LPAC Policy Committee Show, May 23, 2016
Tune in every Monday at 1 pm eastern for our weekly discussion with Mr. LaRouche and the LPAC Policy Committee.
DIANE SARE: Good afternoon and welcome to the weekly discussion of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. I am Diane Sare, filling in for Matt Ogden this week. Today is Monday, May 23, 2016, and we're joined over Google Hangouts Live by Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio by Ben Deniston of the LaRouche PAC Science team and of course, Mr. LaRouche,
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Yes, I'm alive.
SARE: That's very good. [laughter]
LAROUCHE: The best thing I can say for myself. My dog is not here, however. If the dog were here, we'd probably get another dimension conquered.
SARE: Well, do you have some things to say? Our President, Obama, has certainly been threatening to get rid of a large number of people, lately.
LAROUCHE: Yes, but he is a killer. He has been a killer. His, the stepfather was a killer, a mass killer. So it's pretty much a kill game for him. But we're going to have to do something about that. We're going to have to go back to an old-fashioned human behavior, man to man and woman to woman, and so forth. That change, that has to come up now. We have to get a better understanding; and of course, Ben, you can pick on something on this, too.
BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, I thought, what you've been pointing to around the situation with Japan is also indicative of the whole thing. And I was just thinking about the broader context, because you've had, a couple of years ago you had this BRICS meeting in South America, and that was a big launching point in the BRICS nations allying with all these South American nations, and really solidifying a potential New Paradigm.
But I was thinking about even the broader context, what you've been saying, about we have to end the British Empire. This is an actual process that can end the British Empire. And I was thinking what work you've done in the past about really defining what that is. I mean, you're talking about an imperial system that goes back, probably to the point of Leibniz. It's really dominated the world. And it's dominated the world in terms of armies and military, but also, mentality, culture, a view of mankind, that has to go, typified by Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, these people who view the human mind as just an animalistic, sense-perceptual apparatus. That entire cultural imperial paradigm is what has to end.
And what you have now emerging around, really central with, China and Russia's leadership, is a potential to move mankind in a different direction. So that's the context in which I think you see things like more nations looking like they could break — I think that you've made it clear, we don't know what's going to happen exactly with Japan — but more nations that could break with this entire trans-Atlantic system. This is a historic period we're living in. We're talking about breaking from this entire oligarchical system, and moving in a different direction. So I think your emphasis on that being a critical point to focus on right now is absolutely important. But then, realize that this is a historical breaking point we could be looking at right now.
And we have to operate on that global level. And so all this talk about people want to get fixated on the elections and what's happening in the United States, that's really not, that's too small. That's not the strategic landscape we're dealing with now. The strategic landscape is global and historical, and that's the level we have to operate on.
LAROUCHE: Well there have been a long period of up and back and forth, in terms of the culture of mankind. And the more recent part, which involves a number of pulsations, of creativity, and these particular patterns sometimes seem to disappear. Then the pattern restores itself. And that has been the case up to now.
In the 20th century with Bertrand Russell's appearance, everything else has gone down, generally on the main stage as evil. And you can contrast that with Bertrand Russell as being evil. And you can see those who were against him, are Einstein, Einstein was the other one. So you can take Einstein versus that, Einstein versus him. And that give you an idea of what the problems are of humanity. Bertrand Russell has introduced a century, or a more than a century now, of degeneration in the trans-Atlantic community, and we haven't gotten back to it yet.
SARE: Well I think what's happened in Asia, with Putin in particular, has actually shifted the entire global strategic situation in a way that most Americans are not aware of. And Obama, as a tool of the British, is locked in a Bertrand Russell mode of response. So you have this rather extraordinary meeting, where the Prime Minister of Japan decides to meet with Putin in Sochi, even though Obama has said, don't do it. And then, Obama goes to Hiroshima, not to apologize, but in a sense to say, well you know, there are just some times when it's required to annihilate the human species, in a very menacing, threatening way, which is reminiscent of Bertrand Russell's original idea, at the end of World War II, that we should have a preemptive nuclear strike on the then- Soviet Union, and become the only superpower. So here's this guy who's hailed as the great peace activist, but instead he's actually proposing a thermonuclear annihilation of the planet. He then intervened to sabotage what Kennedy was doing with the Cuban Missiles Crisis. And it is true that his approach to attempt to destroy human creativity, and reduce everything to a linear, deductive approach, was the rule book of this system, this rotten system, which, of course, is now dying, bankrupt and dying because the world doesn't work that way.
