LaRouche on The Stockwell Show
January 9, 2012 • 3:08PM

On January 9, 2012, Lyndon LaRouche appeared on the Jack Stockwell Radio Show. Below is the text transcript. Download the audio by clicking the link on the right.

JACK STOCKWELL: Everybody, kind of a surprise guest, we were able to schedule here at the last second: Mr. Lyndon LaRouche himself, who hasn't been on my show for some time, but has made some time available to be on the show this morning. I was just reading the headlines here about Leon Panetta, and Iran, and the bomb, and several other things, Mr. LaRouche, I would love to be able to get into during this hour. I don't know how much time we have with you.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I don't know. I think sometime between the two of us, we have something, a connection here.

STOCKWELL: Well, several things I want to talk about, a little bit about the candidates, a little bit about the gravity of the situation right now. There doesn't seem to be one candidate out there, that understands the financial condition and the mess we're in. [LaRouche chuckles] The market futures are still moving down, the race to attack Iran is still on.

And one of the things I've tried to get across to my listening audience for the last decade, I suppose it would be, is the failures of a monetary system versus a credit system, that was based on the ideas of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, back at the beginning of our country, and how that plays into the need to return to Glass-Steagall, as well as a change in the economic system, because I don't think Glass-Steagall, in and of itself will completely answer the question.

LAROUCHE: It will not. No, it will not.

STOCKWELL: So, maybe we start off with that.

LAROUCHE: Okay, good.

STOCKWELL: So, my question is, I notice that there are more and more Congressmen, slowly, but more and more Congressmen signing on to the Prudent Banking Act of 2011, that would be able to reestablish the Glass-Steagall principle. But, as I listen to these clowns passing themselves off as Republican candidates, I don't hear any discussion of this, except, "we need to have more jobs," and how Barack Obama has kind of wrecked the job-resurrection ship that he promised to give when he was campaigning four years ago.

To me, the real issues at hand aren't even being discussed by the candidates.

LAROUCHE: Precisely. That's what — we did something yesterday, which will probably be up on the site today, which is about a one-hour program, video, and it covers exactly that.

The two things which are crucial here: First of all, we need Glass-Steagall. We need exactly the Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall; they shouldn't monkey with that at all in the process. There'd be a tendency for people to monkey and compromise, and you end up with worse than nothing. But Glass-Steagall has to come first, which means that we're going to clean out the merchant banking system. Because we can not carry the merchant banking system. What we have to do, is go through the banks, and take those accounts which qualify as Glass-Steagall equivalent. They have to be protected. Those that are merchant-bank connected, will just have to go on their own. In other words, we can not engage in gambling.

But that won't be enough, because the wreckage that's been done so much, so far, since the cancellation of Glass-Steagall, so much damage has been done, especially since 2008, that the whole banking system, if we put everything that's called a banking system under protection, we can't bail it out! That can not be bailed out. There's no chance.

STOCKWELL: Well, they're all bankrupt now anyway!

LAROUCHE: That's right. So therefore, we have to save banks that are, what are commercial banks in effect. We take those parts which are commercial banks and put them in one category where they belong, and the so-called merchant banking and similar kinds of things, the gamblers, put 'em in another one, which is what the original system of our government was. So, if we do that, we will save some banks — we can't save them all, but we can save parts of banks that qualify as commercial banking systems.

That won't be enough, however, because there's not enough money left over in the nominal money system, to carry the economy. And you can only do it with a credit system, not any kind of a money system, because there just is not enough there.

A normal commercial banking system, has limits on what it can take on. A credit system does not. And we need enough cash being advanced through the credit system, to get sort of a full-employment program, and a rehabilitation program for things that have been shut down. If we don't do that, we're not going to save the nation.

STOCKWELL: What a lot of people out here, Lyn, have a difficult time conceiving of, and getting clear into their own consciousness, is that a credit system doesn't involve money in the issuance of that credit.

LAROUCHE: No.

STOCKWELL: It involves money out in the private sector, where we still have a free-market, open free enterprise system of competition with one another. But instead of something like a private banking system with the Fed, that plays with the currency, plays with interest rates, plays with the lives of the people that have been destroyed in just the last few years, a credit system operates completely different from that. Can you explain that a little bit more for my listeners?

LAROUCHE: Yeah. All right: A credit system is what we had. That's what was originally established, and it was a Federal system. It was based on a National Bank. In other words, the Federal government creates an account, called a National Bank. And this account can be utilized, or tapped, under appropriate conditions, under government supervision. We now have the Federal Reserve System, can not be bailed out; there's no possible way of saving the Federal Reserve System now.

STOCKWELL: Nor is there any chance of paying off the national debt.

LAROUCHE: Of course not! You can't! So, the way you get rid of it—if you go to Glass-Steagall, you get a category of the banking system, which you can't cover. You can back it up. But the other part, the big part, which is the bailout part, in other words, the whole bailout system, is going to be cancelled. It'll either be cancelled by us, as the nation, or it will cancel us, one of the two! And the Federal Reserve System has been totally contaminated with this stuff, so you can not use the Federal Reserve System, as a bank any more.

As a matter of fact, there's no private banking system at all, which can handle the great deficit we have in funds, needed to keep the economy going. So therefore, we go to a replacement for what they tried to use the Federal Reserve System for. In other words, the Federal Reserve System was a fraud in the beginning! It was put in there, to try to prevent a commercial banking system of a Federal type, that is, a federally protected banking system.

So now we're stuck at a point where we have to go to a credit system entirely. It'll be Federally backed, but the Federal government will have to, by a law, will have to make the law of the lawful decisions which say what can be assigned to this account, of a credit system. Because, the problem is, with what we call a normal banking system, the private aspect, you can not get enough money out there to loan, to save this economy. That kind of banking system can not do it.

The only kind of system that can do it, and this is exactly what Washington and Hamilton faced, because they had a hopelessly bankrupt nation coming out of the victory over the British, so therefore, we have to go to the same method, which is a credit system, a Hamiltonian credit system, which means we go back to create what was shut down by the British agents, who shut down the National Banking system.

Put the National Banking back into place. And unfortunately [Andrew] Jackson, who was tied to the British through Aaron Burr, who was then dead, but Burr had a replacement in terms of Van Buren; and so, Van Buren who was replacing and continuing the role, now put us into the great crisis of 1837, the great bailout crisis. So, we have to go back, now, again, get rid of the Jackson decision, go back to National Banking, and under National Banking, we can create sufficient credit, regulated in its amount by government decision, and that banking system will supply the credit needed, to put people back to work and get some jobs done.

It's going to mean of lot of things, like, we're going to have to rebuild the railway system, under a new form. We're going to have to go with NAWAPA: We need that, absolutely! We're now going into a completely new weather system, because the North Pole is essentially melting, and this is not a bad thing, this is a good thing! But we're going to have a great opportunity now, with the new development of our economy, and the economy of other countries: If you look at the North Pole area, the Arctic area, this is the great area of opportunity for great growth.

