Oct. 12 Webcast Transcript
October 13th, 2012 • 8:48am •


"To Save the Nation" is the second concluded webcast of a series structured to occur on Friday each week, by Lyndon LaRouche.

Here is the preliminary transcript of the second of Lyndon LaRouche's Friday webcasts, leading up to the Presidential election on Nov. 6. The webcast was moderated by Matthew Ogden, with questions fielded by Leandra Bernstein and Jason Ross.

For a video archive of the proceedings, click here.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, I'm Matthew Ogden. I'm an editor with LaRouche PAC.com. It's October 12 and I'd like to welcome you to a second in an ongoing series of live webcast broadcasts here on larouchepac.com, featuring Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

Let me just say that this series of webcasts began last Friday, in the immediate wake of the first of the presidential debates that occurred on Wednesday of that week, in which we saw Obama, absent the adoring fans, absent the cheering crowds, exposed for precisely what he is, and what he has been: an Emperor Nero, a failed personality.

Now, since then, President Obama has become increasingly isolated. You saw this week the hearings that were convened in the United States House of Representatives, around Benghazi-gate, which revealed just how many lies, cover-ups, and frauds have come out of the Obama Administration, on what really happened on Sept. 11 of this year. And similar investigations are now being pursued surrounding the illegal contributions solicited by the Obama campaign, and possibly even on the falsification of the employment statistics that were used in the latest jobs report.

Now, overall, the sum accumulation of everything that's occurred over the last week and a half, is that the pretense of an inevitable Obama victory has now evaporated completely. However, as the events occurring on the Syria-Turkey border should make very, very clear, including now bringing Russia into this, the threat of the outbreak of a global war, possibly even before the elections, looms as a very real possibility. And even Rand Paul made statements to this effect on CNN the day before yesterday.

Now, the threat of what could occur in the coming days, in the coming hours, even as we speak here tonight, underscores the importance and the critical nature of what we will say here tonight, and for that reason, LaRouche's leadership remains indispensable. And so, we convene this second in a continuing series of webcasts.

Before we proceed, just a note on the format. We will begin with opening remarks by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. And then following, we will hold, as we did last week, a discussion period involving members of the audience gathered in the studio here. And so, without further introduction, I'm proud to present to you, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: So, thank you. We shall follow essentially the pattern we established last week. It will be essentially the same subject, but it will be more amplified, and have some new things interspersed.

The first thing we have to be concerned about is, always on this issue, to understand what we mean by a policy for the United States, for the government of the United States. And there are three elements which can now be established, as the absolute requisites for a reconstruction of a badly damaged, Constitutionally and otherwise, as well as economically, United States.

We are a piece of wreckage. Essentially it began with the assassination of President Kennedy, and from that point on, the United States has, in fact, been in a continuous process of physical economic decline. There has never been a new gain in the U.S. economy since that time. There's been a lot of talk to pretend that it's better to have sandwiches than it is to have full meals, or something like that, but there has never been any recovery of the rate of growth which the Kennedy administration had represented up until the time of his assassination.

And Kennedy was actually a revival of what President Roosevelt had done, and we had a President Eisenhower who saved us from the worst of what had been done earlier, by Truman, but he didn't go all the way, and he couldn't go all the way. He needed a new start. And he got it, he got it with Kennedy, who was actually steered by Eleanor Roosevelt, whose function was to demonstrate to President Kennedy how one worked to carry forward the program that President Roosevelt had set into motion before the war had broken out.

So, we're at that point now. And we need to get back to it. But, in the meantime, as you know, we went into a long war in Indochina. We have never recovered from approximately 10 years of war in Indochina. We never returned. Most of our people who went into that war didn't return either; if they returned alive, they didn't return in good mind, or with a good prospect.

We've gone through a set of social decay, intellectual decay, which has dominated the history of this nation ever since that time. You've had ups and downs, but these ups and downs have been marginal. We've lost what we were, under Franklin Roosevelt, and what we had regained with the efforts of Eisenhower to defend what the Roosevelt administration had done, and what had happened under Kennedy. We have never recovered. We are declined.

For example, today: You really don't have jobs. Don't let anyone kid you. We're shy of 27 million jobs. Don't let the figures of Obama fool you. And we're going down. And the policy of both candidacies is to cut further. Obama to make deeper cuts, in a population where 27 million jobs are missing. And on the Republican side, the austerity package which is proposed may not be as insane as that of Obama, but there's no hope for mankind under that program either.

There must be an immediate return to real jobs, which means productive jobs, not make-work jobs, but productive jobs. Which means career employment, where you took a family, and you take the wage-earning member, the income-earning member of the family, and you begin to build up greater skills in the people who are employed in those families. Which is the way we did it every time of recovery we've had since the beginning of our nation.

So that has all been lost. It's all been wiped out. And there's no intention in the system, now—there are no real jobs. The real jobs were shipped overseas, to China and Japan and elsewhere! And people can't find work because there isn't work. It's not provided. There is no employment in meaningful work. There's no meaningful employment in productive work. There's make-work, and that's getting too expensive, because the debts are piling up, and the rate of hyperinflation—and it is hyperinflation—on both sides of the Atlantic, is killing everything.

Right now, as it stands, you pray for your life against Obama; you pray for your economy against the Republican party. That's our problem.

Now, Obama cannot be salvaged. No one has a good excuse for voting for Obama. This guy is a menace. You get nothing good out of him; you get very much evil out of him. So, don't count on him.

Now, the problem is, we've got people out there who are Democrats and Republicans, and, as I emphasized last week, the point here is, we don't believe in party government. We've got to get rid of party government. We need—we've got this Republican element, whose value is it's not Obama. And probably you've seen that in the two shows you've seen so far in publication. But there is no real understanding yet of what is required for a genuine recovery, or how we're going to deal with the global problems before us.

So, what you've got is you've got a sane bunch of people, who are not always right—sometimes they're a little bit wrong—but we have some good Democrats, but as long as Obama's in there, they're not going to do any good at all. We've seen that. I mean, Clinton has tried to help, shall we say, Obama, but he has not only failed to help Obama—because Obama wouldn't let him help him—but Bill has been made weaker and poorer, and less loved, and less respected, as a result of being contaminated by the touching of that Obama.

So we've in a situation where we have to have a change in the direction of government, directly, recognizing that there's been a long trend, especially since the time of the assassination of John Kennedy—there's been a long trend in the United States which is net downward. And the conditions of life? Look at our children. Look at this generation of children. Aren't you afraid of them?

Look at the people who used to have jobs. They don't have the skills anymore. They're not productive. We've got a small fraction of the population which has the kind of skills that we had back during the World War II period.

We had, for example, in the whole region—like, take Detroit, for example—but the whole region around there, and on California, particularly southern California—we had a productive capability which astonished and shocked the world. Our war machine, which we converted at the end of the war, into a civilian machine, was the most powerful machine of production on this planet. And there's almost none of that left alive today. You are living in a destroyed economy.

Now, Obama is evil. That's clear. I know this, he's evil. But on the other hand, the rest of us seem to be not too intelligent. And some of the Republcan ideas I hear coming around are terrible. You cannot have austerity! You can actually not have austerity which does not... you need an increase and recovery of the productive powers of labor of the United States, as you do in Europe, which is in a breakdown crisis; as you do in Africa, which is in a starve-to-death crisis, and disease crisis; in South America and elsewhere.

