Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIW This transcript appears in the October 2, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
SEPT. 24 LAROUCHE FIRESIDE CHAT:

On Unity of Purpose, and
On Christianity

[PDF version of this transcript]

Here are edited excerpts from Lyndon LaRouche’s Fireside Chat of Thursday, Sept. 24, 2015.

On Unity of Purpose

Q: Hi, this is A— from New York, and hello everyone, and hi, Lyn. I spent a good portion,—during the time of the rally I was present and participating at the UN right there on First Avenue, this past Monday. And it was very similar numerically, from the signage standpoint, so the activity, the singing, the speeches, this was very similar in style and presentation to our earlier Wall Street rallies. And these have—by far, it seems to me—to have been the most effective. And this world stage of the UN was obviously a different backdrop, since largely, Wall Street now is kind of a tourist/ghost town combination. This was much more lively, I thought.

EIRNS/Susan Bowen
LaRouche PAC activists rally in Times Square, New York Sept. 26

Yet, the process that all of us have been going through, as we continue to pay attention and work through some of the things that you work with us on, on Saturday, is becoming more and more evident to me. And it’s very ironic to have fun at such a dangerous period. I’ve often seen organizers that are very strong doing that, over the years, and I would wonder, how that can actually be? I was there, but it was more out of duty, but not really engaging.

And perhaps this goes along with the type of resonance and harmony that you talk about, that is required, and I think—and not only myself, but I think this is happening throughout—while we’re not large in number, the idea of having an effect on such a stage seems to me to be taking hold more and more; and at the same time, as you pointed out, never having the kind of fun where you’re kidding yourself that, for example, Obama will capitulate and turn around and make a deal with Putin that he would keep.

So that the danger is as great as ever, yet I find it so ironic that when I left the rally to go back to work, I was very uplifted. So it’s almost a strange thing—although I’m not complaining about it—that I find myself in this type of state, and it’s a new experience for me.

I remember over years, sometimes listening in to some of the broadcasts you would do, where you were talking with members, and going through what the current situation was and what you were forecasting; and it was always very serious, with very serious consequences; then you would [talk] about what people needed to do, and I would really laugh hard, because at the end of the thing you would often say, “so let’s have fun.” And I would laugh and go, “What person could possibly have fun? [Given] everything you just said, I’m sitting here and I’m shaking in my boots.”

Yet, that’s what is happening now, at least for me. And I think I’m not special about this; I think it’s happening with a lot of the other activists that are truly engaging. And, so I just think that’s something I wanted to share with you and hear your thoughts on this process that we find ourselves in the middle of.

LaRouche: The problem is the relationship among people: When people are united in the sense that they have a conviction which they believe can be enforced for the good of mankind generally, then they’re not divided, and therefore, they can come easily to cooperation; that is, real cooperation, where they’re sharing experiences and find sharable experiences which mean something to them. In other words, what can you do for your children? What can you do for your neighbors? What can you do for other people around you?

The problem is that the system, the present U.S. system, generally divides people against one another; they don’t have a sense of unity of purpose. Everyone has a different class: I’m of this class, he’s of that class; he’s got money, I don’t have money; he’s got opportunity, I don’t have opportunity. Well, how do you get people together?

And the point is, we’ve come to a point of a great crisis, and every intelligent person, every intelligent adult knows that we’re in trouble, and knows that we have to come together and create a unity of purpose. You know, stop this business about cheating on each other, that sort of thing. So therefore, the problem is, how can we steer ordinary people and sometimes extraordinary people, too, and how can we induce them to recognize that their personal interest in life, depends on coming to a commonality of purpose for mankind as such? And that’s possible.

Just think about the ways, in just,—you go through walking around the street, and thinking about how many ways people are divided against each other. Now, there’s some bad people out there, we all know that, right? You don’t have to worry about that. But the question is, you find that the ordinary people, you know, neighbors don’t like each other; they’re in the same kind of situation, they get in quarrels, they have competition, they try to cheat on each other to get a little advantage of this, or a perceived advantage.

