May 22, 2015 · Friday Webcast
It's Friday—that means it's webcast time. Tonight, at 8 PM Eastern, we will tell the story of how one man, who by committing himself to the legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt at the end of WWII, helped to shape the institution of the U.S. Presidency, with zero backing of monied interests, big corporations or political parties. These are not stories from the past, this how one American can create the future.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it's May 22, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I'd like to welcome you all to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine.
Now, many of you may have had the opportunity to join Mr. LaRouche himself personally, on a historic nationwide activist call that we had last night. It was an extraordinary discussion which lasted almost two hours of direct question and answer with Mr. LaRouche himself. And this was a rare chance to directly engage with Mr. LaRouche, which involved the participation of people from all over the United States; from Alaska to Brooklyn, NY, to California, and everywhere in between. And this discussion, which was really historic in its scope and its seriousness, is available in recorded form on the larouchepac.com website; which I would encourage everybody to listen to, if you haven't already. And is also being prepared in transcript form, so I would encourage you to read that when it's released.
And as that discussion last night with Mr. LaRouche demonstrated very clearly, we find ourselves at an extraordinarily dramatic time in history. I know that Jeff will be elaborating more on this momentarily, but over the past two weeks it's become very clear that all indications right now point at an all-out revolt among the institutions of the United States Presidency at the very highest level against the Obama regime. With the appearance of the blockbuster Seymour Hersh article last week, on the lies of Obama surrounding the Abbottabad raid against Osama bin Laden, to the coordinated release of the DIA documents this week under this FOIA suit, exposing Obama's lies regarding Benghazi, and then the PBS Frontline special that aired just this past Tuesday, which continues to expose the criminality and the fraud of Obama and the Bush/Cheney administration around the CIA torture program, and so forth and so on. With all of these, it's very clear that there's a well-coordinated and well-timed revolt coming from within the institutions of the United States Presidency. What Mr. LaRouche has always identified as such.
However, as Mr. LaRouche was very clear to stress this week, these moves cannot be understood in the abstract, or in isolation. It's only by understanding the absolute historic continuity of this fight within the institutions of the United States government, and especially Lyndon LaRouche's personal role in actively shaping and directly leading at times that fight, especially stretching back to the late 1970s, and then onwards through the Presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. So without understanding that unbroken, historic continuum which is acting all the way through to the events of today, you can't sufficiently comprehend the implications of what is occurring right now. And in fact, Mr. LaRouche's entire career has been one that has been determined and shaped by his personal relationship to the so-called institution of the Presidency; going all the way back to his wartime service under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. At first this was a more informal relationship, which took the form of a personal commitment on Mr. LaRouche's part to defend what he saw as the mission of FDR against a treasonous tendency from within the Truman Presidency, which took over after Roosevelt's death. But later, especially into the late 1970s and through the '80s and the '90s, this relationship took on a more formal and specific form, stretching to the very highest levels of influence and policymaking and related affairs. And as I know Jeff will elaborate in more detail, especially in regards to Russia, India, and what's now recognized as the BRICS, the role that Mr. LaRouche has played over this entire period is now reaching a critical point of inflection and global culmination.
So, this is the subject in brief of the item which was posted this morning on the LaRouche PAC website, under the title "LaRouche's Mission to Restore the American Presidency", and will be the kernel of this coming week's issue of Executive Intelligence Review. So, with that said by way of introduction, let me just hand the podium over to Jeff to start things off for us this evening.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. We do have an institutional question, which we'll deal with in another medium over the course of the next few days. The general theme of the discussion was the Ukraine crisis and whether or not there's any possibility of bringing any degree of economic stability to Ukraine without an agreement being reached around the whole crisis in eastern Ukraine. And I think it's a useful lead-in to the essential point that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in a rather lengthy discussion that we had with him and with Helga Zepp-LaRouche this afternoon, in preparation for this webcast. The bottom line is that Ukraine is a pawn in a British game. And here's the basic parameters of the situation that we're facing at this moment.
