TRANSCRIPT
JOHN ASCHER: Good evening, everyone. This is John Ascher on Oct. 1, 2015 for our 20th Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche….
LYNDON LAROUCHE: I’m here.
ASCHER: We’ve had a momentous week this week, a major turning point in history. Do you have any preliminary remarks you’d like to start out with this evening?
LAROUCHE: Essentially what’s happened that’s important is that Putin has played a key role in terms of what the United States is doing, and we know that officials of the United States, some of them, not Obama but some others, have played also a key role in this whole discussion, together with Putin. And this is extremely important, and we have to discuss things in that form. Because we’re not talking about how to play politics or something; we’re talking about how to organize the processes of the United States in particular in an effort to save this nation, which is about to go to hell unless we do something about. We have some leaders in the United States who are disposed to do the kinds of things that are needed.
But, we also have to have a better organization of discussion among members of the United States organization, to make sure that they’re in play. Because the tasks that face us right now are tasks which are very unusual, and which require people who are very well qualified in understanding what it is we have to discuss.
ASCHER: Okay, that’s excellent, and I’m going to open up the Q&A session. Lyndon LaRouche just challenged everybody on the phone to participate, and become clear about exactly what we do have to do in this period. And I’m sure, Lyn, we’re also going to be getting some reports also from our activity in Manhattan.
Q1: This is R—from Brooklyn. Putin, while he was in Russia, did an interview with Charlie Rose, in which he outlined his side of the program, and it was very clear and concise, and I felt that his presentation was significant in terms that it was a very precise thing. Rose was not able to get around him, or to push particularly some of the things that had been said in the past by Obama. And this, I feel, was a good exposure for the American people over PBS. But were there other factors in his program that you feel are even of more significance than what he might have discussed over the Rose interview?
LAROUCHE: I think the Rose interview, was really, in one sense, a farce on the part of Rose himself, and it was a waste of time in that sense; except insofar as it exposed him, Rose, as being a dunce, a fool. Because this was not at all serious on Rose’s part.
What we’re dealing with now, we’re dealing with several things, several points which have to come together, as if in a collision of a complication of things. First of all, the United States’ economy is in the process of being about to plunge into a deep and dangerous collapse. That is, the role of Wall Street, in controlling the economy of the United States over most of the period since the beginning of the whole generation of the 20th century; so the 20th century has been a disaster [audio loss 5:52] …
The catastrophes been largely located in terms of the financial system, as it was started under Bertrand Russell, who orchestrated this thing, and the United States fell for it. So that what we’re dealing with is—the United States has always been under a mistaken influence, except in cases like Franklin Roosevelt who was not a fool in any sense. But what happened in terms of the organization of finance, was corrupt all the way through, and it’s still corrupt.
So therefore what we have to do is get rid of the corruption, and that’s going to take a little bit of a job to be done. And that’s what I’m working on, and other people are too. Putin, for example, is very serious about this matter, and we have people in our government, apart from Obama who is a fool, and more than fool, he’s a dangerous fool; we have to get him out of the picture, because we’ve got to push him aside. He cannot ever serve as the actual President of the United States, never. That would be deadly.
And we have other problems which are crucial, which most American citizens don’t understand yet. And so we have a problem of trying to educate people to understanding what the principles are of the kind of economic reforms which are now required to save the United States. And that’s only an aspect of it, but I think it’s one of the obvious aspects.
ASCHER: Well, I know we’re going to get some input here, Lyn, from New York, because I think it’s important for people around the country to be aware of what we were able to do in New York. So I have an important person to call on here.
[Q2 & Q3 had too much interference and/or were cut off]
Q4: Hi, my name is A— J— from Columbia, Md. And my question is, like earlier in the week I heard what Putin said on “60 Minutes,” but the news has just report that Putin started air strikes on Syria, and also I feel it’s to direct us away from what’s really going on in the United States.
ASCHER: So you’re asking about the Russian airstrikes in Syria?
LAROUCHE: This is a very obvious thing, and Putin negotiated it. And also you have to realize that there are officials of the United States who were pushing Obama aside; in other words, Obama’s been kicked aside by superior people in the U.S. government. And so we’re getting rid of Obama; I think it should be permanent, but anyway, it’s at least temporary now. And those who are responsible are working with Putin, in cooperation with Putin, and they are the ones who are running the operation right now, in terms of nearly everything, in terms of the relationship of the United States economy and its functions, and what our allies are, for example, in Europe and other locations.
This also applies implicitly to China; it applies to India; it applies to a number of other locations. So the point now is to get rid of the rubbish. That’s exactly what it is, and Obama is nothing but very bad rubbish! And the idea is that we’ve got to get rid of him fairly soon, because we can’t go along with this thing while Obama is still lurking around there. We’ve got to get him out of there! Otherwise, it doesn’t work.
There are several things that are important. First of all, the U.S. economy is about to collapse! And I mean a real collapse. All of Wall Street is bankrupt and worthless. If the United States were to try to go along and try to do business with Wall Street and the Wall Street institutions, that would be a disaster. Because Wall Street would itself collapse, since it’s already in the rate of the collapsing. If we let Wall Street go ahead and do its own collapsing, the result would be a disaster for most of the people of the United States on a very large scale.
