MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon everyone. Today is October 7th, 2013, and you're joining us for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. I have Diane Sare in the studio with me today; but the rest of the committee is dispersed again, across the rest of the country: We've got Rachel Brown on; we've got Kesha Rogers, Bill Roberts, Dave Christie on by telephone, and Michael Steger in California.
So, I think I'll give it to Lyn to begin the discussion.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we're in a very interesting situation, a very threatening one, in point of fact. We have a crazy situation in terms of the Congress, the members of Congress. That's where the worst problem arises, and I hope we can probably get a roundup at this point, and where we stand in various parts of the nation, now, in our circuit. Let's get a reading on how we stand.
DIANE SARE: Well, I think one thing is certainly clear, and I was saying that we could actually use this as a good pedagogy for all of these silly people who think you don't need a government. They now are getting a sense, there is a reason why we have a government! Obama may not be clear on the reason, but the population can be clear on the reason. I think definitely, the population is in a state of high anxiety: People don't know if they're going to get various checks of Social Security, or disability, or things like that; government agencies are shut down. There were various festivals that were supposed to occur in New Jersey, which didn't occur, with devastating consequences for the towns involved, because they're run by the National Parks, so they simply just barricaded the roads and things didn't happen. And all of this adds to a certain undercurrent, where people are clearly a little bit on edge.
And what we're finding, is that when we address the reality of the matter, particularly the fact of this meeting that Obama had with the top CEO's of the biggest banks, Jamie Dimon, Blankfein, etc. and that he met with these people before he talked to the Congress! So the whole thing becomes clear that it is a genocide policy, it's a bail-in policy on behalf of Wall Street. And we have the solution. And really, only when you go at it from that way, and not the predicates, do people get a sense that they can trust us.
And then, the other aspect, is, we've had actually success at discussing the Pacific orientation, the question of thermonuclear fusion also in the context that this is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's assassination. Because people remember, when you jog their memory, they remember that our nation was supposed to have had this by now. So we're able to find a reference point.
But I would say, as a whole, people are very unnerved, and our leadership is crucial.
LAROUCHE: What're we getting from our people across the screen?
MICHAEL STEGER: Lyn, you had said over a year ago now, that this party system has to die, and part of it which is clear in the population today, is that they are very quickly losing any kind of confidence in this whole political party structure. What's unique, though, is that if you go at the population with a sense of optimism that there's an American identity in there — they're disoriented, they're hysterical, they don't have a sense of what's really happening. But when you have an optimism that we can, (1) solve the problem, and (2) that there's a certain outlook within the American culture of progress. People are responding to that idea.
And so, of course, the biggest thing we're getting is, there's a lot of rage towards Obama, but there's a lot of rage, just in general towards the political leaders. There's also a very high recognition of Glass-Steagall, from people who are coming up enraged at what we're doing, because they don't agree, or people that are coming up in large support. And so, you're seeing that there's an education of what are the steps that could be taken right now, to address this kind of problem, and Glass-Steagall is becoming at the top of the list. So, I think that's very interesting.
BILL ROBERTS: I was going to say, I think the overwhelming challenge here, where you have these local governments being put through their own kind of shutdown process, and people were fighting, not very effectively, but fighting against these emergency managers and against the austerity, is to see that there's not a number of separate processes going on. We've been discussing how our own organization got a bit thrown off by reacting to events. And there's definitely a way here, in which people could get caught up with seeing what's happening with Detroit as a separate event. Obama is seemingly dealing with it in a separate way, sending his managers out to promise various funds and things like this.
But if you just look at, what is one of the first things that has been proposed to be cut from the Detroit city workers, is their health-care! Everyone over 65 is getting dumped onto Medicare, everyone under 65 of the retirees, is getting $125 a month stipend! Basically nothing to spend on health care. So what's that? That's ObamaCare, that's the bail-in. And so, the overwhelming challenge is for people to see that there's one fight, there's one intention. There's not a changing intention, but there's one process that people have to respond and fight on the basis of that one process.
DAVE CHRISTIE: Yeah, it's been extremely important to remind the American people the victory that we actually won on stopping Obama's plunge into not just Syria, but what increasingly people began to realize that this was about to spread out of control and erupt into a world war dynamic. And that is what many people in the leadership of Russia, China, other nations, understood, and obviously, the Joint Chiefs and, really, the institution of the Presidency, understood. And we saw this reaction against this war, where the American people actually — I mean, when we wee in Washington, D.C., walking around the halls of Congress, the phones were ringing off the hook, 500-1 against this war. And that quality of engagement by the American people, coupled with the institution of the Presidency, going very clearly forward with our leadership, especially Lyn's leadership, on making sure that we did not go into this war.