And these kinds of things will do it: We have to get full employment for our people, and those who are not employable but who need sustenance, we're going to have to provide the credit system for that, too.

STOCKWELL: Now, by a credit system, we're talking about the Federal government, the Department of the Treasury, extending credit at low interest rates on long-term contracts, to banks in the private sector, who then, in turn, extend that credit, marked up a percent or two, on top of what they have to pay the central government, to loan money back out into the private sector, where there is none now; to loan money back into the private sector, for those kinds of projects that literally rebuild the infrastructure and scientific backbone of this country.

LAROUCHE: Well, you need two things. You can't do it all in the private sector. That was the idea of Hamilton's solution, for National Banking. That credit is assigned to a National Bank. And that is a government-regulated, government-directed National Bank. It replaces the fakery that was done with the Federal Reserve System.

But the point is, what has been that what has been done to ruin the Federal Reserve System, which was always sort of a defective instrument, but it functioned; what was done, we just loaded the Federal Reserve System, from 2008 on, we loaded it with this debt, this worthless debt, and the bailout debt! And the bailout debt has totally bankrupted the United States; a similar kind of process has ruined and bankrupted all of the nations of Europe, including the British Empire, and therefore, no regular banking system, no private banking system, of any kind, can handle this problem. We will have a backup for the regular banks, that is, in the credit system, we'll have a backup for the banks. But the main thing will be the Federal government, and the Federal government, through the National Banking system, will assign what it does...

STOCKWELL: All right, I'm going to interrupt you there, because we have to take a quick commercial break. But as soon as we get back, are we any better off here, than the Europeans? My guest Lyndon LaRouche will be right back... [break]

It's 7:23 here in the Inter-Mountain West, ninth day of January; this marvelous Monday morning, you're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk show program. My guest this morning, and a friend of mine for over a decade, now, well over a decade, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, calling in from Leesburg, Virginia. We've been talking about the monetary banking system, versus the National Banking system — the Queen's system versus the Alexander Hamilton system. You have been under the domination of the Queen, my friends, much more and to a deeper degree than you probably are even aware of.

Now, before we went to break, Lyn, I was asking the question a question: Are we any better off than the Europeans? When we look at Europe, we look at what's happened to Greece, and Italy, now Spain and Portugal; France right behind it, the imposition of unelected people associated with Goldman Sachs being put in charge of these countries. We get the idea over here, that because of all the varieties of languages and peoples and cultures, and ethnic diversity, that somehow we are isolated from them, and we don't share their problems.

LAROUCHE: Oh, we are very much sharing their problems. We don't have the worst problem: The worst problem is in Continental Europe, or Western and Central Europe, where they no longer have sovereignty! There is no national sovereignty in any of the nations of Western and Central Europe. There is the British system, but that's part of an empire — that's nothing to do with us, in that sense.

So the point is, these nations in Western and Central Europe, Continental Europe in particular, are absolutely bankrupt. They have no national sovereignty! They have no government of their own. They are under administration of the international financial system. And that's their problem.

Our problem is, we're in a similar situation, but we still have national sovereignty — well, until our current President takes it away entirely.

STOCKWELL: Well, didn't he do that a week ago, on Dec. 31st? Didn't we move from a decrepit republic that's expressed a democracy, into now a dictatorship?

LAROUCHE: Well, it is a dictatorship under these military terms, the whole series of recent votes, allowed by him. And his whole policy: This guy is not morally fit to be President, that's the real problem here. And if you look at the amount of illegal things he's done, the things he's done as a dictator, and nobody's stood up to him to stop it.

But we are in better shape — we still have — all we have to do is have this guy out of office, and he's perfectly impeachable. There's nothing about him that isn't impeachable: That's his best quality, is that he's impeachable. But we have to impeach the guy. There are two ways to go at it: First of all, his mental case. His behavior is of a type, that under our law, he should be suspended from the Presidency, under Article 4 of our Constitution —

STOCKWELL: Yeah, the 25th Amendment.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, right. And under that system, he should be removed from office, lifted from office, or held up out office, suspended for a while, while we consider whether he's going to be dumped under that law.

Then we have the other case, of course, which the rest of our system, is in deep trouble. And the laws which are impeachable offenses which this President has made, give us two reasons for him to leave office: 1) Section 4 of the 25th Amendment; and the other thing, is he's violated the law in various ways. So, he's impeachable, as well as suspendable.

STOCKWELL: Well, what he's done with Libya, what he's threatening to do with Syria and Iran. And the fact that we now have flag-level officers in our Department of Defense, who are coming out adamantly against this move toward World War III — where's Congress in this? Where's the House of Representatives, that could bring an impeachment against him?

LAROUCHE: You've got a few people in the Congress who have guts. Mostly they don't. This is the big problem. They're intimidated, they've been intimidated for a long time, and particularly, the crimes that were committed under President Bush, these two terms under him, and this thing, were all pretty much impeachable stuff. It was actually the Cheney administration, called the Bush administration, and that thing ruined us. What really ruined us, was, it started under Bush, before he was out, what happened with the bailout system, and that's done it to us. So we are not going to be a nation if this President remains President.

STOCKWELL: When the Bush bailouts started that Obama accelerated, there were some appearances before Congress, House Banking and Senate Banking Committee of such characters as Alan Greenspan, who admitted in their testimony, "Well, we made a mistake somewhere. Somewhere we were wrong with our ideas of finance." There had to be more going on than just somebody "on the wrong path"! There must have been some dynamic going on here —

LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure, sure.

STOCKWELL: Of a calculated nature!

LAROUCHE: Yes! With that, you go back to him, Alan Greenspan, you go back to the early 1980s, before became in charge of the system. But he did it! He did it first in a private capacity, and he continued that role when he was appointed in charge of the system. And so, Alan Greenspan is the one who created the problem. Of course, there was an original one, which was the first thing, done in 2001, and that sunk us. And that was done by people who had been at this thing for a long time.

As a matter of fact, the whole thing goes back to Truman pretty much. Truman made a change from Roosevelt: What Truman did was just said to Winston Churchill, "Okay, you take over." And so, actually Winston Churchill and Wall Street took over our government, and pretty much injured it, seriously. Fortunately we got Eisenhower in there, but Eisenhower did not have the power he would have had, if he'd been, say, made President earlier. So he did good things, but there weren't enough of them.

What Kennedy started was good, after a shaky first start on this problem. But then, what happened, they killed him, and they killed him, what was not going to happen, and on this, Kennedy had an agreement with some generals, especially Douglas MacArthur and also Eisenhower's support, that we would not go into a long war in Asia. And some people got very upset with the President, because he wouldn't allow us to go into a war in Asia, in Southeast Asia. And so therefore, he was killed! And after the President was killed, we went into a long war, in Southeast Asia. And then we continued along that line, then his brother...

