Lyndon LaRouche November 23rd Webcast Transcript
November 24th, 2012 • 10:23am •


Click here for the video archive

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. My name is Matthew Ogden. It's November 23rd, and I'd like to welcome everybody watching to our regular Friday installment of the weekly broadcast with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. These have become a regular feature on our website, and they will continue as such. This is a necessary institution for the leadership of the country. Tonight we will be following the same format that we followed before. Jason Ross and Leandra Bernstein are here to participate in the discussion this evening, but only after Mr. LaRouche makes his opening remarks. So, without any further introduction, I give you Mr. LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well thank you. I survived so far. And the question is this: We're now in a period of indecision and incompetence, in terms of policies of the nation. There is also a little bit of evil here, thrown in as well, just to make the spice of the thing. But most people, including so-called forecasters, expert forecasters, are in a situation now where they are utterly incompetent to forecast anything, with any kind of fidelity. They may stumble with things, but, while we, as human beings, are distinguished from the animals by the fact that the animals cannot forecast—they can not see anything except their own behavior, their behavioral characteristics, and their behavior to react in terms of others—but they cannot see how the course of history is bringing the world, and themselves, into a certain kind of situation. What you have is, practically every forecast that's made as an official public forecast, is nothing more than bunk; it's simply an attempt to extrapolate, as if by calculation, a statistical approach to defining what the future is going to be.

Now the thing about the human species, is that no other species has the ability to actually forecast in a meaningful sense. Only the human species, and unfortunately a small portion only of the human species, actually does it. What they forecast, or what you get in the forecast, are statistical forecasts, or fakes of statistical forecasts. In other words, you have people who actually are systemically trying to forecast, as they define forecast, which they are looking from the present, and take the statistical estimates or the equivalent kinds of estimates, and they will say "This is what is probably going to happen. What you are suggesting," they will say, "is hopeless, it could never happen." And generally, in the most interesting periods in history, what all these experts say would never happen, is precisely what is likely to happen—or something else which is unlikely to happen otherwise.

And my particular role in life has turned out to be, in public affairs, to be a competent forecaster. Now, there are so few competent forecasters running loose around these days, that I can qualify as a real expert, because I have very little competition these days. And most of them who do forecast publicly, will probably lie; if they know the truth, they'll probably lie about it, because they don't want to be rejected by their friends. In other words, if they should forecast as I might do (I'm known to do that) that a terrible thing is about to happen within a period of two or thee years, and identifying what this terrible thing is going to be, I'm usually successful. As a matter of fact, I've never made a mistake in doing that kind of forecasting. But most people will project statistically, either in the simple numerical statistics, or other kinds of statistical forecasting, and say "This is already predetermined to follow this line." And in every case of a major forecasting event, they've always failed.

And the big one, of course, that I caught them on, is back in the July-August period of 1971, when in the previous three years I had forecast exactly what was going to happen—and it happened. And every living forecaster, official forecaster, in academic and other circles, had absolutely said that this could never happen. They not only failed to capture what I had forecast, but they said it would never happen—that the system would never be changed, that they had a fixed system.

And I've been in that kind of situation. I've also been an activist in that situation. You know, since the middle of the 1970s, I've been dealing with the forecasting of the danger of thermonuclear war. I ran for President, not because I intended to be elected, but in order to put that thing across. And it was happening, precisely that was what was happening: We were headed toward thermonuclear war; and I did screw things up for the people who wanted to have that little war, of that Presidency of that time. And since then, the gentleman in question has changed his tune, quite recently, on this subject.

But the point is, the way you know it, is you have to realize that human creativity is discovery of principles, which is not statistical or anything like statistical. The point is that mankind will respond to events on the basis of being thrust into doing what they themselves would never have thought they would have done. This is typical in society: that relatively well-informed people, or people who do their studies rather carefully, as in academic work—serious academic work—it's getting less and less competent these days as time goes on.

So, generally what you'll get from all public sources—on politics, on the future—is wrong. Right now, for example, how many Americans will say, to themselves, or say publicly, that the world is on the edge of a thermonuclear war which would probably take about an hour and a half to complete, and very few people will be left alive on the planet. That's exactly where we are right now. That's the truth.

