Lyndon LaRouche on the LPAC Activist Call · June 11, 2015

TRANSCRIPT

John Ascher: This is our fourth discussion with Mr. LaRouche on the LaRouche PAC activists’ conference call.  Lyn can you hear me OK? First of all, if you want to make any preliminary remarks before we take questions?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, I think a general observation is sufficient.  We have gone for four rounds now, and we’re getting a very significant development, expansion, broadening of what we’re doing and this is all very good.  And I think we’re getting also into new territories in terms of subject matters.  Probably I think there’s a music theme coming in, a voice matter, or things like that.  So I would not be surprised to see some novelty, relative to previous experience coming into play here.

Ascher: Okay, so I’m going to turn on the Q&A queue. By way of instructions for people who are getting into the queue to ask questions to Mr. LaRouche, … when you are asking a question, I would ask you not to use a speaker phone.  It’s very important because we want to get the best possible voice clarity and that you speak distinctly and as loud as you can. And we are asking people to ask a question, so we can get to as many people as we can.

So, we’ll begin with our first question; please state your first name and where you’re calling from, so everybody on the call can get a sense of the geographical distribution of our movement throughout the country.

Q1: This is L— from Northfield, Michigan, just outside of Detroit.  And it’s very good to be talking to Mr. LaRouche this evening.  My daughter has just finished eighth grade, and it’s been an especially frustrating year with the public school  American history teaching and they’re teaching my daughter all about global warming, [inaudible]. And she plays cello, and  they will not even talk about getting an orchestra in our district. Looking at the high schools … [inaudible]

Ascher: I’m having a difficult time hearing you. Can you speak up a little bit?

Q1: OK, looking ahead to high schools, my school district [inaudible] international baccalaureate…and I wanted to get Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts on what this program is, and what can we do to reverse this cultural deficiency in our schools?

LaRouche: I think the appropriate kinds of education for younger children, for example, but for children generally is not doing anything that’s popularly done now.  I think that only a few people in the total population as parents who have children, who really are trained and developed, in order to deal with the challenges, that the process of education is supposed to bring out.  This is sort of a criminal thing that’s being done in educational system generally, and if a parent has the good fortune to have a child who really is up in standard, by what we used to call standard, that is almost a miracle.

But obviously, our intention must be to correct that problem.  We need to have a revision of the general process of education of children, in all integrals:  I mean, you’ve got the young ones, you’ve got those in middle age as youth, and you have the ones who are, say, graduating from college; these are all distinct in their behavior, and they’re also distinct because of history.  That is, in each of these cases, which you start from a very young child, who is going to some kind of schooling, and then going to one who’s entering a university or something like that, you find that the quality of the students’ education is deteriorating generally.  And so each generation of children, and young people, is actually being, with very rare exceptions, which are fortunate, the problem stinks.

And that means that the problem has to be addressed on a general scale.  There are ways of getting at this problem, but they’re not the customary ways which are practiced in most educational institutions.  We certainly need a program of education, which brings these young people up to the level of the ability, which they need for future life.

Q2: Hello, this is T— from New York.  I’m delighted about the opportunity to ask you this question, because I’m on the trail of scholarly justification for Bach’s championing of the 430 as the ideal tuning pitch.  Years ago, I read that Bach and [Kranz?], both, advocated 430, but I haven’t been able to find the scholarly sources to demonstrate this.  Could you give me an idea of where to look?

LaRouche: We have based essentially around Manhattan, we have now a program which is coming into shape, which includes people who are not fully developed, and some people who are fully developed, and the choral supervision is excellent.  And we’re getting progress and we’re practicing it in the City of New York. That’s our best spot right now, and I think it’s easy to understand from your experience, exactly how that works:  That New York is the actual, intellectual center, of culture in the United States.  There are exceptions to that case, but in general, you can say that New York City is the center of human culture in the United States.

And we need a program which studies the best work coming out of New York as such, in education,  and then we have to see what the problems are in the New York educational process, in order to perfect it.

Ascher: Lyn, he was also specifically referring to the question of the lower tuning, which I know that you’ve have heard, there’s been quite a bit of stir around that recently  in our activities in New York.

LaRouche: And that has been one of my war-making activities, in most of my life.  I’ve always been on that.  I understood it.  It came partly because my parents and other relatives were musicians, more or less qualified; my father, for example, had an excellent tenor voice and was a trained one. And my Scottish grandfather also had an excellent bass voice, so in the family, we did have some understanding.

And around the friends I had who were musicians, are musicians today, who were professional in this matter, with their help and with the help of great musicians who I’ve been able to work with, like the case of Norbert Brainin, who was really an exemplary figure in our time; now long since deceased.

But we do have resources, to which we can search out and gain the kind of musical program and musical training which is required for the development of the mental powers of the individual citizen, young and old alike.

Q3: My name is F— and I’m from Detroit, Michigan. I’ve had the opportunity to talk with you when you were in Metro Airports back before the first Gulf War, and I asked you a question about Iraq at the time.  It’s very nice to hear you again, sir.

My question is this, when I talk to people who are unfamiliar the material that the organization has put out, when I mention the British Empire, I get people staring back at me like “What? Weren’t they gone?” [LaRouche laughs]  So they want substantiation that this is truly an existing force that still is out there, still doing things. What would I say, to address that, as a sort of introductory question, for example?

LaRouche: Yeah, well, you know, I’m very much steeped in that concern, in particular, for various reasons because of my international activities.  You know, I’ve been working in various countries in the planet, more or less, and so therefore, I’ve come into much of this thing, and I have experience from that standpoint which is relevant.

