November 29th Webcast Transcript
November 30, 2013 • 2:43PM

The Lessons of Ukraine and Russia: A Readjustment for Survival

DENNIS MASON: Good evening; it's Friday, November 29, 2013. This is our weekly broadcast of the Friday night webcast with Mr. LaRouche. My name is Dennis Mason. Joining me in the studio tonight is Jason Ross. We will be posing a series of questions to Mr. LaRouche. Lyn, we'll dive right in.

The first question comes from an institutional contact around Washington, DC, which I will read. He writes: "Mr. LaRouche, with the Thanksgiving holiday past, every member of Congress seeking re-election is now in the active phase of campaigning. The Glass-Steagall issue remains a prominent issue with growing support within the American population, among state legislators, and in Congress.

The recent speech by Senator Elizabeth Warren highlighting her Senate bill to re-instate Glass-Steagall was well received and widely publicized. At this point, the only clear opposition to Glass-Steagall is coming from Wall Street and from the Obama White House. What is your advice to members of the Congress? How do you see the Glass-Steagall fight in the coming days? What kind of timeframe do you see for its passage? How will President Obama respond?"

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I wouldn't worry too much about President Obama. I think the gentleman is on the way out; and it's a question of when the delivery of his removal is going to occur. The more interesting thing nowadays, is sudden shifts from a regional situation such as the United States or the trans-Atlantic region.

On the other hand, what we're actually dealing with is a global process with many aspects of complexities, but they all boil down to one general process of what is converging on a single effect. Were headed for a struggle over a complete new definition of the planet Earth — civilization. You cannot break it down to independent elements which are going to coalesce, or bounce against each other. You have to realize that what's happened, for example, in Ukraine. Now the Ukraine operation, which is now, you have a process in which the European euro system is about to disintegrate, and part of this thing is the effect of the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a pivot, because the reality as Ukraine has understood, they cannot deal with a system on a local unit kind of thing; not one nation with another. This is a process. What you have is, Germany is probably on the way out of the European Union, or something to that effect. We have the entire region — you have first of all the Ukraine is on a special degree. The Ukraine cannot accept the European proposal because it would be a death knell for the Ukraine. So the Ukraine is now moving in a separate direction together with Russia and with others. And this thing is being connected all the way across the Pacific coast.

This also, the U.S. situation is determined by the interaction with this. What you've got is, you've got an international system which is an imperial system centered around the Anglo-Dutch empire. And this system of this Anglo-Dutch empire, of which the United States is only a part, is in a process of disintegration. We have at the same time a breakdown in terms of the relationship of our policy, our national policy in this process. In other words, the United States is not really that independent in the process. The trend is to move to an Eurasian orientation, which probably will draw in Germany, and if so, it will also involve Switzerland and Austria and so forth. So we're looking at a grand scheme underway, the exact conclusion, the way it's going to sort out, is not predetermined. But you can probably with a good deal of guessing and understanding, particularly if you are an international traveler you may pick these things up more quickly than living in one country or two countries.

So the Obama factor is almost predetermined under present trends to be thrown out of office. And everything is being set up in a pattern which converges on the idea that Obama is going to be thrown out of office. And we have new developments every day in that direction. So the problem of trying to answer that question is that the question itself is no longer relevant. We have new kinds of conditions, and there's a voluntary effort in this involved. Nations are being presented as nations or temporarily nations or whatever to try out some options; and what they're doing generally is going against options that are not acceptable to them.

And so by deduction or reduction, Ukraine is now going back to be part of Russia — not entirely that, but that's the direction it's going in. This is going to other parts of Asia which is going to also roll up in this same direction. And you have the euro system is about to be chopped up; it's not viable. Spain is not viable in its present form; Portugal is not viable. Italy has a quasi-viable aspect, but it's not totally viable. What's happened to Greece is a crime, and so on and so on. Everything is changing on a global basis. You cannot take these cases one at a time. You can talk about them from a one at a time basis, but you cannot define them in terms of a one at a time case, or even if you pair them. What is happening between the Ukraine and Russia, which has a reaction against it from Western Europe, is part of the picture. So everything goes on a countdown.