But, I think we just have to keep in mind that, for so long the American people have succumbed to this oligarchical outlook, that they're just peasants and slaves that can't actually do anything. And so, in the field, it's been very useful to remind them that, "look, we won this victory, which is obviously the victory that we need; we need to kick Obama out permanently, otherwise, we face this danger at the drop of a hat.
But I think what is making it very clear and very tangible, what they have faced, really, since the Twin Towers went down, or really what was set into motion with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which is this galloping hyperinflation, which has the two components, the money printing and the collapse of incomes because of the collapse of the productive capabilities of the United States, and just drawing it out for them, the increase that we've seen in the doubling and tripling of prices of things that people need in their day to day lives, and saying, "this is only going to accelerate, and it's going to accelerate at a very rapid rate, and therefore, you're not going to just make it one more month. You have got to get up and fight, and the only way you can fight this is with Glass-Steagall, to bankrupt these criminals on Wall Street, once and for all."
So I think that's a simple reminder of a battle that we have won, but that we have the bigger war to win, which is to crush everything that Obama represents. And now we're seeing that he's putting on the chopping block for entitlements, or what they call the entitlements: Social Security and so forth. And this is yet, just another wake up call, that there's no negotiating with Obama: he's got to be thrown out, and we have to move forward with Glass-Steagall.
But I think just that reminder to the American people that we can do this, but not if you just succumb to this oligarchical tradition, that you can't overthrow your oppressors.
RACHEL BROWN: The last time that Obama negotiated, which he said that he's "willing to do to" — surprise, surprise — the government shutdown actually is leading to something that is an abuse of the American population. Imagine that the Obama government would actually do something to attack the American population, because that's what this entire thing was. The government shutdown was intended for the bail-in and for worse cuts than we saw with the sequestration. And Obama, as Dave said, says he's ready to negotiate. The right-wing Republicans are ready to join with Obama, to kill Social Security. That's what we got the last few times Obama negotiated: One was through the employer cuts for Social Security, so basically defund and destroy Social Security. And the second time was for sequestration, which didn't come from the Republicans, as Obama claims; it came from Obama!
So, the whole policy is from Obama, for the bail-in to shut down what the American population needs to survive, and that's the intention. So we have to put through Glass-Steagall to stop that.
KESHA ROGERS: Also, on that, I think the other thing that's really getting the population a real sense of our leadership, is reminding them and putting into the minds of the population exactly what was going on in 2009, what we were dealing with, that we had an Emperor Nero and a Hitler carbon copy in Barack Obama, and he is a tool of the British Empire. Now, looking at that in connection to exactly what we launched just a few months ago, of the stated intention of our organization in the Policy Committee to bankrupt and destroy Obama's owners, to bankrupt Wall Street. And now, when people see the statement and what has now been put forth with the stated intentions of Wall Street, to destroy Glass-Steagall at all costs, and calling on their puppet, Obama, to do that, just what you warned would be the response from the population, of outrage is exactly what we're getting.
We had a meeting here in the Houston area, and several new people came. And as a matter of fact, there were a few people who had not been in contact with us, or had been out of contact for a year or two years. And when they actually got a sense of this government shutdown, and we called them back and showed them what we had done to stop Obama's drive for a Syrian war, what we were doing to unleash the fight against Wall Street and their drive to shut down Glass-Steagall, people said, we have to come in here, this is the fight that we have to actually participate in, because this thing has to be stopped now, Wall Street has to be stopped now.
So the impact of the new statement that we just put out, exposing Wall Street's intention to shut down Glass-Steagall is really having a reverberating effect in the population, and people are getting a sense that it's only we, our organization, that's providing the solution to deal with this crisis, that the only option now is to go for the full-fledged recovery program, with the nuclear NAWAPA driver and Glass-Steagall, and that's the only thing that's going to work.
LAROUCHE: One of the problems we had, a key problem recently in the past couple of weeks, three weeks, is that some of our people who are organizing, were organizing in the wrong way; they were going up the wrong street.