The British problem is a complicated one, but it’s also essentially an evil one.  That is, there are people in the British Isles and so forth, who have all kinds of variegated types of skills, some virtuous and some less so, and some rotten, some evil.  And generally, we can, from experience, I or people in my degree of experience, can pick up what the different types are, of these British cultures.  And most of them are impaired.

For example, this goes to the Scottish; I have a Scottish family background, for example, among other things, and you can tell the difference in the British Isles, who different parts of the British Isles, respond in particular to their local cultures or their special kinds of cultures.  And then you find that most of them can be very useful, can have even noble intentions.  But I wouldn’t like to say that the British Monarchy or the British imperial powers, are anything but evil.

Q4: D— from Metro Phoenix.  A few sessions ago, you spoke about Albert Einstein, and what you thought about him, and I was going ask a question but didn’t have the opportunity, to ask you what you thought about Nicola Tesla, and his contributions to science? [crosstalk]

LaRouche: Well, this is an interesting question because it has variegated aspects to it.  Some of it is significant, and the attempt to sort out the implications to various approaches to this question, is an important question in itself.  Einstein, for me, is particularly important, because he was the only scientist, during the period of the 20th century, who was actually competent in science.  You had other people who had skills in science, and I’ve known some of them who have had a great degree of skills in science.  But Einstein was absolutely unique.

That’s the way you can sort of look at it, because what you had, to explain exactly how this works.  Modern civilization, starting from people like Nicholas of Cusa and people like that, progressing up through the ages, we have a record of progress of mankind’s understanding of scientific principle. Kepler, for example is extremely important; he’s extremely even still today. We’re now in a new period where we’re going into a galactic system. That is, the development of a galactic system which man will rely on for maintaining the water supplies for mankind on Earth.  These kinds of things.

So we’re going through a period of revolutionary understanding of what the word “science” means.  So we go through a period, up to the 20th century.  Now with the 20th century, with developments in the 20th century, including particularly some evil people from Britain, who destroyed the meaning of science.  And Einstein was the only man, called a scientist, who had an honest understanding, of the meaning of the word “science.”  Other people had scientific skills, but they didn’t have a comprehensive view of what the meaning of science per se means.  Einstein did.  And we’re hoping that we can get things in that direction, for example, like the galactic question, that mankind has to, now, move out so that we depend for our water supplies, for example, in our system, on the question of the Galactic System.  And that’s the way it has to work.

We have not yet gotten into that, we’re looking at it.  And we can look into it.  We’ve having things that are happening in China:  China is moving, very advanced, relatively speaking, in terms of how the Galactic System works.  It’s not a fully Galactic System, but in China that work is being done as it’s not being done in any other part of this planet.  These are the kinds of considerations which you can explore, and pick your choice, so to speak, of what you think you would like get it the most.

Q5: I’m C— and I’m in San Diego. I’ve got two questions; you can pick and choose—one or both. [laughter] What is your position on thorium reactors for nuclear power generation, or desalination? And what weak places in the imperialist structures are likely to trigger a break in confidence in their façade for this Zeus system, either domestic or international; and where is LaRouchePAC strategizing to attack?

LaRouche: Well, the first thing you’ve got to deal with: We’ve got to look at the increase of the energy-flux density represented by human capability. Like the science driver, the skills and so forth, that a human being, has the power to go to a higher level of achievement. And that means that that should be general.

The problem has been, to understand the thing relatively, that there has been, over the course of the Twentieth Century, a long row, throughout the Twentieth Century, up to the present time and so forth, of a degeneration in the intellectual capabilities of the people of the Twentieth Century. The problem is now how are we going to face the issue of solving that problem, of getting rid of the degeneration?

For example: Look at the case of the employment of our citizens, or the non-employment of our citizens. What we’re doing is, we are destroying the very life, and the means of life, of the citizens of the United States. You have a few diminishing numbers of privileged people — who maybe should not be privileged—who are sucking the blood out of most of our economy, of our people. That’s wrong. So that our prime thing is to turn the thing around, so that the direction of mankind’s advancement, in terms of the average human being, through education, through means of practice and so forth—it means now to turn around the case, so that we stop what we’ve been doing during the Twentieth Century, with the wars of the Twentieth Century and so forth, put in.  In other words, there’s a period, which in contrast to the Nineteenth Century,  the Nineteenth Century was a century of progress. At the end of the Nineteenth Century, into the Twentieth Century, there became a direction of decline. And our concern must be to return a human culture, to what it had been earlier, as in the Nineteenth Century, to turn that back, and to get mankind into a higher level of skills, of understanding, in the scientific capabilities, for example.

Ascher: And, for our participants this evening, what Mr. LaRouche has cited is also fully documented in the new issue of Executive Intelligence Review, that just came out today, entitled One Hundred Years of Stupidity: The Cesspool That Was the Twentieth Century. [http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2015/2015_20-29/ 2015-24/pdf/eirv42n24.pdf]

Q6: My name is R— and I’m calling from upstate New York, and it’s a great privilege to talk with you, Mr. LaRouche. I have a great respect for your work and the work that you’ve done over the many years.

We have many problems in our nation, and it seems that we’ve allowed our government, and our national community, to fall away from the basics, the fundamentals, that have made our country strong in the past. For example: Our advantage is, we have diversity, we have a Melting Pot, people from all over the world, and with different perspectives. And when we come together in a meeting of the minds, we can be stronger that the sum of our individual parts. But we ignore that. Instead of having, say, ambassadors, we now allow the military to be in the position, or the role, of the ambassador, and they don’t have the same perspective,  and they make serious mistakes.