So we have to get rid of Wall Street, immediately. We have to junk it. Point out the fact that it’s worthless; that it’s only a complete fraud. It has no economic value whatsoever except that of trash. And so therefore, we’re going to have to get a radical change in the organization of the financial system of the United States for two reasons: First of all, to maintain an economy that will function for the United States’ population; secondly, to protect the United States against the influence of Wall Street. Because if Wall Street goes on its own, and takes the dive that it will take automatically under those circumstances, the people of the United States may be starving all over the place. Because if the economy collapses, then the U.S. economy will itself be in a disastrous condition,—that is, the financial system will collapse.
And therefore, we have to get rid of the Wall Street system and collapse that in a controlled way, and then use that method of controlled action against Wall Street, in order to make the kind of organization that Franklin Roosevelt gave in dealing with Wall Street in the earlier period. That’s what has to happen.
ASCHER: OK, now we have Q2 back up here.
LAROUCHE: Hello J—, you’re back.
Q5: Hi! Sorry about that. Yes, I’m back. I wanted to give sort of an overview and a report on the rally that we had in Manhattan on Monday Sept. 28. And the first thing I wanted to say is that I know the importance and the passion and what we’re trying to do is so important; but it was actually fun to be out there. So I don’t know if the other people that joined us feel the same way, but I really had a—it was a hoot.
We had two banners; on both sides of the street there were organizers and members; we had all types of banners and signs, but the two big banners that we had, one on one side of the street and the other on the other side of the street. The first one said “Welcome,” and it was in Russian and Chinese: “Welcome Presidents Putin and Xi; Real Americans Want Win-Win Paradigm.” The other banner said, “Obama, Help World Peace: Resign!” and the word “resign” was in big red letters, and you could see it from — we were on 42nd St. near Grand Central, and you could see it all the way up the street, almost to Grand Central. It was just amazing, ’cause when I was walking down, I could see the word “Resign.”
There were at least 40 of us out there at any one time, and we had six Russians join us. They were very enthusiastic about what we were saying, and they were out there; we were taking pictures, they were taking pictures. Throughout the day there were leaders and delegate motorcades passing by. And I just want to say that early in the morning, before I even got there, Obama’s motorcade passed by. And although everything was not exactly set up, from what I hear, the big poster with Obama’s head in the mushroom cloud,—and those Manhattanites who have been on rallies know what I’m talking about,—that was visible, and Obama’s people, and probably Obama himself, actually saw that. So that was really exciting.
And then, as I said, leaders and delegates from all over other nations, motorcades passed by, and they saw what we were doing out there. We had people stop by, of course. We had the delegates from the United Nations come by, we had leaders stop by. It was just absolutely amazing; besides my fellow Americans, as I would call them, walking by. And I was saying, “Putin is right, Obama is a jackass.” And that actually brought people over, they really wanted to know: Some people laughed, some people said, “what d’ya mean by that?!” Some people came over just because they agreed—and most people did agree. And we were saying, “To prevent World War III, impeach Obama,” and different things like that. But it was just amazing, the number of people that we are now getting to come over to the table, talk to us, give us a thumbs-up, give us their contact information.
One person whom I talked to whom I thought was really fantastic,—I spoke to the head of translation for one major nation’s delegation, an elderly gentleman. He came over and he said, “This is fantastic, I can’t stand that Obama.” He called him “Obama-Osama.” And then he said, “And Nancy Pelosi? She’s a shit!” (Excuse my French.) It was great talking to him. He gave us his contact information and a donation, so that was just amazing; the people whom we met were unbelievable.
We took pictures, and I hear that our pictures were covered the international news media, France, China, and probably all over the world.
We also continued the rally on Wednesday; I was not able to make the Wednesday rally, but I hear it was also very exciting and successful. So we plan to continue this week. Going into this week, we have a little weather problem, but that’s not going to stop us: We’re going to get Obama out. We’re going to get him out! And that is going to happen like an overnight, sudden thing, like most things that are really important tend to happen.
So I was talking to Diane, and Diane was saying that “Putin is up, and Obama is down.” And I think that just about sums it up: Putin is up, Obama is down. And we really have to keep up the fight. Keep telling the truth, because I found as an organizer, that when I just tell the truth just like it is, even if they try to argue with you, there’s nothing that can be said that suddenly makes truth a lie. And people will take notice, and even if they didn’t exactly understand what you were saying at first, when you finish telling them the things that we know to be true about his Administration and Wall Street, and we give out our flyers, and we keep the pressure, it’s going to work, and those people usually turn around. If they don’t, then they’re Obama-lovers and we don’t need to talk to them anyway. So that’s the report I wanted to give.
LAROUCHE: Very good. Thank you!
Well, I think this thing is natural. Of course, I’ve been heavily involved in this myself, so I also have an inside view of this thing. But what we’re doing, the particular program we worked out over some period of time, has worked. And it’s based on the point that people pose questions to me, I sit and listen to that, and then I respond.
Now, that’s the proper way to do it, because when people express what they think, and then they expect you to respond to what I say to them, then you have a real dialogue. In other words, they are saying what they think is important, and I am replying to comment on what their opinion was, and what their view is. Because it’s not just an exchange of views; it’s actually a dialogue which goes on between those who step forward and pose their question; and what we and so forth, in our discussion back and forth, will take up. And by that kind of thing, we actually find that the best way to bring ourselves,— that is, me and them, and so forth,—to bring them together as a factor.
And then people learn something, because you have the kind of discussion where you have an exchange of opinion as opposed to some simple comment. And that’s worked. And we’re going to do more of that because it does work; it’s the way to work. It’s the natural way to have discussions among citizens and related people; it’s the way to have the discussion, rather than sometimes the sloppy things that do happen.
