LaRouchePAC Policy Committee Discussion, December 16th, Transcript
December 17, 2013 • 1:15PM

Watch the full video, or listen to the audio.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. Today is December 16th, 2013. You're joining us for our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. As you can see, I'm joined in the studio live by our entire Policy Committee. We have, Michael Steger, joining us from California, we've got Rachel Brown from Massachusetts, Dave Christie from Washington state, Kesha Rogers, the newly announced Senate candidate from the state of Texas, Bill Roberts from Michigan, Diane Sare from New Jersey, and of course, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. So, I'm going to let Lyn begin our discussion today.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, this is a very special occasion, and specially some Asian developments are coming into play in this process in this very day. So we're now moving ahead. I think that I would have less to say at this point than I would normally, because we have much to be said right here, and I think each of them should get their chance to say exactly how they respond to this particular situation, and get that first laid on the table, then the discussion could probably come along better after that.

OGDEN: Maybe we can let Kesha start us off.

LAROUCHE: Yes, I think that's a very good idea.

KESHA ROGERS: Sure. Well, I think given the development that we just saw happen this past weekend, we can see a total shift with what happened with China, and the landing of their Moon rover. And I think that this is a sign of a crucial development, in terms of the direction that you see, with the understanding that the Pacific orientation and the development around scientific progress and a commitment toward taking the world, into a new direction, is really putting on the table a certain crossroads that we're looking at. And I think that that crossroads is understanding, first and foremost, is that, as we've been discussing here for quite some time, the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, what you're seeing with this Eurozone bail-out policy, the bail-in policy, the quantitative easing, that system is coming to a head, it's coming down. And people know this.

And I don't think you can really just look at what just happened in China as a single event, but this is part of a process overall. And I was really excited, I did an interview with one of the Science Research Team members, that people can find on the website, that what we're looking at from the standpoint of the commitment of mankind right now that people know has to be taken up [see interview at]: the commitment toward space development, toward planetary defense, defense from asteroids, this is only going to happen with a process that rids us of this Wall Street bail-out apparatus, and says we're moving forward with a commitment to space science and to progress for all mankind. And I think more people are ready to do that, and I'm excited that that's going to be the basis of what my campaign is launched on, and that we can really take this fight for reviving NASA and space progress overall to the next level

OGDEN: I can say that Mr. LaRouche just released a paper which is "On 'Shifting the Economic Narrative,'" which is a response directly to the problems in the Democratic Party as such. And coming off of discussions this weekend, Kesha's campaign, a flagship campaign for the United States Senate is to address that directly in the tradition of John F. Kennedy and challenging the Democrats who would play games with the killer policies of Wall Street. And anything that is complicit with what we've seen in Detroit, what we've seen with the bail-out policy, what we're now seeing with the bail-in, is complicity with a genocidal policy. And that has to be said clearly, and I think Kesha's campaign is the vehicle by which that is going to be said.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Well, actually just taking up on that paper, the way that Lyn, you develop it, to make the point to this Democratic Party leadership which has absolutely capitulated to Obama, especially around the Clinton circles and so forth, but the way you open up the discussion is on coming off the death of Franklin Roosevelt, of some of the people you were associated with as time went on around the OSS circles, and the fact that they said, when Roosevelt died, "It's all over."

Now, it wasn't all over, from the standpoint of what you did with the Strategic Defense Initiative, on keeping that legacy going, but the fact that these people, Carville, and the others crew that you identified in the paper, could not make that connection, means that they don't actually know what we're up against. That what we see with Wall Street, what we see which was very vividly identified at the end of the paper around the Green agenda, that any capitulation to this, which is genocide, the Green agenda is genocide, Wall Street is genocide, the Detroit situation is very clear. But what you have as a reaction against that coming out of Ukraine, is, they're saying "We don't want go along with the bail-in agenda, we don't want to go along with the sinking trans-Atlantic ship.

And so, just to make it very clear, around what Kesha's campaign represents, and what we're doing as far as a national fight, which is to crush Wall Street and what it represents, and be very clear on identifying that their intent is genocide, and we're seeing that with the effect with Detroit and so forth.

BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, I think, we are absolutely at a transition point, with what's happened with this Detroit decision, and also what's happening in Ukraine, where you have a country that's resisting this, and there's being provocations deployed from the west to say, "Well, no, you don't have an option. Your population is going to be subject to this European Union bail-in murder policy." And so, anyone who has either been naïve about this process, or has wished to appear naïve at this point, no longer has an excuse to be able to say, "well, we can work with these; well, we have to get money from Wall Street." It's got to be absolutely made clear right now, and I think that with what we're doing, we're setting a standard which says, there are absolutely two directions that this thing can go. And it's not just that if we don't revive the Franklin Roosevelt tradition with Glass-Steagall now, that it's going to be a process of populations being subjected to an accelerated rate of genocide — it's not just that; but as Lyn's made the point repeatedly, is that the resistance to this process of genocide from the nations of the East, for example, China, and Ukraine and Russia, that will not process, will create a dynamic of thermonuclear extinction of the human species.

So it just be this naïve thing any more where we're going to say "Oh well, yes, we know that this is happening, but we can accept this, because we have to play along with the game." But we're absolutely at a point where there has to be a shift, and it's got to be the type of thing where those who go along with this, have to be basically called out on it, and isolated.

DIANE SARE: I think one aspect of these Democrats, and the insanity of their policy paper as of 2012, which you, Lyn, were just responding to, is, if you look at Europe, it is very clear, the fascist intent of what they are defending, where now in Spain and in Greece, you can go to jail or be fined EU30,000 if you speak ill of the EU! I mean, this is lèse majesté! We got rid of this! We have freedom of speech in this country — people tend to take it for granted — it's not a small thing.

So what you have on behalf of the Wall Street and London, the Queen's — is a dictatorship, and actually reminds me of the famous debate in 1971, where you took on Abba Lerner over this exact question of economic policies. And the way he lost the debate, was he blurted out, "If Hjalmar Schacht had been listened to, Hitler would not have been necessary." So that the only means to have this kind of policy, is you must also have a dictatorship, and with that, comes thermonuclear war.

And that is what these people are complicit in, if they are defending Obama's policies right now, because he is nominally a Democrat, or whatever reason they have for going along with it.

MICHAEL STEGER: I think you have a certain reassertion at this point, of the mission of the United States, and that's really what's been lost within this kind of Democratic Party leadership, that's nominally Democrat, or even some of better ones, is there's a lack of sense, as Lyn, you indicated with your own experiences, of what the real mission of the United States is. And you see a compromise amongst an entire generation of these, throughout the trans-Atlantic, who've lost that sense of what real mission is, coming out of the Renaissance, within the United States, and a real development orientation.

But what you do see, especially from our generation, a younger generation, I mean, you think of the scientists participating in the Moon mission in China, these are now 30- and 40-year-olds. You think of the revolt from people like Edward Snowden, people who recognized we're facing this kind of dictatorship. There's a growing recognition within the younger generation, that, one, Obama is a fascist fraud, but also, there's a sense of Glass-Steagall, of bankrupting Wall Street! Because if we don't bankrupt these Wall Street bastards, genocide is clear and the outcome of world war, of nuclear war, and even human extinction is clearly threatened. I mean, these young people today on college campuses feel trapped. There's no sense of where they can go, how they can get out of.

So, I think there's a reassertion, within that context, from us, from Kesha's campaign and a growing number throughout the world, responding to that, around what the real mission of the United States is.

RACHEL BROWN: Well, I just think, it's obvious that people have been putting off the obvious issue of this downward trend, towards the reduction of our ability to support our population, amongst Congress, particularly thereby, amongst people who should be defending the FDR tradition of the Democratic Party and this is just no acceptable. And people want to be in a delusion and say "it's not that bad," but the fact is, it is that bad.

And if we don't get this change in orientation within a short period of time, towards our energy flux density of our physical economy, we are going to see a large number of people wiped out, and it's already being carried out with Obamacare, people are already experiencing this. It's not just a question now of, "Well, we're headed for economic collapse," I mean, we're there.