And it’s a division of mankind, a lack of a unity of purpose, a unity of mission, I think the time has come, right now in this great crisis, which of course is being celebrated in the Manhattan area in particular, that I think the time has come when we can think about pulling people together by talking to each other, and saying, “What kind of idiocy do we practice, when we quarrel with people we had no business quarreling with? Looking for quarrels, looking for advantages, trying to cheat, trying to get something from other people.”

Library of Congress
America’s unity of purpose around a world-historical mission was most dramatically evident in World War II. Here, America’s leader in that war, President Franklin Roosevelt, is shown engaging with soldiers in Casablanca, Morocco in 1943.

What you have to do is have this kind of commonality of purpose. And that’s been lost. We used to have a great unity, in many periods like World War II we had a great unity among people who were sucked into World War II. And immediately after, once the Wall Street crowd and its crew influenced, you found that the people who had been united in defending the United States and other objectives during World War II, began to be divided against each other! As a matter of fact, the whole of the working population was divided! The families were divided!

And so, since that time, there has never been a consistent unity of effect, of loyalty to one another as people; it’s always been played against them, Wall Street in particular played the population of the United States, against the population within itself!

What we have to do is realize we have a great crisis, a terrible crisis, globally as well as in the United States. And we have to recognize that we have to come to a unity of purpose, the way we did when we mobilized in World War II, recognize that! And we don’t want to go back to World War II; I’m not suggesting that. But at a time when a people are united, about their commonality of their purpose,—we lost it so quickly; by the time we shut down the actual World War II, we began to lose the unity of the very people who had worked together to win World War II. And that’s the kind of thing we’ve got to think about.

On Obama, and Again Unity

Q: Hi, this is K— F— from Massachusetts. Did we write on the website that Obama brought some nuclear missiles over to Germany?

LaRouche: Obama is in an operation: Obama intends, and is intended, to cause a general warfare which will decimate the population of the planet! That’s what Obama is. And his stepfather had the same kind of position. This man is intrinsically evil. Everything he’s done since he became President, has been evil. That is, everything I’ve known that he’s done. And I got onto his tail early in the game, when he first made his real pitches around; and he immediately, quickly hated me. I think he still probably hates me beyond anything else, because he was absolutely unforgiving; he wanted to kill me.

So this guy, I know what he is. He is, as we say, “no damned good,” and he shouldn’t have been around anyway; he should have been off someplace. So that’s the problem.

So the issue here is, how can we get the unity, effective unity of our own people, who recognize that they have certain intrinsic common interests. That doesn’t mean they all agree with each other: It means that they have a sense, that they are members of the same species, rather than being enemies of their neighbors. If you’ve got a bad neighbor, you try to educate him; and if it’s tough, why you can duck it a little bit and avoid the conflict.

But generally the point is, that society is divided; for example, the United States’ society is divided! People are fearful of each other, they hate each other. Or they just resent each other, or they wish they could hate somebody.

This kind of thing, we’ve got to get an understanding, the meaning of,—as in warfare, as we did in World War II, you’ve got to recognize that the time comes, that you have a common interest. It doesn’t mean you all agree on the same thing; it means that you realize that you, as a human being, have an interest in common, with a lot of other human beings in the same department.

What Is Creativity?

Q: Hi, good evening. This is T—, I’m calling from Virginia. I wanted to know more about creativity. Many people think they’re creative and people often say, “I’m an artist, or I’m a musician, therefore I’m creative.” But what defines creativity, and what method can be used to distinguish creativity from degeneracy? And more important, how can one access their own creativity? Thank you.

LaRouche: Creativity essentially is based on a principle which can be expressed most efficiently by saying that each person in life should, in the course of life, develop an ability to contribute progress to humanity around them. That’s what the issue is.

