News / Brèves Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente LPAC Policy Committee Intervention 5 October 2015 TRANSCRIPT MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it’s Oct. 5th, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and I’m happy to be here as your host this afternoon, for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We’re broadcasting on Google On Air, and I’m joined via video by Bill Roberts, from Detroit/New York City-New Jersey area; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio, I’m joined by Diane Sare and Jason Ross, who spent a good portion last week up in New York; and Mr. LaRouche as well. So, Lyn, I’ll let you begin. LYNDON LAROUCHE: Yes, well, I’ve been pushing over the course of this weekend the fact that we can no longer tolerate the risk which is involved in the renewal of Wall Street’s conditions. And therefore, for that reason, we have to shut down Wall Street, in order to protect the people of the United States, because if Wall Street goes into another cycle, of the type it just went through previously, and it seems to be on a very hot situation for them, this means that the collapse of Wall Street, again, would result in a virtual sweeping out of employment in many parts of the working population. And so therefore, apart from the fact that the crisis is there, we have the condition of Wall Street’s condition, as opposed to the requirements of the people who are still employed, and families that are still involved, and therefore we must take preemptive action. What we’ve done, and what I’ve pushed for, is to have an immediate decision, by relevant members of the Congress, to assemble and deal with the situation as such. That was foreclose against Wall Street without letting them get a bail-out effort. Because the giving another option for bail-out to Wall Street would almost certainly ensure a great catastrophe of the people of the United States. In other words, the kind of breakout that we’re on the edge of, and these things are already serious enough, that you simply find there is no money to continue to pay the people who have been the employees on the El Cheapo scene. So therefore, we have to protect the population. We have to cancel Wall Street. And we have to proceed to restructure the organization of our employment for the intent of actually getting productive processes going into effect, essentially, a more exigent sort of requirement which Franklin Roosevelt did. But what Franklin Roosevelt suffered, and had to face and deal with, is minor compared to what this condition is of the United States right now. And this is combined with what’s happening in Europe, what’s happening in Germany, what’s happening in France, in particular, which in the relatively viable units. So therefore, we’ve come to a condition where we actually have to say, and I’ve been putting the word out, that at this point, we must ask the members of Congress, who are relevant. Now this is also a complicated thing, because we have a batch of new accomplices of irreason, which is it loaded into the Congress. We have people in the Congress who really are not serious people. They’re bums. They should never have been, they’re not really qualified to be members of the Congress. And therefore, we have to take immediate action of that nature, in order to secure the continuation of the U.S. policies’ organization; that is, our national organization, is in now in jeopardy. And the fact that we’re operating largely on this basis, on our concentration on Manhattan, is extremely important, and extremely as such. It’s the one thing that must be done. It is the leading effort that must come on right now. If we do this, and if we get a number of serious members of Congress, ones who really understand what this problem is, and many of them do already have an inkling of what this is all about, that we have to say, we have to act now to prevent a panic, which would really cause the kind of panic, we don’t want to even dream about. And that’s where we are. So therefore, we are in a situation where we’ve got to be absolutely merciless and shut down Wall Street, totally! And they’ve got nothing coming to them except pain. DIANE SARE: Well deserved. Well-deserved pain, I would say. I mean, I think, the way you’re putting this is extremely important, because if you just simply look back, at the two administrations, the Bush-Cheney administration, where the bail-out began, and then the Obama administration, where the bailout was increased by orders of magnitude, and the effect that this has had, literally, it’s sucked the life blood out of anything that was left of the real economy. So we have had record foreclosures. We have had next to nothing done about quote/unquote "natural disasters"; they’re unnatural because mankind is capable of intervening, and we have not. And then you have, of course, record unemployment; I think, in the last eight years the number of homeless children in the public schools has doubled, so this is creating a whole new challenge for the teachers, because they’re dealing with children, who don’t even know where they’re going when the school day is over, who come in hungry. The teachers are buying food for the homeless children showing up in the schools. OGDEN: Hard to do homework if you have no home. SARE: Exactly. So, I mean if you imagine now an accelerated — if you think of what’s happened since the 2008 bail-out, and you imagine that collapse, increased by an order of magnitude faster and in velocity downward, it absolutely — you used the word "slaughter" in your discussion yesterday, which I think is correct. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Oh, all it has, if this bail-out of Wall Street were to occur, that in itself would have a resounding effect, which would hit the poor people, who are still employed, in their families, entirely. And you get into a panic, which is far worse than anything that had to be faced by Franklin Roosevelt, when he got into office. This is much worse. And therefore, we have to actually be manifest —. Now we do have other things on this thing. We do have what Russia is doing. And Obama is really, very angry about what is being done there. But, you know, I’ve been going through this thing. It’s actually right. What Obama has been doing is absolute evil. We don’t even know what that hospital case, who did it; but I got a very good idea of who ordered it. So these are the kinds of things we have to take also into account. But we have the means available, right at this critical point; we do have the means internationally to create a solution for this problem. If it were to go further down the line, from what it is right now, I think it could become impossible to deal with. OGDEN: Well, shutting down Wall Street and cleaning out the Congress really go hand-in-hand, because the majority of the people who are blocking any serious action from within Congress are the ones who are in the pockets of Wall Street. And I think the resignation of John Boehner is a good start along that line, but there’s going to have to be a lot more to come. And there’s a small minority of people, as you were saying, in Congress, who are serious, and who are not beholden to Wall Street, but they have to be freed-up and allowed to do the kind of work to save and protect the American people, that’s necessary. LAROUCHE: Exactly. That’s what my orientation is as of now, as of yesterday, or day before yesterday. This is the problem, and I think what we have to do now, at this moment, in our jurisdiction here, we have to examine that and take into account things that we should think, we think we should add to this roster. And I think we’ve got a bunch of people over, sitting on the other side of the screen, who might have some suggestions on this matter, or some questions, which have the tantamount to the same thing. DAVE CHRISTIE: Well, I’ll just add one thing here, which is, it is unfortunate that a lot of the way that this Congress thinks, even the better members, they think about being on the right side of the issue, you know. And you approach them on Glass-Steagall, even the ones that are for it, and they’ll say, "Well, what are you coming after me for? I’m for Glass-Steagall." But they don’t see it the way that you’re seeing it, Lyn, the way that you put that real urgent sense that this is the slaughter of the American people coming. It’s not something to be on the right side of the issue. And that, I think, is the, I think it’s a partly a both, you know, sort of a result of just the overall cultural degeneration, where people, they just can’t see reality. But I think especially around Wall Street, there’s so much of this market, and you know, market theory, or betting. It’s which way things are going to go, that you can’t really forecast, that it’s going to collapse, and maybe it’ll survive, and maybe it’s not that bad, and people just get delusional, because of this brainwashing that comes around, going along with this monetarist outlook; versus what you’ve laid out very clearly, that it’s gone, the values are insane, and it has to be put out of its misery before the stinking corpse kills us all, of this stinking corpse of Wall Street, that is. LAROUCHE: Yes. SARE: You know, there’s another aspect in Europe, which is being made evident by this refugee situation, because the nations there, for example, Germany, in a break with Obama, has changed their policy to accept 800,000 refugees, and 500,000 more per year, or something like that. But what the nations who have agreed to welcome these people are experiencing, is they don’t actually even possess the infrastructure to handle this. So in a sense, it’s just, it’s making very clear, and it can perhaps also be a driver of a change in policy to something needed, where you have to actually support human life. LAROUCHE: Well that is precisely the case. Now what Germany did, or some of the leaders in Germany, made a very clear conjunctural decision to take the people in and to process the thing. Now, nobody ever thought that we were going to have to depend upon that condition of those people, because the point was with Russia, and this is where people get stupid, really stupid! The whole thing is based on an agreement between the most responsible German officials, and what has happened with Russia. Russia has made a deal, and suddenly made a deal. There’s a real specific point of history where this thing comes to place. Suddenly at one point, Putin said, "I’m going to save, who, across the pond. I’m going to save — right?" So then, what happens is, now suddenly, then, the German population, knowing that Putin has made that decision, were now able to temporarily consolidate, the remedial actions which had to be done immediately. Now these actions that they had, which are on the intermediate period, is not a permanent arrangement. There is some significant arrangement, but what, look at the whole facts of the matter. Forget the gossip. Look at the whole picture. The picture was, where does all of this come from? Well, it