Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIW This transcript appears in the August 21, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Quality of Leadership Which Can Prevent an Imminent Thermonuclear War

[PDF version of this transcript]

Here is a transcript of excerpts from Lyndon LaRouche's Dialogue with the Manhattan Project on Saturday, August 15, 2015.

Dennis Speed: I'm Dennis Speed and on the behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome everybody here today, for our ongoing Manhattan dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. On Aug. 15, 1971, Lyndon LaRouche became famous and infamous in the United States for his extraordinary apparent forecast of the collapse of the Bretton Woods System. Today, Lyndon LaRouche is also highly controversial for the fact that he is making the point that the President of the United States Barack Obama must be immediately removed from office in order to prevent the danger of an immediate outbreak of thermonuclear war.

So for a period of over 44 years, right there, this man has been in the forefront of making it clear to the world that truth speaks to power, and truth can win. So, on behalf of everybody here, I want to welcome Lyn for our dialogue, today, and I'd like us to start our questions right away. The mike is open and the first questioner should come to the microphone.

Q: Lyn, I'm A—. This week, 70 years ago, I was an aircraft mechanic, on a ship on my way to Okinawa to do conventional bombing of Japan, when we were told that we were going to Tinian instead, that the Japanese had surrendered.

There on Tinian, I saw the two B-29s that dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; they had the names the Enola Gay and the Great Artiste. I was in awe of seeing them, and I memorized those names.

But what did you think of that time? And what do you think now, based on your historical work since then?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, I think that my views at that time were pretty much the same as today. Because the actual dropping of the bombs, as Douglas MacArthur himself emphasized, was totally unnecessary, and was against the President of the United States committing a crime against humanity, and he was aware of this thing. And that's often been the case: that political ambitions of certain kinds of people cause unnecessary danger, and damage, to humanity.

Remove Obama

What actually happened, Japan never really recovered from the fact that it, totally defeated, helpless, and totally defeated, in two locations of bombing,—has never yet recovered from that effect. Something which was totally unnecessary, unjustified in any way! Japan was a totally defeated nation, a nation which had accepted its defeat and was preparing to find a new way to adapt itself under these conditions. And what happened is, the United States government, the President of the United States, committed a crime against humanity, a bitter crime, a massive crime, in two locations; and the world has not yet recovered, from the effect on Japan of that bombing, of those two locations. And that's what you have to think about.

We're dealing now with a President, who, we would say in the vernacular, is no damned good; worse than no damned good. He, right now, this President, is moving to launch a thermonuclear war attack, that kind of a warfare attack, which, if it occurred, would begin by a launch of thermonuclear weapons against Russia. Immediately after that, there would be a reply from Russia.

In other words, the war would start by British interests such as Obama. Obama would launch the war. And then the world would fight the war. And the only response of any significance, would be Russia's reaction to the attack from the United States by Obama! So the question is, do we eliminate Obama from the authority of the United States? Or do we create a situation in which most of the human species would be wiped out, exterminated? That's the issue right now.

Q: Thank you. I'm J—, I'm a UN representative with an NGO serving child welfare victims of warfare. And I am here as a guest of François Bonneau, whose photography of the Nagasaki-Hiroshima victims is in the back, and is a voice of the legacy of any wars that leave survivors. And right now in the world, over 210 million homeless orphans exist, without education, care, water, hygiene, health care—they have nothing. They live outside the grid of society, and they are survivors of the hatred of war and the industry that war builds.

So today, is India's national Independence Day; I'm an honored guest of Meera Gandhi [CEO of the Giving Back Foundation] who is bringing me to meet Ambassador Mulay, and I didn't know if you had any message you'd like me to relay to him.

Man is Not an Animal

But we're doing an event at the UN on Oct. 14th to address this issue of homeless orphans, victims of warfare, and it'll be at the Scandinavia House; it's an all-day conference.

And I'd appreciate anything that you could give me to mention to the Ambassador today, or anything that you would like said.

LaRouche: Well, the obvious thing is that we are operating on the basis of an actually wrong opinion of the responsibility we have to perform. Our job is to recognize that mankind, as a species, is not an animal. That mankind has a mission which no animal has, because no animal has the capability of creating a higher order of development, of a species, i.e. the human species. No other type of living being can have that operation.

In other words, our purpose as human beings in life, is—we are all going to die, in due course, shall we say. It happens eventually. The question is: What do we pass, from a presently living population to its successors, and how do we improve upon what has been achieved by man after that point. And that's what the issue is. Because we're all going to die, so therefore what is the meaning of human life? It's the meaning of human life as expressed, in the fruit of advances and improvement of conditions of human life, which enables mankind to achieve goals, which otherwise mankind could not achieve. And therefore, the inspiration, and education of our citizens, our people, in achieving higher levels of insight into the universal, itself, as mankind can do it, and that's what the issue is.

So therefore, whenever we see people who should not be abused, we must serve that principle, and operate on the basis of creating an atmosphere in society in general, which is suited to mankind's progress to a higher organization of life, a higher level of achievement of humanity. And therefore, all the pains and aches and defeats, must be dissolved into a recognition that mankind must progress to a higher level of achievement than at any time before. And that's the mission. That's the thing, that is love of mankind. Love of mankind is the devotion to this mission.