LAROUCHE: Well the point is, of course, is that Bertrand Russell, and so forth, are all being what they were. The fact is that Obama — Obama is a killer, on record, like his stepfather. He thinks like his stepfather. He walks like his stepfather. He kills like his stepfather. And people are talking about what this guy is as President of the United States.? They're stupid. They are absolutely stupid. People who admire Obama, are stupid, are stupid in a very nasty way.
DENISTON: I mean you just look at how sick this drone program is, meeting every week, getting these so-called "baseball cards" with the profiles of these people they want to go murder. And then collateral damage, I mean, for every one person that they get, what's the actual legal process to even show that that person's even deserves execution anyway. But even if you put that aside, then they're killing even tens, twenties, of innocent people as part of the process, and that's just tolerated. He just sits there flying these drones around, just murdering people around the world, and that's just a complete. It's what you had initially identified as a Nero; this is a Nero-type mentality, just complete detachment from any humanity, and then just mass-killing from afar, with no human sense to the whole process.
LAROUCHE: His stepfather is the mark of that. He's the intellectual characteristic of Obama. He's just that. That's what he is. He's a killer. He was born a killer. He was trained to be a killer. He is a killer. And that's the matter of the fact.
KESHA ROGERS: I think what it really addresses as well, his, I was provoked by the questions, the comments you had to the question of a young man on the Saturday discussion in Manhattan, where he was going through the horrific conditions of the young adult culture, the economy, what the world is facing right now, the drug overdoses, and so forth. And your response to that, is the response, that everybody has to take up with really within their own selves, is a very suggestive question. It's not what is someone else going to do. We know we're dealing with a threat of thermonuclear war and a mass murderer on the loose.
But the question is, what you said about how you find yourself in a world of freedom, when you're no longer of prisoner of other people's opinions? And I mean, I think that that's what we're addressing right now. From the standpoint of Bertrand Russell, the culture we live in, the society is bombarded by a death culture, an anti-human culture, everybody's opinions matter, versus this idea that there is truth that must be defined. And truth comes with the power and the beauty of those things, such as the beauty of culture, classical cultural music, classical cultural art. And that's missing from our society.
And so I think it's relevant, because I was very provoked by that response, because what we're dealing with right now, when you talk about this insane election process, and people start to say, "well, oh yeah, you must be for Trump, because he's talking about the 28 pages." And what does that even mean? People have no basis of reality in the understanding of what is truth? How do you define truth? And so, I think that that's what we're talking about right now, is a subjective question of what are people going to do to define an actual future for humanity?
LAROUCHE: Well the question is, as I've emphasized repeatedly, you cannot say that people who are followers of their parents, are necessarily useful. Because many of them are not. What mankind requires, as a human population, is a type of population, which actually creates a new discovery of a higher level of mankind's intellectual capabilities. If you are like your parents, and that's all you are, you're a failure. If you could be something better than your father, and parents generally, have been able to do, that is what you're looking for.
You're saying that if you are human, what's the difference between you and a monkey? And that's a pretty brutal way of putting it, but that's a fact, because most people in schools today treat people the way monkeys treat monkeys. That's a fact. The point is, can mankind, as a species, an individual person of a species; can that person, or persons of that like, can they see something, that the older generation does not recognize? Or fails to recognize?
If mankind is only doing what they were doing before, that's not a good mark. That's a mark of wasted time. What's good is to have a child, who is able to see, and make and discover, things that their parents have not been able to discover, original developments, original discoveries, discoveries by children, despite their parents! And that is the standard for civilization. The other views are not correct.