There are so many problems that we could talk about, fundamental issues that are severe, and yet they’re clearly evident. Your organization has talked about them and exposed many of them, and we’ve even come up with ideas and solutions. But what we don’t have is the unifying force. The media have failed us. The media have a fundamental bias. Banking has a fundamental bias. The anti-trust laws are not in effect.

So my question is, do you see any unifying event, or unifying person, in the near future, that can actually bring our country back together again, and fix all these problems?

LaRouche: Yes. I’ve had a very clear idea of what is actually feasible.

The problem is, is that the controlling forces in the United States today—including cultural forces—because our cultural forces, like the education system in science, and so forth, all kinds of things, which should be great contributions in the education of the population, and their practice. That has been largely destroyed. All you have to do is look at the deterioration, of the income of the typical citizen in the United States. The conditions of life, of the average citizen in the United States, has been accelerating at a downward rate, especially since say the beginning of the 1970s period on, or the 1980 period, more particularly.

The Bush family, for example. The Bush family’s interest, and investment in our governing bodies, has been one of the chief sources of corruption of the United States up to this date. And we can only hope that we could get to see a better kind of President, which is possible. We’ve had good efforts, attempts at that time, at least, to do that. That’s one part.

But the other thing is that we’ve got to understand what mankind is. And that’s what is really needed. Many people can see that this is wrong, and that’s right, or may be right, but we need a better standard to measure exactly what it is we must achieve for the future of mankind, in particular here in the United States—it’s a good place to start, to compare it with, maybe, what’s going on in Europe and so forth. But that’s where we are.

We need a new definition, which means we need, actually, by our standard, we need a change in government. Now we have a prospect, a possible prospect, of a new Presidency coming forth in the course of the period ahead. The problem is, the danger is, that the Obama administration will bring us into a global war, from which almost no human being will survive. If that happens, and that could happen within the next month—then you would have a situation where the question would be: Would humanity, as such, survive a general thermonuclear war—which is what we’re up against? And Obama’s now at the point of pushing us, on behalf of the British, of course, to get us into committing that kind of genocide against ourselves.

And so therefore, these kinds of considerations are important.

What’s important, for us, above all, is to realize how we got into this mess, coming out of the Twentieth Century, and how we get out of this mess which the Twentieth Century has put us into.

Q7: [no name given] One of the questions I want to ask you is about the crimes that Obama has committed against humanity. We already know that he did murderous crimes, treason. They’ve got all the evidence they need to impeach this man. I still don’t understand how come everything is still being prolonged? It’s like, keep him in there, and everybody’s just got to wait and see what’s going to happen. I feel like they’ve got enough evidence against him, and why don’t they just get rid of him? Because you’re saying that we need him out of there at least before July 4th comes—so why is he still in there?  And then August comes, and he’s still in there?

I just feel that they’re kicking the can down the road, such as with the economy situation; as with impeaching Obama, they just keep prolonging, and kicking it down the road. When is it going to end?

LaRouche: Well, let’s try to end it immediately. The possibility is there.

First of all, we’re on the edge of an actual thermonuclear war throughout the planet. Right now, the United States, under the direction, or the putative direction, of Obama, is heading us for the thermonuclear war, on a global scale, within a period of probably the next month. That’s the fact.

Now, that can be adjusted, that can be influenced. Actions can occur which can prevent this from occurring. But we’ve got to make sure that they do, that those events are straightened out as needed.

But in the longer period, is to recognize, that what happened is, in the Twentieth Century, after the Nineteenth Century, from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, there has been a long wave of ups and downs, but most of the direction is commonly down, in terms of the conditions of life of people. There’s been formal technological capabilities introduced, but they’re merely technological; they’re not scientific, they’re technological. And for the most part you’ll find, more and more, especially since well, shall we say, 1980, there has been a more or less consistent direction of down, worse and worse, throughout the United States itself.

You have, however, improvements in China. China is the leading nation in progress on the planet right now. In other words, of all the nations of the Earth, China now has the greatest rate of progress. Now we’re having in India, it’s showing similar progress. Other parts of the world are showing progress of significance. In nations of South America. It’s maybe not very impressive, but the very fact that it’s progress is progress.

And therefore, what we have to do is focus on the need. We’ve got people who lack education, they lack skills, they lack competent employment. They lack the means of maintaining a decent life. They’re no longer protected against disease, as they used to be, even before. And these things have to be done. And I think it all has to be done with one fell swoop. I think that we have to get rid of Obama. Throw him out of office, and try to get a new Presidential System.

Now, I don’t think that’s just a President. What we need is a Presidential System, in which there’s a group of people, gathered around a person called the President, who’s qualified to be such a President, and these team of people become the means, working together, to move the condition of life of the citizens of the United States in general—and other nations as well—in a direction which will rapidly, at an accelerating rate—bring about some kind of decent improvement in life.

And to save us from the threat that Obama now threatens. If Obama is not thrown out of office in the near future, and continues the policy he has now, we’re headed for thermonuclear war. And that is probably as early as within the month. And if that is not prevented, then the problem is that most of the human species will disappear.

Q8: This is B— in Wisconsin, and I have a question, actually two. What is your opinion of the Bilderberg organization? And what is your position and opinion concerning the current occupant of the papal throne, Pope Francis (Jorge Bergoglio)?