Now the very fact— We've got another fact to consider in this thing. The election that just occurred was dominated on both the Republican side and on the Democratic Party side— the margin of victory or contention for victory cast, was based on the drug population. In other words, the drug pushers and consumers represent a very significant large part of the constituency of voters. And the drug pushers are more likely to vote than the non-drug pushers; and that's what just happened recently, in this recent election. One group of drug pushers won out over another group. Now that doesn't mean that the majority of voters were drug pushers. It does mean that the drug pushers are not only a very significant part of the population—and they vote on the basis of being drug pushers, or drug users, and consider themselves part of the drug community!—and that is what determined the way that this vote went in the just recent concluded election process.

The drug pushers run the operations, and they have since when? since the 68'ers. Go back to '66 and '68, and you had the U.S. citizens, and non-citizens, or under-age citizens, or whatever, non-citizens, they were all— that is what it was. The 68'ers were essentially drug users. They're druggies. And they became centered in Chicago. And that's why Obama is centered in Chicago. Because it's the drug-pushing factor—the drug users, the drug factor—is what tends to fill up the prisons; it tends to fill up the universities; it tends to fill up—all this whole crowd.

So therefore, we're in a point where the question is: How can civilization survive?

For example, we're short of food for our people, in these coming months. There will be an accelerated death rate—that is, accelerated relative to earlier periods—an accelerated death rate in the United States, based on two factors: Factor one is the growing food shortage and health-care crisis. Factor two is drugs.

This is the problem, and Obama, of course, is part of this whole process. So, the typical American just voted like an idiot! Even if whether or not they were druggies or not, they voted like an idiot, because they accepted, as a probable outcome, or something they should be seen doing, which is often the case. They don't vote for a guy because they think he's the right guy; they vote for him because they don't want to be caught not voting for him, for various personal and other kinds of reasons.

So therefore, what you get in the press, what get in general, is absolutely useless in the attempt to determine what the future is.

Now, right in the course of this past two weeks, we have escalated the threat of thermonuclear war.

Now, here's a problem here about these wars. Wars of this type have sometimes been orchestrated by, for example, the original British system, which was actually the new Venetian system. And the system operated on the basis of tricks, and they orchestrated the history itself. Roman history the same way, earlier, the Roman empire. And people do not understand how they are steered, how their behavior is controlled, because they operate on the basis of belief—and I'm talking now about experts—they operate on the basis of assuming that they have foreknowledge based on a kind of forecasting system of what they expect will happen.

Now, the interesting part about this, is that in human operations, every crucial type of operation in history, such as organizing general warfare, or economic crises and so forth, is orchestrated. It's orchestrated on the basis that some people know how to fake it, how to arrange things to happen which most people say "It could never happen."

But then you also have people who make inventions—people who think, who have new insights into how things should work! And therefore, the will, the noetic capability, the will-power of the individual human being to forecast, is because the human being because the human being is able to foresee what they themselves are doing, and what they intend to do, and therefore they will exploit the fact of the ignorance of the general population, and even leading governments, and they will outwit them.

The entire history of the British Empire, as a sort of a third step-child of the Roman Empire, was always the element of surprise. The people who thought they were being backed, and thought they were going to win, found themselves dead, or lost, and a lost cause. And therefore, you have this ability of people to foresee how the population, how institutions can be fooled, from the top down.

On the other hand, how normal behavior, like the discovery of new inventions, the discovery of new kinds of behavior, new kinds of opportunities, new territories, all these things: These are things that are done by Mankind's creative will.

They also occur because most of mankind has no idea of what is going to be done to them. And another reason is because some of them make calculations, and their calculation produces a result which is completely contrary to anything they expected. And you're in that situation now. People say they're looking for popular opinion, and hope that popular opinion, as they understand it, is going to shape the course of events. There may be different contending positions on this point, but that's the way.

The typical member, the so-called educated member of society today—often members of Congress or other people of political influence—have no idea whatsoever of what they are doing, or what somebody else is about to do to them, because they don't understand the process of history. They do not think in terms of creativity. They think of what they call practical. "That is not practical; that is practical."

These are the roots of folly.

So, therefore, people who voted for Obama were stupid. Especially people who are highly informed: they were stupid. In what way were they stupid? They did not take into account what they did not wish to take into account.

And, you know, Bill Clinton did that. Bill Clinton played a very significant role in sending the Democratic Party into a so-called victory, against his own intentions, apparently. But he did it because he was scared. He did it because he had other considerations. He did it because he's not a fighter. You know, he works, he's bright, he's intelligent. He knows a lot of things, he's a slick operator—all these things. But when it comes to making decisions which are crucial decisions, or crucially historical decisions, Bill has repeatedly failed, chronically failed. And most other people in government have done a performance which is not much different than that. They've all failed.