If Ukraine were to accept being gobbled up by Western Europe, Ukraine's population would go through a death spiral. So everything is interlocked, more or less intensely, and this thing is going to change from day to day, week to week. The world as a whole is in an upheaval in which the parts are in a sense interacting as if they were one process. It's a global process. There may be parts that are on the edges of the fringes of the operation, but in general this thing is going. The present system is finished. The present global system will no longer exist; something new will emerge. What is not certain is what is going to emerge with what. But this is a wild-eyed situation, and there are no simple explanations available; except that the world in its present form is bankrupt.

And Ukraine is opposing being gobbled by Western Europe because they couldn't live under those conditions. And that's the kind of process you're getting. So, simple explanations, simple motives, simple kinds of schemes don't mean much anymore. This is a new world order, and we don't know yet know — even approximately — what the outcome is going to be.

JASON ROSS: Well, I was going to ask you about Ukraine, but I think you already answered my question. I'm going to go through this anyway, and then ask you a follow-up on a similar subject. For those who aren't aware about this, during the last week, Ukraine stunned many people — although it didn't surprise people in the know — when it did not move forward on agreement on association with the European Union.

This was a decision that the Ukraine made a week ago. This agreement would have been signed today actually at a meeting of EU Eastern European nations. However, Ukraine's Prime Minister Azarov, invoking national security interests, said they would not accede to this deal with the EU, which would have forced the Ukrainian markets open under the ominously named "deep and comprehensive free trade agreement." Seems like being buried very deep underground.

The closer alliance with these disastrous EU policies would be a death sentence for many in the Ukraine who already, their markets are already 60% made up of imports — a lot of that just since their joining of the WTO which was five years ago. Instead, they are pushing for closer ties to the Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan customs union which would strengthen their ability to grow. The head of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine you are very familiar with, Natalya Vitrenko, she explained that Ukraine's exports to Russia are 60% finished goods, and their exports to the EU are 18% finished goods; meaning that the EU has a relationship with the Ukraine of importing raw materials from them. And she views joining the EU more closely in this manner being like a form of EU colonialism.

Some have pointed out, including President Putin and others, that why would anyone in their right mind want to join the European Union economic policy right now? You've got an increasing number of nations in the European Union have youth unemployment over 40%. Why would you want to join a 1200-page agreement with them on economics? Putin did point out that the unemployment in the Russian Federation is about 5.3%. So maybe you'd like to say more on this, but what you just said about Germany and orienting towards the East, would you like to say more on this? OK, good.

LAROUCHE: Well that's part of it. The point is, you have to really look at history in a longer term than recent events in order to understand this one. What you had is, you had a process which I was involved in, in a number of ways. I was involved in organizing, which is one of the reasons why I got into big trouble. We were organizing a collaboration between what is now the former Soviet Union and the United States and others, which is what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. And this has a long prehistory to it as well.

So what happened is the British and others moved in by killing President John F. Kennedy. What they did is, they began to move in a way to break up physical economies, and that led into the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But in this process, like the Ukraine and Russia and so forth, Belarus and so forth, what happened is that it was not a natural collapse of Russia, or of parts of what had been the Soviet Union. It was actually a different kind of collapse; it was an organized collapse. So today you still have the relics in the relationship between Ukraine and Russia for example, which is crucial in this case, is that actually the separation of Ukraine from Russia was forced on these nations, and meant crushing their productive capabilities. Now the Ukraine is going back, knowing that the European system is collapsing, which makes everything worse throughout Europe.

They're now going back to reconcile because they know in Ukraine that they were going to back into production because they're going to be employed, their income is going to come from things that are productive — actual product, not these fictitious gambling games, money games. So the point is that what you're having is a natural development, a natural coalition from central Europe, which may include Germany, because Germany does not want to be part of the euro system. It can't survive as part of the euro system. It has the same problem that Ukraine would have, the same kind of thing. So what you've got now, is you've a process which is leading into a reorganization of the type that I've been talking about. What you have is a world which presently, at the present moment, is divided between what? On the one hand, the Asian part of the world, going across the Pacific, that's one part of the world. And all the nations that are involved in that in greater Asia; that's one thing.

That is what can survive. Right now, the United States is disintegrating; the British economy disintegrating; the French economy; the Italian economy. Spain has collapsed, and so forth and so on. So therefore, you're at a non-survivable policy now. The United States policy now is a non-survivable policy. Europe is a non-survivable part of the world, and one part, Germany, is now being pulled into by a big suction draw into moving in the direction of the reunification in fact of practice between Russia and Ukraine. And the resumption of those relations as now in the form of so-called special trade relations, has now created a defense basis of defending that part of Europe and Germany if they want to come along.