SARE: I think you have a lot of young adults now in China and Russia, who have grown up during Xi Jinping and, as China's been developing, or under Putin and his leadership, and what you see from these young generations is that kind of potential; like the idea that China's graduating 2,000 experts in fusion, who will make discoveries that no one ever knew before. And I suspect, given what's been happening in Egypt recently, with the new canal and the program there or that there's going to be some people who are three and four and five years old, who have the chance to become much more brilliant than their parents.
LAROUCHE: But the parents can nurture that; that's the point. And the parents' job is to nurture, the quality of improvement of their own children. They do it by discovery; when the young human individual, discovers things like that, that's really creativity. If you're imitating your parents, or you're imitating the school teacher, you're an idiot.
ROGERS: You also have to have a society which nurtures that as well; which brings the question of the space program into existence, the importance of that. Because when you talk about the space program, that is a society nurturing creativity from the standpoint of what are the contributions of the younger generations and those generations not yet born, how are they going to actually continue to contribute to further progress of society and the development of society? So, it's the parents, but it's also the fact that you look at China is fostering — as Diane just said — with these young children. If you don't have leadership that says "This is important; this is the direction and the future that we want to give to our nation and to the world," then it's very difficult.
LAROUCHE: Use the space program; use the image of the space program. That's the way to do it. In other words, you should have, in space, you should have a new kind of personality, comes into play; they discover things that their parents had not discovered. Then they, and their children in turn, discover what their parents had not seen. And that's the triumph of mankind; that is the characteristic of the triumph of mankind as a species. And that's what you've got to grasp. If you like to imitate other people's opinions, you are disgusting. You've got to get an opinion which is your own, and it has to be valid; two terms. You have to make a discovery which is your own discovery, which has a characteristic of validity, and yet is incomplete in and of itself. That's the point; and that is what is not done. And that's why the 20th century was no damned good at all. Very few people were any good in the 20th century.
DENISTON: You look at Einstein, you look at this recent detection of these gravitational waves, so-called; and you're still seeing that with the instrumentation and engineering, we're still trying to catch up with the actual scientific discoveries and the implications of those that Einstein gave us a century ago.
LAROUCHE: But in the space program, when you're in a new, fresh space program, you automatically encounter the challenge, of how are you going to deal with something which you had not known before; and that's what the point is. Therefore, mankind is a creature of the future — always the future; nothing old, but only the future. And that's what the characteristic of mankind is; otherwise it's a failure.
DENISTON: Today before us, you have the far side of the Moon; we've never actually landed and investigated the universe from the standpoint of the far side of the Moon.
LAROUCHE: We're thinking of sending a few people up there, who need to be sent there; shown their way in that direction. You can go out there, I'm sure, on the Moon; we can go out there and get some people working. We'll probably — criminals, for example, you might be able to rescue criminals.
DENISTON: The House of Windsor, maybe?
LAROUCHE: The House of Windsor, yes. [laughter]
DENISTON: Lunatics belong where they belong.
SARE: The thing about space — like I was thinking about this really delightful class given by this young Chinese woman astronaut from the Space Station to I don't know how many millions of Chinese students; and the astronaut would say, "Well, what do you think, how do we measure weight? Do I take the spring scale, and I'll put this really heavy thing on the end of it and I'll put this really light thing on the [other] end of it." And then holds it up, and of course, the springs are exactly the same. The children are very perplexed, because they said, "We thought it would be the same [as on Earth], but now you're showing us that it's not the same." So, you put people in the situation where the things they thought they knew, no longer hold true; and then that provokes the mind to come up with a new hypothesis about what's going on.
LAROUCHE: And that's what the politicians of this day do not understand.
SARE: No. Well, that's what the American people do not understand, if they think they're going to tolerate Obama, and then expect that they're going to get something different with Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; if they're willing to go along with this.
LAROUCHE: I think they're more degenerate than their predecessors.
DENISTON: That is the science of the human species, is progress; is creating the future. That's what defines the human species as something unique.
LAROUCHE: The designing of the future. The process of designing the future as a novel event.
DENISTON: Which goes to this issue of time. Time is not the unfolding of a clock.
