The following is an unproofed transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's October 19th Webcast, the third in a series of webcasts leading up to the November 6th Presidential elections.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, everyone. My name is Matthew Ogden. I'm an editor with LaRouche PAC.com and I would like to welcome all of you to the third in an ongoing series of live webcasts, broadcast over larouchepac.com, featuring Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. This is the third in an ongoing series, which we intend to continue every Friday between now and the Nov. 6 elections, which currently is only 18 days away.
Now also, coming up this next Monday, is the third and final Presidential debate, ostensibly on the subject of foreign policy. This is only three days away, and I can guarantee you, what Mr. Lyndon LaRouche has to say tonight, will have great bearing on that event as well.
So, rather than giving too extensive of an introduction before Mr. LaRouche delivers his opening remarks, I'd like to just say quickly, a word on our format tonight. As we have in the previous two weeks, Mr. LaRouche will deliver the opening remarks, which will be followed by a discussion period between Mr. LaRouche and members of the audience here, although you are welcome to e-mail your questions in to the website that will appear on the screen. So, in order to get right to the point, I am very pleased to introduce to you tonight, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: So what I shall do, given the circumstances, is not only to address what the problems are that confront the Presidency of the United States and the nation now, but give you a picture of when it began, how it happened, and how it developed, so that you understand not that we have problems—I think many of you, most of you, know we have serious problems.
We have, for example, 27 million people in the United States, who are of working age, who are desperately unemployed. They have no resources whatsoever, and this has been one of the products of what the policy has been of the United States, in its process of degeneration into this absolute low point of Obama running for re-election. This is the lowest point in all American history, the entire history of the United States; this is the very worst.
So, let's look at this, and just the highlights of the recent history, when the current problems really began. Of course they began with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and that was the background of this whole story. Franklin Roosevelt died a worn-out man, with a war that had been protracted by Winston Churchill, for at least a year more than needed, and he died worn-out. And we had a vice-president who came in, who was qualified for vice, Harry Truman. And he made a real mess of this thing.
But we got rid of Truman, largely due to Dwight Eisenhower, who got us out of a fake war, or a fraudulent war, at the beginning of the 1950s, and we went on, under Eisenhower, to do a little bit better, but the problem was not essentially solved.
What happened then, we had a new President, and a new President who was actually sponsored, and guided, in a certain way by Eleanor Roosevelt, the widow of Franklin Roosevelt. This was Kennedy, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And Kennedy, in close association with his brother in this enterprise, his brother Robert, carried us into a great surge of economic, political, and moral revival—based largely on what Eisenhower had done, and what MacArthur had done, and what people in Europe of the same nature had done.
So we went into a crisis at the time that the issue was two things: First of all, the British Empire was trying to consolidate its position as the ruling empire of the planet, and was gobbling us up, if it could. What happened is, that was stopped for a time, by Kennedy, by President Kennedy and his brother. They handled the crisis, the thermonuclear crisis, very well, and went on from that to make magnificent initiatives, including the organization of the space program, and a plan for machine tool development to enhance the whole economy of the United States.
But then, Jack Kennedy was assassinated, and nobody wanted to know why, or who done it. It was just shut down. There was never an investigation of why and how Jack Kennedy was killed. But some of the issues involved were well known. Why would anyone want to kill Jack Kennedy? Well, some people wanted to have a war. They wanted a long war, in Indochina, and Jack said, no. They wanted to cut out the machine tool design work, and they said no to Jack, after he was dead. And they launched the war which really was about 10 years long, in Indochina, in Vietnam and in the adjoining area.
Then we had the assassination, I say of Kennedy—we had many assassinations of key figures, including—well, I won't go through the list now. Anyway, many assassinations. The result was, Robert Kennedy was nominated, or had had a nomination to run for the Presidency to replace his brother. And he was assassinated, on the eve of his being appointed, nominated, for the position. And that was covered up, also.
Then we went into a period where the economy began to spiral, downward. We went into 1971. One of my great notable effects was, I was the one who forecast, had forecast, three years earlier, the 1971 depression—which was a depression. And I was the only one who did that, and I got into trouble for being a success on that.
But what happened after that, for the entire period of the 1970s, was a disaster, an economic disaster, a disaster for the lifestyle and everything of our people. We were on the way down. But in the middle of that decade, I ran for President. Why did I want to run for President?
Well, I certainly had a certain amount of backing for doing that at the time, but what was my reason for doing so? I was aware, and said, and campaigned for President, with television and the usual stuff, and warned exactly what the reason was for the problem. There was the intention to get the United States into a thermonuclear war.
So, therefore, I ran a Presidential campaign, not because I expected to win the Presidency—that certainly was way beyond possibility at that point—but in order to put before the people, before a national public, the election issue, the Presidential issue, which is, we must not get into a thermonuclear war.
Now, that had repercussions, both in Europe, and in the United States. And people, as a result of that election and its issues, began to come around me, influential people, some very influential people. Leading military figures in Europe. In France, the Gaullists. In Germany, same kind of thing. From Italy, from Argentina, and other places. And what began to happen during that period, is, there was a buildup of what became known as the SDI.