It's going to have a relatively protected development, whereas the area to the west, that is France, England and so forth across the Atlantic is now under its present conditions doomed, unless we in the United States do something to connect in cooperation with the Asian complex, or the Eurasian complex. So now the fate is being dictated to us by reality, not much by choices. People find themselves taking the pathway of least problem or optimal problem, as in this case. And the whole planet, which is about ready to go into a general economic financial collapse, the entire planet is now moving to try to find some sections that can live together and survive this process. And that's what happened Spain, Portugal, large parts of Africa and so forth, these parts are right in the area with the United States right now, in the doom category.

And only by dumping Obama and what he represents, and dumping Wall Street, which is much more important in this, only the dumping of Wall Street can save the existence of the United States now. And that option, what has happened with the Ukraine, Russia, etc. complex, which touches Germany and so forth, this now becomes the option of reality for the United States itself. If we don't make that kind of choice, which means dumping Obama immediately, this United States economy is finished.

ROSS: I think partly Ukraine had been sold to some degree with this idea that Russia equals the Soviet Union, and ignoring historic and obvious trade and industrial ties.

Let me ask you another question concerning the fight between British geopolitics and Eurasian development. And this concerns Iran, and the developments on Iran. At 3am Sunday morning in Geneva, the P5+1 and Iran reached an agreement that will effectively freeze much of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars of relief from sanctions.

The agreement was reached with the strong support of all the nations involved, certainly including Russia and China, and it will result in many billions of dollars in frozen aid and these assets being released to Iran. It's a six-month agreement. It acknowledges Iran's right to continue enriching uranium to 3.5%, making clear their sovereign right to the use of nuclear energy, while eliminating more highly-enriched uranium, and allowing for daily inspections of some of their nuclear sites.

This shows great promise, despite the complaints from lunatics like some in our Senate and Netanyahu and others. Now interestingly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out that with this deal being reached with Iran, there is not really any longer a need for that NATO anti-missile system that's being constructed in Eastern Europe, because all along the way, NATO and the U.S. kept assuring Russia — although they've never signed an agreement — that this system was not aimed at Russia, it was aimed at Iran and the threat of missiles that they might produce at some point in the future. With this agreement, what would be the point for such a system?

Lavrov made this point; I don't think Kerry really responded to it. Also, Pakistan has expressed interest in billions of dollars of investments in Iran, Turkey is opening up its banking sector, or planning to. Even, astonishingly, Saudi Arabia has praised this agreement. So, it really appears that all of this means there are significant changes made in the region, in the playing-field there, dramatically reducing the threat of war. Could you please comment on this deal with Iran?

LAROUCHE: What you have to look at, is the fact that all of this is going in the same direction. For example, the United States has a big crisis, a big economic crisis. Under the present policies, the United States is going into a hyperinflationary collapse. The British system is also in a process of disintegration.

The relationships of Saudi Arabia are being changed — it looks as though the author of 9/11, which is the British Queen plus the Saudi leader, our enemy who started 9/11 — he's on the way, probably, out. So what's happening, there is a readjustment — readjustment is the word of survival. What can we put together as a possibility of survival? And what group of nations should come together in either direct relations or fraternal-spirited relations, to form a new basis for an economy in the world? And that's where we're at. The obvious thing is for us, for our concern, is we have to dump two things: Obama, and Wall Street.

If we dump Obama and Wall Street, in conjunction with what's happening, say, with Germany's tendency to go into some kind of more comfortable relationship with Eastern Europe. Then we have the possibility of breaking the Queen's policy, the Queen of England's policy. Because the entire planet has been governed by a rather complicated but very clear definition of a process, a global process, which was to reduce the human population of the planet from seven billion people, to one or less. That has been the policy which has been operating since the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

That has been the policy. The United States, for example, has gone into an actual decay since the ouster, the assassination, of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy's program, if continued, would have broken the British Empire's system, a system of intention to reduce the human population from seven billion people now, recently, to one. Now what's happened, is that is broken down. And the question is, is the Untied States going to respond to the reality of the situation, dump the Queen of England, and Wall Street, which are the same thing, now, and do we organize our economy, with a Glass-Steagall leadership wedge, and then seek relations with China, India, Japan, Korea, and so forth, an order to create a new basis for an expanding and more-productive higher-technology economy, which is the only way that we can avoid the genocide policy which is inherent in the British-led policy of the so-called green policy.