So if you're sitting around and saying, "work with us, worth with Wall Street," or something, it's obvious who you're working for; it's obvious that you are denying the reality of the situation. And we're not going to sit back any longer and allow that to occur. We see somewhere in the world moving forward, and we intend to join that, as the United States was founded upon this principle, we intend to have a mission of progress, to end this system, once and for all, the Wall Street genocide system, and move forward.

LAROUCHE: Now that we've said that much, let's look at some of the ugly, really ugly problems we have to face in doing this: What we're headed for, is, we're headed for a confrontation, a real one, because the Eurasia is not weak. Don't exaggerate the power of Eurasia. But! the point is, because of the way this thing is done, the trans-Atlantic region of the world is now broken down. Therefore, it's very weak. It has only one thing that's powerful: thermonuclear warfare. Everything else, except thermonuclear warfare, is not effective for the trans-Atlantic region. So therefore, what're they going to do?

And that's your challenge. That's where it lies.

Now, that means that, since Asia, Eurasia, is not going to collapse in larger part, to this process, they will not give in, and what we have on the Moon landing from China, is only a part of what is about to come, in the announcement from Asia, that they're not giving in. And they have a capable war machine if they need it. That doesn't mean they'll win a war, it means they won't give up. And that means, well, if you're going to take us down, you're going to take us all down!

And that's where it stands. So therefore at this point, you with the Moon landing from China, and what is going to come after that, as a follow-up, is the challenge. And this could go to thermonuclear warfare, that's the threat. And that's where we stand. That means, that those who are going to attack the Eurasian part of the world, are going to face their own death. They're not going to have the opportunity to launch an extinction fight against, or submission, from Asia. That has to be taken seriously.

STEGER: There was a reference today around the question of Ukraine, as NATO's Trojan Horse, and I think it's a relevant reference. Because, you're looking at a madness of a society, similar to what the Greeks launched against Priam of Troy, back in that time period. Because 10 years of bombarding a city, to destroy it, which destroyed their entire civilization as well, you see the same kind of madness taking over the leadership within the trans-Atlantic today: It's an extinction fight that could break down civilization and I think that's a reference point that should be made more clear.

LAROUCHE: Yes, that's exactly it. But that's what we face. And that's what Asia faces, and is preparing to face.

And that has to be remembered, that is the issue. Now, what do you do about that issue? What do we do? Do we threaten them, with some angry gesture from us? No, we don't. We say, "If you try to do it, you'll be exterminated. We'll be exterminated, too. But you will go. You will not destroy us: We'll take you down, whatever it takes." And that's what they're getting from Asia. And Asia has the capability in that direction.

And therefore, this is what we're talking about. Now, we're talking about a real confrontation. This is real finality. And what that means is, if we were to be weak and give in, to what's going on in Europe and going on in the Americas, if we were to give in on that, that would be the worst possible thing. Therefore we are not going to give in, and Asia is not going to give in.

And Eurasia has a very good capability — we're not saying a "war-winning capability," these terms don't mean anything any more. The question is are we going to go into an extermination campaign on this planet! Because that's what's threatened. And the point is to make it clear, that that's the issue, because you have a lot of yellow-bellied people, in Europe and the United States, for example; they're really yellow-bellied. They don't know whether they have that or not, but that's the point. And therefore, what you have to do, is make sure that the foolish Americans, and you know what foolish Americans are like, you know what foolish Europeans are like, but foolish Americans are much worse: Because they will say arrogant, "Well, they won't dare do that. That will never happen!" So, the important thing is to convey to Americans, that this is what will happen, if their government plays this game. This is the question, "you're going to face extinction."

Now, some of these characters, say, in the United States for example, will say "extinction." Obama will say "extinction," for example. But! if the American people are faced with the reality, the real reality of this situation, then they are not going to go along with what considers itself our government right now. That's the game. That's the concept.