The actual initiation of the SDI was by me; it was done by people who had been part of the OSS, who came to me and said, "Let's play." They came to leading people in Germany, leading people, especially the military, in France, places like that. Then some of our scientific community, typified by these same kind of people. So, what happened is, is that by 1983, I had been working on this issue. I had drawn in some leading figures of the Soviet Union into this operation. I had drawn other people around, and we began to build a plan for what became known as the SDI, and build it around Ronald Reagan. He was fully supporting of it, but we did it, and this meant people from the Soviet Union, who are participating. It meant people throughout our institutions. It meant support from the German military, German leaders—they were officially retired types, but they were leaders. French—the Gaullists. Leaders in Italy. And we had organized.
So we decided, and we agreed, in 1983, that we were going to launch a Strategic Defense Initiative, because the continuing issue, all through this process, since Khrushchov's great bomb back in the 1950s, was that the capability of thermonuclear weapons had increased to the point that this was a real tangible danger of extinction of the human species.
And Reagan supported that. He was defeated on that issue. He went with the same issue in his second inauguration term, and thereafter he said, it's going to come, it has to come. Well, this was the thinking, really, which reflected people like Douglas MacArthur, who had been a key advisor for Jack Kennedy.
But then the opposition came in. He was shut down essentially—not fully shut down, but what he intended to do in this direction was shut down. And from that point on, except for a tickle from Bill Clinton, there has been no initiative, no leadership, from the U.S. Presidency to avoid a thermonuclear war.
We are now at a point where the official estimate of leading people in Europe and elsewhere, is that the United States is now about to become involved in a worldwide thermonuclear war, in which the British, the United States under Obama—and Obama is very key in this thing—and others are moving toward a thermonuclear war. The credibility that it could happen now is great. It could happen in November, one day, and the thing is well known if you pay attention to what's going with our Joint Chiefs of Staff and people like that around the world.
One bright day, a fulmination in the Middle East, together with another 9/11 question, but a fulmination in the Middle East would start with a U.S. launch, or threatened launch, of thermonuclear attack, on Russia, China, India, and so forth. This would come from chiefly from the United States, from the Ohio-class submarine fleet, but also from other kinds of capability. The British would be involved, officially. NATO would be involved, or a good deal of it. And all within about one hour and a half, the entirety of the planet would be engulfed in a thermonuclear war, which would be a virtual extermination of most of the population on the planet.
And the aftermath would be that. That is where we are now. That's exactly where we are. And if Obama were re-elected as President, that would happen, or probably happen, and everybody of any intelligence, serious political intelligence, in the world today, knows that we're on the edge of the launching of a thermonuclear war. In one and a half hours or less, two large surges, the degree of weaponry put into motion would actually cause a virtual extermination of humanity.
The planet would be transformed. And that little joke that Khrushchov ran, with his mighty midget back there in the 1950s, was nothing. It was just a warning of what's going to come. And the threat of an actual launching of thermonuclear war, was already on the table, in the United States and some circles within the United States system, in the Presidency, back then in the 1970s, when I was concerned about it.
So, this is the real issue.
So, what does this war mean? Why thermonuclear war? Why go for, even threaten, the capability to go to thermonuclear war? Who would want to do that?
Well, you have a queen in England, for example. She's not the only problem, but the queen in England. And she is the one that wants to reduce the human population. She has recently, in the last year or so, has organized a mad movement, publicly, with great public furor, inside England itself, but elsewhere, for the reduction of the human population, from its presently estimated pouplation of 7 billion persons living on this planet, to about the approximate rate of 1 billion.
In other words, what's intended is the greatest genocide every considered against the human species. And that is the policy of the Queen of England. And presumably the policy of her thug (Tony Blair), who operates now, I believe, in Chicago, advising Obama.
So, the point is, the issue is, all other issues forgotten. We've got two threats. One, if nothing like thermonuclear war actually happens, the threat is the greatest poverty you ever saw, the greatest rate of death. And the Green Movement is actually the instrument of death. Because if we do not develop the productive forces of the total population of the planet, we are going to have death, as you have never seen it, or thought of it before.
If Obama is the President, elected again, it is probable that as early as November, or sometime after that, that Obama as President would launch thermonuclear war. Because it would override the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who warned against this, that it must not be done, and people throughout the world who know this cannot be allowed to happen, because—what's the argument? Well, Obama was created by the British monarchy. Those are the people that backed it, got all the fraudulent funds, and all the things that enabled him to get elected. It was one of the greatest swindles, and the most dubious pieces of victory, ever conceived of, at least by a larger nation. And that's what he's here for.
The evidence is there. What happened to your health care, with Obama? He did exactly the first thing that Adolph Hitler did when he got into power: cut the health care. And his initial program was a carbon copy of what Hitler put into effect, in the first period of his administration: same thing.
What's the point? The British queen says, and she has a wide backing, with what are called the Greenies—now the Greenies are not all the same thing, but they come yellow-green, full-green, Nile green, all these kinds of green. But the ideology is, we must not have high technology, high energy-flux-density technology in this world. We must reduce the world's population from 7 billion people, down to 1, or thereabouts. That's her policy. That is the policy behind Obama. That is the policy that we're up against in various parts of the world. Europe is about to die, the whole system of Europe, the European system, the so-called euro system, is about to disintegrate. It's now in hyperinflation. Obama has now put the United States into an actual state of hyperinflation, with his bailout system. All of these things are there.
However, if we take the appropriate actions, none of these things need to happen. There is a powerful movement, among major and other nations throughout the world, not to have thermonuclear war, not to allow it to happen, not to excuse it, not to tolerate it. There's an impulse around the world, to be able to feed the world. Our own people in the United States are not being fed. And, by the end of this year, the effect of the policies in particular of the Obama administration, will mean large-scale death, from shortages of food, and other things, inside the United States itself.
