Oct. 5 Webcast Transcript
October 6th, 2012 • 2:32pm •


"The Moment of Our Greatest Crisis" is the first concluded webcast of a series structured to occur on Friday each week, by Lyndon LaRouche.

For a video archive of the proceedings, click here.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. My name is Matthew Ogden. I'm an editor with LaRouchePAC TV, and I'd like to welcome all of you watching, to a live webcast event, which will be featuring Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. It's October 5th today, and this is going to be a very significant event.

But I'd also like to announce that this is only the first in a series of broadcasts of this form that we will be engaging in consistently between now and the November 6th elections. They will be taking place at this time, on this website on Friday nights.

Now, Mr. LaRouche has decided to initiate this series of webcasts for a very specific reason. We're in the middle of a very dangerous situation, and this series of events is required, because of Mr. LaRouche's direct involvement in, not only the debate process going into the Presidential elections, but the outcome of the very significant events that will occur over the next five weeks, is of critical importance, as it has been up to this present date. The next five weeks is a period in which we expect a lot to change, which is contrary to what many people, who had been duped into believing in the predestined inevitability of an Obama victory in this November 6th election, had thus far believed.

Now, these people—anybody who believed in such a predestination, need only look at the events of the past month, to see that they were acting as, frankly, fools. Not only the events that happened on Sept. 11th in Benghazi, what Mr. LaRouche has aptly named, "9/11 Two," in which you had, not only the foreknowledge of the danger to Ambassador Stevens' life from inside the Obama Administration, but also a consequent cover-up, after the fact. What has been aptly named by such significant political leaders as former Governor Huckabee, "Obama's Watergate" or "Benghazigate."

Now, this is only syptomatic of a much broader cover-up that the Obama Administration has been complicit in, which you can look at the refusal to release the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, which documented the Saudi-British financing of the first 9/11 attack. Now, this is the kind of impeachable crimes that the Obama Administration is guilty of.

Secondly, what happened Wednesday night. And, if people watched this debate, which I'm sure you did, because there was the widest possible viewing—70 million viewers across the country watched Obama's narcissistic personality be put on full, naked display. What Lyndon LaRouche has said all along, since April of 2009, about Barack Obama's failed personality—a clinical Emperor Nero case—was put on display for the entire world to see, as he was forced into a situation where he was challenged by none other than Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney's decision to put him up against the wall on the IPAB—the so-called death panels in the Obamacare bill—remember this is why the LaRouchePAC put the Hitler mustache on Obama in the first place. Also on the too-big-to-fail in the Dodd-Frank bill, and even Obama's green energy policies. These are very significant.

However, we're here to make the point that the reality still stands. As long as Obama remains in office, we do remain on the cusp of a global thermonuclear war. And I think Sergei Lavrov's statements on Charlie Rose last weekend really get directly to the point, that the fear is, that an Arab Autumn will be followed by a nuclear Winter. And this remains the danger for as along as Obama remains in office. And that is why we've convened this webcast here today.

Now, before we proceed, a quick word on the format. Mr. LaRouche will be making opening remarks, and then we will have several select people in the audience here, engaging in a three-way dialogue with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. This will be Jason Ross and Leandra Bernstein, who some viewers may be familiar with. And then, at the conclusion of this dialogue, I'll being a conclusion to this event, but this will be a perpetuating series of events that will take place until the November 6th elections.

And also, just one more word of mention, accompanying the oral presentation that Mr. LaRouche will make here tonight, he has prepared a written document, which will be available on the LaRouchePAC website soon, called, "The Friday Project." And so this should be seen as a companion piece.

So without further introduction, I'm proud to present to you, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Thank you. We shall get at the business. I call it a three-way discussion because it involves, what we just heard from Matthew, and which you will hear from me, and which you will hear from two other people, who are going to be taking in the questions, which are being presented in this event.

We need a new national policy, a new national policy perspective. We're in the process of a general breakdown crisis of the Trans-Atlantic economy in particular, with emphasis on the United States, which is in a financial breakdown crisis at present. Europe—or Western and Central Europe—are entrapped in an increasingly hyperinflationary breakdown crisis. And if Europe continues to function in that way, with this hyperinflationary program, which has been recently installed on top of a previous hyperinflationary program, you're not going to see much of Europe. We have to change that.

Now, the only solution for the problems of the United States, in terms of economic and related problems—when I say related problems: economics, physical economics in particular, is central to the economy of the nation and its people as a whole.

So, the first thing we have to do—and there is no alternative, and the same thing is true for Europe, there is no possibility of the survival of the United States and/or of Europe, without a Glass-Steagall law. They have in Europe a ring-fencing version of so-called substitute for Glass-Steagall. It doesn't work. It's just suicide on a slower basis.

So therefore, Glass-Steagall is the first action. Without Glass-Steagall, there's not going to be a United States, because we're now engaged, ourselves as a nation, in a hyperinflationary acceleration, which would mean that whatever happens in a few months, if it continues in this way, under Obama, for example, there isn't going to be a United States. There's going to be a piece of wreckage, where there once was one.

The rate of starvation is there. The rate of a great, crucial food shortage for the people of the United States will continue, if Obama remains in office. That does not say, I know what the other candidates are going to do. There are several of them in the winds presently. But the point is that if Obama remains President, you're going to see mass starvation increasing in the United States, especially in areas which used to be the food-growing areas. And people are going to start dying en masse, out of the effects and side effects of hunger. When people have no food at all, they tend to eat all kinds of things, just to survive. And they often die of the effects of what they eat. That's the condition that the continuation of the Obama Administration represents for the United States in the coming period.

So Glass-Steagall is the only thing that can save the United States, as it saved the United States before, with the Franklin Roosevelt Administration. Go back to it. That gets us out of the mess. But, Glass-Steagall, of course, means not cancelling the non-included debt, but it means that non-included debt is going to go bankrupt all on its own, because most of it is going to be wiped out. It's purely speculative. It's worthless. It's hyperinflationary. And to bring the system under control, you just have to tell the other banking system, that Glass-Steagall will take of, on behalf of the government, as the private-public banking system, and the other kind of banking will just have to learn how to survive on its own good behavior—and, which will happen, as it happened under Roosevelt. But this is a much more serious problem.

So now, the problem is, we have to get at, applying Glass-Steagall; we have to have a national credit system. Once we have cleaned up the banking system—because, remember, most of the banking system represents worthless assets—most of the Wall Street and similar kinds of entities, represent worthless assets, which the United States cannot, under Glass-Steagall, bail out. Now that means that the total amount of banking capability, of reserves and credit available, would be limited. But there's a remedy for it.

What we will do, is have to create a national banking system, which has another feature. A national banking system will be based on the borrowing of credit which is secured and guaranteed, as an asset, by the Federal government, which means that wherever the banking system—or the proper banking system—comes up with a case, which is, in terms of the government, is going to work to the good of the economy of the United States, that will be taken seriously into account.

One of the biggest projects we have in mind is the NAWAPA project. Now this has been kicking around since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or shortly after that. If that program had been implemented, you would not have a water crisis in North America today. You would not have most of the problems of the western area of the United States. And most of the shortage of the ability to grow crops and all these sorts of things, would have been cured. But that would be one of the greatest driver programs, with about 14 million people employed suddenly, in this process of creating a North American water system—water management system—which will solve the general threats of dessication in North America, by itself.