So we've reached the point where, if the green policy continues, then these things we're seeing today, of kinds of fragmentation which symbolize the entire disintegration of the planet into a terrible mess. And what we're seeing there, is nations are beginning to grab for opportunities of cooperation, to defend themseleves against the policy set forth by the British Queen, the Anglo-Dutch interest, which has been going for the policy of reducing the human population from seven billion to one or less.

That policy would probably lead to a chaotic disintegration of the entire civilization of this planet, and perhaps even toward effects, such as thermonuclear war effects, which would mean the extinction of the human species. So that's what this is all about. It's chaotic in part, but there's a logic to it, because you have on the one hand, the human species, which is unique among all species, has been based on this rise to higher energy-flux densities, always, always upward. And societies that did not move upward in terms of energy-flux density, are doomed.

Now they have decided collectively, starting with the trans-Atlantic region, to put the doom perspective on the United States especially, intending to crush Asia, and South America, and Africa, and so forth, later. Because they know if they break the power of the industrial technological power of the trans-Atlantic region, they know they can break the rest of the system. So we're now at the point of a breakdown crisis in the trans-Atlantic system.

This has chain-reaction effect, because without industrial development, and other high-tech development, you cannot maintain a population of this type on this planet. So now the time has come, where they go ahead with the genocide policy of the Queen of England, where she has specified, that she is determined for the early reduction of the population of the planet from seven billion people to one or less. That's her policy. And it's the effect of trying to install that policy, which has created this particular kind of chaos around the world today. Now you have nations which, like China, Japan, India, and so forth, which have refused to collapse their economies. You see the attacks on China coming from the U.S. President, and people of that sort.

That's the point. And they're saying, "No. No." And they have the guns to back up the "No." And you will see the strength of the Russian economy, and the Ukrainian economy, and things like that linked to that, are going to suddenly become leading issues for the re-formation of relations of nations throughout the world.

MASON: Now, a moment ago you asked the question, "Is the United States going to respond correctly in this crisis?", and I think that a week ago tonight, we held a concert, a remembrance for John F. Kennedy, was put on by the Schiller Institute, which has been published to their site, which I think shows that indeed it is within the purview of the United States to respond correctly to this crisis.

This was more than just a performance. The intention of the Schiller Institute had, going into this production, was a fitting remembrance of a great president of the United States, which really came across. It resonated with the people who were in attendance. I think one of the reasons for that is the fact that we have been living under a failed paradigm for the past 50 years. Every decision which has been taken since the death of Kennedy, has been a failure. We have relinquished our place at the leading edge of science and innovation.

We've further bestialized our people by going into a terrible war in Vietnam, and then consequently, we shifted, because of fear, because of a sense of helplessness, disgust, into the counterculture—of sex, drugs, rock, "live for the moment." We shifted away from "Live free or die" to "Live—for a while, and get what you can."

Now, this shift to entertainment, and to the moment, this is the fundamental axiom of those who have been leading this nation, which has brought us to the point where we are, where the longevity of the republic is indeed in question.

Now, I think that the times are such, and the severity of the crisis on the ground across the country is such, that people, to one degree or another, are recognizing that the disintegration of our society is contingent on this question of culture.

The concert that was put on by the Schiller Institute was neither entertainment nor living in the moment. It created a moment where, with the address from Congressman Neil Gallagher, and selections from President Kennedy himself, the older generation—your generation, Lyn—was walking around in that room, I think, not bound by the present, but working toward the future. And I think it is the spirit which, in the face of 50 years of failure, with nothing coming out of our country seeming to work right now, this spirit is what the people of this nation are hungering after, and when it is presented in such a way as it was in the Schiller Institute concert, I think this resonates with the people.

I think that this dynamic was well put by Kesha Rogers in her statement on Thanksgiving, which I'll just read the end of. She was quoting Kennedy. She said:

"Fifty years ago Kennedy then proclaimed, 'Today we give our thanks, most of all, for the ideals of honor and faith we inherit from our forefathersfor the decency of purpose, steadfastness of resolve and strength of will, for the courage and the humility, which they possessed and which we must seek every day to emulate. As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them.'