LAROUCHE: No, it's quite the contrary. Directly the opposite.
DENISTON: Time is creative; it's connected to a creative process; creation.
LAROUCHE: Even people who are on honeymoons should have to take that into account. [laughter] Just a sort of forewarning.
BRINKLEY: Well, that is the effect of Bertrand Russell, is that you have Obama here, who long ago lost any legitimate authority on merit about the first three to six months of his Presidency and escalating after that. He could only rule by terror; and this is absolutely a creation of that policy of the need to rule by dictatorship. Which was what Bertrand Russell called for; he said man can't rule themselves, they can only be ruled.
LAROUCHE: It's like the case of that gentleman, who was terrified of you in your career.
BRINKLEY: Yes, he attempted to do that.
LAROUCHE: He goes off in some wild places and tries to hide his evil, and is ashamed of it and wants to do more of it. [laughs] I think that's the kind of thing you tend to run into these days.
BILL ROBERTS: Well, sometimes people try to explain it in terms, of they took religion out of the schools. You hear this a lot. And Einstein seemed to actually kind of agree with that; but only in the sense that with the Russell takeover of the education system, they said that anything that's not a fact that we already know, is superstition. So, if you have any commitment to the future, which has a religious characteristic sometimes, you're saying how things ought to be; then that's outlawed. Einstein thought that imagination, he thought these things were more important than what was already known. And clearly, that has something to do with the fact that Americans right now have a lot of trouble recognizing that you have this creative characteristic that's driving China and Russia right now. Somehow — and I know, Lyn, you've pointed to the role of Putin — that what Putin is doing is going to have to inspire Americans. But also I think a sense of inspiration from the space program, something like that is going to have to also inspire American so that they can have a commitment to a New Paradigm. [crosstalk]
LAROUCHE: Putin himself is an example of this case. There are two aspects to his role of life in this. One, of course, is his courage; the fact that he is a man of true courage. It's not bravado; it's true courage. Saying that mankind has a destiny to realize in the future; and that is what courage is — the ability to carry into the future what is needed. That's what you have to look for; concentrate on that, because everything else is fraud.
And you look at his life, and I was actually coincident with his role at a certain point; but we never met. I knew about him, and he knew about me; but we never actually met. Then I watched the thing, and he was succeeding; and I said, "I'm still sick, so excuse me, I'm going to have to go out of this area for a little while." But the point is, we both operated in that period in the same way; and the way was the future. It was the future changing from what Russia had developed. I always looked at him that way. I watched him; I actually had access to what he was doing, details of his life, his experiences in that period. And I went through the whole thing, and it was fine; he's the right guy. He's what I really think should be there; and that's the factor. But that's the way you have to look at things. Who is creating the future? Who is actually moving the future into becoming a reality? And that's my standard.
SARE: Well, that is what you, yourself, have done — you and Helga — your entire life.
LAROUCHE: Oh, sure.
SARE: You look at what's happening now; what Ben referenced at the beginning, the discussion of the BRICS New Development Bank and your 40-year fight for an International Development Bank. And what's occurring now with China, Russia, India launching the Ganges-Brahmaputra River Basin; it's very big!
DENISTON: It's a hell of a river; it's a big river, it's a big project.
LAROUCHE: The sad part of that is Indira Gandhi, who was assassinated by the British; and that was a setback for India for a significant period of time. Her murder by the British was something which was terrible. And of course, it was a demoralization in degree of Indians generally, members of the Indian population; because they felt they had been given a blow. The drowning, the burning the body and so forth and things like that; all these things were things of sadness, of defeat. And the Indians that I worked with in all those years, were very vigorous people, very creative people as leaders; as Indira herself was. She was an exemplary case; and we had a trio there between the President and me and her. And then, she was murdered, and at that point, gone.
SARE: You mean Ronald Reagan, who they also tried to assassinate.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly! Those kinds of things are the setbacks which are done in a fashion of murdering. I've often felt murdered.