As Matt alluded just now, the Seymour Hersh revelations, these new DIA documents that show that no later than September 12, 2012, in other words, just hours after the attack on the U.S. compound and CIA annex in Benghazi which resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American officials. At the highest levels of the U.S. government, it was known, name, rank and serial number, who was responsible for the attack. It was not spontaneous, it had nothing to do with a video that was limitedly circulating that was a slander against the Prophet Mohammed. It was a premeditated, al-Qaeda attack against American targets, with the aim of carrying out the maximum number of killings, and it was conducted as revenge for the U.S. having eliminated one of the top officials of al-Qaeda in early in 2012 in Pakistan, who happened to be a Libyan, and also to commemorate, to memorialize the 9/11 original attacks eleven years earlier. So, this was known, yet President Obama, Susan Rice, and others in the administration, went out of their way to lie to the American people, to lie to the U.S. Congress, and in President Obama's case, to lie to the United Nations General Assembly, when he spoke there later in the month.
So, what we have here, is a smoking gun. This is a means and basis for Obama's removal from office. The general climate that has been built up, the Democratic revolt, even if it was temporary, against the fast-track authority for the free trade agreements in the Pacific and Atlantic regions, is an indication this Presidency is going down. And the danger is that because President Obama is a pawn of the British monarchy, and because of an overall desperation of the complete bankruptcy of this trans-Atlantic, British-centered, London-centered financial system, there's a very real possibility that unless Obama is removed from office right away, there is a very real prospect that he will — under British orders — order an action to be taken, a provocation, that could very quickly lead to a thermonuclear war that would be, in all likelihood, a war of extermination; a war of annihilation of all of mankind.
Now, I hope that some of you are scratching your heads right now, and are saying, "This is absolutely insane, for such a thing to be even remotely risked." And the fact of the matter is, yes, anyone who would contemplate — whatever the desperate causes are of it — this kind of provocation that we see going on around the Ukraine situation; that we see going on with the forward-basing and further deploying eastward of NATO forces; that we see with the deployment of the ABM system right on the borders of Russia — ostensibly aimed at Iran, even though the President seems to think that his legacy hangs on being able to get a P5+1 deal with Iran. All of this is, in fact, madness. And fact of the matter is, that there are provisions under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to immediately remove a President from office if he is no longer physically or mentally capable of carrying out the job.
Now, towards the final days and weeks of the Nixon Presidency, there was widespread concern that President Nixon was on the verge something absolutely desperate and dangerous. And so, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Department, were put on notice by senior White House staff people that if they were given an order to take some kind of an absolutely flight-forward, irrational action by President Nixon, before they acted on the order they were to go to the relevant people at the White House and alert them. Now, this was not just some kind of wing-ding, but this was precisely the procedures that were set in place around the 25th Amendment, to immediately be able to move if a President is debilitated and is no longer, for physical or psychological reasons, able to serve.
So, we're in that kind of moment; we're in that kind of situation right now. And what Mr. LaRouche has demanded, is that Congress take the immediate appropriate actions afforded particularly by the release of an official Defense Intelligence Agency document that shows that at the highest levels of government, it was known that the Benghazi attack was a premeditated, pre-planned attack by al-Qaeda elements. And so, this forms the basis for taking what already exists as a select committee investigating Benghazi under the chairmanship of Congressman Trey Gaudy, and basically segueing that into an impeachment proceeding; with the idea that the danger of an immediate action by President Obama, under British orders, to provoke a general war targetted against Russia, or China, or both, or India — that all of this could be the grounds for immediately invoking the 25th Amendment.
Now, Matt made reference, and I want to elaborate on this point, because it will be a significant theme in the coming days and weeks, and will be a major feature in the next issue of Executive Intelligence Review. Mr. LaRouche has a long history of being part of the institution of the Presidency. And I want to go through a little bit of that history right now, because I think it also gives a very clear window into the fact that over the past 40, 50 years — maybe a bit longer, maybe going back to the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1945 — we have had precious few Presidents who have really lived up to the Constitutional requirements of that office. And we've had a number of Presidents who have been part of the party of treason; who've been, in effect, British agents or agents of networks allied with the British. And so within the institution of the Presidency, you've had a state of warfare that's been operating for pretty much the entirety of the post-World War II period.
