Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIW This article appears in the December 4, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
MANHATTAN PROJECT NOV. 28 DIALOGUE WITH LAROUCHE

Now That Obama Has Brought Us
to the Brink of Thermonuclear War

[PDF version of this article]

Below is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche’s Nov. 28 dialogue with the Manhattan Project

Dennis Speed: My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I’d like to welcome you here today. I’m going to start today with a statement that’s just been released by Mr. LaRouche. It’s entitled “Put Obama Under Lock and Key To Avert Immediate Danger of Nuclear War.” The release begins:

“Lyndon H. LaRouche today reiterated, with added urgency, his previous warning that U.S. President Barack Obama is on a determined path toward nuclear war and must be removed from office immediately. The warning comes in response to the escalation of Obama’s ongoing nuclear confrontation policy towards Russia as exemplified by the shooting down of a Russian jet over Syria by NATO member and U.S. ally Turkey. The Turkish action could only have occurred with the blessing of Obama. LaRouche’s warnings are underscored by assessments of security experts in the U.S. Yet, there is a foolish reluctance among these experts to demand the one remedy that can pull the world back from the threat of nuclear war—removing Obama from control of the U.S. nuclear forces, by impeachment or the activation of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Navy
The testing of the U.S. Aegis destroyer, the USS Shiloh, in June 2006. Deployment of these ships in the Black Sea poses what analyst Bruce Blair called a “decapitation threat” to Moscow.

“The latest warning about possible imminent nuclear war was just published in Politico Magazine by a former nuclear-missile launch officer, Bruce G. Blair, titled, “Could U.S.-Russia Tensions Go Nuclear?” Blair points to the Obama Administration’s launch-on-warning policy and the shortening of the response time for making a decision about launching nuclear forces. He states that this puts the world on a nuclear hair-trigger more dangerous than during the Cold War.

“Blair warns:

That’s especially true since the public doesn’t realize just how little time exists for our leaders to make a decision to use nuclear weapons, even today—and if anything, the atmosphere has become even more hair trigger with the threat of cyberwarfare. A launch order is the length of a tweet. Missile crews in turn transmit a short stream of computer signals that immediately ignite the rocket engines of many hundreds of land-based missiles. For the United States, this takes 1 minute. As a former nuclear-missile launch officer, I personally practiced it hundreds of times. We were called Minutemen. U.S. submarine crews take a little longer; they can fire their missiles in 12 minutes.

Enter the Manhattan Project

Blair further elaborates and goes on—I’m not going to read all of it—

Given the 11- to 30-minute flight times of attacking missiles (11 for submarines lurking off the other side’s coasts, and 30 for rockets flying over the poles to the other side of the planet), nuclear decision-making under launch on warning—the process from warning to decision to action—is extremely rushed, emotionally charged, and pro forma, driven by checklists. I describe it as the rote enactment of a prepared script. In some scenarios, after only a 3-minute assessment of early warning data, the U.S. President receives a 30-second briefing on his nuclear response options and their consequences. He then has a few minutes—12 at most, more likely 3 to 6—to choose one.

“In that context, Obama’s deployment of U.S. and allied forces against Russia can only be seen as an escalation towards nuclear conflict. For example, Blair cites the deployment of U.S. Aegis destroyers in the Black Sea armed with cruise missiles that could strike Moscow in minutes. Or the deployment of U.S. strategic bombers flying toward Russia. This, in turn, forces Russia into an escalatory response.

“Blair asks:

Do U.S. leaders understand that the Russians may fear a decapitation threat is emerging, and that this threat may be the underlying driver raising the stakes for Russia to the level of an existential threat warranting preparations for the use of nuclear weapons? I doubt they do.

“The frightening conclusion that Blair does not draw, however, is that U.S. President Barack Obama does know, and intends to create an existential crisis for Russia, and thus, bring the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. Since the beginning of Barack Obama’s Presidency, LaRouche has warned that Obama is a narcissistic killer. Everything that Obama has done since has proven LaRouche right. One need only look at Obama’s assumption of the role of global executioner, presiding over the regular Tuesday sessions where he personally decides the kill lists for U.S. drone attacks. Or, his confrontational behavior towards Russia in the wake of the Turkish downing of the Russian fighter jet.

“There is no time or room for a long debate on this matter. Obama’s nuclear war provocation poses a threat to the existence of the human race. He must be removed now. A single Congressman can initiate impeachment proceedings. Responsible officials within the Presidency can initiate the 25th Amendment on the basis that a President intending to provoke nuclear war is no longer fit for office. The American people must now heed LaRouche’s warning. Remove Obama Now!”

And that is the conclusion of the statement.

So, Lyn, I’d like to ask, do you wish to make any further remarks before we begin?

Lyndon LaRouche: No, I think what we said so far on the record, when people assimilate what has been just presented to them, is enough warning for them to pay attention.