And Wall Street, and London, and so forth, is able to control society for that reason.

Take the case of exactly that question, of who controls society, who controls the economy. There is no reason why any nation in the trans-Atlantic region should have to undergo the collapse process which is being experienced there now. They are going into hyperinflation: hyperinflation! Something worse than ever happened in Germany in 1923! They are willfully going into hyperinflation. Where? Well, in Europe, in the United States, in other places.

Where is that going to take them? Right now there's not going to be enough food for the people, poor people, especially in the United States. The death rate in the United States among children and others is going to increase—rapidly, now—because of this government, and because of the stupidity of the political process, the information process. That what is believed generally— You can say: what is generally believed, you know one thing about it: It ain't true. It's not true.

This is not necessarily a condition, but it is the condition of mankind. And this is a product, in a sense— I would say, largely in the history of mankind, you often wonder where and when a part of the human species was actually intelligent. Eh? Take the people under the Roman Empire. You can't say they were actually intelligent in terms of trying to determine the factors that determine the fate of their people. The Greeks were stupid—the ancient Greeks were stupid. And you had a few great leaders like Plato, who knew it. Hm? You had figures who were great, in terms of the ability to do this, but usually they were killed.

Take the assassinations of Presidents of the United States, and other leading figures in the United States. How many Presidents of the United States were murdered while they were in office? Go through the list. You had a President of the United States in the early 1920s, who died mysteriously of eating oysters, fresh oysters, on a train crossing the Great American Desert. And they got rid of him, and they got the policy they wanted. You had a President at the beginning of the 20th Century who was murdered! Murdered by the friends of Theodore Roosevelt, in order to eliminate him, and to get the United States into a war on the side of Britain; and that's what happened: World War I. World War II happened in the same way. The complication was that Franklin Roosevelt outwitted the fascists, and got some support to prevent a coup against his Presidency, and put some people in prison over that sort of thing.

But the situation today is, that you've got to emphasize to the people out there, that it is their proneness to be duped—and duped by their own desires and wishes and beliefs—that they will consistently vote for the wrong thing—for the thing that does the worst to hurt them, or to destroy them. They're talked into it, but they're talked into it because they don't know any better. They believe in popular opinion; they don't know any better.

Now, our problem here, from this platform, is to deal with precisely that problem. What's the chances of the United States surviving, along with other countries, in what's going on now? What are those chances? Well, I'd say offhand, if you want to bet on percentages, mid-zero. There's no chance whatsoever. The trend of their behavior, as influenced very largely by the drug dealers; and people are not only into the drug problem, they are also terrified by the power of the drug dealers—the power to kill.

Take Mexico: Mexico is being destroyed by the drug business. Other parts of South and Central America are being controlled by the drug traffic. Parts of the southern states of the United States are dominated by drugs. Major cities: Chicago, New York City, others, are saturated by the control of the drug lobby. And both parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party—both!—are under very strong control by the drug interests.

And the leading drug interest is the Queen of England. And we had some fun about that, and we got some charges on that. But the Queen of England, in the tradition of the British Empire, has been, and remains the center of the drug traffic of the world, including the United States, and including some of the leadership of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They're equally corrupt.

Therefore, the one thing that's most important to us, which people here on this program should think about: What are we going to do about that? That the typical stupidity which influences the behavior of our citizens—most of them—in one way or the other, and especially among leading parts of the citizenry—those who say they know what's happening, those who read the right newspapers, those who read the right magazines, attend the right conferences, listen to the right gossip—they're all stupid. And they're all like people being guided into their slaughter, the slaughter-bin, just like in the Roman arena.

And our job here, is that we have the ability, from platforms such as thing one from which I'm speaking tonight, we have the ability to present facts to that portion of the population which is a little bit more open-minded about understanding reality than the typical person who relies upon the public newspaper and the gossip sessions, or what the politicians pass down as the witty thing to say to citizens.

The chance for saving society does not lie with the majority votes as they are normally cast. The majority today, in the United States and in Western and Central Europe, is a hopeless situation; it's a hopeless case. There's no validity in the predominant trends in opinion in those populations. The only chance—and the case of Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States is an example of this point, it makes it very clear—only a very small number at the very top level of intellectual leadership in society, who also have devotion to their mission, that's the only group on which you can rely for leadership. Any other choice of reliance on leadership, or what you think is leadership, is a terrible mistake. Because you're in a situation, you're on the edge, right now, of the outbreak of thermonuclear war.