comes largely from Obama. How does it come from Obama? Well what happened in Syria? What happened in North Africa? What’s happened throughout the entire region? There’s not a great problem in China. There’s not a great problem in other things, that are stable nations. But in these areas; and what’s happened is that the Obama has run a terrorist operation under his Presidency, from the beginning of his entry into his presidency. So he’s created this operation. Now if we come along and we say" OK, suddenly you get everybody was opposing Russia, opposing Putin. Then, suddenly, no! Quite to the contrary. What was the reason? Because the minute that Putin said, OK, we’re going to go over the border, and go into Asia, and we’re going to deal with this problem, a big sigh of relief came, leading from Germany, but also from other parts of Europe; a sense of relief, why? Because they know that’s the problem. And they know if they get rid of that problem, that the same population which had been flying back into Europe to escape from terrorism, no longer fears the terrorism, at least in the same degree. So therefore, what’s happened is, Obama is trying to maintain the terror; and Clinton, she’s made the same problem. She said, no, you mustn’t do it, you mustn’t do it, you mustn’t save the situation. But she’s an idiot. But she’s actually, really, a puppet of Obama. That’s what she has been for a long time, is essentially a puppet of Obama. And the American people out there, ought to hear that a little more clearly. SARE: Yes. Well, as Putin said, it’s not Assad; the millions of refugees are not fleeing from Assad, they are fleeing from ISIS, which this message has been created by Obama. LAROUCHE: They’re fleeing from Satan. OGDEN: And Putin in his interview with Charlie Rose, and also in his UN speech made it extremely clear, this is the exact same model as Iraq, as Libya; it’s worked fantastically in this two cases, right? Now you want to do it again? So you can see what the results have been: You go in, you remove Saddam Hussein from power, ISIS takes hold. You go in, you remove Qaddafi from power, ISIS takes hold. You want to go in and remove Assad from power? It looks like there’s a trend here, and maybe it wasn’t so accidental after all. LAROUCHE: No, really, it was the British-Obama operation. I mean, people should know what Obama is, what he remains to be: He’s Satanic! His step-father’s Satanic; his actions are Satanic. And who put him in the Presidency? Ahh! There’s the rub. You now, Clinton was going to become the person who would enter into this agreement and carry things forward. And she got eaten, and all her guts were sort of eaten out as well, you know, in terms of political guts. And so that’s what’s going on now. But we have to understand that this is the situation. We have right now, China is a very viable part of the planet; India is a viable part of the planet, not as finable as China is, but a billion people; so therefore, we’re in a situation where we’re not as badly fixed, as looking at the scope of the total planet is. But rather, these particular areas, which are being driven by the British Empire, and with a very special role for the British Empire, by Obama. That’s the problem. And that’s what we have to deal with. So therefore, if we don’t take up the Obama thing as being evil, when it comes to the Wall Street crowd and the members of Congress who are Wall Street-related, will not respond positively. You have to really hit them hard, and say, "Look, Wall Street is bankrupt. If you let it go through this thing, and go through another term of ’easing,’ a cycle of easing, then you’re going to lose the United States. And if any of you guys who are in the Congress who think that’s the right thing to do, you should be removed from office. And we have to get that kind of thing going. MICHAEL STEGER: Well, taking the Obama and Putin question, I think this gives a good example of something, Lyn, that I think you’ve experienced; there’s a famous quote I think from an old foreign minister of Israel, which said, "never underestimate the role of insanity in international politics." LAROUCHE: Oh you know that story. [laughter] STEGER: You might want to recount it, but the factor of Obama is real; that’s a real factor. But the other thing that people overlook is the role of devotion to a higher principle in the course of history. Because what Putin took was that quality of devotion to mankind and mankind’s existence with this intervention into Syria, and the same kind of devotion is necessary today from the American political leaders, to address the Glass-Steagall and financial breakdown question. Because it’s not just a question of doing what’s good; it’s a devotion to something higher, against a consensus, against popular opinion, which actually drives the course of history, while insanity is a much greater factor of the tragedies of mankind. LAROUCHE: You should also add what Putin’s role has been. Putin has, from the KGB role and other things, has been in and out, in his career, as a leading figure in Russia, in Russian policy. He has stepped back, repeatedly, on the assumption that he was in there as a fix-it man, who was to fix something, and he would assume he would do something else later, but always sit in the back room, and if necessary, he’ll come in. That’s what’s happened. So he, the fix-it man, Putin, has operated on the basis of that understanding, and of course, I have this personal correlation with Putin at that point. And since that time, since