And so, Mr. LaRouche has been a personal, central figure in that entire process. Mr. LaRouche was in the China/Burma/India theater when Franklin Roosevelt died; and at the time, he had a discussion with a number of GIs who asked him what his view was. And he warned that a great President had died, and had been replaced by a very little man and that the nation was in great trouble. LaRouche came back from the war, and one of the first things that he did was to write a private letter Dwight Eisenhower, who at that time was the President of Columbia University, urging him to run for President in 1948. There already was the experience of several years of Trumanism, which led into McCarthyism. And so, LaRouche wrote to Eisenhower; Eisenhower wrote back to him, and said that basically it was premature, but he appreciated that he was seen as somebody appropriate to be President. Mr. LaRouche commented today that it was almost an inevitability that Eisenhower would become President; it just took an additional four years for it to happen.
In the 1970s, during the demise of the Nixon Presidency, Mr. LaRouche — after having been engaged for much of the 1950s and '60s in the fight against the scourge of McCarthyism — warned in a now famous editorial in the New Solidarity weekly newspaper, on August 15, 1971, that by Nixon's decision to remove the United States from the Bretton Woods system, a whole era of dominance by speculative capital would be unleashed, and that in all likelihood, Nixon himself would be brought down. Because having accomplished the breakdown under British initiative, of Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system, the next step would be an assault on the U.S. Constitutional institutions, starting with the Presidency.
In 1976, as a candidate for the U.S. Labor Party, LaRouche ran for President of the United States for the first time. And in a famous television broadcast on election eve, he warned about the danger to the nation; literally the danger of thermonuclear war if Jimmy Carter, with the backing of the entire Trilateral Commission apparatus, was elected as President of the United States. Now, of course, Carter was elected President, but LaRouche's warnings catalyzed a certain institutional response to basically prevent that war danger from fully being realized. In early 1977, Mr. LaRouche was approached by a number of leading American patriots, who were part of this institution of the Presidency. Some of them were in official government positions; others were in the private sector, and at various other times were in the government. But they approached him; and they said that what LaRouche had done on election eve was critical, and that he had to become part of an institutional resistance to what this Trilateral Commission takeover of the Presidency represented.
Many of these people who approached LaRouche at that time, were World War II veterans of the OSS, and had been part of a faction in the OSS that had been battling against the Dulles brothers; who were aligned with Hitler, who were aligned with the British, and who represented a scourge on the United States during the wartime and in the postwar period. In fact, on behalf of the British, Allen Dulles famously made the arrangements that led to the murder and hanging by his feet of Mussolini. It had nothing to do with justice for Mussolini; but it had everything to do with confiscating truckloads of documents that would have shown the British and Dulles brothers and related support for Mussolini and fascism. So, but this group of patriotic, former OSS, leading figures within the institution of the Presidency, effectively tapped LaRouche at that time to be a part of the resistance to the takeover of the Presidency by this Trilateral Commission crowd, which very much included the Bush family. Prescott Bush was nothing but a junior partner of the Dulles brothers, who on behalf of the British, were running a treasonous operation inside the United States.
And so, Mr. LaRouche became part of this structure. In 1977, he launched what later became the Strategic Defense Initiative, and this became a basis for a close collaboration with Ronald Reagan, both before and during his period as President of the United States—that 8 years. It was LaRouche, people like Dr. Edward Teller—who was a key advisor to President Reagan—who, along with President Reagan, created the Strategic Defense Initiative.
On behalf of the Reagan Presidency, Mr. LaRouche functioned as a back-channel negotiator with the Soviet government, over the prospect of the United States and the Soviet Union working jointly on developing a missile defense system that would bring an end to the scourge of Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that, somehow or other, there was a precarious balance between two superpowers that were armed to the hilt with an over-kill arsenal of thermonuclear weapons. That was no way for mankind to survive and exist.
And so, LaRouche, Reagan, Teller, and others worked on this project, and Mr. LaRouche played a very particular role in that effort, in negotiating with the Soviet government, first during the period of the latter years of the Brezhnev leadership; and then, when Andropov came in, the deal went sour, because Andropov rejected it. But there was a deep collaboration on a wide range of issues—economic, national security, foreign policy issues—between Mr. LaRouche and President Reagan.
Now, of course, many of you will recall, that President Reagan was the target of an assassination attempt very early on in his Presidency. And quite frankly, he came very close to being killed, and having George H.W. Bush ushered into the White House. The injuries that President Reagan sustained, fortunately were not fatal, but they greatly debilitated his Presidency, and nevertheless opened the door for the Bush crowd and the neo-conservatives to have a much greater role in the Reagan Presidency. And, from that position, they were able to push back against, and dismantle, the SDI policy.