SARE: I think that nations are beginning to have a sense that the British Empire does not have that much to offer them. [laughter]
LAROUCHE: Maybe you want to drown England, sink it! We call it "washing."
DENISTON: This idea about creating the future, it's also the positive points of the history of the United States. You look at when we've gone to these ebbs and flows and we've gone to these dark periods. Then you have a resurgence of what, what you said earlier, what seems like it wasn't there before. But then, comes again anew, but it's always of a different form. You look at what Lincoln did, it was an innovation and development on the principle of the founding fathers; Franklin Roosevelt revived that same principle but applied it in a new way on a new scale. And that's what we need again today, not just rehashing old ideas in the past. We need to revive that principle, but then look, how is that created anew today?
LAROUCHE: The point is, the standard is one which was developed, clearly, in the immediate postwar period, and it was developed in the United States by scientists, who in the immediate postwar period adapted roles in the United States; and that was the founding of the space program.
DENISTON: Right, the German space pioneers.
LAROUCHE: And what he did, and he died because of a complication in terms of a sickness and a wellbeing, of himself, because of a disease he couldn't cure — Krafft Ehricke. And so, Krafft Ehricke as the model, was the spirit, the inspiration of this kind of thing, and we need to reintroduce that kind of approach, the Krafft Ehricke approach, his model. And I think that what we're going to do in Texas, but what we are doing in Texas, in a limited way now, but this will be something big if it's fostered, that is a destiny for mankind in the future.
DENISTON: You look at Krafft Ehricke's conception of the "extraterrestrial imperative," it's an imperative, it has to happen.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. I mean, Helga had a discussion with him on that issue.
DENISTON: Right. And his whole conception around that was a very scientific conception that connects very much to your work in economics and the science of mankind, that there's no zero growth, it doesn't exist. You have to progress.
LAROUCHE: I never had that zero growth, never wanted it. I was always experimental, and I was always usually doing something that nobody else was supposed to do.
DENISTON: Right! And that's what mankind has to do as a whole.
LAROUCHE: I like to do it that way.
DENISTON: But he said, it's imperative that we go out to space, because mankind has to progress, we have to develop, we have to go to new leaps, and at a certain point that has to take us beyond Earth.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, it's more than that, it's a very specific thing. You say, let's look at the Moon, look at the dark side of the Moon, or the back side of the Moon; and we know that there's no system which simply corresponds to the idea of the image of a Moon as such. There's a process which we can also call as "the Moon," under certain circumstances, and this is something, we say, "this opens the gates for mankind to get beyond the Moon," or what the Moon represents as a bound. Therefore, what mankind is trying to discover, what man can acquire and master in space around us. And that's the inspiration point. And you just think, you do not go to a Moon, and just go to a Moon, and say "Hi, Moon." [laughter] Some people may do that, but that is not approved of.
So anyway, the point is that the idea of the future, is that mankind as such, the space system, as such, is something which contains within it a creative force, which means that you have to get away from what you thought were your old habits, and look beyond old habits, see a new habit being shaped before you, in action. And that's the challenge and that's what the challenge is.
And that is what we don't do! We do not have science much anymore! We do not cultivate scientists. If they are cultivated as scientists, they will be held back. And that's what happens.
So the idea of fighting the fight, to open the gates, of the discovery, that's what makes things good.
Dave CHRISTIE: Lyn that goes to what you say around the strategic situation, that oftentimes the issue is, what are we not looking at? And in the case of space exploration, as ben alluded to earlier, much of it is finding out what you don't know. I mean, there's certain band-widths of the electromagnetic spectrum that will literally kill you. And so therefore, making these kinds of discoveries, or rather, the principles by which you develop instrumentation, to then actually figure out what you don't yet know, is actually part of your existence.
And I think, you look at what the work is on the far side of the Moon, that's part of what that is, is to figure out what we yet can't see, right? And develop instrumentation, or you've got to have the capability of seeing without all the noise on the near side of the Moon. But this comes right to what Russell tried to do, which is, he would try to reduce the human condition to just that of the sensory domain. And the very aspect of space exploration and developing these kinds of instrumentation, completely challenges that, because this are things that you don't know that exist, until you are challenged that way.