I watched him from the beginning of that period, on the Chechen case, this was his policy. Therefore, he came out, to bail out Russia, out of the errors and weaknesses of the other administration which had been running Russia in between time. And this is going to work very well. OGDEN: Well, and their intention at that point, was to make Russia into a failed state, in the type that Iraq has become a failed state, Libya has become a failed state, and they wanted to overthrow Putin. And can you imagine turning Russia, with that kind of territory and that kind of population, into a failed state, which is ungovernable? What kind of chaos that would have caused for world civilization? So those who criticize Putin should step back and think about the fact that he has pretty much single-handedly, allowed Russia to maintain its viability and not to turn into.... LAROUCHE: What he’s done, he’s actually maintained his position, but as a, "I’ve done it, now you take a turn at it." OGDEN: Yes, he did that with Medvedev. LAROUCHE: But he never quit from Russia; because of his family background and what they suffered, under Hitler, that they have great tenacity in these matters. And therefore, they will do things, and they will concede things, but they won’t concede the possibility of protecting Russia. OGDEN: If you can survive the siege of Leningrad, you can survive pretty much anything. LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, that’s what his family went through. So, this is what we have to deal with. And I think now, if people in the United States get some sense of what this whole thing is, and I think we can do it, there are people in the Congress, senior people in the Congress who do have a conscience, even a stubbornly opposing one, they will not betray the United States wittingly. Sometimes you have to make it clear to them that is the consequence of their foolishness, and they will change their view. But the important thing is to continue to get a better grip on what we have to do; we have to go to a very immediate action because of the nature of the situation now. We have to actually push and make sure that we make that change. Put Glass-Steagall into effect, put it into effect now, and understand what the special considerations are that go with, reapplying the Glass-Steagall concept. That will do it. Bill Clinton as the next President could be a very useful person in that, despite his wife. That’s a fact, and that’s important. But the thing is, we’ve got to get the people in the United States, we’ve got to get the word out, to the population to people who are sentient about these matters, to understand that this is the problem, and get them to, OK, understand this is the action, this is the issue; this is the war, this is the campaign. And I think our organization as a whole, from the leadership here and so forth, has to do that. It has to understand, that’s the responsibility. SARE: Rachel’s audio is not working, she was just trying to speak. KESHA ROGERS: Well, while she’s fixing that, I think what you just expressed about Putin and his unrelenting, and really, what inspires him or what’s moving him to do what he’s doing is the same thing that moved Franklin Roosevelt to do what he did, and the fact that Franklin Roosevelt represented the same threat to the oligarchy, to the financial establishment, and to the British Empire, that Putin is representing today. And also, just thinking about the role of how — the fact of the matter is that when we’re talking about the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, it’s not just a piece of legislation. It is, to actually, once and for all, do away with Wall Street, and I think that’s the thing that people can’t wrap their minds around because it never happened under Franklin Roosevelt! This has been the fight that you have been pursuing throughout the course of your lifetime for a long time, is that, after the death of Franklin Roosevelt you had various people, leadership, such as President Kennedy, whose life was short term, who tried to carry out that policy that Roosevelt and Hamilton had put forward. And then, also some of it was initiated under President Ronald Reagan through your efforts. But the key thing now is to think about, why is it, reflecting on your role, and especially going back to the debate that we were recently talking about, that you had in 1971, with Abba Lerner, and you exposed what was represented by the murderous policy that was put forth and was intended by the economic policies that were being adopted, which were a protection of Wall Street. And so these individuals made it clear, after Franklin Roosevelt that they would destroy Roosevelt and everything in the legacy that he represented, to create a vision for ensuring peace and security and prosperity for the true pursuit of happiness; and they said the same thing about you, and said that we will never allow somebody to come along and try to destroy that system, which is the Wall Street system. And so, the point being is that, I think we’re now at a point once and for all, where this is not going to be legislation that temporarily removes this system, or puts it in its place, but completely puts it out of business. And to look at what Franklin Roosevelt was doing in that light is extremely important. Because then you’re not just talking about a piece of legislation, but you’re talking about a whole new shift, a whole new paradigm from that perspective. LAROUCHE: It’s not just the United States either. It’s also other