The point is, our method of organizing is to provide leadership to the nation, and they were playing another game, some of them. And it backfired. So we took a blow because of some of our people, as in Leesburg, went to this other method, which is the "factoid" method, which is wrong.
You've got a nation which does not know what to do. We do know what to do; maybe some of our people lost track of that, but we do know what to do. What the people out there need, in the world as in the United States, they need real leadership! Which is where I come in: That we pull together, and we've done it with the team, here, we pull together people, we get a policy, and we try to drive the policy. Because what the people out there need, the people that we're supporting, and they're supporting us, those people need the assurance that we're going to give them some guidance. Not comment on what other people are doing! We don't want any commentary on other things — we'll get the information ourselves. It'll come to us!
But we're supposed to do the opposite thing. The people will ask the question, we will give them the answers! And we will give the answers by initiating the point. In other words, we will tell them what the problem is, as we see it, and what the solution is! And then they will respond and tell us what their reaction is. And that's the method that has to be used. And some of our people just went in the wrong direction — I guess they're not skilled in this matter.
But the point is that's where the mistake was made. We were not providing the leadership! Which I know how to provide. And I was cut off and I was not being informed. So therefore, they made terrible mistakes for a couple of weeks, because they were going on this other method, the method of trying to respond to what the word is, coming from people. But the people don't know what the truth is! The people don't know what has to be done! Not really. When they're up against a situation they have no familiarity with, a sudden change, the whole breakdown of the Congress, this sort of thing. And you want them to tell us, what to do? It's the worst thing you could do! And that's where the big problem came.
We are supposed to be able, to gather information as intelligence information, not commentary, but intelligence. We want to know the facts, we don't want to know stories, we don't want interpretations. We want the facts.
Our job is to give them, what the policy should be, and tell them what they need to know. And we were not telling them, at least in some part of our organization, we were not telling the people what they needed to know! And when you shut them off at the same time, by this shutdown of the institutions, and they're going to get nothing! You're leaving everything open to the enemy, because you're not leading!
Now, I know, out there, we've had this shifting back into the field from here, but the point was, in that process, some people made very serious policy mistakes, contrary to the policy. They came up with a different policy than the policy we'd been operating on. Our policy was: We will provide the leadership based on the facts that they need to know. And we will, at the same time, we will go out and gather, and provoke, find the information that we need to give to the people we're talking to. And I think we just have to insist on that, that they just don't do that any more! Don't do this kind of "interpretation" of what the facts are.
We know, and I know, — I know above all, because I get the best sources, and I know what we have to get to the people. Some of the people don't know that! Or they made a mistake in assuming that they did know a better method of doing it, and the method stunk. We lost — I mean, we really lost support! Not in a permanent loss of support, but we were not telling the people what they needed to be told. We were not assembling the information, we were not putting it out in the way you have to put it out, in order to inform the people, not about what the "fact" is! But what the best method — you know, you're like a commander in warfare, you're a general officer, staff officer: You have a responsibility, as an expert, to give them the information they need, the strategy they need, the tactics they need, because they don't know! And when you start and go out and try to pick up, you know, secondhand information, you just screw up everything.
And what we need to do, now that you're all back there in your places, I think we just have to concentrate, because your function is so important for this whole organization. Because what our job is, is to solve the problem, and discuss this among ourselves and with the sources we have, and supply what the solution is, supply the answer, to supply the events. You have a bunch of generals coming in, and they're waiting for the corporals to tell them what to do? That's the kind of situation I ran into this past couple of weeks!
OGDEN: Look, I think that's why your emphasis on Shakespeare's Henry V is crucial right now. Because we have to think as the character of Chorus. We can not be one of the characters onstage, responding to the script that somebody else has written, just one of the shadows, playing the shadow-game. But we have to be above that stage, we have to be behind that script, and to know something which is completely outside the parameters, of what each of the characters on stage thinks that they're responding to.
LAROUCHE: I think that that's precisely what the situation is. I think it's a neat way of putting it.
SARE: And people do appreciate that. We had a — I found it somewhat ironic and interesting: There was a Tea Party meeting in the southern part of the state, which is one I haven't gone to that frequently, and I sent another person to go and speak, and of course, the acting president of the group sent someone over to ask this person if he had a position on various single issue items. And he said, "Why are we discussing this? There's a genocide policy coming from the top," and then he addressed the whole group on the legacy of John F. Kennedy, which is a mixed topic among some of these people who considering themselves to be so-called "right-wing" or conservative. And then, what happened, is, at the end of the meeting, people came up to him and said, "You know what? We really need Kennedy Democrats, and I'm very sorry about the way the president was talking to you on this low level, and you should really not speak with her any more, but talk with the previous president who really runs here."
