t talk about certain things, because then they get branded as “conspiracy theorists.” But my point is, this whole discussion was able to happen, because people could see a leadership process taking place, and then the question became, in their minds, “OK, how do we get people to stop being stupid. Now we have leadership, how do get people to break out of the self-training that they put themselves through in order not to get into trouble?” Here you have leaders who are taking initiative, who are being courageous, and it becomes a self-organizing, infectious process.

LAROUCHE: Take the assassinations of Presidents. Take the history of the assassinations of Presidents; take the history of the assassinations of people who may not have been Presidents, but who were very important in terms of the function. So what happens, you get the people who are ignorant in general, but not just ignorant people, other people who are frightened, they’re afraid. I’ve had, you know, the word “I’m afraid,” I’ve had this from some of the greatest intellects that I’ve known personally in my existence. They say, “yes, but I’m afraid.” And these are the honest ones; the honest ones say “I’m afraid.” The other ones come up with some cockamamie nonsense as an excuse. And that’s what’s happened. And therefore, we have a global dictatorship, a global system of dictatorship which the United States has tried to struggle against, and other nations would like to struggle against, which is what? It’s the principles of the United States, as expressed in an exemplary fashion, by Alexander Hamilton.

You want to talk about what kind of an economy you want, what the economy has to be, what the principles are of human life, what the rights of people are, of men and women? It’s the same thing as what Hamilton laid out in his four points, four categories of evidence. That’s always been that.

But what happened? The forces are applied to say, “No, you can’t say that. You can’t say that. You’re not allowed to say that.” It goes into the schools. Most of our students, you know, university students, graduates, are idiots! They don’t know it! Because what they believe in, is they believe in what they’ve been taught. And they won’t accept the truth. They say, “well, that’s not accepted You have an opinion, I know we have an opinion, but your ideas are not accepted.” And that’s how it’s done

And therefore, what you’re talking about, you’re talking about a prison system, where mankind as a whole is reduced to a prison system. What you have, you have in China, you have a revolt against the prison system; India, revolt against the prison system. In other nations, you look at the South American nations, what’s wrong with those nations? Well, they say, they’re dictatorships; some of them were! But why were they dictatorships? Because the dictatorial principle controls them. They were repressed.

OGDEN: Well, a lot of the leaders that were against the dictatorship were overthrown or assassinated.

LAROUCHE: Or assassinations; assassinations and similar kinds of things were typical. So the point is, the key thing for us, is to recognize that there is a principle of truth, and the principle of truth is typified by science. By true science, by competent science. Remembering that there was only one competent scientist in the 20th century, in the United States: Einstein. Einstein was the only competent one. The others had technology capabilities, but they were all compromised capabilities. And that’s what happened to our… But we were educating our students, on the basis of that kind of teaching. That’s why the students became stupid. That’s why the professors became stupid! And very few professors were bold enough, like a few I knew who were bold enough, to actually be competent scientist, even if they weren’t fully competent scientists, they had the principle commitment to that.

OGDEN: Edward Teller is an example.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, right. That was exactly it. And Teller was, up to the end of his life, was still doing that kind thing. And he had it against his own institution, in San Francisco; they were sitting on him, when he came up with some things which were absolutely essential, on nearby space. That was suppressed.

OGDEN: Asteroid defense.

LAROUCHE: Exactly. So therefore, what we have to realize, we have to free mankind, our human beings, free them from these kinds of fakeries, recipes. Forget it! But they say, “but you can’t say that!” Why not? “Because we laid down — in the university we taught you this.”

Oh! [laughter] “But you want a degree, you want a degree, you want to graduate, you want to get a promotion, hmm?”

OGDEN: Yeah, it’s reinforced in myriad ways.

LAROUCHE: You kiss between the cheeks of the rear end of any professor and that will tell you exactly what the problem is.

Rachel BRINKLEY: Einstein said that it is only scientists which can really appreciate the universe, he said, in its harmony and beauty, and they only have a conception of also, not only the present, but what the necessary future must be. And you do have this sense, I think that history is not what people think. It’s not past to present, but history is a development of theme of a principle of necessary consequences. And the Hamilton question in American history is one, for example. You know, Franklin Roosevelt was an adherent of Hamilton, it was a Hamilton theme, reoccurring.

And what we’re saying now for the U.S. Presidency is a particular concept which must occur, it must be that we put in place these necessary Hamiltonian policies, that these are the foundation of our nation, again. And in order to do that, we have to destroy the Obama/British operation, we’ve got to remove this guy, the necessary consequence of him being in office is war.