Speed: Yes. And I’d just like to say on my own part, when you come to the microphone, come and ask questions—we had a bit of an incident last week of someone filibustering New-Left-style; and we would not only appreciate it, we’re going to demand that we stay on topic. We realize that this confrontation with reality might be a bit much for some of the people, some of you who are here for the first time in particular, but let’s go and let’s confront reality.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is Jessica from Brooklyn. What I want to say has to do with your latest writing, where you said that we must, when we go to interventions or when we go to these events,—I’m particularly concerned about that, when we go to events where we are intervening into a situation where there’s an audience; and sometimes the audience is pretty intelligent, sometimes they’re not. But we’re intervening into the situation where the panel is talking nonsense; and you’re saying to humiliate and degrade those people who refuse to say the truth and get the audience to think about educating themselves. I think I got that right.

I want to talk about an incident that happened, and then I’d like you to talk a little more about how we are, or give us ideas about how to actually do that. What we should do as activists in those situations.

You have to Terrify Them

I went to a meeting called “The Important East-West Committee” this past week, and they had a panel of people who were talking about Russia being our ally in the past, the things that need to be done to bring us into cooperation with Russia now. They talked all about how—they knew that Obama had done certain things that were not quite right. Putin had introduced a process of fighting ISIS; Obama really did not sit down with him and go through the things that needed to be done.

This is what they’re saying. They knew that there were Nazis in Ukraine; they knew that regime change had taken place. They also knew that a peace process must take place, cooperation must happen. So they said a lot of things that are absolutely true; they also talked about the 50 or troops that were sent into Syria, and that Obama maybe should not have done that.

And the last thing that they said, that really kind of pissed me off (excuse the expression), they said that the strategic intent of Putin was in question.

So when I got a chance to speak, I said, “The strategic intent of Obama is what is in question. And Obama has done these things which you have said, and yet, you still haven’t seen that you are supposed to impeach him. You’re still dancing around, talking about how you’re going to ’persuade’ him: Well, what’re you going to do? You’re going to ’persuade’ to do better? We’re going to talk to him about coming into cooperation with Putin?”

And I said, “Well, the thing that I see as the President, you act like he’s just a man, he’s just Obama. He may be cute, he may play basketball, you know, all these things. But we’re talking about the Presidency, the leader of the United States of America. So what we really should do, when we’re talking about our President, and not ‘some guy’ who you’d like to persuade to do something, is impeach him!”

So I challenge the panel to impeach Obama, and I tell the audience, “we must impeach him.”

So I hadn’t even realized at the time that I talked about his little basketball thing, that Bill Bradley was on the panel! I found out later, and I had a good laugh. But you know, I have been told that that type of thing, where you strike them and humiliate them and degrade them, and make them think about their lives, and also reach the audience. So if you could talk about how we could do more of that, what is the strategy for that? How we as activists have to make that happen, and change people’s minds through humor, or if you can get that in, and challenge them to really think, on both the panel and the audience.

LaRouche: It will not work unless you can strike a blow which terrifies them: not in the sense of terrorizing them, but prompting them to realize that they have no option to live, if they don’t act on it. And that’s the only way it works.

Of course, the people who are going to make the argument have to present a competent case for the argument. They have to point out the initial facts which have to be considered. They have to make a conclusive argument which people have to recognize as being a conclusive argument; otherwise it doesn’t work. And therefore, people who are saying “maybe, maybe, maybe. . .,” maybe these people do not have much of a long period of life-span. And it’s people who really can come frankly to the point of decision who’re the only ones who are likely survivors in a struggle like this.

Q: [follow-up] OK. So we still have to hit them with the truth of the matter, and at this point, because it’s so crucial, we have to reach the terror inside them, to make them think that something has to be done right now.

LaRouche: Yes. And I can deliver any number of accurate messages which will go right directly to that point. My list of indictments of Obama may not be completed, but believe me, it’s immense.

Q: Elliot Greenspan: Hi Lyn! I want to pick up where Jessica left off; we were together at this meeting on Monday night at NYU. And I appreciate what she’s getting at, and I raise this in part for the assembled here, because what she’s done is exemplary in terms of what we need our growing pool of the LaRouche party, of LaRouche activists in New York to do.

Suzanne put together a roster for this week, of about 30 or 40 more possible interventions, and I take your emphasis of a few days ago, when you said we have to move to humiliate Obama, and to denounce everyone who protects Obama within the Congress or within the institutions, or within the population,— and this has to be done now; not two weeks from now. Because the dynamic strategically is in flux.

Obama’s Weapon is Fear

What struck me in this meeting, and what I’m getting at in this regard, is that our army here, our activists, have to take immediately greater and greater responsibility. What struck me is the authority which we’ve got when we come before these poobahs, these great authorities. I made a mistake, when—I went right up to the microphone first, as soon as they made their presentations, but I gave them too much credit.

I was working off of their appearance in the Congressional forum a couple of weeks earlier, before John Conyers, Walter Jones, and others, where we were extremely happy that these guys—two former Ambassadors; former Senator Bradley; Stephen Cohen, the Russian expert; and so on—they appeared before the Congress, and they said to the Congress, “Look, we’re facing war with Russia, a new Cold War. This can become nuclear war.” And they invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So I began and said, “This is very important what you’ve done; however, the implication of a new Cold War, Cold Wars can become hot wars. A hot war with Russia is nuclear war, nuclear World War III. Is it not time to invoke the Constitutional remedy to remove Obama before that occurs? Is it not time for the United States to join with the BRICS countries and get rid of British imperial geopolitics, so as to avoid war?”

