LPAC Policy Committee · March 23, 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it’s March 23rd, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’d like to welcome everybody to our weekly broadcast with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee discussion…. I’m joined via video by 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, as you can see, we’re very happy to be joined by Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team, and Diane Sare. So, Lyn, I’ll let you begin our discussion.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, the interesting thing, we’re getting all these people pretending that they’re running for President. And we’re going to have to exclude some people, get them out of there, say, “Well, you’ve got a different career. Your appointment is a different place,” something like that, because it’s becoming awful. What’s happening now, is that we do have a candidacy which is very important, and it’s not based on somebody’s pet theory or pet background. You know, Hillary is not capable of being President; it’s obvious. And there are other people who are perfectly good people, but who are not qualified for this position, right now.

Because it requires special, international standards, which dump Obama. And the first thing that some people have to do, is get to dumping Obama. And if we don’t dump Obama, we’re not going to have a United States, so therefore he has to be dumped. And each person who’s on the list of would-be Presidential candidates has got to say, “Look, we’ve got to dump Obama.” And if they all say that, we might achieve something really important. Because then they would honest about themselves, not about their career ambitions.

What’s going on now is O’Malley has actually taken the bit, on the operation now, and he’s the one who’s doing the job. The others are sitting there saying “I’m a Presidential candidate, too!” but where’s the action? Where’s the function, where’s the performance? That’s where we are now.

So it’s a new situation. I think even with the discussion at the table here, we have to take that into account, as something we would work to develop our judgment on.

OGDEN: What O’Malley’s been emphasizing during his campaign trip into Iowa this weekend, is obviously Glass-Steagall. But he’s denouncing the Democratic Party for having become the party of Wall Street, which is Obama, obviously. And he published this op-ed in the Des Moines Register which is the newspaper of record in Iowa, where his concluding point was: We need “to put the nation’s interests before the interests of Wall Street.” (http://martinomalley.com/2015/03/20/prevent-another-crash- reform-wall-street/) And that’s the rallying cry, and it’s exactly what this Policy Committee has been advocating for, all the way back to the Congressional campaigns. So, I think that’s absolutely reflective of the impact that LaRouche Political Action Committee and especially this Policy Committee has had over years.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely. That’s exactly it. We have to, actually now, instead of being just an also-ran, we actually have to be a vehicle which helps to define — we have it, because we have recognized the fact of the two Germans and O’Malley, who have actually set into motion the only thing that could save us from Obama.

So, if Hillary won’t do the job, she’s too compromised; she’s not trustworthy, because she’s too frisky, too flagrant. And others are not really that qualified; they have not done anything to qualify themselves as being suited for that office. O’Malley so far has. He’s met one of the crucial requirements for candidacy. And we don’t have anybody else who has. And that’s the question we ought to pose.

DIANE SARE: I think today is a highly appropriate day to take up matters of the Presidency, since it is the anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s announcement of your policy, the Strategic Defense Initiative, on March 23rd, 1983, which changed the world, and which was, as you’ve been insisting, creating and brought into being something new, that created a new geometry that people had not considered before.

And we have that potential now, with the offer of the Chinese on the table, with what’s happened with the AIIB, which Obama has very peculiar reaction to, highly inappropriate and insane. If he thinks he’s going to stop this, I mean the momentum for global development is absolutely unstoppable at this moment.

So I think this is the realm in which Americans have to actually think, not on a lower level, not football teams, not what they think is popular opinion, but what allows us as a nation, as mankind, to enter into a new paradigm which is just on the cusp of coming into existence.

LAROUCHE: Well, we have to do it on the basis of Manhattan. If we don’t use the Manhattan focal point, it won’t work. You just take the Manhattan choice, — well, he can fill in on that one, nicely. He’s been a mobile character, who can take various locations in the United States and operate with them.

But that’s what he is now. And the fact that you have the two German officials included, and implicitly the effect of that inside Europe otherwise. And this, the question is get rid of the crap inside the Obama administration, and get something going which settles a relationship with Russia. And you could do that with Germany. But the German forces are simply playing games back and forth. France, the same thing: France knows and Germany knows, in terms of the best leaders there, that that’s the case. If they can move — you know, the British are under control for a moment now, not because they’re willing but because they’re opportunist.

But so therefore, we could really very quickly pull a process of developing a global system, and that’s the only way in which we could guarantee there’s not going to be a thermonuclear war.

