|This transcript appears in the August 28, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Shut Down Wall Street; It Just Blew Out!
Below is an edited transcript of excerpts of Lyndon LaRouche's Saturday, August 22, 2015 Dialogue with the Manhattan Project.
Dennis Speed: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I want to welcome everybody for our dialogue today with Lyndon LaRouche.
We always like to begin with making sure that everyone is properly oriented, and therefore I'd like to say that Barack Obama must be removed, as President of the United States. If you're in this meeting and you don't know that that's what the topic is, now you know. And it's not a topic because it's the topic. It's the topic because civilization is at stake, and we intend, as Americans, to invoke the principle of the American Presidency against the present interloper in the White House.
So we're going to get right into questions, and we're of course happy to have Lyn with us again this week; and we'd just like to take the first question, right away and start off.
Hello, Lyn. Earlier this week in the New York Times was placed an insert by a newspaper Epoch Times, which is a newspaper produced by the Falun Gong. They took up a very interesting subject and cited you on this question, which is the question of the Verdi tuning. It was a whole two-page insert on Aug. 14. The title is "Music Tuned To 432 Hz Said To Heal, Uplift." We'll flash an image of what the newspaper looks like, but I'm just going to read through a little bit of it and seek your comments on the matter.
It begins: "A decades-long debate among musicians about tuning is bound up with Nazi conspiracy theories, New Age healing methods, practical consideration of what's easiest on a singer's vocal chords, a revived connection to ancient math and aesthetics, and more abstract connections to a higher order.
"Should instruments be tuned to 440 hertz or 432 hertz?
The Verdi Tuning
"In 1955, an international standard of A=440 hertz was set to unify the different concert pitches previously in use. This means the number of vibrations per second of the middle A is 440. But some say A=432 hertz brings music to another level."
So, the article cites studies that have been done where listeners who were tested listening to both the higher Nazi/Goebbels tuning and the Verdi tuning, almost overwhelmingly prefer the lower Verdi tuning, saying that the 440 tuning is "uncomfortable, oppressive, narrow minded." They think that the lower tuning is "peaceful and calm."
Later in the article they cite Luciano Pavarotti, Renata Tebaldi, the professional Italian opera singers, as preferring the lower tuning, and then it goes on: "Was 440Hz Tuning a Nazi Initiative?" And they go through some of that question, including, they say: "Laurent Rosenfeld wrote the article 'How the Nazis Ruined Musical Tuning,' published in the September 1988 edition of the magazine Executive Intelligence Review (a publication associated with the LaRouche movement, known to have some controversial political stances)."
And then they examine the question of the Nazis' preference for the higher tuning, and then the rest of the article looks at why the lower tuning might be preferable for water molecules and some numerological questions, but it's certainly striking. This insert, this New York Times insert, was brought to our attention by a conductor friend of ours. And in the context of the Manhattan project you initiated last October, the chorus that we've been building since December, all of which highlighting this lower tuning, I think it would be useful to get your comments. Thank you.
Lyndon LaRouche: Well, this is something we've had a big fight about and I've been part of this big fight. I'm not a musician as such, but I have had very close relationships with the greatest musicians living, in my life time; most of them in Italy and other locations and to some degree in New York City, in the same time period. This standard is not one of some arbitrary figure. It's a recognition of a musical value which is implicitly required by competent, shall we say, competent musical performance, and therefore the development of the ability to reach the expression that this demands is really a standard for defining everything that's important about music, especially Classical music.
What are Human Principles?
And this is something that belongs to mankind, it belongs to the best forces of mankind. And anything that's different than that on the basis of history, the effects of history, was a failure. And of course, we often use, as I did, the Italian standard, and the Italian standard is a true standard, and we stick to it.
And that's something which people have to learn from experience by meeting that standard. And when they are able to meet that standard and compare it with some other opportunity than their own singing, this leads them into understand the true meaning of what Classical musical composition represents. It is not an arbitrary scheme. It is not a gimmick. It's a natural development of the human singing voice, and the singing voice is the proper background for the expression of all artistic expression of any kind; and if you want to make a public speech on an issue, it should be in those terms of reference. If you do that, you'll find that your mental capabilities will be strengthened. Whereas if you don't do that, your mental capabilities may be reduced. So, I would advise you to accept the Verdi standard.
Q: I'm J and I'm with Lynn Yen and the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, and I'm going to be honest, that I had many questions before I came here. But standing here, it really takes away my breath. I guess I'm just going to keep this short and simple.
Within these past two years, studying with Miss Yen and learning about the Kepler nested solids and learning about the relationship between music and education, it's really opened my eyes to the education system today. In the high school that I go to and in many other high schools in New York City, they are starting to cut the music programs in to save money, so they can hire new and younger teachers; so they can replace the old ones and pay them cheaper.
So I was wondering if there was anything I or anyone else that goes to Miss Yen's program could do, to basically help spread the word and also keep music programs alive and show the importance of how music and education go together well. Thank you.
LaRouche: The answer to the implicit question, is that there is a certain set of values, which are consistent with Classical musical composition and performance. These are not however arbitrary standards in any sense. They are things which have emerged as adopted on the basis of understanding what the human mind requires, in order to express humanity.
In other words, the problem we have, is, what is human? What are human principles? Don't they have to imply the quality of principles which actually fits the requirements of design of the human mind? In other words, these are not arbitrary values. They're values which have come to be understood by those who experienced states of mind, mental states of mind; and people can recognize eventually by experience what states of mind, including tuning, of expression are required to meet the standard required for the principle of human mental life.
And therefore, we want people to be able find coherence between understanding music and understanding the principle of the human mind. And it's that coherence which is crucial. And all the greatest musicians have been able to induce most people to recognize that distinction, and the principles that embodies. And Verdi is an excellent particular selection. And Verdi and his work is, still, an up-to-date standard for understanding the meaning of both music and musical composition.
The Strategic Defense Initiative
Q: Good afternoon. I've been following your teaching for a number of years, and one of the things I've learned how to do is view things from a big-picture, top-down perspective. And in that regard, I find it easy to view everything that's going on as a battle of good versus evil. Most people are somewhere in the middle, but on the one hand, you have a bunch of very rich, therefore powerful people, like the Bushes.