And the response from these guys—one of them, Ambassador vanden Heuvel, said “Look, what you’re raising on impeachment is important; we do have to contain the Executive Branch.” But Cohen proceeds to say, as Jessica mentioned, Cohen says, “We’re not going to impeach; we’ll try to persuade Obama.” And Bradley said, “Why are you attacking Obama? He’s much better with the Russians than Clinton and Bush.” And so on, and so forth.

We approached Cohen at the end and said, “Wait a second, you’re talking about a new Cold War, you know where that’s going.” And we said, “If it’s a hot war with Russia, that’s nuclear war!” We said, “What does that mean?” He said, “Nuclear war.” And yet he would not touch the question of going after Obama in the way that you’ve done over these years. So, I’m saying, it’s crucial for people here to recognize the quality of authority, the unique authority, which we have earned over these years, and which we bring into this Manhattan Project.

But, otherwise, my real question to you is, insofar as these guys, who might be among the best people—Cohen says, “I’m an American patriot for national security”; I mean, they’re serious people, from the Roosevelt outlook and so on. And yet, they would not “go there” on the Obama question, or the BRICS question. So, my question is, any elaboration you can give to all of us, in terms of really escalating against them over these days ahead?

LaRouche: Obama’s weapon is terror of the victims. The victims include the people who are prominent officials of the U.S. government, and associated with similarly qualified credentials. They are deadly afraid that they are the next one to be killed.

Now, all you have to do to understand about why people are afraid of what Obama’s rage might be. It’s already shown in the way he has killed people, en masse, from week to week throughout his career. He’s a mass murderer of Representatives of Congress, or anybody else who gets in his way. You have newspapers which are afraid of Obama. The New York Times is terrified by the very voice of Obama! Leading members of the New York Times are terrified of doing something which really strongly offends Obama.

Therefore, you’ve got two things: You’ve got the choice of giving into Obama in order to be killed; or, to be killed by Obama in any case. So, therefore, when you’re in a war like that, you don’t worry about whether you get in danger or not. What you have to do, is put the cause of the problem into effective danger, which means Obama has to be removed forcibly from office. That is the only thing that will impress the members of Congress to stand up against Obama: that they decided they are going to terrify Obama.

U.S. Army/Sgt. Zach Mott
Obama’s ‘leadership’ has led to scenes like this house in Iraq, obliterated by a U.S. missile strike, throughout Southwest Asia.

That’s where we are. You cannot win this fight unless you are willing to play with the right marbles. And most people are not prepared to understand the problem of the right marbles. We can do it! Obama hates me, probably more than any other person on this planet. And my advice is, I think, the best advice available. He’s going to try to kill us, but we’re going to get him first, if he tries to make an action. We’ll remove him from office. We’ll put him in a comfortable place, where he can be tortured by just looking at the walls. [applause]

Why did They Lay Down Their Lives?

Q: Hi, Lyn! It’s Alvin, here in New York. On the Thursday call, time wouldn’t allow me, after my report on an intervention, to raise what I want to talk with you about now. And it’s something that occurred to me on Wednesday.

You know, you get reports, you have a sense of what’s being done here in Manhattan, as something that should echo throughout the country as one organization. And I’ve been fairly involved in that. But it’s funny how you think you know something, and you think you’re doing something, and then something happens to tell you that you’re actually not. And that to me is what the unprovoked attack of Turkey against the Russian jet did. Because I realized that, while we’re doing some good things, I personally have been dancing around the attack that Obama has always deserved, has deserved for years, and merely referenced, and not led with it. And that doesn’t work.

You’ve been calling this all along, but it’s not until I really felt those missiles on my butt, that I started to realize that. And I don’t think I’m special; I think this is going on in other places with other people who are otherwise doing good things, but are not confronting this.

My entire tone, in conversation with any contacts that I have since then, is being directed at that, in no uncertain terms. As far as interventions go, I haven’t had too much problem being sarcastic and humiliating; I kind of like that. But when it comes to talking to people, I’ve been dancing; I’ve been soft on this. And this was before I read your last brief statement in that leaflet, which really helped to tie it into how people think. That I’m not just beating them up, but I’m trying to provoke them to actually think about something seriously.

So, that’s something that occurred to me, and I wanted to hear what you have to say about that.

LaRouche: Well, I can say something which may scare some people. Not by intimidation, but simply by telling the facts of the situation that we have. And this has always been the case of mankind.

See, the problem is,—and I’ve stated this on a number of occasions, and I will state it more emphatically on this occasion, because we’re at a very crucial point,—Obama has brought the issue of war, of thermonuclear war, to occur simultaneously within a matter of seconds under his program. And it will be a global war, and it will be a matter of seconds; it will be a matter of extermination on a global scale.

Now, what are you going to do? You’re afraid of being attacked when the guy you’re up against has those kinds of policies, those kinds of commitments? What happens?