And I just thought this was such — we're seeing it frequently, where people only a month ago, would have told you that Franklin Roosevelt was a socialist, and who needs public credit, that's communism, all these crazy ideas — people actually would rather survive! And therefore, if we are truthful from the standpoint that Matt's saying, that you don't go by sense-perception, you don't curve what you are presenting to what you think someone's axioms are. What you discover, is that people who are thinking will say, "Oh! Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, I used to know this!" And you get a shift.
LAROUCHE: I know. It's like — what you get, the silly situation, where people are going to try to interpret what the trends are in the population. And that was the real error that was made out of our own office in Leesburg, terrible error. Because when you're in a situation where you are the one who knows, what to give as the advice, the counsel, you are responsible like any general officer, to be competent, and to qualify yourself to able to deliver competent advice, direction. And that was what was lost in those several weeks, in that process.
We didn't catch it, because it was restricted, largely to some parts of the organization, it wasn't going through the main discussion we were having, so we missed the fact that this kind of nonsense was going on. But the key thing here, and it's especially important, we have to have a discussion, among this group here, as other institutions — we have to have a discussion which is based on, we are going to advise them, what they should know! And we're not getting that information out to the people! Somebody's trying to interpret them, and say, "Oh, that's a good idea," you know that kind of nonsense. I hope we can just clean this thing up, and get rid of that problem.
But that's what I was worried about, when I weighed this thing. I wanted to get a picture of how our people, on the other side of the wire, were seeing the situation, and the result I got — boom! I know exactly what the problem was! We were getting blocked, on presenting the facts that we know, that they don't know, and the people they talked to don't know — they don't know how to save the United States! They want to save the United States. You've got to tell them how to do it! That's what any commander, military commander, any position in any rank, their responsibility is, the first thing, is to brief the people they're responsible to. And that was not being done. Instead there was a different kind of discussion entirely, which is always a loser.
So I think we've sort of shaken that up a little bit. It was necessary.
ROGERS: Yeah, and I think it's worth reminding people what you identified in your recent paper, in terms of the concept of the so-called "truth" that Wall Street and the culture that we live in today, has a conception of truth as being that of popularly accepted behavior versus the identity of truth that you defined in your paper as emphasized by the role of Chorus: That you're always seeking to identify that truth, not in what is presented just there on the stage, or what you think you're seeing, but what is actually shaping that process. And as long as people have the identity that the only basis for truth is whether or not my friends say it's good, or whether or not it's accepted by Wall Street, or accepted by popular opinion, then that's what we have to destroy, that's what we have to actually break down from the population. And what you identified on Friday in your discussion, in your webcast, about the identity has to be based on a cultural transformation in the population, that's the only way that you're going to actually secure the basis for true human progress in society. And I think that that is extremely important in what the population needs, to be able to deal with this crisis, and to know that we can defeat Wall Street, we can defeat this cultural degeneracy that the population has been gripped by.
LAROUCHE: So, we've got to strengthen from here our collection of what we need to present as a policy, as a staff policy, and we have to have more of a discussion of exactly that matter with the entire team. Which means that discussion among the individual members all getting together, every day, in a sense, be in communication every day, on setting what is the advice that we're going to give people? We have other people outside this group as such, who do the same thing. But when you had this other, diversionary business coming out of Leesburg, you're doing the absolutely wrong thing. You're setting yourself up for defeat, by not providing the leadership that is needed.
SARE: I think one thing that also happens, even among our own members, people get scared. People have health situations, they have other ... and they tend, out of their anxiety to shrink in terms of what they're actually looking at. Which is why this type of leadership is so urgent. I mean, as soon as the Wall Street meeting with the White House was clear, and known, all of a sudden everything that had gone on in the week leading up to the shutdown, and after, was crystal clear.
And that gives people a vantage point to not get bogged down in these details, where people really do get disoriented. They say, "well isn't this happening? Isn't it the case, that the ObamaCare computers weren't ready?" Well, we said it's a plan to kill you, so whether their computers are ready or not, I guess you sign up for a morphine drip. They probably have a really easy pathway for that!