LaRouche: On the first count, I don’t think much of it at all. It’s a failure.

Now the case of the papacy. Discussing the papacy is a complicated matter. First of all, it reflects, on the one side, an attempt to create a Christianity which might be measured against the standard of a famous figure, Nicholas of Cusa, who was the founder of the form of Christianity which made the best contribution to mankind. And he was, of course, nominally a Catholic, but the term Catholic has come to mean a number of other things as well—in quite sharp differences.

So, the question of how mankind sees man, and sees what the meaning of human life is,—which means that, we are not animals. We human beings are not animals. Some people behave like animals, but that’s not what they’re supposed to do. We all live, and we all die. Now, dying is not really something we can complain about. If we think it’s unjust or should not happen, or can be prevented, that’s a point. But the point is, that we know in history, two things about mankind.

First of all, no animal is capable of being a human being. No matter how sweet the animal is, how lovable the animal is, it’s not human. And what we desire is to have human beings—and there are some great people. There’s Vernadsky, for example, the famous Ukrainian-Russian figure, who’s an example of this kind of outlook. Other people have had it—Nicholas of Cusa, of course particularly.

So the question is, how do we solve this question? How do we say we’ve got the right choice?

Well, I would say that the present Pope is probably a very significant improvement over some of the things that had immediately gone on before. I don’t know how good he is, but I’m sympathetic to the idea that what he will do, will be useful to mankind. And I don’t limit this to the Catholic position. I look at the whole thing from mankind. How is the idea of religious belief, whether it’s formally religious or not, what is simply the idea of what the purpose of mankind’s existence is to be? And that’s what the whole thing means. That’s what Christianity meant. What is the meaning of human life, given the fact that every human being, sooner or later, is going to die? And most of them will die at a fairly early period.

So, what is the meaning of human life? The meaning of human life lies in the outcome of human lives, in the progress of mankind to accomplish good, in a very meaningful way, for the future generations of mankind. It’s called progress on its own terms.

And Nicholas of Cusa is a very good example of this, and his arguments there are excellent, when it comes to the question of religious argument. This would apply, even though he’s a Christian, this applies in general to the religious conception in mankind, a proper conception, in any case.  One has to think in this kinds of terms that Nicholas of Cusa exemplifies. And you will find that great scientists, and so forth, all share in that kind of intention. Because they’re looking for a future of mankind, not just the future of some living person or persons.

Therefore, I think, this is the higher meaning, of being human. It’s that we use our lives, express our own lives, by directing our lives, to the intention that we are going to do something, in the course of life, that gives mankind a step above what mankind has been able to achieve before.

Q9: This is B— from New York. I would like to ask, how could we go from New York to California, from Utah to Texas, Hawa, and Alaska, to tell Americans: Truly understand the Declaration of Independence? A friend of mine and I were talking about this a few days ago, and I think that’s an appropriate question to ask true Americans, in the situation that we , do you really understand the Declaration of Independence, and what it meant [to get rid of it]? And how Glass-Steagall could just throw all that in the garbage, basically. Would you elaborate on that, Mr. LaRouche? [crosstalk]

LaRouche: Yes, quite. For me, there’s a very simple standard. We have the founding of the United States under a great statesman, who actually set out the laws under which the Constitution was presented. And that’s still there. And the tradition is there. So, for us in the United States, that tradition is clear.

There were violations. For example, we had people who dealt in slavery in the United States. Many of the leaders of the United States in the lower period, and later, were actually evil people. That is, they were cruel. They committed crimes against humanity of all kinds, and so forth. We finally, with some Presidents, we got free of that, and we keep struggling.

Then we fell back into it. I would say the Bush family is an example of degeneration of the United States, morally and otherwise.

It’s that kind of outlook, is the one that we have to steer.

Q10: This is M— from northern Nevada. My wife and I have been long-time supporters of this organization. I’ve attended legislative sessions in Carson City to support and encourage the passage of Glass-Steagall, the reinstituting of the national banking system of credit, the development of major infrastructure projects like NAWAPA. Over that time, I’ve talked with ranchers, farmers, small city and county officials, watermasters, planners, even spoken with some local journalists. I have handed out and mailed to these individuals your plan for full economic recovery, but, over the last few years, have received no response.

I believe the reason is, I don’t have a sense of credibility with these people, or credentials, and therefore, they’re only concerned about their own little constituency, their own small problems, or their own  re-election campaign and so forth. And I’m sure there are other people, other people maybe even on this call, or who would like to ask the question: What else can an individual possibly do?

LaRouche: Well, I’m doing it, as far as I’m concerned.

Look, what’s happened is this. You have the FBI. It’s one of the institutions that’s responsible for this problem. And what they do, is they actually create a destruction of the ability of the American citizen to understand what he himself is all about. That’s the problem.

Now, our organization, my organization, has been a victim of this process, and even in our own ranks, we have people who, shall we say, get stupid. And what we’re doing, particularly in this discussion, which we do regularly every week at this point, is to bring into play, instead of taking a local, yokel kind of operation—which tended to be the case beforehand, which I said, “no more, no more”—and we go to a larger constituency, meaning a broader section of the United States citizenry, in particular, and to get their voices into play here, in order to kick the butts of some of our other members who don’t do the job they should do, but are still playing games with themselves.

That’s what we’re doing.