Q: Well, we hope to achieve that with this event, to build a great respect and love for our children, whose future we have a debt to secure, as a society, as government, as business. So that's very beautiful. Thank you.

We're All Going to Die, But...

Q: Good afternoon, Lyn, it's B— from New Jersey. Given the anniversary today of Aug. 15th, and your forecast of the change from the Bretton Woods system, at that time, I had just previous to that date, Aug. 15th, 1971, served my last year in the service, and had returned from overseas. So I think it would be important for you to reflect for people, both the basis upon which you made the forecast, and also looking at the decades since that event, what're we looking at, and what are we looking at now?

LaRouche: Take the case of great people, great scientists; what is their contribution? The great scientist is a person who foresees the necessity of a change in mankind's behavior, which increases the power of mankind to take charge over the Solar System essentially, right now. And it's the development of those creative capabilities, where people make discoveries which had never been known until those discoveries had been induced. And that is the real, underlying principle on which the importance of humanity, the human species depends.

We are all going to die, but that's not in itself a bad thing. The point is, what comes out of the life that has passed? Where's the progress for the life which has passed? Where's the fruit of the life which had passed? Where's the future beyond the life that has passed? These are the questions which, we can always remember,—for example, you go to the case of the Renaissance, the Great Renaissance, and you find exactly that.

The Renaissance was crushed, in a certain period at the beginning of the [Sixteenth] Century. But then, we have the achievements at a higher level. So after the Great Renaissance was a force that was crushed, yet, it came back at a higher level, and that is the thing which should make us feel good. If we can achieve something that mankind has heretofore not been able to achieve, and we have gone through the strains and so forth that go with achieving that, that is a satisfactory result, for us, on the birth of our own death: the fact that our life has meant something for the future of mankind, to lead mankind to a condition which is beyond, and superior, to what we've experienced beforehand.

As long as we can have that, if we can die with the idea that we are dying on the birth of a higher level of achievement, than we had achieved in our own lives. And that is the thing that makes the dying man content.

Fighting for Glass-Steagall

Q: Hello, I'm J— from New York, and I have with me C—, also from Brooklyn, New York, and I have a short—I hope it's as short as possible—report to give, because C— and I, and one of our full-time organizers went to something called "Congress on Your Corner" this morning. "Congress on Your Corner" is a brainchild of Hakeem Jeffries, my Congressperson. So, since I'm a constituent of Congressman Jeffries, I have come into contact with him several times. I first came into contact with him in his office, when he first started as Congressperson, and since that time I have seen him in Washington, D.C.; I've seen him at his office, and various locations all around Brooklyn.

So, today he had a "Congress on Your Corner", and I invited C—, a new member, to come, and we would confront him on the issues which we are talking about now. And this is my brief report.

I said to him: "Right now, this President is using NATO and other illegal and immoral military operations to provoke Russia, and launch World War III." He said to me, "You're wrong. Russia is the problem."

And I said, "No, our President is the problem, and those who would allow him to do this, are the problem." and he said, "Well, I'm not at liberty to talk about this right now; maybe we can talk about this later," and I said, "Oh, great. I will come to your office with a group of people this week! Just let me know when you'll be there," and he shoved me off to one of his aides, and said, "Give her my card, and you call the office, and we'll talk about this."

creative commons
Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) has led the fight to restore Glass-Steagall in the House of Representatives for several years. Her bill, HR 381, now has 66 sponsors. Here, she speaks at the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in March 2012.

I said, "Okay, but I still have something else to talk about: We're going to talk about Glass-Steagall! You have not signed off on Glass-Steagall and I have confronted you, and asked you to do this several times."

He goes, "Oh yes. Uh, let me see what you have..." So, I showed him my "visual," [displays leaflet] and then he said, "Oh, there has been something introduced into the Senate." And I said, "Yes, I have that right here!" So, I showed him that, and then, he started to sweat a little bit—I mean, it was hot (chuckles), but still....

And he said, "Oh yes, Elizabeth Warren," and he started reading it: "Oh yes, yes! Oh, well, you know, I'm taking this into consideration."

And I said, "But you've been taking this into consideration for three years already!"

He goes, "Yes, I understand that, but you know the bill is different; when they introduce another bill, it's a little different, it's worded a little different; I have to look it over, there's different committees."

And I said, "You know what? I think the bill basically is the same. The policy that Glass-Steagall represents, the constitutional principle that Glass-Steagall represents, is the same."

So, he said to me, "You know, I admire your persistence. [laughter] Miss W—" and this is the good part, "Miss W—, I will look into this, and we will talk."

"Miss W—!" OK! [laughter]

So!, That is where I got with Mr. Hakeem. Now, he wasn't as slippery as he usually is, so we did—at least we'll get somewhere. and that's my report.