LAROUCHE: Vernadsky was very well-informed on that kind of subject. , especially on that kind of subject, especially on dealing with British subjects.
DENISTON: In the most fundamental sense, it's a process of discovering what are we? What are we a part of? Kepler showed us, we're in the Solar System; we're not just on Earth. What is the Earth? It's a subsumed part of the Solar System. And we don't fully understand that; we don't understand the Solar System as a creative process, we're in the Galaxy. We're still trying to figure out what that actually means. So you know, people walk around thinking they know what they are, they know what they're a part of, and then you have these fundamental discoveries, and completely change what your conception of mankind even is; as you change your conception of what the Universe is that it's a part of.
LAROUCHE: Vernadsky I think, really defined the standard for that. Because there were people, there was a conflict between the British and Vernadsky. And Vernadsky's position was very, very strong — and very effective. And wide open.
DENISTON: Yeah. His debate against Oparin, and then you also had intermixed with that was the Huxleys, too: This total reductionist view.
LAROUCHE: And Bertrand Russell was behind that.
MICHAEL STEGER: What has been useful is what you raised last week, the question of both clock time and your notion of the Triple Curve. And in reflecting back upon these last 15 years, but especially under Obama's administration, the rate of development of death and destruction in the trans-Atlantic, we just look and we find out the numbers now since Obama's been in seven and a half-years: The rate of drug addiction, and drug overdose and suicides. I mean, just within the last six years, the numbers are staggering, 300% increases. You see what's now happening in South America, you see what's been happening in Europe with the migrant crisis, this thing has just developed at an accelerating rate.
But at the same time, what's now manifesting itself in Eurasia is just striking! Because, as Ben mentioned, Brahmaputra-Ganges project, Iran's talking about a Caspian Sea to the Oman Sea canal, going through the Iranian desert. You have the Kra Canal, which is clearly something which is clearly something which is indicated by the ASEAN summit in Sochi. You have the Suez Canal, which developed practically, after two revolutions.
So you see this rate of development, it's very clear that we're at a point of divergence but also convergence of a decision that mankind has to make and it really is hyperbolic in terms of their differences at this point. And I think that's largely where the danger of war lies, but also the danger, as you've always intended for the last 50 or so years, as a fundamental leap in mankind's existence.
LAROUCHE: You know, the idea of going around the corner and seeing around what's around the other corner, is the convenient driver for discovering these kinds of things and exploring them. That's the way you look at the Moon. How do you look at the back side of the Moon. Well, you don't see the back side of the Moon because you don't where the front side is! Which is the front? But then you come to a point of estimation, and you find at that certain point of estimation that you have seen something which is, out of the corner of your eye, some new, novel, catching, convincing; and you keep working at it and once in a while — "Hey! Do you know what this is?" And that's the way it goes. [laughter]
CHRISTIE: And that's what Russell tried to beat out of people, was even that basic curiosity, by reducing everything down to what you think are given rules, the science is all figured out, it's all been mathematized; you create a condition where children don't even have a sense of curiosity, or at least you try to beat that out of them, I think they're resilient in that sense; but actually this goes somewhat to the very form of social control, that people like Russell brought in, agencies like the Tavistock Institute and so forth, they would prey upon, by the use of cognitive dissonance, where you have simultaneous things going on, and because you beat out a sense of [inaudible 42.07] them, for example, Russell saying, people will view him as a great peace activist: Yet, he's the one that proposed dropping nuclear weapons on Russia! I mean, it's the same thing that's going on with Obama: You know, he sits and murders people very Tuesday and he's got the Nobel Peace Prize and all this. But it's that quality of cognitive dissonance, which is deployed as a specific tactic, because people don't have a poetic conception to find out what the truth actually is, and allow themselves to get suckered into this kind of paralysis that is created when you know something is true, but yet you're hearing otherwise. But that is a specific policy that they deploy to keep people inactive.