STOCKWELL: But we've never really recovered from that, to this day.

LAROUCHE: That's exactly it! We were badly injured by what happened under Truman. Truman was actually a traitor in the sense of what the Roosevelt policy had been, and commitments before then. We began going down! We had big cutbacks in our growth program, for real recovery after the war! But we survived; we survived because of Eisenhower. And then Kennedy launched a further program, with support from people abroad, cooperation from people abroad, such as in Germany and France, and so forth. And we were on the road back. And then, Jack said, we're not going to go to this war; MacArthur advised him, we must not go into a long war in Asia. Kennedy was killed, and since that time — and since his brother was killed, who was just on the verge of being nominated as a candidate as the candidate for Presidential election: When he was killed, and we got what we got, Nixon, we never recovered! We never recovered to the present day.

There've been some people who've tried to do things in government, to repair some of the damage that had been done.

STOCKWELL: What about Reagan?

LAROUCHE: Reagan was well-intentioned, but remember, in our system, the President was not as powerful as people thought he was. And Reagan was not as powerful as people thought he would be, because other people had taken over so much of the reins of government: For example, on the SDI...

STOCKWELL: Yes.

LAROUCHE: I created the thing back in the late '70s — '77, actually, I started it. Then I began to get support from people who had been in the OSS and so forth, and from foreign governments, from France, in Germany, from Italy, and other places. And then we got it from the Soviet Union, once Reagan was coming in, I approached the Soviet government and said, "We're doing this, we suggest you look at this and come along with us and cooperate with us on this, and we'll get some problems out of the way." And they started.

But then you had this British agent, who came in as the "Tsar of Russia," in a sense, and they stopped it.

STOCKWELL: Gorbachov?

LAROUCHE: Well, Gorbachov was later. Gorbachov is a real foul ball! Both these guys were British agents, actually; Gorbachov is still a British agent. That's a little kind of problem with Russian politics [crosstalk]...

STOCKWELL: Well, you listen to Gorbachov speak on the Middle East situation for two minutes and you know who he works for.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely! And he always did! That's whole point: The whole crew came in. You had a shift that went with the Hungarian crisis. Out of that, in came a change in the policy of the Soviet Union, a fundamental change. There were many changes were made, but the first change was Khrushchov, who was really a British agent, and the death of Stalin and this British agent coming, began to change things. That's how we got into some of these problems.

But then things seemed to stabilize a bit, and in the late 1970s, I was in touch with people in various parts, in discussion with these people, and so we had some discussion going, on what the possibilities were. But when Reagan came in, and I got a signal from the Reagan White House before he was actually in the White House — he had been elected, but he was not in the White House then. And so, I reported to Reagan what my opinion was on the situation with the Soviet Union and with us, and his office, or people in his office, who were going to be in his office, said that I should continue on this program myself. So I did; and once I started that, I picked out the Soviet official who was working as a diplomat in the United States, and talked to him; and he got a clearance from his office, back there in Russia, and so we went ahead. And by that time we were accumulating vast support from Germany, from France, from Italy, especially; and we were going ahead on this idea.

Then, suddenly, when Andropov came in, we got the Nyet!. But then, Reagan stuck to it! He proposed it, he put the thing forward, got turned down by our own Congress, and then, kept at against Gorbachov. But he never had the clout, in the actual government: There were too many things in there that were wrong, and so, Reagan was not as powerful as you might have thought he was.

STOCKWELL: Well, there's a lot of deregulation, and some other things, here, back in our country that were going on under his term, that he wasn't strong enough to stop, that I think was part of the Bush regime getting ready to set the stage for what Greenspan eventually did economically.

LAROUCHE: Well, he was doing it already! Greenspan got in there in the late '80s, but before he became in his official position, in his private capacity he was already doing it, and he was operating under orders from London.

STOCKWELL: So this is orchestrated, this isn't a serious of just bad, stupid decisions, on a basis of stupid electorate and that put stupid people into office. This is an orchestrated, calculated attempt, to reacquire the colonies.

LAROUCHE: Exactly! Well, specifically, what happened? The minute that Roosevelt died, the policy of the United States was changed by a Wall Street maven, Truman. And Truman said to Churchill, effectively, "you run it, I take your orders." So from that point on, except what was done by Eisenhower in a few cases to rebuke the British, and what was done by Kennedy, which was an even greater rebuke of the British, and then, when Kennedy insisted that we were not going to go into a war in Southeast Asia, then he was killed. And when his brother was within days of being nominated as the Presidential candidate, was assassinated too!

STOCKWELL: Yeah, 'cause he would have beaten Nixon without any effort.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely: That was it. So therefore, it's this history of the fact that we lost our guts, in various ways, beginning with Truman: We lost our guts, and we allowed these things to happen to us, like the same thing happened with the Soviet Union. Stalin was Stalin, of course, but what replaced him was British controlled! Khrushchov was a British agent! I know it! I mean, I know the names and dates and so forth on that one: And Khrushchov sold out to the British. And the British were playing the Soviet Union against the United States! That was the problem, and the British did it!

STOCKWELL: All right. We're going to go to a break here again, in a few minutes. My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, calling from Leesburg, Va. When we get back, I want to play up that idea a little bit more, Lyn, where you said here a moment ago, "we've lost our guts." Somehow we've lost our moral directive and our moral reasons for the existence of this country: What does it take to get it back?

We'll be right back, don't go away... [break]

It's 7:45 here at the radio station; you're listening to the Jack Stockwell Radio Talk Show Program. My guest is Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, calling in from Leesburg. One of the places, everybody, that I usually check for news updates because I've got probably a dozen sources around the whole planet that I check, so that when I'm bringing you the news of the day, especially on update shows, I try to be up to the minute, as far as the facts and what's going on: One of the places I always check is larouchepac. com. Constant updates, lots of good information, some of it is rather academic, I have to admit, and so you may have to listen to it once or twice. But, as far as the social concepts, economic concepts, political concepts that America needs to face, and face immediately, these are well-discussed, laid out in a very easy to understand manner. I suggest that you do that.

Those of you who are not internet savvy, and need a phone number, a toll free number for more information, here it is (800)929-7566. To be able to get some more of the information that Mr. LaRouche is talking about, should you decide to do so. And I encourage it, because one of the greatest political, economic minds, as far as I'm concerned is on the line with me right now, of a contemporary nature. And you've got to read — which most people don't do; most people just listen to somebody else's opinion — you need to find out, and come up with, not an opinion, you need to have not just an opinion! I'm talking about knowledge here! I'm talking about coming to — and of course, you kind of got to trust your senses to do so, but you've got to come to a knowledge, of where we are, economically, politically, socially in this country. Not just an opinion. An opinion is just a tear in the rain, it doesn't go anywhere, it's not going to do anything. You've got to get that empowerment that comes from understanding the situation, and then understanding the cure, that's necessary to get us out of that mess.