So the idea of having people trust the Federal government to guarantee the projects, will mean that we can put on that account alone, 14 million people to work, in highly productive employment. That changes the character of the United States.

Now, there are many other things. There are areas, for example, in the northern part of the Eastern states of the United States. We used to have an auto industry, and accompanying an auto industry and a manufacturing industry, we had many others, we had aircraft industries. During World War II, we had built up the make-everthing-industry, including for warfare.

We must go back to that. That's a couple more million jobs, to be added to the 14. And there's similar other programs, of the same type, which means we have to go to this conception, which is the original conception of credit of the United States under its Consitution. So simply going back to that Constitutional provision will be sufficient to get, not some riches for everyone, but a recovery and a genuine rate of growth, and a prospect of the future. The greatest problem in the United States today is the fact that people have become more and more ignorant in every practical way. Because they don't, first of all, they don't have employment of the type that bespeaks productive power, and productive power is very close to intellectual power, to mental power. And that's been lost. And people are dumped on the streets, they're dumped out of their jobs. They don't have a future under the present system; under the Obama system, and the two toad-like generations or systems before that. So this thing has to change; we have to go back to what we were doing as long as John Kennedy was alive as President. Because in the history of the United States, the assassination of Kennedy and failure of relevant powers to investigate the actual crime of his assassination led to a decline in the U.S. economy — in its physical economy, in the condition of life of our people which has been going for all this period since the time that Jack Kennedy was assassinated. We have never had a period under any President since the assassination of John F. Kennedy where there was actually a net per capita improvement in the economy of the United States.

So what this means, going back to the NAWAPA project, which is one of the projects which was on the agenda in the period when Jack was killed, Jack was assassinated. And 14 million jobs would have been put into work at that time, had Jack lived or had the investigation of his assassination been taken into account. So, we're going back to the time we started to take a nosedive. We have some things which were going on then which were good, but they were not sufficient to compensate for what happened after the Kennedy assassination. The space program there was a high-tech driver program — around Massachusetts they had a good time with it because they wanted it; one of the big beneficiaries of that. But that project now, of course, has been crushed by Obama.

But it was never sufficient to make up for the loss of productivity which followed the assassination of Jack Kennedy and of course the long war, the ten years virtually of war in Southeast Asia which should never have happened. Actually, Jack was killed primarily because he opposed the war in Southeast Asia, which Douglas MacArthur, who was a key advisor on this, said "Don't do it. No long wars in Asia for the United States." And what that did, that war killed off the morals and future and happiness of a good part of our population. It put us really on the slide, and that decade down to the dirt.

We didn't do too well under another President. Another President came along, and he had some good ideas, he did some good things, but he wasn't allowed to do too much. So, the United States has actually been in a process over these successive generations, since the assassination of Jack, has been in a downslide morally, culturally and every other way. And each generation tries to make it out for themselves, but they don't see the pattern. They don't see the pattern that we have been going downhill. And with the Green policy, which had already started there at the time that Jack was pushing things up, the Green policy has destroyed the United States morally as well as physically, economically. So these things have to be changed.

But the other part of this thing is, people make the mistake — and the Glass-Steagall points in that direction. People make the mistake of thinking that money has an intrinsic value. Money does not have an intrinsic value. The use of money as a presumed value goes back a long ways, it goes along with is called the oligarchical system. It goes back actually to the siege of Troy, where the killing of a whole people, a mass murdering of a whole people occurred. And this has happened a number of times in European history since that time. Just mass killing of people. Why? On the basis of what is called a monetary system, a money system. And a money system which is of the form called an oligarchical system, where a small ruling class — fat, sloppy, skinny, whatever, but useless and murderous has reigned over nations in the European region.

Now, the remarkable thing about the United States is not so remarkable. There was a fellow — Nicholas of Cusa — a Cardinal, one of the famous minds in all modern history. As a matter of fact, he almost invented modern history. And before he died, his commitment was to induce Europeans who wanted to do so, to cross the great ocean — and he knew where the ocean was, and he knew where the land on the other side was, because the scientists at that time knew that information. They knew the size of the Earth. They knew the approximate size of the ocean, and Columbus was able, based on the information developed for him by Nicholas of Cusa and others, to plot a course which he met. He arrived when he expected to, and he arrived as he expected to. So, there was a development. Out of this came, eventually, with a lot of mishaps here and there, there came a point where we started a new civilization by Europeans as colonists moving across the Atlantic Ocean into the Americas.

Now the particularly most successful case was that in North America, and the greatest concentration of success in the early days of that century was Boston. But that occurred contingent only under a minimal period. That effort which was in Massachusetts, which was the foundation of the creation of the United States and everything that our system meant, that was crushed by the British by William of Orange and his types. So that, for a time, our Massachusetts Bay Colony and its ancillaries continued to function, but they were crushed, but nonetheless the effort came back with a struggle since 1763, the Peace of Paris. And suddenly there is a division; the Americans began to assemble again against the British Empire.

The British Empire had been first installed as an empire in the planet. It was not the royal family, the royal system had not been changed; but that had changed in 1763. At that point there was a struggle that began with the ending of the French and Indian War, which coincided with that first Peace of Paris.

Out of this came a struggle from within North America, within what became the United States, to establish a republic based on the same principles which the Massachusetts Bay Colony had brought into being with its own automatic currency, not based on a monetarist system, but based on a credit system. When the U.S. Constitution was first formed, the provision was for a credit system, not a monetarist system. Monetarism came in because of the loans and debts of the United States at that time, in which other people were using money to assist the United States or to collect debts from the United States. And that is where this problem came up. But intrinsically in our constitutional principle, the United States was founded, on a tradition which goes back to Nicholas of Cusa, which goes to the tradition of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's development, and went to the idea of a credit system, which is the definition of our constitutional monetary system. It's not a monetarist system. It's a credit system, not a money system.

And therefore, our return to those principles of that American Constitution, that understanding of its historic significance is what is required. So therefore, we make these changes: Glass-Steagall, no compromise, Glass-Steagall as Roosevelt defined it; ironclad, no change. That's the precondition for our recovery and our survival. And any future Presidency of the United States at this time must adopt that policy or they're not fit to rule. We have to be clear on that. There are other problems — national credit. I think we have to organize the national credit system as a national credit system. The way it was intended by John Quincy Adams, not that maddened nitwit who replaced him. And we need large driver projects, which include chiefly NAWAPA, the biggest one, and the other things, and the space program — which I'll come to in the closing part of my report — is a crucial one, and for reasons which many people may not yet know, or havent caught up with.

Now, all this means that Obama must be swept out of office now. This is not a partisan situation, or question. This is not a partisan issue. The greatest error in the United States, as was understood by George Washington and others, was the establishment of a political party system, a national political party system. That was the greatest piece of idiocy ever imposed upon the United States by itself, and Andrew Jackson was the most typical of the infected creatures who participated in that.

But the idea of a Republican and Democratic Party, this procedure was wrong, because what it led to was all these other kinds of management problems. So we have to get back to a credit system under our Constitution. There's no change in principle in order to do that. And as George Washington understood, and others, repeatedly, the problem of the United States was the introduction of a party system, a national party system. And there should be no national party system, and that should be done now under the incoming Presidency of the United States — the end of the party system as such. There are other ways of approaching this.