How will it come on, thermonuclear war? Well, you have a little situation in Turkey; you have a little situation in Israel, eh? And what did those little things do? Those little things moved mankind closer and closer to the proximity of the trigger point where the result is—suddenly—thermonuclear war. And as I've said, it will take less than an hour and a half to virtually extinguish civilization, once that starts. People will make these steps, step by step, going toward Hell, and only making a step, one step at a time, never seeing the consequence of what that step will be, one or two or three steps down the way, where we're getting closer, and closer, and closer to the virtual extinction of civilization as we've known it. And this is not a matter of a long-term trend; this is just around the corner.

And therefore our job is to put the pressure of influence and education on those strata in society which are not ordinary people. They are either not ordinary because they are very influential, very experienced, or they're important because they just don't swallow the swill that most of the population is willing to accept. They will say, "What can I do about this?" Well, in fact, most people can't do anything about it—not because they lack the power to do something, but because they lack the mind to do something.

And therefore, we depend upon a quality of leadership which is not the number of stripes you wear, but a quality of leadership which depends upon your ability to understand, and see through the fallacies that you read in the press, the fallacies you hear on the mass media. Only a small portion of the population is capable of doing that.

A slightly larger part of the population is capable of responding to that leadership, and becoming a leadership in its own right. And the general way that success happens, is some people strike at a vulnerable point in the enemy's operations—even a psychological strike, some kind of strike which stops the march toward Hell.

And that's what the purpose of doing what we're doing here is. We may, at different times, different days, different occasions, treat this matter differently, but our devotion must be, and is, that we must be concerned with the fact that the population, the so-called democratic process, has not improved since that crook Andrew Jackson first destroyed the Constitution of the United States. And he, of course, as the famous dinners they had, the Jackson-Jefferson dinners, has been an institution of criminality. But the point is, it's also you have a Republican criminality, too. And it's sometimes difficult to say which is more significant, and which is worse.

The point is, only a few exceptional people, who are qualified as leaders, because they can foresee the direction in which events are being carried, those who see that anybody who says, "Well, yes, they've got to do that; of course they've got to go with Turkey against Russia." Well, going with Turkey against Russia, you know what that means? Thermonuclear war. How long will that war last? About an hour and a half. Who will be involved? Virtually every power on this planet. A world war like no other world war you've ever heard of before. And what's causing it? Well, for one thing, people who believe in Obama.

Question 1: The U.S. Congress and World War III

MATTHEW OGDEN: Thank you very much. If you're just tuning in, you're watching a live webcast with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. We are going to begin our discussion period, involving Jason Ross and Leandra Bernstein. I'd like to ask Leandra to the podium to ask the first question.

LEANDRA BERNSTEIN: Thank you. Now, this is a question that picks up where you just left off with your opening remarks concerning the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. Now, it's becoming increasingly clear that since the Israel-Gaza conflict—well, that the Israel-Gaza conflict is part of a much, much more complex scenario, where the battles prior to the Nov. 22 ceasefire were a staging ground for a broader attack on Iran. And this is something that's come out from numerous sources, including from the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, who recently compared the Gaza crisis to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the Cuban Missile Crisis was, of course, a proxy war between the U.S.S.R. and the United States; and Gaza is a proxy war between Israel and essentially Iran. There's also the view that the destruction in Gaza is "paralyzing Iran's southern wing," and that an attack on Lebanon would paralyze Iran's northern wing. And this is all under the contingency that Israel would face three tiers of threat: Number one, short-range missiles from Gaza, which has been taken care of in a certain sense; the medium-range rockets from Hezbollah in Lebanon; and thirdly, the long-range missiles from Iran.

Now, on the very same day that that ceasefire was declared, Turkey made its official appeal to NATO to receive Patriot missiles for their defense against Syria. As far as current reports, it looks as though NATO will honor those requests, on the condition of course, that the weapons will be used strictly defensively, and that they will not be used to enforce in Syria the famous last words: "no-fly zone."

So, the question is: Before NATO can deliver those missiles, the action has to be agreed upon by the German and Dutch parliaments. So, what about the United States Congress? In the lame-duck session, will the United States Congress allow Obama and the Executive branch to move ahead with this provocation? And secondly, what are the consequences of allowing this to continue?