Q: [internet] Ok, Lyn, I have a question that was forwarded to me by Jason Ross who’s been up in New York. And he held a meeting with some people at the United Nations and there was a question to him that he wanted posed to you. Here’s the question: “Global warming has become more of a religion than a science—it is almost impossible to disagree with it. Many people just want to make money, and see a big opportunity in carbon markets. Your viewpoint might take one hundred years to bear fruit! How will you change the direction the world is taking on global warming?”
LAROUCHE: I would shut down global warming. And now, that’s a simple thing to say in words, but I mean it. I mean that anyone who’s running on this kind of operation, I’m going to tear them apart in front of their own face, and show them exactly what idiots they were, and the idiots they are. That’s the only way to deal with it. Anyone who’s trying to peddle that is either absolutely stupid, or a complete fraudster.
Like, for example: you have in California, you have a figure in California who’s actually doing that: He’s a fraudster! He’s a faker! And he’s a vicious one. So, the thing is, we have to get the truth out and we have to get rid of all these fakers who are peddling these kinds of recipes; it doesn’t work. The whole idea that they’re peddling, like in California, it’s absolutely incompetent, it’s absolutely rotten, it’s evil! And therefore, we have to maintain a standard of what the truth is. And the only way to deal with that is just to slam these guys on the fact that they’re telling lies. That what they’re saying is not true, that it’s a complete fraud. And therefore, we have to have a standard of challenging people who try to run around creating frauds and lies of that sort. And we have to make sure that we bring people together to understand rationally what the real issues are.
Q7: [Q3 earlier] Yes, I’m V— and I’m calling from New York City. And my question is this: There are young people who graduated from college, they can’t get jobs, and some paid a lot of money for their education, and it would take them their lifetime to pay it off. For me, I’m a retired worker, but I graduated from high school and I worked in offices at secretarial administrative work, and I’m very curious how the young people could find work?
LAROUCHE: Well, don’t really think they have much work. They have very little chance, and you know what’s going on, is that the collapse in terms of income; and first of all, the colleges are really a fake. College education is largely, with very few exceptions, largely a fake! They charge a tremendous amount of money, relatively speaking, for their so-called education, and if you look at the education they’re getting, you realize that most of it is junk. Intrinsically, it’s useless.
In other words, if you want to understand that, you have to say what is a standard which we would call for an actual physical scientific program; that is, what kind of program of education and of practice is required to graduate somebody with the qualifications to actually get an income which is more valuable than these college programs, and similar kinds of programs?
So what we’ve done, is we’ve just wasted our people. We take their money away from them with these educational programs; they become stupefied because they don’t have a real education. They’re indoctrinated, not educated. And that’s a real problem. And we’re going to have to do something radical about this, because we’re going to have to say, “This is true,—that the educational system in many of our universities, in terms of fees, in terms of the delivered product, has been a fraud. And that fraud has to be cancelled. And the people are going to tax somebody to get them to pay for the education, have to be told: Well, you’ll be forgiven for that; you will not have to pay for this.” And that’s the way to do it. It has to be done.
We have to organize people around the ability to produce what is needed to produce. Skilled jobs, skilled people, actually scientific people. And most of the people who are failures in education,—that is, who graduate with an university degree,—in fact are not qualified to be paid! Because the costs of the education, combined with what they are able to do as a result of that education, doesn’t work. And you have people running around unable to pay for their college education, or similar educations, and they can’t make it.
So therefore, this has been a fraud. And the fact that this is a fraud, that this kind of practice is a fraud, is something we have to deal with. We have to say: OK, cancel that. You don’t owe that, or you only owe a very small amount of what you were offered.
Q8: [internet] OK, I have another question from the internet, which is a thoughtful question. It’s from D—, I’m not sure what state he’s from, but here’s what he says [as written]:
“It seems we have all the resources we need to not only support ourselves as we are now, but also a far greater population number as well, but that’s only when we take into account man’s ingenuity and creative potential; in basic terms the limit of resources is directly affected by our much we limit our imagination. So there’s one clear open chasm in man’s awareness that leads us to notions like scarcity, and this idea we need to sustain whatever we have (sustainability). It leads us to believe that we are always under threat that our life support systems will be cut, we are in fear of our very lives, that in fact these ideas seem to have an undercurrent of fear, and this fear seems to have characterized man for thousands and thousands of years.
“So my question is how does man, seemingly swimming in his own fears, so convinced of the reality of scarcity, so defiant to see any other reality, so certain of himself, see beyond himself to a reality where he can thrive and truly experience joy of life? How does he, in the general sense of all of us—here on earth right now stained by false beliefs of many generations behind us,—address this fear at its root and really move forward to a new reality?”
LAROUCHE: Well, let me use a formulation which I had used before, and which has been my opinion for a very long time, relatively speaking. The point is that all this issue has an element of fraud in it. The essential thing about human beings is that the human being is able, or should be enabled, to actually generate within the course of the population in general, is to generate a productivity, of real productivity; that is, productive forces of creation. And the person should be able to actually contribute in the course of their life and education, to contribute a discovery of principles, which will actually increase the productivity of the human species.
In other words, you can think of the whole population: that you have leading circles within the population which are actually creative minds, who are able to discover things which are new principles to them. And it’s the idea of this idea of the creation of higher levels of understanding of science, for example. And that principle is the basis on which the human species depends.