See, the point is, mankind is often,—in military affairs, members of the United States have been killed in great numbers in the First World War, the Second World War, and some other conditions which came up more locally. And these people have laid down their lives. Why did they lay down their lives? It was because they had a sense of commitment, of personal commitment, not to be a coward, not to be a traitor, not to be an abstainer from the defense of humanity.

creative commons/David
The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, D.C.

And so therefore, in this kind of situation, you have to take the text as it is. That if you’re going to fight this enemy, you’re going to go fight against him all the way. You’re going to fight against him all the way, and count on the number of survivors, to maintain the cause for which you have fought. This was the kind of thing that happened in World War I and World War II. The idea was, the nation would survive, even if some of the people gave their lives to make that possible. You’re in such a situation now. It’s a different tune. It’s a different note. But it’s the same issue. It’s the same principle.

And, the best chance is, if you have the guts to force the members of Congress and other officials to exert their guts in dumping Obama, it’s the best defense you could possibly ever enjoy.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is S— from New York. Recently, I just went and watched the movie “Drone.” And I have a few comments and questions. First, an overview of the movie. It was appalling. They recruit teenagers from a young age to join the drone program from video-game internet cafes. The designer of the drones themselves is very apathetic. He says he hopes his drones are used more to stop war, apparently. The international laws that are broken are immense and many.

They go in with a drone without any authorization; specifically this was about Pakistan. The Pakistani government’s been sued twice now by an organization who’s trying to get rid of the drones altogether.

I’m sorry, I’m trying to put it all together; the movie was just,—it was too much, really.

The Secret of Progress: The Dead!

Basically, it seems like nobody really cares what America is doing. Everybody’s afraid. No one wants to stand up and fight. The people fighting in Pakistan have no support. When they want to go protest, and drive from a smaller country that’s in between Pakistan and another country, they’re actually met by the Pakistani Army and tanks.

So, what can be done? I mean, how can we stop this? How can we decisively—I know impeaching Obama is one of the answers, but 87 other countries have picked up the drone programs themselves. And in the movie they said that, eventually, seeing foreign drones over our own country will be commonplace.

LaRouche: Yes. The problem is simply one of courage. But it’s not a matter of formal courage; it’s a matter of understanding what the issues of life for mankind and in nations represent. And, therefore, if you know what the facts are, and you have knowledge of the evidence—and I have a certain amount of knowledge of these matters—you simply say, “We’re going to win that war.”

Now, that’s not just a simple declaration, that we are going to go out there and wave our arms, and so forth, and win this war. We’re going to understand exactly what this war means, and what the results would be if we caved in to the enemy. And therefore, if you cannot eliminate the enemy, defeat him, then, you’re not going to have anything. So therefore you have to mobilize yourselves, in order to motivate a larger population to recognize that what you’re doing is right and essential. There’s never been much of anything else in known history, the history of warfare, and history of struggle in general. That’s been the truth.

Now we have hoped, we have hoped and hoped almost futilely that we could bring about what we call peace. Now peace is not quiet. It’s not quietness. Peace is the progress of mankind. And let me emphasize one thing that I emphasize repeatedly, which most people tend not to attach themselves to. Mankind’s greatest prospect lies in people who have died. It lies there because they were better at science and society than anyone else. And what they did is, their very existence gave mankind the means to bring mankind into a higher level.

Now, for example, one of the greatest sources of corruption is the belief in being personally practical. People who think that life is based on being practical are cowards, and because they are cowards, they are also idiots. The purpose of mankind has always been, as the case of Kepler, for example, or as the case of Nicholas of Cusa,—models of this case,—that if you stand for that, and you can convey the meaning of that, which is the future of mankind, a future which mankind has not heretofore achieved. And that is the highest goal of human achievement.

Now, people are going to die. Human people, historically, always die; except for a few people who made it so far, a handful of people. Everybody else dies. The question is under what conditions they die, and what conditions do their circles of life represent? Do you represent, in your society, a power of creativity for the future of mankind, which mankind has never achieved before? And it’s only when you get to the point that you understand that principle, that you find yourself equipped with the ability to make the argument, and sustain the argument which has to be done.

This is not a sacrifice, because you’re going to lose your life anyway. You don’t live, you don’t have a full life. Anybody who’s 100 years of age, or even my age,—that’s not really the issue. The issue is what the future of mankind represents. And the future of mankind, means what can you do, for example, in schools? What can you do in educational systems to make the population that you are supposedly educating, achieve a level of achievement in knowledge and effectiveness which mankind has never experienced before? Isn’t that the great achievement?

When we look at the history of mankind, we study the history of mankind, as I’ve studied the history of mankind at some length in the course of my life, it’s the people who create a new opportunity, a more advanced opportunity, a corrected opportunity,—and it’s those people who mean something.

People who work to get by and pass tests, and get rewards,—they are not very important. The only very important people are those whose actions by themselves are a contribution to the improvement of humanity in general. And that’s what we all have to concentrate on. That’s the only thing that’s really redeeming in terms of the history of mankind. Can you produce an achievement for mankind as a whole which has never been achieved on that level before? And if you have a devotion to that goal, and understand the goal, then you are very powerful. Because the history has shown that it’s human achievement of that type, which has been the motive force by which mankind has survived and achieved.