parts, not only China, India, other nations of that part, which are not part the whole scheme that Obama’s operating with; it’s not there. So therefore, if you get the Obama factor, and the Bush factor; and what you get also as the other factor, that you are then in a position to understand exactly what the situation is, and map a policy which will work. It’s not too difficult, particularly for my age and so forth, an experience from that standpoint. It’s not difficult for me, to understand how to define a policy of principle, not just a policy as such, but a policy of principle, which can solve this problem. And there are other people on the planet who would agree with me on this thing, who are senior people, and they would agree with this; they would understand it. We have to make a change in the life of mankind, mankind as a whole. We have to bring the nations of mankind into a new form. We’re going to have to get rid of the kind of system of nation-states, and their formation that’s dominated even up to this time. That will not work. We’re going to have a much more cooperative arrangement, among nations which do have national characteristics, but will operate on the basis of common interest, a common practical interest for mankind, rather than saying, "well this is our nation, keep your nose out of it." Our role now has to be on the planet basis, that we have to let the nations each have their own authority, and with their consent. But! we must also look into what must be done on an international relationship, in order to make the system work; that mankind is not going to be based on any kind of tyrannies or approximate tyrannies. Mankind has to be organized by the development of nations. And the development of nations is the mechanism by which we can deal with this problem. STEGER: You know, Lyn, Putin raised something interesting at the United Nations: He referenced the Silk Road project of China, and then the Eurasian Economic Union of Russia and that area, and then he referenced though that each of those projects are integration projects of nations, and then they’ve integrated both of those projects; and he referenced it as the "integration of integration," which seems to be in the direction of what you’re describing. LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. Helga and I have discussed this very much, also, this problem, because she’s had a very special relationship in terms of her developing relationship with China, the China government. And from that standpoint and from what we know about India, and a few other locations, we know that the feasibility of the bringing together of nations, which still retain their specific qualities, like the Chinese "win-win" idea, the same thing as the "win-win" idea. So you say, we win, but we win by winning, that kind of thing. And so, that’s what we have to get into. And it’s easy for us, from the standpoint of fact, maybe not from opinion, but from fact, rather, we could organize the United States very quickly, and change the direction. Now, the problem we have is the stupidity of so many of our citizens, and the stupidity was not something they created; it was induced upon them. People were miseducated, corrupted by all kinds of things; their education was corruption. Everything was done to corrupt them and confuse them. And most of today’s Americans are absolutely stupid; it’s not the fact that they’re bad people, but they’ve been stupefied by being denied the access to the kinds of things which are absolutely necessary. And we have only a tiny minority, relatively speaking, of the U.S. population which is fit to run these kinds of operations. And they will respond to the fact that we’re giving them an opportunity to get into something, which they have been denied, most of them, for their entire lives! For most people, their only opinions of themselves are a disaster; they have no idea of what do to, they think they’re practical, but their idea of practical is self-destruction, or self-destruction collectively. And therefore, we must create this kind of system, where we take the nations which are the leading nations, the ones which are voluntarily leading nations, that is, they have a view which can be translated into practice in short term. And then take the other parts of the population, like take the case in Germany: You have all these people who were driven from the areas of terrorism against them; they were not running away because they were trying to escape something. They were trying to actually escape from being killed! And so therefore, if we protect the people, we can do something with them. And they’re responding; when they’re taken in, as Germany took the population in, and the response has been generally a very good one. It’s not a perfect one, it’s one of great difficulty, and it cannot go on this way forever. But if we can get this thing solves and shut this thing down, this evil, then we can open things up and begin to solve the problem. But right now we have to get the American people themselves, to really understand that that is the reality, which is not just for some other nation, but it’s the reality for them, just as much. We’ve got to grow up, and realize they’ve got to behave in a different way than they’ve been trained to do. OGDEN: And there has to be an element of solidarity between nations, both in terms of this common suffering, but also in terms of the common aims of mankind; so it is a "win-win" idea, but it’s something that’s gone back — I mean, when you were doing the SDI, this