But somehow, there's a disconnect, where you've been very clear what we're dealing with since April of 2009. We now saw the bail-in policy in Cyprus, that was very clear. We saw that we were pulled back, and the Russians have been reminding us that we really were about this close to thermonuclear war on the Syria question — and with Obama there, it's still not completely resolved. So, what has been said by yourself and by our organization, when we are at our best, is very true. And for some reason, then, people expect to go into what they consider the real world, and get a different result.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, that's stupidity.
LAROUCHE: I mean, that's when the corporals start to tell the major generals what to do. And that's really bad stuff!
And we do know — we probably have, in our leadership group, we probably one of the best intelligence services in the world. And what we do every Friday night [in the webcast], actually follows that function, too. We have other people, apart from this group and other things, who are doing the same kind of thing. They are trying to get a General Staff perspective. And when you call somebody, you don't say, "well, so-and-so is saying this..." you have to say what you know. And if you can't say what you know, then you're not a leader, and you should be treated as a non-leader.
STEGER: Well, speaking of Henry V, I'm reminded of Richard III, given the status of Obama right now. You see a desperation from this Presidency, meeting with Wall Street before [meeting] with the members of Congress. But while he's meeting with Wall Street, across the ocean, you've got leadership in China meeting with all of the delegates of Southeast Asia, and not only were they able to announce a New Silk Road in Central Asia, you see now, a collapse of Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, you see a development of collaboration and commitment for nuclear power in countries like Bangladesh with Russia, or in Vietnam, or in Indonesia, and this is where the President of China then spoke at a number of conferences in Southeast Asia over the past week.
You see a marshaling of an outlook, which, with the United States' collaboration around a Pacific orientation, eliminates this whole Wall Street/London European crowd, who have kind of fallen into their own swamp of degeneracy. And it's time to cut that, and go toward the Pacific. You see the opportunity is there. It's out of the purview of most of the American people. But it's a very real part of the historical stage right now.
CHRISTIE: Well, I think that goes to another thing that comes up in the organizing is, if you do get mired in the immediate sense-perception, the immediate reaction, the immediacy of the moment, then you get trapped into thinking that you have to immediately respond to somebody who doesn't know what's going on. And I think the case of the Silk Road initiative is very clear, because, you know, 1996, we attended a conference in Beijing that outlined the very perspective we're beginning to see come together. We have much more work to be done on that front, but nonetheless, there's a long-range perspective that, you, Lyn and your wife, Helga, and others in the organization, kept hammering on, even if there wasn't an immediate response. And now we're seeing the long-range perspective begin to come together, especially at this moment of crisis where there is no other alternative. And obviously we have to elevate it to a higher level with the fusion perspective and so forth, but I think that, that idea that if people get stuck in responding to the immediate, instead of knowing that you fight for a policy, you keep it moving, even if there isn't an immediate response, knowing that in the realm of ideas, that's the only way it could go for, and therefore, you don't respond. You keep it in that domain of mind, that knows that eventually that is the only policy that will work.
LAROUCHE: There's also a timing factor in this matter, extremely important. And the staff thing is — because you're always required to outflank the opposition, you have to pick the right policy and you have to pick the timing of the policy, and how you present it at the same time. And that was where the big missing point was. They didn't want it, they didn't discuss it, they didn't want it, or they even opposed it. But they didn't know what they were doing, and that's the worst thing, is when you have a section of leadership which does not know what it's doing, that's the worst kind of situation you can be in.
And then try to get people to outflank leadership, by using incompetent leadership to replace competent leadership, that's not good at all! You lose wars that way!
OGDEN: Well, I think, I just very recently got to glance at the newest paper you've written, "Art, Science & Sense-Perception, Which Is Reality?" But I did get to study the previous report, which is "Contemporary Pseudo-Morality." And I think exactly what you laid out in there, about a predefined code of behavior, which is the acceptable parameters within which morality, so-called, is defined, which is imposed by an oligarchical principle which is committed to the reversal of human progress. That is exactly the problem that we're trying to break on a daily basis whether it be in Washington, in the rest of the population, even within the leadership, or the supposed leadership of the country.
And the progression which you said, from the time that man discovered fire, through to modern times, you should have a decreasing dependency on sense-certainty. However, and that can be paralleled by a maturation process even within the individual human life itself. You say, from the infant, to the child, to the adult to the transcendental, as you said it. But this is the fight for republicanism, throughout the history of mankind.