Now, what’s happened,—we’ve gone through a situation, as in the 20th century and beyond, since the end of the 19th century; and we went in under the influence of Bertrand Russell, and people like that; and people who believed in Bertrand Russell or people like that were absolutely incompetent. They were all more or less incompetent; the way they were educated was incompetent; the way they understood themselves was incompetent. And therefore, what would happen is, the human species would actually deteriorate.
Now, look at what we have now: We have people out there who have no real educated skills whatsoever,—that is, not real skills—and they’re trying to make a living, and they don’t have any preparation for a living. And they don’t get people around them who will give them the kind of education, or the access to education, which will bring them up to a higher level. And so therefore, what’s happened is, we no longer understand the value that has to be based on the basis of some people in society who are relatively what people call “geniuses,” who make discoveries of scientific principle which most of mankind otherwise would not understand. And the ability to supply those elements of relative genius, in some people, is crucial.
Now, what this means is, that essentially mankind must actually think of their own birth and death. They have to realize that while they’re about to die at some point, they should be able to produce something which is productive for people,—that is, to increase the power of mankind in production and everything like that. And we don’t have that kind of program.
We have, in general,—what we call a scientific program, or comparable kind of form of education, is a failure. It does not meet that; there is a tendency for degeneration of the way people think in society today; and this has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century up to the present time. There is a degeneration of the capability, the intellectual capability of citizenry. And therefore, the citizens by themselves become incompetent, because they’re not capable of maintaining the standard of skill which is needed to keep the human race going. And what’s happened is, we have induced people, many people, to submit themselves to conditions of education which leave them in the dirt! It leaves them with no ability to create something new, and actually creative for the next generation.
And therefore the point is that human beings are based on the idea of this principle: That mankind, as human beings, must rise to a higher level of achievement of scientific and related kinds of abilities. And by doing that, by promoting that kind of program and by educational effects, we induce the citizens of the society to improve themselves intellectually in productivity.
We get rid of this crazy thing about being practical. Being practical is a part of degeneration, especially in the 20th century, and now in the present extension of the 20th century.
And therefore, the time has come that we must bring the whole population, or a great part of it, into a point where they follow the most creative people in society, and can rely upon the contributions of those people to ensure that the entire population of mankind is improved in its capability by the virtue of the relationship between the average citizen, so-called, and those people who have a little quality of genius in them. And that’s what the principle of human organization has to be. Without that quality, we are not successful.
Q9: Hi Lyn, this is A— from New York. I heard J—’s report from Monday at that rally; I was not there. I was at yesterday’s rally, which did not have the same location, so you did not have the media effect. Nevertheless, we were pretty close, a couple of blocks from the UN and the visibility was still very high. As one of the organizers said, “We’re still on one of the main arteries.” So we had the opportunity to have a criss-cross of both representatives from the UN and citizens. I would just echo the same things that I’ve been saying, that J— has been saying, in terms of the process of the Manhattan Project: I think it continues to move forward in a very engaging and uplifting manner in the hours that we were out there, and are having an effect.
I made my first preliminary contact, and I’m looking to follow up with someone from one of the consulates; and that’s the first time I ever engaged anyone—a young fellow—in such a capacity, and that was fun. So I think her report was great.
What I wanted to discuss with you though, was something in your opening remarks that I’d like to go into a little further, and that is, when you talk about points that are coming together, actually clashing, and what goes through my mind are the two systems; for those that know the American System, and of course, an imperial system, that this is really what we’re talking about. And when I consider Putin’s flank on Obama,—and you mentioned earlier that leaders in government or at least in institutions related to the government have, in essence for the time being, sidelined Obama; combined with, I think it is very important and key that Germany has made a break from war, the war trend, the war trajectory, recently announced that.
So that we have this breakdown crisis now. So I’d like just to go further with you on this, on these points that are coming together and crashing, as Chinese leader Xi Jinping comes to town, announcing and accelerating their pace of development again from the American System.
One of the best things I’m finding when we’re talking, that you can’t just talk with people about World War III or avoiding this type of Armageddon without discussing Alexander Hamilton. One of our best signs, I think is where we have that famous photo with the leaders of the BRICS nations that we have on the pamphlet, but then at the far end is Alexander Hamilton. And they’ll stop for war to discuss it, to really be pessimistic about it; but when you show them the relationship to avoid war, development, or as Hamilton would call it “internal improvement,” then you see a shift that’s completely different: They’ve been hit with something that wasn’t linear. And to be out there engaging in this, really does make you feel now that you’re actually doing something, and they’re walking away thinking differently than they had just five minutes ago.
So we have all these points coming together, this clashing point. I’d like if you could discuss this a little more with us.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, the point is obviously that’s the case. There are certain people in society who come to the gate, shall we say, with some talents which are significant, and the sharing of those talents with people who have less access to those talents, is a process which improves society; that’s the way it works.
What we want,—and there are, of course, higher levels that I’ve just referred to somewhat earlier here today on this same subject; but the idea is, we do want genius, of course. We do require the development of genius inside the population, and we do require the ability to focus that contribution of people of relative genius, in order to share that kind of benefit for the larger part of society.
To deal, for example, with education of students in schools, ordinary school children: What do you do to make them effective? You’re always trying to stimulate them, to think about something, not the thing that they just think about as practical, but they’ve really got a serious idea about something! They may be wrong, but the very fact that they went through the experience of trying to figure this thing out means that their minds are tuned to trying to find out things that are better and will work.
So this whole principle of organization is very essential in this matter. And like the case of Obama. Now Obama is a very destructive person, he’s a very destructive force. His father, his stepfather actually, but he was an evil man,—really, a mass killer,—and that was his career; that was his stepfather. But the stepfather trained Obama. So Obama is an evil man; he always was an evil man. But his stepfather trained him to be an evil man. And that’s what happened.
