LPAC Policy Committee · April 20, 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it’s April 20th, 2015. My name Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us with our weekly discussion with the with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We’re broadcasting on Google On Air today, and I’m joined on video by our Policy Committee members: 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 Diane Sare, as well as Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Basement Team, and Lyndon LaRouche.

So, Lyndon, you have some beginning remarks.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Yes. It’s really interesting that what has happened, is, there’s been a change in the characteristic outlook across the United States. It shows most clearly in the area of Manhattan, New York City, where we found out suddenly, during this period, we had a surge of people who, when they spoke properly, those who didn’t make mistakes about forming things up, found that they had a power to increase the recruitment of people’s support in the New York area. And we saw other evidence related to that, which showed that it would happen, if it were properly induced.

The problem we’re going to face, now, is the fact that you get below the Mason-Dixon Line, you will not find the same result such as here. It’s not really civilized. Don’t assumed that this area is civilized — it’s not. There may be a few people who are civilized, but they’re exceptions.

And so, the point is, what we’ve had is, we’ve had a change which is merely symptomatic, but the symptoms are very indicative. We have an effect coming out of New York, that there’s an echo going on, which means we’re going in a new direction. And if we don’t flub it, which some of our people did by playing the boob, rather than getting at the job which had to be done, that we’re now in a position where you’ll find that the O’Malley potentiality of becoming the next President of the United States, is a serious consideration; that the Bushes are to be burned, not to be voted up.

And similarly, we have other people who are not going to make, who are boosted up now as being the great candidates for the Presidency, but they’re not. Because the fallacies and the failings that they have are going to condemn them automatically. And if it’s done properly, if Obama does not preempt the situation, which is one of the considerations that’s on his mind and on his — he’s a puppet of these people — in that case, we could sail into, a new kind of Presidency, reflecting what used to be many decades ago, and we have again, a real Presidency.

We haven’t had a real Presidency for a long time. The last real President was Ronald Reagan; then he was shot, and the recoveries of his wounds from begin shot, by an agent who was recruited for this purpose, weakened him, and the Bush people moved in. The Prescott Bush legacy moved in. And that’s been the problem.

So therefore, since that time, since the beginning of the 1980s, the United States has been in a spin, of moral and economic degeneration, and it’s been getting worse all the time. We’re now at the bottom of the pit, in terms of this operation. And we’re wondering, can we stop Obama’s effort?

But on the other side, you’ve got to look at the other side of the world: You’ve got to look at the BRICS. You’ve got to look at Russia. Russia’s a very potent agent. It has been rehabilitated under Putin, and the worst things that were going on there, have been moderated at the least. Then we have China, India, and then you go around a whole battery of nations, in Eurasia and other places, including South America.

So we have a situation now, where if the United States, if we can do this job, that is the job that is now being launched as a result of what happened in California, what happened with the water issue, the water issue actually triggered a change in mood in a key part of the population, certainly in the northern area, because now they have a reason to fight. They have an enemy to fight! It’s not just Obama or something, something to fight. And under these conditions, if Obama is prevented from getting control, as he would like, then we probably can pull off a new Presidency, around a whole group of people composing a new Presidency around O’Malley. O’Malley could be functional.

Hillary cannot make it. She’s too failed, she made too many blunders, she’s made a mess of her own life, and a mess of her political life. By lying, for example, in one case, openly lying to try to accommodate the President, who’s a pig.

And so we’re in a terrible situation! The rate of death by drownings, in the Mediterranean region, like we had the biggest one that’s ever happened so far, happened just yesterday; so we’re in a situation where we are in a terrible situation, but we have also as we see in the experience in California, the reaction there and what we see in this little indication in New York, with the right approach, we are in the top of the option. And we must look at our options on a national basis, and look at those options, in terms of realizing that there’s a shadow of something which fully warranted, that we can win. But we have to adapt ourselves to the orientation required, to get that winning. But we have to shoot for it, the idea of picking little bits here, “oh this’ll be good, that will be bad, this might be useful,” all these kinds of things, little things, that won’t work.