SARE: Right. And I will say, as I told you earlier, the demonstration we had this past week at Wall Street, where we had our new poster which has the full color photograph of the BRICS head of state, plus Alexander Hamilton adding his hand to the five-way handshake, which caught people’s attention and it was markedly different. We do not typically have Wall Street brokers coming up to us to find out what’s going on with the BRICS process. And they were desperate enough to know, that they were willing to even spend some money to find out what we’re talking about.

And then, you had also, the overwhelming optimism because all these international tourists coming through this area in front of Federal Hall, across from the House of Morgan and the New York Stock Exchange, and then you have George Washington’s statue. And you just get a sense of the real optimism, of this shift going on in the world, and it’s clear that Manhattan is, in a sense, the entry point, the way this can come into the United States, and we can break it open.

LAROUCHE: What we have to do, is take our whole operation in and around New York City, and make that the issue. That New York City has to be the rallying point, for the United States as a whole, to play its proper role, in terms of the trans-Atlantic area and the global area. And we have to make that, not the bystander saying “well, maybe if” or “maybe that,” or so forth. Get rid of it! Just say, look, what’s needed now… And we have a governor in the state, who’s under pressure right now, and that would help his process, which would have a reciprocal effect on the total role of Manhattan itself.

OGDEN: Governor of New York Cuomo?

LAROUCHE: Yeah. We can pull it, we can pull it! So let’s pull it.

SARE: Also, we do have the Schiller Institute conference there this Saturday, as a very important rallying point to pull this thing together….

LAROUCHE: Double it, double it. Double the aspects of the — don’t take one at a time, take a double shot. [laughter]

OGDEN: I think… sorry, go ahead Kesha.

KESHA ROGERS: I was just going to say, I think that the focus of the Presidential elections, and you have these people pretending to run for President right now, what is going to actually determine who is qualified and who is disqualified very quickly is the Manhattan project. Because the Manhattan project puts up from that anybody who is qualified to run for office is going to take on Wall Street directly and demand to drive a stake through the heart of Wall Street, and that they have to be brought down.

And you look at this insanity of all of the Presidential candidates, including Ted Cruz just announcing his candidacy today — I mean, he’s really “cruzin’ for a bruisin'” — and you know he’s not going to take on Wall Street, because he is compromised! He’s compromised by the fact that, one, he has a wife who is a top executive of Goldman Sachs, and he’s not going to do anything to mess up that relationship. So he’s not going to actually touch Wall Street. He’s not going to go for Glass-Steagall and we already know this. And all the people in Texas and other places who thought this guy was going to come and ride in on a white horse to save the day, are fools! They’re highly mistaken.

And I think that what we have set as the example of, the only qualifications that you have that must be put forth, if you’re going to be a legitimate candidate for President, is, you have to break yourself and get out of bed with Wall Street. And he definitely is not the person to do that. And you know there’s several others.

I think the other thing is that, if you look at what Obama has done on the disgusting policy of correlating the civil rights movement and the actions of the civil rights moving to the Maidan in Ukraine, and saying that this is the same policy, and that we should respect this Nazi policy, and the support of Nazis in Ukraine as similar to the fight for civil rights, that’s completely insane! And you have someone like Ted Cruz, who’s sitting there and saying that, well, we need to give more funding, we need to do as Victoria Nuland is saying, and back up the Nazis in Ukraine even further and faster.

OGDEN: Well, even having lethal weapons, that’s what he’s demanding, immediate arming of the Ukraine…

ROGERS: Right. We’re there for that, right. So, I think that the issue is very clear, that right now, as you said Lyn, any Presidential candidate has to come in from the standpoint that we’re in a completely different ball game, than anything that’s ever happened in the history of the United States. And you can’t just have a bunch of fools deciding they want to put their name in the hat.

LAROUCHE: Well, generally the point is, Obama is genocide. That is, Obama actually will create a thermonuclear war; and that’s genocide. So Obama must be thrown out of office and neutralized, as all costs. Because otherwise, if you don’t have a force in the process of being assembled, to throw Obama out of office, the danger is of a thermonuclear war. That’s the danger. And Nuland, of course, is one of the most typical sources of that, but that means the Obama administration. I means the Obama and Bush administration! It means the Bush candidacy, is part of the same thing! So Bush’s candidacy must be thrown out!

If the Democrats, if the Republicans want to support that, they should be thrown out. Because if they want to be honest, they have to recognize what the truth is, not who’s their cheering leader or something.