is what Edward Teller always talked about, "the common aims of mankind." So there’s a shared sense of solidarity between nations, even if you don’t lose an element of your cultural sovereignty, and your cultural identity as a nation, that new sort of internationalism between nations is from the standpoint of a positive effect, towards working towards something for the mutual benefit. LAROUCHE: Well, you take one of the things that defines that, is what ever happened, to the idea of space exploration by our nation and other nations? What happened there? That was shut down; what was the effect? And Obama was the key figure in doing that, putting the end of it. And what was going on beyond that, with Cheney and so forth, the same thing. And so this is exactly what the problem is, and therefore, we have to understand that we’ve got a stupefied population in the United States, from the present generation. The people who understood these things, have largely been dead! I’m one of the survivors of this generation, that’s still living, still living now. OGDEN: Mm-hmm. One of the biggest crimes on that front, by the way, is the prohibition of any cooperation between the United States and China on space exploration. That’s insane! LAROUCHE: I think that can be about finished very quickly! I think we can do that. ROGERS: I was just going to say on the point of the space exploration, what is determining factor of these nations leading is the fact that they have established that the mission and vision for the future, has to be on promoting the development of the next generation, looking at the future. And you see what China, what India’s doing, Russia, all of their programs are based on, where are our young people? Where do we envision our young people going? What do we see them in terms of their developments, in getting more young people in the fields of science and engineering, and more so in the space program? And you see a complete collapse of this in the United States. And just as a quick example, I went to an event where this was a gathering of former NASA representatives, or retired NASA representatives and the whole room was nothing but people who were over the age between 60 to 80 years old or so; no young people in the room! And when you talk about "what’s your vision? Where are we going? What’s the mission?" Basically it was, "we don’t have one, the only thing that we can do now, is accept the fact that we have to go with commercial takeover of our space program. Because we don’t have the money, look what the Congress has done, look at the budget." And they have accepted this. And so, you look at the fact that Russia and China, they’re not accepting this. They’re saying our prerogative, our priority is to the advancement of the future of our nations, the future of mankind, which is our young people. And once the young people are wiped out of the picture, and not accounted for from that standpoint, that’s when you have a real problem in society. And that’s exactly what’s happened to the demoralization of our space program, and as you said, very clearly, we can blame that on Obama. We saw him dismantle it, just rip it apart. And that has completely demoralized the people. And we have to get the population to recognize that that cannot be tolerated, and especially people within the ranks of our space program. OGDEN: Well, you’ve to a unique perspective on that, Kesha. CHRISTIE: I think that kind of cooperation, this "win-win" approach, see this goes to the heart of the bankruptcy of Wall Street as well. Because if the British Empire had been able to maintain their control, carbon dioxide fraud, and rope nations into an antidevelopment perspective, which they have tried to force down the throat of China and India, and of course they rejected it in Copenhagen; they rejected it again recently, making the point that they need development. And you take the Silk Road, that’s what that is, is that quality of development, that quality of a "win-win" approach of bringing nations together. And you look at this ISIS problem, from basically Istanbul, I mean, giving the Turks persuasion to go along with ISIS through that northern part of Syria and Iraq, through Tehran up through Central Asia, and then over into the Uighur region of China, that’s what they’ve claimed as theirs, which is the middle of the Silk Road. And so, you look at what Putin has done to make the point that, we’re going to move in, we’re going to wipe this out, but they’re not just going to just wipe it out from a military standpoint; they know that the way you really knock it out, is the way that Egypt knocked it out. Egypt has this similar takeover from the Muslim Brotherhood: They could have had a failed state as we’ve seen in Libya and Iraq and so forth. But instead, the leadership of Egypt said, "No, we’re not going to go along with that program, and in fact, we’re going to build up our nation," and they launched the Suez Canal, as part of this One Belt, One Road concept. So, in some ways that may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but what Putin is doing is sort of the street sweepers of the Silk Road, and I just think that that approach calls attention that there’s a new sense of value now in the world. No longer is it Wall Street’s games of manipulating and controlling nations, and sucking their lifeblood through these kinds of swindles, like the carbon, and you know, it’s a new sense of value, which then calls out the fraud of Wall Street, and says, "it’s over." So I think that’s over; so