And, furthermore, they launched a criminal operation directed against Mr. LaRouche and this political movement, which culminated in October, 1986, in a raid on the offices and the residence of Mr. LaRouche. There were factions allied with the Bushes and the legacy of the Dulles crowd that wanted Mr. LaRouche killed and wanted this movement to be completely dismantled and destroyed. There were other, patriotic, elements, who pushed back against that. The net effect was that Mr. LaRouche framed up, and along with many colleagues, spent five years in jail, and probably, had George H.W. Bush been re-elected President in 1992, he would have been in jail forever.
Now, in 1992, you had a major turn-about in the Presidency, with the election of Bill Clinton. And there were many policies that Mr. LaRouche had developed, that were policies that Bill Clinton was very familiar with and very interested in. Many of these had to do with the U.S.-Russia relationship—a continuum from the work that Mr. LaRouche did during the Soviet period, around the SDI.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, the end of the Warsaw Pact, Mr. LaRouche, soon after he came out of jail, was brought by his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, to Europe, and on to Russia, where he had a whole series of very high-level meetings that discussed the prospects for major economic cooperation between the United States and Russia, dealing with the economic challenges of re-integrating Eurasia, of re-establishing a genuine Russian-American partnership, which had existed historically from the time of the American Revolution through much of the 19th century.
At the point that you began to see the breakdown, in 1997 and 1998, of the entire post-Bretton Woods financial system, there was, again, a fundamental agreement, in principal, between President Clinton and what Mr. LaRouche was proposing, which was the convening of a new Bretton Woods conference—the establishment, once again, of FDR principles, of Hamiltonian credit, a return to Glass-Steagall. President Clinton was moving on these policies, and was moving in concert with international efforts, particularly in Russia, that Mr. LaRouche continued to pursue. There was a de facto agreement on how to pursue a transformation of American-Russian relations, with Mr. LaRouche making several high-profile, critical, visits to Russia, to discuss Russia's economic future, during the mid-1990s.
All of that came to a screeching halt when the British Monarchy launched an all-out assault against the Clinton Presidency, aimed a bringing President Clinton down. And, in effect, as of late 1997, particularly by the summer of 1998, on the one hand President Clinton was attempting to move in a direction of creating a new global financial architecture that would be just and would bring an end of this radical speculative binge, in conjunction with Mr. LaRouche. And then, on the other hand, he came under massive attack, and, by mid-to-late 1998, the Clinton Presidency was effectively destroyed.
From that point on, you have had nothing but degeneracy at the White House. First, you had the 8 years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and the neo-con assault on the world; and that was followed by what's now almost 7 years of an Obama Presidency that has followed through, consistently, on what was done by Bush and Cheney, the net effect being that we have had 15 years in which the Presidency has been effectively in British control, in enemy hands, and Mr. LaRouche has been a fearless fighter, out front and publicly, in defending the institution of the Presidency, even when it meant going against the occupant of the Oval Office.
So, we're at a point right now, where there are moves afoot to actually respond to the reality of the danger that's before us immediately. If this President is not removed from office, by Constitutional means—whether by impeachment, by forced resignation, by invoking of the 25th Amendment—if that doesn't happen very, very soon, there is a genuine danger that the world will be facing a war of thermonuclear annihilation. And, no one has the right to even remotely run that risk.
So, LaRouche has taken the point. That was a critical element of the discussions that took place last night, with somewhere in the range of 400-500 people on conference calls with him; that we've got to make sure that there is an end to the Obama Presidency. Not in January of 2017, but in the immediate days and weeks ahead. The evidence is now there. The DIA document, released just this past Monday, is an official government document. It's a "smoking gun," that proves that the President lied to the American people, lied to Congress, and should be held accountable for those lies. This is not the only impeachable crime; it's one that now stands directly before us, because the evidence is out there and is available and is in the public domain. And, leading members of Congress are well aware that they are facing a tremendous moral dilemma: whether they have the courage to act on what must be done to avoid a potential thermonuclear catastrophe.