Now, the reason for this problem is the FBI, and the FBI’s not the only institution that does it, but the FBI’s notorious for this. The FBI demoralizes, in the system of demoralizing the American people in their lives. And therefore, they become confused. They become what they call “practical,” rather than scientific. They say: This will be practical. And they think in small terms, and people who think in small terms, are easy victims for major institutions which manipulate the population.

Take the case of the FBI—it’s typical. There are other institutions of the United States who do the same thing. And you have similar phenomena in other nations. But in the United States, the FBI has been traditionally the marker—it’s not unique—but it’s the marker for brainwashing citizens, by manipulating them, usually by fear, as we saw it in the post-war period.

Once Franklin Roosevelt was dead, the FBI took over, and set up a system of police-state mentality which lasted for most of that period, even under great Presidents which we had at that period. And we had Presidents who got assassinated, and these assassinations of Presidents were not coincidences. They were the elimination of Presidents like the Kennedys, the two Kennedy brothers, and other people of great talent and devotion.

Remember, for example, President Kennedy himself, faced with the threat that the Soviet Union and the United States were going to be thrust against each other, and the effect would have been—if that had happened, at that time—you would have had World War, general mass death, throughout much of the planet, including the United States! Kennedy prevented that. He induced the Soviet Union, the Soviet government, to understand what the effect of such a conflict would be. The Soviet government then said, yes, directly under Kennedy’s pressure. What the Soviet government did was destroy its war machine for thermonuclear war. And that’s how we survived.

Now we’re at a stage, where we have Obama, who is trying to drive toward a thermonuclear war, internationally. And if Obama does that, succeeds in that, most of you will be dead on the morning following. More so than what had happened at the time when Kennedy saved the United States, and the Soviet Union, simultaneously. Under Kennedy’s influence, which got Khrushchov to back off. And that’s the kind of world we live in. And that’s the kind of situation we have to deal with right now.

Q11: My name’s T— and I’m from Michigan.  I agree with your 21st edition’s on the Darwinism versus creation; [“T.H. Huxley’s Hideous Revolution in Science,” EIR

24, June 12, 2015] I think that’s been a huge problem in the United States. Very similarly, I think the degradation of the family values have been a bad thing, a lot of children growing up in broken homes I think has been a huge part of our crime rate in the United States.  And I was wonder what effect do you think joining the BRICS, if any, would that have on those two principles?

LaRouche: Well, the problem that you’re talking about, human experience, and you see it in the United States:  Who are the people in the United States as citizens who are most likely to be criminals?  Are they not the people who have no real vision, of creating progress for the human species?  Or progress of their own community?  That’s the problem.  Now, how does this happen?

It happens because powerful interests, in various nations, believe in suppressing their own populations by brutalizing them, making them stupid, and then letting them play their frustrations against one another.

When the proper destiny of mankind is that every human being should be steered by the aid of their society to achieve a higher standard of existence, of the human species, than the generation before them.  That’s the intention.  In other words, mankind is not an animal; mankind cannot be measured by animal standards. An animal species is a different thing than the human species, absolutely different.  There is no similarity, directly, functionally, between a human being and animal, under those conditions.

And so therefore, our challenge is, mankind must make progress.  And it’s a progress of creativity, not opportunity, but creativity. For example, we now have, say in California, we have a governor in California, who’s really a criminal, because what he’s doing, is he is suppressing the clean water system of California and adjacent areas.  Why should we do that? California — you know what the history of California is.  It starts out and it becomes the most powerful influence for productivity in the entire United States, in terms of foodstuffs and so forth.  What happened?  They’re destroying it. Why?  Well, because they had a couple of people like a yahoo, who came in imported from Europe and took over the governorship of California, and with that governorship of this yahoo, California began to go down.  Whereas the earlier governor of California [Pat Brown] was excellent, the one whose son, his successor [Jerry Brown] is a bum, and is actually devoted to destroying and killing the members and the citizens of California!

So the issue here is not the so-called practical questions in the ordinary sense.  The point is that mankind has intrinsically, a responsibility to evolve mankind’s skill to achieve things that mankind has never achieved before.  And that’s the lesson.  That’s the principle of physical science: What man has never achieved before, must now be achieved.  No animal can say that!  No animal can do that.  Only a human being. And human beings are the meaning, of the existence of the Galactic System.  And once we understand that, and say, we have to develop every generation, of living human beings must be in on the average, stronger, more powerful, more competent, than the generation before.  Every parent, every parental family, must be enabled to achieve a higher level of achievement, than their parents had been able to do.

Q12:  Hi, this is A— from San Diego.  This is directed to Mr. LaRouche.  I first found your website two years ago.  My question is about the understanding among the leaders of other countries about the role of the British in international politics, in the politics of the world?  How, for instance, does Putin amongst others view the role of Great Britain in manipulating international politics? [There was great difficulty in hearing the questioner; John Ascher helped convey the question — ed.]

LaRouche:  I got that, that’s clear.  I can answer that question in that way.  Look, Putin is Putin.  He’s a leader of Russia, he’s a leader of Russia who has actually successfully brought Russia back up from the despairing condition it was in for a long period of time.  Russia has now reached a point of progress, where it’s probably compared, shall we say, with Germany, and Germany has a very high technology level.  There are many problems in the German government’s practice there, but there’s a core in German culture which is a very good culture. It’s probably one of the best ones in Europe in terms of performance.  There are problems there, big problems, but Germany is one of the most successful of these badly mangled governments.

Now, Putin has brought Russia back up from the kind of worn-down, broken-down state it was in for a long period of time. I’m quite experienced with this Russia business.  I’ve been involved in dealing with it one way and the other, again, so I understand it very well.