Besides, you look at the party system, they're messes anyway. The Democratic Party, it's a mess! There's no coherence there, it's simply a bunch of gangsters with a bunch of fools following them, each trying to win for their baseball or their football team or whatever it is. And you have these football teams, and they're all impassioned to beat the other team. What about doing something for the nation, rather than trying to defeat the other team? We don't need this stuff, and the time has come to quit. Go back to a system, and rebuild the system based on a non-party system in which the citizen has the authority, not some party. The citizen does not have to give up his independence as a citizen, but we have to have a government which is based on discussion of ideas, not this kind of lechery that we get now, and the obscenity that we just saw in the recent efforts that we see now.

And Obama couldn't exist except under that kind of corrupt system. He couldn't remain President. But suddenly, he's losing and then suddenly, the way the drugs are flowing across from Mexico into the United States, and in that area of the world Obama made a big victory and knocked out his competitor in the Democratic Party, and that's all he had to show for it. And he had some big muckety-mucks from Britain who are noted as the biggest thieves in the world, and they financed Obama, arranged this financing, and we've been subjected to this corruption and destruction all these years under Obama, and some clown is trying to say vote for him again. This must not happen.

We can reorganize the system and its secondary features to go back to the original principle of the Constitution. Because there are two things we don't want to do, which have been done. One is you don't want to go back to a party system. Because when you make the issue a partisan one like a football team or a baseball team competitions on the question of deciding policy of government, that is a piece of idiocy. You want the citizen not to vote for a team like somebody in the stadium thinking he's investing in something and finding that he's bought on the way out or sold on the way out. You want a thinking citizen, you want the citizen to accept the habits of thinking, of thinking through decisions, of demanding the education needed to make the decisions that they've been called upon to make, as George Washington had intended.

And the other thing we have to get rid of is the idea that money has an intrinsic value. Money has no intrinsic value. Money is no better than governments are able to organize money, in a way that fits the national needs. There is no intrinsic...

Now, the idea of the money system comes from Troy. Troy ended up, they tore the whole joint down, killed most of the people, except a few kiddies and old ladies and things like that. And they set into a motion a system which is the oligarchical system, which has cursed Europe, European civilization, in one way or the other, and now the United States as well, and other nations.

With this came the idea that there was gold, or silver, or something else, had an intrinsic value, as a metal, or something of that sort, an intrinsic value. And this intrinsic value was value, and money would be based on the control of this, particularly copper, zinc, gold, silver, whatever—this thing that was used as a physical object was assigned a certain value, and the whole society was imprisoned to that money value.

We don't need that. We never did. And what we saw in the Massachusetts Bay colony, with the shilling that was introduced in that period, was a demonstration of that. And what Benjamin Franklin's conception of a money system, was based on that precedent, with his paper currency conception. The foundation of the system of economy of the United States, the federal system, was based on the same principle. And it's only when we gave up the principle, to outside forces, that we got into trouble, with our system.

We do not need a monetarist system. As a matter of fact, you've got to a time where everybody in Europe is bankrupt. They're totally bankrupt. Because the inflation under which they're living, bespeaks something worse than what existed in Germany in 1923, in the collapse of the currency then. So, we're in the process of a global collapse. Money, of whatever denomination, is no longer a control mechanism, but rather politics and political power is. And therefore we have to go a system of a credit system, which is well understood in history, or should be, and that means that this reform, around these three principles of Glass-Steagall, a national credit system (as opposed to this kind of banking system we've had now), and a return to production, through projects typified by NAWAPA.

This is what makes sense, and what we can do. And we can just get other things out of the way.

Now, if we sweep Obama out of office, which is, I think, the very existence of the United States demands that Obama be swept out of office. I know what he is. I know what his mind, so-called, is. I know what he does. And I know what his role has been. He, together with certain people who own him in England, and elsewhere, and Saudi Arabia—because remember, this goes back to 9/11. What we're living through right now, in the United States and throughout the world, as in the recent assassination of our diplomat, what we're dealing with is, under Obama, we're dealing with this problem.

And this is headed toward what? It's headed toward a reduction of the world population, which is decreed by the Queen of England, and a whole mass of her associates have decided to reduce the population of the planet, from 7 billion people, estimated today, to approximately 1. That process has actually been in progress. We're seeing in the world, precisely those conditions which can bring on that rate of death rates, among populations, including in the United States, and elsewhere.

What they intend to do, as Obama makes it very clear, what they intend to do is launch a war, a war which would lead to a thermonuclear war. In other words, all you have to do, is continue the process of the Obama policy now, his military and related policy, and you are going to find ourselves, in a very short time, relatively, weeks or months, you're going to see —if we don't stop it—you're going to see a thermonuclear war.

And a thermonuclear war leads to what's called a nuclear winter, this time a thermonuclear winter.

What happens is, then, the U.S. Navy, and its submarine fleet, in particular, and other forces, combine forces to conduct a war, against Russia, China, and others. Russia and China are very capable in these weapon systems. The United States is very well equipped in terms of, say, the naval system. And the naval submarines of the United States, if they take on this assignment, would very quickly reduce a good deal of this planet to nothing.

It would probably take an hour and a half, and the expenditure of thermonuclear forces from the United States, from China, from Russia, and from Europe, and so forth—that amount, which are probably two general waves, would turn the whole planet into what's called a nuclear winter. A thermonuclear winter. Because you would create weather conditions, cold weather conditions, from which it is doubtful that we'd be able to maintain a population, even of the survivors of the war.

And therefore, the time has come that we have to take on two things that are our enemies. One enemy is the monetarist system, which is one of the principal modes which lead us toward our destruction. The second thing is the related system to the monetary system, which is typified by the British Empire tradition, and by those within the United Kingdom, and within Saudi Arabia, who created 9/11, under an Obama who is 9/11 Two—if he gets a chance.

So, therefore, the time has come that what Obama represents—it's not just he himself—it's what he represents that must be swept out of office, for the sake of the very lives of every damn citizen in the United States—and I say damn advisedly. Because that's what we're up against.

So therefore what we have to do, the idea that the United States must go to a Glass-Steagall policy, cannot be argued against by any competent, sane person. The idea of going to a national credit system, in terms of a banking system, cannot be argued against by any competent person who understands this. We cannot ever develop the monetary basis, as a simple monetary basis, to sustain a recovery of the U.S. economy from its present conditions. The only way we can do that is by using the national banking as a method of creating a credit system, which by the issue of credit, against a government debt responsibility, enables us to fund projects which are going to contribute to the natural wealth of the nation.

And it's the natural wealth, not the money wealth, which is important. The natural wealth of the nation and its people. We've come to that point.

The myth of money must be cancelled. The money changers must finally be discharged from government.

Now, there's another problem. Europe is a problem. Europe is on the threshhold of disintegration, Western and Central Europe. Because it's now entered into a phase of hyperinflation. And if that continues, hyperinflation worse than 1923 Germany? How long is that going to last? So, therefore that's our problem.

We have to recognize that the euro system was a crime against the human species. The attempt to force a group of nations—and this was started actually by London, but Mitterrand, the president of France, was the key instigator of it. Germany was on the verge of being independent again, as a unified nation. And then suddenly, under Chancellor Kohl, who was the leader of Germany at the time, had a friend of his who was the greatest banker in Europe at the time, the greatest in skill and capability, who was assassinated. Assassinated by somebody coming from across from say, a westerly direction.