Wait a Minute, Obama!

Q: [follow-up] Thank you. I have one other thing on the matter. I was reading an article, and I found out that the four people in the movie, the four pilots, have had their bank accounts turned off, and they aren’t allowed to have their money any more. What do you think can be done about that?

LaRouche: I think what we have to do is the same thing. We have to change the laws to the real laws; back to the real laws of the United States. And that’s the only solution. Forget the gimmicks.

Q: Good afternoon, sir, my name is S—. I had been with this organization a number of years ago and had to drop out, and now I’m back. And the funny thing is I was talking to Lynne, and I said “Oh, my goodness, I’ve resubscribed to the EIR alert, and I have to make room.” So I’m going through old binders, and naturally I asked, I have all these old EIR reports, and would you like to have them as part of your library?

So I’m trying to get to bed every night before midnight, but winding up getting to bed at 5 a.m., because what am I doing? I’m reading these old reports! And it’s kind of funny, because only the characters change! It’s the same thing! Only it’s a little worse now.

I go back to remembering the ’50s and ’60s, the Cold War, past McCarthyism. We grew up with Russia and America in this Cold War. And we were afraid that anyone,—in an insane moment, someone that might pick up that red phone, to initiate a nuclear holocaust. This was on your mind; you were afraid.

Well, now you have the same thing, only it’s worse. And I do have a little African expression: “Together the ants will eat the elephant.” [LaRouche laughs.] You liked that one?

I also saw in the ’70s there was a big push on for globalization, like this was a good thing. In the last EIR I read, earlier this week, it’s pointing to how Obama is pushing and pulling the President of France to bring him back into line, so to speak, and insisting, like the little bully in the playground, that we have to put Assad down!

“Wait a minute, just a minute. You are not President of the world, Mr. Obama! Where do you get off, where does any official get off, telling a sovereign nation its business, and how to run its affairs? We’ll help, we’ll do—hey, we weren’t invited into Syria! Get the Hell,—get those 50 people out of Syria! You have no business there; you’re breaking international law right there.” The lawyers should be on him like flies on a pie!

But we just hear about, read about these atrocities.

I feel like Obama and people like him, if we think about this globalization thing, they’re like little Hitler-like bullies running around, trying to say “I’m in charge, it’s all my decisions. No, you don’t matter, you come on my side (and if you don’t I can always kill you).” And just all these things are running through my mind up till like 5 or 6 o’clock in the mornings, and I’m going through all those EIRs from 2002, 2004, 2005, and some of those sound just like the EIR I got Monday or Tuesday!

So, I don’t really have a question. I’m 72 years old, I’m 21 years your junior. I’ve been on this Earth a while, just like you have—and it’s like nothing changes, we just have these little boy bullies running the play yard, forcing everybody to see it their way, and “if you don’t agree with me, I’ll kill you anyway!”

Well, I’d like you to make comments, because I don’t really have a question, I’m just sort of in a befuddled state of mind right now. I feel nothing has changed!

Now, on this issue of getting rid of Obama, of course, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We, on an individual basis, what do we do to effect this? Do we start trying to be a bully and pull the arms of our Congressmen, of our Senators? Do we send letters to them? Do we send emails? What do we do? Do we get on the White House phone, and say, “Look! I’d like to see tomorrow! I’d like to see the sunrise! And do you have a special spaceship you’re going to escape to another planet? I’d like to know where you intend on going!” [laughter]

You know, within seven days, a nuclear blast will send a poison wave in the air around the world. You going to hold your breath? I don’t think that’ll work. The Earth is—we’re gone. We’re gone.

So, please respond, sir, because I’m just. . .

LaRouche’s Worry

LaRouche: OK, OK. I can answer that.

Look, I’ve been running this organization since its birth; I created this organization. And I’ve stuck to it because,—even though many of the people who were in my organization at different times and so forth, they were not adequate. So, what do I do? I make myself adequate. And I’m still fighting. I wouldn’t give up life, if I could avoid it. You know, I’m stubborn, stubbornly old. And people are looking, “What do you do, you’re running around still? Aren’t you supposed to be in the graveyard someplace?” Well, I’m not. And I’m still active. I sometimes was more frisky than I have been recently, but when you cross me in the right way, my friskiness becomes fulsome.

And that’s how it works. And I don’t worry about anybody except me. I’m responsible for me, and what I can contribute to any around me. That’s it! And I don’t have any other standard. I appreciate people who achieve things. I’m happy when I meet it. I’m happy when they are intelligent, and I’m miserable when they are not. But I try to get over that.

So the point is, on this point, every individual human being, in the final analysis, is totally responsible to themselves for the future of mankind. And when people understand that, as I do, that’s the best. You have to have a standard of your own life, which is defined for the benefit for all mankind. And you will not compromise that for anything. And otherwise, if you don’t do that, you become a failure. And I don’t intend to be a failure. They may kill me, but I won’t be a failure.