LaRouche: [laughter] Very good! [applause]

What John Kennedy Did

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I'm P— from Connecticut. In 1961, I was stationed in West Germany, when the Berlin Wall went up. And, then in 1962, when the Cuban crisis escalated, the 13 days of October, I was with the 3rd Missile Battalion, 21st Artillery, three kilometers from the Czech border, with our "Honest John" missiles, armed and ready. They were thermonuclear warheads.

I was 18 years old, and I was scared to death of the outcome. We, in our training, had seen films of the destruction of atomic weapons. And working with them, we had a good knowledge of what the destruction was: And that's annihilation.

My question is: What is the difference between the Cuban Crisis, and the crisis we have today?

LaRouche: That's a very clear thing, and easy for me to respond to. What we had was a threat of thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States. We had a President at that time, who organized with Russia to avoid a thermonuclear war; this happened in the so-called Cuba Crisis. What happened with that, is the President who had done that job of negotiating the avoidance of a thermonuclear war, the most serious thermonuclear war that the United States had ever experienced—was averted by the President of the United States, in collaboration with the Soviet Union, representatives of the Soviet Union. That avoided it!

Obama and Evil Force

Soon, apparently some people in the United States were not happy about the fact that we had not gone to a thermonuclear war, which had been prevented by the President of the United States. And not so mysteriously then, the President of the United States was himself assassinated by services which were not, shall we say, to our liking.

And today, we're still going through the same kind of thing: Right now, we have Obama. And Obama is now deployed by various circles, including British circles and other circles, to conduct warfare which, if taken forward, would mean the virtual extinction of the human species. That's what the problem is right now.

The problem is political, because what has happened is, a careful culling and adjustment of governmental positions, in order to "encourage" assassinations of that type, rather than preventing them. That's what it's all about.

So we are actually involved in saying: Obama is now the evil force. Obama is a person who should be thrown out of office immediately, for the sake of all humanity. He's a mass murderer. And he's setting up this side, for a war to be launched, probably this month or into early next month. When the war that Obama intends to cause, will bring humanity to the threshold of extermination, in fact.

The situation is such that Russia will not launch the war. Obama will launch the war! Russia will not react, unless Obama has moved to launch thermonuclear war. And that's the situation right now.

Xinhua/Wu Dengfeng
Readiness to respond: Here China and Russia carry out one of their recent series of naval maneuvers, this time in the Yellow Sea in April 2012.

So, anybody who is defending Obama's policy is, wittingly or not, condemning mankind to the threat of extermination. That's the fight. That's the fact of the matter. And, what we can do to prevent Obama from proceeding on his intention, is the most noble thing that any citizen of the United States can undertake.

Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, my name is J—; I'm from the Bronx. I have a question about China. Not too long ago, the IMF ... [technical interruption]. Basically, those very circles that you're talking about that control Obama, are they trying secretly, to instigate the war, basically with that explosion that happened in China not too long ago, just the day after they devalued their currency?

And also, is there any significance in what's going on in Cuba right now, where they just re-opened the U.S. Embassy? So, both of those things,—I just want to know your opinion about.

The Commitment to Depopulation

LaRouche: I think the Cuba situation presently more or less speaks for itself. There are various ways in which you could interpret what might have been the preferred way of dealing with this question of resolving a reconciliation between the United States and Cuba; and the very fact of that reconciliation is useful. But with the only qualification is, can Cuba trust the Obama Administration? That is the question there. No, but that is not the problem.

The problem is, there is a process, a commitment to launch a change in behavior, to reduce the population of the planet, under British direction and under the current Pope himself; to reduce the population of the people on Earth, to reduce it to a small part, to a great reduction of the entire population of the planet.

The British Monarchy’s plans for global depopulation were strongly advanced with the Vatican’s bringing in depopulator John Schellnhuber into preparations for the Pope’s Laudato Si’ encyclical. Here, Schellnhuber on the dais when the encyclical was presented in Rome June 18, 2015.

We see it all throughout our own area: For example, in California, the governor in California is proposing a genocide policy to reduce the population of California. A massive reduction of the population of California, done by the governor of California right now.

And other things like that are going on. The green policy, the so-called green policy, is a policy of intentional genocide, against the majority of the population, the U.S. population and the world's population.

So these are things one has to be aware of, and once aware of these things and understanding what the nature of them is, we've got to stop that kind of process. We've got to shut down the governor of California, who is for genocide against mankind; and it's unforgivable, it is intolerable.

And those are the kinds of conditions, which we have to face, and most citizens of the United States, as citizens, are worried about this kind of situation, but they lack an understanding of an approach to deal with the threat. What I am responsible to do, on my part, is to try to make clear the nature of the threat, and to get people like the current governor of California out of office, because he is a threat to all humanity, whether he intends it or not.

The Queen Is Impotent

Q: My name is S— from New York City, and I have one question which I will ask in a moment, but three comments—that you can choose to comment on or not! [laughter]

It's very seldom I get to ask a person of your stature questions like this. The first comment is—which is kind of a question, really—where are the back-channels, the channels that we had during the Cuban missile crisis? You don't have to answer that right now. Where are the back channels? You're probably going to say there are none.