And at the same time, a key figure of the French government, a servant of Mitterrand's, said, effectively, that if Germany tried to unify, that France would go to war against Germany. And this was backed up by the prime ministership of Britain, and by the president of the United States, poor George Dumblebum Bush.

So therefore, this process led to the euro system, which looted and destroyed these nations of Europe.

And the attempt to maintain the euro system, means that Europe will not survive. Europe has now entered into a deadly hyperinflationary explosion, and it cannot survive under those policies. The euro system simply should be regarded by all Americans as an unwanted entity. Not because of the nations and people, but because of what it implies.

The euro system is now hopelessly bankrupt and in a state of hyperinflationary collapse, and there's nothing in sight that's going to change that, except the will of the people. If the will of the European people says, we're going to get rid of this, yes, fine. The United States should take a very sympathetic view on the success of that restoration of the system of soverign nation states, rather than the so-called euro abomination.

This is not a matter of interfering in their governments, because they don't have governments any more. How can you threaten the government of a nation, when the nation has no government? And that's the case in Europe, in fact, right now.

So, therefore, we have to think about how we're going to reorganize the world. We're now going through a great crisis, we're on the verge of the extinction of humanity threatened by the nuclear weapons crisis, thermonuclear weapons. Bankruptcy all over the world. Africa, which has been murdered over and over again, as a whole continent, by the British in particular, over these periods. The world is a mess. It has elements in it which are viable, and valuable. These elements must be protected, and systems of cooperation among sovereign nation states must be established, to ensure stability.

We have to go, in one case, to a global policy. A policy of global sovereign nation states, entered into systems of cooperation, and deliberation on cooperation. And that's what we require.

We're now faced, then, as I said, not only with a nuclear weapon—and Obama's existence, his policy, what he did in Benghazi, in fact did, is headed toward a nuclear winter, a thermonuclear winter. And what they're trying to do in pushing something against Iran—again the same thing. What they're doing in Turkey, the same thing. These things are chiefly coming from the United States, and from the Obama administration under British direction. And Saudi direction. The British empire is actually partly the Saudi empire. And these forces are there.

So, what are we going to do? We're going to re-establish our system, of sovereign nation states; secure agreement among nations to go to a credit system, rather than a monetarist system; set up systems of credit which enable nations to rebuild, and to create stability; re-establish sovereignty.

Now, sovereignty means this: It means that in the history of mankind, you have a variation in cultures, and people function, not only on the basis of their nationality, but they function on the basis of the culture that nationality is assumed to represent. We need a planetary system of cultures, of nation cultures. It just means, restore the best we had earlier, and put some more regrowth in it.

All right, now, how do we get to a world without war, without world war? Yes, you can have all kinds of quarrels and so forth, up to a rather intense state if things are managed properly. But world war, or general war approximating world war, is no longer feasible, in the age of thermonuclear weapons and similar kinds of weapons. We can't have it.

But we've got another problem before us. That's not the only problem. We've got a problem with a lot of big rocks, called satellites, and they're swarming, particularly to our attention, between the orbit of Mars and the orbit of Venus. We know a small percentile of these asteroids, and they come in all kinds of flavors and sizes. And if they hit the Earth, as they do occasionally, they will take out an area, say, comparable to say San Francisco Bay; something like that getting wiped out, and all the people in it getting wiped out,— that can happen. Smaller events of that type can happen. Larger ones can rarely happen. And a really big one, if a really big satellite hits the Earth, then no more people.

So therefore the defense of Earth, while it has not been much discussed, was actually being pushed as an issue and a project at the time that I was pushing for the SDI. And that effort has continued.

Today we find ourselves in a position where we do not have the kinds of information we need, let alone the equipment we need, to get out to there and steer some of these asteroids — first of all, locate them; steer them in such a way they do not collide with Earth. Because they either do damage to life on Earth, or they can totally destroy human life on Earth, and all life on Earth.

So therefore, we have a mission now, and it's becoming more acute as time passes, that we must get out there, between the area of Earth and Mars in particular, and build up systems of cooperation, as up on Curiosity on Mars, and by using the speed of light of communication between the systems we establish on Mars and the systems on Earth and so forth, we're going to have to develop a system by which we can detect these satellites that are floating around, and intervene to steer them away from a collision with Earth.

And this is typical of the kind of problem that we have to deal with in the coming period. We have to totally reverse the idiocy and the crimes that were done by Obama, in terms of the space program. The problem with the space program already, was we were not doing enough to meet this challenge. We weren't giving it sufficient support to meet this challenge. And now the time has come that Obama has tried to destroy it all!

And that is a crime against humanity: When a head of state acts to intervene in world affairs, to block and halt a means necessary to preserve the very existence of the human species, that is what we will not tolerate. And Obama, for that reason alone, should be just quickly ushered out the gate, or probably impeached. We probably can't wait longer: We should probably get him out of there now. But that's the challenge.

So now, that's where we stand. We have, on the one hand, we have the worst government, in most parts of the world we've seen in a long time. And the U.S. government under Obama is the worst: The worst of all possible governments! You wouldn't think that anybody could do that, but that's it. He is. Only the Saudis, if they were capable, would be equally evil. But that's what we have to do.

So, we're at that point. We have an understanding of what this nonsense is. We have a system in which you don't have clear party solidity. The Republican Party is not a solid creature; the Democratic Party is not a solid creature. And you have a lot of other loose groups around who don't really agree with either! Or they don't agree even with themselves, because they don't even trust themselves, I guess.

But the point is, we have to build up a new political system which is based on, for us, our national tradition. I don't think that most people in the world would disagree with us, on what the United States system was, the conception of the political system. They might have some disagreement with what we've been doing, and what our policies are and what our thinking is in many cases, but the principles are not at risk. And therefore, I think, that's where we stand. If we can do that, I think we can make it.

So therefore, where are we? We're got a Democratic Party and we've got this piece of junk, called Obama, who's stuck on top of it, running for President. You have the other side, and other sides in between.

We have to have a sort of an understanding, of coming together, and instead of taking issues, and issues are a deadly issue: When you take issues and make bargaining over issues a stake, it's the choice of issues which you have to agree upon. In other words, you don't want to have more football rivalries, or basketball rivalries, as politics. You want to say, "What is the total combination that this nation needs as a whole, that the world as a whole, as a composite policy?" Without that, then we don't have a solution. But Obama must go. This is not a partisan issue. This is a human issue: Obama must go!

We've had, [9/11] number 1, we're getting number 2, now, under Obama. And Obama is one of the people who's been blocking the exposure of the evidence of who did what, in number 1! The evidence is there. Throw this SOB out of office now! Get the voters to do that, too. Throw the guy out! And partisan loyalties do not provide any excuse for tolerating Obama any more.


OGDEN: Thank you very much.

If you've just tuned in, you're watching a live international webcast by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, and this is the first in a series of webcasts that we'll be doing between now and the Nov. 6th election.

Now, what we're moving into now is a period of discussion, and we will have two interlocutors, Leandra Bernstein and Jason Ross. I'd like to ask Jason to come up first, and he'll be presenting a question that came in from layers inside the United States' intelligence community, who are watching this live broadcast.