But if we go at this thing in the right way, and a few things happen that give us an opportunity, I think that we can say, as Warren and O’Malley are saying, you’ve got two Presidential candidates, in fact, and both of them are useful and they’re both running on the same score. And there are other people of the same score. So I think we have the chance now, and the symptoms we’ve had during the past week in particular, indicate to us, that in the northern parts of the United States, there’s been a surge, a change of mood, toward victory, a search for victory, or an attempt to realize that. And I think we ought to focus everything in our work, on that idea.

Don’t pick up this or that, don’t pick up little dots and so forth. Look at, we know there’s that mood and we’ll find out in the coming two weeks in the New York City area, you’re going to find an accumulation. The problem is we have too few people who are actually leading in what we’re doing in New York City, so we have a problem of trying to mobilize the optimal level of people that we can mobilize and keep them on the right track. And we can infect, we can infect Manhattan, and beyond.

And that’s our chance. It’s a chance which is given to us. And when people try to pick this fact, that fact, this fact, that fact, that’s wrong to worry about little things, to select things. You’ve got to find the total picture: What is the vulnerability of the enemy’s campaign against our choice of action?

DIANE SARE: You know, in Manhattan, the thing that was really notable to the organizers on the water question, was that suddenly the “Americans” were coming out of the woodwork to sign up. That what we’ve had going into this period is a very strong response from what we call the so-called “hyphenated Americans,” because there are these breakout developments around the world. So after the Greek elections, the Greek-Americans were very moralized and proud that their government was fighting, and they would come up. You have many Russian-Americans, Ukrainian-Americans who are furious about the Nazi takeover of Ukraine, and they’ve been very activated.

But I think with the American population as a whole, what you had last November, was an overwhelming vote against Obama; it was not an endorsement of the Republican Party. But many people foolishly thought that if they got a Republican majority that the Republicans would go for impeachment — except, the Republicans are Obama! It’s the same thing! Bush is Obama!

So, then what happened, and you identified Obama’s State of the Union address, which is the further point of massive confusion of people, because he got up there, told all these lies, everyone knew it was lies, and the whole Congress jumped up and fell over themselves to applaud this thing. And people got very, kind of wilted.

But on this water question, the combination of what Jerry Brown is saying, what Obama is saying, what the Bush family is doing with the water supply in buying this stuff up on behalf of their Wall Street investments, and it’s obvious — like, people were coming up to us saying, “I know we’re not out of water! Look at the ocean! We’re right next to the ocean! How can you tell me there’s a water shortage?!” People are mad, they want to fight, it’s a totally different quality.

And then the other thing which we’ve know about Manhattan, but it wasn’t so evident recently, is that Manhattan, and the San Francisco/Los Angeles area are very close. There’s a very substantial population that flies back and forth between the West Coast and New York City. And these people were coming up, particularly, identifying themselves, “I’m California. I’m from…” it’s a very strong bond. Maybe it’s a leftover legacy of the Russian navy coming to both ports to defend us from the Confederates. [laughter]

So this was tremendously exciting, because that’s the point, we have to rally the American people to defend the nation from the standpoint of what an actual Presidency would do. And now we have that.

LAROUCHE: And look at what we have on this coast: We have Massachusetts, New England as such, and we have New York City and that area. These are areas where we will find most readily, as we find in some spots in California, we will find most readily in rapid support, you get a general change, the whole turn of opinion, inside the United States, by a new factor which was, for them now is a new factor, which is going to occur now. And it’s happened already in the past week. And we’re going to see more this week, of signs like that.

OGDEN: In Massachusetts, obviously, you mentioned Elizabeth Warren — there’s a natural affinity to Senator Warren in Massachusetts. But one thing I want to mention in terms of this New York-California connection, is, coming up this weekend, we do have a national, televised town hall meeting, webcast over the internet, which will be hosted jointly from New York and California, with involvement of Texas, also. And this is on the water crisis. So this is going to be advertised on the website very soon, but participating in that will also be Benjamin Deniston, who pioneered the research on this.