Russia is also very important, because Russia and China are actually united, in terms of collaboration.  China has the largest population on the planet, of any nation, and it has the highest rate of progress, of improvement, of any nation right now. So these things are very important.

Now, what our job is, is to take examples, like Germany is a mangled, damaged, etc., thing, but it has the highest quality of performance in terms of production, in terms of economic progress of any nation. There are other, smaller nations which have good characteristics and useful, but for leading nations, Germany is now currently the most important one in Western Europe.

But you also have not only China, but India.  India’s one of the largest, and most powerful nations in the planet.  It’s population standard is not always so good, but it’s going to develop very rapidly now, despite the problem of the recent heatwave they have there.  But so, these are facts:  Egypt has become very powerful, in its own domain.

So therefore,  what we have to do is understand that, if we see these things in these terms, and say, come back to our own United States, and say, how can we make our United States, which was once a leader in the world in the achievement, how can we bring that nation, in its ruined and tattered and rotten condition it has today, which has happened especially over the course since the beginning of the 20th century; how do we save the United States?  how do we save the people of the United States?  how do we save the future, of the people of the United States? hmm?

I think we can do it, but we have to have a consciousness of what that mission is.  We have to have an understanding of what we’re talking about.  What do we have to do, to bring the United States back, out of the rubble field it has become, intellectually, and bring it again to what it was at its high point, in terms of the beginning of the 20th century?  And that’s what we have to do.

And we have to look at nations, in terms of what’s happening to nations.  For a long period of time, nations have been considered as being sort of insulated, totally separate, separate from one another.  Now, it’s different:  for example, the case of China, India, Russia and so forth, and some major nations in South America — these nations are now coming together in what’s called the BRICS formation.  This formation is one in which, well, the Chinese refer to it as the “win-win” concept:  That every nation should have its own independent view, win; but it should also have a concern, for the influence of the other nation, win.  And this thing is spreading throughout Asia — not all of Asia, but much of Asia.  It’s spreading in South America. It’s spreading in some parts of Central America, and it should be spreading inside the United States.

If we can get Obama thrown out of office, get a competent President, or Presidency in place, instead of Obama, and we can have in the United States, its own “win-win” option, and where the United States will have the best level of achievement that it ever has had, so far.

Q:13 [statement]

Q14: F— from Louisiana. Give me a status update on O’Malley, and our people working directly with O’Malley on economic policy, the Glass-Steagall, plus the physical economy? O’Malley and our staff working with him; what is the status of our staff from EIR working with O’Malley on the physical economy?

LaRouche: OK, OK. I understand, I know him. I don’t know if that’s the right term to put. What, what I see— Bush has just been sort of dumped by his own circles, because he’s incompetent. Or he’s admittedly incompetent, which is sort of an achievement, huh? All the other Bushes were, except Prescott, who was a murderer — were pretty much incompetent. So, this guy has been caught with incompetence, by his own circles. That’s good. Get rid of this guy.

But I think that, also, there are other contenders, for the Presidency right now, who, by my understanding — my good guess, more than guess — they are not competent.

Now, what are we looking for? The O’Malley question has come up. Now, we’re talking about O’Malley as being some kind of a magic guy, who’s going to solve all your problems. I think that would be a mistake, and O’Malley would understand that, as I do, more or less. The issue here is, is we’ve got to think in terms of a Presidential System: Which means you have an actual President, with no phony stuffing that stuff, in that stuff; an actual President, but a President who is interacting, constantly, with a team, which is the Presidential System. Now, the Presidential System is a lot of talents, which are qualified and work together, in order to move the United States, and other things, forward.

At this point, I don’t think Hillary’s going to make it. She’s got too many mistakes, and she has too many habits, which are mistaken. She looks like, you know, she’s a big thing, right now.  But, I would say, her performance is, the more people find out what she’s doing, the less they’re going to support her, because she’s not a competent leader. She does not understand how to be a competent leader. So, I think she’s sort of eliminated.

Bush is eliminated.

The retinue of the Republican Party, is a mess. There are Republicans who I would even consider — as should be considered, as part of the Presidential System. Not because they’re Republicans, as such, but because they happen to be Republicans, who are worth something. Rand Paul is a tempting example of that kind of thing. Other people in that  category are also tempting choices.

But, if we being the right talents together, in the right conjunction, and we have a successful formation of O’Malley, as a Presidential candidate, I would say that is probably, — I’m not going to give you any final answer on this thing, but I say probably, given the condition;  knowing that Bush is in deep trouble and his own ranks are disgusted with him.  And, Hillary is not going to be able to withstand reality. She may have a lot of money, there, but she’s not going to be able to do the job. We know that.

So, therefore, O’Malley probably is the best prospect, right now. But this does not mean O’Malley, per se. It means O’Malley, if he’s chosen, O’Malley will be a President, who has a whole array of talent, which are working to a common purpose and a common goal, as pretty much a model, which Franklin Roosevelt had, in his term in  office. A Franklin Roosevelt-like government. And that’s our best option.

Now this may mean we have a foreign policy, also, which goes with the agreement with the principle which I’ve just referred to, the “win-win” concept. We no longer have nations which are, in themselves, dominant over large parts of the planet. We’re going to have nations which work together — with their own opinions, their own experience, their own policies— but which consider other nations, with their own policies, with the idea that these different groups, which form these sets of nations, will interact to effect common ends, for mankind. Common ends for mankind.  And that’s what’s required.