I used to think you were a Bush basher, and then the more I learned about them I kind of think you were kind of easy on them. You talk about Prescott Bush a lot, but one thing you don't mention a lot is his son, who I found out was fairly integral in the assassination of JFK. He gets rewarded with being President and one, if not two (hopefully not), of his sons end up becoming President as well.
I'm a registered Republicanand now we have Donald Trump, and I am trying to decide where he is on the spectrum of good or evil. I kind of want him to be on the side of good, but I noticed right from the get-go you're very dead set against him. I'm thinking he's either somewhere between an irritant who's out to fracture the Republican Party, which they seem to do fairly well on their own; or people have been calling him Reaganesque, and I'm like, well.... But I would think if he was Reaganesque, you don't necessarily dislike him because he's a Republican. If he was Reaganesque, I've got to believe that that would at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
I've heard a lot recently about end-times philosophy and prophecy. And so in regards to where Donald Trump falls in this, I don't knowmy question is: Is it possible that Donald Trump is the anti-Christ? [laughter]
LaRouche: Well, Trump islet's take two parts of this. Let's get the garbage out of the way first. When we remove the garbage, then we'll look at the content of what the garbage has overcome.
First of all, I think a recommendation should be for reference, should be a political one. And now I had the good fortune to be recruited in the late 1970s, recruited by what was going to become the Reagan Administration. And I was specially trained and rehearsed in methods for dealing with the physical principles of science, in what Reagan had intended to be; and I was put in charge of a major operation, which involved international systems of combat and avoidance of combat. This was my assignment.
I was also brought into an operation, where I met with the leadership of the Russian-Soviet system at that time, what was left of it; and we came to an agreement to ensure that there would be no warfare between the United States, and what had been the Soviet Union, the relics of the Soviet Union. And I'd been in charge of that operation, which was the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was my particular project. I operated together with many people associated with the back room of the intelligence service of the President.
This is my experience. And I regret very much that we lost him, our Presidentthat is, he was assassinated, virtually. He survived. He was a physically tough guy and he survived physically, but it was an attempted assassination, by people who were related to the Bush family. And therefore, that assassination attack on him weakened the President, Ronald Reagan, physically, and therefore other forces moved in on his Presidency and began to contaminate it, despite his noble efforts at the time.
After that point we had Bill Clinton, who tried to be a great President, and Bill was not a perfect President, but he was a very useful one relative to the alternatives. And after that, after Bill Clinton left office, there has been nothing but crap in the Presidential system. There are individuals in the Presidential system who are honest people and so forth, but the ruling force in the Presidential systems since that time, has been the worst possible crap, and Barack Obama is the crappiest of them all, and the most dangerous.
Hillary Was a Patsy
Q: This is A. Earlier this week two articles appeared in various publications, one in the Washington Times. Both were addressing the Hillary Clinton situation, as it stands. The one from the Washington Times begins by saying, "Ms. Clinton is careening toward possible criminal charges involving her alleged mishandling of classified materials over her personal server and President Obama is driving the bus." The second one, I think it's something online, from someone people familiar with this organization know, where they quote Dick Morris, the famous toe sucker, extensively. "From the Clinton point of view this was all set up by Obama, Michelle, and Valerie Jarrett, the three of them. Barack hates Bill, Valerie and Michelle hate Hillary," and here it starts outhere's a new one "Hillary Clinton is planning to start blaming Barack Obama from her own personal emails." [quotes as read]
Now it was, I don't remember exactly when, but you were the first one to say what is required for Hillary Clinton to both be patriotic, save the nation, and herself, in a sense; while her Presidential hopes have been dashed, since her failure or exposure on Glass-Steagall, we have these developments now, and obviously these people can be writing and their articles go on with their own bent, but I was wondering what you could say to us now on Hillary Clinton and these matters.
LaRouche: Well, Hillary Clinton was a patsy. She had had certain talents, certain recognizable talents, but she came under the thumb of a brutish animal called Barack Obama. This whole crisis about that came to a climax, where Obama had committed a fraud in terms of his own cupidity, in dealing with the assassinations of at least three or more individuals in the U.S. intelligence/diplomatic service. So the issue came up. He had liedthe President hadand said that this was an offense, an insult to the cause of the Saudi religion. There was no truth to that whatsoever.
It was Obama, himself, who organized the set-up which resulted in the assassination of at least three, or probably four, officials of the United States government. She [Hillary] had been subjected to the fact that he had done this, and that Hillary was carrying the load for him. And at first she made a stab at exposing the President, Obama. Now Obama was the one who was guilty of all the crimes committed against the citizens of the United States, the official citizens of the United States in that area, and Obama lied. Also Obama had a bunch of women who were working for him, and they lied, too.
The 25th Amendment
Now the situation today is that Hillary Clinton knows, and has direct knowledge of the lies by Barack Obama. She could have sunk him them. She could have testified then, and he would've been out of the Presidency automatically. He, however, is a threatening person. He's a madman, himself. He intimidated the hell out of her, and she backed off and refused to state the fact that she personally knew, and she had identified. But when it came to the conflict with Obama, she capitulated; and to this day, she has continued to capitulate to Obama's threats and brutality.
Now, the obvious thing here, is that if Hillary Clinton would tell the truth, the truth which we know she had against Obama, she would be in danger from Obama, because he's a killer. Obama's step-father was a killer. He was in a different part of the planet at that time. But he was a killer; he was known as a killer. The mother was a bad person, but she was a weakling, who didn't have the guts to stand up to her husband. but Obama is the child of his own step-father, in that way.
So if we are going to have a United States, if we are not going to have a thermonuclear war, if we are not going have a collapse of the world through the launching of a thermonuclear war, which the Obama Administration now represents as an immediate threat, that's the problem to be considered. And those who have the guts and knowledge to expose this, or contribute to exposing it, really have in their hands the possibility of saving this nation and other nations from a gross extermination through thermonuclear warfare, even in this month or the next month. We don't know which is the closest, but it's on now.
Obama must be removed from the Presidency under the 25th Amendment, and it must be done quickly, now. And that will clean the whole thing up. Put him in the jug. Throw him out of office, according to the 25th Amendment. That's the solution.