But this is crucial: We’ve got to actually have a role of the United States, which goes through a process which is centralized, essentially in Manhattan and that vicinity, and we have to see some action there which begins to eliminate — you know, Hillary, for example, Hillary is not a viable candidate. She’s made too many mistakes, she is compromised, people don’t know where she stands, and so forth. So therefore, unfortunately, she’s a talented person, and a qualified person, but when it comes to politics, she’s really a terrible amateur in terms of effect.

So what we need is a process of getting a teamwork, which obviously we have one available right now; O’Malley is a qualified Presidential candidate. He’s probably the most qualified Presidential candidate on the list right now. And the others are amateurs, they’re just sitting on the sidewalk, sitting on top of — you know, something on the street side, but they’re not active. They’re not doing anything which is going to solve the problem: They’re saying give me your support for my election, and I will support you in return. That is a very lousy way of making a Presidential selection! And that’s it.

And Hillary is typical of the folly of the candidacies that have been running round for the past two terms of office, especially for the second one, the Obama term.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Lyn, I think that goes to the core of this whole popular opinion especially around this Presidency, because a lot of people might say, well, O’Malley, he’s not popular enough, he’s not this, that and other thing. He doesn’t have the big backing, therefore why would you support him? And I think obviously, the point you’re making on this is, he represents the only thing or is discussing the only thing that is of any relevancy.

And I was just reflecting on it, because I think this somewhat goes to what you did on your statement on concerning O’Malley, Steinmeier, and Schmidt, which actually goes to the heart of, I also think, a process of discovery in general, and I’d just be curious if you have something to say on this. But the point is, I bet, if you brought all of those three people together — O’Malley, Steinmeier and Schmidt — and confronted them with what you had said in terms of what they had done to shift the global strategic situation, probably all three of them may have said, “Well what d’you mean? I was just doing this,” and separately, “I was doing this.” But what you did is you brought that all together from the standpoint of where humanity needs to go; not what’s popular, but where does humanity need to go, and then you defined what the significance of what they were doing from that standpoint.

And to me, it seems that this is somewhat, in terms of a scientific discovery process, that’s often determined by where humanity needs to go, and you define your insight — the insights based on that, of where humanity needs to go. Maybe I’m not expressing that exactly clearly: But it just strikes me that what you did with this O’Malley, Steinmeier, Schmidt statement, was, consolidated something and drew a certain focal point from the standpoint of where humanity needed to go, not what was necessarily some popular opinion or something.

LAROUCHE: No, that was already decided. What happened was that before O’Malley made his public statement, he had acceded to an opinion expressed by a friend of ours. And therefore, O’Malley himself adopted the policy, on the basis of my recommendation. And therefore, I’m going to back this one up, because it’s the only chance for the United States government right now.

OGDEN: I think that speaks directly to the point that Diane was making: As we look back to Ronald Reagan, shocking the world by adopting the Strategic Defense Initiative, March 23rd, 1983, what was contained in that was the direct influence that you had, Lyn, on shaping the policy of the President of the United States. And you’ve made a long career out of shaping the Presidency. And that’s what we’re engaged in right now; that’s what the Glass-Steagall thing…

LAROUCHE: I got involved in that, on the basis of the Kennedy brothers, particularly when two of them got assassinated. And I saw from that point on, in the beginning of the 1970s, that this was the only thing that was being presented that made any sense. And that’s how I got involved with him, in this thing.

OGDEN: Mm-hmm. And the Presidential team, before he even — while he was running for President, his close team of advisors had approached you…

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, they approached me in ’77. And so they sort of coached me along and then decided, “OK, you passed muster, you are what we need,” and so therefore, I did the SDI. I designed the SDI policy. And the SDI policy was the necessary policy at that time. And every problem we have internationally is the crushing of that policy. We had it in our hands; we had the answer. And it was done by the British and a new Russian appointee, who screwed everything up.

But we had the thing, we had an agreement of the Soviet Union, through me and through other people who also were happy about this thing, in order to create a new relationship among nations in the trans-Atlantic community. And that’s what we were working for! And we had everything, including all the economic methods and so forth that were required to get this thing working.

And suddenly this thing came down, boom!, because when a new Soviet figure was put into place [Yuri Andropov], then everything was sabotaged and then all the screwballs and whores went the other way.

OGDEN: [laughs] Right.