This planet lacks growth. It's collapsed too far. We're on the verge of destruction, and frankly, this is partly intentional. Partly it's bad policy, or partly it's evil policy. But partly it's intentional.

For example, let's take the British Empire. And it is a British Empire. There are two British empires in fact, but they're all one. It's united by BAE, an organization called BAE. BAE was the organization that created, guess what? 9/11 One. BAE is the organization which created what's also in process against the United States, 9/11 Two. And that's your enemy.

And we have a President who covers up for BAE! And covers up for the fact we're having a 9/11 Two in the United States right now, and it's under the direction of Obama, under the direction of the British monarchy. Because, from the beginning, 9/11—which was organized at the time the younger George Bush first came into the Presidency, even before then; that was the intention. And 9/11 was an attack on the United States by joint forces of the Saudi Kingdom and the U.S. government.

That's how it was done. With the British — but with the British. It was the young Bush who acted as the cover for 9/11 and the Bush family — the cover for 9/11. Remember the day that 9/11 had happened, they took the whole family of Osama bin Laden, which was visiting with the Bush family in Texas, and they shipped it as the first shipload of people to fly out of the United States. Remember, after 9/11 everything was shut down; not a thing was allowed to move out of the United States or otherwise. But somebody did move to safety; the family of the authors of 9/11, and they were flown out in the family plane given to them, the only plane that left the United States at that time.

Now, since that time, we've had people who investigated from the Senate level and so forth, investigated this process. And they have evidence, they collected evidence which is continued to today, but they're not allowed to say a word about it — their evidence. Their evidence is sealed. It was sealed by the Bush Administration, the young Bush Administration, and it was sealed by Obama! The reason you can't find the truth about things is because Obama is being run by the British. And it was the British BAE, together with the Saudis, which ran 9/11. And the thing that's running the same operation today, And much of the terrorist operation in the Middle East is the same crew, BAE — and it's also the Saudi Kingdom and the British Monarchy. These are the two forces that are responsible for this crime against America. And there are people who have the evidence, which they're not allowed to reveal, which will identify exactly that information.

In the meantime, through my good fortune and knowledge, I know a lot of the facts about 9/11, which go to the point of indicating not the complete story, but an adequate story that the Saudi ambassador to the United States was a key part in 9/11, at the time that he was serving as ambassador to the United States. He was a key figure in organizing 9/11, and he's now the chief muckety-muck in Saudi Arabia running the crimes being run from there. And we have the evidence is there, and this President, Obama, is the one who put the lid on it again. Obama promised, when he was becoming elected, he promised to unfold the evidence on 9/11, and then he reneged and he's refusing to the present day to tell the truth. That 9/11 was run by the British monarchy and by the Saudi monarchy; they're the ones that ran the thing. And the proof, at least sufficient proof, is already on the record and that record is being suppressed. And Obama is the second one who did that. Obama is the one who put the lid on the cover-up on 9/11. And there's another 9/11 going on, which is going on which is throughout the world, and it's now being directed in part by Obama, right now.

So, if you are for Obama, you are implicitly guilty of supporting treason against the United States. That's not a good classification for a Presidential candidate. So this we can not tolerate. We can not tolerate an institution of a certain class, a certain class of people, transatlantic, who conspire as between Britain and Saudi Arabia, and conduct this kind of conspiracy against the United States as well as against other nations. Who do you think is causing the terror in the Middle East today? Saudi Arabia with British backing. What do you think all the bloodshed — what do you think is wrong with Turkey? Turkey had a government who is close to the Saudi thinking, not the other fraction of the Turkish population.

The whole issue is that, and we're on the edge of thermonuclear war. And the British are pushing it; and President Obama is pushing it. What has protected us is that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and people like that in the United States and people like that in Europe, including Russia, including China. We're having Hell on Earth. Our people are in danger of being largely destroyed. What does that mean by destruction? Look, you're at the edge of thermonuclear war, global thermonuclear war right now. And we're on the edge of it, and everybody in the intelligence community and the military side knows it. That's what the discussion is — what do you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff are talking about? They're talking about preventing the launching of thermonuclear war.

Now just to review, what's thermonuclear war mean now? The development of thermonuclear technology as a weapons technology came in during the 1960s. It was already knowledgeable information practice then. We went into a period where we thought we were on the edge of a thermonuclear war with Khrushchov, and Khrushchov ran one experimental threat demonstration, and he set the thing off to demonstrate it, after he had been set back on his other plans. And what they did was they, to demonstrate this, Khrushchov set off the bomb, the super bomb. He set it off to demonstrate what the power of the Soviet Union was, and what he did was, he set off an explosion which was essentially a super-nuclear explosion, but in its effects there was some thermonuclear fusion going on inside this explosion. And this black cloud of debris from a thermonuclear explosion on a test area became the basis for defining what a thermonuclear war would be known to be.

A thermonuclear war today, which is what we face under the influence of Obama — without Obama and the British, there is no danger of thermonuclear war. If you want to get rid of the threat of thermonuclear war against the United States and other nations, remove the Queen of England and the Saudi Kingdom from the ranks of power. And you have to pull out Obama in the process, because he's their stooge. That's what we're dealing with.

Now if this thing happens, as anyone in the military department who knows anything about this kind of business today knows, a thermonuclear war would mean that the Ohio class submarines — for one big part of it — are deployed to launch a battery of explosions, attacks from the submarines themselves. This is the greatest potential kill power available on the planet today for warfare kill power. And that is exactly what things are going to lead to.

Now the United States is the most powerful weapons system in the world right now, but Russia is also a powerful weapons system. China is also a powerful weapons system. India is not lacking in some of those skills, and so forth. So therefore, what happens then, if this thing comes to a show, people in Russia will know the minute the Ohio submarine missiles are sent, people in China will know, people in Japan will know, and so forth and so on. So what you will have then, is if somebody launches, is detected in launching a thermonuclear attack, all parties at that point have to launch their charges, too. The result that will take place probably will be completed in an hour and a half of lapsed time. It'll be the first launch and then follow-up launches. So, in about an hour and a half, the hard fighting part will be over, and there will be black clouds and the like hovering around the planet, sweeping around the planet. And those people who are fortunate or unfortunate enough to have survived that first blow, won't make it too long after that, because the destruction of the ability of the economy alone, the ability to grow crops and these kinds of things under those kinds of conditions are such, that you're looking at an extinction experience, or a seemingly or nearly extinction experience for the human species.

And that's what the Obama Administration's complicity in the British/Saudi operation amounts to. Without the United States weaponry under the control of Obama, you could not have a thermonuclear war. Because nobody who has the power to use such weapons would be able to without the coherence of the United States government itself. Therefore, it is absolutely indispensable, for the sake of the planet as well as the nation of United States and other nations, that Obama be removed from power.

That's the issue. Some people will deny it, but they're either stupid or liars, or just plain ignorant. That's the danger. That's what Dempsey and company have been warning you against in their own way. That's the great threat that faces the United States.