Q15: Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. This is J— from Brooklyn, New York, and, my question does— or, my statement and my  question— does enter into something that you just talked about. It stems from the conference that we just had, this past weekend, and, I wasn’t able to ask the question there. The conference was excellent, I thought the speakers were very good, and, of course, Helga was very inspirational, and— I’ve kind of fallen behind in my organizing, a little bit, lately, because I have some family  issues— I have a new grandson, and he has medical issues, so I’m kind of dealing with that, but I was very inspired by Helga, and the other people on the panel. And I’m going to get back to it.

I am a delegate to the United Federation of Teachers, the UFT.  And I, along with other people, helped get the resolution passed, through the union, for our support for Glass Steagall, in the UFT.

Now, my concern is, that I know that we are not endorsing a candidate, a person. What we are about, is the Presidency of the United States, and what that stands for. And we have our Four Laws, and our candidates, that we believe in, and we’re trying to, and we’re trying to get the people of the United States on board.

The thing is— I go to delegate meetings— there are over 600 members at these delegate meetings, and they are representing over 3,000 teachers. They usually vote for things to endorse these candidates, they vote in who they’re going to endorse. I see that, what will probably happen, as people come out of the woodwork, and place themselves into the candidacy for President, what I see happening, is that they’ll go along with Hillary; it’s the “go along to get along” kind of thing.  And they’ll vote on endorsing Hillary, kind of like mindless foolishness.

So how will I, and others who believe as I believe, and will help bring them into reality, bring people, not just in the union, but other people in general, into reality? What types of strategies can we use, to keep people — and they know, that Hillary and others are not the people we should be endorsing, they know that, but they’re delusional.  And they’re sheep, and they want to go along to get along, and we have to bring them out of that; and explain what the Presidency  of the United States really is.

So, what kinds of strategies can we — I know other people on the call probably understand what I mean… [crosstalk]

LaRouche: Well, now you’ve got the Teacher’s Union. Now the Teacher’s Union is a complex process. I think, probably, you’ll find, in the Manhattan area, one of the best concentrations — from among senior teachers — I don’t know about some of the younger teachers, but I do know about the senior teachers; and I know that, as a group, they have generally stood up, to try to defend, what they  understand as their mission, even despite a lot of pressure against them. So, I don’t think there’s a problem there. I think that what they  are doing is right, and I think that they will automatically tend, to converge upon anything that they recognize is the proper Presidency of the United States to occur now. And, I think that’s the lawful way it should occur.

But, the point is, once we understand that, and say we agree on that idea, then we have to go to work, to make sure that we are working on behalf of agreeing with that idea, not only among teachers, but among other, relevant parts of society, which will come together. Because what we need—

The problem we’ve had, is we’ve had “wheelers and dealers,” for various reasons, they get stuck into the Presidential System, because somebody’s pet project, or pet candidate is involved there. We need a system, which is a pure system of the Presidency. We need a President, but the President has to conform to a certain “mission orientation,” and he has to do it effectively.

But you also need a battery, of people who are qualified, to do the various parts of the job, which are required, to make the whole thing work. And, that’s exactly what we have to do. I think we can write off certainly, Bush. He’s written himself off, publicly, and all of his supporters have been complaining that he’s no damned good, which is probably a good term to use. I don’t think the Bushes were any good, at any time. Prescott Bush was evil, and most of his offspring were stupid, but also evil.

But so, the point, I think we should not have really a problem, and I think that there’s no resistance, if we can pull the people, who, of various groups, in society, who already have some idea of what this is about, get the discussion going among those groups:  What do they want, for the people of the United States, from the standpoint of what the institutions they represent, amount to? That’s the way to do it.

We need a system, a Presidency, which is a true Presidency. A President is there: The President’s function is to lead in coordinating among a larger Presidency. The larger Presidency must work in concert with one another, in order to make this thing work.

And I think, you know, that O’Malley has shown inklings of that, or perhaps better than inklings.  And I’ve seen nothing else, so far, on the screen, to support. So, I think,  we’re not going to say that O’Malley is going to be the next President. I wouldn’t say that, yet. I don’t have all the chips and things that I need to come to a definite conclusion. But I say, what I do know, is that the only one on the scene, which, so far has shown the potential to become a President. But, that is conditional, upon having a Presidency formed. You’re not trusting one man, one person; you’re trusting a team of people, who are organized around a common purpose, pretty much like what a good teaching program is.

Q16: This is J— from Middletown, New York, how are you? I first want to commend you in all your efforts, you and your whole team. I am part of this team, and proud of what we’re trying to do here. And I hear a lot of different stories, or a lot of different reasoning, or resolutions, that can be potentially successful. I think ultimately, what it all boils down to, is what it’s always been since the beginning of time: It’s the battle between good and evil. You can sit here, and discuss these matters for weeks, months, years even—Mr. LaRouche, you’ve been at it for — what? 50, 60 years? We can discuss all these different matters amongst other leaders in the world; we can go into the communities and the inner cities, and discuss these matters. And what is all boils down to, is the battle between good and evil.

What people need to realize is, what are you made of, personally? What do you have within you that’s going to make a change for the better? It’s unfortunate that this world is run by corrupted people. It’s unfortunate that the media is controlled by these corrupted people. It’s unfortunate that most people in this world live or die off of the American dollar. All that is unfortunate.

Ultimately, it means nothing. It all means nothing, because what we have inside of us, is what will ultimately lead us to our little slice of heaven, so to speak. And I get it. I get what you’re saying. Yes, we do need a system. However, there’s so many things that we need to take place at the same time, in order to be successful. And unfortunately, I just feel, it may be, too little too late.