DENISTON: The question is, peace of what? [laughter]
SARE: Well, speaking of peace, this weekend in Manhattan, this being Memorial Day weekend coming up, and all of us here I think participated a few weeks ago, on the Russian and American celebration of V-E Day in the March of the Immortal Regiment, with a real sense, and Dave had reported to me when he commented to someone, "this is not a morose ceremony, people seem to be joyous." And the person say, "Yeah, because we want our ancestors who succeeded in defeating fascism, to be here with us in celebrating that victory!"
And therefore, to continue this arc as we approach the 15th anniversary of Sept. 11th, and your comments that we had to have a "living memorial," and by that a living memorial is not that we sit back and remember what has happened in the past, but that we commit ourselves to a future mission for mankind.
So this weekend on Saturday, and it will be live-streamed here on larouchepac.com, will be an address by your wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche and then yourself, your Saturday Manhattan meeting. And then, we will be — not on the webcast, but there'll be a kind of memorial ceremony at one of the Civil War monuments in New York; and then a musical program in the evening.
And it is really my intend, at least, that before we get to Sept. 11th, that we will see justice in this case, which I think Putin's action in particular has created a dynamic in the United States where it's very clear that if we stick with Obama, with what Obama is doing, that we are facing thermonuclear war with Russia. Because Obama is saying, that he's going to arm ISIS, we're going to give people weapons to shoot down Russian planes; we're going to back NATO going into the Baltics, and this base in Romania and so on.
But you can pull — by exposing the truth of what happened on Sept. 11th , and the fact that Bush and Obama and the FBI, as tools of the British Empire, at least are covering up for it, whatever else their involvement is, that's the least you can say. That you can pull the plug on a rotten, murderous, criminal operation, which would allow the United States to transform its direction of the last 15 years to something different.
CHRISTIE: And even longer than that, really. We were having some discussions that the whole Al Yamamah deal which goes back to the original Bush, or the Bush, Sr., this is all part of the Cold War apparatus. So you're really talking about uprooting one of the core policies of the British Empire, which has just been to create this divide-and-conquer strategy and prevent what has been whether it was World War I that was trying to prevent Europe and Asia from coming together, via what was not called the Silk Road then, but it's the same concept. So you just see that this is what 9/11 represents is just part of a much larger policy of the British Empire, to just keep nations divided against one another.
SARE: And to keep Americans in fear. And that's the thing that is now breaking: That is, Putin's action in Syria forced an issue where you would have something like the JASTA Act; we've talked about "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism" pass in the Senate unanimously, because people have a sense; and then the Saudis say, "we're going to come back and run financial warfare." And people say, "Bring it on. We're not afraid of you any more, because we think that American lives are worth more than this."
And as soon as — I was thinking on this, because how does Obama, nominal leader that he is, representative of the British Empire, how does he actually run, the United States of 320 million people, or however many people we are now? And only because people have decided to not fight, through their own cowardice or demoralization, and once that is shattered, like what happened in Germany with the Berlin Wall coming down, that once you no longer have that fear, then you have a potential for a people to suddenly think in a completely different way.
LAROUCHE: Yes, and the FBI. FBI, which is a British instrument which was brought in under very special conditions; and that process, that is what made cowards of Americans!
SARE: Yes, exactly.
LAROUCHE: And that's the problem.
SARE: Yeah. And I have to say that people are very happy to take it on, head-on. We had rallies in Boston, we had a rally Manhattan this past week, very lively and boisterous. People were not scared to be signing up at the LaRouche table right outside the front door of the FBI headquarters. And in fact, some of the people working there, even came and signed up themselves! [laughter]
LAROUCHE: And some dogs also do the same thing.
SARE: Well, they don't care much for the FBI, that's for sure!
STEGER: Yeah, the feeling's not mutual! [laughter]
ROGERS: I hear Putin saves them from the FBI.
LAROUCHE: That's all it was, was a terror operation: It was a terror operation set up by the British.
DENISTON: Yeah, to maintain some policy-state style, just intimidate the population, break people in...
LAROUCHE: No, they broke the ranks of the party, and they created a systemic — actually a criminal organization, relative to what the United States had been.