And you referenced the joint presentation that Ben and Michael Steger did on Friday, as exemplary of exacting the kind of precision of leadership that is necessary if you’re going to mobilize the kind of fight that you say is breaking out right now. If people haven’t watched that, it’s critical that people watch that broadcast.

LAROUCHE: It’s critical that you look at people and see what their neighbors are thinking. [laughter] You’ve got to take a sample and find a sample that corresponds to a trend. And the sample is not the number of people that you cover, the question is what is the trend in which this change is occurring, and you have to support that trend. And that’s what we have to do.

We’re not going to sit back and say, “what do we think today, what do we think tomorrow?” We’ve got to say, we have to resolutely understand, and seek the indications at our hands, which indicate what the trend is. Don’t say what somebody’s opinion is about what the trend is. We have to have a direct and accurate insight into what the trend is.

MICHAEL STEGER: Lyn, what you laid out at the beginning of the show here, just the first five minutes or so, what’s so striking is that you pull together the various key factors in the world, that are shaping what is the new system for mankind. It resembled much like Kepler Mysterium Cosmographicum, where he has this initial conception of what’s possible, and he spent the rest of his life following this conception, to fulfill it which is this completely new conception of the Solar System. And you see that potential now, and you can see that we can actualize it, and we have to beginning this week, with what we saw even just last week, with the trip into the Central Valley, the changes and shifts on the BRICS level over the last few months, there’s a ripe potential to really transform the country. It’s not guaranteed as you said before, but you can see the pathway by which we can make that happen.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly.

MEGAN BEETS: Also, if you look at the quality of what is being offered by the work that Ben did, along with our organizing in the streets, we’re activating something in the population which is a resonance and a yearning for a human identity, and what Ben presents with the solution to the water crisis, is saying, that the paradigm of the past 50 years, with the environmentalists, of this oligarchical paradigm that man isn’t allowed to change, man isn’t allowed to develop, that that’s over. And what’s offered with the work that Ben opened up, is the idea that man is master over nature, and is looking to the higher systems, like the Solar System, and the galactic system, which we know already are involved in the control of what we have experienced as a water system on Earth.

LAROUCHE: Ben got into a problem, because on the one hand, he was trying to produce a practical expression of what he’d accomplished, and as he did last Friday. What he’d done earlier, before all this commotion occurred, was to identify the specific, mathematically defined, principle, on which the whole function is based. And we have to get that thing made clear. Because he said the point, he’s said in various ways that the water system is based as it is. But the idea of the actual physical principle, which is a measurable physical principle, which determines that, he has not repeated, that is, not publicly. But he’s been on the job of trying to get to a broader audience, rather than going to the specific question of the actual water principle in the center of the Solar System. What’s the center of that? What is the law, of the Solar System, which forces this to be the way the system works?

And that’s a more difficult thing to present than using examples. We’re going to have to do that, and go right to the principle of the matter, not hide behind the principle, but go right at it. And now we’ve got a group of people, who will now accept this. And I think we’re going to have to do that, is to make that point that there is a universal, scientific principle, — universal principle of scientific practice, and that practice is the law!

And Ben will do that, but it hasn’t happened just yet. He did it once — he did it actually two times. But that was before all this stuff happened. But what he’s done is right, and once it gets spelled out in the right way, it’s going to be a landslide.

RACHEL BRINKLEY: The weakness of the enemy and their argument is the fact that they do want to kill the population. And so, I think the population’s not going to like that very much. Governor Brown just did this interview yesterday, where he said: Yes, desalination would work, but it’s just too expensive. He said the problem is Californians drive too much, that’s what’s causing the drought.

This sounds very much like Obama, when he said the same thing, the problem is, people are eating too much, they want too much health care, they want a high living standard, that’s the problem.