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, that's exactly what I was talking about. That's putting it, making it concrete and specific in its own terms. That's where we are right now: We're on the edge. If there's an attempt to push Russia into submission to what's implicit in this demand from part of NATO in respect to Turkey, that is a trigger-point, under that set of circumstances. And that's the kind of thing that leads, with a President Obama in office— And look at the fact that this guy violated the Constitution repeatedly in many cases. His kill operation is in violation of the Constitution; nobody stopped him, nobody prevented it. The other kill operations he's involved in—same thing: nobody stopped him; nobody got in the way. The fact that a fraud was created by the President of the United States in the killing of Ambassador Stevens. Ambassador Stevens was deliberately set up to be shot—massacred—and Susan Rice was an accomplice in trying to cover up for the President. She was a stooge for the President, and going with her lies—and they were outright lies, they were not mistakes, they were lies.

But precisely this kind of mechanism, with that kind of operation, with an Obama loose, and a gutless Republican and Democratic Party, in the main, not willing to stay his hand. And actually, he is nothing but a clown in the service of Tony Blair, the man who's done a lot of evil— The most evil man on this planet today perhaps, is Tony Blair. If you know him, and if you know what he's done—not just the second Iraq War: He's the controller. He was the guy who ushered Obama into the Presidency. He comes in and out of Chicago. He's one of the most evil men on this planet. He makes Goebbels look sweet.

And we are accepting that? We will let these forces make the decision on whether the United States goes to thermonuclear war or not? What are we?

That's the result of letting people become stupid. Most Americans have allowed themselves to be made stupid. If they have any brains, they'd try to keep it under wraps, and try not to do anything to bring down the wrath of Obama or someone else like that upon their heads. They're afraid! They're terrified! They don't believe in themselves; they don't believe in the nation. They know the drug runners are running the nation.

Nobody goes after the drug runners, really, anymore. It's done as an operation, as a token operation: "Oh, we'll kill a couple of 'em for you. You want us to deal with the drug runners for you? We'll kill 'em for you. We'll have them shot down." But there are more there all the time! The world, the Middle East: drugs. Russia? Drugs. Europe? Drugs. And who runs the drugs? The Queen of England, as a tradition of her family. That's what the problem is.

And therefore, the question is: Are there real men standing in this nation, who are willing to stand up to stop this crime? to defend this nation, to defend civilization? Are they prepared to do the things that are necessary to prevent this planet from going down in a thermonuclear war?

Where, if you just take the countdowns on the major powers: First of all, the United States is crucial. Only the United States has the power which can actually set off a general thermonuclear war. And all you have to do, is bring matters to the point that Obama, as a British stooge, thinks that he's been given the authority to order the launch of thermonuclear war. And you're all cooked.

Therefore, it's people who will stop that process, will understand that, will say that, will stand up for it—as opposed to the drug pushers of New Jersey, and their friends.

Question 2: A New WPA for NY and NY

JASON ROSS: Well, speaking of New Jersey, I've got a question for you; it comes from Diane Sare. It regards in part Hurricane Sandy. I wanted to just put a couple things out there on Sandy.

The estimated damages from the Hurricane were about $20 billion, which is very large, but among all storms striking the U.S. since 1900, this ranks only number 17. The great Miami Hurricane of 1926 caused what would have been today $180 billion of damage; even Katrina is ranked no. 4, $85 billion of damage. In fact, this was the first category 3 storm that hit the U.S. since 2005.

So, the idea that this is a global warming thing, that this is the biggest storm that's ever struck the U.S., and it's because of your car, it's ridiculous.

Now, here's what Diane Sare would like to ask you. She says:

"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, the clown show put on by President Obama, New York City Mayor Bloomberg, and Governor Christie in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, more than tipped the scale in favor of my decision to run for Governor of New Jersey in the 2013 elections. As of this coming Monday, four weeks will have passed since the landing of Sandy in southern Jersey, and no recovery program has yet been announced. The media is not even mentioning the magnitude of the dislocations and chaos in the region, where dozens of New York schools still remain closed, and children who have already lost their homes are being bused into other schools.

"Tens of thousands of people in New Jersey and New York will not be able to return to their homes for up to two years, if ever, and as far as I can tell, the manpower was never deployed to even knock on every door of apartment buildings which have been without heat, water, light, let alone food, for weeks.