Mankind is a Unique Species
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is E from the Bronx, New York City. I agree with you 100% when you say that man is not an animal. He's creative, and he's trying to discover universal principles or laws of the universe. But I believe that biologically we have to say that man is part of the animal kingdom, but he's the highest form of animal on Earth. He has a mind; he can think; he can rationalize.
All animals operate by brains. We do, too, but we have minds, and so we can think. The lower animals, like the lions, tigers, horses, whatever, they do not know that they are living in a universe, that they are living on a planet. They just operate according to the jungle law of eat, kill, devour, and so on, but man is higher than that....
LaRouche: OK. I know the difference of mankind from an animal. Mankind is not an animal. And no animal is mankind. This is a unique character, because the characteristic is located where? It's located in the powers of creativity. Those powers of creativity which no animal hasno form of animal has ever manifest such skills.
Now the problem comes up on the other side. The problem is that we have often societies, and forms of societies, human societies, which are degenerate; that is, they should be human, but they're not, in their behavior. And therefore, we have to make that distinction.
The power of creativity, for example, the discovery by Kepler of the Solar System: Kepler, by himself, was the genius who discovered the principle of the Solar System. Implicitly the same thing is extended to a higher level, the Galactic System. For example, most of the water that mankind depends upon depends upon the Galaxy, not an inferior system. So that when we operate in this way with true physical science, with the greatest scientists, and all greatest scientists show these characteristics; and only the stupid people, people who are ignorant on these things, or they're stupefied....
For example, what's frightening is the education system of the people of the United States. Now there are some rare institutions, in which the teaching is intelligent, and Manhattan used to be one of the places where the better quality of education in schools occurred. Most of the rest of the world has been rather defective in this front, in this prospect. There are things in Europe, parts of Europe, which have highly developed mental life, human mental life. Einstein, for example, is the paragon. Einstein was the unique figure in his own existence, and no one really recently has managed to compare with that.
So anyway, these are the things. Mankind is a unique species, and the Christian religion, for example, is absolutely correct on this point: Mankind is not an animal. Mankind depends upon the service of animals, that animals who adapt to human beings are useful to human beings. In that respect they have a very significant role in life. But mankind, the human mind is a unique phenomenon, for which so far, we have never discovered another, except humanity as such. Mankind is not perfect, because mankind has not perfected.
For example, the purpose of true education is to enable mankind, people, to not only become more intelligent, more skilled, but to also get to another higher level, the same level which is characteristic of Albert Einstein; Einstein's genius was a very specific quality of true genius, as opposed to a lot of other people who were very skilled, but they were not geniuses. And what we do want, we do want to have geniuses. But geniuses are only a particular type of development of human beings; animals are not geniuses.
The New Presidency
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. My name is E, and I currently reside in Wilmington, Delaware, but I was born in Paterson, New Jersey, which is where Alexander Hamilton kicked off an industrial revolution in this country. And now we're badly in need of this kind of policy, this kind of idea.
Well, I understand that there are some people in the Democratic Party that are running for President, and we don't want to have an evolutionary battle between different beasts. What we're trying to do is create a Presidency which you suggested the policies that it should be oriented around, and the former governor of Maryland, Mr. O'Malley, he's circling the circuit now for Presidential campaign. And he's going to show his face in Philadelphia, and I think it's incumbent on myself to do something to make sure that he gets your message, directly, and I would volunteer to do that next week, or in a week or two, but I would like you to give a succinct notion of what exactly we need to inform his campaign, to move so that the Democratic Party can actually be revived to represent the people of this country.
LaRouche: Mm-hmm, OK. I can answer that. First of all, O'Malley is one of the people who I would tend to support for candidacy for the Presidency now; it goes as much by default as anything else, that O'Malley is one of the people who probably would be on the safe side of being a choice for President. I'm not fully aware of all the details of that, I don't know the intimate secrets of his life and so forth; but I would say, yes, he's near the top of the list of candidates for designation as President.
Now, the question is, what's the answer to this whole process? Well, first of all, a President, a single President by himself, is not a security for a successful Presidency. The closest we got to that was people like Abraham Lincoln, and so forth, and Franklin Roosevelt. These were nearly perfect Presidents, for the purposes of being Presidents; and there were a few others who also fit. I could go through that, but let's not bother with that right now.
The point here is that we have to have a conception of policy, that we have to have a Presidential appointee, who is surrounded by a team, a team of skilled people who as a team are a relative guarantee of a successful President. Now, I think that Obama has to be removed immediately, obviously. I think O'Malley is one of the people who should be considered a candidate for the appointment to the Presidency.
But what I'm really looking for, is for a team which fills out a Presidential office, a team which by itself will not only be good, and the President must not only be good, but he could be assassinated or he could die. Therefore, this makes us aware that we must have a Presidency, that is, a team of people who work together to fulfill the office of President, that is, the functional office of the Presidents for the United States.
We need a team, we need a selection of people, who are qualified to assemble around a chosen President as a candidate, and that we must rely upon the working and development and support of that Presidency, as the leading edge to the solutions which we most desperately desire right now.
Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much. One more follow-up. Do you think I should urge him to get the United States to join the BRICS and start campaigning on that, or just stick to what he's doing with Glass-Steagall, or how do you thinkwhat would you say to him if you were there?
LaRouche: I would suggest that you may be a prospective member of a team of people who are going to deal with exactly that problem. In other words, what we need is a rallying of people of obvious competence, and obvious principle; we need them to run for position in association with a new President. We need to form a committee, which is not only a formal part of the Presidential system, but a periphery of people who support the Presidential system, and influence him. You need the kind of unification of leading figures in society, who understand the problem, who can recognize one another as sharing the same concern; have a core which is the service of the government itself, but also people who can be turned to for help to the President, the Presidency, and reciprocally, accept that.
Because you've got to have a whole system which is capable of recognizing the high variety of requirements of a Presidency of this type, at this kind of time. We need a very finely developed Presidential system. We also need a close relationship between ordinary citizens, who qualify as being advisors to the Presidential system. And these are people who can help us, help the Presidential system, by saying "Hey, I'm here. This is what my suggestion is." And this means, like engineering policies, engineering projects, all these kinds of things which can be done either by government, or can be done by official skills outside of government, but who are all really part of the same process that the government represents.