JASON ROSS: Hello. So, the question for you, Lyn, is: "Mr. LaRouche, the Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, has criticized the too-big-to-fail bailout provisions of the Dodd-Frank bill, and has said that he'll replace Mr. Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed, if he is elected. This has caused considerable concern among European Union and European Central Bank officials, who fear that the deals they have struck with Bernanke to continue to provide Fed funds to bail out the European banks could be cancelled with a Romney victory. How do you see this? Might the European banks and allied institutions attempt to intervene in the U.S. elections, to preserve the hyperinflationary deal?"

LAROUCHE: No, we wouldn't preserve that deal at all in hyperinflation. No, what we have to do, essentially, is recognize that the European governments that oppose this Glass-Steagall, and you have a very significant faction of leaders in Britain, who have actually initiated a very vigorous proposal for ending ring-fencing, as well as anything other, in favor of Glass-Steagall explicitly. In the recent couple of years, there's been suddenly a surge in support for Glass-Steagall as a policy-conception, including in Britain, which did not exist at all, or barely at all — just as a curiosity — in Europe previously. And that's the right clamor.

Now, as for the banks: Look, these banks that you're talking about, without going into lists of names, these banks are all engaged presently, in an accelerating rate of hyperinflation. The most recent agreements in the euro have done exactly that. These banks are not long for this world in any case. So why are you trying to save a dead man walking?

If Europe is going to survive, it has to go to the equivalent of a Glass-Steagall law. Only two things, first of all, yes, we do have a shortage of money in the banking systems in Europe, even if we reform them by a Glass-Steagall law. Therefore, it means we have to go to a general credit system, and manage the recovery under a credit system, in order to kill the hyperinflation, because the hyperinflation that these European banks would like to have for themselves, would kill them! We're talking weeks, or something in that order of magnitude. The entire Western and Central European system is ready to disintegrate in hyperinflation, that makes 1923 Germany look like an entertainment event.

OGDEN: Thank you. Okay, now, I would like to ask Leandra Bernstein to come up quickly. If viewers don't know, Leandra is responsible for having authored and produced not only the recent video that came out, called "Unsurvivable," on the reality of a thermonuclear confrontation, but also what was publicized a year ago, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, which was called, "9/11: Ten Years Later." And I'd like to ask her to come to the podium.

LEANDRA BERNSTEIN: Well, with that introduction, I think that this question might be a little uncharacteristic for such an introduction.

But I would like to ask a question that's been kicked around through a lot of Democratic circles, about the recent endorsement by Bill Clinton of President Barack Obama, which resulted in an immediate boost in Obama's approval. Now, there's a certain idea, among these circles, that, because Bill put his support behind Obama, that it's somehow possible that Obama could be "tamed" in a second term, by the circles around Bill Clinton.

Now, this endorsement of Clinton for Obama has been definitely taken note of in international circles. A question came in from one of our Irish activists, who took note, saying that Clinton is widely esteemed in Ireland, but it's very difficult to reconcile his actions in supporting Obama, and he asks, "on what grounds, personal or political, could he do this?"

LAROUCHE: If you have a very dear friend, who makes, in a very curious way, a commitment to suicide or some other major criminality, which you know is the reflection of some intimidation, a great intimidation, of threats to himself, or to members of his family, and he says something and does something, as Clinton did, with this case; and he acts like a damned fool, as Clinton did, and I'm sure he knows it, in supporting Obama in this recent period: So, if Clinton says "do it," are you going to do it, because he says it? When you know he's under heavy blackmail, that his wife is terrified; she changed her personality, practically, under the threat from this thug, Obama. When you know that Obama is a killer, you know the number of people that Obama has killed, who they are, how they were killed, why they were killed, how they were threatened — you're going to let somebody who's under blackmail from this thug, this mass murderous thug, Obama, and just because a frightened President or his wife or others, are trying to save their personal lives against this monster, you're going to do what this monster begs you to do?

What kind of morality would that be?

So, Clinton is doing something which is damned foolish and evil. But I don't know exactly why he's doing it. But I know what he's doing is contrary to what I know his personality to be.

So I'm just going to leave him alone, and tell people not to pay any attention to any foolish thing he said. And just think about the old Clinton you used to know.

ROSS: All right. Well, with the Presidential debates taking place, sometimes people are being pulled into questions that maybe aren't all that relevant. So, the economics discussion that we were treated to the other night, on television, left out many of the essentials of what actually has to be discussed, you know, the real threat of thermonuclear war, the real threat on the economy. For example, on the food front, we're literally, as you said, being starved to death, where corn supplies are at a near all-time low, the President has refused to lift the bio-fuel mandate, where even as food supplies are shrinking, corn and other crops are still being used to make gasoline. This despite the opposition of some 200 members of Congress.

Now, in terms of getting things going again, we hear discussion about setting tax rates, or monetary policy, and as you said, the problem of monetarism is that it neglects real economics. I was hoping you could say more about the kind of thinking, behind the use of government to propose and finance specific projects, you know, a dirigistic policy approach, as opposed to setting monetary policy, in hopes that something good will come out of it on its own.

LAROUCHE: Well, you look back to American history, we've gone through this before. When the monetarist says, well, you've got to constrain everything to fit monetary values, monetarist values, the President of a nation which is sane, does not do that! The President of a nation which is sane, says, "Okay, we look in our Treasury. We don't have, in the national Treasury, not only public or public right now, we don't have the amount of funds available to buy the things we need, or to do the things we need to do!" So what do you do? You go to national credit!

Now, in all these countries now, the United States, in particular, right now, we don't have the money! So you're going to kill people, because you don't have the money? Or starve them to death, which is even worse than killing them, right? So you're going to do that? No! What you're going to do, is you're going to change the system.

You're going to send the Federal Reserve nuts out to be eaten by the squirrels. And what we're going to do, is simply close that thing down, reform it; it's been subjected to a swindle, it's not trustworthy, it's not honest. We don't have, in our net Treasury, our Federal Treasury, the funds available to keep the nation going,— what're we going to do? We're going to go to national credit. We're going to a managed national credit system, where we will have promissory notes of the Federal government, on the basis of selection of projects, on the basis of judgment, which will increase the actual net national wealth of the nation!

NAWAPA's a perfect example of that. You talk about the benefit of NAWAPA, in many respects: 14 million potential jobs, and other jobs, coming as a byproduct, all these jobs, which we are going to financed on Federal credit! But how is it going to work out? By building these projects you're going to change the productive powers of labor in the United States, in a way that the world has never imagined before this! The NAWAPA project is the greatest project ever undertaken by man, if it's done! And we can get the credit for that.

Because what happens is you put this credit to work, in the employment of people, who eat, and are paid to work, and who have all these kinds of skills they're getting as jobs, in increasing their skill-power, by giving them these kinds of projects as challenges for their work, and for their careers, and for their families! For building educational institutions, and all the kinds of things that do happen, out of such great projects!

So therefore, we simply have to do that, and use those orientations, of saying we can no longer operate on a monetarist system. Money as such can not run our economy. What we have to do, is we have to have a national economy, in the sense that the nation has certain assets it already has, in terms of monetary equivalent, uses them as credit facilities, and then says, "What can we in the Congress, and by other means — what can we do, to employ people, to produce more wealth, than the value of the wealth we're investing in?" And that's what Roosevelt did, with some success; that's what was done under Lincoln, with great success, under the greenbacks; and what's been done before, and again.