So, yeah, just along with the whole push for privatization, demonstrates that this thing is insane. The fact that a sixth of every privatization deal carried out by a Wall Street run company providing water for people, provided bad water, “Brown water” it was called, actually, or it turned out to be.

So this thing has Wall Street all over it, so I think this is crucial and this is the weakness of the operation.

LAROUCHE: There’s another aspect of this thing: We’ve got Eurasia, the Eurasian mass, the part that’s viable, and what’s in South America, which is also viable though more weakly developed. But this mass of human beings can be brought in as a force, which can change the attitude of the entire planet. And we have to get into that deeper matter of implications. We’ve got the grab it: You can’t just say, “this is a fact, this is a fact.” The idea of particular “facts,” doesn’t work.

What you have to do is go to a real science. Don’t pick facts. Point out a power of an influence which cannot be challenged, and that’s the way it works. It’s like what I just said about what is the formulation of the formula, which defines this whole system, his definition of it. It’s absolutely accurate, it’s precise! It’s not something that’s guesswork, it’s precise. It’s a law of the universe proximate to us, and he points to that principle, that argument, that law, and that law is known and is valid. And Ben laid it just right out, on the Wednesday, when he first broke this out. And that’s it!

So therefore, what we have to do, is not try to go to facts in the ordinary way; don’t go to phenomena. Go to the forces that create the phenomena and determine how the forces operate, rather than trying to say, “fact, fact, fact, fact.” Because you know, people will die while the facts are being hidden.

And this is the issue, is to get this concentration out, and I think we’re getting the constituency, between California, in particular, and what we’re doing in California, what we can do in New York City. And if we can also move this into the New England area, because that’s a population which can be drawn into this process. It’s the nature of our political system.

So what we really have to do, is do that. we have to go in there and way, we’re going to organize on these areas, we’re going to organize and we’re going point to what we have done and can do, and we’re going to take the thing out of their hands. We have to, because we have to actually thwart Obama and what he represents: We have to thwart it every time they try to make a move. We’ve got to screw it up for them. And you know, we’ve got to not overplay the Bush problem or the Hillary problem.

Hillary has really gone wild, and she’s really lost her marbles, essentially, politically, morally. And let’s understand how this happened. It was a mistake: She shouldn’t have gone into that deal. She should have remained a senator in New York, the state of New York! Remained a senator. And if she had not gone into Obama’s arms, she would not be in the mess she’s in today; and Bill would not be in the paroxysm of the things he’s in today, as a result of the same thing.

But that’s the point: We have to realize, we got to the underlying background where the only place that the true lies. The truth does not lie in the facts. It lies in those forces, which cause the facts to obey themselves.

OGDEN: Absolutely! Ben was making this point, you know, speak not of phenomena but of principle. He showed this video, which I thought was great, of the global water flows in the atmosphere, the vapor flows in the atmosphere, and you see these very organized motions across the entire globe. But he said, “that’s just a shadow. That’s just a shadow of cosmic and solar effects. And if you want to control this global water cycle, you’ve got to go higher, you’ve got to go to the level of the Solar System and ultimately to the level of the galaxy.”

LAROUCHE: Exactly! That’s the point. There is no law within the confine of a mathematical formula. There is no such thing. People called it a law, but it’s not a law! It’s simply a bad guess.

And that’s what we have done. I think we’ve been successful, I think, we’ll probably hear more from here, on what’s going on in California, with our actions in California and around there, and also what we can get in Texas on this thing, the same thing. We find that there is a principle, and we can put our finger on the principle, instead of saying we’re going to take the phenomenon, and we’re going to try to substitute the phenomenon for the principle. And what you have to do, is you have to prove the principle, not phenomena.

That’s what makes history. Because, what makes all history? The discoveries made by mankind which no animal is capable of doing. So how do we get this information, this wonderful knowledge of truth? It comes because man, in a certain way, creates the notion of the truth. And the truth comes before the result. In other words, the truth does not come from the result, the truth comes before the result. And that’s what very few people on this planet, today, understand, that mankind’s mental powers, the creative powers of mankind, are unique; that no animal and no phenomenon in the Solar System has ever been able to create these effects. Only the human mind has been able to do that. The problem is, that most people on the planet are stupid. They’re not stupid because they have to be stupid, they’re stupid because they want to be loved; they want to be loved, by dead people, the ones that have not been born yet, that kind of dead people, the ones you don’t want around.