So therefore the point is, we have to organize society so that we don’t have evil men, or stupid men, running society, but we have people who are conscience-stricken and concerned to achieve something for mankind. Obama’s a complete fraudster; he’s a faker all the way through. He’s just a killer, just like his stepfather. I don’t know if he’s worse than his stepfather, or less worse than his stepfather—I don’t know what conclusion I’d draw from that! But I know that Obama is evil! And his stepfather was absolutely evil, a mass murderer! And that’s what he was, and that’s what Obama was.
So therefore, you’re in a society which is the victim. Just think of how many people,—not only Obama, but think of Wall Street: most of Wall Street is purely evil. Are they naturally evil? Well, I don’t think they’re naturally evil. But their habits make them evil; they may become corrupt, they want money, they want success. And they think the way they behave will bring them success. Well, what they do is they fake. For example, Wall Street today has no intrinsic value for society, but on the contrary, has a totally destructive meaning.
We have members in the Congress who are absolute incompetents! Their role is infectious. Now, we have some great people in the Congress, also, sometimes retired people, but very good. But you have the problem of the incompetence of the members of the Congress, both the House and also the Senate; and the people are just absolutely incompetent.
So the problem is a certain kind of evil. It’s the evil of people who try to fake it out, who try to take charge and exploit people, who spit on people, who lord it over people, and they’re incompetent essentially in terms of a moral purpose of their employment.
And so, these are the kinds of things that we have to consider, and we have to create a society in which we discipline the society in the sense, we don’t want fakers. We don’t want Wall Street! We don’t want that kind of thing. We don’t want to pay for that. We don’t want the people who are fakers.
We want people who are going to be productive and who are honestly concerned to try to achieve something in the course of their life, which makes their life a better contribution to mankind.
Q10: Hello, this is S— from Florida. I just wanted to highlight Mr. LaRouche’s focus on Putin, Xi, and Modi, in that they all are the epitome of their government structure; meaning, they are great leaders in themselves, but they each have a presidency team, that is, the sum total of their nation’s desire and focus. And this is what I think we need to challenge the American people; it’s that we really focus on the Presidency, not just the President. Because all the Presidents are is the sum total of each nation. And we are at the point that our President and our Presidency is not in sync with the American people. And so, I’m going to challenge the American people: what are you going to do to add to our country, so that we get the kind of leadership that reflects us?
LAROUCHE: It’s very simple: We have a core of people in society, and of course, I have regular meetings with people on Saturdays and things like that, in the Manhattan area, and of course, I’ve been involved with the functions of the United States for a long period of time. So the point is, if you are devoted to what you understand correctly as the mission which you should be performing for society, and for the future of society and for what you will do with your life, while you have it, for society, that’s a very simple kind of way of looking at it.
The problem is, how to get people to understand that? Many people wish they could do that, but they don’t know how to get at it, so to speak. And therefore, we have to have really have a kind of dialogue, which is not always universal. In other words, people will often throw the bull around; they’ll say things, they’ll express things, and it’s all nonsense, actually. But when people have a conscience about not speaking nonsense to the people around them, then they get serious, and say, “I don’t want to be caught, by being stupid or acting stupid. I want to make sure that when I speak, that I’m saying something which can be catchy for the purposes of somebody next to me, or somebody in that operation.” You don’t want fakers.
And when you get that kind of spirit, and you start to organize society around saying “no fakers, no fakers”—it’s like these guys running around, on drugs. They were driving cars, driving buses, and they were dealing with drugs; and they thought, well, they would enjoy their drugs while they were driving and say, “of course I’m on drugs, but I enjoy that, and I have the right to have that, so I’ll slow down and not go as fast as I would in a car,” and so forth, something like that. They have no real conscience. They have no concern about the truthfulness or the value of what they’re trying to do, the method they’re operating in.
And so, I think we’re in a situation now where by dumping Obama, and we pretty much have almost dumped him; we haven’t made it official yet, but he is being dumped, and that’s good. He should be more dumped, and remove him entirely from his position.
But the problem,—we have a lot of fakers in the governments; most of the Obama Administration is a bunch of fakers. And we have many members of Congress who are fakers. So we have to set a standard of what do we mean by morality? Do we mean that we are sincerely devoted, to making a useful contribution within society, not trying to spin something? And I think we can, under these circumstances now, and with the example we’re seeing in what Putin is doing, in his operation with Syria, that this kind of thing is a different attitude. And you find in Germany, there’s also an improved attitude. In some cases, other parts of Europe and other parts of the world.
China is noble in this respect, and India is noble in this respect, also, similarly. And other parts of the world contain people who are devoted to the purpose of doing something good for society. And many of them have the talent to back that up. And that’s the way you have to look at it: That’s the point—to get people organized around this kind of self-view conception.
Q11: [internet] I have an interesting question from C— in Kentucky. We’re getting a lot of questions tonight from the internet, which is good. C_ in Kentucky makes the following point and asks the following question: “Mr. Putin, during his Charlie Rose interview, was asked what he admired most about America? His answer was, ‘creativity.’ Creativity when it comes to your tackling problems; their [Americans’] openness and open-mindedness because it allows them to unleash the inner potential of their people, and thanks to that the America has attained such amazing results in developing their country.” And C— says, “this is, of course, Mr. LaRouche consistent word, ‘creativity,’ to describe the difference between animals and humans.”