Today on Nov. 28, 2013, in these perilous times we face, in a time when we see a world gripped by the presence of tyranny, war, hunger, exclusion, inequality, and a deep and utter disregard for the dignity of human life; we too give thanks, 'not to utter words, but to live by them.'

We give thanks for an awakened and renewed spirit today among many in our population in recognition that, through all these leaders there exists a permanence of mind, with which we too must connect, that lives on within us today. Their bodies may have returned to dust, but their spirit lives in us. Their causes we, too, must emulate, and for this we can give thanks.

We give thanks that the great problems we face today can be solved with the powers of reason and action, so that a greater future for those born and yet unborn, will be fulfilled."

With the publication of the remembrance for John F. Kennedy, by the Schiller Institute—now that that's available for people—it seems appropriate, Lyn, for you to speak to this question of that dynamic in this forum, in the Friday webcast:

LAROUCHE: Well, I don't agree with some of the argument you give. I don't believe that it is reaction that causes positive motion.

Now, I've been at this for a long time. I've been a revolter against what was the standard procedures of my time. I've revolted against our public school education system, because it was wrong. What our education system has been—for example, this is crucial, to understand this process.

People do not react to bad conditions, they do not react. They may react in some sense, but the positive action never comes out of a reaction. It always comes out of a positive action, which is turned loose, but which was active and that by being active, was capable of seizing the opportunity, and changing it.

For example: the way we dealt with this effort. Go back to, say, a year ago, or more than a year ago, in which, in September, a year ago, we disposed a number of our people from our base of operations nearby, into going in and taking on the issue of defeating Wall Street. And we did such a good job that Wall Street didn't catch on to what we had done to it until the following September.

And what happens is, in society you don't have societies reacting to culture. That's the worst thing that can happen to you. What the reaction is to, is to the opportunity to seize the opportunity, to change things. But it doesn't come from the reaction to what you're acting against! It comes from the opportunity to do what you want to do.

The case of the United States, the existence of the United States, is based on that principle. What's the principle? The principle was Nicholas of Cusa. And Nicholas of Cusa, who was a leading figure of the church in his century, was not only a leading figure, he was the intellect, the driving intellect of Christianity in that century, personally. And his effort—where he said, we in Europe cannot possibly survive under the political conditions in Europe. There is nothing in Europe now, which is capable of dealing with this problem.

Europe is doomed. That was his [judgment]. Therefore, he said, you, people, you must move out across the oceans, to other territories, where you can find people who have a positive view, perspective, of humanity. And that is the principle which I go by.

For example, how did this musical event occur? It wasn't somebody came up with some idea! Yes, it crafted things together from the elements which were there—that's true. But how were the elements crafted? We did it! We as an organization did it! Because we are viable, and our opponents are not. So, therefore we respond to what is possible, which is there independently. We respond to the development and spread of ideas, which encourage people to create new institutions for themselves.

And that's what we have to do.

Now, the case of Cusa. Cusa died before the crossing of the Atlantic occurred. But Cusa was personally responsible for Columbus. Because Columbus was in Portugal at this point, visiting, and a bishop representing the interests of Cusa, explained Cusa's policy of going across the Atlantic, going across the oceans. This led to what happened in Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And the Massachusetts Bay Colony was the spark, of organization, which created what became the United States.

Even though we were crushed by the Dutch tyranny at one point, in that century. In the following century, we created a revolution, the American revolution. And that's the way things work, in reality. People who have tried to work on the reactive, react against, react against, react against—they always lose the current of history.

The current of history is always positive, it is never negative. And the ideas that are working are positive ones. We have been hammering against what? Wall Street. Wall Street and the British Queen and so forth typify the enemies of civilization. These are the principle enemies of civilization, on a global scale.

Now, when they weaken themselves and discredit themselves, that does help us, but it only helps us if we embody the cure for the disease.

Therefore the point is, always to educate the people. Always to inform them. Always to try to steer them in a way where they can understand what they don't understand now. And that's how all the great revolutions are made. What happened—the case of Ukraine and Russia.

They came together. Now, someone will say that's an accident—it could have gone the other way. No. No, because the other side did not have anything to offer. What they had to offer them, is the opportunity of going broker than ever before, which was not particularly appealing.

Now, you have corrupt people, who are working with the approved institutions or the approved nations, who are always usually corrupt. They're the prostitutes of the world. The presidents of the world are sometimes the prostitutes of the world. If you can't get a president to be a prostitute, you find somebody else. They're always around.