The other thing is, why do we see a mobilization of United Nations' vehicles across the U.S.A.?

And the other thing is, it seems as if the U.S. is prepping for mass casualties. Now here's the question—just keep those things in the back of your mind, the other things. The question is, why do we see in the City of London, I guess you could say, conflicting activities in that the City of London, the British Empire, tells us not to join the BRICS alliance and not to join the Asia bank [AIIB], yet they join the Asia bank? Which is the right thing to do, as a charter member, yet we don't. So is there like some in-fighting in the City of London, that is telling us not to do something good, but yet they're doing the right thing? Are they trying to infiltrate the Asia bank? Or are they doing it because they know it's the right thing to do?

LaRouche: Well, there are certain complexities in answering that question, because first of all, what happened is, the British Monarchy, the Queen and so forth, is incompetent. That is, they've reached a stage of life where the skull-part doesn't work too well. They are paraded around in dress, in popular dress, but their thinking processes are not really functional.

Now this has a cause to it and an implication to it. That you have now a revolt from the Labour Party, which is actually moving against the monarchy, and what the monarchy represents. And this is because the failure of the mental life of the British monarchy, the British Empire forces, these forces are degenerate. And what has happened,—this creates an opening, where you now have a part of the Labour Party in London, which is moving in a contrary direction, which is quite useful in itself. It's the Labour Party, and it's well-organized, fairly well. And the Queen and so forth and her retinue are actually totally impotent.

A Big Question Mark

Now there are forces which are trying to use them, use these institutions, but the smell is out in London. And the British have been put through this thing so many times, they tend to catch on to what is being done to them. And when somebody gets an organization going inside the British system, or the United Kingdom system, including Scotland and so forth, when this happens, there tends to be a revolt. They say, "Do we have to put up with this any more? Do we have to put up with this any more?" And I find that a very healthy symptom, in terms of what the leadership is of the Labour Party in Britain now. I think it's an optimistic turn.

But the other side is, what's the alternative? And the alternative is, to let them hope that they win in Britain in the coming election which is now coming up, in order to save us from the dangers which otherwise would come from that quarter. So this has good sides to it, the fact that there's a Labour Party movement which is actually makes a lot of sense. Whereas the leading forces otherwise, are bad forces and will lead to destruction.

So I think this is something on which there is a big question mark of how things are going to turn out, but I think we can be more optimistic, or less un-optimistic than we have heretofore.

Q: [followup] What do the people in the City of London think about the whole Wall Street situation?

LaRouche: Wall Street has to be buried. We have to get rid of Wall Street. Cut it out, Glass-Steagall—straight Glass-Steagall, the way that Franklin Roosevelt defined it. Get right back to that, straight.

Q: [followup] Thank you very much. Don't forget about the other three things I mentioned, okay? The UN vehicles, the back-channels, and why are we prepping for mass casualties?

LaRouche: Well look, we all are involved in back-channels; we're all doing that, who are active.

Q: I am K— from the Bronx. One of your people told me that one of the candidates in London is for Glass-Steagall.

LaRouche: Yes.

Q: [followup] I just thought I'd toss that in.

On your Thursday night program, there was a discussion about how the Nazis got in to Ukraine, along that line. I have read that Allen Dulles, who was in the Truman Administration, as I understand, had protected the Nazis in Ukraine from being put on trial, so as to save them for another day. And if that's true, the day has certainly come.

Hillary's Mistake

LaRouche: Well that's true. That is the fact. Allen Dulles was exactly that kind of person. The two brothers. And the Dulles brothers were two of the most evil people in the recent history of the United States.

Q: [followup] And there's been a lot of evil people.

LaRouche: Oh yes! We are abundantly supplied with evil people. The question is, how do we get them in the proper cages, where they can do no more harm?

Q: [followup] What I wanted to mention to you is about Hillary Clinton. She has stated that she has not used her personal computer for Secretary of State emails, and that she's innocent. Well, the FBI is investigating her, and we are all very excited about the fact that there are Dick Tracys in the FBI looking at her emails. What I understand, is, that the head of the Department of Justice was selected or recommended by Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton is friends with Al Sharpton and the head of the DOJ. And it is anticipated that they are going to give her a clean bill of health.

LaRouche: I wouldn't buy into that. I don't think that it's that simple. I think that Hillary, who has made terrible mistakes, became disoriented because she capitulated to Obama. She had a choice not to support Obama, and she didn't realize what an evil, Satanic figure this guy is, and already was. And therefore she got trapped. And what she did—she tried to tell the truth on the issue at one point. But he came down on her like a hammer, and she capitulated. So she did not have the guts to face up to what he represents. But you have to say, this guy is actually—Obama is really a satanic figure. We don't know how Satanist he is, but we know his behavior is Satanic.

And the problem is that we have this Satanic character, who's now almost gone through two terms of service, but we had also before then, the Bush family, Bush administration was just as evil or more evil, than what is in. So the problem is, we have not had honest candidates elected to the Presidency in [fifteen] years. And the effect shows.