So, this is a very brief and very rough sketch. There will be a much more detailed account in this next week's issue of EIR. But, the point is, that we are a nation of Constitutional institutions. And, it's not only those people who've been elected to office, who participate in that process. Mr. LaRouche has never been elected to public office, but he was tapped, many, many years ago, to be a part of the institution of the Presidency, and that institution is committed to the upholding of the Constitution. And therefore, at critical moments, when you have an enemy of the Republic, occupying the White House, the demand for action is even greater. And Mr. LaRouche has lived up to that responsibility like virtually no other figure in the postwar period.
So that's the framework from which the current immediate crisis that we are facing as a nation and as a world has to be seen from. We have tremendous allies internationally. We have the initiatives coming out of the BRICS; we have the particular initiatives, coming from the Chinese, putting the $5.5 trillion in hard currency reserves into circulation, into use as a kind of a Hamiltonian credit system, for buidling up the world on the basis of levels of cooperation among nation-states, that has never previous existed.
We've got to get the United States on board for that process, and the first step is that Obama must be removed from office, and we've got to seize the moment and the opportunity that's staring us in the face right at this moment.
OGDEN: Great. Thank you very much, Jeff.
Next, I'm going to ask Ben Deniston to come to the podium. As those of you had the opportunity to hear and participate in this discussion with Mr. LaRouche last night, on the National Activists' Call, know, Mr. LaRouche warned in no uncertain terms, that unless the policies of Jerry Brown and Obama concerning the water crisis in California and the other Western states in the United States were immediately reversed the consequences in terms of rising death rates from lack of water, and also due to lack of food, would be genocidal in their effects.
We've elaborated in very clear terms, previously, on this forum and elsewhere, what the available solutions to this crisis are, and they are on the table, they're ready to be adopted. But what we're seeing instead, is a continued rejection of these solutions on the part of Jerry Brown, and an outright threat, coming from both him and from Obama, as pertains to those who "deny" the necessity of reducing carbon emissions in the name of so-called "curbing manmade global warming," "climate change."
On the heels of this California Water Board decision at the end of last month, to impose mandatory water restrictions in the state of California, at the beginning of this month, the Water Board — which is an appropriate name for it — the Water Board imposed a new set of regulations against desalination, which is the most immediate means available for alleviating the current drought conditions along the coast of California. According to an article that was published in the San Diego Union Tribune, "These new restrictions could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of proposed desalination plants, and make desalinated water twice as expensive, as recycled waste water," jeopardizing the opening of a 50 million gallon/day desalination plant that was scheduled to go online in 2017 in Carlsbad, California.
On top of this, Reuters is reporting that California has entered into a memorandum of understanding agreement with 11 other provinces and states across the world (definitely a violation of national sovereignty), which mandates a limit of carbon output by 80-90% of 1990 levels, by the year 2050! Quite a dramatic, drastic reduction.
And then, finally, you had Obama speaking this week, in New London, Connecticut, literally threatening anyone who would be so audacious as to question the so-called popular consensus, when it comes to manmade climate change. The Associated Press coverage of this speech reads quite ominously: "'Those who deny global warming are putting at risk the United States and the military sworn to defend it,' Obama told cadets at the U.S. Naval Academy. 'Failure to act would be a dereliction of duty,' said their command in chief. The President's message on climate change skeptics was unequivocal. 'Denying it or refusing to deal with undermines our national security.'" So, coming from Obama, those words certainly don't inspire confidence, to say the least.
So I know that Ben has some things to say regarding the source of this murderous ideology, where it comes from, what the implications of the continuation, the allowance of the continuation of this would be, and what the necessary solutions to defend mankind must be. So, Ben.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks Matthew. I was actually in a discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier in the week on this subject, and his response to Jerry Brown's move to now suppress and make it more difficult to develop desalination and his pursuit of these insane carbon emissions was rather straightforward. He said, "This guy's just a pathetic fool. He's a pathetic fool, and he's acting for people and on behalf of policies that go much beyond him." He is in effect, absolutely acting to pursue and implement, the policy of the British Royal Family, the policy of the British Empire, of population reduction, the stated, on the books, on the record policy of the Queen of England, of Her Royal Consort Prince Philip, of their associates in the Anglo-Dutch establishment and their allies on Wall Street, to reduce the world population by billions of people, potentially down to a level of 1-2 billion people. And Jerry Brown's policies, as he's shown, are clearly acting to be consistent with the implementation of that ideology, that program.