Mankind's Quality of Genius
Q: Hello, my name is L and I'm a retired licensed architect, and I have a question regarding the profession of architecture, and then the construction industry as related to society, and compensation, as a kind of representation of the way we're going as a society. What I'm trying to say is, as a licensed architect for 34 years, I earned less on an hourly basis as a consultant to various offices; I was earning less or luckily the same amount as a plumber or an electrician, or a master mason. And so, my question is, if the education is not respected, where are we going as a society? What are we....?
LaRouche: OK, you asked a question, and I'm going to give you an answer, which may surprise you; or you may enjoy it.
Look, the problem we have is that at the end of the Nineteenth Century in the United States, we had a few great principal minds, great leaders, great scientists; but at the same time, at the end of that period, what happened was a terrible experiment, a terrible experience as well: What happened is, suddenly the great scientists were being pushed aside, and fakers, you know, scientists who were fakers, the fakers began to take over. And they took over under Bertrand Russell, who was a very evil man; he was successful as being very evil, and even the sound of his name is the name of evil to this present day.
So what happened in the Twentieth Century, when we got out of '1890s into the Twentieth Century, there was an accelerated rate of destruction of science in the United States. Now some people were still practicing science in that Twentieth Century. But! But! very few were actually competent in science. What they practiced was arithmetic, mathematics, and mathematics is not science. Science is more profound, and Einstein, for example, in the Twentieth Century was the exemplar of science. His discoveries were amazing to all who observed.
Now, we're coming to a period where we have very poor education in the school system. We had, in a former time, teachers and so forth who were very skilled; but over the course of time, there has been a decay, a degenerative process, in the educational policies and practices of the United States and European nations, as well. There are some exceptions to that, but they're very minimal.
Therefore, what we need is to concentrate on understanding what the principle is, and the principle is this: The principle is that mankind has a quality of genius which is unique to the human mind, and it's the development of that thing, typified by the accomplishment of Einstein; Einstein is the measure of this, and during that century there were a lot of good scientists, who did good things, but they had problems, because they swallowed up things like crap artists in science. In what was taught in universities; the universities in most cases, what they were teaching as science, was actually crap. It was pragmatic stuff. And Einstein was unique. He made no crap. He made only science.
China is Way Ahead
Now, there were other people who were not fully talented; they were not true scientists, but they wished to be scientists. They wished the goal of being scientists, and they made some good efforts in that direction; they made improvements, contributed important improvements. But that process has been diminishing. How many people do you have who are still competent, in this generation? Since the process of degeneration of culture in the United States, has been dropping ever since, the beginning of the Twentieth Century.
And it's accelerated. Now, look at what we've got in the school systems; look at what we've got on the streets in terms of personnel. We do not have a body of competently educated and trained people; we have some people, who have some talent, more or less. But look at our youth, our young people nowin this century, present, uncompleted century, is destructive. It's killing us!
And therefore, what we have to do, we have to say, what you're talking about, yes! What you have to do in this case is find out ways in which we can bring true science, and what that means, into practice, and those who can do it even imperfectly are needed. Because if you look at the population of our children in the education system, you know we're in a desperate situation, and it's going to take almost a miracle, to get us out of this mess.
Q: [follow-up] Yes, but also the media is not helping at all, where more or less, all of the society is a prisoner and dependent on the media, and the media are just encouraging superficiality. I mean, whoever gets to sing better and to jump around better, is appreciated than development of humankind
LaRouche: Of course! That's the disease! That is the disease we have. And what we're doing, with a few people who really are not subscribing to that disease, we are depending upon them to revive a quality of leadership, and they come from all kinds of quarters of life. They're too few, but those are there who represent, really, the opportunity for mankind of recovery.
This is global. We have to take into consideration, the best of what China's doing today, and China's the most advanced nation in terms of economy; that is, in terms of science.
Q: [follow-up] Sorry, but from a social point of view, China, less than 100 years ago was a feudal state, right? I mean, 100 years ago, the beginning of the Twentieth Century, they were really peasants, OK? With 1% that had some education; most of them were illiterate, right? So... [crosstalk] I don't think that's a good example. I mean, China, in fact, they're starting to slow down just because of that, because it's not really a mass educated society, as for example, the American society is, or the European societies are.
LaRouche: I think China has a higher quality of scientific achievement now than does the United States. That's a fact. This is a surge which occurred in terms of the history of China, which comes under actually the impetus of the new government, the present government in China. And the progress of China, for example, in space, in terms of the Solar System things, China's way ahead, of the rest of the world on these issues.
And what's developing in China,China has characteristic problems; they're left over from earlier times, from the earlier kind of system. But China is making very significant progress, and it's working very closely with Russia, very close with India, very close with other parts of the planet. You'll find what's called the BRICS phenomenon in South America. We have the comparable things in some parts of South Africa; we have other things like that that are there.
The greatest problems are concentrated, in the trans-Atlantic community; the trans-Atlantic community is the most rapidly degenerating part of the whole planetary system right now. There are some other things which are leftover degeneracy.
But this is what we're dealing with. And we can win because humanity can become contagious; science can become contagious. And our job is to make sure that science becomes contagious, from the educational system, all the way up and down. And then you'll get an effect you would like.
The New York Schools
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is J from Brooklyn, New York. I appreciate everything that you said to the last two or three speakers, because as you know, I am a teacher and I do teach science in middle school; and I'm not exactly sure how to put my question, but I want you to hear what I have to say about this particular subject:
We have a paper called The Teacher, and it comes out usually in September, after the summer where students and teachers are off. Well, this one is a special issue that came out in August. And what's interesting about this is that the AFT [American Federation of Teachers], which is the parent organization for the UFT, the United Federation of Teachers [in New York], has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the 2016 election.
Now, the AFT has 1.6 million members, as I said; it is the parent organization of the UFT. They say in this article where they have endorsed Hillary, that she has "vision, experience, and leadership." [AFT President] Randi Weingarten says that Clinton said during an AFT interview that she had with Ms. Clinton"it's just dead wrong to make teachers scapegoats. Where I come from, teachers are the solution not, the problem, and I strongly believe unions are part of that solution, too."
Now, Hillary seems to have made a lot of statements at some convention that took place between teachers from the UFT and teachers from the AFT, that was held in Washington in July. NowI wasn't invited to that convention.... [LaRouche laughs] So now, this newspaper says, that because of these interviews with different candidates and everything, they decided to endorse Hillary.