No, we’re at the point where the issue comes into that form. We have to go, actually, not to mathematics. Mathematics is for idiots, and it does tend to promote idiocy. You have to go to the principles, the scientific principles which underlie man’s ability to change the behavior within the universe, as an act of will by mankind!

It’s the same thing is true of Classical artistic composition, the same thing! You create — everyone who’s created great music or great art, has created something which did not exist before they did it! And mankind was changed and improved, by these changes.

And to deal with this thing effectively, you can’t use these so-called practical explanations. Because practical things are for dead people. What is mankind through creative powers that make it. And what’s happened is the 20th century and what’s come out of it, is we have destroyed the idea of human mental creativity. This applies not only to mathematics and so forth, mathematical [inaudible], it applies to music! Music is destroyed! It was destroyed about the beginning of the 20th century, music was destroyed about that time. It has been torn down and ruined, and corrupted, ever since that time. The same thing is true with everything in science.

SARE: On the music question, it’s because people don’t understand what you’re saying. That is, they think music is the sound, or the feeling or the something that comes after the idea which is true. Because as you were speaking, I was thinking about the work of Albert Einstein. Well, where were his experiments? I mean, did he have a train that went the speed of light, past someone else on another train that was throwing … I mean, all of this was in his mind, but he was able, and he was discovering true principles. Which today, people would say this is absurd, how can you do that? “I want to see it, I want the facts! Where’s the ball that the man on the train was throwing? Where’s the video?”

That’s the other thing — the way the news media have so — because people have become so brainwashed by this destruction of culture, so we have these videos that people take on their phones so “you can see what happened.” Well, that doesn’t tell you anything about what happened! But it does get people obsessed and brainwashed that they turn off their thinking, to be tantalized by what they have been brainwashed to say is the reality. I mean, it really makes people stupid.

And I think — I don’t have the figures, but I do think there’s a direct correlation between the amount of time people spend watching television, it’s passive, and whether they actually have an ability to think or to reason.

LAROUCHE: This became systematic with the beginning of the 20th century. From the beginning of the 20th century, science and art, everything, was careening into self-destruction. And we have fought back against it, because some of us have the memory of what came in earlier centuries, as Nicholas of Cusa, for example, is an example of that. So those people had the creative minds, to create the future and that’s what they did. Whereas today, they say, “No, you have to be a dead person. You lie down, choose your posture, lie in your tomb, and — be quiet.” And that’s called, “success.” [laughter] That’s called “science.” It’s senile, it’s not science.

This is the whole problem, the cultural problem. And the cultural problem lies in the fact that people have their morals and mind and mental powers destroyed. And all we have to do, is we have Classical artistic composition, which permeates the history of mankind, and if you use that, and compare that with everything else you’re looking at, you get a pretty good indication of what you want to find out.

KESHA ROGERS: Hmm! That’s interesting. I think that cultural problem really gets at the principal fight between the Union and the formation of the United States, versus the Confederacy. Because, going back to what you were expressing just a few moments ago, in this conception of the Confederacy, there is no principle of natural law, there is no defining principle in the universe which can be known to man, because the conception of human beings being creative is not a part of that idea of what the Confederacy represents.

And so, what you have been stressing in terms of our role, in this organization, in moving the population to understand that if we don’t return to what the intention behind the formation of our United States, of the Union, from the standpoint of a scientific view, this is going to be very difficult to try to pull the nation together at a point where you have Bush Family treason, and total breakout of Nazi policy that’s running rampant throughout California, and other places throughout the country.