Preventing Nuclear War

Now we have a group of people of Congress, in the institutions of the Congress, and institutions of the government, who do want to prevent this. Those people, who are of the military and so forth, or other categories of this type, are determined to prevent what Obama's doing; Obama and his backers have chopped off the authority of leading figures who had been the safeguards of our civilization, in those years.

Sen. Tim Kaine, one of the few Congressional voices speaking out against Obama’s war drive in Southwest Asia. Here he speaks in 2014.

Right now, during this period, from the Spring into the present time, there has been a process of destroying the safeguards which existed, actually inside the Obama Administration. But now Obama has moved to strip all the authorities which had been curbs of his travesties, and we're coming up to the edge, where he is in a position, probably this month or next month, to launch a thermonuclear war on a global basis.

Because what's planned is, that he would launch a thermonuclear war against Russia and other locations. That's what the situation is. If that were to happen, then you would have, probably an extermination of much of the human species, if not all of it. And what we're trying to do now, is prevent that thing from happening in that way. And the chances of defeating this kind of evil, are getting thinner and thinner.

And I'm very much involved in this stuff, this particular issue. I know that there're people in government who are trying to prevent this; they're important people, they have certain powers; we have members of Congress who are in a position to block this process, but we're having very soft treatment of this problem, from my standpoint.

We are in a fight, from our state and through other forces on other parts of the planet, we're in a struggle to prevent Obama from launching a thermonuclear war, whose result would be the virtual extermination of most of the human species.

Q: There's a chance of a military coup?

LaRouche: Well, people know it! There's no lack of people who know this information, who know this threat. But the question is, who has the guts to stand up against Obama? That's what the issue is. He's evil, there's no question of that. The question, who's going to get rid of him. Put him in a bucket someplace. [Speed laughs]

It Can Be Stopped

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Hi. I know you. I remember you.

Q: This is E— from the Bronx. My question is, the world is in such a threat of a nuclear war, now, God forbid—I would just like to ask, can music and art do anything to alleviate that situation, to make it so that that should not happen? That's my question, really.

LaRouche: OK, yeah, well, I'm working at that, and I'm optimistic about the possibility of winning. But I don't have any certainty of a success. I will do everything that I can, within my capabilities, and I've had a lot of experience with this sort of thing; you know, at my age and the activities I've lived through, I've been pretty much experienced in a very significant way, with various parts of the planet. It's been my career in life. And therefore, I do know things that can work, and I often advise people in important circles to what my opinions are, as to what can be done to stop these things.

But in my capacity speaking here, I have to present, actually the fuller possibilities of what can happen. My involvement is to inform people, usefully, in things that might work, which is what I do anyway. But I do not intend to have doom coming down on the United States, or the world as a whole; I just don't intend to sit back and say that's going to happen. I will say, that is what is threatened, and therefore let us take heed, and let us take the actions which can be effective; let's find out what we can do to stop this nonsense. And I, of course, have an advantage because of my experience; that's really all I have is my experience and the reflections of my experience.

But I do know that it's possible to defeat this process. The question is, are we going to mobilize the forces, to do it? I'm not a pessimist. [applause]

With Indira Gandhi and Ronald Reagan

Q: Hi Lyn, this is A—, and I too am from the Bronx.

Earlier in this webcast it was brought up about the celebrations that the people of India are putting on today, because of their defeat and rejection of, I don't know how many hundreds of years of colonialism. And in India, you're very familiar with it, you had an ongoing, working relationship with Indira Gandhi,—they are, of course, making headway in the BRICS; we see some scientific progress.

What I'd like to know from you, is what other changes are required in that nation, so that they can take the real Promethean leadership, and join China and end up working at the same level that China is operating on now?

LaRouche: I was very close to Indira Gandhi, personally. We met a number of times, and I was committed to her cause and so forth, and I was committed to her family, as such, as a leadership as such, as a leadership at that time. And she and I would be on the phones and so forth, we would discuss things of that nature from time to time, on projects she would have, and I would have projects of that nature.

The world was deprived of excellent global leadership when Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. Here she speaks at the National Press Club in Washington on July 30, 1982.

And what happened, of course, the British Empire assassinated her. And the assassination of Indira Gandhi was very important. For example, just to get an appreciation of the situation: Indira was studying as a student in Switzerland. And while she was in that process of maturing to this kind of position, she was very close to Charles de Gaulle, President Charles de Gaulle. And he admired her greatly for her intellect, in the meeting that he had held for her in the Switzerland area. And she was great.

But the problem is, as is often the case in history, that a great woman, like her, when assassinated, creates a vacuum in the continuity of the process of a great nation, India in this case. And what happened was, she became irreplaceable in fact.

Now, this was a period when I was working with the President of the United States, and I was acting as a mediating force between Indira and our President [Reagan] at the time—and then she's knocked out. So a very important link between Indira Gandhi and the President of the United States, was broken. And we all suffered. And of course, he was shot by an associate of the Bush family, and that was a weakness.

So you have an overlap of cases of people who were great leaders, and he was a great leader before he got shot. I worked for him; I was part of his staff, in his intelligence staff. I organized a whole organization for him on that basis. But then he was shot. He survived, but he was crippled to a significant degree, and other forces took over much of his authority, during the rest of his term as President.