Because you can not have thermonuclear warfare on this planet, between great powers, because you're heading for extinction, then. And the question is not bluffing. The question is, is only some Americans and only some Europeans are crazy, fascist creatures; the others are scared bunnies and fools, because the way their belief structure is, they're stupid! They've been rendered stupid! Look at the younger generation, the people who are under 25 years of age, now: They're mostly stupid! It's not their fault in a sense, this was what was done to them! Most of them, you know, you have a whole generation that has no experience with work. They've not had gainful employment in their entire life experience! And that's a very significant part of our population! You have them all over the place; they're absolute idiots! And they've been turned into idiots.

And you have only a smaller part of the population, relatively, who actually have a real awareness, of what reality is like; they're an older generation. And there's a middle generation, which is in their 30s and so forth, and from there you might get something serious; and from some people you get seriousness, politicians and so forth, leaders in society. But it has to be made clear, because as long as you have an hysterical majority, which believes "it will never happen to us," that's the danger! And the awareness of what will happen to us, and to the world, if somebody starts this war, which the U.S., and especially the British Empire, the Anglo-Dutch Empire, that's the real evil force.

And the question is, we've got to get the rest of the population in the trans-Atlantic region to turn against that evil force, typified by the British monarchy and by the Dutch monarchy.

And you get that thing cleared up, and you're going to get finally a different tempo from the population in the trans-Atlantic region. And that's what has to be the top policy.

CHRISTIE: Well, I think just being extremely clear that this goes to thermonuclear warfare, I think, you have some in Congress who are actually better intentioned and better people, even though I know there's not many good in the Congress, but who have capitulated, for example, on this Ukraine thing, what Mike just brought up around the idea of NATO, which is something your wife, Helga, has been emphasizing, the idea that Ukraine is in the heart of Russia, in the sense of geographically and so forth, and being brought into NATO is an absolute game-changer on the question of thermonuclear warfare. And you have idiots like McCain, which this guy, one minute he's working with the cannibal killers of al Qaeda, now he's working with the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the ones that toppled the statue of Lenin, and promoting, again, this war agenda! It was the same as his working with the al Qaeda creeps in Syria, and now he's working with these creeps in Ukraine.

And so, it's this crowd, if we don't put the reins on them, or kick them out is probably the better option at this point, then we see what we get. They just don't understand it. So I think we have to make it extremely clear to some of the better ones in the Congress, that this is where this goes, this is not games that are being played here: The danger is thermonuclear warfare.

LAROUCHE: You've got, for example, Hillary Clinton's campaign, that's the problem. They're trying to raise a vast amount of money for a future Presidential campaign, and that fundraising campaign, which Bill is really backing up, on his wife, is one of the key factors which has created this danger. Because Bill and his wife, are just simply not in the real world, especially she is not in the real world on this thing, about her campaign. And demanding that the Democratic Party concentrate itself on raising the funds for her successful election campaign. This is absolute insanity! It has no relevance whatsoever to reality — quite the contrary! Her committee to try to raise funds for her victory in an election which will come three years from now, or something like that, it absolutely insane!

But that's one of the key factors in the Congress, right now, is the Democratic Party's under tremendous pressure to cave in on this thing on fundraising.

OGDEN: Especially raising funds from Wall Street.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. And that's what the problem is. So that's got to be made very clear.

SARE: I think part of the power of this revival of the image of Kennedy which we saw at the Vienna, Virginia concert, and now with Kesha's campaign, because it's a conscious image, what she represents is the Kennedy legacy for the U.S. Senate, and then what we're planning now in Boston, but this is really crucial, because in part, people act as if they'd forgotten. Or, on their worst side, they don't want to be reminded, but when you say, "No, Kennedy is the standard of leadership for this country," then the insanity really stands out in bold relief.

ROGERS: What you were just saying, though, I really think it's also this whole question of the ability of human beings to shape the future, and not to try and wait and see what's going to happen, or to gamble. And that's what I was thinking of when you were talking about this Hillary situation. Because, what's happening is Democrats don't want to have to take on the responsibility that this President is driving the nation, with Wall Street, to the brink of murder, destruction! And you can't wait until 2016 to handle that!