LAROUCHE: And that’s the kind of situation, the less we have to operate on now: We’ve had the options; we had the Kennedy’s, both of them. Both of them were killed, one after being elected, one before being elected. And that’s typical. And this goes back to the FBI problem: The FBI was the actual instrument, which was used in order to — for Truman, and that was the instrument that was used to destroy the United States, the Franklin Roosevelt United States. And I’m back for the Franklin Roosevelt United States.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, I think this all goes to something that you were discussing with some people yesterday, which is that what’s needed right now is, for the United States to do something that most people don’t even have a conception of, which I think all of this just really underscores your emphatic emphasis on that: That we can’t look to the past at this point, especially the past two Presidencies. But as you were discussing, the past decades, we’ve had fights, wins, losses; but what’s needed right now, you were saying, is that we need to come forward with a conception which doesn’t exist, in the minds of the vast majority of the population today, and we can never fall victim to looking for things that people will agree with. Because people will agree with things that are in their preconceived notions. But in their preconceived notions, the reality of what’s needed for the country doesn’t exist.

LAROUCHE: There’s a very problematic feature in this whole process: The stupidity of the American people in particular, but the Europeans generally as well, is they believe in what they call the “economic system.” They believe that money, or the money system is a determinant of what productivity will be, and can be, and this is where the problem arises. When in point of fact, the problem is that mankind believes that human economic success is the basis for human success; that’s implicitly what the argument is.

Whereas, we know that the progress of mankind, the distinction of mankind from an animal — and that’s what we’re talking about — most human beings that I know of, today, believe in animal behavior, not human behavior. That’s why we like dogs, for example.

OGDEN: At least they aspire to be human! [laughter]

LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly! So, but the point is that mankind is the only creature, which does create, voluntarily, create an influence on the processes of nature, which overwhelm nature, so-called ‘nature,’ itself. That’s the fact. And the people who are practical, so-called practical people, are intrinsically stupid on this question, because they don’t recognize that mankind is not an animal! They all assume that animal behavior, as defined by money or something like that, is the determining factor. And the fact is, that as Kepler implicitly defines in his writing, is that there is a principle of organization, in the Solar System, which demands and makes possible, mankind’s advancement to higher levels of existence within the Solar System as such. No other living species we know of, has that potential.

And therefore, we need people who can see through to the future, not looking — people who are not practical. Practical people are stupid people, because they limit themselves to an assumption about human behavior which is an animal characteristic. And that’s what the problem is. And you have, in the history of mankind, you have long histories where mankind has endeavored, to achieve human qualities! And what’s happened is the human qualities have been suppressed, and that’s what the problem is. And therefore, we have to get the human quality back into function, and then we can solve the problem.

But I get in these discussions, we have even in our own organization, where they fall into the prey, of assuming the practical things are things that are human. And I say, well you’re not really totally human if you’re practical.

OGDEN: You said at the end of your statement, the one “On the Subject of Germany’s Role” [https://larouchepac.com/20150316/subject-germanys-role] that you wrote last weekend, you said the only things worth accomplishing are the things that are considered impossible. If you create the possibility of actualizing the “seemingly impossible,” then you’ve done something which is creative.

LAROUCHE: That’s what you’re seeing implicitly, at least, reflected in what China’s policy has become. And China’s policy which has spread, as an influence, to many nations is now waiting to gobble up and take over the trans-Atlantic region.

DENISTON: Right. You see the reflection of people being stuck in the old paradigm in their response to this, still. I was just struck looking at some of the headlines, in response to these European nations joining the AIIB. Now, what’s China’s policy? They’re saying this is a “win-win” policy. The vice foreign minister just said, this is not a geostrategic game; this is not took for geopolitics, the way the game’s been played in the past. This is part of a “”win-win” in which all participants can progress, because this is how humanity progresses. But then the headlines are still, geostrategic headlines: “Europeans Banking on China Winning against the U.S.” — you know; “U.S. Allies Backing Down To China Guiding the New World Order.” And you just see even the way it’s being discussed is still stuck in this old paradigm.

OGDEN: I think that was the same thing as the misconception of the SDI. What did people say, what was the fraudulent line against the SDI? That this was just a new arms race. Whereas, in fact, this was a “win-win” policy! This was the only way you could ensure mutual survival.

And this China initiative is of that magnitude: It’s a completely new paradigm. So the option exists, the question is, will there be sufficient people who will take that option?

LAROUCHE: The point is, you have the fact that there was an assassination attempt on a President of the United States, and the attack on Reagan, was actually the turning down, of the greatest opportunity that the United States had ever had.

And he capitulated. He didn’t capitulate, in a way, he was forced to capitulate, and the Bush family came in!

OGDEN: Right. He had a Bush on the inside.