But I really think, just on this underlying principle, it really gets to the question of, can we really get a unified United States once again, because that is a scientific idea behind what our Union represented. And I was just thinking about it from the standpoint of Texas: Sam Houston knew that if Texas didn’t become a part of that conception and that idea it was going to be a failed state.

And Kennedy, you can go moving ahead into the future, in terms of the contributions that we’ve seen here, in terms of scientific contributions. So I want to stay on that unified conception, that there is, from the standpoint of principle, there is no idea within the conception of a Confederacy, except that human beings are nothing but animals and there is no unified, national idea. And if you don’t have that you can’t win this fight.

And more, for that matter, you can’t get the United States to join with what is being developed as this global movement, exemplified by the BRICS, exemplified by the AIIB, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, or any of these other great projects.

BILL ROBERTS: I just wanted to make a point on that, because over the weekend there was a series of nationwide rallies by the unions against this TPP, this Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama and the Republicans are ramming down people’s throats. And much to my surprise, I found among a group of steel workers, a very non-Confederate response — a sort of “with malice toward none” type of response. That is, when presented with the reality of what this is, which is not just a “free trade” agreement — I mean, obviously, unions are going to be against free trade agreements, especially steel workers. But when presented with the fact that what this really was, was actually worse, that this was an attempt to break the BRICS, to sabotage China, these workers weren’t at all afraid, their response was very positive to the idea that the United States has got to join the BRICS, and has got to realize that these countries are doing what we used to do: They’re acting more American than we are. They’re embodying the legacy of Kennedy.

And that, really, if we’re going to be honest in challenging ourselves, we have to recognize that we have allowed this destruction process to happen. We brought it on ourselves by accepting zero growth ideologies, that we’re to blame for allowing this, and we have to — in order words, I was seeing a response that wasn’t coming from the old paradigm of “competition,” but a response to the new paradigm. I’ll just report that.

LAROUCHE: It works. It works.

OGDEN: Lyn, one thing I wanted to refer back to, as you were referencing the possibilities around O’Malley, but the fact that we have to recreate the American Presidency, and that we haven’t had a real functional Presidency since the time of Reagan. Obviously, that’s something that you were integrally involved in.

But just in terms of Reagan, one thing that’s interesting to point out, is that if you look at the state of California, what was Reagan before he was President? He was the governor of California! And he was the immediate successor of Pat Brown. Pat Brown was the governor from ’59-’67: He built some of the greatest water development projects ever in the state — obviously, the state water project. But immediately after Pat Brown, came Ronald Reagan.

And we just dug up something just today, which I found fascinating, which was Reagan’s attitude toward the NAWAPA project which was obviously under discussion at that time, from the Kennedy administration. And his director of State Water Resources, the person who filled that position at that time, somebody who Michael Steger is obviously familiar with now, at that time, Governor Reagan’s director wrote a letter saying NAWAPA is a project which will convey large volumes of water from a location where there’s excess to a location where’s deficiency, and this project typifies the broad scope of planning towards which we’re going to have to turn more and more, as water requirements become greater and our supplies become smaller.

So, a serious attitude towards this, from Reagan, even when he was the governor of the state of California, which obviously, you saw reflected when he became President of the United States.

LAROUCHE: Well, the point is even before he became President, that I had been selected by a team, which was coordinated around Reagan, but it was not Reagan as such, because Reagan was chosen as the instrument, of a group of people who had the mission. And because of his record and because of his influence, he was chosen as the person to implement that conception.

OGDEN: Who would lead that team, yeah.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. And I was an integral part of the team. And we went with our whole program. I organized the Soviet Union at that time, to — I persuaded them to join this policy and say, “what you want to do on this program that we’re doing, is you want to become a part of it. You want the Soviet Union, that is what’s left of it, you want it to become a part of that. We don’t want to go to war against each other, we want to deal with this problem, and build up our economy, and so forth!

The then-government of that moment, the government of the Soviet Union, said “yes.” And then the British brought in an agent, and made him the dictator of Russia, Soviet Russia. And that’s how the thing happened.