However, there's been the counter-pole to that, which is the oligarchical principle, and it has to be identified as such, this code of behavior, which, then people say, "well, that's so-called 'accepted morality.'"
LAROUCHE: The euro system is an example of the problem. The euro system has actually destroyed Europe, that whole section of Europe. And it's getting worse all the time! Every time you turn around, the governments of Europe are worse than they were — they're not even governments any more! They're like psychiatric wards. [laughter]
That's what it is! If you look at some of the things I know about, what's going on in Europe, that is like a discussion in a psychiatric ward.
SARE: Well, the idea that, for the sake of appearances or custom, you have to act like it's normal to do what's been done to the population of Greece, because that's somehow the way — and I was thinking, this thing you said on the webcast, about when people use the phrase, "over the top," that it's violent. Because whenever people say it, they're saying "don't upset my me world. I'm in a bubble, I'm a doll house, and I have a particular ordering, and you come in here and tell me, that my doll house is on the Titanic. So you're 'over the top,' and I'm not going to hear what you have to say."
LAROUCHE: Yep. It's also instigated; that's the point. That kind of behavior is instigated. And, that's Obama. Obama was the one who started that himself: When I raised the question about the health-care business. And he's murdering people today! His ObamaCare is murder! It's the same thing as Hitler, actually the same thing. A different technique, but the intention is the same. And look at what happens with the policy, the ObamaCare policy: That is genocide! What they're doing is really genocide! It corresponds to the first stage of Hitler's genocide, hmm? The mass murder: Exactly the same kind of thing! And Obama's doing the same kind of thing!
And who's talking about that? Who's talking about the fact that Obama represents a policy of genocide? The same thing as Hitler's — the first stage of Hitler's program, was the first stage of his program in health care. He started with health care, to kill people! That's his first act as President! And it got worse all the way along. And now you've got ObamaCare, which is genocidal! It's exactly the kind of thing that Hitler did! And they just put it under a different form.
And therefore, it's urgent in such cases, that you do not suppress the General Staff report! You don't suppress it. You tell the truth. And Obama is incapable of telling the truth, he's made that very clear. I don't think he's ever told the truth. I don't think his birth certificate is true! I don't think anything is true about this whole thing! It's crazy! [laughter]
SARE: That's for sure.
LAROUCHE: And we have to have some people who don't pay any attention to that kind of nonsense, and get out there and lay out, exactly what the problem is. Or, if you can't know exactly what it is, you get as close to it as you can.
STEGER: Lyn, you've been raising in your papers, recently, this question of mankind getting access, or control over the planet Mars. And it's not so much putting people on Mars, but it's the ability through devices and instruments, like with Curiosity, to control Mars. And that in advancing the human species to that condition, to that level of power over the parts of the Solar System, we will have to leave behind certain traditions of behavior that we've kind of acclimated towards, we've adapted to here on Earth, as if the Earth were itself the universe. And we'll find that that's not likely the case as we push the boundaries of our exploration.
But I think it's unique to say that it's also the case, now, because of the period of history that we're in, we've entered a moment where there is no fixed institutions — either the institutions will fail in this country, there's a policy and an outcome of mass-death that will ensue in the short term, because of the failure of those institutions; or, we will transcend that and enter into a different kind of system of development. But that ability to act in that, requires the same dropping of habits, that we've got to become less conditioned by the habits of historical experience, or of our own personal experience, and recognize we've entered into a new domain of history, now. And only by thinking about mankind on Mars can you operate effectively at this point in history. And I just think that's very provocative.
LAROUCHE: It's good to be provocative.
CHRISTIE: Well, I think that draws another point, on a kind of a social process. Because, at different parts of the nation, you have different characteristics, but our ability to take those different site readings, which is really what you're dealing with in the case of these instruments on Mars, is you can take these site readings and have a coherence of mind that's able to figure out what is actually occurring. And this is the importance, I think of the social process in determining direction for policy and so forth, because you have to take these different site readings that you get, which of course, many of the American people, are suffering a very similar fate, but with unique characteristics, regionally and so forth. But the point is, you bring it together under a coherence of mind, and I think this process of always saying, "what is it that we're missing? What is it that we've overlooked? What it is that we have yet to see?" Because that comes up in the case of the history of science, is that we didn't know that the electromagnetic domain even really existed! And the subtlety of the characteristics, the ability to make the discoveries and develop the instrumentation to then add that in to a coherent picture of what's going on in the universe.