So we can use the concept of the national credit system, and then you get into something like NAWAPA, as — what a driver! Do people realize what this is? It's the greatest single project of this type ever conceived by man! And it's all planned out, and it's perfectly feasible!

What we have to do, is we've got some older people, who are a little bit like me: They don't bend as well as they used to, but who know these skills; we have the charts, the graphs, everything, the evidence is all there, or it's implicitly available, and we can put people to work, instead of on starvation. It's not a dole, it's not a bailout. They're getting paid to work! And they're producing, while they're working!

Roosevelt did this in the 1930s, with projects of that type. Yes, you're giving credit to get people working. You don't want people on the streets, on the dole, as it was called: You want them working! You want to find out what you can do for them, to make them capable of working, improving their own condition, improving their family life, these kinds of things. We did that! And that's what Jack Kennedy was doing — we did that!

And at a lesser scale, at different points in our process, that idea has often been used, in the United States. That's how government does things right: Make a list of the things that must be done, look at the way they're integrated, try to have an integrated, national program of production, and people employed in producing, and increasing their productive powers of labor! And that's what the value of the nation is. Its ability to produce! Its ability to enable its people to produce, to meet its own needs — and to conquer the next step on Mars. Not out of curiosity, but something much bolder!

BERNSTEIN: Well, I'll just say that a lot of the organizing that's taken place at the state level has been along the lines that you indicated in your response, that at the level of state legislators and others, there is, in a sense, that sense of self-interest in productivity. And I'd encourage people to take up what LaRouche PAC, and specific organizers with LaRouche PAC have done, at the state level, in organizing for these projects, in particular, NAWAPA, which is ready to go. We have all the material on the website.

But I say this, because our next question comes in from, really, a slew of state legislators, who have similar questions on what's happening in Libya, what's happening with Obama's complicity and criminal complicity and coverup of what some have called "Benghazi-gate" but could more accurately be called "9/11 Part Two."

So these are questions that have come in from legislators whom we've reached on a variety of aspects of our program, but they all want to know how it is, that the United States supported, and armed, al-Qaeda militants? How it is, that the administration has gotten away, so far, with their negligence?

And I'll just say that two state representatives, Froerer and Daw, in Utah wanted to know specifically, on the events of Sept. 11th, 2012, in Libya, how much did Obama know? And if there's evidence that he did know beforehand, what are the steps that we need to take, to get rid of him?

LAROUCHE: Well, the easy one is to get rid of him. If you just throw him out of office right now, or if you put him through impeachment proceedings, as criminal proceedings, for impeachment, which he's entitled to receive, that's what he's earned.

Now, the other part of this thing, you have to look at 9/11. Because 9/11 has an expression, but it also has an origin. Now, the origin, what happened? You have a new, dumb President, a really dumb one: Young George Bush, about as dumb as you can get — when he's sober. Hmm? That this guy, this pitiful little fool, and that's what he is, from a standpoint of statecraft. The guy's a pitiful jerk! And they bounced him around, and they laughed about him, and so forth, but they didn't do it too loud; that's all. They didn't want to make the old man, who's not too bright either, who's now not in the best of health — he's younger than I am, but he's in terrible health, I think, relatively speaking. And we don't want to hold that against him. But, the point is, this thing was done; it was not done like somebody breaking into a store and stealing something, and that's the usual kind of argument that's made on this thing.

But on the other side, looking at it: Here you have, you had leading legislators in the United States, and others, who had the evidence on what the real story was about 9/11. Now, I personally happen to know a lot about 9/11, and who did what to whom! It was a British-Saudi operation with some American accomplices thrown in! But this was not an American project, but it was an attack on the United States, and it's a precursor of a bigger attack, which could hit the United States, again, now! And which is already hitting Europe and the rest of the world.

The Saudi Kingdom and the British Monarchy are the two greatest criminals on this planet right now. Most of the operations, like the thing that happened in Libya, again: Saudi-British. British-Saudi. Not British, as such, British as Royal Family British-Saudi. Right? And you have people in government, who have access to publication of the findings about the funding of 9/11, by Saudis and the British. We've already published our knowledge of this thing, there's no doubt about it! This was an operation, done by the British Monarchy, in collaboration with the Saudi Kingdom.

The Saudi and the British monarchies are essentially one piece; they're financially one piece. They have one, big financial organization, a defense equipment organization — one piece! The oil traffic, one piece! The mass murders throughout the Middle East, one piece!

So therefore, the first thing you have to do, is throw this President out of office, because he swore that he was going to disclose the information available. And he reneged! Well, the man's a liar, a chronic liar. So how do you deal with a chronic liar? Well, take the next lie you pick up on him, look for another one, and another one, you'll find them — and then incriminate him! Throw him out of office! Anyone who does not want to throw Obama out of office, is either gutless or there's something wrong with their brain.

ROSS: Well, let me ask about this: This is a question that's come in from a number of people through the website, is that the situation you're laying out is very frightening, and in many respects, it's a totally new one facing humanity: Nuclear weapons, thermonuclear weapons are a recent development in history.

A number of people are asking and wondering, given that there's no winner at the end of a massive thermonuclear exchange, given that there's the potential for the complete elimination of the human species, who gains? Would they really go that far? What would be the motive for pushing a policy that's so reckless?

LAROUCHE: All right, let's look at the history of mankind? And say, what in the history of mankind bespeaks exactly that kind of decision? Let's take the fall of the Roman Empire. Let's take the siege of Troy, which we now know is fact, not myth; and other cases: How often has there been total exterminations, of populations, under these kinds of conditions? Now, there's a system and the case of the siege of Troy is an example, and it was very good that at the end of 19th century, and the beginning of the 20th century, the question of what happened in Troy was solved: And it's physical evidence, it's not rumors.

What happened, is one group, an oligarchical group — an assembly of oligarchical groups, took on a city-state in a maritime position, in the connection between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This state was significant in that area. And so they pursued it, they found a way in with the famous wooden horse. And then they killed the people — they killed all able-bodied people, most of the younger people, kept a few older people, and they not only destroyed the city, but they salted the entire ground to such a degree that crops could not grow there again.

Now, you've got the same kind of thing has happened elsewhere. You see cases in the Roman Empire, you have a comparable thing: The Romans did the same thing at Tunis! Exactly the same thing! It's been done again and again!

See, the interest here is not human interest. What about sub-human interest? Morally sub-human interest? What do you think that most of these tyrants have done? What about Obama, otherwise known as the Emperor Nero? And I tell you, it's no joke, and it's no exaggeration: My profile which I worked up on him, shortly after his entering the Presidency, and I saw his health-care, and investigations that other people had made of him, which I picked up on and investigated, and cross-checked: Obama is emotionally, intellectually, a virtual carbon copy, maybe a little bit twisted here and there, but a carbon copy in effect, of the Emperor Nero.

There are such people in history, in leading positions, in powerful positions, particularly some stupid jerk, and a corrupt jerk, who rises as an oligarch into some position of power, has no real motive, but therefore, wants to kill people to show how powerful he is! In other words, he's a homicidal maniac! He's a criminal! He's a criminal mind!