And as far as productive economy is concerned, I know of no better answer to the problems we face, than what Mr. LaRouche has proposed through the return of Glass-Steagall, the implementation of the North American Water and Power Alliance projects, as well as a return to the original system espoused by President George Washington and his right-hand man, Alexander Hamilton.

Now, in the few minutes we have left here, Lyn, in this first hour, you made the comment, "we've lost our guts." Now, who do you mean by "we"?

LAROUCHE: I mean most of our members of our Congress. Now, you break it down a bit, because you find people in both houses, that is the Democratic and Republican parties, you find people who have guts, and knowledge, and brains, real brains. But you have, in the majority, we have a political system where I'm afraid that terrible slogan of the Congress, "Go along to get along," and that's what they do: Most of them, when it comes to legislation, they go along to get along! Truth, national interest, often suffers, usually suffers, in that kind of legislation.

And we've been getting worse, and worse, and worse, and of course, especially since Kennedy was killed. Nothing has been working any more. You have people who try, you know, Clinton has tried on some of these things; some things I bawled him out, in a sense for what he didn't do, which is usually where I find he makes mistakes is in what he doesn't do that he should have done; but he also is operating under what he thinks is practical, what he thinks he can still be President, then, or the equivalent now; because he doesn't think it's practicable. And I go by the standard that, if it has to be done, if it's necessary, then, it is practical, and we better find a way to make it happen. And there are too many times we have not made it happen under various presidents.

And I remember a few that I thought were pretty good: I thought that Eisenhower did not do a bad job at all, and did many good things, and courageous things. Jack Kennedy did excellent things, and some other Presidents along the line, once in a while, did something really good. But it was not consistent. And so, we've had a weakness in government ever Truman got his paws on it.

STOCKWELL: Well, how strong is the influence of the empire, then, in our Congress, and especially in the Executive?

LAROUCHE: I don't think it's a fixed thing. I think, you know, revolutions are always possible, of one kind or another. Right now, I know that the great majority of the U.S. population wants a change. What holds them back, generally, is either they don't think they can do anything about it, they think it's out of their powers; they talk about "other people," "them, they," so forth, and they don't see themselves as embodying power. They sometimes get enraged, and they get powerfully enraged, sometimes. But the power for getting the job done, doesn't come through. Rarely we do, but most of the times, we lose.

Now, what I'm doing right now, for example, I'm not running for President — you know, I'm a little bit old for that sort of thing — but we just did something this weekend, which will be posted some time today, I believe: I did an interview with our six candidates for Federal office; we will have more, but we're getting this thing going. Because I saw what this Republican slate did, in their Iowa operation — I don't know if they did it: I don't know what happened in that back room, so I'm not going to certify anything! But what they offered and what they proposed, was a mess!

And we have the other side, right now we have this current this President, and he's worse than a mess! He's utterly impeachable, and otherwise, throw him out!

So therefore, we don't have, right now, a we don't have a prospective, qualified President, candidate for President, in the United States! And we're already starting the countdown for selection and nomination and election of a new President... and we don't have anybody online right now, for that job!

And we're facing the worst crisis the United States has ever faced, an existential crisis: We're on the verge of a thermonuclear war! Because what's going on here is not just Syria and Iran: The intention is, just think, it's an obvious thing in some respects. Here we are the world is bankrupt, especially the trans-Atlantic world is hopelessly bankrupt! There's hyperinflation all over the place! But Asia, Russia, while it's still weak from what it went through, has programs, initiatives under its current President and his associate, and in China and to some degree in India, and so forth. So Asia is injured, by this global financial crisis, but it's not fatally injured.

Europe, Africa, North America and most of South America, are virtually fatally injured, financially, economically! So what happens, then, the British, who are running this operation — the United States isn't running anything right now; the British are giving orders, and they've got a British stooge, Obama, who's doing what they want him to do!

So what's up now, from the British, but with the aid of this President we have, is they're going toward a thermonuclear war against Russia, China and other parts of Asia. Why? Because the intention is to destroy Europe and the United States, as least as powers, to ruin them, and to reduce the population of Europe and the United States: Population reduction is the name of the game, and that's what our current President is involved in.

But the other side is, if they're going to take down — they've already taken down Europe; no nation in Western or Central Europe, except England, has any sovereignty! None! They don't have governments any more: they have "governance"! In other words, the entirety of Western and Central Europe is a puppet of the British Monarchy. They have no national authority whatsoever. In the United States, we still have national authority, but it's been sabotaged under British direction by means of the Obama Administration. They're going to a population reduction program, which the British Monarchy has announced during this past year: The reduction of the world population, the British Monarchy itself, the royal family, held a meeting: The policy is the reduction of the human population from presently 7 billion people on this planet, to 1. That's their policy!

They are now doing that. For example, by spring of this year, in the United States, by spring of this year, we will have a food shortage, which will be a genuine mass killer! We've lost crops, we have an international management system, over agriculture which is going to reduce the food supply still more, and raise the prices; and as the food supply drops, the prices will go up. These are the circumstances, now.

But in Russia, China, and other parts of Asia, while they're suffering from this world problem, they are not suffering fatally, at this time, economically. So therefore, the job, then, if you're going to carry out this policy in the trans-Atlantic region, you're going to have to ruin the nations in the Asian region. There's only one way you can do that: Thermonuclear weapons. We have the U.S. which has the greatest thermonuclear capability for military purposes on the planet. We have our fleet in the eastern part of the Mediterranean; we have our fleet below Iran. These fleets contain the core or the supporting elements of the core of a capability, supported by British and other powers, to obliterate, much of Russia, and China, and so forth.

We're on the edge of doing that. The thing that's happened to stop that, a short time ago, a number of our leading military officers said, "No such war." So therefore, instead of going directly from the Libyan operation, into the launching of the thermonuclear attack on Asia, we were held back. In the meantime, Europe, between these two points, between the fall of Libya, and now, Europe is cracking. The euro system is breaking apart. It can not hold much longer. It's disintegrating.

STOCKWELL: All right, I want you to hold that thought. I'm going to keep you over, if I can.

LAROUCHE: Why sure.

STOCKWELL: All right, you can take a break. We're going to probably be on a break for about five minutes, but when we get back, the question I've got to ask, will it get to a point, where the military will stop Obama?

LAROUCHE: I hope so.

STOCKWELL: We'll be right back after the news, with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche ... [break]

All right, we're back, 8:06... here at the K-Talk Studios in Salt Lake City. You're listening to the Jack Stockwell Radio Talk Show program. This show is being recorded, and it'll be up on the website later today. My guest is Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, I'm talking to him live from Leesburg, Va. Another good news source, that you may just want to take a look at every day, in your own personal gathering of the news, such as I do, is larouchepac.com: It's a great source of not just the political and the economic, but the science as well, as they all come together in defense of humanity.