DENISTON: Mm-hmm. well, you had the whole security clearance process, where Hoover knew if you didn't have a security clearance. And you want to maintain that? Well, you better be a good citizen. Better go along, better behave if you want to maintain your status as somebody who's allowed to do this.
LAROUCHE: It's not civilization.
Rachel BRINKLEY: Just on my question about civilization and a point you brought up in the webcast recently, that there is no measuring stick for the Universe. We should look at the process of the mind and use that, investigate the processes in the Universe according to what we think of the mind. And today, no one really knows what the mind is, so therefore, so no one's even thinking about.
But Cusa made the point that if you look at human arts, you know, painting, you're doing an image of an object. But the human art of creating something as simple as pottery, or a spoon or a plate, this is not creating an image of a visible object, but you're creating an image of an idea that can only be seen in the mind. And in this way, human art is an image of the Infinite, Divine Art of Creation.
And so I think, as we venture out to space, we need to keep in mind that a question of the mind, which we can investigate faster music.
DENISTON: That goes to Einstein as well. Look at the fight Einstein had with Bohr and Russell and these guys on the quantum and causality in particular. And they're all saying causality doesn't exist, it's inherently random; and Einstein said, "No, your idea of causality is stupid. You think causality has be a domino, you know, A to B to C, linear conception of time. We should really be changing our idea of how does causality fundamentally exist? And we should be looking at things like, how does a Bach fugue exist?" That was his example for how to think about the type of causality needed to understand the Universe is a more fundamental sense. It was a very much Cusan/Keplerian idea of, you go to the human mind as your insight into how the Universe is organized, because it's the human mind and what the human mind can do in making original discoveries, which is the fundamental process that allows mankind to change how he exists.
So what do we know about the Universe? Well, what do we know about human creativity? And we know the Universe hates Bertrand Russell, because he tried to kill this. [laughter]
LAROUCHE: I despise this gentleman myself (and I don't consider him a gentleman).
STEGER: I would just say, Lyn, that your defense of this scientific method, but for most people it's misunderstood, because the way they think of scientific method, today, comes from what's popularly accepted. But this question of "playfulness," as you said earlier, looking around the corner, this far side of the Moon question, always going beyond what is the so-called "accepted plan of advance, the accepted plan of success"; but always recognizing that that's never the plan of success. The plan of success is always what's around the corner, so to speak. And that's applied...
LAROUCHE: You couldn't find it that way. You couldn't find it if you tried to! But you might hit it, or it might it you. [laughter]
STEGER: But the FBI's never been able to stop this process. It's never been able to eliminate your influence! And that's the reason.
LAROUCHE: It's simply a British system. That's all it is. It's British terrorist system, the same thing as the British Royal Family, that's all it is. It's the equivalent of the British Royal Family, inside the United States.
And, I'll tell you something else: Not only is it bad, but it stinks! [laughter]
SARE: Well, that will be one of the buildings that we clean out when we take over the skyscrapers in Manhattan.
LAROUCHE: Do we want to blow them up, or do you want to direct the winds to west...?
SARE: Just say a very large vacuum, that has an end somewhere in outer space, to suck everything out.
LAROUCHE: Too many heads flying around
DENISTON: Right. Obviously the French Revolution wasn't perfect by any means, but this idea taking what was the castle of the royalty and turning it into this beautiful art museum, the Louvre, it's a useful precedent.
LAROUCHE: I've been there. I've often visited there.
DENISTON: And you realize, this used to be some grandiose, disgusting castle of some kings, and now it's presenting — so that's a precedent...
LAROUCHE: You've had that visit?
DENISTON: Once, yeah.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, we enjoyed that.
DENISTON: So we can do that for Manhattan as well, in the skyscrapers: repurpose them for human purposes.
LAROUCHE: I think so. Yes. And eliminate the non-human ones. [laughter]
SARE: Good. Well, I think that's a good concluding point. I would just encourage people to join us this weekend for the Memorial Day Weekend events in Manhattan, which will be live-streamed from this website.
And I think we will see everybody here again next Monday.