And the Republicans are going along with that insanity and saying, "well, we're going to beat the Democrats in 2016, and don't worry about. Just leave Obama in there, he only has this much time left." But if you look at, this is the threat of thermonuclear war, the threat of total collapse is staring us dead in the face, and that — you know, I was talking at a conference this weekend with one of these Hillary 2016 people, and that's all they're talking about! They're not thinking about what is the reality we're facing right now? But I think in order to address that, it really does get to this fundamental question of people's understanding of the human ability to actually intervene in the process, and actually know that they can determine what the future is going to be, and not gamble with their lives and wait and see what's going to happen.

LAROUCHE: I think on the case of Bill and Hillary, that I think it's pure cowardice on their part. They don't want to face reality. Because anyone who's — and I know her and I know him; I know what their powers are of calculating politically, in general, what their whole association was politically. Yeah, they had great weaknesses, they had opportunism. They also had two kinds of opportunism: If they thought the wind was blowing in the right direction, they'd try to do something, they'll be cautious about it, but they had a certain rational behavior, with limitations on it. They really were opportunists, and it was understandable why, what all the reasons are, why the opportunism, what the differences are between the two of them — Bill and his wife; they're different personalities, they're close together, married and so forth.

But this is the nature of the problem. They do not have comprehension of reality. That's the point. They don't have a comprehension of the reality of what is about to come, right now, in these weeks, in terms of the operation which would actually start the general depopulation of the United States. Because we're on the edge of a massive depopulation of the United States people, by killing them. And the bail-in policy will cause an immediate wave of mass death inside the United States!

And she and he are not paying any attention, to the fact that what the alternatives that they're asking us to do, is to clear the decks for mass death against our citizens! They have no right to do that! They've got to get back in the fighting side.

OGDEN: You mentioned in your paper, the newest report that you just published, the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and the connection of that to the Strategic Defense Initiative. And I think it's very important, in light of the discussion we're having for people to recognize that the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the immediate consequence, was Truman. And what was the first thing that Truman did? He ordered the nuclear strikes on Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And these were militarily unnecessary strikes. What they were intended to do, was to set up a world paradigm of a coming Third World War between the United States and at that time, the Soviet Union. And this created the paradigm, created the context for the entirety of the Cold War, which started with the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

That's what Donovan foresaw, when he said, "It's over." And that dominated world politics, until the Strategic Defense Initiative, until the SDI! And it was Lyn's intervention, with the people around Ronald Reagan and the old intelligence community crowd from Franklin Roosevelt, that had the potential to change world politics, at that point. And the fact that that was crushed, and that that was shut down in the 1980s, despite the dedication from President Reagan to fight it through, has put us in the situation where we are now. And that's what's created the potential for this to come to a thermonuclear confrontation.

LAROUCHE: Too many Bushes. [laughter]

ROGERS: You know, FDR actually foresaw that. He had a forecast about that, because he warned that if the relationships, in the postwar period, if the relationships between the United States and Russia/Soviet Union, and so forth, were jeopardized, and you did not continue this collaboration toward future relations toward the buildup of the most advanced progress in scientific and industrial development, which — you know, he had a real passion for China, for instance. And he sent his Vice President over to Asia, to China and the Soviet Union, to look at how the United States and Soviet Union and these countries were going to work together in the postwar period, in the greatest advancement in human progress. And he made the point that if this was attacked, then the threat of thermonuclear war, or threat of war by imperial forces, was going to be inevitable. And that's most definitely what you're seeing, that if you broke that relation, then you were going to dismantle the commitment toward progress in the world.

LAROUCHE: Well, of course everything in that war was based on the Soviet Union's role. If the Soviet Union had not taken up the battle when it did, Hitler would have won. And that's the key point. And that was the whole thing.

So Churchill and the British had changed the policy, from expecting to win, when they knew that Roosevelt was going to defend against Hitler, when they knew that, then they knew what the problem was, for them. And that's why the British changed the policy from supporting Hitler to opposing him, because they knew what the United States decision was.