So all these issues come down to one thing: when you talk about a Presidency, and you talk about issues—he's good because of this issue, he's bad because of that issue—this is stuff that's done all the time; it's absolute nonsense.
Look. What happened? We have a policy in the United States, a bad policy, a bad food policy. We are not producing enough food to sustain the population of the United States. We have done nothing about the shortage of water in the central plains in the United States. Things of that sort. You are getting nothing but disaster from what this President Obama represents.
Now, I can say more on this, but let's come to a crucial point or conclusion of what this is all about. Well, what do we do? Well, the answer is obviously, someone says, "Well, we have a Republican, don't we?" But a lot of people would say, "Look at the Republican slate." And, you know, the candidate is not so bad, but you've got some really tough birds out there in the Republican ranks, and something's got to be done about that.
Right now, Obama is not popular, despite all the boolah boolah about this, with the American population of voters. He's not really that popular. Many key Democrats are going to stay Democrats, but they're going to stay Democrats by not voting. And this is where a good part of the potential for a Republican victory is to come about. Many Democrats, in their conscience, are disgusted by the idea of voting for this Obama. And that's Obama's biggest problem. He counts all the Democrats, but fails to notice the number that ain't votin' for him.
So, therefore, as I said, the Republican Party is not a proposition that I would recommend.
But, suppose we have to choose between Obama and Romney? And we do have to get rid of Obama. Only stupid people or insane people or blinded people could ever vote for Obama. Or, they're blackmailed, or threatened, or something like that. No one would honestly, knowing all the issues, would want him. But the problem, as I say, "but, the Republicans." Well, this is a problem, isn't it? And, that's what a lot of people out there are wrestling about. They say, "Yes, but.... Yes, but.... It ain't that bad. It's bad, but it's not that bad that we have to vote for the Republican." That's the real slogan of the Democratic Party, isn't it, right now?
But, there's a solution for that. You see, if we could induce the Democratic Party leadership, and others, to dump Obama, what would happen is that the Democrats, and certain kinds of Republicans, would immediately come over and vote on that side. But they would find themselves voting for the Republican candidate. Well, that in itself is not so bad. But I know something about the Republican Party. And I know a number of real horror stories out there that any President, elected to be a Republican President, is going to have a hell of a problem with his constituency. They are going to go to cut your throat. So you'll eat less. Things like that. They've got very bad ideas, some of them. The Presidential candidate's not that kind of a problem.
But, how do we manage the country, if we have a potential victory of a nominally Republican candidate, and the impotence of the Democrats, who haven't got the guts to vote for a sane man? And, the Republican is a sane man. He may have many drawbacks. Many people have drawbacks; they inherit them, or something. But the question is, how can we do two things: have a stable country, a stable government, without some of the things we want to avoid; and also have a stable society, economically? That's our challenge.
A lot of Republicans want to solve all problems by cutting everything" "Starve every one to death except us." Guess who? George Washington saw it. George Washington was dead set against the party system. Now there's a difference between the Constitution of the United States as created initially, and what is done under the party system. The party system came in to destroy the United States. It opened the gates for the destruction of the United States. Because people began to play partisan systems.
What Washington's conception is, and mine, as well: "Get rid of this party system!" We should elect directly, elect a government, but the government itself. And then let people, as party organizations outside the actual voting process, which is what Washington wanted to do. Because what happens when you get this voting process, you have compromises, based on partisanship. And these compromises result in the lack of measures and votes and programs which are essential for the existence of the nation.
For example, the general performance of the party system, since 1971, has been to make everything worse. And how is it made worse? By compromise. On the principle of compromise. We can trade off everything. We no longer operate on the basis of principle.
What I've made clear, in this election campaign, is that there are three things which have to be done now, simply to save the United States, to keep it from crumbling. One thing: we have to actually have a Glass-Steagall law. And that's a law for Republicans and Democrats alone. Because if we don't get Glass-Steagall, and we don't have thermonuclear World War III, the economy is going to disintegrate. What we have now going is hyperinflation, which makes 1923 German hyperinflation a simple joke. We've go the worst hyperinflation in the world is now generating its odors in Europe and in the United States and elsewhere. We don't have a chance, as long as we continue with the economy unless we change the policy. So we cannot have this kind of thing any more. We have to have a Glass-Steagall. People in Europe, the people in England, leading people, say "No, we need Glass-Steagall. You cannot survive without Glass-Steagall." And everybody has to vote for it, because it's an affirmation of morality by doing so.
Well, there's another thing we require: Suppose we do this Glass-Steagall. What's going to be our situation? Our situation is going to be we're in real deep kimchee. Because, we are not going to have left over, after all this worthless crap has been taken off the books of the federal government, we're not going to have much left with which to support the growth of the U.S. economy. There's a solution! And it's a solution which is founded with the United States. It's a solution which goes back as far as the 1660s. You know the solution? The Massachusetts economy, the Massachusetts system. So you have a system, which is of that type. What you need is more money. We've done this before in the United States.
Lincoln did it when it came to the Civil War. It's been done otherwise. You simply have to have the federal government utter credit, but make sure where the credit goes. We've got people who are starving on the streets. Twenty-seven million people, working age, starving on the streets, or elsewhere. What are we going to do? We're going to employ them, aren't we? We're going to create the employment for them. We're going to create the opportunities to rebuild the economy. Our banking system will not have real money to support that. Aahh! We'll go back to what we started with: a credit system. Restore the American credit system! That's how Lincoln got us through the mess in the Civil War—the credit system.