Now, during this hour, I've written down some notes here, Lyn, I wanted to get to, and one of them's a very touchy question: Is there a possibility, and I know with the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, here, a week ago, any one of us could now be in serious trouble, asking questions like this: But, is there a possibility of the military getting to a point where they themselves will stop Obama's push for thermonuclear war? That's number one.

And then, the other question, something I learned a long time ago in my examination of the political history of this country is, if you don't ask the right questions, you don't have to give the right answers. [LaRouche laughs] And one thing that always entertains me, is these moderators at these Republican debates: They don't even get anywhere near the right questions! And it looks like a third-grade cat fight going on between some of these people. So my question to you, is, if you were the moderator at these Republican debates, what kind of question would you be asking of these people?

But if you could answer that military question, first, I'd appreciate. Now, I know, you have contact with certain levels of military intelligence, and that may not be an appropriate question for the radio.

LAROUCHE: I can say this, that over the period of years especially since 1977, I've had increasing influence in all kinds of circles, in and outside the United States. We were set back by major attacks a couple of times on me, but right now, I don't lack significant contact with leading people of all kinds inside the United States, Europe, and beyond, so that's not the problem. The problem is getting the combination together, to act together, which is needed to get the job done, that has to be done. That's where the problem lies. I don't have any problem with that kind of thing.

What I'm doing right now, will have significant influence. It does. It has in a very special kind of way, because first of all, you're talking about people who do know what is going on in the world. And the fact that they do know, gives them the confidence to rise to the level of stating opinions.

STOCKWELL: Well, then, certainly there are people in the House and in the Senate, who really know, — maybe just a few — but really know what's going on in the world, and who our enemy is.

LAROUCHE: Exactly. And you've got people in the system, so to speak, all throughout the system, who are intelligent people, who are capable people, but they don't represent enough people or enough power as such, to actually force something through. To influence something, you can always get a very large minority now, among politicians, leading politicians, especially Senate and so forth, who know what's going on! As opposed to the dummies. But we never quiteget enough of a combination of knowledge and courage, to actually put anything forth as a majority opinion. And that's what we have to deal with right now.

We have a certain number of people, who are capable, who can understand, and who will act, if they have the chance, the problem is, those are a minority presently, and we have to get to a majority.

STOCKWELL: And your organization has at least, what is it? eight candidates this fall?

LAROUCHE: Well, there are six who are officially on. We'll have — I've held back on that until we were ready to move in it, because to get an effective slate of candidates of a large number... all we need really, now, is a core, because it's not bodies so much that we need. We can get the bodies. We need to get the minds: We've got to have people who are unshakably capable and competent in what they have to say. Because the danger now, is that we get too many people talking about too many "things," and you don't get competence.

For example: I have only two issues, which are, for me, issues that must be voted up: Glass-Steagall, and a national credit system. Those two measures are Constitutional measures, and they belong as Constitutional measures. Most of the things that people call "Constitutional," are not! They're junk, from a Constitutional standpoint.

Then, we need, in addition to the Constitutional measures, because without Glass-Steagall and without establishing a national credit system, we can not save this economy: Those two are Constitutional. Now, there are many things with that power, that that legislation represents, Constitutional legislation represents, with that power, we can then attack many problems, especially a short list of very important problems. But those are not Constitutional problems. They're legislative problems, and so therefore, when candidates do not go for the Constitutional issues, and the correct Constitutional issues, and the correct decision, first, the rest of what they say is pretty much junk.

STOCKWELL: Well, let's take that point there. And now, then, you're the moderator, and you've got these people up in front of you, including the phenomenon known as Ron Paul, a phenomenon in the sense that he kind of stands alone against the rest of 'em, which is one of the reasons why I think so many people are flocking to him; not that they particularly understand his politics; it's that they're so disgusted with the rest of them. Now, if you were there, asking the questions of these people, instead of questions like, "How would you put people back to work?" "How fast could you possibly bomb Iran, if you got into office?" — stupid questions like this — what kind of questions would you ask them?

LAROUCHE: I would say: The two Constitutional questions before you gentlemen and ladies — I presume there'll be a lady there someplace.

STOCKWELL: But she's gone now.

LAROUCHE: Right! [laughs] In any case: And that is, "I would tell you, that anything you have to say isn't worth anything unless you are, first, committed to reenact Glass-Steagall exactly as Franklin Roosevelt designed it; and secondly, that you're prepared to replace a broken-down, hopelessly rotten financial system, monetary system, and replace it with a credit system. Those two issues are the issues on which I would consider you, if you support those issues, fit to be considered for President."

STOCKWELL: And what kind of answers are we going to get from Mr. "former Bain Capital" Mitt Romney?

LAROUCHE: [laughs] He's gonna duck n' weave, duck n' weave!

STOCKWELL: Yeah, he's going to duck and weave, and so it Gingrich, and Santorum — I don't think Santorum would understand the question.

LAROUCHE: No. I don't think he knows where the planet lives.

STOCKWELL: Yeah! And Huntsman in his mealy-mouthed way, would make a few comments. But you know, when Huntsman announced his candidacy several months ago, in front of the Statue of Liberty, and nobody was there but his family — but all the news media was present! When there wasn't 1 in 10,000 people in this country who even knows who John Huntsman is! At that moment, I realized, "Here's the establishment's pick!" He's going to come as a dark horse from behind, on the final round of the track, and he's going to end up being the establishment's pick.

LAROUCHE: I know some members of the Congress, who I would consider — and Republicans, also —

STOCKWELL: I was going to ask you that.

LAROUCHE: I wouldn't want to name them, because I wouldn't want to jeopardize them. They're good ones.

STOCKWELL: Oh yeah, well, that's right. If suddenly their enemies started describing them as LaRouche candidates, they'd be in a helluva lot of trouble.

LAROUCHE: They would not be in as much trouble as that would imply. They'd be in trouble, because they wouldn't get started. That is, they wouldn't get enough starting power, because the others who are just the also-rans, would gang up against them, and they would get the press and so forth, and Wall Street! Right now, the problem is Wall Street, while it's more than bankrupt, Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt! It could never be salvaged! But they still believe they can, and they've got paper money to show, or shall we say, Monopoly money, to show for this.

And so therefore, we've got to get a team going, before we put a candidate up front. We've got to get something started; he's got to be established as a candidate — or he or she — or candidates. Then, we can force the issue. But just going out and trying to get somebody out of a hat to go out there and — the Lone Ranger — that's not going to work now.

Because the public is confused; institutions are confused. The people are frightened, and they don't have knowledge! Our press is largely a problem here: Our news media is not providing knowledge to our citizens, and that's one of the big factors, here. They're getting "the issues," "the issues" — I mean, what's getting born to what, is the question.

So we really have to start from the standpoint of posing a question, or a couple of questions, which shock people into attention, and make those issues the basis of for the campaign. So, it can be done.