Now, if you eliminate the Obama factor, and if Obama is thrown out of office, it is doubtful that that war will occur. But we're on the edge of it, because if it gets to the point that you involved Russia in a war with any of the fringe countries, any of the leading fringe countries in the Near East and the Mediterranean region, you're going to set off thermonuclear war. And what's happening in Turkey is right now — the threats from Turkey is the greatest immediate threat to the entire human race. Not because it's responsible for the whole human race, but because its role could set off precisely that effect. And that's where we are.

So, we're at a point where you have a Republican candidacy, and I don't think it's so very good. As a matter of fact, it's not good. So, if you want to say it's not very good, that's all right; you're probably telling the truth. It's not necessarily bad because it intends to be bad, it's bad because it gets bad ideas, or ideas that are very foolish. Like austerity measures. When you have 27 million Americans of the labor force who fit the category "labor force," and they're unemployed and with hopeless chances, and you say you're going to cut? You're going to cut? You have to be some kind of a pompous idiot.

So therefore, the question is, we've got to have that, and what I stressed last week. You can not go with a partisan approach. A partisan approach won't work. You can not have a recovery of the U.S. economy under a partisan system. You just can't do it, because of conflicting interests. And what we've had, we have a system of government which is becoming increasingly destructive. You can take it in modern times since Franklin Roosevelt, since Franklin Roosevelt left office and Truman came in, we began this cut process, we began destroying things; destroying our productive powers of labor. Do any of you know how much of the protective potential which had been listed under war matériel had been destroyed under the Truman Administration? Do you realize what the productive power of this United States was, if that cut process had not occurred? If we continued with the process of converting our productive potential from war potential into other kinds of potential, useful potential? We didn't.

Truman was a real problem. He was the enemy of the Roosevelt concept; he was a Wall Street guy, a Wall Street man. And he had Wall Street ideas, and Wall Street ideas were never good for the United States. Wall Street is essentially a British puppet, it always has been from the beginning. You had traitors and similar kinds of skunks from Wall Street, and from Boston Back Bay, and things like that, some of the Boston crowd are equally bad. But we had this kind of destruction of the potentiality of our economy.

What happened was, through the onset of what led toward a new depression in the late part of the 1960s, that in the late part of that, why, we were on the verge of, again, of a slide into a depression, after the interim of the highly productive role under Kennedy, and the salutory efforts under Eisenhower.

So that what we've done, is we've gone in this direction, so we now come to the point that our political system is based on a system that doesn't work, not for the nation.

So today what we need is, we've got to throw Obama out of office, because he's a disease, effectively, a disease, not a candidate. But the Republican Party is admittedly not a very good show for getting this problem solved. So we have to make some changes.

The crux of the thing, as I indicated last week, is, the first thing you have to do, is you have to get rid of the party system. Eliminate the party system, because, when you reduce politics to the kind of competition, like sports competition, like arena competition, you know, that sort of thing, people don't think any more. They don't really think. Most of our citizens, when it comes to politics, they don't think. They think in party terms.

They think, "is my party going to win? I'm on this side." Or, "I'm—he's on that side. And we're going to see which party wins." What about the policy? "No, the policy will come second. First the party has to win." And that's what's going on with many people now. "Our party must win, and after we win, then we will decide to do some good things." That's typical U.S. Presidential, etc. campaign policy: "When we have won, all good things will be bestowed upon you." "There'll be a mystery, and all the good things that you would like would be bestowed upon you by a generous new administration. And in four years, you would be in Paradise!" That's what they go through.

The party system breeds idiots. It's not wrong to have parties, political parties, but they should be clubs, not political organizations. They should be discussion clubs. But they should not have a mission which they control as a party.

When we elect a President, and we elect other Federal officials, they are installed. The competition among them for policy, is right. But when you bring in a bunch of people, and you're trying to bribe them, with saying that you're promising this, and you're promising them that, and you're going to give them the sense of victory: "Your party is going to win! Think how good you'll feel when your party wins!"

And they get like people in a giant auditorium. And you have two auditoriums—one on one side, one on the other, Republican and Democrat. And they're out there to beat the other party, the other team, the other political team, the other political this or that.

And these guys out there, read the press. What does the press say about the campaign? What does it say about the motives and goals of the candidacies? They're fools. They're not concerned with whether their ideas are competent or not, they just want their party to win. Just like rooting for their baseball team, or their football team, or whatever—their jockstrap team, or whatever.

And that's the way our voters think. They think like stupid people, because they believe you've got to win the game. You've got to win the sports event, and they treat the whole electoral process as a sports event.

And then, what they do after they get elected, whoever does get elected, then they compromise. They now work with the two parties, or the three parties, or whatever number they are, and they compromise among themselves. It's called, "Go along to get along." And it's a compromise all the way. What is done for the citizen? Nothing. Or virtually nothing. Some people get a piece of pie, somebody gets nothing.

And winning the ability to control who passes out the goodies to whose buddy's party, is the whole game. You go to the losing party, and now, "You've lost, haven't you? Your party lost, right? Now you want something, right? OKay If you'll do this for us, so we can help control our Republican people who are in power right now, and you do the right thing by us, and make a nice compromise, we'll give you a cherry."

And that's the way it's done.

And so, therefore, you've got a system of politics, a system of government, which at its root, in terms of the whole administration of justice and everything else, is corrupt, because it's a bunch of jockstraps running loose with people inside them, is what it amounts to. And that's where we are.

If we're going to survive now, we have to install—which we have, as a government, the means, the Constitution and the power to do—and that is, to go back to the original Constitution, to go back to the memory of people like John Quincy Adams, who were great creators. Remember people like Franklin Roosevelt, like John F. Kennedy, and other people who are very useful, or even heroes, like Lincoln, in our history.

They didn't do this compromise business. They would compromise only after the war had been won. After the war is won, then you can compromise. And try to reunite the nation, or try to reunite nations, which have been at odds with each other, and bring them together. And say, "We get the war over with. No more war! No more anteroom to war." And that's what we require.

So therefore, we have to think about how we, a few geniuses and other people, like us, are going to help fix it. Not because we're looking for some cherry, or some great apple, or this or that, but because, it's our nature. It's our nature, of concern for our nation and for humanity, which is not blocking our view.

And therefore, we're going to have to find ways, within the terms of our Constitution, in particular, to get some real economic growth started and functioning, now.

And what we want, is to have the Democrats who will dump Obama, join the Republicans, who will dump some of the nonsense on that side, and say, this is a constituency. But we're not going to run politics on a party system. We may have parties who support a Presidential candidate, support the selection of a Vice President, select key political figures, in order to compose a government of our choice. To look at the composition and selection of members of the Congress, in the same way. And bring people together, based on specific commitments to workable ideas, and to work, foremost, for certain changes which are needed.

But no longer, take the government, and nation of the United States, and use it as a gambling system, a gambling hall, which is what's being done right now. Our system of government is a gambling-hall system. It is not based on principle, real principles. It's not based on scientific principles. It's not based on things you can count on, that will actually work. It's not based on achieving goals, which are absolutely necessary. It's a show. It's a sideshow. It's a Barnum circus. And that's what we have to get at now.