The point is, that you've got to make sure that what you create credit for, is redeemable. And that's what we have to do. We put through Glass-Steagall. That eliminates a lot of junk, but it doesn't give you enough capital inserted into the system, to cause the kind of growth to deal with this problem, like 27 million Americans, who are eligible for employment don't have it! They're starving! So we need 27 million jobs, and we need 'em fast. We can do that.
For example, we have a project, called NAWAPA, which was actually designed to be put into effect in the middle of the 1960s. That project, of developing water systems, would increase the amount of water available to the United States, by about 1.7 times! And that would do that.
We also have in the whole area of the northern tier, going from Missouri and so forth back, you have the former auto industry and related industry, in which you have people who still, though partly in retirement, still reflect those kinds skills, in their family skills and traditions.
We don't have the kind of employment, needed to create the kind of products which are needed by the nation! So, by going to a credit system, which is a traditional one for the United States, in even earlier periods, by going to a credit system, rather than a loose system, we can go to the banks, the legitimate banks, which are Glass-Steagall banks, we can go to them as the Federal government, and we can propose that they present, together with the government itself, present programs on which we have them estimated, if the project is worthwhile, we'll invest in it! So the Federal government can be the supply of credit for the creation of employment, also, for the increase of the amount of water! We have a crucial water shortage, now, in many parts of the United States, and we need to correct that.
So, how do we make this work? Well, if you don't think in terms of partisan systems, if you think in terms of American System, patriotic system, in that case, the problem is not great. Because if people can come together on the basis of providing the economic remedies, that are so urgently needed in this nation, as in others, now, if we can meet that need, we can rebuild this nation, its structure and its moral outlook.
Now, to go into the details would take more time than this occasion fits, except as questions may come up on this subject. But there is a remedy, an immediate remedy, which could be taken, if the leadership of the United States decide to do it, and it can be done, now! We can cancel Bernanke! He can go ease himself someplace else! [laughter] What we need to do is have a Glass-Steagall system, operate tightly on a Glass-Steagall system, and understand that in order to save the U.S. economy and its people, we've got to put in a kind of system, a credit system, of the appropriate type.
With that, we can find, easily, and we can pick out a number of very large projects, potentially, to put people back to work, at real jobs, not make-work jobs, but real jobs, career jobs, for people who are going not only to work, but they're going to increase their capabilities, they're going to increase their income, they're going to increase the life opportunities for their children. In the way we did it before, the way that Franklin Roosevelt took the United States out of the Depression, the way it should have continued if Truman hadn't spoiled it. What Jack Kennedy did, and was doing, was right! We can do that again! We can do what other people in leadership have wanted to do. Do it that way.
So therefore, what's the problem? How're we going to solve this? In principle we've got to get rid of this hard partisanship, of the party system. We have to get a system, which is based on a credit system, Glass-Steagall, and not paring this off, and chewing this off, and cutting this off, and so forth, and adding this; we've got to have a program for recovery of the nation. Because there's no patchwork deals, deal on deal, no more kiss your buddy's butt kind of things in the Congress! No more of that.
Go back to a determination of what this nation needs, to meet the needs, first of all, of its people! To solve that 27 million people deficit, of people who have nothing; to solve the problem of the farmers who are going out of existence, who are producing the food, but they're not producing any more, because they're not allowed to. And we can set up systems — you know, where we can build...
Do you realize what we have? Opportunities? We are going into the Arctic! We're going in there! That's one our things we can do! It's very important to do it, as I've explained on other occasions. But what we need to do, is get the sense that George Washington had: Don't play with the idea of the party system as checks and balances! Get rid of that thing, that piece of nonsense! That disease! Elect a Presidency! Constitute a Presidency! And then bring the party people from outside of the Presidential process, but bring them into the process as the influence of the people, on what the policies are.
But the leadership, the initiative, should not come from this way it's being done now; it should be done on the basis of the needs and opportunities of the United States, and similarly, other nations. We can start that immediately! We can start that as soon as we get Obama out of there.
Now, of course, he might be still lingering, technically, around, before they finally throw him out, finally, out the kitchen door, or something; but we can fix that, too. First of all, we can make sure he doesn't get elected. And that's not too hard to do. If you come up with the right kind of policy, and take the right effort.
This nation is going to die, unless we get rid of Obama. And Obama wants to kill us, whether he understands it or not.
So therefore, we, as the people of the United States, must, as George Washington envisaged, we must again return to the devotion to our principle, the principle for which we worked so hard. Remember, what we were, we in the United States had created a new nation, a nation which was able, or capable, implicitly, to cure the problem of Europe, in particular; to cure the injustice, the slavery in Africa; to cure the injustice in South and Central America; to lay the world up on a higher level, that was our mission. And in part, in our good times, we did exactly that! We did good things, as Jack Kennedy did very good things, thus exemplifying what the United States means when it's operating under the intent which was its Constitution.
And once you get the dissident Democrats who don't want to vote for Obama and who are off on a vacation from politics, for the period of the election — bring them back in, and you can bring them back in if you come back by this way: Give the Democrats, the good ones, give them option of doing something good for their country, which is what they would like to do. That's why they don't want to vote for this President, because they know he's not fit to be voted for. They don't want to vote for the Republican, and they damned well don't want to vote for this bum. If we can bring the independents, and the Democrats, into the same fold on this issue, with the decent Republicans, that's all it takes.