But, this is really is the question of science right now in policy, and the Presidency is getting Americans into this get question of what must be.

LAROUCHE: The one case in the scientists case is Bernhard Riemann: Bernhard Riemann in his role in that century, was the most crucial person in pushing science forward. It was he that stirred up the greatest scientists that followed him on this thing. So the ontological conception, the ontological principles, which Riemann represented and developed, and he did a great deal more than most of his writings; because what he did, he worked in Italy, and his role in Italy — he would go back every year to Italy, and he created the Italian scientific movement. And his contribution in that direction, against a dictator — despite that, this was a great step forward, in terms of the concept of physical science. The man was one of the greatest geniuses in modern history; he had a specific role within that century, and afterward.

The result of what came after him: What I learned of science, mostly I learned from Riemann. Riemann was my inspiration for much of everything. This guy, I sort of worshipped everything he wrote. Because he was right. And he represented the greatest leaders, who were his predecessors — same thing.

But that’s the way it worked, because science was then actually understood, it was understood as the process of what science is, what the principles are, when do you know what’s true? When do you whether your argument is correct? The fact you’ve got an argument is not the solution; is your argument correct?

OGDEN: Also, his role in overthrowing 2,000 years of Euclideanism: I mean, when you talk about reexamining just the last 100 years, that sounds easy, compared to Riemann, overthrowing two millennia of Euclideanism!

LAROUCHE: Oh, this guy, of course, I read most of his writings; I read them again and again and again, and returned to them, again and again and again, because of his insight, his critical insight; and the greatest thing I got, was concentrating on information I received from Italian scientists, because he was going down to teach them every year, until he died. And so, what they did, is the Italian phase of Riemann’s contributions which were largely reflected in the contributions to he made to his followers, was one of the most important things! And this carries us all the way to the end of the 19th century. You know, where his students were, and the Italian students in particular; the geniuses they were, the great, leading geniuses under his education — there’s nothing superior to that, now, today, in terms of as a precedent.

Michael STEGER: In Riemann’s work you see this quality of religious devotion, at the basis of his courage and insight. And you see it in the people that followed him. Einstein was also someone who picked up Riemann’s work and Einstein once said that his greatest influence of a cosmological conception was Mozart. You see this quality of the great minds have this quality.

And Lyn, what you’re getting at, this question of courage, is necessary for the advancement of science and the advancement of the human species; there has to be this quality of courage. And it’s interesting, because it’s expressed best by this Promethean image. Because the whole artifice of this fascist system, this corporate, global fascist system we’re living in, it is premised on a lie: It’s a Zeus system premised on an outright lie. The Zeusians are unnecessary, a police-state is unnecessary, Wall Street is unnecessary. These things that they’ve built up, that they say are so necessary, like Euclidean geometry, it’s so necessary, you’ve got to memorize it, learn it — it’s all a fraud! It’s all a lie!

And the Prometheans they challenge it, they’ve got the courage to say it, because they know that there’s a truth, that if you base yourself on that, base your society on that, you can develop the human species. And that’s what Einstein knew, that’s what Hamilton knew, it’s what these great minds knew. And that’s what shapes the course today, that’s what shapes the actions in the Senate and in Congress, today.

LAROUCHE: Well, that’s what most of our scientists did understand. They didn’t get that insight. And Riemann, of course, typifies those who did understand.

Kesha ROGERS: Exactly. And I think it’s absolutely important to go back to the opening discussion on where we stand, in terms of the threat facing mankind, and to recognize right now that you have a system that wants to continue to keep human beings enslaved. I know just in discussions that you’ve had, over the course of the last few weeks, including these Thursday calls, is that what we have to do now, is we have to shape an interim Presidency, because there’s not going to be a Presidency, come November or any January or anything of this nature, if we sit here and allow Obama to remain in office with his finger on the trigger, pushing the world and the planet to the brink of thermonuclear war. And the reality is, that you have a population as has been discussed in this entire discussion here, who has been victimized and enslaved by a culture that says, you have to submit; you have to submit to popular opinion.