STOCKWELL: If this issue you're talking about with food shortages is showing up this spring, I mean, that certainly will compel people to pay more attention to what's going on.

LAROUCHE: That's it: Well, what we're doing, what we started yesterday. It's actually going to be put on the site today, sometime.

STOCKWELL: Okay, and the site, if you're just tuning in, that Lyn's talking about, is larouchepac. com. There's also a toll-free number you can employ, if you're not internet savvy to get some more information: That would be (800)929-7566.

Now, after this next break, I want to turn the discussion more to the area of science.. And because you and your organization, especially the Basement crowd have been playing up an awful lot of what's going on as far as solar and extra-solar activities that are affecting the Earth, the changes in weather, the changes in the geomagnetic forces around this planet that could explain a few things that are going on, and I wanted my audience to know, that you're just as qualified in that area, to speak, as you are in the area of productive economy.

So, we're going to go to a break here just in a second, but one more time, back to the first question I asked, this first hour: What do you see, what do you feel, as far as you feel comfortable saying over the air: Is there a growing resistance in the military against the plans to attack Iran?

LAROUCHE: On the senior people, there is obviously a spread of the opinion, this should not happen. That this tension of a war should not happen. We don't need it! For example, to be brief on the thing: We have now, the Russians have set up under the current Presidency, and what will probably be the Presidency when this coming election occurs: They are committed to collaboration with the United States, on these issues. That's a fact. Also, China, which was more reluctant to join, on that, is also moving in that direction.

STOCKWELL: Because these people know who the enemy is! More so than the average American!

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, they include that. Absolutely. Because our press stinks. But in Russia, there are problems, too, of this nature.

STOCKWELL: All right, you're going to have to hold that thought. I want you to come back and wrap up your thought there, on Russia, Putin, and his resistance to the Empire; what China has planned. And then, I want to move into the science aspect. We'll be right back... [break]

It is 8:23 here on the ninth day of January, 2012, this marvelous Monday morning!... LaRouchepac.com, a place that I check several times a week, as far as information and a news source that I can continue to mold my understand of what's going on around the planet, as well several other sources, as I've often recited here on my radio show; but, without looking at larouchepac, you're going to miss something trying to understand what the hell's going on out there.

Now, Lyn, we were talking about Putin, but I want to be a little more direct, because obviously the Empire doesn't like Putin, and there are certain aspects of the Russian government that has already come out and identified what Obama's attitudes and agenda for the Middle East amounts to, is just an adoption of Cheney's prompt global strike strategy.

LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm.

STOCKWELL: And that's the old dynamic with Bush-Cheney is just carrying through almost on steroids right now with Obama. Because, you know, the Russians, at Kaliningrad, and what they're doing, missile readiness; what the Chinese are doing as far as missile readiness is concerned. Obviously, at the same time, there are elements within the military and the political structure of both Russia and China, that want to come together with the United States, to sit down, and say, "Hey, wait a second, we've got to slow this thing down, and we've got to slow it down right now"; even in light of that, you know, Pakistan's Musharraf [sic] is just one bullet away from the nukes getting into the hands that they have of the enemy, as well as India's involvement!

So I mean, this isn't just coffee table discussion, we're having here, this morning, is my point. My point here, is that this is one of those points in history, that some anthology, if we survive another hundred years, will be looking back to this year as being a being a pivotal, political, economic, military decision-point.

LAROUCHE: Well, to understand the Russia situation in particular, and it goes in a certain degree for China, as well, China is less occupied with this on the front end of this thing, but they're coming more and more on it. What you have to realize, you have to go back to me in 1977, when I started what became known as the SDI. Because I realized at that time, from my consultation, both, I was working with the Fusion Energy Foundation, of which I was a part, and I was also informed from military circles in the United States itself, that we were getting to a point, where the nuclear and thermonuclear capabilities, of major nations that we could no longer afford to fight a world war! Because the effect of thermonuclear bombardment, which we were coming close to at that time, we already had the gut of it, but the actual system that goes with that bombardment, that no part of the world could survive, as an organized system under a condition of thermonuclear war.

And therefore, we moved then, I moved then, in '77 on, and with the access to the Presidency of Ronald Reagan and his circle, it was actually his people, we came to an agreement. On that basis, I spoke to the relevant Russian diplomats, and we set into motion what became known as the SDI. So, today, the thermonuclear capabilities are far greater than they were then, whereas the ability to withstand the effects of warfare are far less than they were then.

So therefore, we can no longer have war of the type that this President and his boss, the Queen of England, want! We can not have war, again, on this planet. Local fights, local squabbles, local fights, yes, they may happen, but they will have to be restricted. Long wars were always idiocy, and always have been for humanity. Short wars, when they were necessary, were allowable.

We've now reached the point, that it's no longer allowable. The effect of thermonuclear conflict, and with the United States and a few other powers together, as Russia and China do, have thermonuclear capabilities, which if engaged would virtually destroy this planet and the people on it.

So therefore, we have to find new ways of dealing with these kinds of conflicts. And right now, what is coming out of London, because they don't care in London; the President of the United States is only a puppet of the British Monarchy, he's a stooge, he's a mental case, as well. So he will take great risks, because he is a mental case, and doesn't know any better, or doesn't have the ability to know any better, so therefore, that's our problem. Therefore, we have to go to other methods that we can do, but based on sovereign nation-states, and we can do that! But the danger is, we won't. And the danger is, with dumb Presidents, or dumb Presidential candidates, we're not going to have much of a chance at doing it either.

Europe can't do anything much, right now, itself, Europe, as such. It can't; it's hopeless at the present, it doesn't have any sovereignty! So it can't really function.

STOCKWELL: Well, what about in Germany, where they're starting to trade again with the deutschmark?

LAROUCHE: They're going in that direction. They have to. Because what happened is, while all this was going on between the killing of the former President of Libya, and the execution, shall we say?

STOCKWELL: The murder, yes!

LAROUCHE: Right, with that, things have changed. Because our military circles, in advice to our government said, "we can't do that, it must not happen." And they were right. So what happened in the meantime, is the breakdown of the European system, the so-called euro system, that system has broken down. So therefore, what was doing to be the euro system, is now disintegrating. Therefore, you're going to find, with Greece ready to go; Italy ready to go; Spain ready to go; Portugal ready to go, so forth, you're in the situation of a breakdown of the elements of the formerly European system, this now euro system, is disintegrating.

So we've entered a new state of affairs, and we've got to think in terms of solving that problem. Only the United States, and Russia, China, and so forth, that combination, with a few other nations, can possibly, if they unite, can say, "there is not going to be a thermonuclear war!" If Russia, China and the United States agree, these are major thermonuclear powers, if they say, "no war," there is going to be no war. And that's where we stand.

STOCKWELL: Well, are we moving in that direction now? Because that's Putin's attitude as well.

LAROUCHE: I know. Well, and Putin's well aware of my attitude.