I think that’s part of this bankruptcy. LAROUCHE: It certainly is! Bill ROBERTS: You know, one operative factor in all of this, and I think Lyn you’ve been kind of getting at this, is that, part of the problem we have in the Congress and in the population generally, is a stupidity and a smallness which allows for evil to occur. And I think it was Sergei Glazyev in his book Genocide, points out that, many times the progenitors of genocide are people who don’t at all, in their own minds, actually intend to commit genocide; but nonetheless, that is in fact, what they are doing. And I think that’s the point we’re at with Wall Street, what Congress is about to allow Wall Street to do. But also, — and you may have some things to say and you may disagree, — but I think, you know, you think of the role of Hillary Clinton right now, and there are members of Congress, who had been moving away from Obama that Hillary Clinton is herding back to the policy of the support of Glass-Steagall. But also on the factor of supporting genocide in Syria. And I think what you’re raising in terms of "don’t wait for the vote, if a small portion of people know how this works, and know what their responsibility is, they can lead. But there has to be a swift action now, an intention to do away with this. LAROUCHE: Well, this involves the requirement of planting, a concept in the mind of people, especially people of leading influence, you have to plant in their mind; because what they do, is they brush aside the facts that they don’t want to look at. And you have to confront people with the factors, "this is the fact, and don’t be a schnook all your life." Because that’s the matter of the thing. So therefore, it takes work for us to educate people, to educate the people who are supposed to be leaders of society. We have to educate them, whether they like it or not; because that the situation. If we cannot do that, if we cannot be successful in inducing them, to make a change in the way they think and behave, mankind hasn’t got much of a chance. So don’t kid yourself. What we’re doing right here at this table, is something which is urgently required. And we have people in other parts of the world, as Putin is doing, and what other people are doing, and we who understand this and are not slobs, and thinking about this question, who are willing to commit themselves to that, without what I’m doing and what other people are similarly, internationally as well as locally, this is the action of leadership, which must be taken now! If we don’t do it, you’re putting the whole history of mankind in jeopardy. SARE: There are also some people who want to be educated, for example, some of the response we’re getting in Manhattan, and particularly around the music work, where the musicians are politicized to a degree that I have never before experienced. And it’s just fascinating, I mean, you had the insight about this choral process, but it’s definitely something that people really are responsive to in a way that is quite unprecedented. LAROUCHE: Well, all I’ve done is, just, I knew what is needed, and I put the question, of what is actually needed, and what they will have, is they will have something that they are already are ready to agree to. But they don’t know how to carry it forward; so what I do, is I insist that they answer the question first. And then, I can fix the thing that they didn’t attend to, which I think they are capable of understanding, is what I can do next. And that’s the only way it works. The educational process is to induce people who are well-meaning people, and who have certain degrees of skills and qualifications, various kinds of qualifications; and you can bring an assortment of people together who have different kinds of qualifications and bring them together and have them interact. So but always, the factor is, to bring the group of people involved, leadership, so that they are induced to recognize things that they would not, but their own lights, recognize. They would look at something which is an approach to something which needs to be considered, but they aren’t able to consider it. And therefore, if you speak, as I often do with these visitors, is, they say something, and most of the stuff is either right, or wrong in a sense, in a simple, way, or relatively simple way; some of them are sharper than others. But then, when I look at the thing, and I look at what they are not seeing, but which is in the line of the subject that they are talking about; and when we come to an agreement on that, that’s how they’re encouraged. They’re encouraged to realize that there is something, that if they think about it, it does work. But if you have a practical approach to society, if you think that public opinion determines the success of mankind, that is absolute crap! In this society, the practical man is a menace to society himself. Unless you can stir them up to see, a necessary change in the way they think, but give them the credit for what they do do, and what they do understand, and then say, — give ’em a nudge, to consider something additional. Jason ROSS: Yeah. And that makes people human. If you’re practical, even if the opinions that you hold, even if the popular opinions you hold in themselves might seem to be right, by virtue of your agreeing with them on the basis of their popularity, you don’t actually know any of them to be true. So when people go around life that way, they’re not being human, they’re not knowing things through a process of discovery. And you think about