And I was just thinking about what this O’Malley campaign: You know, he’s defined himself in terms of a certain qualification, as you’ve said, and I’ve recognized, that, right now, if you listen to the media, the media tell people, well, he’s not doing what’s popular. He’s not taking on a campaign that’s going against Hillary Clinton, per se, or taking on a campaign that’s doing what we want him to do. So therefore, he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

And the reality is, that anybody in the population who’s dumb enough to say, “oh, well, the media say that this person is not a serious contender,” should really have their heads checked! Because the reality is, I know that this is what the media said about you, this is what the media have said about my campaign for the U.S. Senate. And when you look at what it takes to actually move the minds and the souls of the people of a population, it’s not what is “acceptable” in society. It is them getting a sense that you’re willing to lead, that you will tell them what they need to know, no matter how unpopular or how much is not accepted by the status quo.

And I think that that’s the key thing that people have to get a sense of right now, is that there’s been too much status quo concerning our, or leading or impacting our society, and that has to be stopped. Because that so-called status quo will get us killed.

LAROUCHE: Yeah! Yeah, the problem is that most Americans are brainwashed. Literally brainwashed! And what evidence do we have to say they’re brainwashed? Well, they’re brainwashed! They are brainwashed, and therefore, they believe in brainwashing.

But brainwashing is a very unclean process.

SARE: Well, they also have to really get what’s at stake. I mean, why did George Washington say, in that winter of 1776, that we had better not lose this war: We can’t afford to wait until the Delaware freezes over and the Hessian army comes over and wipes out the last of us. That can’t be allowed to happen. So he came up with a completely “insane” scheme, to cross the Delaware, at Christmas, in the middle of a horrible Nor’easter in what was some kind of Maunder minimum, because it was definitely a lot colder then, than it’s been lately!

OGDEN: Icebergs in the Delaware.

SARE: Yeah! Exactly. And because he knew, and it’s very much like MacArthur’s decision at Inchon:This had to be done. The consequences of failing were too great, and somehow, the American people — we have to get this across to the American people who are saying “well Obama only has …” however long, 18 months or something. “Oh, we can just get by.” I mean, they don’t realize the report we got yesterday about this AEGIS destroyer in the Black Sea, which is going right up against the border of Russia, and then the Russian’s scramble — I mean, we really are on the brink!


SARE: Of this thing! And therefore, people should not give themselves the luxury of succumbing to their own pessimism. But actually have to be rallied to fight: this is one that we can’t afford to lose.

LAROUCHE: What about the idiot in the destroyer, who’s taken that risk? Why do we have idiots in our military, our naval forces? They’re idiots!

OGDEN: Their Commander in Chief is Barack Obama.

LAROUCHE: No, he’s not commander in chief, that’s crazy. He’s a clown! An evil clown. Why’s he President? What’s his qualification to be President? He has absolutely no qualification to be President of the United States, at any time, from the time he was elected to the present moment. He’s never been fit to be President, never! Absolutely never. And you can prove that very readily: All you have to do, is know what you have to check for. This guy is a fraud, a complete fraud. He’s a liar, he’s a chronic liar. He’s a butcher, he’s a killer. He’s a criminal.

This guy is a criminal, by all standards of law. Look what he did: The assassination of an official of the United States, in particular, and he made the order, and he covered over the order. So how couldanyone, say that this guy is an honest, qualified President. He’s not! He never was.

And what happened in that case was enough. And look at how she collapsed. Hillary sold out! Why’s she going to be President? She’s not qualified to be President, because she sold out; she can’t be trusted, because she sold out.

That’s where we are.

ROGERS: And I think the point that Rachel made just a few moments ago, is crucial just in terms of, what we are creating and what has to be defined is this question of the Presidency has to be shaped around, what is the future direction that we’re moving society to? And you can’t have a future under a global dictatorship. So that’s the reality we have to address right now.


OGDEN: Well said. Let me just say in conclusion to this program, unless there’s anything else to be added, that it’s important for our viewers to realize that this is a breakthrough week on the LaRouche PAC website: We will have a live event every single day on this website, starting with the event that you just watched here, our Monday Policy Committee discussion.

Tomorrow, we will have a live stream of the press conference from Capitol Hill, on the 28 pages, where Sen. Rand Paul will be introducing his companion bill into the United States Senate. That will be 10 a.m. Eastern Time, tomorrow.

Then Wednesday, we’ll have our regular Wednesday New Paradigm show with the Basement.

Thursday, we will be having the third in a series of national conference calls with Mr. LaRouche, which we encourage all of you to participate in; it will also be streamed live on this website.

Friday, we’ll have our regular Friday evening webcast, and then Saturday, we’re going to be live-streaming coverage of the D-Day conference up in New York City, which Diane and others will be participants in.

So this is an incredible week, and it’s only yet begun.

So thank you for joining us, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.