STOCKWELL: Now, before we get into the science, one last question I'm often asked. And I think I have a handle on the answer to this myself, but I want my audience to listen to you: One of the objections they have, when I make these points, is that, why in the world — you know, let's just accept, for argument's sake, there is a master controlling economic, or lack of sound economic theory, emanating out of the City of London, which has nothing to do with the British people, it's just, that's where it's located. And it's the empire, the British Empire, the economic system of the City of London, that if they in fact have had such tremendous control of this planet, and with the taxes and with the games that have been played with all the economic systems from one end of the country to the other, why in the world do they want to bring that to an end, reduce the population from 7 billion to 1 billion, when they're sitting on top of the pile now, anyway? Why give that up?

LAROUCHE: As far as we know, in terms of history, detail recorded history, since the Peloponnesian War, that the system around the Mediterranean at least, which we know fairly well, and we know something about other parts of the world, was always what's called a "oligarchical system." In which they call the ruling class were called "gods," as in the case of the Peloponnesian War, that sort of things: So, the gods against the people! And what we've had ever since then was that.

What evolved was what's called a "monetary system." Now a monetary system is not a system of value, it's a system of imposed valuation. In other words, the system is controlled by people who control a system of money! The money system is not a natural system coming out of collaboration among people as such; it's a system of rule. And remember, that in ancient times, as in the period of the Peloponnesian War, the Homeric legends and so forth, these were called "gods." Who were the gods? The gods were the same things as the Emperors of Rome, or other kinds of emperors, and tyrants of that sort.

And so therefore, the struggle has been, always, to get free of this kind of a monetarist system on which a small group of people control a money system, which in turn controls the planet, determines what prices are, who gets access to money and all that sort of thing.

We, in our United States, the difference was that our system was a credit system. You know, we won the war against Britain. We're sitting there, bankrupt as a result of all the money we had to invest to pay for winning this war. And President Washington, and Hamilton and others had to come up with a solution to this. Hamilton devised the solution, and it worked. It was his conception of a credit system.

Now, therefore, the difference between the United States and Europe, I mean, we were both, at that point, Europeans, in that we were immigrants into the territory of North America, only we were Europeans. We both were European in our thinking. The difference was the Europeans depended upon a monetarist system. We had changed: From the beginning, from actually about 1620, when the Pilgrims landed, and when the Massachusetts Bay Colony had set up the so-called pine tree shilling system. We had developed in the United States, we were still Europeans at that point: The difference was, we had a different kind of conception of a system. We in the United States, or what became the United States, had, from the beginning, actually from the landing of the Pilgrims, we had a system based on a credit system. Europe always had a monetarist system. And the monetarist system, is actually an imperial system.

So when people talk about a British Empire, they're not talking about a territory of England, or an official colony of England! They're talking about the control through a monetary system, like what we have in the Mediterranean today! The monetarist system is the imperialist system, and that's where the problem lies. And people are intimidated, because they know they need money, in order to live. And since they don't have any control over money, they depend upon those who do control money. Whereas our system, naturally, is a credit system, which is, a national credit system: And we can have a credit system which is shared with other nations, but it has to be a credit system, not a monetarist system.

The rule by money, is the secret of imperialism.

STOCKWELL: Well, you control the movement of food, you control the movement of energy, and you control the movement of people, through the movement of money, then you control the world.

LAROUCHE: Exactly.

STOCKWELL: But we're at a point now, where this policy of curbing and culling the human population back to 1 billion, from my understanding is, because it's collapsing on itself. It's over with. It's beyond bankruptcy! And right now, steps are being taken, to limit the size of the planet, so that the oligarchs can return to their god status, and lose control of the planet.

LAROUCHE: Well, see that's based on — the belief in that is based on a big lie. The lie is the assumption that, you've got people, and you've got too many people, you've got too few people, whatever.

STOCKWELL: Right!

LAROUCHE: And that assumption is a complete delusion. If you go back about a half-billion years, and we do have some knowledge of what happened on this planet during the half-billion years from all these fossils. And from the killing of 98% of all forms of life that we know of, in that half-billion years —

STOCKWELL: They're no longer here.

LAROUCHE: Are extinct!

STOCKWELL: Yes.

LAROUCHE: All right, now the point is, the argument is, that we have overpopulation. We don't have overpopulation, we have underdevelopment of population. What's happened over the course of all these years, contrary to the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a complete fraud! It's an oligarchical fraud! Contrary to that, mankind's existence, like the existence of all species on this planet, has depended upon the evolution of forms of life to higher levels from the top down. Mankind has always been, since mankind existed, say, 8, 10 million years ago, mankind is the only being which has the conscious ability, to exist; all other forms of life exist, but they don't have a conscious intention to make discoveries which give the human species an increasing power to live. As through scientific and similar kinds of progress.

So what's happened is, now, the oligarchy, however, the oligarchical principle, since the Peloponnesian War case, since Homer's story, since that time has always depended upon rule by what were called "gods"; now the original meaning of "gods," was the ruling class! And that's what the gods of the Peloponnesian War were. And we've had since that time, the idea of a ruling class as gods, or something like that, that the people are cattle! The people who are not gods, are like cattle, and you must not let them get too much power, keep the power of fire out of their hands, hmm? And keep them limited in numbers, and conditions of life. That's been the policy.

That's what we're getting now. That's what the Green policy is: The Green policy is the greatest threat to human existence on this planet (after the British Empire, perhaps). But that Green policy is. Therefore, the British Empire has spread, ever since, well, the beginning of the last century, has spread intensely, to reduce the population and lower technology.

Now, human existence depends and always has depended, as all forms of life, as a whole, depend upon advances in science and technology: Without that, species could not progress. Now, animal species did that biologically.

STOCKWELL: All right, let's hold that thought, 'cause then we can turn it toward the science discussion right after the break... [break]

Hi, we're back, 8:44, you're listening to the Jack Stockwell Radio Talk Show program, Monday through Friday, 7-9 a.m.... My guest right now, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche calls in live from Leesburg... Now, in the few minutes that are left, Lyn, I would really like to get into the science stuff, because this is the big year 2012, the Mayan calendar stuff. But beyond that, we are seeing a tremendous increase in volcanism; there's about eight of them ready to blow in Indonesia right now; there's an increase in seismic activity. There's been an 88-day cycle starting with the big Chilean earthquake, and then Christchurch, and then Fukushima, and then the Tonga, Fiji one, and then the next 88-day cycle ends coming up this March 22nd. Something going on every 88 days. We're moving into the galactic plane as far as our Solar System is concerned, and I know you've got some people in your organization watching this stuff.

LAROUCHE: Yes, we do.

STOCKWELL: Can you comment on what — with everything we've got to worry about here on the planet, as far as man's concerned, we're not getting a whole lot of help from this extra radiation's that's hitting us.