And so, I think that's what we're dealing with in a social process; when it does function, is, you take these different site readings, you develop a coherence of mind, and then say, "all right, what is it we're overlooking?" And I think that gets to some of the problems we've seen around leadership as not tapping into that capability.
LAROUCHE: The first thing we have to do, is we have to consolidate what we knew we had to do all the way along. And not let any diversions get in the way. What we have to do, is we have to get through Glass-Steagall immediately. That's not just Glass-Steagall: That's an understanding of something else. It's going beyond simply Glass-Steagall, to understand, how should it be applied? Are you going to apply it on the basis of a general discussion? Or are you going to apply it on the basis of an understanding of what will make it work?
In other words, are you going to try to run on the kind of economic system, management system, that we've heretofore? Or, are you going to change, and go back to exactly what Roosevelt did? Because there're two ways to do this. As in history, you have the case of Franklin Roosevelt's approach to the crisis then, which was at the beginning of his Presidency. Now, you look at the opposite thing, which is, we run a different variety: We call it "Glass-Steagall," but it's actually management of a type which is based on the same-old, same-old. You just cut out some things that stink, but you don't solve the problem.
Franklin Roosevelt solved the problem. He said, the only solution is, we have to do this: First of all, you have to throw the bums out. That's what they did — they put 'em in jail! They belonged there! They earned it. It wasn't a gift to them, it was something they earned.
And you look at what happened: The minute that he died, Franklin Roosevelt died — the laws were still the same, the policy was still the same, in terms of its specifications, what people were doing. You change one or two controlling figures in the process... and you sank the whole nation! You began to screw up everything, including the continued warfare, after his death, and other things of that type. The whole policy was different! And the result was different, than what it had been under Roosevelt.
So that's the key thing. You can not just use the terms and put a label to it. You have to put the recipe in, which is necessary. And you have to put in the thing which is the most abrasive, often, as Roosevelt did. Roosevelt was very abrasive. He sent people in the former government to jail, especially the Wall Street types. And what we have to do, again, today, is we have to put the Wall Street types in jail! Unless they want to run someplace else, so we don't have to bother with them.
But that's the point, is the real leadership approach. And when you sit back and let policy run you — by the way, we have something we've picked up in what our coverage is itself: We're getting some very interesting discussions from the justice system, in terms of violations and questionable behavior, and this indicates that there is some ripeness for doing something very unpleasant to some people in the Obama Administration. And it's coming from legal sources, legal authorities.
OGDEN: Yeah, you've had several cases of citing the "Nixon precedent."
LAROUCHE: Yeah. So this is there. We have to realize and don't ignore the fact, that you're getting signs of this type, which if you put them together, you say, somebody's being sent to jail — maybe the President. Or somebody like that.
So the question is, we have to have an understanding that this is the problem, we also have to address, because we are not, as an organization, doing an effective job, in this question of strategy. We're doing good work, or have been doing good work in terms of policy. But we have also to deal with strategy. Because it's not only what you do, it's how you do it. And that's where we need some improvement.
OGDEN: Yeah, I think that's crucial that change in law is not sufficient. But rather, a change in policy is needed in order to make those laws effective. And to just observe the 24-hour difference between when Franklin Roosevelt lived, and once Franklin Roosevelt had died, that reveals the entire question. And I think that's why the entire discussion about what's happening in China, our orientation towards the Pacific, the fusion power paradigm revolution, this entire change in policy, is a necessary underpinning of what we're talking about, in terms of the victory, with the fight for Glass-Steagall.
LAROUCHE: Anyone who's going to lead their nation, or lead the nations, as Franklin Roosevelt did in a very significant way, and you see that very subtle difference, it seems so small, but it's absolutely crucial and decisive.
And I think — you know, the question of Obama obviously should be thrown out of office: He deserves it, richly. He's earned it the hard way! Shall we say.
OGDEN: When your own Department of Justice may be guilty, itself of obstruction of justice, you know you've got a problem!
LAROUCHE: Yeah, right, exactly! [laughter] Exactly, and that I think is what the problem is, we're up against. We've got to clarify that, and get this organization back on its feet again. It slipped off, a little bit a couple of weeks past.