I think we can do that. It certainly is possible. It's possible to get enough people together, to realize where this election campaign is going, at this late stage for the selection of the Presidency. I think that the fear of thermonuclear war, which should be there, it should be the great fear, because, you know, tomorrow morning, we could be in thermonuclear war, more or less, globally. And a day or two after that, you would be in Hell, of one kind or another. So it's not too late to change. It's not too late to get out of this mess, and to come to your senses.

Just think about it, as you go out of here tonight. Think about how people behave, in the light of what I have just been talking about. How many of them are really moral, in their intentions? How many are gambling? How many look at politics like gambling? "That if we bet this way, and bet this way, and bet this way, we can win something? Win something big. We're out for the big potato."

How many of them trouble to understand, what makes a national economy function? What I observe, almost none. What I see in the public speeches, and I see in the press, virtually nothing. There is nothing of competence which will indicate any recovery of this nation, from the troubles that beset it now. I see nothing that justifies keeping Obama, particularly, anywhere near an office. I think, that two people voting for him, even if they are members of his own family, would be too much. So therefore, what we've got to concentrate on is, on that.

All right, so, we're facing a nuclear Winter, which comes from a thermonuclear war, of the type, on which we're on the edge! And no competent military figures or centers, would debate, in themselves, what I've just told you. We're on the edge of thermonuclear war, by a number of nations in concert, each feeling they can not get out of the war, because somebody else is starting it. And that's the end of mankind, as we've known it.

And it can all happen now, because you, or somebody like you, out there, thought Obama was a good choice for President. And you failed to realize that you're still living under the influence of an empire, which is today, composed of the British Monarchy. Forget the British people—that's another thing. It's the British Monarchy itself, which controls a great number of countries.

For example, every nation of black Africa is controlled by the British Empire, every one. There's not a single nation in Africa, which is not a branch of the British Empire, a subject of the British Empire. And that is true—the Saudis do the same thing. Why do you think you get all these wars in this region? Of West Asia? Why do you get this? Because that's the ones that run it, the British Empire.

You take, for example, political parties in Europe. All major nations in Western and Central Europe, again, are controlled by the British Empire. We're controlled by the British Empire. What do you think Wall Street is? Wall Street is entirely a British institution. And the Saudis, with the BAE, particularly, if you understand what the BAE is, and that the BAE is actually the author of 9/11, because it's a part of the Saudi operations, which ran 9/11, and are running it now.

These are the kinds of things we have to understand, and we have to deal with.

So I say, get rid of Obama. Just throw him out of office. There's no way he's going to be useful to humanity. Now, you've got a Republican administration, but we don't have to look at it that way. We're looking for an election of individuals, who may be members of parties. But that party thing should be put behind the doors, someplace else.

And the question is, what can we do, to restore the United States, to restore our economy, to get a big chunk of the 27 million people, who are desperately unemployed, and promise them, and give them, jobs, and other kinds of conditions, of education and so forth, which will enable them to come to the objectives of our nation? Forget the objectives of the parties. Take the objectives of the nation. Take the objectives of other nations. Take the importance of work with other nations.

We have entered now into a world of thermonuclear warfare, thermonuclear capabilities. That's never going to disappear. Because thermonuclear technology is not danger. You need thermonuclear technology, for reasons I can indicate to you today, and I shall, briefly, we must deal with the threats from satellites floating in space. These satellites have the potential of causing the extinction of the human species. That doesn't mean we expect them to happen immediately, but we know that these rocks out there, are swarming out there, in unknown numbers, between Mars orbit and Earth orbit. And they hit the United States sometimes, in small drips, a shock here and there, a small piece survives through the atmosphere, and hits the Earth actually. Once in a while you get something bigger, and you could get a rock, say, that could knock out the whole San Francisco Bay area in one stroke, or the New York City area, in one stroke. Or you get bigger ones, more calamitous; and then you can a really big one, which has happened on this planet, Earth, where a big rock, a big satellite has hit the Earth and there's a general extinction of life as we know it on the planet.

So therefore, we can not ignore these things, and we have to deal with them. That's one of the things. So we have to develop the power to deal with these challenges, which are needed to create the conditions of life for our human species.

We've got to look beyond that, but I think that's enough to emphasize at this point. You have two options, and thermonuclear technology defines it. On the one hand the equivalent of thermonuclear technology, is the way on which we on Earth, can reach to places like Mars, and maintain development in nearby space. Not only that development, it's only by the aid of such resources that we can actually defend Earth against what would otherwise be inevitable, which would be satellites hitting, asteroids hitting Earth itself and causing more or less extinction among human being.

So therefore, we have missions with high technology, in terms of power for mankind to do things that mankind can not do yet, the power to defend mankind against dangers which exist out there between such places as Mars orbit and the Venus orbit, actually, or some great comet that comes in and we don't know we can stop it in as near a time as a year. And if one of those comets hits Earth, the calculations have been and continue to be, means it would be the extinction of life on Earth, or human life on Earth.

So therefore, we have real missions which involve the highest degree of technology. Also, contrary to the environmentalist movement, which is a movement toward death organized by the British, largely, it won't work, except to kill people. Because the evolution of processes in our part of space, is such that we have to constantly change the conditions of life, of men, because the Solar System is changing. We can not rely on a fixed kind of organization of a Solar System. It's going to change. It is changing, it will change, and therefore, we have to develop the more advanced technologies which meet human needs, and meet the needs to counter these changes.

And therefore, we do need thermonuclear technology, but we know we can not thermonuclear technology, ever again, for the threat of war. Nor can we tolerate, systems of government which allow this to happen, systems of government which are based on party systems. Party systems can not be the basis for government. We've seen all the wars, in recent period, all the wars in known periods of history, have been wars which are strewn around by party loyalties, or partisanism.

And when you think about, just look at the newspapers or hear the debates on television or whatever, and realize that you're hearing the voice of an idiot, in practically every political party debate you hear. They're not thinking about reality. They're thinking about baseball, they're thinking about basketball. They're thinking about other kinds of false realities, and they're voting for their team. And what they want, is their party's team to win! And they don't give damn what else happens!

And then you have people around them, who are suckers, for this game, and the people around them, will — well, say, go along with it. They receive it as entertainment. What they're receiving is, they're becoming jerks.


OGDEN: Thank you. Now, if you're just tuning in, you're watching a live broadcast from www.larouchepac.com, featuring Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche just concluded his opening remarks, and we will now be moving into the discussion period. So, let me just ask the first questioner to approach the podium.

LEANDRA BERNSTEIN: Thank you for that introduction, Matthew. I'm Leandra Bernstein, also editor at larouchepac.com. And on the issue of partisanship and the electoral process as a mere spectator sporting event, I think it's not just rah-rah of "my team winning" but people can always recall a couple of years ago, when the Giants won the World Series and what happened in the aftermath of that — namely, a whole lot of rioting.

But, anyway! On the subject of the election, we have a remark that came in from Professor of Constitutional Law Francis Boyle, and he made the remark after seeing the outcome of the first Presidential debate, saying that if the people controlling Obama believe that the only way he can win the election is to bomb someone, well, they have several targets to choose from, be it Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, etc. He points out that the USS Stennis has now arrived in the Persian Gulf, which is a third aircraft-carrier strike force. And very soon, the United States and Israel will begin massive military maneuvers, that could easily go "hot." And he says, this is potentially why they've scheduled for now, for this time period.