"There are two other major problems, on a national and regional scale, which I think could be happily addressed by using this crisis as a forcing mechanism. 1. the unemployment of our skilled workforce. When I ran for Congress, I met with building trades union officials in the state, who told me that unemployment of their members is at 40%. 2. Massive unemployment and despair among an increasingly criminalized youth generation.

"I have just reviewed Congressman Rangel's 2011 Universal National Service Act, and your 1979 policy for universal military training. And it seems to me, that along with the emergency reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and a national credit system, something along the lines of what you proposed in 1979 must be implemented now. I know that New Jersey and New York are not the only parts of the nation in desperate need.

"It also seems crazy to have highly skilled 40- to 65-year-old workers sitting idle, and young people turning into criminals, when the amount of work needed to be done is so devastatingly obvious. What are your thoughts on this?"

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, you still live under an empire. It's the same empire, really, as the Roman Empire, the ancient Roman Empire. It's still the other ancient empires, including the first Venetian empire and the second Venetian empire—which, by the way, is the British Empire. And the British Empire is still the dominant force on this planet today! And the British Queen—by that I mean the one that's female, eh?—is still in charge. I mean, she runs everything! But it's not because she's this awesome tyrant, but because she's part of an oligarchy, a very special kind of oligarchy which is in—

It's led by— You have these meetings of the crowned heads of Europe you used to have. Now, some of them have lost their crowns, but they're still running around as families, with these family connections, and they have these gatherings together. It's like chickens gathering, you know, over something left on the ground. And they gather together. And they are the pacesetters, they are the people who represent "society," at the highest level. They are the people tied to the people who run the predatory financial systems of the society. They're the ones who rob and rape, and so forth.

And that's where the problem lies. And the problem is that you have— Only people who understand what the danger is: The danger is now: A thermonuclear war, of the type I've described, has an incalculable outcome. Because such a war— You know, just imagine, the resources of NATO, which are not that impressive, because most of these former NATO nations in Europe are bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt. Even the British system itself is down. It doesn't have the resources it had before. It's cancelled battleships, it's cancelled all kinds of things. They're running on short rations.

Only the United States still has a thermonuclear delivery capability, to actually launch a real thermonuclear war. Anybody else who would do it on their own, would be in deep trouble.

Now, what does that mean? That means you have to pull this President out of power. How are you going to do that? By bringing up the matter of his crimes, his violations of law, his violations of the Constitution, his systematic weekly murder routine, his fraud in going into a war in Africa—he had no business going into a war! It was unlawful. And the Senator who did that favor to him is a criminal! Now, I don't care what his pleas are. Yes, he doesn't like what I said about him, but I told the truth! He committed a fraud. He collaborated with this President to launch an illegal war, which is leading now, consequently, toward thermonuclear war globally.

And therefore it's the question: Who has the guts—starting from the top level of people who have guts—and authority to organize the actions, and not to pussyfoot. I mean, you had a Republican Senator—not the one who lost the election, but another one—who showed manhood for a period of time, short time, around this event, but then backed down and temporized, out of respect for colleagues and so forth. This Susan Rice should be thrown out!—what she did—should be thrown out of office! She was an accomplice, after the fact, in the assassination of a representative of the State Department. Hm? She should have been thrown out of office. She deliberately lied, on orders from the President, who ordered her to lie!

Now, this President doesn't know what a lie is. He just does whatever he wants to do, and hates anybody who gets in his way.

But we tolerate this, and our tolerating Susan Rice, our tolerating Obama himself, is, in fact, in fact of the coming history of mankind, is a crime against humanity. Their very existence in those offices is a crime against humanity.

And the question is again, coming back to where I started from today, here: Who is going to take the leadership, among what circles, in order to begin organizing, from the top-ranking of people who have the greatest ability to think like this, all the way down—the top layer of thinkers, who start the process, and will not give up. And the top layers move, then layers at a lower level of influence will support them. And then others will support them. That's how these things are stopped.

And it's those who are kissing the butt of Obama and other creatures like that—they are really the true traitors of the nation. Because they who could have acted, could have contributed to the actions needed to prevent this horror show of thermonuclear war from coming down on us—didn'tdidn't. And when they had the power, the authority to vote, to act otherwise, they didn't do it; they haven't done it. And the horror that's coming down upon us—because of them, and their like—is beyond belief.