So therefore, then the Bush family came in — Prescott Bush and his crew of idiots; I guess they’re all idiots of one kind or another, or they’re just plain have dirty thoughts, beyond belief. So that’s the problem.

So we’d gone through, thus, the shooting of Reagan, which incapacitated him as a President for that period of time of recovery — and the Bush family moved in. And that’s what happened.

It’s always that way. Because what was Ronald Reagan doing? He was carrying a mission, which I was intimately informed on, from the insiders and I was part of it, and we knew what we were doing. And I was in charge of designing the policy, how we would do it, the scientific side of the problem. And I had a gentleman from California, up there, who was also, I found out later, was my double on this.

OGDEN: You mean Edward Teller.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Teller was my double on this thing. And so, we set up this whole process, which wasn’t known as such, though it’s denounced. And then, what they did is, they got rid of me.

But they’re not rid of me yet! [laughter]

And that’s what this is. The point is, what were we doing? The SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was my creation. That was a new policy which the world had never adopted before, completely new. It was an integral policy, intended to be a global policy, to unite the nations, get rid of this garbage, and so forth.

So the point I make on this, to emphasize, you don’t create the future by experience. You create the future by seeing what’s wrong with experience.

DAVE CHRISTIE: You know, Lyn, I think this goes in part to what Kesha had brought up around the Confederacy and the fact that it has no coherence with natural law. But I think, the fact that you’ve just through in terms of your role as statesman, and a scientist, because this nation in particular, the United States is obviously founded by scientist-statesmen. And there’s a practical application of the science, but it’s always done from the standpoint of improving the future of humanity. And I think that goes in part, to the idea that there’s no fixed systems, mankind is always developing, the universe itself is developing, and it’s developing towards these higher orders.

But what you find within the imperial guard, whether it be environmentalism, whether it be people like Bertrand Russell, who tried to come up with these mathematical systems that are in total, that it’s a complete, coherent system, they’re always the spokesmen for the oligarchy which says “there is no progress, the universe is fixed, and everybody has to obey these fixed standards,” versus those of the scientist-statesmen who apply the science from the standpoint that it’s going to improve the future conditions of mankind.

And I think that, there’s always a passion that motivates scientific discovery from that standpoint. And I think that goes to this issue of natural law and statecraft.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely, but that’s it. The principles that create man’s future, as a significant future, are always something which is original, which have never happened before. Which did, in fact, pick up on the things that were lying around on the ground already, and incorporate those things by choice, which served that purpose. But the point is, we had to do it. And those who have done, and the characteristic of the 19th century, for example, the creativity that developed in spurts, in terms of the 19th century, as Lincoln, for example is a great genius in terms of statecraft. And they killed him, and therefore, they dampened that. And then you find Bismarck, on the other hand: Bismarck was closely tied to Abraham Lincoln, because his agent [Henry Carey] was the agent to Lincoln, and to the Lincoln policy.

So the killing of Lincoln, is typical of this process. That the idea, which is the 20th century conception, which we see more actively today, in this degeneration, the idea is, eliminate the people who are creative. Stamp on their principles, destroy their principles. Tell ’em they have to be practical. And when somebody tells me I have to “be practical,” I think I should shoot him!

BEETS: Another way to say, which you’ve often said in the past, is that this is the rot of popular opinion. That’s not how the human species operates, it’s never by what’s popular, it’s never by what’s commonly accepted now, it’s in the original creations which are not popular, because they don’t exist yet. And you see this in great, what you referenced about finding things that are there, lying around on the ground, and putting them to a new, original purpose, that’s essentially the role of the artist in Classical composition.

LAROUCHE: There’s no difference between art and science, when it’s defined in this terms.

BEETS: Mm-hmm, exactly. And I think people should really think this through, because the idea that we’re going to win because we’re going to convince everybody of something which is popular, is just untrue. You don’t need the grand majority to win. You need the minority which is acting on principle.