Now, if you have people with a criminal mind, in charge of the Roman Empire, guess what they can do? And Nero kept doing this killing thing. He fornicated with his mother, raped her, and then killed her; and then later killed himself. So this means you've got a certain kind of personality you're working with here, not a normal personality gone awry. And this kind of thing happens in history, when it comes to the question of power.

The oligarchical system orders that the oligarch himself must sacrifice his own life, at the pleasure of his community, and kill the children and others of his family and so forth. This has happened repeatedly in the case of oligarchical cultures. It's one of the characteristics of oligarchical cultures. And Obama represents exactly that. He has a personality, a perverted personality; he's not a sane person, but he has a kind of criminal insanity. And, he'll do it!

And, what they got, what the British Monarchy got, remember, why would the British want to do this? Well, it wasn't the British people, it wasn't the ordinary Brit. It was a certain group, an oligarchical group, which is tied to oligarchies not only from Britain, but from various other parts of Europe and other parts of the world. There's a whole club of leading oligarchs — you know, the ruling aristocracy. And they're a club, and they think of themselves as still ruling the world. They think of themselves as an empire, in which they elect one group for one time, is now the ruling group, the others go along with it, and so forth, and that's what this is.

So you get a mentality which says, "We will not tolerate our system, from being defeated. We will kill everybody rather than consent to our being defeated."

And you have now, what's the policy? What's the British Monarchy's policy? What's the whole issue? You've got two forces which are the forces of evil: the British Monarchy and the Saudi Kingdom. These are the two forces of evil you're dealing with, and their accomplices in the United States, for example, things like that.

And so what we have to do, is, we have to recognize that when you get a monster like Obama, or like Nero — and the two are very much alike! I dare any competent analyst, to say that Obama is not like Nero. He has a Nero complex. And I don't know how they found him, because a Nero complex of that type, you don't find on every street, fortunately. But unfortunately you get one in place, once in a while. And that's the case.

This guy's a criminal. The Saudi Kingdom is a mass of precisely that type of criminals! These guys deliberately did 9/11! Deliberately did it! We know the Saudi representative in the United States, who is now in charge of the Saudi intelligence operations themelves, is the guy who orchestrated much of the organization of 9/11 — personally! He was personally hands-on, in organizing the pilots, who were deployed in 9/11! And he's now the muckety-muck in Saudi Arabia! And you've got people in that neck of the woods, you get some of the stories of some of the Saudi princes and things — real degenerates! Morally, they're just not really human! And therefore, when you get people like that in power, or a group of people which thinks like that, or behaves like that, they will do that! They will say, "You will never get power. We will kill all of you, before you let you get power!"

It's been said to me a number of times, personally: "We'll kill you, we'll put you in prison — next time we'll kill you!" Why? Over SDI. Because I created SDI; they were very upset. And therefore, especially when I organized the President of the United States in this operation, we conspired together on it, and they wanted to kill me! And they did everything possible to kill me and to terrify everybody associated with me. And that's the way the oligarchical mind works. In this case, the British mind.

And the key issue, why do they hate me so much? Well, not just for SDI — that was a big one. They hated me, because I attacked the drug-trafficking of the Queen of England! And now the Queen of England is now on a rampage, to reduce the population of the planet, quickly, from 7 billion people, to 1! And what the devil do you think is happening now, since that resolution was made?

Therefore, we who understand these things, and know other people who also understand it, have to stand together, and recognize that this is a criminal organization, and it has to be treated as a criminal organization, under moral and national law! That when a person enters government, a power of government, and starts to use it in a dictatorial manner, and use intimidation, like the British did it — who funded Obama's Presidency? Who funds this stuff? And 9/11-Two is what's on, and what happened there [in Libya] is exactly that.

And if we don't stop these guys, if we don't crush their power, you're not going to have a civilization. When you have thermonuclear weapons existing, and I say thermonuclear, because now, there's no way in which a war with thermonuclear weapons will not lead to a destruction, maybe the extinction of humanity. Just think of what a thermonuclear winter is.

You had this thing with Khrushchov: Khrushchov had a super-bomb as a demonstration bomb. He set up on Russian territory, and you should see the pictures, day after day, of the ricochet of that thing! And you see an image, in that ricochet, of exactly that, a nuclear winter!

But now, you've got a thermonuclear winter. Now, you think what it takes, how many of these U.S. submarines, with their load of thermonuclear weapons, are going to be deployed if we go to war? How many Russian, similar systems are going to be deployed? How many Chinese? In addition to the British and French? This is what we're dealing with.

People have got to grow up, and stop playing childish games, childish games about how things work. It's passions and it's what we call morality, is what's important here. And morality is a commitment to recognize that the human species, with its creative powers, which no other living creature approximates, that these creative powers which must be cultivated in the individual must be protected and promoted. Because this is the finest thing that we know of! There's no other living process on this planet, except the human species, which is capable of seeing the future! Of creating the future, as a willful act of creation! This is the most precious thing that we know of, of all living things, is the human being which has a creative power, which no other species has! And the promotion, education and culture of that human being, is the most important moral mission in all human existence! And anyone who's going against that, like the Queen of England, and like the Saudis, is wrong! They're wrong! And they have to have their power taken away from them, before they use it some more!

BERNSTEIN: Now, this next question is somewhat of a personal question, and it's not whether you'll run for President, because I think that the celebration of your 90th birthday is unfortunately answer enough for that; but, your first Presidential campaign was 1976, and you made the primary issue of that campaign, preventing thermonuclear war at that time. You also arrived at taking that position of responsibility, off of the success of your 1971 economic forecast, of the takedown the Bretton Woods system.

Now, this led to your pivotal role in the Strategic Defense Initiative, really a program to end world war. But given your success as an economic forecaster, not in statistical trends, but your form of accurate economic forecasting — I mean, if you were to take just the current situation as it stands today, you would be looking at death to mankind, as Robert Frost said, "by fire, by ice."

But how is it, I'd like it if you would elaborate your forecasting method, and how it is, that you can hold onto the principled stand, your program, as a way out for humanity, despite everything that appears to be in front of us?

LAROUCHE: Hmm. Well, it started a long time ago. I really don't know, fully, how it started. I have an idea of how it started, but that part I can't really explain clearly. What I can identify is the result. And this became clear, as I went through military service during World War II, and what followed that. And this came into many areas, especially a fascination with Classical poetry, and a recognition, in doing some compositions of that type, a recognition of how the system works. And to understand what there is about the human mind that no animal can do. They can't do that. They can not actually engage in creating a new state of the mind.

Now, what happens, if a society is dedicated to progress, just as normal economic progress, or in improvement — the education of children, for example, is a good example of this: You take a child who's a defeated child in a sense, in terms of development, and you can sometimes promote that child to become a creative personality. And therefore we know, somewhat, from Classical music in particular, from Classical poetry, and from other things of that type which you get in physical science, you understand how creativity functions. And you also realize that no animal, that we know of, is capable of creativity in that sense.

And therefore, you say, well, what is the progress of mankind? And you look at the history of mankind's progress. The qualitative changes in technology, in understanding, in poetry, in everything which is represented by that: The normal condition of mankind, the normal healthy condition of man, is to be creative. Not to be creative to get accolades of success, but because that's the way you want to live! That's the way you want to live in your own mind, is by being creative! You don't want to bore yourself to death, hmm? Which is what I think a lot of people tend to do. They just get miserable and nasty, because they get bored, bored of being what they are.