Question 3: The Criminality of Drugs

LEANDRA BERNSTEIN: Now, I'd like to address one of the points that you've made very strongly in this webcast in particular, and that is the Queen's favorite currency: drugs. So, I was, just in pulling together some very cursory statistics from the National Institute of Drug Addiction, also the Gallup polls following the 2012 election. I noticed that in the age group of 18- to 29-year-olds, there was 58% voted for Barack Obama, and 38% voted for Mitt Romney—so about a 20% difference in that age bracket. As far as the 2010 figures for drug addiction, approximately 22.5 million Americans, or almost 9% of the population of the United States, is addicted, or using illicit drugs. Now, the percentage of individuals between the age of 18 to 29 who are using drugs—and this again based on 2010 statistics—is about 19%. And I'm not going to jump to any hard conclusions about that, but I just wanted to throw that out. So, a question that came in from Los Angeles, is:

"Mr. LaRouche, there seems to be an epidemic of silence from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both before, during, and after the elections, on a range of questions that have come up on the plague of illegal drugs, and the destruction of the cognitive abilities of young people, of the younger generations, especially due to the medically proven effects of drugs such as marijuana and other illicit drugs. In fact, recently, on Nov. 15, the president of the International Narcotics Drug Control Board, Raymond Yans, voiced his concern about the outcome of the recent referenda in Colorado and Washington State to legalize marijuana, saying that those referenda 'violate the international drug-control treaties, and pose a grave threat to public health and the well-being of society far beyond those states.' So, the question is: Why the silence, and what about the charges of drug money financing Obama's Presidential campaign 2008 and the most recent?"

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, the problem of drugs is defined by the experience with drugs, society's experience with drugs. And you're talking about substance abuse—I mean, this is so silly! The fact of the matter is that drug addiction's function is to destroy society. Now, the person says, "But I have an individual right to destroy society." And that's what it is. In other words, inherently, the drug user, the illicit drug user, is individually a criminal, because the intention of their action—hm?—results in a crime. The crime is the effects on other people, and on themselves, and on society. The very fact of the matter is, the drug margin in the United States exerted a major margin of control over the selection of a President, on both parties' side. Eh? Both! And the drug running was done from Britain.

Who was the figure, who, as a young Jew, worked for Hitler's extermination process, who is now a celebrity of the British system, who ran the election campaign for Obama, the previous election campaign, and also the present one? What is the ratio of the drug-trafficking crowd, in terms of the election results in this most recent Presidential election, and national elections?

You see we're not individual people—the idea of the isolated individual, this is a criminal idea, like that of Andrew Jackson, a notorious criminal—hm?—who's called a President, and he's a screwball on top of it—that was his greatest virtue, was being a screwball. And he's famous for that, and he's admired for that by many other screwballs. But the point is, therefore, the system— You're dealing not with a collection of individuals—which is what the slaveowners' faction, which led to the Civil War— It was the slaveowners' faction, which included a lot of people who had been part of the American Revolution, as leaders. And they were accomplices of this process, because they believed in their own special interest. But their own special interest, as the Andrew Jackson case demonstrates— Andrew Jackson was nothing but a stooge for the international drug-pushers at that time: The British Empire, the Boston banks, the New York City area bankers, they're the ones who controlled Andrew Jackson—including a man who had been a traitor to the United States, a British agent against the United States, who was the leader of the whole gang that put Jackson into the Presidency. Hm?

So, there's no room for margin on this thing. That the decision to allow drugs is a decision to destroy the society, to destroy civilization. That we all are responsible, equally, in sense, to society, for what we do, and the role we play in influencing society. We're all guilty—or we are not, in that case.

And therefore, people do not have a right to dehumanize themselves. What do you do if they dehumanize themselves? Where do you put dehumanized people? You don't encourage them to vote; they're not qualified to vote. If they're numerous, they're absolutely not qualified to vote; they should be forbidden from voting. Hm? And that should be done. Because you are not just an individual in society; you are a part of society, an integral part of society, and the role you play in society, the way it affects society as a whole, is what you are. Hm? You're a dope. You're just a dope, and dopes shouldn't vote! And people who support dopes shouldn't vote, either, because they're obviously, something's wrong with their minds, too.

But just think of what this means, in terms of the ability, the productive capabilities of our population, the effect on our nation, the effect on the health-care system, the effect on the educational system, on the intellectual level and capabilities of our people. If you want to turn us into a bunch of chimpanzees, well, why don't you go to a zoo?