So, essentially, after the debate with Romney, it could very well be the case that Obama and his backers believe the only way to win the election is for such a strike to occur. And as you've pointed out, and as many others have pointed out, including the Republican Party, the potentiality for an outbreak on the border of Syria and Turkey is immense, as the shellings continue, as the questions go unanswered as to where the weaponry is coming from?

So I'd like you to address, what exactly the potentiality of this kind of electoral stunt, what the potentiality of that is?

LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm! Well, if Obama is clearly seen as being defeated, between now and the relevant date of next month, then I think the risk is less. Because obviously the Republican Party does have representation which is influential in the whole system, and you have people in the nominally Democratic part of the system who want nothing of this sort of thing. And so, you have essentially, you've got to look at a bipartisan situation, and look at who is top dog in the bipartisan arrangement, and that's where this kind of thing generally tends to tilt.

And remember, that Obama is not a brained individual. He is a British puppet. And as I have said repeatedly since 2009, that my study of this guy is that he is a carbon copy, of the Emperor Nero, and anyone who has really understood the history of the Emperor Nero in the case of the Roman context, will recognize exactly the points that I looked at, which caused me to draw the conclusion that he was a personality of that type.

Obviously, Obama was selected. Obama did not earn any Presidential position on his own initiative. That never happened. He earned the position by being selected to do it, and he was selected as a puppet, a trained, controllable puppet!

Now, you look around you, and say, where could somebody come up and want to create a puppet of a new modern Nero, a stupid jerk, a babbling one? Why should they want to do that? Well, the British Empire could. How does that come out?

Well, first of all, if you are observant, you know that the British Queen controls Obama, totally! She created him, she controls him, she has her man, Tony Blair, sitting in Chicago making sure that the Obama machine is in conformity, and they control money. They also have British money, which comes from some places in Britain, where it's basically drug money.

Without international drug money, you could not have an Obama! How do you think Obama got a vote to get the nomination to begin with? The flood of drug money! What do you think this thing about the border crossing on the drug dealers, and it's not just Arizona, it's Texas, or Tex-ass! — it's also California, as well as Arizona. How much do think the drug lobby is, inside the United States?

What about Wall Street? Wall Street has not actually paid back anybody for a long, long time! Wall Street has gambled by increasing the amount of money without buying anything! That's a fact! Why do you think the British are in a state of hyperinflation? They're about to blow up because of hyperinflation. All of Europe, Western and Central Europe, is in a state of hyperinflation. We're at the point where the crash could come, and it's a terminal crash, at any time.

We have throughout the system, the same thing: The United States is in a hyperinflationary situation. If we don't put through Glass-Steagall immediately, there's no chance of the continued survival of the United States, as an entity. Because the rate of hyperinflation which is shared between a Europe-dominated situation and a U.S. situation, the hyperinflation is so high, there's possibility for a recovery — unless you bankrupt much of the hyperinflationary inflation. In other words, you've got to close this thing down! You've got to have Glass-Steagall, right now.

And one of Bill Clinton's errors, was he was the one who participated in supporting the cancelation of Glass-Steagall, which was the dumbest thing he ever did! Maybe it was done because he was being blackmailed at that time. But, the destruction of Glass-Steagall has been the basis for the ruin of the United States.

And that was done before Bush #2 was put in! But without that Bush #2 could not have gained it, because Wall Street paid out big money, to make sure that the Bush Administration — I mean the dumbest man in the Bush family, or probably in the whole state of Texas, hmm? And they elect him President? He can't even find his way, he can't even read a children's book! And when they pulled the operation, when 9/11 was pulled off, and they all know what's going on, the Bush family and so forth, know this, clearly, they ship him around the country, not to protect his butt, but to divert him to keep him out of the way! The dumbest man who ever walked into the White House. Of course, he had taken the drugs to accomplish that status.

So, the situation is that: That if you have a political process which is free the of the party system corruption, and they're looking at reality, this couldn't happen. Because, think what would happen. You have Dempsey, General Dempsey and his crew, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and they reflect not only the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they reflect the most talented, most thinking, shall we say, of the U.S. military command. Do you think, that if their voice was heard, by the Senators and the members of Congress, as foremost, do you think they would take the risk they're taking now, when he is trying to prevent them from doing that?

We're not paying attention to our competent, own representatives! We're listening to Wall Street, we're listening to London! We have people who are our worst enemies in key positions, in effect, in government.

So the issue here is, you've got to throw Obama out of office. Throw him out! And there are various ways to do that — throw him out; now, the problem you've got left over is the Republican and Democratic Party are still based on football games or baseball games, or things like that. They're still based on this kind of rivalry. They don't care about the reality! They have a sports inclination!

And you want to look at the Roman Empire? Including that of Obama, otherwise known as the Emperor Nero? And what did they do? They had giant games! And the parties voted on the basis of the games, in the Coliseum! And these mad kills, and political games that were played in the Roman imperial system, were based on games! Not on reality! By gambling, not reality; by all kinds of entertainment, not reality.

And we have an approximation of that coming through the British, and the British influence in Europe — what do you have? You have this crazy oligarchical system, this monarchical system, the feudal system: And you see how they meet, it's like a clown show! Then the number one is the British, the British Royal Family is now the top dog. All the other, medium size and little oligarchies of the royal type, the Duke This and Duke That and Whatnot, they're all that! And they play the game! They make a class difference between the people in general, and their little oligarchical system.

So it's the same thing. In the United States, you have a Wall Street system, and Wall Street is the enemy of the United States from the inside, the chief enemy. So therefore, they play games, market games! What's Wall Street? What's Bernanke doing? Bernanke is playing games, he's not doing anything for the economy! The guy's a complete faker, he should have been thrown out of office a long time ago!

The best thing we can do right now, is enact Glass-Steagall, immediately, because if you enact Glass-Steagall, we're out of the mess. We now have our own country back again.

Destroy the games! Look at the history of gambling, in the United States in the postwar period. Look at it since the time of the Kennedy assassination: Gambling has increased, more and more of the country has engaged in gambling, but it has an effect on their minds! If you believe in luck on gambling, you're not sane. You have a factor of insanity in your mental life. And that's our problem.

JASON ROSS: Well, I think you largely touched on what I wanted to ask you. I'm going to ask you this anyway. I also thought it was very important, the distinction between Obama's personality and the policies. Because somebody watching these debates, or looking at what the Republican Party's extolling in these discussions, would see that there's not actually a lot of difference on many of these policies: On the economy, on Syria, it's not as though the Republican ticket is saying, "let's calm things down, here." If anything, it actually seems subtly the reverse. That's where the importance of whole Nero, the personality, what's driving it.

I wanted to ask you about the financing of Obama's election: According to the Federal Election Commission, Obama's reelection campaign raised $180 million in September, far more than Romney's campaign. Of that money, 98% came in amounts below $200, which means that it would require about 1 to 1.5 million people must have all, during that month, contributed to the Obama campaign. Seems hard to believe, given his slipping in the polls among such voters.