I think this desalination thing is just typical. Any sane, human government, like of his father, for example, Pat Brown, what would his response be? He would have already accelerated the development of these desalination systems. You have systems that are being designed, being built, being constructed; others that have been mothballed, that are being examined again; he have said, "get these things going as quickly as possible." You'd use the power of the authority of the state to accelerate the development of these new water supplies.
Jerry Brown does the exact opposite. He's suppressing them, he makes it more difficult. He's stopping the already existing attempts to even make these relatively small scale attempts to alleviate some of the drought conditions, in these coastal regions. But again, this is an expression of his adherence to this genocidal, zero-growth, population reduction policy that really has been developed and implemented and stated by the British Royal Family, by the British Empire and their associates.
So that's the real issue. That's what Jerry Brown is expressing right now. But I want to take a few minutes, because this is what we have to overcome. This is what we have to defeat: This is what we have to defeat in California, in the West, in the United States generally. And this is the expression, really, of a much deeper policy, a much deeper cultural issue for mankind, which is this fight against Zeus, this Zeusian ideology.
You know, we've discussed on this program, my associate Jason Ross has done a lot to elaborate, what we know about the story of the fight of Prometheus against Zeus. And you look at the insight we get into the longstanding history of mankind from these tales, from these stories, from these records. You look at the conditions of mankind under the reign of Zeus, as described by Aeschylus: You have mankind living in a state of bestiality, no science, no technology, no art, no culture. These were the conditions that man was kept in by Zeus!
And when Prometheus freed mankind from these conditions, when Prometheus raised mankind to an ability to go beyond these animal-like conditions, to develop science, to develop art, to be human, it was for that, that Zeus sought to destroy Prometheus, sought to punish him. That is what Zeus is.
And we see this in other accounts of Zeus: I was looking at some of the ancient Greek accounts of the Trojan War, in the Cypria, and I'd like to read one quote that gives you another insight into the quality of this Zeusian character. It reads:
"There was a time when the countless tribes of men, though widespread, oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed Earth. And Zeus saw this, and he had pity ... and in his wise heart resolved to relieve the all-nurturing Earth of men, by causing the great struggle of the Ilion war, that load of death might empty the world. And so the heroes were slain in Troy and the plan of Zeus came to pass."
So again, from another record, another insight into the mentality of Zeus, to release loads of death upon mankind, to empty the Earth of the human population, to free Mother Nature of this burden of mankind. It might sound familiar, to some of what people say today.
But these are ancient accounts from the depths of ancient Greece, but they're indications into the mentality, the cultural disease that has plagued mankind, that mankind has had to fight against, for a very, very long period of time. And today, we're seeing the most recent expression of this Zeusian ideology, this Zeusian force, which is the British Empire. This is the most recent expression, the British, or you could call it the Anglo-Dutch Empire, the most recent expression of this Zeus oligarchical ideology: The use of famines to cause mass death and reduce populations. If you look at what the British did in India, for centuries, literally killing millions of Indians, through a policy of famine, of mass starvation, of economic policies designed to wipe out huge sections of the Indian population.
They did the same thing in Ireland, the so-called "Irish potato famine": 25% of the population of Ireland either left out of desperation, or was starved to death, under the policies of the British Empire at the time, under the justification of the ideology of Thomas Malthus, as the expression of this mentality then.
So you have this longstanding expression of this oligarchical, this Zeusian policy which has plagued mankind, plagued civilization for thousands of years, in various expression, various ways, the British Empire being the most recent expression of that. And the most recent expression in the British Empire, the most recent development of this policy, is the creation of the so-called environmentalist movement. And I want to take a few minutes just to put on the table a few facts, there's extensive material that we've pulled together, Mr. LaRouche and his organization have pulled over the years, documenting this.
But this I think has to be put on the record now, to get a sense of what Jerry Brown is really just a tool of, and what has to be overturned, what has to be overthrown, if California is going to survive, if the west is going to survive. So if you look at this past century, I'm going to highlight a couple leading individual figures, of the British, of the Anglo-Dutch establishment, and their role in the creation of the so-called environmentalist movement, initially the "conservation movement."