But it means, then, not this usual bargaining nonsense that goes on in the Congress; what is needed is a program, a program of recovery for not only the United States, but for our cooperation with other parts of the world. That's what we must do! And stop all this nonsense.
- DIALOGUE WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE -
OGDEN: If you're just tuning in, you're watching a live webcast with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. This is part of a series of ongoing webcasts. Mr. LaRouche has just concluded his opening remarks, and we will have a short period of dialogue with several people who are gathered in the audience here. So, to start, I'd like to ask Jason Ross to come to the podium.
JASON ROSS: Well, as fun as it would be to talk about the Arctic, NAWAPA, Glass-Steagall, and credit, a number of questions have come in about Libya. So, I'm going to combine a couple of them here, takes a bit of liberty.
So, this comes in, the question is: "Mr. LaRouche, despite accurate U.S. intelligence and State Department reports, within hours of the Sept. 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, indicating that it was a premeditated terrorist attack, carried out by local affiliates of al-Qaeda, no less, President Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice on to five national television shows on Sunday, Sept. 16th, to directly lie to the American public, that the attack was a spontaneous mob protest over a video posted months earlier, that slandered Islam. Days after the Rice appearances on TV, President Obama repeated the same lies, in an appearance on David Letterman, and later on "The View." He continued to make similar statements, when he spoke to the UN General Assembly, as late as Sept. 25th.
"Now, we have very strong indications that Obama plans to order an attack on some target or targets in the Benghazi area, perhaps on the eve of the elections, as a sort of "October Surprise" to try to capitalize on this tragic attack, that was horribly mishandled and then covered up by a barrage of lies. It's not clear if we could even find the correct people to target for such an attack.
"So after Obama had been on the campaign trail for months, crowing at every opportunity, that he has killed Osama bin Laden, that al-Qaeda's on the run, then we have this attack. And in fact, al-Qaeda is stronger than ever in many respects, based on funding and assistance from London, and from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in places like Yemen, and now, even inside Syria."
So the first question is if you'd like to comment on that?
And then there's a second, related question, again asking: should we launch an attack? Should we find these people and attack them in Libya, who launched the Benghazi attack? And if this attack is carried out, how would that change the investigations into the lack of adequate security, by the Congress?
LAROUCHE: Well, the first part, that's all true. And that's exactly what I was referring to, exactly that problem. There is a scheme, run by the British Queen, and it is the Queen; it's not the British people, it's the Queen. You have to understand that in dealing with international politics, the usual kind of talk is absolute nonsense. It's doubletalk, really. That there are imperial forces, and what happened, when Bismarck was forced by the British relatives of the German King, that at that point, World War I was inevitable! There had never been a world war before then. And the significance of Bismarck was, that he had an agreement with the Czar of Russia, that the Czar of Russia would and Germany would block any attempt to organize a world war by France and Britain. That was the agreement.
When they got a new emperor in, in Germany, a successor, who was of British patronage, and what they did is they got Bismarck thrown out of the position, as Chancellor, and Bismarck had controlled the politics in Europe with the specific intent of preventing a general war. It was understood that that would lead to something that you wouldn't want.
So, as a result of that process, we got into a world war — it was 1890 when Bismarck was discharged, and already by 1893, the crown prince of Britain had negotiated with the Mikado to start a general war against China. And that general war on China, together with the assassination of the President of France, in the same period, is what opened up what became known as World War I. And it started immediately with a war in Asia, as a branch of it. And it went on through different phases of warfare, and finally got to the "Guns of August." And that was how the war started.
We have been in, with a certain respite, we have been in a perpetual world war, globally, since that time, since 1890! A state of affairs that did not exist in modern Europe earlier. We had approximations of major wars, and multiple warfare, but not this.
What happened is World War II was simply, after a short rest — take out for rest — and what happened was that Germany was going to be put back in the war, after what it had been through already. And the British were going to support it, and back it. As a matter of fact, a good deal of the British ruling class, had actually supported the idea of cooperating with a war with Hitler! But what happened, is, it didn't work out so well.
And the German military did not want to get into a tangle with the British Empire! So the condition was made, that increase of having a German war with Britain, a Nazi war with Britain, which the French were fully agreed to! The whole French Pétain and crowd, were fully as rotten as you can imagine! And so, that became World War II.
And World War II then went automatically into — as I indicated, what we're dealing with now is really World War III. And that is the logic behind the threat of a thermonuclear war. But when you start to get into war, you see, what happens, to get a world war, that was always done by starting a group of smaller wars, or local wars, and then expanding the local wars into general wars. That's how world war occurs! That's how it's being done now: You have wars going on, — for example, you have Tony Blair, who's one of the worst pigs you ever want to see, one of the worst creatures on this Earth. And he was the fellow who pushed through, fraudulently, a Second Iraq War! The Second Iraq War, which you know went on for a long time, built up the process, together with playing games with warfare in Afghanistan and things of that sort, set into motion another world war scenario. And if you look at very carefully at the way in which the First World War occurred, beginning shortly after the Bismarck ouster, then you see the pattern.
So you don't go out with "I've got a big plan for world war!" That's not the way they do it: You have a plan for a conflict to settle an issue; you create an issue and you're going to settle the issue. So, you get somebody else involved in it, goose them, get them all riled up, and the things spreads.
So, there's not the idea of the fine rationality that most people presume is this organizing of world war. You don't go out and organize world war, you actually have to organize it, as a process! And that's how it's done, and that's what's happening to us now.