LAROUCHE: And that’s what this is, and therefore, we have lost our legacy, and we have to get it back. And that’s what we have to do now. And we cannot accept, therefore, any Presidential candidate who does not meet that qualification of commitment. And we have to say so, publicly. That O’Malley especially has expressed in action, at least, a qualification for becoming a President, an actual President.

DENISTON: And the only one who’s done so, so far.

LAROUCHE: And the only one who’s done so, so far. We would welcome more, and I’m sure O’Malley himself would welcome more of his same breed. And that’s the way we should put it. Because this would be a shocking statement for us to utter out publicly, but the kind of shocking statement which is needed for the occasion. And sending our people into Manhattan, which is what we’re doing more and more, now, in terms of our influence, is exactly consistent with that. And we have to take the two things and say, the Manhattan question, the original Manhattan principle, and that is the principle, “Well, that’s the same thing as what we call the Manhattan principle.” [laughter] And that that’s what the policy has to be, and we have to tell the world that that’s what the policy has to be. We have to tell the world, that that’s the policy. And we can do it!

OGDEN: Yeah, Manhattan’s the perfect forum to do that.

LAROUCHE: Isn’t it? It’s because you have so many branches of humanity in Manhattan, the Manhattan area, which will respond to this — “Hey! Hey!” [laughter]

DENISTON: “That sounds good!”

LAROUCHE: Even the doggies will come in there, if they’re allowed on the streets.

SARE: They are!

MICHAEL STEGER: Well, you really do see a surge. Lyn, your Presidential campaigns were always a critical factor in addressing the crisis during those periods of time. And obviously, the intervention you made around the Manhattan project last October was critical to shaping this whole process.

One of the things that came up in discussions, — you’ve been hitting this “practical” question: I mean, the practical notion that people have adopted, it fundamentally denies a sense of human immortality. It denies the idea that there is an ability that the contributions one makes in their life, to actually live on beyond them; it really is just a few of the basic, fundamental decisions and commitments one makes towards human progress that determines that potential and the gravity of that immortality, the significance of it, versus all these petty, time-distracting wastes of time, things people get caught up in on a daily basis, when it comes down to a few fundamental decisions and commitments that really determine the significance of our life. And you give up your own soul by becoming practical. And to me that just struck the conception of what’s really lacking in American culture and American politics today.

LAROUCHE: That’s the water question, the American water question: How do we maintain the water supply, necessary for the population of the United States? Now, what’s happened is, we’ve had a decline in the water supply in the United States, efficiently. And we have now reduced the potential, to the point that we are going to reduce the population of the United States! And we’re going to worsen the impoverishment of the members of the United States. Therefore, we have a national mission, which is not a national mission, but it’s an international mission, in which we take a leading part in encouraging other nations to join with us, to take these steps which will enable mankind to do things which we’ve never done.

And what China is doing now, with the Moon project, and the extension of the Moon program is in that direction: That’s the Kepler direction. And we must document this, publicly, in such a way that we spread this information, not as casual asides to friends, but we have to make it a formal statement of policy. We say, the other policy was wrong, because it neglected this crucial issue. How do you provide for families, families of Americans for example, in this territory, for example, and how do we improve the conditions of human life, in the United States, for example, how do we do that?

So therefore, we have to bring about a change in the characteristic, the physical characteristics of the organization of the population of the United States. And then we say, “Oh, yes, other parts of the world have the same kinds of problem, in a different form.” Then we get a unity, which is what is implicit in what China has done. Because China has actually made possible a whole “win-win” conception. And we want to join the “win-win” policy idea, and take the elements which are now committed to doing that, and attracting those who should be committed to it.

OGDEN: Right.

LAROUCHE: And we at this table have to do that.

STEGER: I was going to say that California and the Western states won’t survive, if we don’t join China and the BRICS before the year is over. And that has to be the commitment, otherwise these Western states won’t survive: They’ve got a year or less of water left.

LAROUCHE: Good! Excellent, excellent!

RACHEL BRINKLEY: We were at an event yesterday with four mayors, and it was presided over by the head of the Boston Fed, and it was a sort of interesting discussion; there were many of the mayors from Seattle, from Baltimore, Boston were acknowledging some of the fundamental crises, and they used that word — they said “it’s a crisis, what’s happening to parts of our population is horrible”; they went through some of the statistics of the poverty and whatnot. And two of them attacked the Federal government — said, we don’t have a competent Federal policy, and that’s not OK. We should fight about this.