You had Julian Huxley, who was a leader of the eugenics movement, before World War II, but then also after World War II, after we witnessed Hitler's implementation of a eugenics program, of the horrors of the Hitler regime, Julian Huxley continued to promote the development of eugenics, famously writing in the founding document of UNESCO, that despite the political backlash and horrific response that has occurred since the documentation of what Hitler did, despite this tarnishing of the name of the eugenics, we still have to support eugenics, "so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable," to use his words, to ensure the revival of eugenics is possible. And proceeded to then become President of the British Eugenics Society from '59-'62. One individual.
You take another, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who was a member of the Nazi Party, who was a member of Nazi intelligence, according to reports in the 1970s, published in Newsweek and other locations, testimony at the Nuremberg trials showed that Prince Bernhard was a part of a special Nazi SS intelligence unit, working in IG Farben, where the Nazis then later developed the concentration camp and the slave labor system. That was before the war. He resigned from the Nazi Party to marry a Dutch princess, signing his resignation letter, "Heil Hitler," and then receiving a congratulations from Hitler, written to him for his wedding.
But then obviously, not abandoning his Nazi pedigree, because after the war, he took up the leadership of Royal Dutch Airlines at a period when Royal Dutch Airlines, for one reason or another, abandoned their normal policy of documenting all of the people they flew around, and flew a number of Nazi war criminals out of Germany, to other locations in the world so they could escape prosecution, while Prince Bernhard was heading Royal Dutch Airlines at the time.
You have Prince Philip, the unfortunately still living Royal Consort, married to the current Queen of England, who himself has through family connections has very close ties to elements of the Nazis, and himself has openly stated that he would love to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, to help with what he thinks is the biggest problem facing the world, which is overpopulation; that there's too many people — he would love to return as a deadly virus to eliminate huge sections of the world population. A person who's openly quoted saying that he believes that human society should be subject to periodic "cullings," to rid the world of excess people.
So these are three leading figures of this Anglo-Dutch establishment. And what do they have in common besides support of Nazis, and eugenics, and mass killing, based on these ideologies? These are the people that founded the modern environmentalist movement. They founded the World Wildlife Fund, as a leading organization in the creation of the environmentalist movement in '60s. They created the "1001 Club" to organize major financial support, to get this movement off the ground, running and spreading its propaganda and policies around the world.
And what is the policy of these organizations, of the World Wildlife Fund, of these environmentalist groups? Mass reduction of the human population, reduce the world population by billions, down to maybe 1 or 2 billion people, that is the stated, active policy of these organizations, expressing the most modern expressions of this Zeusian mass-kill ideology, this Zeusian mass-kill policy.
And to reference what Matthew said in the beginning, they're picked up and the promoted this whole climate change fraud as a leading excuse, a leading guise to push this population reduction program, to claim that you driving your car is going to destroy the entire planet, so therefore, we need to enforce legally binding, international limitations on carbon emissions, which is really to restrict growth, restrict the production of power, restrict industry, restrict population growth, through these radical, environmentalist means, under the whole guise of climate change.
To the degree that fools like Obama say, "denying climate change now is a potential threat to national security," when the planet hasn't even warmed in almost 18 years! The actual planetary temperature has flatlined for nearly two decades, and these guys want to claim that we're having some catastrophic affect that's going to destroy the planet, in some short period of time. It's just insanity at this point.
I think it's worth highlighting just as a recent expression of this, if we look back six years ago, to one of the last major attempts to try to put into place a major international treaty, a legally binding agreement to force nations to reduce their carbon emissions, the so-called Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, that, when China and India, in alliance with other nations stated that they were not going to go along with a legally binding treaty, to force them to reduce their CO2 emissions, and they threatened to even walk out of the summit if that was going to be forced upon them; that, when this was made public in the days and weeks preceding the 2009 summit, the Queen herself freaked out. And the Queen herself used her opportunity of addressing the entire gathering of the heads of the Commonwealth nations — although they're not really nations — the Commonwealth dominions of the British Empire; to insist that this was their number-one policy, to get this Copenhagen climate treaty through to ensure that they implemented this carbon reduction policy.
So in her own words, as recently as 2009, declaring that the policy of the British Empire is this climate change policy, is this population reduction program coming out of these leading Nazis, eugenicists, etc.