I know what I want to do when school actually starts, and to me, this is kind of a sneaky little thing that they did over the summer, when they have the real assembly of delegates, of which I am one. I know what I need to do when that meeting occurs in early September, right after school starts. However, for others who are in the audience, and who might belong to unions because there are so many thousands of unions in the United States, and they probably will be coming out and endorsing Hillary and other really bad people for the Presidential election, I would like you to comment on, first of all,also Randi Weingarten is a known Wall Street agent; we already know that. She's friends with [former mayor Michael] Bloomberg, and he was a horror.
So, with that in mind, how would you comment on how we should handle these types of endorsements? I love what you said about the Presidency being a group, a committee, an actual team of members to run the Presidency; and how can we get that across to our union members, when these endorsements and these things arise, especially like this little sneaky thing that happened over the summer?
LaRouche: Yeah, well, that's a problem we have to combat; we all have to combat it. Because you can't just stay with teachers or something like; you can't with just one category, you've got to take a broad category; and since you are the kind of teacher you are, in terms of the way you function, you don't have a problem with being yourself. But you may have a problem with some people who don't quite understand what you're trying to do. And therefore, it's just sort of automatic. If you come in with this kind of thing and talk to me in this way, what do you think my reaction is? I'm elated that you exist. [laughter] And I'm right! It's a good judgment.
No, we know that in Manhattan school systems, there were leading teachers, teachers prominent within the institution, and these teachers are the backbone, or were the backbone in former times, of the education system in New York City. And the whole thing, the whole thing within that direction, the universities, the teaching schools and so forth, were all of that nature. What has happened is, we've had a degeneration in the quality of life, in terms of education, in terms of practices which bear on education, and the conditions of life of our citizens, it's horrible.
Hillary's Only Weapon
If you take the percentile of the population of the United States which are eligible to be active, employed citizens, who ain't employed! The great mass of unemployed, qualified employees is missing! And this thing is a disease, and therefore we have to fight this thing; we have to fight this out.
Now on the Hillary thing, just to complete the circle: Hillary was a person of a certain talent with whom I had respectable relations, when she was actively married to her husband. And then she went out on her own, and she got in over her head. And she got an ego going to match the problems. And she's still got certain values, a residue of what she was able to do beforehand.
I saw her go into service under Obama, and I knew that was wrong. She shouldn't have done it, because he was going to ruin her. And he has gone pretty far to ruin her. He's trying to kill her, practically, right now! All the efforts are being expended against her, now! And the source of that is Obama! Obama's the one who's out to destroy her, personally!
Now, she has one weapon which I emphasize everywhere: That she knows, and has the proof, that Obama was an evil, lying bastard, and that she caved into his pressure, his intimidation, and she told a lie! Now, here she is, he's trying to get rid of her: I would say, fairly, he would not be displeased if she were to die, suddenly. I don't know how that would work out, but I see in that direction it's very clear.
I would say: We have to say, OK, she made a lot of mistakes; all right, so what? She's still human, right? She made mistakes. What she has to do now is make an un-mistake, and that means to identify the evidence she has against Obama himself. Because he's going to kill her, if he can. And she'd better get him out of office while she can.
Q: [follow-up] Well, we can. Thank you! [applause]
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, this is R from Bergen County, New Jersey. Talking about the degeneracy of the quality of life, and also having to do with the education system, one example is the massive growth in student loans, which I've taken a look at recently: I want to use that as an example, to make an overall more general point, and then ask you my question based on that.
The student loans have become astronomical: Millions of students now have loans in the order of $100,000 or more. So talk about degenerating the quality of life; students get out of colleges, with this expensive, low-grade education. If they manage to get a job, they can barely survive, because virtually all of their income is going to pay off their loans. So it's quite usual these days for post-college students to be living at home, because they simply can't afford to rent a place, and that completely disrupts....
I mean, many of these students, having something like a $125,000 in loans will never pay them off. They're going to go through the rest of their life paying these loans. And the size of this bubble, the size of these loans, is pretty big; it's huge at this point, it's something on the order of a trillion. Something like 14% of these students have simply stopped paying. They're not paying the loans off. That's one example of the type of thing that is going on.
Another example I noteand it really concerns meis the deterioration of the currency exchange rates: I'm looking at a report from the Wall Street Journal. Since the beginning of 2014, South Africa versus the dollar, down 14%; New Zealand versus the dollar, down 20%; Malaysian ringgit versus the dollar, down 20%; Brazil real down 31%; Canadian dollar down 16%. These are all primarily commodity-producing countries, so each of these countries has their own, specialized commodity that they export. We also know the case of oil breaking $40/barrel.
When I looked at all this information, first of all, it looks to me like this thing is in a death-spiral. I mean, it's just getting sucked down. Secondly, it reminded me of a model you developed some years ago, called "The Triple Curve," ["A Typical Collapse Function"], where, if I understand it correctly, your Triple Curve model stated that what will happen in a non-Glass-Steagall environment is that the amount of financial paper being issued will explode, and along with that, at the same time, the productivity level will drop.
Now, as I recall from that curve, there's a stable period, initially, then the two curves start to deviate; and then they deviate and they completely collapse in different directions. Productivity basically goes to negative infinity and the amount of paper goes up to positive infinity. I suppose at that point, you have a state of complete meltdown of the global economy.
That's the situation I see happening at this point: Could you comment on that?
Cancel Wall Street
LaRouche: Yes, I can. I wrote the book on this thing, as you probably know. What happened is, I did this Triple Curve operation as a warning of what was threatened. Now, that meant that at a certain point, where these speculators were speculators, the speculation was going to show itself for what it is, and that has happened with aces, completely.
So what we have, is we have a complete decline in the productivity per capita of employed people, and people who should be employed but who unfortunately are not employed. And so, since that point, which came at the end of the Reagan Administration, it actually started under the Bush influence, in the Reagan Administration; and this was an accelerating rate of degeneration, which Wall Street really did; it was Wall Street as such which really did the job. And what they did, is they went down into a curve, which has gone down and down and down.
Now, the solution isbecause that's what your statement poses; what's the question? What's the answer? The answer is, essentially, we shut down Wall Street. We don't pay it off, we shut it down. Now, on what pretext do we shut it down? The fact that it's bankrupt, it's hopelessly bankrupt. It's a bankruptcy which can never be bailed out. So what do we do? We simply cancel it.