But we can't just ignore it and watch it and not comment on it. We've got to say, "That's happened! Now you guys straighten yourselves out! And start doing things right."
And people will support you if they see you doing that.
LAROUCHE: The other way, they won't support you. You're not worth supporting, you can't be trusted. You're too weak; you're a lousy leader.
ROBERTS: I think one of the things that's very important right now, to give the population a sense of, is their own power. I talked to — I ran into a fellow this week, who, when I told him the American population had stopped an invasion of Syria, he said, "No, that wasn't the American population, that was Vladimir Putin who did that." And I had to walk him through how, no, that was part of it, but that the American population had actually, through the response to our leadership shut down this war.
And I think sometimes, the American population lacks a sense of its own potency. And so, when we say "Glass-Steagall," we have to make it very clear, that we're not simply talking about a financial reform, or taking things back to how they were in the '90s. But that it's actually the resonance within the population for example, on the revival of the Kennedy program, the fact that that still resonates in people's minds, and the fact that Glass-Steagall, today, represents the capability to have a shift toward what Kennedy was doing as a continuation of this process of continual progress — the fact that that is still so tangible in people's minds, is where actually the real threat of Glass-Steagall lies. It's why they're scrambling, otherwise it doesn't make that much sense.
And so, we really make sure to put together this idea of Glass-Steagall, but not as a law, but as a means for a paradigm shift. When people get that idea, it's a real moment. And I think because of everything that's happening right now, a lot of people are getting that idea. They're getting an idea of Glass-Steagall, beyond just a name.
LAROUCHE: I can add something to that, I think which is a comment of relevance: Look at the situation in the justice system, the court system: This uneasiness in the court system about the Obama policy and what it involves, very clearly. Now, you say, "well, these are normal people." Yes, but what they understand, they represent judicial institutions. That's their responsibility, that's their profession, that's their responsibility. When they see what Obama is doing, and what the Democratic Party leadership and what the Republican Party leadership are both doing, they say, "we are about to see the destruction of our nation. Well, our nation is something we're supposed to serve, in terms of the legal authorities." If you break down this legal authority, you will create chaos, mass-murderous chaos!
So therefore, what you just said, is extremely important, relevant to that point: Just think about people in the justice system, and think about however they react under normal conditions, usual times, there's a point where the institution itself demands of them, that they respond to the institutional question.
Now, what Obama's doing, and what many of his cohorts are doing, on both sides of the aisle, what they're doing is they're destroying the United States! They're destroying the legal system of the United States. They're creating a system of mass murder. Now, the British Monarchy may like that, they like that, because they want to kill more people. But anyone who is an honest period, I don't care if they're right-wing, whatever they are — if they are responsible as a legal authority, in a legal position, a legal counselor, and they are responsible as a member of an institution, a representative of the institution — maybe the individual lawyer may be different — but those who have legal high office, have to be sensitive to the fact that the institution which they are associated with is about to be destroyed. And they're being thrown into chaos, too.
So I think that these things we've seen, coming down in the past days, since this thing started — remember, this whole development goes together with the shutdown. Now, the shutdown now means a threat of the destruction of the nation, through chaos. And so, I think at this point, that aspect has to be up. And that involves everything else, when you talk about maintaining a legal system, that is a justice system, a national justice system, there are certain things that you will not let happen, unless you're really an outright madman — like the President may be. Because you will not destroy your own nation, you will not destroy all your neighbors, and so forth, all the people you're associated with, you're not going to take the whole thing down and throw it into chaos. Because anyone who's intelligent, especially in the legal system, the justice system, will be very sensitive to that.
As I am, from a different standpoint. But we can not allow this nation to be disrupted, and what Obama's doing is a terrible disruption of the nation. And what the Republican right-wing nuts are doing the same thing. And they came to agree: So it was Obama, who officially organized this chaos! And then he let the Republicans in on it. And some of the suckers go along with it. Look at what we got with this gentleman whom we met with, who wants to support Saudi Arabia! This is really — this is criminal!
LAROUCHE: How can you introduce that kind of thing to our nation? This is treason! And you're getting a smell that some people think so, and I think those in the justice system who are really serious, will be the first to pick up the sensibility, of what this may mean.
OGDEN: Well, good. I think that the perspective is much clearer, and I think we can go forward with this discussion. So, thank you for joining us, and I'm sure we'll be touch, regularly.
That brings a conclusion to our show today, stay tuned.