Leadership is Decisive

And that happens. These kinds of things happen. And forces that are destructive will go and target leading persons in society; in other words, you cannot just go out and recruit somebody to be something as a leader. It does not work in history. History depends upon leaders who are competent and reliable. That's how history works. Democracy per se is bunk when it comes to that issue. Democracy is as sufficient as the leadership we can provide. That's the general case in history.

And that's the case right now: The role of leadership, in nations, is among the most decisive, and therefore most important, considerations in all politics, especially all national politics and international politics. If you don't have an exceptional person, or persons, in leadership, in government, you probably are going to have the kind of failure we've had under Bush, and now under Obama. And the mistakes we made were having Bush, and having Obama.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I am V— of Brooklyn. Mr. LaRouche, you and your team are developing a new paradigm of creative mind of mankind, opposing the point of view on the human as being like just another animal. What would your answer be to the people who defend and spread the ideas that only actually a small percent of the population has the kind of ability of creative mind? And most of the people are actually more like an animal? And of course, countries, by their thoughts, have to be ruled by and in favor of this small percent of the population?

LaRouche: Well, the point goes to the question of what is the standard of leadership, in society? You could take the case of Russia, for example, because Russia has a history which is an easy map to read, to show the evolution of what the fluctuations and destiny of Russia have been, over conditions, particularly under the current leader in Russia. And so, you find, when you look at that, if you look at it from the Russian standpoint, leadership is a very important question. And when Russians are smart, they're very careful, in terms of leadership, of how they operate themselves in order to create a force which will enable them to accomplish the mission of serving the nation, serving the culture, serving the future.

The Leadership We Need

And so therefore, this question is crucial. You cannot simply say, we're going to elect some guy and put a wig on his head, huh? and call him a genius. That is not a very good idea. So therefore, what you have to do, you have to cultivate, in society,—we have to cultivate people who are sometimes called geniuses. They're not always actually geniuses, but they function in a way in which, together with other people, they form the effect of the act of genius.

You'll often find in nations that there is a bunch of people, who together, represent a genius, a quality of judgment which solves a major problem for mankind. And that's what we're up against. We have the case of like, what you're having in the neighboring area here: We have a Nazi organization running the organization which is now confronting Russia; it's a Nazi organization. It was born of the Nazis, of Hitler Nazis. It's now the ruling force in Ukraine society. This element is used by the British and others, to try to destroy Russia.

kremlin.ru
Leadership means creating a force “to accomplish the mission of serving the nation, serving the culture, serving the future.” Here, Russian President Vladimir Putin (center) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (right) at the May 8, 2015 military parade in Moscow, marking the 70th anniversary of V-E Day.

Russia has to deal with this, with a very delicate way of approaching this thing. Because Germany, which should be supporting Russia in this case,—because German interests and Russian interests are identical in terms of the economic process right now, the cooperation between the skills of Germany, in the best industries in Germany, and the skills of Russia, must be things which are adjoined.

And the problem is, if we don't have qualities of leadership which are both intelligent, and determined to take the actions which prevent disaster, disaster generally tends to happen. Most of the disasters in human history are the result of a lack of competent leadership. Or the leadership may have been there, but they were not allowed to function.

And in Russia right now, I think they're in pretty good shape in terms of Putin. I know him in a sense; I've never talked with him directly—I have talked with him indirectly a number of times—but he's quite a capable character. He's done an excellent job in what he's done. But the point is, you just think, what if he's assassinated? And I'm sure he thinks about those kinds of things some times; he knows that his assassination is a serious threat to Russia itself, and to society in general.

Producing Geniuses

We're in a real mess in terms of these things, and we have to understand what the issues are, and we have to use that to flank the enemy. We have to determine what the forces that are causing the trouble, and we try to flank it; rather than making war against it, we try to flank it. and the principle of the flank, I think, is the great mystery that has to be unravelled.

Q: Don't you think that we depend too much on leadership, on geniuses having to be in the leadership, and maybe some political system needs to give more power to the people?

LaRouche: That doesn't work. Because unless the people have among themselves—among their own population—have the ability to muster genius, genius will not be manifest, and catastrophe will probably result as a lack of that genius. Geniuses are—real geniuses—a leadership of genius, are essential to the success of society. And therefore, that's why education is so important, why scientific study is so important. You have the people who represent the elements of genius, which means the increase of the power of mankind, to create beyond what mankind has known before. And you want to produce people who have the quality of genius.