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. R— from Brooklyn. And I’ll just start right off. I have noticed that Chancellor Merkel of Germany has held fast to her policy of no nuclear energy after Fukushima, even though her green policy has failed completely. When we get Obama out of office, how do we deal with all the Congress, scientists, and other people screaming, “global warming,” et cetera. And when we talk to people, when I’ve talked to people, the reaction I get is that I’m a conspiracy theorist, and after all, “everybody knows global warming is happening,” and this is what I’ve been getting.

LaRouche: Well, I don’t think you have to worry about that at all. The point is we are an organization, and we have a certain ability if we want to conjure up that ability that we have; we can always do something better, a better contribution.

Now you’re dealing with the society, what have you got? A bunch of people, a whole bunch of people. Now the question is, can that bunch of people be on the positive side or the negative side, in terms of the next operation?

I have to worry about my responsibilities. And I wish that everybody else would do the same thing: devote themselves to what is an intelligent understanding of what should be their obligations. I try to do that. I hope that other people try to do that. And that’s the only chance that mankind has.

Now we’ve got people who are scientific achievers, real scientific achievers. Now, naturally such people like that, or people of comparable abilities, are much more important for mankind than the other people. But what you have to do, you’ve got mankind as mankind is given. What you’re trying to do is to induce people, all kinds of strata of people, to induce them to bring the best of themselves into contributions for the missions to be held. That’s all it is; that’s the only answer. I try to be the best I can, and I understand that principle.

I also understand that what we depend upon, is the development of children who are smarter than any other persons ever born. They are the ones who are the creative force, like Einstein, a person of individual characteristics, a superior force of ideas. And that’s what you want. You want more Einsteins, and you want more people like that, who can fill in that kind of operation.

The genius Albert Einstein

And therefore we want to change the school systems of the United States, and get rid of the kind of school systems that have been dropped on the United States since the beginning of—well, I could name a number of Presidents, a good number of people, but Einstein is an example. Einstein’s quality of genius was unique in history of science, absolutely unique! And what we need is, we need more Einsteins; that is, the person who can create the ability to foresee the efficient element of the future! Which is what he did. His life was devoted to that intention.

Don’t Let Up on Them

And we don’t have enough Einsteins. And what we need is, we need a school system which is dedicated to the principle of education for Einstein; to eliminate the garbage, to eliminate the crap, the fakery, to discover the future of mankind. And very few people, even in the history of physical science, have had much capability in that respect.

So the problem is ours. We are alive. The problem is ours. The solution is, can we muster in ourselves those qualities of achievement, which will be a serious contribution in the direction of the future of mankind, in the direction of Einstein? The model of Einstein can be a figure used to say, “Here’s what we mean by the principle of genius.” When the whole rest of the planet was missing on that one. And look at the school systems that have no understanding of Einstein—none, absolutely none. Deadheads! Deadheads with a crayon, a piece of chalk on a board, or something. And that’s the point.

It is our responsibility to look inside ourselves to recognize those principles to the degree we understand them, and to encourage the people around us to share that view. And then mankind becomes a unit. When mankind can share with other human beings this kind of concern for mankind, then you have a society that works. And right now we have a very poor quality of performance. We have to change that.

And we can do it. We can do it right here, right in this place, this premise, tonight, today. We can take steps which will produce a better feature of mankind’s behavior than before. And that’s the best thing you can count on. You take the person of the poorest quality of development of achievement, or the best, and you just keep pushing it. Don’t let them up; don’t let them up. Make them go ahead to higher level of achievement.

Don’t be practical; practical people are stupid people. We don’t want practical people. We may have to use them, but we wish we really didn’t have to use them.

Q: [follow-up] I agree with you 100%. Thank you. . . .

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I have a scientific question. What is antimatter?

LaRouche: Oh! Well, I think that is something which is really obtuse. There is such a description of antimatter, but what is often meant by it, in general, doesn’t make much sense. There are some people who have a view of that matter which is relevant, but in general the popular opinion is not relevant. And so, the question of antimatter as a principle,—yes, there what is such a notion of antimatter, but what is generally represented as the subject of antimatter is simply doubletalk.

Q: I just want to get your spin on this: You don’t have Einsteins because people have been trained to think in mathematics, and not in concepts. Whereas Einstein, his ideas are his concepts. E=mc2, energy is equal to speed of light squared and mass, which is a concept. Time is not a definite thing, it depends upon the observer. What is your spin on that?

LaRouche: Well, I think the question of Einstein’s work is—just take his principal works. He had certain benchmarks in terms of the stages of his development. And it led up to the end of his life. So, Einstein is a unique figure, and almost, except for some very exceptional cases, Einstein is the only complete scientist that I would consider a true scientist.

The problem was, is, that with the beginning of Bertrand Russell’s entry into the name of science, since that time, science in the Twentieth Century went through a process of practiced degeneration. That’s what has to be said about it all. These were all practical people, they were mathematicians, and the worst thing you can get in science is a devoted mathematician. It’s the worst thing that can be done to you.

And therefore, if you don’t have what Einstein understood,—which is his approach by steps to make an ever deeper insight into what man’s role is in the universe,—and that’s what his theme is all the way through. What is man’s role in the universe? If you want to take all the Einstein works that I know of, it all boils down to that issue.