The importance of this, is that such contributions, under $200 aren't reported. Unless the FEC audits the campaign, there's no reporting of this, and the FEC won't audit the campaign, because Obama's not getting matching funds.

Now, the Government Accountability Institute, a nonpartisan group, just published a report showing that Obama's campaign has failed to have even the most basic safeguards against credit card fraud! Against verifying the card, against verifying the address of the person supposedly giving the contribution, which means that creating many, many credit card numbers, or using prepaid cards purchased by other means, a lot of money could be funneled into the Obama campaign.

In particular, with Obama, one "bundler," Robert Roche, who has companies based in the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, and resides in China, has created a website to which most of the visitors are foreign coming to this website, that solicits contributions for Obama; which is illegal for non-citizens to give such contributions.

Now, you had said in the past, and just now, that in 2008, the Obama campaign was heavily financed through illicit means, offshore funds, drug money, you mentioned George Soros: What could you say, if you'd like to say more, about the fraud of the financing of the Obama campaign then and now, and what that means for us with the election coming up?

LAROUCHE: There's one particular source, in the main; it has many varieties, but it has one denomination: drug-dealers. This operation is technically, by anybody who's looked at this financing business of these under-$200 contributions, what you do, is you get organized-crime, the gambling industry, piles up a lot of gambling money. That's part of their operation, that's how they get their money, is through this gambling racket, and the drug rackets. Drugs and gambling are the main source of the strength for the Obama.

This was first notable, when Hillary Clinton was defeated in the final step of her nomination, to become the Presidential candidate. So, these guys are also killers, they're murderers. The Obama machine is a pack of murderers. So political people, and people of consequence, shall we say, are very vulnerable, because they're conspicuous persons to become targets. And killing one of them, in an especially nasty way, an atrocious way, and sort of rubbing it in the faces of their relatives and friends, the way it's done, — just like Kennedy was murdered! They wanted to get rid of Kennedy because they wanted to have a war, a war in Indo-China! And Kennedy, with the support of Douglas MacArthur, said "No!" They wanted some other things, and they said, "No!" So, they killed Kennedy, and the next thing you know, we're at the war that Kennedy had absolutely opposed. And we never recovered from that.

So the point is, this factor, of the oligarchical factor, of circles of people who consider themselves under the British monarch, that is, in the pecking order, that they say, "The Queen of England is the world's power!" And that's true! But the power does not come because she has power inside her. She has because her position is such, and there's a congregation of people have a share in that kind of ability, therefore, they become a ruling oligarchy of the world. That's what you're looking at. You have an oligarchy, and the chief oligarch, until they kill him, or her, is respected as being the highest power in the system. And this power is what controls most of the world today.

And the drug operation is part of it.

But it's virtually impossible, on the statistical reports on the way that the Obama contributions have been collected, say, in the month of September, that it's impossible that that happened, except through drug and gambling operations, and mostly from overseas. And you look at the way these things are structured: Could they be caught this way? Could they be caught that way? Neither way! The way the thing is done, as long as they stick under that $200, that $190 ratio, they can do it all day long, and not have any legitimate contributors. And run up the biggest aggregation of money support for the campaign.

BERNSTEIN: Well, while we're on the subject, I have a question for you about Wall Street, and since we're trying to reinvigorate the democratic process, through arguments in order to arrive more at the truth, I'd like to raise you're three-point proposal: The proposal for Glass-Steagall, national banking/credit system, and major productive projects like NAWAPA XXI.

Now, there's nothing really more bipartisan in this country right now, than Wall Street, and you even have bipartisan support and proposals coming from top CEOs, like Jamie Dimon, and Lloyd Blankfein, who are apparently trying to hedge their bets in a close Presidential race, and hoping to realize what the program implicit in the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which makes the European austerity look light.

So, you have that bipartisan proposal, and you have the people who LaRouche PAC members, organizers are speaking to, especially on Capitol Hill, and they will profess their support for Glass-Steagall. And they profess it all day long! But, I'm not sure, in getting into discussions, whether they fully comprehend the credit system.

So, for example, since 2007, 460 banks have gone down, and a lot of them have been community banks, who would make the loans to small-time agriculture, small-time business in inner cities, that sort of thing, and that's where the credit came from. And that credit is, on the one hand no longer available, and those institutions are, at the same time, no longer in existence. So where do you go to get credit? Where do you go, if you're in small business, if you're a start-up, where do you get the credit from? Are you going to go to your local Federal Reserve Bank, and ask for a loan?

So, that being said, you've talked in discussions about Glass-Steagall, about eliminating Wall Street — but! When Wall Street, and a company selling their debt on the free market is the only way that they see to get credit, — you're going to have to explain to people, because that's the line of thinking: The only way to get money, the only way to get credit is, via Wall Street. So, I'd love to hear your response.

LAROUCHE: And you shall hear it: Your wish shall be rewarded.

No, it's very simple: We have to set up a credit system, rather than a monetarist system. That means that no longer, will the monetarist system issue money, in name of a political institution, outside of government. What that means is, take the case now, we have very little, of all the debt of the banking system out there, now, nominal, all kinds of banking system. But this mass of debt has no benefit to the economy. That benefit is less than zero. And first of all, the system is run to bankrupt institutions that were a legitimate banking system, to loot them and put them out of business!

So, now you have a credit-creating machine, like the Wall Street machine or similar things in Europe. And they're gambling machines! All they are is gambling! Now, you say, "this is going to destroy the economy." Yes! You're going to destroy the physical economy.

Here's where the dirty part comes in: What's the game? The British Queen has told you want the game is. You just choose to ignore that game, that factor. Because her intention is, as she has said, publicly, not just herself, but her whole retinue, the whole organization, the British part, which means also European and some here; that this whole crowd has agreed, to reduce the human population from 7 billion living people, to less than 1! Now, how do you do that? Well, there are ways of doing it; you can just go out kill people, but that's messy and sloppy, it's not efficient. It's not the meatgrinder type of thing you want.

All you have to do, is take all the banking system, grab the things that have assets in them, loot them, and shut them down! And then your system now builds up — a sort of a system of building up gambling debts, pure speculation. And now, this speculation, which is run by Bernanke, for example in the United States, Bernanke is the chief thief of the United States, he's the one that bankrupts the most people. He says, "QE!" Again, well, what does this buy, what's real about QE? Nothing! Nothing! It's listed money, but it's nothing! There's nothing there! There's no reality there!

So you shut down real production, disemploy people, and you pile up debt, a vast amount! The hyperinflationary debt, the ratio of hyperinflationary debt in the United States today, makes 1923 Germany, look like an inconvenience!

So what you have to do, you have to get rid of these people! Now, there are two layers to getting of these people: First of all, you want to eliminate the allowance for that — Glass-Steagall! Just impose Glass-Steagall. And they'll come out and say, "But, we have money coming to us." "You don't have anything coming to you. You have your own private banking system, don't you? If you have a debt to cover, you own the banking system, don't you? It's yours, isn't it? It's not the government's. We don't own it, we don't take anything from it!