OGDEN: You know, I believe it was Kennedy that was the first to, as President, acknowledge the great sacrifices of the Russian people in World War II, in a speech that he gave at American University. And it was this speech where he really laid forward his idea of a rapprochement, an end to the Cold War. You know, in his United Nations speech, he said, "a nuclear sword of Damocles hangs over the head of every man, woman, and child," by the slenderest of threads, and it's a thread which threatens to be cut at any moment.

And his actions during the Cuba Missile Crisis, and what he intended to do, keeping the United States out of this crazy war in Indo-China, and intending to build a relationship towards progress, offering joint, collaborative programs with the Soviet Union and otherwise, this was the one moment of light in this entire age, from Truman all the way to the SDI.

LAROUCHE: Well, this Franklin Roosevelt, entirely, because Franklin Roosevelt was able to win over people from all kinds of countries into this policy. And because the world saw Franklin Roosevelt as against the fascists. And what have you had? You've had fascist Presidents of the United States before Franklin Roosevelt, that's the point! And the change to the election of Franklin Roosevelt and his program, changed the opinion of the world, or forces throughout the world, and changed the course of history.

And what they did, is they prolonged the decision in France, they postponed that, in order get Franklin Roosevelt to die! Because if Roosevelt had done what he wanted to do, and what the Americans had wanted to do, he would have been alive. The war would have been decided upon, before he died.

And you saw exactly what happened: You had the whole Nazi system, including the FBI system, which came into play and destroyed the United States' ability — what was done to American citizens during post VE Day, in that period, a whole change occurred, and Roosevelt was out of the picture at that point.

OGDEN: Between VE-Day and VJ-Day.

LAROUCHE: Exactly! And that was exactly how it was intended. So, now Asia knows this. The nations of Asia that are facing this threat from their part, know this. And therefore, the kind of showdown which is picking up — you know, we're in a point where we're very close to a showdown conflict. Because the United States, under British direction, is doing that! We don't have an U.S. President. We have a British stooge as President, Obama! Not even known to be human. Probably never was even a citizen, actually. Just made a fake citizen.

But in any case, this is what we're up against, and we have to understand this: we're at a point of showdown.

CHRISTIE: Well, on the Nazi precedent — you look at the Nazis, what was it? The Green agenda; the T-4 program, the euthanasia policy, this is what the European system and the American or the U.S. system right now represent under Obama, under Wall Street. It is an intentional genocide policy, and to take a look at what happened in Russia, where for the first time, their population is now growing which is a reflection that they've rejected the austerity, they've rejected the outlook that represents the trans-Atlantic system.

And so, it's that collision course which we're seeing, which is, it's the same policy.

LAROUCHE: Look at the role of Charles de Gaulle. Charles de Gaulle was a key factor in this whole process. But what happened? The entire French top military, from World War I, had gone over to Hitler! So it was the role of de Gaulle, in great part, and de Gaulle, despite Churchill, not really because of him so much, but despite him, actually was part of the change in the whole process.

So this was not an event, this was a process, it was a process in which people reacted, and forced reacted. And we're in the same kind of thing today. We're not dealing with something's going to suddenly on one day make a miracle. The process is already ongoing. And what we're doing, as we discuss these issues here, we are extending what people think is reality, we're laying forth the facts that indicate there's a process here! There's not a finality of one thing or the other: There's a process. And it's a process of ideas, of the development of ideas, of the influence of ideas. And the failure to present certain ideas, which are essential.

This is the way you have to look at history. The idiots believe, that you don't know what's going to happen, until it happens. Now, this is a very popular belief among most idiots, including leading citizens of the United States. But actually on this question, they're idiots: They believe you can not know the future! And I know, that you can know the future! This future is not a future event, it's a process of development in the future time. And that's where we're at now, and we're on the edge that you get a sense of this from Asia. And the Moon landing from China, is a part of this process, because the Moon landing, has changed the world! Most people won't say so; they'll say, "well, it was a shocking thing, it shouldn't have happened," or whatever. But the fact is, this was prepared, the Moon landing, at this time by China, was planned. It was in process: It was a change in the strategic situation!