What the differences were between Einstein and his opponents, were exactly of that nature. And what we need to do is we need to really emphasize Einstein, and start over again, with people who are a little bit better educated than the majority we’ve had so far.

But Einstein’s method, his approach to life, is absolutely unique. And other scientists, some of them had approaches to him; some people borrowed from him aspects of what he’s done. But no man that I know of has had a fulsome realization of the quality of action which Einstein and his living characteristics had represented. He’s just the genius, the leading genius on the records of books.

Cooperate with Each Other

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, this is I__M__, how are you today? I’ve been reading the EIR and I must say, they have been really informative, and I just want to thank you for your job that you have been doing for a very long time, and I think there should have been more people like you. Because—

LaRouche: My enemies don’t agree with that!

Q: [follow-up] You look out for humanity, which is very good. But I have to think about my region, the Caribbean, and we have been shafted by the isms and schisms of all the different nationalities. But I think, coming here and being here most every Saturday has been good for me, because I’m able to talk to other people who are Caribbean and let them know there is someone who is not a fear-minded person, and I hope one day I will get them to come to a meeting.

But getting back to the Syrian situation now, I think it was a situation just waiting to happen. Because there are so many people involved, and most people don’t know about the core of the problem, so I think what you have been saying all the time surely made sense, and I’m looking forward to a response from you, as to what you think can deviate World War III.

LaRouche: Well, I think one thing, you’re talking about Central and South America, that area in particular: One of my first heroes, was José López Portillo of Mexico. And he was the head of Mexico at that point, and I collaborated with him, and we had a meeting in his office, and we loosed things out! We really went at it! And we did an excellent job: We changed the whole Mexico system, improved it; he was a genius. And then he was crushed. Mexico was crushed.

And in terms of South America and in the Caribbean area, I’ve seen similar cases, with some exceptions, with similar nations which have been crushed: Colombia has been crushed; other parts of South America have been crushed again, repeatedly. And we have a few that sort of got by with it once in a while. But most of South and Central America have been crushed.

Now, part of the problem comes from Wall Street and the British,—that’s generally the problem. Wall Street and the British are the enemies of Central and South America; if there’s anything wrong with Central and South America in general, it’s to be blamed on the British and Wall Street. Get rid of those two sins, you might have a better chance.

Q: [follow-up] OK. Most of the English-speaking islands were once former British colonies, and they occupy the Lesser Antilles. But you know, despite the British, other people tried to intimidate and use racism against the Black people there.

LaRouche: Ah. This is stuff which disgusts me. Let’s forget it, let’s get rid of it! We’ve got—

Q: [follow-up] You can’t! But you can’t, because so many people are not conscious. The level of consciousness there, they’re selling out.

LaRouche: All we have to do, is we have to cooperate with each other. That’s all. That’s the only chance we have. It’s what we can do to cooperate with each other and to get an influence on the process of society which will enable us to be free from some of the things that have been disgusting.

JFK Library/Abbie Rowe
The promise of cooperation: President John Kennedy with Peruvian President Manuel Prado at the White House in September 1961..

Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you for taking my question. My name is M__B__. I’m a local in New York. So, I’ve seen on the news lately and it’s very disturbing about this organization in Turkey, the Grey Wolves. And this is a Gladio B operation that’s been set up. And they’re ready to move, and do things; they had a truckload recently in Italy was intercepted with a bunch of shotguns in it; and they have bike gangs in Germany. They’re all around. It seems to be something of concern. Do you know anything about it?

Not That Simple

LaRouche: I know some things about some parts of these kinds of things in general; naturally, at my age and experience, there are a lot of things I know! But there are also, in the process of bypassing, a lot of things that I’ve skipped or have not been brought in on, on other things. I’m not a universal person as applied to all subjects, but I do have a pretty good idea of what’s going on in the world. I think that’s what you can say.

And you know, the world is now—what I’m worried about all the time, what I’ve been concerned about, is the things I think I can do something about. And I pick out those things which I find that I have the strongest objections to; and what I think I can do something about. And so I concentrate on that.

And the problem is there’s a shortage of people, who—but sometimes, they come across for you. Sometimes. You know, people in Germany, for example, sometimes are a disappointment to me; people in France who are a disappointment, a recent case. The French case.

Now France has been a disgusting nation for a long period of time. But suddenly, when it got into this crisis, of terror rage, and when they got into connection with the issue of the relationship between France and the Mediterranean region, France came out and did something good. Something better than they’ve done for a long period of time; and I appreciate that. I’m not satisfied with it, but it’s much better than what I’ve seen before.

And so my views on these kinds of things take those colors. There are a lot of things I have no access to, or almost no access to. Some things that I’ve had great access to, in certain periods, like my experience with Russia for a long period of time; and that was nice. But I have limitations, and I have to operate on the basis of limitations of a broad background of experience.