We are now being organized in a process, which is intended to produce thermonuclear war. And the point is, the threat is, "either you submit to us, and we'll call off the world war, or we'll give you world war." And that's where we are now. And that's what we have to understand.
So therefore, the only way you can deal with this, is by, as by what's been attempted, through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dempsey, for example. Same thing on the Russian side. You have people who understand this process and say, we've got to organize against it! We've got to make it not happen!
Because once it starts, once the first thermonuclear weapon is shot by a major power, you've got World War III! And that's where we are. The only way to stop it, is: Fire Obama, now.
ROSS: All right. Well, this is another follow-up to this one, here. This is some things we recently came across. One is that, on the day after the attack, on Sept. 12th, EIR, the intelligence agency you founded decades ago, received a briefing from an intelligence community member, which was very similar to what the State Department and the Congressional committees had heard: Which was that, already again, the day after the attack, it was understood that there was no demonstration, the movie didn't come up at all; but that Benghazi, being a hotbed of jihadi activity, including the fact that two members of Ansar al-Sharia, which was the group suspected in the attack, were part of the public safety committee in charge of the city! — it had become clear that there was no surprise involved in this. There were repeated warnings about the security situation; these were ignored.
In the words of Ambassador Stevens himself, he had sent in a cable, regarding the situation in Benghazi: He called it, the "Guns of August, Security in Eastern Libya." And this was back on Aug. 8th, the ambassador said that, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation, to euphoria, and back again, as a series of violent incidents have dominated the political landscape. The individual incidents have been organized, a function of the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes. Islamist extremists have attacked the Red Cross, with relative impunity. What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather, targeted and discriminate attacks." He said, "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."
So, here you've got straight from Ambassador Stevens his view that there is a series of attacks, which we've gone through, there's plenty of detail on this on our website and other places about the other embassies being attacked, the Red Cross being attacked, the consulate itself being attacks. And the idea that the President didn't receive this briefing, is basically indicative either of the fact that he's just lying, which seems most likely, or that he's so amazingly incompetent, that after an American ambassador is killed for the first time in decades, Obama doesn't even get a real briefing on it!
And then, instead, we've got the idea the U.S. didn't want to ramp up security too much, didn't want to have a big presence by putting Marines in the area — as though anybody in the city was unaware that this was an American consulate! So, I know it's rather similar to what was just asked, but if you'd like to say any more on the subject, a lot of people want to hear more about it.
LAROUCHE: Yes. Absolutely! No, remember, Obama is not very intelligent, but that's not the only part about it with him. He's a very strange kind of personality, not normal at all. He's a tool.
So, what is done in this case, you get orchestration, it's always orchestration. Now, Obama's not that smart. He's facile, but he's not that intelligent. But he's a tool, and the British are running it! They're running this one, or the Queen's own are running this whole operation. Their aim is to get a world war!
You tend to look at — I look at the future. I'm a forecaster: I look at the future. I've been successful in forecasting, where the so-called best forecasters have failed because they believe in the past, they believe in what has already happened. They believe that the past causes the future. Whereas I know, that the future causes the future.
So, people are sloppy, because they don't think intelligently. They think that the past causes the future, and they assume that by controlling the past, they can control disasters which might occur in the future. That's why they're suckers.
When you're competent in forecasting, you don't assume, that you're dealing with the animal mind! When you're dealing with human forecasting, you have to assume that you're dealing with a human mind, not an animal mind! But what happens, in terms of forecasting, most people who forecast, use the animal mind side of their nature, not the human side of their mind. They are not actually forecasting. They're extrapolating! And that's the difference: They use statistical methods, which are only methods of extrapolation, not forecasting.
Human forecasting, and no animal is capable of this, human forecasting is based on the ability of the inventor, the discoverer of a physical principle, to apply that principle. And so, that's where the problem lies.
And so these fellows are a bunch of idiots, essentially, when it comes to forecasting: They always try to extrapolate from the past, therefore they are left unguarded, they have no idea of what it means for the future to intervene in the present! And that's the way the thing works. It's called surprise. They say, "I never thought that was... I didn't agree to that. I didn't think that was going to happen! I'm not the cause of that, you say I caused that? I didn't cause it! I didn't intend to cause it!"
But you caused it!
"Yeah, but I didn't intend to!"
That means you're stupid.
And that's how these things happen. This is the process. And when the people want to control — if you want to get a good picture of how not to do that, you should look at the history of Douglas MacArthur. I just had a review of some of the history of his command work.
He always operated, he had the lowest rate of losses, relative losses of forces of any major commander! Because he always created a future situation, which the opposition did not recognize, but would walk into what their usual deductive method would do, and he was there, waiting to receive them, when they thought they were advancing! And what the true forecaster, who's really capable of forecasting, does, is always that way! We are human! We do not draw conclusions, by deduction! That's Sherlock Holmes stuff, and you need cocaine to do that!
So that's the issue. The issue is that you have to understand, that if you want to deal with this kind of problem, don't try to go on the basis of proven, tried and tested method, and assume that tried and tested methods will solve your problem — they will not! They will only make your problem more complicated.
It's like inventing something, it's like making a discovery, an invention, a new economy, a new technology: That you can not deduce. If it's creative, you couldn't deduce it, you had to actually create it! And that's the case, for example, in the case for Douglas MacArthur's ability, — his superior ability! From the time he started as a colonel in World War I, he always had this, and he got it from his father, who also had the same thing. And his work was always based on forecasting what was not yet known. And he was there, waiting, with a small number of troops, relatively speaking, when the large number would come ponderously piling in, and he was waiting for them, and wiped their butts.