And therefore, if we believe in creativity — and there's another aspect of this thing, which is sort of a consequence: We now think of the death of people, we think of that as closing something off, as the end of something. Well, that's wrong. When you think about humanity, you realize that people who've progressed in developing the advances, cultural advances, their death is not the end of things! It's a part of a beginning of something, a new beginning! Because their creative activity becomes, as creativity activity, becomes infectious among them, and among those who follow them! And it's that infectiousness of creativity, from generation to generation, and person to person, which defines the meaning of life over the span of entire successive centuries.

And therefore, you have a sense of immortality, not as the immortality of the embodied person, but the immortality of mankind, as expressed through the ascension of mankind's condition through successive generations. What we think of, "when I grow up, I'm going to be this..." When my children grow up, I want them to become like this, and I want their grandchildren to look even better. And the idea of a love of a society, where the idea of love, is loving creativity, loving this process of creativity.

And therefore, you look forward, to what you can do, for the future. And what gets you, what grips you, is you don't want that ever to go away! You want this continuity of the progress of mankind, mediated in part through yourself, into a better future for mankind as a whole. This is the kind of immortality which people can actually enjoy, without trying to make mystical dreams out of it: If you can get people around you to become better people than they are, in this sense, and that they in turn will make people coming after them, become better, that is what it is, the joy of living!

You're all going to die, so why aren't you so sad? Because there's a meaning to life, that you know that what's been engendered by what you've contributed to, means something for centuries to come! And you determine that those centuries to come will not be destroyed, so that that will happen!

The idea of going to Mars, why? Well, I don't particularly want to go to Mars. I don't think it's a good health benefit for me. But in any case, why should we want to go to Mars. I don't really particularly think we have think about going to Mars. I think we have to be able to plant things on Mars, like Curiosity, plant things there, which will give us benefits for mankind, within the Solar System! And that we can do! And anyone who wants to shut down space program is an idiot — or worse!

And therefore, the idea of progress, not as some getting richer, but the idea of achieving something where what you are doing, is going to mean the generations coming after you are going to benefit, and they're going to be the beneficiaries of others. And it's the idea of the fight to maintain the continuity of that kind of moral progress and intellectual progress: Because, you know, the Sun in 2 billion years will be gone. It'll be flat gone, and it will not be a pretty death, it will be an ugly spectacle, and we will want to scatter away from that Sun, at that future time, because it's not going to be there. And we're going to look at other parts of our galaxy, and see what we can do there.

But we can't do any of that now! We're going to have to encourage scientific progress, which enables mankind to achieve things that mankind could not achieve. And we say, "What? So, the Sun has blown up? Yes, we knew that, it's too bad. But we're living now, somewhere, which we chose."

And that idea of immortality that we have, embodied in us, something which is boundless in terms of what we must contribute to the future of mankind, that's what's important, and that's the only thing you can really trust.

ROSS: All right, well, this will be the final question for tonight. What you just said about having a mission that you know has an enduring value, that's one of the greatest missions, one of the greatest jobs of government, is to be able to provide the people a reliable sense of self-worth that they can reflect on and realize they're being part of that they know has an enduring value.

On space, we've seen, in terms of technologies, in terms of economic growth, space has been an incredible driver for the economy overall, figuring out how to meet the challenges of space exploration, both with people and with equipment, has driven a lot of the technological breakthroughs that we take for granted today, the so-called spinoff effect in medicine and other fields.

Now, while this is undeniable, obviously, as you referred to, we're seeing Obama, everything's being shut down, NASA's being taken down. If you think about the need to be able to defend the Earth against, in the long term the end of the Sun, in the shorter term, the threat of asteroids, I was last month at a conference in Ukraine on this, an international conference on the defense of the Earth, using space technology, against asteroids, on the prediction of earthquakes, etc. And what you're saying about developing an infrastructure on Mars and elsewhere, where there's a real need for us to develop an inner-Solar System infrastructure, where we're able to have, speed-of-light, near-instantaneous communication in this system, as opposed to now having to send things off, and wait.

So, what I'd like to ask you about, if you look at what you did with the Strategic Defense Initiative, saying the basis of defense is this new kind of progress, that's specifically opposed to the anti-ballistic missile agreements, you said, "We need new technologies. We need new scientific principles: That's how we assure survival." So, today, we also need things like fusion energy if we're to develop the real power to be able to deflect these asteroids.

So, I'd like, if you have more to say on planetary defense as a mission, and what it could mean internationally, for a real prospect for cooperation?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, it's something we've got to do, because we know it has to be done, not necessarily because we personally have to do it, but to the extent we can, we have to put our little personal bit into the process that's leading in that direction, and hopefully be sure that you're doing the right thing and going in the right direction.

You know, it's occupied more and more of my life, so far, this accumulation. And a lot of it's not just brilliant breakthroughs or something of that sort that happened when I was younger, but it's the fact that you have an impetus to do that. And you know that there are people out there, younger people, who are sort of scratching at the edge of the doors, or the glass windows, trying to get in. And you realize the most important thing to do, is to promote the adoption, in them, of the kinds of policies and commitments which I can foresee will be — for example, the problem: how can we defend, you have all these satellites out there, a great mass, they're uncounted! We don't even know where they are. We've got these comets, we don't know how to control them, yet! We don't even have the track of them, with our systems.

Well, the obvious thing is, here we are, we're a species, we're caught between a Sun which is going to blow up on us, some time within probably about a billion years or less; the weather's going to get very terrible. We're in a planetary system, within that system; we are becoming more and more aware of the galaxy, we're finding that, as we go to higher orders of power, beyond just ordinary thermonuclear power, and getting into that area, you realize that we're in a direction which, if continued, will lead to even solving those kinds of ultimate problems.

And therefore, you think about, would you want to have a universe without mankind in it? And what I see in the conditions of life, even in neighborhoods and communities today, and the collapse of society, U.S. society, under bad Presidents! A succession of bad Presidents, or foolish Presidents, or weak Presidents, or unable or incapable Presidents — you say, the protection of the future of mankind, for this purpose, for this mission, is something in which every human being, should be sufficiently educated, to desire to participate, as the mission of their life, in some sense or other.

I think that's the only true morality. Because morality has to be practical. It can not be something admiring your own navel. It has to be something which is practical for mankind. It has to be something which is consistent with the purpose of the continued life of mankind. And there's a lot of things we know about that now. Very few people do, because the educational system stinks. It doesn't stink because it was bad, it stinks because it was broken down. And the more you see damage, the more you see damaged minds of young people running loose on the streets, and things like that, the more you know and the harder you have to fight, to ensure that creativity, the progress of creativity does not get snuffed out.

OGDEN: Thank you very much.

So, that brings a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I'd like to thank Mr. LaRouche for joining us. I'd also like to thank Jason Ross and Leandra Bernstein for what you have contributed to the broadcast.

We will be continuing our coverage of the fight that we're leading. We do ask you to contribute to our fight; that's something that you can do immediately. And like I said in the beginning of the broadcast, this will be a consistent program that we will be airing on Fridays between now and the Nov. 6th Presidential elections.

So thank you for joining us tonight, and please tune in next time we convene. That brings a conclusion to our broadcast: Good night.