Q: My name is J__. My question is, why everybody is so scared to try to impeach Obama, is because, I believe, we’re scared to do that because of his complexion. If we try to get him out, everybody’s going to think why we’re doing that because of what color he is. Not because of what’s going on. So that’s what this country has become, that we’re too scared to really say what’s wrong with him, and go after him for the crimes he’s committing. But we won’t do that, because others might think, society might think we’re going after him because he’s African American. And that’s what I think.

LaRouche: Well, things are not that simple. I have a responsibility and I have probably much more knowledge, because of my age, than a lot of people in various parts of the world. But I have limitations too. And therefore, I don’t think we can make simplistic characterizations of what the situation is.

I think what we have to do is try to find the aperture in which we can create an influence to build something positive within society. A lot of things don’t lend themselves to becoming characteristic; but whatever we can do that’s good, do it! And in terms of generalities,—I don’t really have much confidence in generalities,—but I do have the intention to improve: Yes, that I like.

Speed: By way of partially responding, Lyn, myself, to what was just raised, this is a report we got from Sean Stone. He wanted this raised to you, because everybody’s on their way to Paris now for the climate change conference. There’s going to be 191 heads of state.

So he wanted to make sure you are aware of this: There was a controversy this past February because a movie was released in England which portrayed—it was only a portion of the movie, but it portrayed Barack Obama as a member of a plot to kill 99% of the world population. And so, it was sort of a comic thing: What it is, there’s a megalomaniac who sits down, and he’s shown speaking to Obama about global warming, and the megalomaniac is saying, “Look, I’ve checked. There’s no way, the science all comes out, as long as you have people on the planet, you’re going to have global warming, so all we can do is,—I’ve got an idea and it’s to wipe everybody out.”

White House video
President Obama addreses the ‘Conference of Depopulation’ in Paris on Nov. 30.

So the President agrees, OK? Everybody’s got to be eliminated: he becomes part of the plot. So then, the director and writer of the film have insisted it isn’t Obama, but the problem is, you can tell by the ears, that back of the head, and the vision of the White House in the background! It’s definitely Obama.

Obama Must be Removed!

So what happens is: he can’t be trusted, though, so they put an implant in his head, to make sure he can be kept under control. So then, Sean sent me—this is an excerpt from an actual review of this movie; it says, I’m quoting now:

Barack Obama’s head explodes, because he’s in on the supervillain’s dastardly plot. Seriously, this is the thing that happens in this movie, and it’s sort of surprising that nobody’s made a big deal out of it. Because it’s pretty rare for movies to kill off a sitting President by suggesting he’s in on an evil plot. Granted the President is never named, but he’s got the recognizable profile, and the brief impression of him is clearly meant to sound Obama-esque. And the sequence where his head and the heads of his Joint Chiefs of Staff, explode, is cartoonishly fun. But it’s still weird to have the President,—like a clear signifier of the actual President,—involved in a plot to kill something like 99% of the world’s population.

And then it goes on to say, “No other people, all others are fictionalized; the only other one that you can identify, is the Queen of England.” [laughter]

So I thought I’d put that in as a form of an intelligence report and a bit of a response to the question that you just got.

LaRouche: OK! I think it’s quite relevant. Have fun with it! It’s all your own.

Q: Hi, Lyn. I’m relaying a question from R__ from Bergen County, who’s tied up tutoring today. His question is the following: “I have a sense that Obama is becoming increasingly hated within the population. That the perception is that ISIS is being supported by Obama because he is doing nothing. My question is, what position will Congress be in, if ISIS attacks the United States, with Congress increasingly aligned with Obama, by its failure to act on this?”

LaRouche: Well, I think it’s a moot point. Because there’s another approach that you have to take on this thing. Obama and what he represents has to be shut down. In other words, there are no intervening steps. Shut this guy down, because the defense of the human species depends upon accomplishing that effect. That’s exactly what has to happen.

Look at the history of Obama: Obama’s stepfather was famous for mass murder: He was a colonel in an operation of mass murder in southern waters. And Obama himself was trained by the stepfather. He has the same characteristics, known to us, as the stepfather,—and the mother of Obama was also of the same quality: So what do you expect with such working material?

Therefore, Obama must be removed from all control, political control of all governments on the planet, all governments of the planet. He is a disease which must be closed off on now. We must never see anything like Obama appearing in political life ever again. Because you can’t trust him. He’s intrinsically Satanic. The only name you can give, in history, is that his quality is entirely Satanic, literally Satanic. And you don’t want to cook him, because it’s also poisonous.

Speed: OK, I guess we’re now at our conclusion, Lyn. So, I don’t know if there’s anything else—Oh! I’d like to ask you this. So of course, we’re going to go into a new phase now in Manhattan, because of the focus that we’ve now been given from you, on the Obama matter. We’ll be doing a lot of things on the music, and matter of fact, we have a major rehearsal tonight that Diane is going to be running, and John is here as well. So we’re about to go into that.

And I don’t know if there’s anything that you have specific that you’d like to say, or are we. . .?

LaRouche: No, it’s an ongoing process. And let the process unfold as it wishes to.

Speed: All right. Very good. So that’s it for us today. So I’d like everybody to join me to say to you once again: Thanks a lot! [applause]

LaRouche: Have fun!