But the point is, this process, the process of revolution, which we're engaged in now—we're engaged in a real revolution. The world is changing. Spain has nothing—it hates it. Portugal, virtually destroyed. Greece—murdered! Italy—most of Italy is finished. France is collapsing. And the British are chasing their own tail, hoping for a solution.

So this thing happens. And these are forces that have been there all along, like the case of Russia. The Russia-Ukraine thing—the splitting of Russia from Ukraine, under these kinds of conditions? What are you going to get? Sooner or later, somebody in Ukraine is going to say, we've got to work out a deal with Russia, and when you examine what this present economic policy is, you have no mystery about that. Everybody in Ukraine, who is really not a puppet of certain influences, foreign influence in particular, is for this reunification of the economies of Ukraine and Russia.

And if you look at what Ukraine produces, what Russia produces, and then look at what the alternative is that's offered by Europe, the european system, which would you take? The natural one is to go with Russia and Ukraine, because the production and the demands are mutually agreeable.

So, therefore, what you have to do, if you're going to lead history, don't think of some sharpie going around with a formula and going to seduce a lot of people into their stupid beliefs. Yes, they do that, but you know what that leads to. But any successful change always leads on the basis of inspiration of other people, by recognizing what their interests are.

And that is always expressed by people among them, or allied with them, who help them see the possibility of this opportunity.

The problem is, when you think negatively, you think of who you can beat, you think of who you can shame, who you can cheat, that is not a good way to make friends and influence people.

And that's the lesson we have to stick to. Any such thing, like reaction, as being the benefit of progress, no. It's people. It's the human being, it's the human mind.

Think of what the human species is. The human species is the only living creature—which comes into the animal characteristics, and it's the species which has progressed by going from lower to higher orders of energy flux density, in terms of its mode of existence. You want to understand the history of mankind? You've got to look at the tables of chemistry. Because you have to say what parts of the table of chemistry have been occupied by mankind, and what combinations of these elements of chemistry, are combined to give you the new formulas which you can then apply to get these results.

That's reality. The usual explanations of action/reaction—wrong. The world is much better, morally, than most of the politicians understand.

Dennis Mason: I have a question that has come in from Kesha Rogers, who is a pre-candidate for the position of Senator in the grand state of Texas. She writes:

"Hello, Lyn. For some time now, you have spoken of the role of the Policy Committee and our national campaigns in shaping the new presidency. You have insisted that any serious campaign for federal office must be established not from the standpoint of a local election, or just concerning a particular state, but a concern for the nation, and the nation's future as a whole.

"As we witness a cultural and economic disintegration of the nation and the world around us, and a British puppet president, who is losing it mentally and going down rapidly, it is time for new leadership within the Democratic party. It is time to break with this treasonous president. Democrats must declare—we reject Obama's continuation of the Bush policies. We reject Wall Street's bailout economy and the looting of our nation's social safety nets. We reject the murderous policies to the poor and elderly in the name of Obamacare, and bonuses to the insurance companies.

"We once again embrace the legacy and spirit of a real Democratic President, John F. Kennedy. If we do these things, as Kennedy said, "not merely to utter words, but to live by them," I see this as the only way to pull the nation together, through a true vision of optimism, that comes with a commitment to real progress once again."

Will you please comment?

LAROUCHE: Well, naturally, I know Kesha very well, and she has estimable qualities which many people lack.

First, what was Kesha's record? She came into our organization around certain activities. She then ran for office in Texas, on the Democratic party, as a ordinary representative of the state, of that state policy. And she ran two election campaigns, and in the Democratic party she won the Democratic nomination in both cases.

Now this has come to a third option, and I encouraged her: I said, well, the obvious thing is now to go for the Senate from the state of Texas.

Now, this is all understood, but you have to say, what's the reason for this? Well, the reason lies inside herself. She is an exceptionally talented person, morally and otherwise, and has shown that. She's a true leader, and I don't think you could scrape through the state of Texas and find many more people who could match her, in terms of those qualities. So, why shouldn't she run for Senate? It would be a shame not to have her run for Senate. She's eminently qualified.