And a true genius is always a very modest person, because a true genius always recognizes the danger which they face, not only in terms of threats to them, but in terms their own failures. [applause]

Q: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, this is H— from the Bronx. So far, what we've seen from the Presidential campaign is the Republican debates, and I wonder what we could say of various of these people, or as a group, what this phenomenon is. I mean, we have Donald Trump who goes from ridiculous to obscene; we have Mr. Kasich who is sort of the new moderate or something, we're not sure what; we have Rand Paul who occasionally does do some useful things, I think; and then of course, lurking in the background is Mr. Jeb, Jeb Bush. So I don't know quite what to make of this thing, or collectively, what we can say about this phenomenon, since one of these Republicans could actually—we don't like to even say it—but could actually go further in this process. [laughter]

We Must Become a School

LaRouche: I think you've got two types of persons. You've got persons like the FBI. Now Trump is a product of the FBI organization; his family is, that's his location. And he's a thug, he's a bum, he's a liar, he's a swindler, he has all the attributes of being a successful Republican nominee. [laughter]

On the other hand, you have the problems of failure, the lack of development of insights and practices, which are necessary for mankind to overcome the threatened disasters which are lurking around us all over the place. And what we have to do, is, we have to actually become a school, which is a very good school necessarily, for organizing society as a force.

Now, people always think about the individual genius; now the individual genius in society is an important phenomenon. There's no question about that. Einstein demonstrates that very clearly. But, the point is, the individual genius can be over-exaggerated. Geniuses, wherever they occur, may be necessary. But what's necessary is people around the genius, so-called, who are capable of understanding what they have to do with the talent that's been dumped in their hands.

Therefore, if you don't have a society that is resonant with an understanding of what society needs, for its own existence, for its own development, it's a failure. And what happens is, when you make people stupid, you destroy their ability to exercise good judgment; they don't know what they're talking about! They're blocked, they're ignorant! And it's very important that we develop really intelligent people in terms of society, in all levels of society. It's not one elite alone; you find the genius often turns out to be some guy who was obscure to you beforehand; and suddenly, one day he opened his mouth and said something, and you have to realize he knew something.

So the point is, you have to have the idea of a society which shares its knowledge, shares its skill, shares the developments of its skill. And that's the thing we base ourselves on. Because you know, we all die; we're all going to die sooner or later. And so therefore, we have to worry about the supply of people who are going to carry on the job, which someone who may have passed on, was going to do otherwise. So you just have to have this idea of sharing of the intention to meet the challenges which mankind requires.

Science and Religion

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, my name is Y—, and I'm 19 years old. I'm from Harlem. And I'm totally onboard with everything you're saying, and I just wanted to make a comment. I hope you can resonate with it a little bit.

I think that's definitely true that Obama has been a Satanic figure, because I feel like Satan uses people for his purposes, and he is the serpent that leads the whole world astray, as it says in Revelation 12:9. And I think that people are being deceived by all this, and people are being deceived so much that they feel like they don't have the potential to change. And I think the purpose of this group, LaRouche, is just that, is to make effective change.

I also think that it's pretty evident to all that humanity will fail because we're all imperfect. And I actually want to share a Scripture with you, if you don't mind: It's in Matthew 24:6-8. It says, Jesus is talking to His disciples and He says, "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginnings of birth pains."

Gustave Doré
“You have to understand that there? s a force in the universe, which is far more powerful than we ourselves can understand. We therefore try to order ourselves and our behavior, in accord with our best understanding of what that superior force is.” Here, Dante Alighieri and Beatrice Portinari gazing into the Empyrean Light.

So God knows everything, and I think that Jesus is the hope, and He's the only one we should depend on for our source of strength, source of leadership, because we ourselves cannot do it alone. We're imperfect. So that's just what I have to say.

LaRouche: We don't need to be that imperfect. That we have a certain imposition of modesty of our own talents, of course, is natural. But the progress of mankind is typified by scientific progress, true scientific progress.

For example, take the case of power, physical power; take the case of Kepler's discovery of the Solar System; take the case of the discovery of the Galaxy: These are arranged in an order, where you go from mankind's ordinary abilities, you go to a higher level as Kepler represents this higher level of a principle; it goes to the idea of the Galactic principle, which is a still higher principle.

Relying on What You Don't Yet Know

So that the question about the Deity comes in, that the Deity is more than anything that we know in these categories. And yet, we are dependent upon that influence. What we think, in terms of religion, is the fact that there is a force in the universe, which is operating on us, in our setting, and if we can understand that force and respond to it, we can recognize such things as the people who discovered the Solar System; the forces who then discovered later, the higher order, the Galactic System; and beyond that, what we have yet to discover. We have inklings of this, inklings of that.

So we find that we live in a universe, which is ruled by something higher than anything that man knows presently. And yet, we're able to experience some aspects of that knowledge, and we respond to it on the basis of our recognition, that this is a valid influence, even though our own knowledge is imperfect in that.

And in the practice of life, that's what's most important. Can we, when mankind is faced with a great problem, like right now—right now, we're on the threat of the extermination of the human species under Obama and similar people, to wipe us off the planet right now, in this month or the next month! It's there!

So therefore, we rely not only on what we are able to do, we also have to rely upon things that we do not yet understand, but recognize that they are an option, which may be the solution. And therefore, we look at the idea of Deity which is a power which is greater than anything that mankind can really understand, and you try to respond to those things which you experience, as representing that power, a power of a Deity. And you try to make yourself function in coherence with that power of the Deity, which you don't really know, but you recognize the signs, you recognize the experience, you find something resonant, which fits that. And that's the best you have.