LAROUCHE: No, what's happening is, we're going through the galaxy is the problem: The Solar System is now advancing in direction in terms parts of the galaxy which we will be encountering, which are more threatening, because they're more high energy-dense than earlier. And therefore, mankind will have to improve our ability to cope with higher energy-flux-densities, and more dangerous densities than we have before.

Now, this is going to mean that we're going to have to proceed with what this President has killed, NASA. As Russia, for example, has a similar kind of program. And they're program is complementary to ours. China is also moving in that direction.

So therefore, we are at a point, if we increase what we call the energy-flux-density of our technology, we will be able to learn how to control this change in weather, now. This means that right now, this year, has begun the beginning of a big change in the weather system under the rule of this galaxy of which we're a part. We have, with this President, we have destroyed, under Obama, we have systemically destroyed the very measures by which we could save the existence of the human species! We don't know exactly what] we're going to have to do, but we know we're going to have to do something, and we know the direction we have to go in.

STOCKWELL: Well, he shut down the satellite, that were right on the verge of predicting earthquakes.

LAROUCHE: Exactly. But remember his statement: Well, we can not predict earthquakes. We can only have some conversation, he said! This man is an idiot! A dangerous idiot, who should not be in government — he's insane!

We need these things, we need technological and scientific progress, to protect us. We need — look, it's not going to be easy, to get on to Mars, and stay there for any period of time. It does not have the conditions there which human life wishes for! We're going to have to be able to make some changes in the Mars environment. And we know that we have potentially the ability to do that. but we're going to have to get at it, because the weather is becoming more dangerous, and the danger comes form the galactic situation. Most people don't even know what a galaxy is, these days! They're not educated to understand that point, and they don't realize that the Solar System is a young part of a galaxy. They don't know what's happening with the Crab Nebula, for example: That will really shock them, if they knew what was going on with that galaxy, and rate and the magnitude, of the forces there... and we are right next to that part of the galaxy, now.

So we're going to have to go into a very deep science-driver program, based on going from beyond nuclear power, beyond thermonuclear power, to matter-antimatter reactions kinds of processes: We're going to have to master those technologies. It will take time. But the question is, can we progress rapidly enough to overcome the increasing danger of the problem out there?

My view is, that we can do that, potentially. But we have to have the political will to do that. Against what we have now: Obama, and anything like him, or his immediate predecessor, can not be tolerated by humanity! We can't tolerate they're being in power, in government anywhere! That kind of lot. We need a science-driver program: without that science-driver program, and going to higher technologies, fuller use of thermonuclear technology in the proper way, going into the matter-antimatter kind of reactions, these things we must master now!

And we must develop the population, the educated population which can do these kinds of things, and things we now just know about, and know what the possibilities are, we've got to get an educated population that can fully understand these things, and create the practice which we need for that purpose.

STOCKWELL: Well, if through a process of impeachment, Obama were to be removed from office, you think Biden could get a clue in a hurry?

LAROUCHE: Biden could be given a clue. We have the people in the United States, including people in the Congress who may look like wimps now, but they look like wimps because they don't what their alternatives are. What we have to do, is give enough of these people, who are thinking, experienced people, in the Congress and not in it, yet, but those people have to be given the confidence that they're going to be allowed and supported, in doing or discovering what to do, the necessary steps now.

In other words, it's got to have a change in the entire climate: You've got to clarify things. Look, we've got a population, say, between the ages of about 15 and 25: within that age-range, we're getting a degree of stupidity, which is menacing to human existence! Why? Because they have not been given the kind of education and opportunities in which they know how to think! Because we didn't care about them! This is the problem of our young people out there: We have a generation now, say, 25 to 35, and you look at between 15 to 25, and 25 to 35, and you look at the trend, and then you look back, back to the beginning of the 1970s, and look back to that: We have gone backwards! We have gone down!

We need a science-driver program, spread throughout the population. Maybe a minority at the beginning, but spread throughout the population which will give us the capability which NASA represented, and typified, and which some other programs typified as well. Those programs have to be brought back. The educational system that goes with those kinds of programs, has to be brought back. The educational system has to go back to that direction: Because the existence of the human species now demands that we do that!

STOCKWELL: You know, I don't want to sound too cynical at this point, after that very beautiful presentation there, but we have gone through extinction level events in the history of this planet. We may be facing one, because I have a radiation monitoring system of my own, and the radiation continues to increase. It's still what would be considered safe, but it's two to three times what it was just six months ago. And it was the science-driver aspect of where I went to school, in junior high and high school, that so enthralled me, that I came out of high school, deeply imbued with the thought that I wanted to be a scientist.

And as I look at my child's curriculum now, it's just not there. It's just a bunch of collectivism, collectivist thought and collectivist behavior, in all the different vicissitudes of human existence.

Now, nothing could make me happier than to see the fruition of what you're talking about. But there's a part of me that gets, you know, boy — I just... [sighs] This is not a time to lose hope, because we can win, we can beat this thing. We really can do it! We can defeat the Empire! This is not just the Mouse that Roared. We can do this! We can come together and defeat this Empire.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Well, the problem is political. You've got a political lid on the population, and it comes from London.

Look, just think of it: the British Empire under its Queen, has openly said, that with the human population having now reached the level of estimated 7 billion people, on this planet, they now insist, we must rapidly get back to 1 billion.

Now, China alone, about 1.4 billion; India about 1.1 or more; what're you talking about? You're talking about a large-scale extermination of the human species, when in point of fact, if we educate people, if we give them the power and the tools to do, we can solve these problems. Hmm? but now we're told, to take the Green policy, and Green policy, if it's made — and it is being made law in the United States — we have people called "scientists" who are on this Green idiocy, and they're still called "scientists" even though they're absolutely incompetent in what they're doing! And threatening the human species by their incompetence! Being called scientists and being incompetent at the same time, it's kind of a dangerous combination.

So we're at a point where we have to make a change. And I think that once we say that we are not going to go to zero growth, we're going to go to high degrees of progress, we're going to get NAWAPA through; we're going to get through a trans-Pacific program; we've got the whole Arctic region, which was once considered the frozen north, is no longer the frozen north! This thing is now becoming the wave of the future! We have China, Russia, and so forth, are building craft to actually develop the economy of the planet, in the region of the Arctic region! And this includes Ireland, for example: Ireland is a very important part of the Arctic region, in one sense or the other! [laughs]

We have some challenging, interesting, fascinating things to do! New opportunities we never dreamed of before, and we just have to go ahead, and get at that, and enjoy doing it. And come home at the end of the day, and say, "Look, we did some more of that, today."

STOCKWELL: [laughs] Yeah, that's good! Wash off the dust, get some rest, and go back to it tomorrow. Uh, Lyn, we're out of time. I really appreciate you're being here.

LAROUCHE: Okay.

STOCKWELL: larouchepac.com, the number (800) 929-7566. Thank you so much for being a guest on the show today.

LAROUCHE: Thank you, Jack.