the basis for a vision, that China represents right now, or the basis of Putin’s flank in Syria; the reaction that we saw at the UN, with how that changed people’s perceptions of what was possible in the world by Putin overthrowing what people considered to be an untouchable sort of U.S. position, you know, that’s all very good: We clearly have to make that change in the U.S. right now. You know, I just hope people dont think that Putin’s going to — Putin can’t do it on his own. Clearly, we’ve got an insane murderer as our President, who would be much happier to blow up the whole world, than let something like that occur, and is in that direction right now. But if people have a basis for optimism, a basis in knowing in themselves, "hey, I’ve discovered I know something; I’ve gone out and I’ve tried to change the world, and I’ve learned something from doing that." And that really comes across in these discussions that you have with the people in Manhattan. Because the people on the other side, that you see on the screen there, the people in Manhattan, they’re active! These are people who are making hypotheses, and actually trying them out, most of them, trying them out, trying to change where the world’s going to go; and that brings an entire different level of intelligence and thinking ability than the bystander who’s observing things. LAROUCHE: No, you have to chart a path of affinity in concepts, that’s what it amounts to. You get them on a road where the subject is one which merits affinity, but they don’t know how to carry it further; so if you can suggest something to them to consider, as a supplement to what they already are inclined to accept, then you create, in a crowd of people, you create a kind an educational system, of a different kind, a special kind. And if you can bring factors in which are educational in that way, and they are the ones who are making the educational change, by their own participating action, that’s the way you educate society, whether it’s from babies, to ancient adults, it’s the same business. And once you understand that, when you try to be practical, you’re an idiot. Because you’re more of a nuisance and a waste of time, than anything useful for the rest of humanity. You have to actually have an act of live, toward mankind, and you’re concerned like a person, an older person and you’re trying to get the people to see something which will help them to move society forward. And that’s what the whole business is. I mean, I’ve spent most of my life educating people, and it works, but you have to have a devotion to their concern, as the Quakers would say. Only I wouldn’t take the Quaker position, in practice; I know this all too well! OGDEN: It’s a well-represented demographic at this table. [laughter] LAROUCHE: No, so the problem is, we have to play that particular role. Don’t try to debate issues; that’s crazy. It doesn’t mean anything. Let people express what they believe may be the case, and then discuss it; and see if that discussion in process actually produces some improvement in the common understanding of them and other persons around them. That’s the educational process, that’s what you want to do if you were teaching in schools, teaching in universities, that’s what you really have to do. If you can do that, if you can think that way and react that way, in terms that you have a responsibility to help the persons you’re addressing, to get an increment of insight, into what they need to know. And it’s a loving aspect, toward people you’re dealing with. You care about them. And you don’t want them to get damaged, you don’t want them to get stupefied or frustrated in a very destructive way. You just don’t want that! You want them to come into the fold, shall we say, in terms of understanding the people around them. That’s how society works, when it works properly. And the time has come to do that, it’s getting urgent. Rachel BRINKLEY: Can I be heard? OK. Yeah, I think that Republicans and Democrats, actually have — so-called Republicans and Democrats, Independents, people who hate both parties, yeah, absolutely, they’re sick of the system altogether, they want unity. As Dave brought up with this question of economic development, of people attacking China for "win-win" cooperation, saying it can’t possibly be that, they want their own interests. Because, the attack is on the real principle of this concept of unity in intention, is the most powerful and important thing in the world, and we are entering a period where we have a possibility of a unification of mankind. But that can only be done if we recognize the Wall Street system and its intention in the United States; but that is a common threat to the people of the United States, and I think we can unify them around this cause and policy. But we do need to provide them the means to see out of it. LAROUCHE: Yes. Precisely so. STEGER: And Lyn, this question of urgency that you’ve raised, I think can’t be emphasized enough: You said yesterday, we needed to have this done last night. So I think the question of moving on this is not something of a prolonged discussion; this is something that must take effect over the coming days. LAROUCHE: It requires emphasis on agitation. OGDEN: Well, I think that’s the key word of the afternoon. So is there anything else that needs to be added at this moment, or is that a good place to end? I think we should finish the discussion here, and I’d like to thank everybody for joining us, and ask you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.