BERNSTEIN: Now, I have sort of an involved question to ask you, and it takes into account a decent amount of history, and I'm very provoked by the way you began the webcast, with the discussion of the period following Franklin Roosevelt's death, with the onset of the Truman era, which brought many ills to this country.
So, I'd like to raise a question of the assassination of President John Kennedy, and from what this organization, what the LaRouche organization has published in the past, what you know, I believe through your direct experience in such matters, is that this operation against the United States, was run, in a large part, through an incredibly well-funded assassination ring. You can put the name, Permindex, on it, a trading exposition company, a whole octopus network of them, whose president just so happened to be a superb asset of British intelligence; who then went on to become another asset of the FBI; who was actually recruited into the FBI.
And this network operated through commercial ventures, which were highly effective at conduiting money, laundering money. So this was money laundering through these commercial ventures, this was drug money, as well; and this went toward funding the most, you could say, successful, assassination ring, which was responsible — and there were players even within his own administration, within the Kennedy Administration, who were assets of this apparatus. This was an international apparatus, which French President Charles de Gaulle caught onto, and made many attempts to try to shut down.
But in the end, what strikes me, is one year ago, we put out a video — I had a certain amount of responsibility in it — "Ten Years Later," the 9/11 video, exposing what the apparatus was behind the original 9/11 attacks; the funding of the hijackers through a slush fund which was a British BAE Systems, one of the largest weapons companies on the planet, still today, and Saudi oil venture, which created the slush fund that enabled 9/11 Part 1.
Now, that apparatus, because it has not been exposed, and it is basically well known within the intelligence community, within former members of the Congress, that this is likely to be, this connection, the Saudi-British connection, is likely to be what is in the 28 pages [blacked out from the 9/11 Commission Report] that President Barack Obama swore to reveal, and never did.
So, again, it's a little bit of an involved picture, to try to paint for you, but I'm wondering how you viewed this entire process? Whether you view it as the same process, and I guess this is sort of a parochial question, but how you effectively dismantle it? Because it is known — what do we do about it?
LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm! Okay! Well, there are various ways to go at that thing. My first experience came from people in France. I never met, personally, Charles de Gaulle, but I met his leading generals who were still surviving, and that was going on as long as the Gaullists still stayed in France.
Now, this whole process started about the time of the end of the 1950s; it started at the end there, and there was a tumult of development, which led into negotiations in which what happened is the involvement of the President came in, in that period. But it started with de Gaulle. And the targetting was first, de Gaulle — this whole international apparatus, it was started with de Gaulle, in the many attempts to assassinate him! I mean, he really was assassination proof, because he was somewhat like some of our great generals, like MacArthur, who were ahead of the flow, and he had some real hair-raisers.
The forces that we know that were involved, were based largely in Spain, the physical assassination forces, were largely based on Spain. And this was the same connection, which went into Mexico, to come across the border and take out the President.
So, what you have, you have a machine, which is actually the British Empire, is the machine. Remember that there is only real empire in the world, and that's the British Empire. For example, the Saudi empire, the Saudis are a branch, a direct branch; the BAE was the joint funding operation, both for the Saudis and also for the British. And the 9/11 was run by the BAE funding with the technology of assassination done otherwise, and it was done Prince Bandar, who was, at the time of 9/11, was the ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia! And who is now the muckety-muck chief of Saudi Arabia, and they're running the same kind of operation.
These operations are known. And they're known in the way you described it, it's absolutely accurate. That's exactly the way you can look at it, and see it.
The purpose was British: The British were the origin of this, why? Because what was threatened, partly with Eisenhower, and then also then with Kennedy, in that succession, was that the United States was going to bounce back! In the middle of this, you have the Khrushchov problem, and you have to wonder who helped Stalin to die? Because Khrushchov, I happen to know, was controlled by the British.
Bertrand Russell organized the committee which controlled Khrushchov, and it was organized with four people assigned for Khrushchov, who were stationed in Britain — they were Russians — but they were working to control Khrushchov.
So this is the kind of thing that goes on. It's more complicated than you indicate, but the features are exactly the same, it follows the same track. And it's operating now. I've had a few brushes with this sort of thing, which wasn't carried out the way it could have been.
OGDEN: Just on that, actually, I want to interject quickly: There are two special reports that are available, from EIR, that have just been published. The most recent one came out today, which is called, "Obama's War on America, 9/11 Two." And this contains the full story behind not only the events of Benghazi, what happened in Benghazi, but it also contains the full story of what you did, in forecasting 9/11 One, on the Jack Stockwell show, on the day, and also in a live webcast on...
LAROUCHE: January 3rd...
OGDEN: Of 2001, when President Bush was first inaugurated, saying, these are the conditions, and this is what will happen. So, this contains that full story, along with, many, many of the details behind Prince Bandar and his involvement.
Now, there's also another special report, which has been published recently, which is available, which is on the story behind the British war drive towards World War III, actually going chronologically, from the moment that Muammar Qaddafi was murdered, — which actually Human Rights Watch has just published a report saying that not only was the murder of the captive Qaddafi a war crime, but also the murder of 66 members of his party, who were captive, through drones and otherwise, ordered ultimately from Obama, — is a war crime! These are the kinds of crimes that are on Obama's plate.