Also, C— points out, “Mr. Putin mentioned Zeus and Prometheus during a news conference during the Olympic Games recently.” Now, here’s his question: “Do foreign governments monitor the LaRouche PAC broadcasts to establish the participation of American citizens, to get a grasp on their awareness? Is this Mr. Putin’s heads-up to you, Mr. LaRouche, and your thoughts, that you project into the mass consciousness of the planet, and that he is onboard with your thoughts?” And he ends, “Your birthday months have been most exciting.”
LAROUCHE: [laughs] Well, the point is, I’ve had a very interesting life, so far. From being a soldier, with some education behind me, and so forth; but I’ve always had a professional view of things. And so I’d be ashamed of myself if I didn’t follow that course. But [inaudible 57:41] don’t do that, for many reasons, and my concern has always been to educate people. Don’t fake it, don’t fake it. And you have to think of an orientation of what you’re going to do in providing for the improvement of the minds of citizens. Always, my concern has been,—I think about the mind of the person I’m speaking with. And in that case, I try to get the job done that should be done; it doesn’t always work, of course. It’s not always accepted of course. But nonetheless, that’s the principle, and if you devote yourself to solving problems that are real problems, problems of a scientific nature, perhaps, often, that sort of thing which I’ve done,—and I’ve done it in various parts of the world, a lot of times in Russia, for example, in one part of my life. I’ve had a similar course in Italy, France, also in Britain, in Scotland, and many parts of South America. And other parts of the world.
So I’ve had a lot of experience, and I’ve enjoyed the experience, and my enjoyment of doing what is my experience as a professional approach inspires me; it makes me happy. And I try to encourage people to say, if you want to be happy, that’s what you want to do: Be useful, be creative, and enjoy the fact that you’re doing something for society.
Q12: I understand that Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, and Hawaii is not really our state; it was taken by imprisoning the Queen who was threatened with murder if her people tried to rescue her. And the United States just took it over. And so, if he was in that situation, then he’s not truly a citizen, as Hawaii is not truly a state. It seems to me it would be fairly simple to get him out by threatening to expose him.
LAROUCHE: [starts mid-sentence]… not really Hawaii, but there was a Hawaii aspect to the thing. There were also some other things there, but the main thing was his stepfather. The main influence on him was his stepfather, and question was who was more evil? The stepfather or Obama? And I think in the long run, that Obama came out on top as the more evil person. He certainly has been a force of pure evil for the United States population, for various parts of the world in which he’s been a leader in mass murder of people. He’s an evil person; and it was a shame that he ever became a member of the Presidency, a real shame. But the Bush family also helped create that nonsense, so there’s another shame case.
And so therefore, this is the way you have to look at this kind of thing, that there is evil out there. Obama is, as I can say, pure evil; that’s his characteristic. And a lot of people got fooled by this. Why? Because they were intimidated by him, they were scared by him. That’s all Obama has ever done, is scared people. Why did he scare people? Why did he make that his profession? Because his stepfather trained him to think like that! And it wasn’t Hawaii,—it was his stepfather who did the job; and he’s an evil man, he’s an intrinsically evil man!
And everybody who understands him, ultimately, knows he’s an evil man! He killed people! [inaudible 1.02.35] … done something wrong, he just killed them! And that’s the way he lived.
But the point is, people became afraid of him because he was so evil. And it was people’s fear of Obama that he would crush and made them submissive. And that’s what the story is.
Q13: [internet] I have a question, Lyn, from the internet. This is from a longtime activist who’s on the city council in a town in Minnesota. And he asks, “How do we explain to our ‘elected-leaders’ why we need immediately to shut down Wall Street, and bring in Glass-Steagall? Our city is being forced to face ‘cuts’ or ‘new levies’ because of the collapse or revenue due to the collapse of the economy. I have gotten one other member of the Council now to see this is a result of a ‘systemic’ problem rather than ‘it’s all about money’ problem.”
But how do we get people to understand why Wall Street needs to be shut down immediately? That’s his question. [xx]
LAROUCHE: Because the very fact of Wall Street, the characteristic of Wall Street, is one of evil. That is it’s one of corruption; and when you get into the Wall Street area you become an employee of Wall Street, you become otherwise, in some way an associate of Wall Street. you become corrupt, because that’s the way you make a living is by being corrupt. And what we have is a lot of people who are simply corrupt. Practically all of Wall Street is viciously corrupt, and essentially, intrinsically evil. That’s a simple fact of the matter.
The fact that we allow Wall Street to exist, particularly after President Franklin Roosevelt, cleaned up Wall Street for a while, there’s no excuse for anybody to be a member of Wall Street. If they’re a member of Wall Street, they’re a crook, in one sense or the other, and that’s the way to make this point clear. You want to be Wall Street, you’re a crook! What’re we going to do? We’re going to dump you.
[Q14: E— from Tuskegee, Alabama, too inaudible. To call back]
Q15: Good evening, Lyn. This is P— from Connecticut. My question is, what would you envision America would be like if we went forward with our nuclear program back in the ’70s, and weren’t hampered by the Green movement?
LAROUCHE: Oh! Ho-ho-ho! You’re talking about paradise! That’s my delight! All the things we can do? Look, even the space program: now the space program is not understood too well, but the space program is very important. You know, mankind, we have a lot of things, like the Galactic System, the Kepler system, these kinds of systems were already in space, or relatively in space, they existed. Mankind is capable, and designed to be capable, as a manager of mankind in space, of mankind actually going into areas of what we call space, and achieving things, creating things which are important for mankind’s use, by taking the material at hand, shall we say, and actually achieving things which mankind would never have discovered otherwise.