We always try to understand this better, improve our own understanding of what these processes are. Like real scientific work is of that nature. What is it, like Einstein? Einstein made a discovery of something that mankind had never known before! But Einstein is simply typical of creative forces in the human process, and you're very happy when you find someone who does that, as Einstein did. Einstein was absolutely unique in this respect, during the period of his life.

And so yeah, this is all true. But you don't have to give just a name to it. You have to understand that there is a force in the universe, which is far more powerful than we ourselves can understand. We therefore try to order ourselves and our behavior, in accord with our best understanding of what that superior force is. And that is what the real purpose for religious belief is: That there's a force in the universe, which is acting in a certain way, that we try to find ourselves in accord with that force. And we become personally attached to that idea of that force, and that becomes our morality. [applause]

Money Right Now is Trash

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, R— from Bergen County, New Jersey. My question is, given the recent devaluation of the yuan, in your opinion could that lead to a currency war internationally, in the form of competitive devaluations, of the currency, which could lead to an implosion of the world currently system, and therefore making the issues of impeachment and Glass-Steagall just absolutely imperative this second?

LaRouche: Franklin Roosevelt's understanding of Glass-Steagall was one of the best pieces of understanding that mankind has had so far, at least in recent times.

The problem is that we are imprisoned by the idea of money; we assume that money has some intrinsic value all its own, and that if you can grab this money, hold it in your hand, kiss it! Hold it in your arms! Love it! Money!

Money right now is trash. All the wealth of Wall Street, all the wealth of Wall Street, is worthless. All its money is worthless!

How would we deal with that? It's not difficult. I know how to do that! What you have to do, is you have to produce increasing powers of labor, to advance the conditions of mankind's life. Now, that's what Franklin Roosevelt understood. And after Franklin Roosevelt was out of office, then we tended to get a lot of clowns coming in and saying, they are now going to deal with the question of money! We had that before Franklin Roosevelt was empowered; we had it repeatedly in terms of the history of the United States. The swindlers of the United States, the swindlers of the world, have dominated society most of the time. So people think that there's some magic out there, which enables the swindlers to win.

The problem is, the people are dumb, because they didn't take the trouble to find out what the solution is. And if we actually put Glass-Steagall into operation, full operation, we can solve this problem, right away.

Why Music

Q: Mr. LaRouche, good afternoon: D—. How do we start the ball rolling on Amendment 25? What can we do?

LaRouche: Okay. I'm trying to do that right now! I do it all the time. Sometimes we have some luck, and sometimes we don't. but I always intended it. I don't think we made many mistakes on this thing, but unfortunately a lot of the institutions of government have not accepted that wisdom.

Q: What has to happen in order to have him removed from office? What has to happen from the population?

LaRouche: ... difficult. I mean, the knowledge of how to organize, I have that knowledge; it's my specialty. I know exactly how to organize things like that. I've spent most of my life doing it. It works! But, you've got to shut down Wall Street and then it'll begin to work. Just get Wall Street out of Manhattan, and you might make some successes.

Speed: All right. It appears that that's all the questions for today, so I'm going to just bring up one, because it was asked of me during the music sessions. One person who was here for the first time, about 20 minutes into it, leaned over and said to me, "What exactly is this meeting for?" And then, wanted to know, "What does the music have to do, with stopping nuclear war, or politics, or what? Why are you doing this?"

So I thought I should ask that question, and give you a means to both respond if you wish, and also, I guess, summarize for the day.

LaRouche: OK! [laughs] Well that's feasible. No, the point is, what we do is we create forces in society which are determined by the powers of mankind's creative forces. And what you're trying to do, always, is you're trying to create something which is needed, or you think is needed, and you decide that you have to step outside ordinary practice, in order to solve the problem you've just confronted.

The Practical Man is Stupid

That's the basis of this whole thing. Mankind has to become wiser, and it has to be a process of development. Now everything I do is based on this kind of idea of the process of development; I've spent most of my life on that. And I've found that most of the errors that occur are usually caused by ignorance. And ignorance is often caused by a refusal to investigate options which are actually creative in their effect.

Often what happens, the practical man, so-called, is often the source of his own self-destruction. He says, "I'm practical. I'm practical." Now, in mathematics, and in science in general, that's tragic. People who are practical are intrinsically tragic, because they limit themselves to what they think is practical, whereas progress is always based on getting beyond being practical by making discoveries of principle, or discovering principles which had existed before, but you hadn't understood them.

Progress is the increase of the creative powers, of the individual mind, and of society. Practical people, therefore, tend to be stupid people, not because they're inherently stupid, but they refuse to look to higher levels of challenges for success, for mankind: success for mankind. Which means it's another. It's not something you own, it's not something that's contained with inside you. It's something which if you adapt to it, and understand it, makes mankind more powerful in his own domain.

Speed: OK, so I think that's it for today. I want everybody to join me in thanking Lyn for an amazing Q&A. [applause] All right, Lyn, so we'll see you next week!

LaRouche: I hope! If I'm still living! [laughter]