So that was interesting. I mean, you could see a glimmer of something, where they wanted to oppose this. They wanted to, as you were saying, “create a future.” But it was limited: For one, the event was sponsored by Citigroup, and there was no attack on Wall Street. There was an attack on the inequalities, but not on Wall Street, and it really is fundamental, this question of incompetence and stupidity, that you’re bringing up. We really do have destroy this belief in Wall Street, that really is still there in too many Americans.

So one of our organizers brought up the Glass-Steagall and O’Malley, and it was a certain bombshell that was dropped. The mayor said, “Yes, we’re in discussion of that,” but it was sheepish, given all the bankers that were in the room. But also the question of the BRICS was not addressed, but it was also the unspoken. Some of the Citigroup bankers were aware of it, and refused to comment. But this is also the question is, of bringing the United States into the BRICS. And also too many Americans still don’t have a conception, really don’t have any idea, and the shutdown of Wall Street has to be combined with this as well.

I mean, Great Britain just decided to join the AIIB. The United States hasn’t, although it’s also not — the so-called nation of Britain joined, but I guarantee you the City of London has not joined. Finishing off this old paradigm and joining the BRICS still needs to be much more clearly understood in this country, and I think we can do that.

LAROUCHE: Yes.

SARE: You know, one other forcing medium should be the threat of thermonuclear war, which the Russians are working very hard to get across to people, that this is an actual, real danger, and as everyone here knows, they just had these snap military exercises this week, where they moved 76,000 troops, 41 ships, 15 submarines, 110 fighter jets and helicopters; and then, they brought in, for a tour of their command center or whatever, the defense attachés of every embassy in Moscow. I mean, this is pretty wild: A very big display, and it apparently was quite impressive, even to our guy at NATO, Ben Hodges, who had a few things to say about it….

OGDEN: “Damn!”

SARE: Yeah!

And I was thinking — I forget if it was Polk or someone else from the Kennedy era, who described exercises, war games, or scenarios that they had been devising during the Cuba Missile Crisis, where somehow in their linearized, statistical models, they concluded that Russia would not respond if you had a “limited strike,” somewhere in the vicinity of Ukraine. He has brought this up recently, as something they were playing with in the ’60s.

I think Russia’s response to that is “You have us all wrong.” And I think it would be wise for Americans to wake up, because it’s not only the potential goodness, the potential development of mankind which we can accept at this moment. But to not accept it actually is not a survivable option.

LAROUCHE: Exactly. And the same problem comes with Russia; the same problem. Because if Obama is successful in his intention, then you have the extinction of the human species implicitly. And we don’t say that, but that’s the fact of the matter. And Nuland of course is the worst example of this process. And she is really a degenerate — I mean, this is a degenerate beyond degenerate — lower than degenerates.

But they tolerate it! They tolerate her. And they’re guilty of tolerating her, and that’s the point: They’re guilty of tolerating her. And that’s the issue, because she is one of the dangers which leads to the potential, of the Nazis inside Ukraine, of triggering a thermonuclear war. And Obama is the person who’s nursing that process. So Obama must be thrown out of office, promptly and soon. And that’s necessary. And of course, this witch has to go totally; burn the witch, shall we say — or witch the burn, or whatever it is.

OGDEN: Along with the Bushes.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, right burn the Bushes, of all types, named and not.

No, we have as an organization, we have a great responsibility, because if we can keep our voice rationally presented and efficiently presented, we’ll win. And you see this thing, what’s happened with Steinmeier and O’Malley business, this is a potentially winning operation! It’s the only potentially winning operation we have, right now, before us. So we better grab for it. And we better grab for it in Manhattan. And our whole Manhattan operation has to focus on that one, and raise that issue! Don’t compromise! Don’t be practical! Don’t give a practical explanation, because people will make practical support motions in order to seem to be, you know, leading, but they are not risking anything intellectually, that’s the problem.

And I worry about some people, who would like to have a successful career. I don’t want a successful career. I want a victorious career! [laughter]

OGDEN: The other point that you made, very strongly in our discussions on Friday, in preparation for the webcast, but also in your memo, was that you have to go at the universals. You can’t just discuss things in pragmatic terms, and you very clearly drew out the principle of constantly increasing productivity, as what makes man different from the animal. And you counterposed that to speculation, usury, gambling. And when you’re talking about Glass-Steagall, or you’re talking about the AIIB, or you’re talking about the BRICS, I think that’s the necessary element that has to be introduced into every discussion on that subject, so that people are clear why is this an option, why is this the right option, and why not taking this option will be an unsurvivable decision.