Like for example, you want water? You want fresh water? How do you do it? Well, you go to the Galactic System, and the Galactic System gives you more water than any other place we know of in the planet, much more than exists on planet Earth. So these kinds of things are things that are essential. Mankind can do daring things in a sense, in order to create possibilities, which mankind would not be able to reach otherwise. Now, some of us are more modest in this matter; others are more ambitious. Both types are valuable.
Q16: [Q14 calling back] Good evening can you hear me better?
LAROUCHE: I would say substantially!
Q16: This is E—, I’m in Tuskegee, Alabama, and I’m giving my greetings to everybody. And I just want to give a report on the event that we had on Saturday; we’re actually building an atonement memorial garden for people who were murdered in Tuskegee. And in the course of that event, one of the mothers was talking with our local news station, and one of the things that she mentioned was the fact that there is no hospital here in Tuskegee, and that was very disturbing to her, because of course, that’s a factor in why her son died, after he was shot, that he had to travel at least 35 miles away to get to a hospital, because there is no hospital in Tuskegee. So this is a major problem that we have here.
In fact, our Queen Mother, Amelia Boynton Robinson, when she suffered a stroke before she passed, if there had been a hospital here in Tuskegee, it would have been very valuable in terms of how important it is to get treatment immediately after a stroke. And we had two students at the university, who died because of lack of hospital facilities here: One died right before our commencement this year, he had an asthma attack, and because there was no hospital, by the time he got to one of the other county hospitals, it was already too late for him. So that’s a major problem that we’re dealing with. And I just wanted to share that, that this is something, of course that citizens here in Tuskegee are going to have to work on, but I’m sure this is a major problem in other places as well.
So, I just wanted to share that report and express the dire need we have for hospitals here.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, I got the picture clearly. I totally agree! I mean, I’m convinced, so don’t worry about that. I’m completely convinced on that subject.
ASCHER: That’s for calling that in E— and make sure you get that information to us in here.
Q17: Good evening, Lyn. This is G— in Minneapolis. My question is, can you give us your thoughts on the nominating process that goes on? It just seems to me that the nomination of Barack Obama was filled with so many stupid things: This man really didn’t have any experience and he was rocketed up to this position without any real experience. What do you think about the way that the nominating process works?
LAROUCHE: It’s lousy. There are some good features within it, but I think they’re a minority; my experience would say, they’re a minority. Some people who can sort of coast along, and pass for real, but they’re not very good showmen, in terms of showing what they can do. There’s some who can do very well. But they’re limited in frequency in the population. And I think partly the educational system, since the beginning of the 20th century, has been one of the chief sources of loss of capability, of educated capability on the part of citizens generally.
The fact that a bad education was introduced by Bertrand Russell in particular, and spread from Russell’s poison, into other parts of the United States, is one of the chief reasons why the corruption has occurred in terms of the educational system and its effects. And obviously we do need to have a new refreshment of the educational system of the United States, and have a real show of what education can be.
But not the kind of stuff we’ve been doing recently, that does not work; it’s just slop. It really is a farce. But we could have, and we once did have, better educational systems than we have now. We can at least approach that, and try to get that, but also try to get a better educational system, for example, the equivalent of a university education system, as a real one, not one of the fake ones. Because, if you have a few people who are really professionals, or become professionals, as experts, they actually make a great contribution to the very presence in society. And therefore, we’d like to have more people educated, and promoted in education, and the effects of education such as science and so forth, and we would need more of that, in order to ensure that the total population gets access to that kind of qualification.
Q18: How do you do, my name is J— from Upstate New York. You know, you and your team, you’re very inspirational, you’re terrific and very insightful people. I have to ask, — an opinion: When you use the expression “shut down Wall Street,” it sends people into a panic. Anybody who has money, pensions or anything, it sends them to a slight panic, is what I feel. I think what you should try and do, and you certainly have got the team and the capability, I’ve heard it said many times — in fact, Jason Ross I think it was, a few weeks ago, talked in depth about the Hamiltonian system; I think this question has come up a couple times tonight: If you would consider pulling together a very concise explanation to the public, that the Hamiltonian system was used Washington was in office; it was used during Lincoln’s time; the woman just tonight in Tuskegee — I don’t know where that is exactly — but c’mon this is infrastructure that we can build, and we can put the money back into this country; the Hamiltonian system was used in the Roosevelt era, and then it was tried to be used in the Kennedy era.
But you have the ability to make concise statements of why Glass-Steagall needs to be reinstated; when you use the expression “shut down Wall Street” it sends everybody into a panic. They’ve got their pensions and everything else. But if you said it was used “here, here and here, and this is the result of it,” that would present people with a concrete understanding of what we need to do. I thank you for your time.
LAROUCHE: I’d just say, don’t take that point of view. When people are faking it, they’re faking it! And so, what you have to do, is get them to stop faking. Now, I know what you’re talking about, but the problem is, it’s a question of technique, and what you have to do, is confront people in a way which challenges them inside. If you try to deal with people as you described just now, you try to do it from the standpoint of handling them by tactics, that’s a big mistake! It doesn’t work.
What you have to do, is you have to get at the conscience of the person! Don’t try to push it, get something in them that gets under their skin. And if you want to influence people who are, shall we say, faking it, you’ve got to get under their skin, and they will get very angry; but if they get angry enough, they’re going to become angry at themselves for faking it! And that’s what you want to do.