If that had not been done, what would have been the effect? What's the change? The effect of the change? What does that mean, what does it mean in terms of Japan? What does it mean in terms of other Asian countries? What does it mean for India?

In other words, the process had changed, why? Because some people had foresight, and changed the course of history, in advance! The idiots are those who say, you can not know the future. And you just have to say, "Buddy, you're an idiot. Shut your mouth, you're an idiot. Go back and so some thinking for a change." You can know the future — and the future, buddy, knows you!

And that's reality. And I just said, I've got one weapon. My weapon is, I know my enemies are ignorant fools. They believe you can not know the future, they preach that doctrine. I know you have to do things, to shape the future, you have pre-shape the future, and that's the truth of what a human being is, as opposed to a monkey.

OGDEN: Well, that was really Prometheus' advantage over Zeus, I mean Prometheus gave mankind fire and poetry. But remember the conflict at the end, is although Zeus thinks he has power, over Prometheus to chain him to this rock, Prometheus, whose very name means, "Knowledge of the Future," "Foresight," says, "I know at some point, you will fall. I know the future, and I know that you do not."

BROWN: One discussion around the Chinese, as well with this program is for helium-3 mining which is something that other people have been discussing for a while, but their lander can deal with 3,000 pounds; the rover they're currently using is 300 pounds, and they're openly discussing the Moon mission as part of a helium-3 process, which is what we've been discussing, and others, like Harrison Schmitt, that we need a fusion program. Helium-3 is sitting there on the Moon, waiting. And so you just have a sense that this concept of the future is there.

LAROUCHE: Why are the Chinese building ships to go the Arctic? Because the development of the Arctic, both from the standpoint of the Solar System, the effect of that in the Solar System and so forth, these things are factors which anyone who is really thinking, foresee. The Chinese have no ports to have these ships to. But strategically, if you think in terms of what the future process is, it has a great significance! And therefore, what we're dealing with in terms of all kinds of effects, in the Solar System and on Earth itself, these are all factors which we have to take into account, and we have to react in advance, knowing that these kinds of developments are waiting up for us, as natural developments in the Solar System, for example, or our part of the Solar System, and that's the way we have to think.

We have to understand, and the problem is, that only the people who understand the concept of the future, are capable of not being stupid! That's the problem. And they don't know of a future. You have people running around, this and that, scientists of this, they don't understand the concept of the future.

STEGER: Well, one of the factors of this crisis of mass murder taking place in the United States, we see it in Detroit, we see it in a number of cities across the country, is that because the natural condition of man isto foresee the future, to have access to it, it isn't something you "develop" as an additional factor, it's the natural condition of the human mind, because of the actual course of mass murder, which they should have seen coming for decades! It was foreseeable! But now that it's at their doorstep, they're now beginning to recognize that this is a system of mass murder. The question is, now, who's going to identify the source?


STEGER: And I think that's where the question of leadership comes in. The Wall Street, the British and Dutch monarchies, that these institutions, by their actual nature are calling for mass murder. They themselves can't survive, unless mass murder is achieved.

LAROUCHE: They've always had that. They've always had that. Mass murder has been the policy of the oligarchical system, always! That's what happened, in Troy. The Troy case was mass murder, preemptive mass murder. And that's all what this oligarchical system stands for, the oligarchical system is based on a concept of mass murder.

What do they fear? They fear progress. They fear scientific progress, that is, the creative processes of the human mind. They don't want any creative processes. They will sometimes give into them, if there's pressure for it, but they don't want it. In the history of mankind is, the oligarchical system has always wanted genocide. Usually they didn't want total genocide, but look at what happened to Rome! Rome was subjected, by the Romans alone, the Roman system itself subjected Rome, as an empire, to mass destruction! What happened is, the Roman leaders, leading families of Rome, moved up to the northern Adriatic, and lived in swamps, and then became known as Venetians.