Now, let's take the case of New York City, which I think is of some relevance to what we're saying here, right? So what are we going to do? I would say, what we should do summarily, is shut down Wall Street. Because Wall Street is about to blow! And there's nothing that can prevent Wall Street from blowing, except by shutting it down. If we wait for it to blow, it will blow out the entire economywith chaos!
So therefore we have to get rid of it. That means we have to cancel Wall Street, because it must not be allowed to walk away with anything. It doesn't own anything, really. So therefore, what we have to do, is go back to the Glass-Steagall law of Franklin Roosevelt, put that into effect as national law, and you will automatically eliminate all the waste speculation. Kill it! Which is, you know,Franklin Roosevelt intended to move in that direction, and did. I'm saying now, what is required is that the President of the United States must now shut down Wall Street, because it has no real value in it.
Therefore, since it has no real value, we should remove it; by doing so, we will eliminate a mass of debts, including the phony kinds of debts which went through the education system, trying to buy the students up.
So we simply cancel that stuff, and go back to a Franklin Roosevelt style of Glass-Steagall law, with all the implications implicit in his law; that means shutting down all of these things, which ain't worth a penny anyway! And we have to then have a credit system established, as Franklin Roosevelt would have done, in that case, where we give credit to productive employment. We have to give subsidies and so forth to get people back on the payroll, and into productive employment. We have to build up educational systems which provide that kind of service, where we can get people who have lost skills, get them back into business. And that's what we have to do, now.
Q: [follow-up] So, there are elements who want to pretend that certain issues don't exist; it seems that the Congress wants to pretend that the Glass-Steagall issue simply doesn't exist: they don't want to hear about it, they don't want to know about it, it never existed, I don't know what you're talking about; it can't be done.
In doing so, is it correct to conclude that with this huge downdraft that's come and that we're in the middle of in this economy, that by doing that, the Congress is implicitly or explicitly shifting the liability of this crash onto the backs of the American people?
LaRouche: I think that's true in a sense, but I don't think it's the meaningful truth in the sense: Look, what you've got is, you've got a system which has had four terms of office essentiallyObama has not completed his second term of office, and between him and the Bush family before himwhat you've got is a destruction of the U.S. economy, a destruction of everything that belongs to the name of U.S. productivity. And the skill levels are horrible! Why are the skill levels horrible? Because nobody is providing competently skilled employment.
The first thing you have to do in an economy is you have to build up the skills of employment; and you have to apply them to really meaningful things, you know, the thing I've spent a good deal of my life doing, on this kind of thing.
So that has to be done. And my optimism comes, in the fact that I think I have the medicine, which if adequately circulated, would sink this whole system. And right now, the thing is, we have to get Obama out of the picture.
Get People Back to Work
Now, the Obama thing has two aspects to it: If you proceed properly, in terms of the hyperinflation which has been induced in a peculiar way, in terms of the U.S. economy in particular, then you're going to sink practically everything that's current money. So therefore, what you're going to have to do, is realize that all the so-called lost current money, is not really a lost current money; it's a loss which never really existed. Therefore, we have to proceed ruthlessly by a stronger dose of Franklin Roosevelt's policy in his Presidency: We have to shut this thing down and put people back to work, by selecting programs which may not be too productive, but we have to get the people back to work. We have to get them into employment; we have to help give them the skills they will need to carry them through this kind of employment. We did that kind of thing, under Franklin Roosevelt. We took people and bailed them out, with the WPA and PWA and so forth; we bailed them out! But it paid off: we'd have lost World War II if we hadn't done that!
And so therefore the time has come, where we have to pay attention. We're cutting out all the looting from Wall Street. Wall Street, you are cancelled. All you have to do, is do one thing, recognize that Wall Street, right now, is hopelessly bankrupt! You cannot get a penny out of Wall Street, not really, not a penny!
Now, think about Wall Street, and Manhattan. Think about all those wonderful skyscrapers, or sky scratchers, if you want to call them; and you say, "what are we going to do with all this rubbish?" All these buildings, most of these buildings, which are commercial buildings, things like that, they're all worthless! They have no productivity in fact! In fact, the entire system, which the skyscraper system has in Manhattan, is worthless! It doesn't produce any wealth!
Take Over the Assets
Well, what are we going to do? It's very simple for me, because I have mean streaks in me. I say, "OK, they're bankrupt. All these skyscrapers are bankruptnot all of them, but most of them are bankrupt. The things that boosted them up there, they're bankrupt! So what are we going to do? Well, you're bankrupt, buddy. You say we owe you? Well, you're not getting anything, unless it's going to be poor relief." You may save them, trying to ship them out someplace where they won't be a tax on the U.S. population.
But all those skyscrapers and all the things with it, the Manhattan skyscrapers, this stuff is worthless, essentially worthless in this present form.
Well, what we do is we'll take these properties, and we will rehabilitate these properties to cause them to be under the control of useful investments. We don't want Manhattan to go bankrupt! We want the sinners to go bankrupt, and therefore we will take whatever assets that lie in Manhattan, and we will be able to use them for public purposes. Because we must sustain New York City. And New York City is sick with this thing; it's suffocating with it, and the solution is, we'll shut down Wall Street! Shut down Wall Street! Just do it.
How do you do that? The Federal government takes over. And therefore, then you get a new kind of economy working inside Manhattan. Because you can use the buildings. [laughter, applause]
Q: Hello, JV from the Bronx, I'm here to ask another question. Earlier you said that the education system was complete crap, and that my generation is destructive, and the youth is not going in a very progressive way. And so, I need to bring to your attention the foundation that Lynn Yen has been working on. See, earlier, I told you about the music portion, but I didn't tell you about the science portion that we've been learning with Bill Ferguson, and Chuck and Zeke.
We've been learning about the Kepler solids, and we've also been learning about the doubling of the square, the Socratic method of teaching, and other effective learning styles. But one important thing that Bill has taught us, especially: the reason us human beings aren't like animals, is that we tend to think for the future. And the animals only think for now and their survival, and hope they'll get to the next day. People tend to make bank investments, so that years down the road they can retire with a little bit of wealth, and so they don't have to worry about working any more. So if children are the investment for today, my generation, why aren't we doing more about that? You know?