LAROUCHE: Well, Ben did that. The principle he used, to put the whole package together, was not original to him as such. But what he did, he grabbed on the principle, said, “that’s the principle! That’s what defines the relationship of water within the Solar System, that’s it!” And that, for all these El Cheapo people, this was a shocker, and “just push it aside, don’t pay attention to it.”

And what we’re having, in trying to deal with the education of people around what Ben has done, which is merely to his emphasis on identifying firmly a universal principle of the Solar System. And that principle is the one that defines what we call “the water system.” And that’s what he did!

And now he’s tried to, fighting back and forth on the different aspects of the same issue, but the point is that the power of the Solar System is located in exactly where Ben located it. And he presented the actual evidence to prove what he had said, and the evidence is valid. The evidence is conclusive.

And our problem we’re fighting is, immediately, mostly, is to say, “but some people don’t believe what you’re saying.” We say, “that’s all right. They’re stupid.” We’ll take a tag and put it on the back of their shirt, it’ll say, “Help me, I’m stupid.” [laughter]

You know, it’s like popular music — popular music is a disease, it’s not music, it’s a disease. And then you have all the creative artistic work in the course of history and you can identify it. You can identify it both by fact, and you can identify it in terms of its efficiency, it has an efficiency that nothing else out there has.

SARE: Well, speaking of stupidity, I think one of the great factors right now, is that this trans-Atlantic financial system is its death agony.

LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm!

SARE: It’s finished. And it’s a driver, one, for this genocidal, Nazi looting of Wall Street, as typified by the likes of Jerry Brown and Obama and their approach to the water problem. And it’s also a driver for these attacks, as Bill identified, the TPP and other things, the backing of Nazis in Ukraine. I mean, here it is the anniversary of Hitler’s birthday, and we’re sending troops to back Nazis in Ukraine. When the rest of the world is actually celebrating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism.

So I do think it’s a moment where, our ability to mobilize the American people around a principle of a Presidency, we actually don’t have the opposition in the way that people imagine, because their system is finished. Which means that we can bring about a new system which is already well under way with this BRICS process. And the missing element is this minority of the American people who commit themselves to fight fascism.

LAROUCHE: Well, I think the image is Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell is the epitome of Satan, he’s about as close as you can get one in flesh. [laughter] That’s exactly what it is: The idea of principle does not exist, and you have a whole organization of — universities are full of professors, who are actually immoral people intrinsically, because they don’t have any principles! They have a “practical” standard. “Well, we have decided that this is the practical conclusion. Therefore, you now have to submit yourself to training and brainwashing in this conclusion.”

And you look at the process: What’s the skill of the child in the United States, now? What’s the skill, of so-called skilled people in the United States, now? There’s degeneration! Degeneration, of almost everything in the trans-Atlantic community.

So therefore, the problem is, that these guys will hold up the fact, “well, we don’t agree with you. We insist you’re wrong. You have to submit to the fact, that we know you’re wrong! We have people in Congress: They will tell you, that you’re wrong!”

But they’re lying! [laughter] And the better they can lie the most appreciation they enjoy. We dump one of these bums, and they put another bum in there, probably worse than the last one.

ROGERS: I think they call it “peer review,” or “pubic review,” or one of those things. That’s what happens to those professors and the Congress members. [laughter]

LAROUCHE: Yeah, putrefied people, intellectually and morally.

But this is the issue, and the point is we have to recognize that the practical standards of behavior, as generally accepted, broadly, today, is a form of evil. It is the evil. And the difficulty here, in fighting this, is you’re fighting, really against a massive force of cumulative evil. People have been indoctrinated to believe in evil. They don’t intend to be evil, they don’t think that it’s going to be evil. But they don’t realize that it is evil. It’s like the child who takes poison: he didn’t intend to die.

And that’s what we’re up against.

OGDEN: Well, we can take that as a concluding word, I think. I’d like to thank everybody for joining us today, and this discussion will be ongoing. And as I said, make sure you tune into the webcast town hall meeting which will be occurring this Saturday, April 25th.

So thanks for joining us here today, and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.