And this is the history. What happened to Charlemagne? Charlemagne had the greatest accomplishment in history up to that time; and he did it within the short term of his command: He built a whole water system, around the whole area of France and Germany, effectively, and he built a whole system, which established modern society. He did it in concern with Asian sources. When he died, forces moved in and eliminated his entire policy!

And that's the kind of thing you're dealing with. That's the kind of mentality you're dealing with: the oligarchical principle. And the people who know this are people who understand what the future is, they understand the concept of the future, as a process of human development, of progress. I wish I could go at great length on that one, on exactly how this thing works, how mankind does this. And most of these characters don't know — I mean, they call themselves scientists, often, they don't know what they're talking about. The creative powers of the human mind are the difference between man and the beast. And those of us who understand that, are human beings; those who don't understand it, tend to become beasts.

CHRISTIE: I think on the question that is intentional what the oligarchy is prepared to do, the genocide policy is intentional, and therefore for those who say, "well, I don't think thermonuclear warfare is really on the table for them" — yes it is on the table for them. In fact, as we've been going through it's an intentional fact of the reality. And if you look at the Anglo-Dutch, who do they actually work with? They work with the most dark age cults, like what we see coming out of Saudi Arabia. And I think it's significant in the New York Post had this article that actually went into the role of Saudi Arabia in the 9/11, and the article was a response to the fact that you've now got a call coming from a Congressman from Massachusetts, to investigate the role, to open up the 28 pages [of the 9/11 Commission Report], to have these released, so that we get a picture on who was actually responsible for this.

And the article makes the point that if this is the Saudis behind this, including Bandar and so forth, then this brings the picture that it's not really a "terrorist" operation, but an act of warfare from another nation, and as you made the point, it's not really the Saudis, it is the British, the Anglo-Dutch crowd that controls Saudi Arabia, with the intention of using this terrorism operation to —

LAROUCHE: And the Bush family!


LAROUCHE: The Bush family.

STEGER: He's now known as "Bandar Bush." [laughter]

LAROUCHE: This is exactly that. And therefore, the question is, is, you're weapon is, is to make your fellow citizens intelligent. And you must not conceal the knowledge that they need. You must impress on them the knowledge that they need.

STEGER: Prometheus.

LAROUCHE: That's exactly what we have to do. That's our purpose, that's our function. Our method of warfare is by telling the truth, that's our method of warfare — and it works. But you have to find the people with the guts to stick to it.

OGDEN: Well, I think it's notable, the first 14 years of this century, have seen two of the greatest crimes against the American people, perhaps on par with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, what you just mentioned: With the act of war by this Saudi royal family faction against the United States on September 11th, and then, the consequent cover up of that by two successive administrations.

And then, since 1999, since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the theft of trillions of dollars from the American people, which is perhaps the greatest financial crime that's ever been committed, which was done, by Wall Street in collusion with people at the highest levels of the United States government! And you take just what's happened since the beginning of the bail-outs, where over $3 trillion have been pumped in quantitative easing, and none of that has gone into improving the condition of a suffering population. All of it is being accumulated by these six biggest Wall Street banks, which are 40% bigger than they were in 2008!

And you take that, you take the fact that that is being done with accomplices on the inside of the United States government, and you see that Wall Street is the biggest organized crime operation in U.S. history.

So these two crimes, which have defined the first 14 years of the 21st century, this shows you exactly the kind of dynamic that this Policy Committee has been already on record, breaking — I mean, the very fact that Glass-Steagall is where it is now, is because of the campaigns that people in this room have run, over the course of the last five, six years.

So, now you've got Kesha's Senatorial campaign, you've got what we discussed here today, and I think our viewers are aware that they are in for a pretty wild ride over the next few months.

LAROUCHE: A good one.

OGDEN: Yes! [laughter]

Well, unless there's anything more to be said, I would call attention to Mr. LaRouche's newest report, which is on the website, and I thank you for tuning into us. And please stay tuned, there will be a lot of news from the campaign front.

So, thanks. That brings a conclusion to our show, today.