"We go back to what happened in Massachusetts in guess when? In the 17th century: We go back to the system of the Massachusetts shilling system!" Which is, the way money is not itself, the value! Credit is the value! And what you give credit for, is the value. If you have somebody out there, like the Saugus Iron Works. The Saugus Iron Works was exactly that form: It was the first steel-making operation in the United States, and it was funded in that way.

So the system that was used in Massachusetts at that time, before it got crushed by the British, was that system. But the problem here, today, is this, if we close down on the gambling, that means that we're going to actually throw out, just bankrupt, most of these firms, because when you put them under Glass-Steagall, they no longer have Federal protection for their gambling, and they cancel their other system. If they can survive, they can survive, outside the government system, outside the credit system: If they can run a private bank, and run it legitimately without committing any other crimes, and they could carefully select their investments, and these investments would be profitable, in those terms, it would be no problem. That's what Glass-Steagall amounts to.

Glass-Steagall means that people who actually earn their income, honestly, can do it. They have to have the skill as well as the commitment. But as for the average person, the small banks, with the local banks, these people are holding in trust money of depositors and other kinds of investors, and they're holding that in trust on the assumption that they will be protected, by following the rules. And the Federal government will occasionally help them, by giving more credit in certain areas, or promoting more investments in certain areas, which will help this area to build up, in a normal way by being more productive.

But beyond all these reforms, which have been considered and are used, the fundamental thing is, that money has no intrinsic value. Money is an instrument of investment, but the investment comes from a real commitment, to a real credit, a physical credit, or the equivalent. And the banker, the ordinary competent banker, the private banker working within the Federal systems and its auxiliaries and tangents, is able to calculate whether this is a good investment: In other words, on the terms of the investment, the terms of the loan, is that loan going to be good, or probably good, with help and guidance from the bank and others? Is it going to succeed in being able to pay its way, and grow?

Now, the problem we have now, is that, we're so bankrupt, that we now really have to have a massive program of Federal credit supplied by the Federal government, especially for that reason. In other words, the exact opposite of what Bernanke is doing! Bernanke should be imprisoned, imprisoned because he's got a bad mind — that's a general category for imprisoning him, he has a very bad mind; he doesn't know how to think properly, he shouldn't be allowed running on the streets, or even in his little entrance place there.

So the point is, we're going to have get away from a money system to a credit system. That's the foundation on which the United States was founded. Now, think about Massachusetts: If you don't understand the history of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you don't know anything about money. Because they understood what that was. And what they did is they created a pine tree shilling, which is based on private credit, organized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, private credit was organized under that kind of protection and coordination, to get people to work together, like the Saugus Iron Works, is an example of exactly this: The Boston area was actually more productive, scientifically, more advanced scientifically, than the whole blasted British Empire, at that time! And what happened, in the case of Massachusetts, is the British Empire, William of Orange and company, which was the new, second [Venetian empire] revolution, came in and disrupted that, and then drove the citizens of Massachusetts into two categories: corrupt bankers, and people.

And poverty, and ruin, and corruption spread! And you had the Boston banking system, and the New York banking system, which were centers of corruption in that period. And still are! Right? So, that's the system.

So, the point is, if we go to what I proposed, the three steps, that is all you need to do, plus one thing: The Federal government is going to have to cancel any obligation, to these fake debts. Once we cut them loose with Glass-Steagall, if they can survive on their own, as what they pretend to be, fine! No objection. If they are just gambling dens, money gambling debts, and not actually investing in order to increase productivity, then, no, they're on their own! And they will pay their debts, and if they own a lot of money, they're going to have to do something about that.

So, in any case, we need to go to a credit system, get rid of the monetarist system, which is a British system, based on the system of the Roman Empire and similar kinds of institutions, brought into the United States by forces in crushing the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That's the way it was done.

Then you had Benjamin Franklin then went with the idea of the paper money system, which is a credit system, and then the actual Constitution of the United States was based on a credit system. So we have to go back to our constitutional foundations, which is, if you read the Constitution, it is a credit-system system. So going to Glass-Steagall is simply bringing in a credit system, a national credit system. Then, the U.S. government, on its own, will decide what, in good judgment is what they can provide, as credit, for investment in increasing production and other good purposes.

So therefore, you have to go to national banking. And once you get into national banking, on that level, you now can restore, quickly, with a single reform — with a single reform — by the U.S. government we could restore solidity, to the prospects of the United States. By establishing the credit system which is implicit in the Constitution, on that simple reform by itself, we would have taken the first giant step, toward a sudden, rapid, and acceleratingly rapid recovery of the United States.

What we have to do, and the key thing is NAWAPA is a typical case of that: NAWAPA is a project which, with the water system in the conditions in the West, and the water conditions of the nation, we could increase the water available in the United States through NAWAPA, by a very significant ratio. Which means we would solve terrible problems that are hitting us, today. We would save food supplies! Even starting the project would mean steps which would tend toward increasing food supplies, because you recycle the water! If you evaporate the water, and you let it fall as rain, and you evaporate it again, let it fall as rain, finally, you've multiplied the actual effectiveness of the water, but you're using the same water, over and over again, in the same territory. And therefore, you actually have the effect, of say. 1.7 times the water you had before, you have now.

And therefore, we can restore the United States, rapidly, by going at certain large projects of this type, which become both the center of the buildup of the economy, as such, and they then become the means of supporting the reforms which the buildup is intended to accomplish. In other words, — we will create, say, with NAWAPA, 14 million jobs. At first, they won't be much, but as people develop in carrying out these projects, it'll increase.

If we take another thing, say, the Detroit area, you know, "you can make anything, any time industry," we do the same thing: So, you've got 16-17 million new jobs.

Now, what do we have now? We have, specifically, right now, we have a desperate lack of 27 million jobs. So, with such a reform, you immediately create the impetus for a recovery.

And you could do the same thing, take the case of China: China now has a crisis, which is developing, an economic crisis, because its markets are collapsing. Therefore, China now has much of the productive capability, or a complement of it; India has something similar — not the same scale, but something similar, and therefore, the recovery of the United States in this way, would take advantage of the productive capabilities of other countries as well, like China and so forth; and would take those advantages, and use them and mix them with U.S. interest, and that way, you get a generation of an actual, consistent recovery.

So the recovery can be done by us, from the United States, by making that change in policy.

ROSS: Well, yesterday, members of the LaRouche PAC had a meeting on Capitol Hill with staffers from several congressional offices, to discuss our planetary defense proposals. There's some questions that came up during that. I wanted to pose one to you, with some small alteration here.

Now, this is regarding saving the Earth from asteroids, rather than man, as environmentalists would like to do. Now, in discussion of U.S.-Russian collaboration on projects for asteroid defense, one of the things that came up, was the fact that this involves the most advanced technologies that we have. There was some concern expressed about the wisdom, or how one would go about sharing such technological innovations with Russians, without giving them the upper hand — this is, I think connected also with sort of, I think, strange position we have with regard to China, where there's like a total non-collaboration on space questions with China right now.

So I'd like to ask you: Is there a role, is there a place for secrecy in national security on scientific matters? And if you have any thoughts on how the discussion around the SDI, related to this, about how to successfully share technologies which are potentially very powerful, with other nations?