Anyway, this report is what documents the full extent of that, but also the entire geometry of what's been set in motion between the United States, NATO, these missile defense shields on one side, and the reality of what Putin, Medvedev, Makarov, and others, have said, "We will retaliate, we will not surrender. We will call your bluff." And in fact, just today, there were several test missile launches, a Topol M launch, also a cruise missile launched from an aircraft, and also a submarine launch, just to make the point, that this is real.
So I want to say, that all of the documentation is available, and we've put it together, and there really is no excuse not to have this be what's informing the next several days, of the ongoing fight to rid the United States of the Presidency of Obama, through defeat in the elections.
So, I wanted to interject that, and then, ask Jason to come up for one final question.
ROSS: Well, this concerns the science of forecasting. There's a question that came in, about, in a world without parties, in a post-party world, the science of forecasting takes center stage at offering a way of making policy.
Now, there's another specific question tied with this, about how the mind works in making discoveries. The questioner is asking that, "All important discoveries, even mathematical ones, are made by insights of the mind, through the mind making leaps of insight, seemingly related to leaps of faith." He'd like to know, how it is that the mind is able to discover things that can't be arrived at from mathematics, which seems to be the description of the external world, how is it that the mind is able to find concepts that match these external things, — in other words, how do the concepts exist out there, and not only in the mind? What's the connection?
LAROUCHE: Well, there's a simple aspect of it, which just takes you into the beginning of that process. The actual process involved, what you're referring to is more complex and goes much deeper. But for an audience like this, just take the relatively simpler aspect of the thing, and let's talk about Classical music: Because that's the solution. That's the thing you have to understand, it's the quickest way to understand how this whole thing works.
So, and you have a number of people, great musicians, like Johann Sebastian Bach, and so forth, who are experts at this area, but the root of this thing comes much Earth. And so, people are educated to believe; when something is not untrue, but when it is not true. That we use sense-perception, like smelling people out or things like that, as a way of trying to understand things, and then we take sense-perceptions and we arrange them in a formula, and we try to see how this formula of sense-perceptions works. And the usual conclusion of the naïve person, is the assumption, that is the sense-perceptions interlock, expressed in that way, which determine how the world works, how society functions. It's not true.
What you have in the case of Bach, and it doesn't begin with Bach, it was already earlier, in the 15th century, that the concept of Classical music and Classical poetry — remember Classical poetry and Classical music are very much the same thing; they're convergent. They involve the same senses, that the idea of — you have people who tend to sing, who are speaking. But when they're speaking, they sound as if they might be singing. And this is the carry-over. So, you get a case like Furtwängler, the last one of these real giants in this area, in this kind of performance, although Schumann also, in terms of knowledge was also thinking in the same direction; Schubert, the same way; so that you have, in Classical musical composition, you have a doorway, a small doorway, that you can sneak out through that doorway and find out how the mind actually works!
I mean, just think about it: What is sense-perception? Sense-perception is senses, right? You smell, you hear, so forth, hmm? And if you rely upon senses alone, to try to understand the universe, there's something wrong, isn't there?
So therefore, what you get, with the work of Bach, if you understand him, and also with others, but most particularly Furtwängler, — particularly I would say his [conducting of Schubert's] Ninth Symphony, as Furtwängler last performed before he died, is a perfect example of this.
So that, what there is, is the human mind is not limited to sense-perception. Just think about it: You have all these animals and so forth, who have sense-perception, and they operate on sense-perception, essentially. Do they really know what they're doing? Or are they just following sense-perception? Are do they take combinations of sense-perception, they would use several senses and combine the effect of that; and they hear something, they smell something and so forth, that's how an animal generally finds its way, with that kind of sense-perception.
But what makes it work? Sense-perception does not tell you how the universe works. And you find this intimation that the human being has this innate capability. And this is the meaning of Classical culture! The functional meaning of Classical culture, is that, if you — start with music, start with Classical music. Now, begin to think, in terms of Classical music and you'll find that the best minds in culture, have been of that nature.
The principle is understood by people like Nicholas of Cusa, who's a founder in this area, in his De Docta Ignorantia exemplifies it. You have Kepler, who was actually a master in this area. But what happens is, is we people, — as we become smarter, shall we say, more experienced in this area, our abilities to understand processes increases. The person who has no musicality whatsoever, he has no inkling for that, and treats sense-perceptions in general, in the same way, that person is dulled, and is not capable of thinking in the same way that a person who is more cultured can think. The reason is, that we use capabilities which exist for all human beings, but we're using them! And the only way you can use them, is if you can learn this kind of experience, this leads you into higher orders of investigation.
That's a very short explanation, but that is to identify exactly the issue.
OGDEN: And I will say, that is the issue, which decides whether or not civilization survives, today. And the reason why we've convened these series of webcasts leading up into the election is that the leadership which you uniquely can provide here, because of this quality of mind, is nowhere else to be seen in the United States, or in the world. And we thank you for that reason, for joining us today, and for the past several weeks and for the next several weeks.
And we thank you for tuning and watching tonight. I'll say, before we conclude, that we have a big responsibility: There's 18 days between now and the election. I think Mr. LaRouche has made very clear what's at stake here. And over the next few days, leading into the beginning of next week, I think we can expect to see a lot of things change, for better and for worse, as has been made clear.
So, thank you again for watching, and please contribute as much as you can, to support our efforts on LaRouche PAC. And I would like to thank Jason and Leandra for joining us, also.
And that brings a conclusion to tonight's broadcast.