Question 4: A New Revolution for Mankind

JASON ROSS: Alright, Lyn, here's a question for you on how we're going to make these changes take place. This is a question that also came in from the Internet. Those of you watching, you can e-mail your questions to infolarouchepacµ So here's the question for you:

"Mr. LaRouche: When there ceases to be a political solution, when the system has deteriorated to a point where there is no option, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, then what, in your opinion, is the next option? What is the course that must be taken in order to preserve liberty, rational thought, the rule of law, decency, and morality?

"Mr. LaRouche, all governments change; it is simply a question of when and how. The natural progression of government has always been: republic, democracy, tyranny, revolution. Where are we in that cycle of evolution? Have we in fact progressed to a point where it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security?

"I do not mean to be cynical or negative, but when I look at the state of our Union, and the point in history in which we find ourselves, I am obligated to ask these questions.

"Thanks for listening, A concerned citizen."

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Okay, well, that's a very good argument to make. It does not provide the solution, nor does it pretend to provide the solution, but it's a very good argument to pose, eh?

We have to understand what human society is. We have to understand the human species, and what is different about the human species than any other species. First of all, the human species is the only species which is capable of actual creativity. No other species is capable of it; they just can't do it: They're animals, they have this or that, but this creativity is a very special quality, which is unique to the human individual, as a potential.

Also, society is not a collection of individuals! Eh? What is an individual connected to? to parents? to relatives? to associates? to community? Do they each individually decide what they're going to do? Are they self-sufficient in their ability to judge? Are they self-sufficient in their judgment? Or, is their judgment not to be tempered by the effect of one on the other? Is society a society, or a collection of rabble? Is society a society, or a collection of fools? or animals, or predatory creatures? And the drug addict is a predatory creature! He's not in control of the rational mind; he's controlled by a desire, which is destructive.

Society does not function as just individuals. This was the argument made by Andrew Jackson and company in proposing the process which led to getting the Indians out of the southern states of the United States—hm?—and bringing in slaves, in the most southerly region of the United States—slaves who were the victims of a group of people who were worse than swine: the drug lords, the slave lords. Do these people have inherent rights? Do they have a moral authority to claim original rights? No, they don't! Society is society. Humanity is a process of generation to generation; it's a precious thing, it's a quality of the development of mankind.

Look, we're at the point where, if society is going to exist—and some of us are concerned with this thing—if we do not get a defense against asteroids and comets within the range between the Mars orbit and the Venus orbit, we're in danger of losing humanity that way. Which means that among our responsibilities, is to conquer that problem, to develop the means, the power and the means to defend humanity, to defend life itself from this kind of horror-show.

So that's the individual's responsibility: It's a moral responsibility, which is not based on this fact, and that fact, and this fact. It's an overall moral responsibility of each individual, to try to contribute to society something that society requires to perform its mission. That mission which is unique to humanity, is the discovery of principles—the discovery of scientific principles, and comparable principles. People who oppose those principles and their promotion are the enemies of society, because if you allow them to determine what the results are going to be, you have betrayed humanity. Your nation is not fit to be treated as civilized. You have no right to be uncivilized. You have an obligation to attempt to understand what the needs of humanity are, and to make a contribution to that effect. You're responsible for what comes out of your children. You're responsible for what you are, what you mean in society. You do not have "freedom" to do any damn thing you wish to do. Civilization requires a social process, in which the advancement of Man's power, through the creative potentials of mankind, which are unique to the human species—no other species can do it. Our job is to be that species, and to practice that creativity, and its benefits, and to develop ourselves to do it better.

We used to have a standard for education! You can't maintain a standard for education in children and adolescents who are in the drug field—who are influenced by that—you can't have that! No, there are moral responsibilities which are inherent in the nature of mankind. Now, whether you know them or not, you are responsible for them, because if you want to be a member of the human species, and you want to be a respectable member of the human species, you have to try to understand these things. And you have to respect those who give you those things that you need. You're responsible for coming generations; you're responsible for the three coming generations now in this century! And you cannot escape that responsibility. You have no right to say, "Well, I have my right to think the way I want to." You don't have a right to do that! You have an obligation to try to learn how to think, to learn what to do, to become a useful citizen. You don't have the right to be a baboon. And I'm afraid a good number of our citizens have qualified as baboons.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Well, that's a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I'd like to thank everybody who watched. I'd like to thank Leandra and Jason, and I would personally very much like to thank Mr. LaRouche. Please tune in next week; this is a regular feature on the LaRouche PAC website, at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time, every Friday night. Thank you for watching. Good night.