LAROUCHE: All right, let's take one, and work backwards from that one. Yes, there is. See, we had reached the point where the available highest level of technology, in terms of military-equivalent technology, is now thermonuclear fusion. Thermonuclear fusion, we want to have within, say, a generation; you want to have thermonuclear fusion operating as a system of transport of people, from the Moon, which we should be building up as a base for that kind of operation. We should have, actually, major manufacturing going on on the Moon, because when you try to lift from the Earth to the Moon, you lose a lot. So therefore, it's much better to put some of these stations in deep holes, in tunnels, inside the Moon! On the top, they get a lot of asteroids, small asteroids hitting all the time, there.

But, for large-scale operations in nearby space, such as Mars, we will obviously be using the Moon, as a base for developing much of the production that has to go for the exploration and development of nearby other areas such as Mars. This will probably, at best estimate, it may take us a generation from that point, developing thermonuclear fusion as a driver for transport among other things; which means we could probably get, with the proper conception, we could probably get from the Moon base to Mars in one week, with acceleration/deceleration process. And that would change everything.

The importance of dealing with asteroids and the threat of comets, which could be — a comet could be the extinction of humanity, so therefore, these kinds of things are high priority, and by being high priority, they spin off, from those technologies, they spin off many applications which are otherwise impossible. These things are what we call "capital improvements," real capital technology improvements.

So our objective is to go in that direction. We know that Earth is very vulnerable. We know that the risks from comets and asteroids is a very dangerous business. Dr. Teller, for example, who spent much of the remaining years of his life, in concern from the end of the 1970s on, on just exactly this question. So, it's important we do that.

In order to do this, we're going to have to build stations on Mars, which we can begin to do now. Curiosity is an example, of the development of successively higher orders of stations which can be built on Mars. These stations will enable us to deal with, and develop the methods for dealing, with the intelligence and other kinds of things necessary, for our operations inside the Solar System. I don't think we'll be able to go to Jupiter very soon; it's very tough place to go, by Jove! [laughs]

So therefore, what we can do, now, is science-driver programs, will change the character of human existence on Earth and beyond, that mankind has a potentiality beyond anything that mankind generally knows today. And our objective is to reach that point, where more and more of our population is suitably educated, to understand what these technologies are: We have a very poor education of our citizens today, relative to earlier times. People today are relatively stupid, in terms of their level of education, compared to some years ago. And the number of people who are competent are less!

And the result is, you have in universities, and actually in work places, which are called "scientific," you have incompetence! Real incompetence! A cultish kind of incompetence is operating, and people are just getting jobs and positions, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of wanting to have that category of job. Much of the Green stuff is absolutely incompetent, it's absolutely fraudulent, for example.

So, the issue is, we can not any more, tolerate the idea of using thermonuclear fusion or related things as a weapon of warfare. That can not be tolerated, ever! There's no way that mankind could survive it. So it can't be tolerated.

But! Great power, I mean, after all, the Sun is a great power, among other things, and other things in the Solar System are a great power, by using this technology for its recent purpose, we can actually cause, within two or three generations a revolution in what man represents in terms of the universe. And it's what we should do. It's only the crazy, misguided egos that want to do anything different! What do they want to do that for? For what purpose?

Human morality is what's at stake here. The flaw in human morality today, is that, the way that people think about death, human death. Because what they think about is, "well, I'm going to die, or he's going to die, and then that's over." But if you take a society which is really human, which is based constantly on advances in what we call technology, scientific technology, not just technology, mankind's requirement is what makes them feel human, is if the children and grandchildren of a generation have the sense that they are participating, in improving the conditions of life of humanity, not only on Earth by in the Solar System, down the line, then they have a different sense of morality. Because, if you have a zero-growth society, what happens is, every person who has a child, is essentially dead, because nothing is going to be produced by them, which will make a difference in the universe.

And what happens in scientific growth and progress of this type, is that now we change that. Instead of having poor people, who are treated like animals, who live and just die, and the next specimen of that generation is just wiped out in its time, too, what's the meaning of life, then?

The difference is, the human being has the capability of creativity, of discovering principles in the universe which can change the way the universe functions around us, and beyond. And if we think that we may die, but our children will be doing things that we weren't capable of, as a species, and our grandchildren similarly, if we see that life is not crushed in death, but the meaning of life is expressed in the achievements of later generations beyond the present one, that's when humanity understands itself as humanity. And immorality, in the history of mankind, immorality is based on zero growth! Because man is reduced to the category of a mere animal!

Only the creative powers of mankind, which no other known species possesses — if there's any species that possesses that, we don't know about it, and we haven't seen any manifestation of it; and we're not seeing much manifestation of it from people right now. The reason that you get despair, and corruption in society, is because people think that when you die it's all over, and it didn't mean anything, at all!

Whereas, if you have real human beings, who know they're human, and know what it is, their concern is, they want their life to have been useful, in advancing the condition of mankind, knowing that they died with fulfillment of purpose! Not just their selfish little greed or lack of greed! And this conception of man, which is essential to mankind, without that, mankind could not deal with the future! We're coming into the time, when the powers that we require for the needs for mankind, as the landings on Mars show, we're reaching powers way beyond the imagination, of earlier generations. And that is good! But we're not doing it fast enough, and that is unfortunate.

But you have to have a sense, the person has to sense that their personal life, while it survives, is building something permanent, in what happens in coming generations. And you find in the best people, in the history of society now, used to think that way. Just think about the people who came to the United States from Europe, during the 19th century: What did they do? They came, poor! They came to New York City poor, dirt poor! Off the boat! And then, their children would rise, at least in a certain ratio, would rise to a higher position, higher skill, a higher power. They would tend to think in terms of scientific programs, or scientific modes of achievement. They would think about progress, they would think about what their children are going to be! They would think seriously about their children, having a life which means, "You are going to do what we couldn't do!" attitude.

And it's only when you get the "you're going to do what we couldn't do": That's morality! And if you don't have that, you don't have any morality. If you have a zero growth or a Green conception, you don't have morality! You may be alive, you may have satisfaction from some things you eat or chew upon, or spit on. But, you don't have anything human in you. Because you don't have the thing that separates the human being from the animal: The determination to contribute something in your life, which contributes to the advancement of mankind in the next and coming generations.

And that's where the problem is, with us, today, that we, in the United States, have more and more, lost the degree of that sense of what the meaning of the future is, that we once had before. We have corruption, we have entertainment — not creativity. We're producing monsters. Look at the children on the street, with this system, with 27 million adults, qualified adults, unemployed and living in desperation: What kind of a future are you building? What kind of a future is this government building? What does Obama represent? Get that guy out of there, now!

OGDEN: Well, we've now approached the end of our allotted time for tonight's broadcast, but I think we can take that as an appropriate closing point. I'd like to thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche, for joining us today. I'd like to thank Jason and Leandra, and thank you for tuning in.

Before we conclude, I will insist, that as soon as this broadcast is over, you get on the larouchepac website, and contribute to what we're doing. We need your support, and we need everything that you can give.

So, thank you again for watching tonight, and be sure to tune in again, next Friday, at 8 p.m. This will be a continuing series of such webcast events. Thank you and good night.