Rebuilding after a Century of Decay
LaRouche: Very simple: Because we're not providing the kind of mechanisms which are required to achieve that actual goal. Now, you're talking about things, which are attempts to promote those goals. That is not something to be discouraged at all. But nonetheless, the question is, will the education and related improvements considered, will they be sufficient to do the job? Because there's something here, there's an intention, which has to be realized. And it means that you cannotyou mentioned a few things; now these things are not unuseful, but they're not adequate.
And therefore, what you need to do is find an institution which is well-meaning; makes contributions which could be useful in the future, for the development of children and adults and so forth, and that's good! But you have to determine what the standard is that you have to meet, to bring that population up to the level of skills, so that they really have authority. And therefore, the question is the adequacy of the effort we're putting in, trying to take people from the streets, so to speak, and trying to develop them to the point where they have an independent ability at skills.
So a few skills, yes, that's good. It's not to be opposed at all, but we know that there's a higher objective which is required to give people the degree of skills, by modern standards, which will enable the people employed to reach levels of achievement way beyond what they're trying to do on a scale today. So therefore, we need a bigger system to make sure that we take what we're doing now, as you've described some of these things. You want to do those thingsyes! But they are only preliminary steps. And you want to accelerate that skill, and you need additional means to make sure that your supplying that rate of acceleration of skills, so that by the time some young person gets to the point of adulthood, they really have adult scientific capabilities, or whatever scientific thing they're doing.
But you need a population whose scientific skills meet the standard, which we have failed to meet since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. So therefore, we have almost a whole century to rebuild. And therefore, we have to base ourselves on understanding where we have to go, where we have to go and how we have to go, to meet the requirements for mankind now.
Yes, you're talking about some things are useful, but are they useful enough to save society? Or are they like toys that you can play with to a certain point, and then somebody comes in, and their hand takes the toys away from youwhen you thought they were going to be machines. And that's what the danger is.
What kind of an education are these young people going to have, to meet the scientific standard which is required to achieve, what we must achieve; we have to have a standard which meets the standard for the future of mankind, not just the things that will make things better for us temporarily now.
Q: Hello, this is Mrs. JT. My question is, did General Dempsey resign from Joint Chiefs of Staff voluntarily? And my second question is, did General Allen and General Breedlove et al. attempt a coup d'état over Obama recently?
LaRouche: I didn't quite understand. Give it more explanation. [repeats the question]
Oh sure! Oh yes, I know of that, of course. That's a very serious threat. And it's a tough one we're going to have to deal with. You're talking about Breedlove;
Q: [follow-up] Yes, did either Allen or Breedlove attempt a coup d'état, recently? Or anyone else?
Shut Down Obama
LaRouche: There are attempts to do exactly that. No question! That requires, really, an awareness among the citizens to realize that that exists! If the citizens will not respond to those threats, then the citizens will find themselveswhere? In slavery or worse. And the problem is the gutlessness of people, especially in positions of power, who refuse to protect the people against such machinations. You got a bunch of gutless wonders out there, among the members of Congress.
But my job is, and my intention is to shake things up sufficiently that we can probably get some leverage to do something about that. And I'm doing this on an international scale; I'm involved in things internationally. We must shut down Obama! If we don't shut down Obama, you haven't got a chance; the case is hopeless unless you shut down Obama. Unless you put everything you've got into getting rid of Obama; you don't have a chance unless you do that.
Q: Mr. LaRouche, my name is J and my question is, how do you see the stock market activities that have been happening over this last week, and the trans-Atlantic system as the driver of war?
LaRouche: I'm glad you asked that! You may like my answer; or you may be frightened by it, one of the two!
No, look, Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt. Wall Street is hopelessly bankrupt! Right now, we're on the edge of a folding-up of Wall Street. That is one of the spurs which is impelling people to do what they're doing, in desperation, because they don't want to accept the fact that Wall Street is absolutely worthless; it's much less than worthless. And Wall Street has to disappear!
And as I indicated earlier, in an earlier remark, what we want to do is take Manhattan's Wall Street area and adjacent areas; we take that over. Why do we take it over, and how do we take it over? Well, Manhattan has a right to intervene, in saying they've got to protect the rights of Manhattan. Now what that means is, that Manhattan will take over all the bankrupt system of the Wall Street systems. It'll just shoo 'em out!
What we're going to have to do, is take those properties, skyscrapers and so forth on Wall Street, we're going to have find some way to use these things for an economically beneficial purpose, and we're going to kick all the people out of their little towers, and we're going change the function of those towers, as best we can, to get some use out of them. We're probably going to have free lunches, or as they say, free rent or cheap rent, in the Wall Street area.
We're going to have to do that, because we're going to have to generate a source of income to maintain Manhattan, at the time that Manhattan otherwise is going bankrupt. We have to foreclose on Manhattan! And we will do similar things in other parts of the United States where it's appropriate.
But we have to understand, Wall Street is dead! And if you don't recognize that, you're going to be next on the dead list, so therefore, you've got to take action in order to save your own economy.
Like the Manhattan economy, how are you going to save it? Wall Street's not going to pay the rents any more! Because Wall Street's bankrupt, and it can't pay the rents. So aren't we going to take these properties that Wall Street cannot afford to maintain; and aren't we going to use some of these properties as much as we can, to create a new kind of rental system, of building up operations which are going to be useful, in Manhattan? We're going to take properties which Wall Street cannot cover any more, and we're going to take 'em over, put 'em through reorganization. And if necessary, we'll charge rentals to these territories. And when we use those rentals which we gave, we are now the landlords; Manhattan is now the landlord: When a Wall Street bank goes broke, then Manhattan takes over the property of that Wall Street bank.
So, in that case, you've got a new system. But this kind of thing has been done before, but the fact of the matter is that Wall Street is absolutely worthless. It's less than worthless.
And right now, as we speak, sit and speak here right now, the breakdown point, the absolute collapse of Wall Street, is in the air. But the moment that it's going to occur is not certain. But the occurrence is inevitable. [applause]
Q: This is H from the Bronx, and I've been thinking about this world war process and the history of this. It's interesting, before World War I the Italians attacked Libya, and they were attacking the Ottoman Empire, and that led into the Serbs attacking the Ottoman Empire, and the Archduke being assassinated later in Austria, and you know what happened next, right?