On the other question: You've got to look at the positive side. The human positive side. Would you trust her? Would honest and serious people trust her? Of course they would. That's what her power is. Her political power is her influence. She is trustworthy. She's devoted to the mission. She's devoted to the character of the mission. She cares more about the United States probably than most people who have been senators for years. And that's her merit.

It's on these questioins of merit, merit of cause, merit of person—these are the kinds of things on which a society, culture, should be based. And that's what you should look for. These qualifications. And it's those impulses that come from within them, and that's what the making is. This is what Nicholas of Cusa represented, in telling people to go across the Atlantic Ocean, in effect, and to create a new civilization because the old one in Europe was not fit to exist, and it had no perspective of being fit to exist. And that was valid.

And as a result of Cusa's influence, he was one of the greatest intellectual and moral leaders of his time. One of the greatest intellects of his own time, and any time before and afterward. And it's on those qualities of leadership, leadership in ideas, leadership for the development of ideas, more than anything else—that's what makes real politics! Good politics.

And she represents that. She probably is the best candidate for Senate in Texas in a long, long time.

Jason Ross: This will be the last question for tonight. This is about a writing that came from the Pope. Pope Francis wrote his first major writing as Pope, the Joy of the Gospel, in English. And in it, he applies the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" to society as a whole. I want to read some parts of this, and get your thoughts on it.

He says:

"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not kill' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills."

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?....

Pope Francis calls upon financial experts and political leaders from around the world to bring about a financial reform which defends the common good, and replaces the tyranny of a "survival of the fittest [economy], where the powerful feed upon the powerless," where the ancient golden calf is worshipped, and where human beings are "considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded." He admonishes that "it is the responsibility of the State to safeguard and promote the common good of society."

He says, "No to the new idolatry of money," "No to a financial system which rules rather than serves,

Here's a longer quote:

"The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose....

"This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules....

"A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future... Money must serve, not rule!"

Pope Francis specifies that welfare measures, while needed, are not sufficient to end exclusion and inequality which breed violence which no surveillance systems can ultimately control; changes must be structural. "Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence... an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future....

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems, or, for that matter, to any problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.

"The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies...."

Could you please comment?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think the appropriate thing to say, in response to those remarks from the pope, is to address the Pope on his own level of authority, as a religious figure. And I'm not joking. This is quite serious.

The greatest problem that we experience in the category of morality, as human beings, is the belief that the human life ends with the death of the mortal person. That is a great mistake. It's more a mistake, probably, of negligence than any other purpose.

Because what does death mean, for a human being? Look at what the role of the human being is, in life, when we talk in these terms? Human life is immortal, but in what sense? In what expression is it immortal? The mortality of the flesh? No, that is not decisive for people who are creative thinkers. They don't think in terms of the flesh. They don't think flesh. They think concepts, which flesh cannot produce, but can only inhabit.

Therefore, the issue is, is the idea you want to get by, with faking it in life? Are you going to be proud of your death from that? Are you going to say, well, we're only human, we don't know the future? Therefore, we're innocent because we're ignorant of the future.

That's not true. It certainly is not true by the ancient Christian theology. In the ancient Christian theology, the life is immortal. Its function is immortal. It has no limit of ignorance. Ignorance is forbidden. You require people who have the ability to rise above mortality, and see what the future requires of mankind, and to prepare mankind for that future, by informing mankind of the principles which mankind needs, for the purpose of mankind.

What's the purpose of mankind? Mankind is the only creature, living creature, of which we know, which has the ability to create the future. Not a continuation of a breed, but a continuation of mankind to a higher level of achievement. And the purpose of Christianity, for example, is this higher level of achievement.

Not to be ashamed of what you've done, if you don't have a reason to be ashamed, but be ashamed if you don't do something which adds to the meaning of the future of mankind. The sacred thing is the sacred goodness of the human mind.

And you look and you take the writings and work of great people, great figures, take religious figures: what's their commitment, if they're good? Their commitment is to foresee what the future must be, or to encourage other people to begin to be able to foresee what the future requires.

The idea that you cannot know the other side of death, is nonsense. That's exactly what you should know. You should know what must be done, after you're dead. You must be devoted to that as a purpose. That must be your being. So the interruption of life by death, for you, means that.

The death, the passing of life, is merely a moment, but the meaning of human life is immortal.

Dennis Mason: That brings a conclusion to our broadcast this evening. I'd like to thank Lyn and Jason. Stay tuned, and good night.