I am very optimistic, and I like to think that there’s always a chance. But with everything that’s going on in this world, and the control that they have, literally over people’s minds, with all the distractions of the social networking, and video games, and the food that we eat, that literally distorts our hormones—it’s on such a massive scale, all of the evil that surrounds us.

LaRouche: That is not a problem. Not if we approach things properly. It’s really not the problem. The problem is the failure to —  not to deal with things that people are proposing. That’s the trap. If you’re trying to talk about what some people are proposing, variously, trying to pick that out, you’re going to lose. Because that kind of approach doesn’t work. It’s intrinsically a failure.

There are principles, however, which are knowable principles, which are little known, unfortunately, and little regarded. So, trying to come up with a practical solution in the usual term of practical, is wrong. You really have to deal with defining and choosing, a conception of policy which stands on its own legs.

For example, we just had this case where one of my associates originated the provision of the galactic water system. Now, what is that? That’s a few people in the world who know what the galactic water system, in practical terms as well as theoretical principle terms, which I happen to be informed of — which is why I’m saying this right now. All right.  So, we understand that if we have progress in civilizations—the highest level we knew about our system, was that of Kepler, Johannes Kepler. Johannes Kepler, in at that time of his life, was the first man to define what the Solar System actually is. But that was only the Solar System.

What we’ve developed since that time, is an idea of the conception, an actual practical conception, which is called the galactic system. That is, the water system that mankind lives on, is basically located in the galactic system, not the water system as we know it, not the moisture system, as we know it. And therefore if we want to deal with the challenges which mankind faces, as in weather conditions and so forth now, which are water conditions, then we have to approach the matter from the standpoint of galactic principles.

Now, some of my associates have been working on the question of applying the galactic principles to water throughout the planet Earth already. What they’re doing so far, in practice, is modest. What they’re doing in terms of principle, is serious, but requires more development. But the understanding that we are depending, not on the system of Earth as we see it—as we’ve known it before, not as known by Kepler, but as known as a galactic system.

So, therefore, that’s the kind of way you have to approach some of these problems. And that’s been the case in all important scientific progress.

What we have to do is, we have to say, “What is the system, of social process, and of physical processes within social processes?  What is the system  that we have to use, to solve the challenges which confront mankind now?”

So, you don’t come up and say, What is the pragmatic solution? The pragmatic solution went beyond the hope of finding success with a pragmatic solution. We have to work for an actual scientific solution, such as what is illustrated as the case, that we’ve now demonstrated, and a number of scientists have demonstrated this—and both in principle and in practice, we now know that the water system of Earth, of all parts of the Earth, depend on a galactic system, not the water system of Earth itself.

And therefore, we need to approach things in that way, which is the way of scientific principle, actual scientific principle. And it is only an illustration I’m giving. All scientific progress depends upon the same method, as it did for Kepler in his time, as it applies now with the Galactic Principle today. And we have to look at the politics of things in terms of these kinds of considerations.

What can we do to make planet Earth, and the galaxy, produce the effects, which mankind requires? And this means the behavior of mankind, as well as everything else. We need to have a science-driver center, which is a consulting point, like a scientific research capability, to teach us, and help us understand, what the measures are that we should be planning in our plan, for the United States, for example, today: What do we need, for the next generations? And define that thing, and say, “Okay, we’re going to have a program which fits those designs.” And we need that.

You can find from past history, earlier history, you can find many examples, where this thing, where the so-called practical solution, is rotten; it’s a rotten failure. Where you have to have a scientific, or higher level, of understanding of mankind. And that’s what we have to do. That’s the only way we can guarantee, that we’ll produce something that will work.

Ascher: Well, Lyn, I think that your last response gives everybody on the call a clear focus of what the intervention of you and our movement has to be now, and in the upcoming period. And it brings us really to the end of our time this evening.  Do you want to put any last, final touches on what you’ve covered tonight, because you have given everybody a tremendous amount to think about.  So, did you want to add anything in conclusion here, Lyn?

A Final Reflection: I’ll just put on thing, a reflection: We came into the question at the close of the series of interlocutives: the education system, including in the New York City area educational system, a fairly high level of organization, is one of the best institutions for this purpose in the United States. That’s a relevant example. We also need something like that, in terms of a scientifically competent view of what the policy of the United States would be for the benefit of the people, now, and for the future: same thing.

We need to think in those terms, not the so-called gimmick terms. Too many Presidencies, too many politicians, come up with a gimmick, and none of these gimmicks have been successful. The territory of the United States is strewed with useless, worn-out gimmicks. We need a scientifically sound approach, for example, as the case of the water question, the relationship which first came to be understood by Kepler, and more recently, as a Galactic water system. We need that kind of approach.

We are living under the Galactic System, and the Solar System as the subsidiary of the Galactic System. We therefore have to understand, how we relate to the subject of the Solar System, and Galactic System. We have to find practical problems defined, and practical solutions. That we can do. A competent science can do that. And that’s what we need right now.

Ascher: Well, I would just simply say, I’m sure you will want to get this recording, circulate this to your friends. We have been getting these posted on the website, and again, I would just like to mention, there is a major international conference coming up this weekend in Paris, and I would ask everyone to stay tuned and look for the coverage of that event.

And again Lyn, thanks very much for being with us this evening, and we look forward to talking to you again next week.

LaRouche: Thank you!