So this is the reality of the matter; this is the policy that's on the books, that's active, that Jerry Brown is signing onto. When he's saying that we need to stop growth, stop development, lower the population, claiming that that's what we have to do; and when people take measures that show we don't have to do that, he tries to stop them from taking those measures, not letting them develop the resources that could be developed to alleviate the conditions, he is fully buying into and implementing, what has already been designed and acted upon as a global depopulation policy; when he's trying to organize for this insane reduction in carbon emissions, he's fully buying into this British Royal Family genocide program.
So the effects are going to be there, however conscious Jerry Brown is of the full origins of this policy — I don't know much it even matters at this point. But the effects are going to be real. He's right now, acting as a tool, in his actions, of these people and of these policies. And so the lives of the people of California, the lives of the people of the West depend on getting Jerry Brown out of there, as Mr. LaRouche said earlier today. Get Obama out, you can have Jerry Brown go out with him.
And with that shift we have the policies, we have the programs: We can address the water issue. I think it's a little bit ironic, somewhat useful that right now what's being claimed as the basis for reaching the end of growth, is the issue of water: When the entire planet is covered in water, they're saying that mankind has reached the limits to growth because we're running out of water! And then, some cities say, "well, we can just pull that out of the oceans, here," and Jerry Brown says, "No, no! You can't do that, we're not going to let you do that. We're out of water. You didn't hear what I said." It's insane.
They're claiming that we're out of water, and that's the reason why we're reached the limit to growth. When in reality, this is one of the most easily accessible expressions for what natural resources really are for mankind: They're not self-defined, they're not finite, they're a function of mankind's capabilities! Maybe hundreds of years ago, with the ability we had at that time, sure, we couldn't support a population of tens of millions of people in California. Now we can support a larger population than that, because we can manage the water supplies we need, to ensure that the cyclical aspects of the water system are large enough and intense enough to support the population of California and the West at a growing and accelerating rate.
And as we've discussed, the most frontier issue we have in dealing with this now, is this galactic perspective, this galactic principle: That at the same time that these fools are saying, we've reached the limits to growth, at that exact same time, we're right now in recent years, recent decades, getting completely new insights into how what we thought were these basic water systems are being controlled by our galaxy! That we're understanding that; we're actually understanding the role of our entire galactic system, as an active force shaping the conditions we experience on Earth.
That's an awesome thought, that mankind is doing that: We're conceptualizing this massive system, containing billions of stars like our Sun, operating as a massive, coherent structure, in ways we can't even explain today, we don't fully understand. But we can begin to get an insight into that structure that system, how that subsumes the Earth, how that subsumes the climate and the water systems, that we're now developing an understanding of that, but in a way that can allow us to manage those conditions, to manage how the atmospheric moisture behaves, so to speak. We're getting insights into how this galactic influence shapes and modulates the activity of atmospheric moisture. That's critical: Atmospheric moisture is the source of all water on land. All of our water supplies depend upon these atmospheric moisture flows. If we can begin to tap into methods of affecting those, controlling those, managing those, you're giving a completely new perspective on the reality of the fact that there are no limits to growth for mankind.
So I think it's incredibly ironic that these degenerates, either genocidal individuals, or fools that buy into this propaganda of these genocidal fools, are saying that we're right now reaching the limits to growth, California has to be depopulated, we have to stop the development of California, because we've reached the limit to water supplies; at the exact time we're looking at the potential to completely revolutionize, how mankind understands his relationship to the planet Earth from the standpoint of acting from a galactic perspective, a galactic standpoint.
So I think that defines the battle lines rather clearly, and I think it goes without saying, which side Prometheus would be on, at this point. It may not be fire, we're having here — it's water. But I think he would be fully inclined to be supportive, —
OGDEN: Bringing mankind water!
DENISTON: Bringing water for mankind: I think he'd be fully supportive of this idea.
OGDEN: Thank you Ben. Maybe we can say out in California: Don't let Jerry Brown Water-Board you! [laughter]
All right. With that said, I'd like to thank everybody for joining us tonight. If you haven't yet, please make sure you listen to dialogue which Mr. LaRouche held on the National Activists' Call last night. As I said, it is available on the LaRouche PAC website, and the transcript will be available soon. And also keep your eyes out for this next issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
So I'd like to thank Jeff for joining me, and thank Ben for joining me tonight. And thank everybody for tuning in. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.