LAROUCHE: This comes reflected back again, to the Kepler concept. What is required for mankind as a species to continue to exist? Which means that mankind has go to an ever-higher energy-flux density operations, in order for mankind to exist. And therefore, the whole movement for the Green Policy is essentially the basis for the concept of genocide! And that’s the policy of genocide which is applied to working people, ordinary working people. They’re degenerated in terms of what they’re allowed to do. They’re not given the equipment to do what’s necessary to do, to meet the standards, even for their own family existence. And this degeneration, the Green Policy, is the Satanic force which has dominated the 20th century, and since the 20th century.

DENISTON: I mean, to a large degree, that is the water crisis on the West Coast.

LAROUCHE: Yeah! And they all know it.

DENISTON: And NAWAPA [North American Water And Power Agreement] was put on the table, in the ’50s and ’60s. You put it again on the table in the ’80s, and you said, “Won’t You Let Your Grandchildren Have a Drink of Water?” And you asked it to them, and now that those grandchildren are born today, and they don’t! Because they didn’t listen to what you said explicitly! We put it on the table again, you know, five, six years ago. And desalination’s been talked about for decades, Kennedy was talking about desalination on the California coast.

OGDEN: But you need the energy-flux density to make that a viable option.

DENISTON: It’s not like there’s been a lack of options, conceivable, viable options for solving the water crisis in the West. This has been the disease, this Green mentality, this anti-development mentality, that’s blocked what have been perfectly feasible, excellent proposals, that if they were implemented, then we wouldn’t have the crisis today.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, but they say the practical level. And the practical level is what kills people.

DENISTON: Mm-hmm.

BILL ROBERTS: Well, Lyn, this is what, you described, this is the pressure of the planetary force now, that is moving what is behind the BRICS process. Which, I think it’s useful to think of things in those terms, you know, as a planetary process, a pressure that’s coming from a planetary process. What was the choice that Argentina had to make? Are we going to go down, murdering our population, bailing out financial speculation? Or are we going to shift to increases in productivity?

Greece is in the exact same situation, where they have to make that choice, and I think I know which direction they’re going to move in.

But that’s where we can define what a Presidential campaign can be, where the work “campaign” actually becomes something that is waged, and not just simply someone sticking their finger in the wind, to see which way popular opinion is blowing or something like that, but it’s a campaign. And I think, particularly this water issue does still have a very strong — it does force this question. It forces the question of productivity; commitment to productivity on a scientific level.

LAROUCHE: The problem is, exactly, the practical question, and when people start to say “You have to be practical,” they are actually going for genocide against the human population. And therefore, all the Green policies, are genocidal. All Green policies on this planet are intrinsically genocidal. They’re mass-murderous! And it’s the mass-murderous factor, which drives the Green policy, into what it does, which is extermination in the form of nuclear warfare, for example.

That’s what it is: You have get rid of the Green Policy. It’s the Green Policy, which is the moral degeneration, which from the course of the 20th century and now, has been the great threat against humanity. And as long as we allow that to happen, as long as we allow the Green Policy to be — look, ask yourself: “How many steps are Green Policy standards?” And every Green Policy standard is a degeneration.

Now, that doesn’t mean you have to have filth all over the place. You can do some work, something like that, but the problem is, essentially, the popular view, the predominant view of the population today, is genocide, and often it’s self-chosen genocide. And when they are going to take the issues which they use for the Green Policy, and suddenly the Green Policy becomes the necessity of genocide against the whole human species!

OGDEN: Well, so much of geopolitics is premised on the fraudulent claim to “limited resources.” That there’s limited resources, there’s not enough to go around, therefore we have to contain this country, therefore we have to limit this population, you know, you would even have people who were be willing to go to war over resources.

And what’s necessary with the “win-win” policy, what is required to overturn that geopolitics, is to eliminate this fraudulent idea of limited resources. And you need increasing energy-flux density; it requires creativity.

LAROUCHE: That’s right. And therefore, any ban, any suppression of creativity, of that kind of creativity, is a step of genocide. And that has to be made clear!

Are you Green? “Yes, I’m Gree-een!”

OK! Now we can burn you, witch! [laughter] What is your witch choice? [laughter]

ROGERS: And it’s important to note that that’s exactly the opposition that the BRICS, in particular, the AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, represents: It’s against the preexisting adopted policies, economically, against the IMF policy, against the Green policy, and it represents something more that’s in line with this conception of advancements and increases in the energy-flux density of the population. And I think it’s important, because, I didn’t get the full detail today, but obviously there are people in the United States, who are saying that, yes, the United States should go along with the AIIB because we want to make sure this policy is going to continue to drive forward with the preexisting policies of the IMF policies, the globalization/free trade/WTO policies — which is completely mistaken, because it absolutely rejects all of these things.