Now there are nice ways to do that. You can handle people, and say to yourself, “this guy’s faking it out, what do we do?” We try to give him a little conundrum and say, “well, what do you think about this?” and you give them a little test, and they find out that you’ve got their number, and you know what they’re faking out, and they see that you know what they’re doing, and then, they get a little bit upset. But it’s less aggressive.
The best thing is to give a practical example, of illustration that somebody who’s doing that kind of thing, and get under their skin, where they feel embarrassed by the fact that they embarrassed themselves. That’s the best way to deal with it.
ASCHER: I’m glad you got an opportunity to clarify that Lyn, because I’m sure that question is something that troubles many people out there.
Q19: Hello, this is C— from New York, and I called to talk about the Constitution and how vital I think it is that our people, — “we, the people,” I should say — learn that the Constitution of the United States it’s only keepers are the people. And the people don’t realize how important that document is. So I think it would be rather important for us to open up their eyes to it. I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson: “The only two enemies of the people are criminals and the government. So let us tie the second down with the Constitution, so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” And that’s exactly what we have.
LAROUCHE: Well, Jefferson was one of those fakers. He was a leading faker — the worst! Other people were more evil, but he was the model for the fakery process, and if you wanted to get that, you just asked how the Presidency was formed. The Presidency was formed against people like Jefferson! And unfortunately, Jefferson succeeded, and about four Presidents including Jefferson made it; and finally a good President made it, a competent President, a really competent one.
And then after that very competent President, we got we got a bunch of bums, and we got a string of bums; and then we finally got to some other good people.
But for most of our history, the leading forces in the Presidency have, with some relatively rare exceptions, been a bad lot, or a weak lot. Most of the Presidents we had were on the average, fakers. And that’s been the problem, we try to minimize the number of fakers would be a great advantage for us in our nation.
Q20: How’s it going, Lyn, this is D— from Boston, what’s going on Jr? I have a quick comment for you: Years ago, I’m a product of the public school system, and back then I had several teachers that really loved their job, they loved their profession, and they took their time with the students to explain, and they got them to think in a fervent way. And today, I don’t see that anymore today; they’re worried about popularity and personality.
Now, to me, what’s more important — personality, popularity or learning how to think? That’s number one. And number two is, like I said, they can’t find people to do these certain type of trade jobs, why don’t they just retrain these people that want to go back to learn a trade and have more trade in this country, and bring the trades back in that was once — you learn a trade, you have something for life, you built something; that way you can carry on to the next, second, third, fourth, and fifth generation.
And thing is they have so much trouble today that they can’t find anything [inaudible 1.23.31].
LAROUCHE: Well, it’s not been that effective actually, it has been somewhat effective, but it’s not really effective. What you really want to do, is you want to get into the mind of the student in particular, and you into the mind of the student, and you try to, instead of throwing something at them, mechanically, in education; that often happens in the classroom, and particularly in various schools even up into universities. Many of them are just faking it. They don’t mean to fake it, but they’re faking it because they think they’ll get a good grade or something like that.
No, the problem is we do not have a good national system of general education. We had some people running around at various times in the U.S. history, and they were good teachers, and they had the effect of being good teachers, and that was nice. But most of the time, unfortunately, our society itself has given too much credence to fakers; or people who may not be intentionally fakers, but they are faking it out because they really don’t know what they’re talking about. And that’s a problem; and they don’t want to be educated — that’s the other side of the problem.
So, no, there is a real problem here. And there is a way we can approach that. But the problem is now, since Bertrand Russell came to power, this thing has not worked; it does not really work. Let’s hope we can do something better; I think we can.
ASCHER: Lyn, I think that brings us to the point here, since you’ve covered a lot; we’ve gotten a very broad participation this evening; we’ve gotten two very good reports from New York, and I know you had a clear focus throughout the discussion. Do you want to say anything by way of summary?
LAROUCHE: Yes, I’m concerned about one thing: We now have a point where Obama is located outside of his usual post. He’s a failure. But he’s also a dangerous failure. He’s a menace to society.
Now some people in the government of the United States, have taken steps in the time that Obama has made his speech in front of the conference, and the point is, we’ve got to get rid of him. We’ve got to make sure that he is permanently removed from a process. Now we have a system which has a lot of weaknesses in it, but without Obama, we would probably have a better chance of solving those problems. So the removal of Obama from the position of government of the United States, or Trump, for example, could also be a guy you want to dump, quickly; he’s a real faker. But the point is, there are many people who could play a useful role in building up our government again. We could do that. We have to have an intention to do that, we have to have an intention to realize that we are going to educate ourselves, educate our population in itself, and we’re going to get goals which make sense, which people cannot be ashamed of, as we are doing now. Right now, the U.S. administration, mostly the top people leading the United States now in terms of government are doing a pretty good job, in some of the crucial positions. Whether they’re perfect or not is not the question: the point is that they’re doing the job, and Obama is the kind of thing that would threaten to destroy doing the job.
ASCHER: OK, I think that makes it very clear. I would just challenge everybody on the call, since this is a critical national forum for discussion with Lyndon LaRouche that you help us to build our audience on this call, and get more people to call in, ask their questions and participate. And obviously we have our Saturday meeting in Manhattan which we also have available on the website, which is a central focus of our organizing.
So thank you very much, Lyn. You’ve made a lot of very provocative statements here this evening. This concludes our 20th Fireside Chat.
LAROUCHE: Thank you.