And we had World War II not too much after that. First, we had Fascism in Italy, and then the Nazis in Germany, and the Civil War in Spain which sort of put everything together for what followed.
And since 2011, we've again had an attack on Libya; we had the Arab Spring process which sort of led into ISIS; and then we had parallel to this, the Ukrainian Nazis' rise, and behind that, you have interesting things possibly from the Arab-Israeli sector. So how can we control this process of radical nationalism, which seems to be the trigger for a war, either very soon or after?
For the Nation and Civilization
LaRouche: Well, the occurrence of such a war, the war you sort of point out, is not something which mankind can easily survive. We're on the edge of a system whichwe could actually have a virtual extinction of the human species, and it could occur in very short period of time right now. We don't wish that to happen, but it can happen, and it's ready to happen. If Obama remains the President of the United States, that will happen! That will be the effect.
Now, we have forces, however, in the planet Earth which are not willing to accept that. But the problem is, how do we organize the change of behavior, so that we bring positive forces into play rather than the devilish ones. And that's what the problem is.
I mean, this is something which, for me, is a living process; it's not something that I'm speculating on, or what to talk about as such. This is what I live on: That I have a mission here to contribute to getting mankind out of this mess, and I have some skills at this, which, despite my age and infirmities and whatnot, that's what has to be done; that's what I do. I'm committed to this, and I'm very deeply committed to Manhattan. And I have been.
I have had a project of saying, we've got to do something about Manhattan, ever since some time ago; October of last year, I made a decision, I was going to move in on Manhattan, because Manhattan was going to be the most useful vehicle for organizing the United States itself. And there's a real basis for that: Alexander Hamilton, if he were alive today, would explain that to you, what Manhattan is all about. And that's what I'm fighting for.
I'm fighting for the whole nation, I'm fighting for civilization, and I know that my mission is to take a vocal point, on responsibility for trying to protect Manhattan, because of what Manhattan represents to Alexander Hamilton, for example, and to me, even though I haven't been in Manhattan for a very long time, by default of old age. I would have been here more often, except I was getting old.
The Mission of the USA
But that's what I'm committed to: I'm committed to a mission, and the mission includes the emphasis on the importance of Manhattan for the United States, because Manhattan's not just a place, it's a center; it always has been, ever since Alexander Hamilton came into town. And therefore, Manhattan must be ensured, to live on, to fulfill its mission as was intended implicitly by Alexander Hamilton. And Hamilton's understanding of New York City was the correct understanding of the intention of the existence of the United States itself, and that is true right now.
Q: Good afternoon, I have three questions: What kind of quality does a President need? You say mathematics is not a science; how can you prove science without mathematics?
LaRouche: Mathematics is not very important. It's not that important. Mathematics was a mistake. What happened is, we have a progress of physical science, up through the period of the Nineteenth Century, and the last decade of the Nineteenth Century was a changeover pause, where you had some great scientists, who were leaders at that point, which include Einstein, for example, who was one of the greatest of these leaders. And what we were doing then, was founding, attempting to found, a great system of physical economy.
The United States had already been an organizing center for physical economy. this had happened under Abraham Lincoln, for example; it happened under a great President who served after Lincoln's death, and on others. So those motives, which are motives which spring from Alexander Hamilton's intention for the Americas, these are the things which are the most precious, because they are things which have to be understood by the people of the United States, who can grasp what these things actually mean, what these principles are; what they mean, and what they mean for future generations. Because when you're talking about human beings, you're not talking about a generation, you're talking about a succession of generations. Because human beings are permanent fixtures; that is, they may die, but the meaning of their life lives on.
And it's that attitude about mankind, which is the attitude which is exemplified by Alexander Hamilton, what he was doing. And you can say, you can go down to the Southern part of Manhattan, and you can see a residence where he is buried. And every time you see that place, and you see the marks of Wall Street there, you have a certain shuddering feeling about the whole matter.
But Alexander Hamilton represented the very soul of the development and creation of not only Manhattan, but of the United States itself. And so therefore, our responsibility is to recognize that we all are going to die, as I will die in due course, I suppose, sooner or later; and what's important, is what we represent in creating some progress for mankind in general. And we think of this not just in terms of Manhattan; we think of it in terms of the United States generally, despite the Southern regions of the United States, which appall me. But these are things which we must give our dedication to, even within the proximity of the limitation of our own lives. And it's when we are participating in creating an improved future that we justify our own existence. And we have to look at things that way.
Q: [follow-up] Third question: I see the mathematics everywhere. When you come out of your house, you can see the mathematics; you go into the road, you go to school, everywhere, there's mathematics everywhere. You count money, this is mathematics; when you drive the car, you see mathematics; how many avenues, how many roads, everything uses mathematics. How can you live without mathematics?
Mathematics uses our whole life. We cannot go without mathematics.
LaRouche: I can assure you that's not the case. [laughter] Because mathematics is a corrupt method. There are other methods of physical science which are superior, but the use of mathematics, the standards of mathematics as being science, is a swindle. So don't depend upon mathematics; depend upon science, not mathematics.
LaRouche: [Concludes.] OK! It's not difficult for me. No, the point is that,I'll put it this way: My particular qualifications are deeply rooted, in family background and so forth, ancestors, and so forth, so I've always been an independent person. I have never submitted, willingly, to anything I didn't believe in. And I still do that.
Now, the result is that I'm very critical of what are considered popular subjects, including allegedly popular scientific subjects. And I am absolutely merciless in dealing with those kinds of things, not because I'm malicious, but because I know that people should not be swallowing that kind of filth; essentially; and that we need a system of education of a type which guarantees that more people will be educated, really educated, and not given arithmetic as a replacement and substitute for science; most of the stuff that's called science today is not science; it's mathematics. And mathematics is not science. It never was.
I was trained in the school of Bernhard Riemann. And that was my qualified background, and that's what I still represent today. I have my own additions to this process, but that's what it was all about. And I know that most of what's called science and so forth, contains a great deal of nonsense.
But what I love, is the question of the free spirit, that actually gives up and does not try to copy what somebody else has said, this is the popular thing to believe; but those who really zealously seek out and accomplish the real principles of science, the true principles of science. Not the second-hand variety, called mathematics.