And for anybody to think that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or what the BRICS represents is going to be a continuation of the current, preexisting system, does not have any idea about the breakthrough, in terms of scientific breakthrough, that this is really presenting, for a total shift and transformation in the society and in the population.

So, I think people have to look at this from the standpoint that we are in a totally new paradigm, represented by what this conception coming from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and also the BRICS nations in general, represents.

LAROUCHE: Well, you see that most in China. In China, most clearly. Because China is going into Kepler’s area.

ROGERS: Right.

LAROUCHE: And it’s Kepler’s area which defines a sane understanding of the principles of human existence.

OGDEN: Yeah, China’s commitment to helium-3, to mining helium-3 on the Moon as a fuel source for fusion power…

LAROUCHE: Ah! But also going beyond that!

OGDEN: Sure.

LAROUCHE: That’s the point. That’s the Keplerian point.

OGDEN: Yeah, right.

CHRISTIE: This came up at an event, it was an event at a place called “China Club,” which is nominally about people interested in China. And what came up was a — of course, here in Seattle, where the Green problem is probably the most intense anywhere on the planet — was this kind of China-bashing, entirely based on pollution and everything China’s doing wrong with the environment, and it was this sort of underlying theme. And at a certain point, I was just raising with people, “What’re you talking about? They have this program towards fusion…” and then at that point, then you get the other Green problem that would come up, was people would say, “Well, yeah, but that costs too much!” And “We can’t have a space program because that costs too much.” So, I think this goes obviously to just the wrong thinking, of when people are not rooted in a conception of progress, then they get trapped, both into monetarism and environmentalism, and they’re really the same policies, ultimately, because they’re both rooted in anti-progress.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, but these are often written into the laws of different parts of the United States! And in general! And into the international situation.

OGDEN: Well, they’re trying to write it into this —

LAROUCHE: Yeah. And this is the policy for genocide! And when you get to the point that you take everything away from people, on the basis of Green Policy, then you get a real spread genocide, of desperation! And people are willing to kill everybody in order to make room for their own, personal survival, otherwise.

OGDEN: That’s literally where the Obama opposition to the AIIB is coming from. Because they’re saying, this is going to negate the control that the World Bank and the IMF has over limiting development, and the conditionalities that come along with World Bank and IMF loans and credit, is a genocidal conditionality. It’s to limit population growth, to limit nuclear power. And there you have the AIIB, which is going to say, “No, we’re not going to have any of these conditionalities.”

So literally the opposition on the AIIB is coming from that standpoint, and they’re also trying to codify that in this Trans-Pacific Partnership, this TPP thing that they’re pushing for the Pacific.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Yeah! Well, that’s what they do, the consent — “Oh! We’ll give you this new thing!”

OGDEN: Right!

LAROUCHE: Same thing. We’ve got to make it clear. We’ve got to identify this problem, and make it absolutely clear. The people will be freaked out — but good! Because we’ve got so many people in our own organization who will back down immediately on these issues. The so-called practical people — “Well, that’s not practical.” You say, “Well, maybe you’re not practical!” [laughter]

DENISTON: So the Solar System told them.

LAROUCHE: The Solar System said, “Well, buddy, you are what’s not practical.”

OGDEN: You might be “proctical.”

LAROUCHE: Proctical, or something.

But that’s where we are. And we have to really take this thing on. And we use the Manhattan conception as a way of doing it, by spreading the Manhattan implication. We’ll drive people wild, but that’s good! Because they want to let it go, let it out once. All the things they’ve been submitted to, they would like to let it out against that crap! [laughter]

OGDEN: Yep. Let it rip.

LAROUCHE: Let it rip! And roar! That will work. It’ll work.

OGDEN: Well, I think we have the conference this weekend in Manhattan to look forward to, which I think is going to be the most significant, yet, out of this whole series.

SARE: Yes.

LAROUCHE: I had that in mind. [laughter]

SARE: Yes, and it will be livestreamed for everybody who is not able to get there.

LAROUCHE: I hadt o get here, today, for that reason. We needed to do that. And you have to have an assembly to discuss this whole thing, to make it work.

OGDEN: Agreed.

LAROUCHE: We got the people there, we got the people here. We need more people.

OGDEN: Yes. Well, I think that was an extremely productive discussion. So, thanks everybody for joining us. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. And tune in again on Saturday: We will be livestreaming the coverage of the Manhattan conference. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: Oh! how nice!