The problem is, in the United States today, people sort of hate each other. Or they resent each other. They don’t understand the point that mankind has to come to a certain commonality of objectives, and the object is the future of mankind as a whole. That is, not all the future and so forth, but the fact is that mankind must function in such a way as to benefit society, the living society as a whole; and the children of that society, and those who are dying or have just recently died, in the same period.

So you have to have a sense of what we call “solidarity”; say we call it a practical solidarity, rather than going to some rich kind of description, but just that: to recognize that your neighbors and so forth, are important to you, even if you don’t like their tastes, if you don’t like this or you don’t like that about them—they don’t wear the right clothes, they don’t do this; but nonetheless, you’ve got to find a basis for solidarity with your neighbors, and your neighbors in the broader sense of the term.

Pope Francis and Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Q: Mr. LaRouche, this is K— in Silicon Valley, California. Thank you again for having these sessions, they’re really awesome.

My question is, I understand that former [Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal] Sean O’Malley is pretty much Pope Francis’s roommate, and my question is, do you feel that that may have had a significant influence on his political thinking, particularly in regard to global warming? O’Malley came from Boston.

LaRouche: Yes. I think that there are a lot of influences. For example, when you’re talking about clergy, or the Catholic clergy in particular, and around people such as some of those in the Boston area who are relevant in this case, they’re conflicted; because they’ve been told by Schellnhuber and other British agents, that this is the Pope’s position, and I can’t understand in any practical way, how the Pope could take that position that he has done, under Schellnhuber. Schellnhuber is obviously a very evil man; but on the other hand, you’ve got devout Catholics, in particular, who tend to be very devoted to the Catholic Church, and to what it represents for them. And therefore, when Schellnhuber, who is really a Satanic figure himself, intrinsically, gets in among them and gets a Pope to follow the Schellnhuber line, you say, what’s happened? Has the Pope been taken over by the devil? By Satan?

youtube
The professed atheist and Commander of the British Empire Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber was a lleading presenter of Pope Francis’s Encyclical Laudato Si’. Here he is at the podium on June 29.

And the point is, what we have to realize, if we want to be compassionate about this kind of disorder, you have to try to say, “we’ve got to rescue these guys.” We’ve got to rescue them! And we’ve got to help them get free of Schellnhuber!

Look, you’ve got, in California, the current governor [Jerry Brown], and the guy is nuts! He’s evil! He’s actually evil!

And so, how do we get rid,—of when parts of the Catholic Church are recruited into supporting a Satanic policy, a literally Satanic policy! And they believe that the Papacy has laid out a demand that that policy be carried out! Which is what the case of the governor of California is: He’s actually a Satanic figure in terms of his practice.

And so therefore, it’s something we have to deal with. We can’t just call names—and things, you’ve got to deal with this thing. You’ve got to try to rescue Catholics in particular, who get sucked into this thing. And say, “No, maybe the Pope said that, but that ain’t right!”

That’s the way you put it, because there is,—we know what the history of, for example, the Catholic Church is; we know what the history is. We know Nicholas of Cusa, for example. We know what Nicholas of Cusa represented, and still represents. We know other cases of the same nature. And you’re going to say that Nicholas of Cusa is a fool? Well, that’s pretty stupid, isn’t it?

So therefore, if the Catholic Church is influenced by a Satanic figure such as Schellnhuber, and he is Satanic; if a Satanic figure like Schellnhuber takes over the Pope, you don’t want to shoot the Pope! You don’t want to quarrel with him. You want to treat him kindly, get him safely put away where he does not have any more of these evil kinds of impulses.

But the point is that Christianity does not belong to a Pope, in particular. It belongs to those who represent Christianity. And if somebody gets wild, like somebody becomes a cohort of Schellnhuber, and the Pope believes in supporting Schellnhuber’s policy? You know, he’s nuts! What do you do with a Pope who’s a nut, or is mentally disturbed? What do you do? You get him gently put away and say, “Father, look you should take a little rest right now.”