LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, May 19, 2014, Transcript
May 20, 2014 • 6:16AM

Watch the video of this discussion here.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon, it's May 19th, 2014. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We're joined over Google Hangouts live, via video, by Bill Roberts down in Texas; we will be joined shortly by Kesha Rogers, she'll be jumping on in just a few minutes; in Seattle, Washington, we're joined by Dave Christie; in San Francisco, California, we're joined by Michael Steger, candidate for United States Congress; and in Boston, Massachusetts, we're joined by Rachel Brown. And here in the studio, we have Diane Sare, and Mr. LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Thank you. Well, I would have to say, today, that we're approaching Memorial Day, and the important thing about Memorial Day is not to think of the past, but to dedicate ourselves to the future, because dead people, you can't help any other way. It's just like Christianity. The point is, that the Apostles and so forth, and Christ, were depending upon the future of mankind, knowing that the past was already settled. The question is, where does the past lead to? And that's where we are today. We're in a situation, which with all doubts and all problems, nonetheless, the future is the issue. And so, on Memorial Day, and thereafter, the Fourth of July, these are the days of memory for the United States, but many people treat them as only memory, they don't treat them as the warning, of the need to fulfill the future.

And I think that's where we are right now. And that's what the issue is, as of now: Everything around us, we've got an election campaign coming up in Texas; one beyond that in California. These are crucial. We have a President who's ready to be thrown out of office, rejected by some kind of — I don't think they'll put him out in space, because space doesn't like him any more. So, I don't what his fate will be.

We also have the fact that we have some very interesting things, in terms of what the implications of the Russian situation is. So we have two things: We have the way in which the Russian situation is going to deal with Europe and Obama, because Obama is essentially a Russian problem, now.

But Obama's not going to remain in office very much longer, or else, the United States is not going to remain in existence very long. He's on the skids, ready to be thrown out of office. The mechanisms that will throw him out office are there; the only problem is, we're not sure we can get him out fast enough. But if we can get him out of office fast enough, we can pull together — I don't think the Vice President's doing much good either, but when you throw a President out of office under impeachment, generally a lot of things happen. Remember, three-quarters of the population of the United States, the citizens, hate Obama! And he's still almost running a dictatorship in the United States. So we have problems.

And, what I've done recently, in response to something Bill Clinton did, which was the opportunity for me to say exactly how we can deal with this crisis, how we can throw Obama out of office, without creating a crisis for the United States as such. And that's the way you have to think. Now, the election of the next President is scheduled for a couple years ahead. So therefore, the question is, what is our interim view, and how can we apply the interim view, the measures that we must take, organize the members of the Congress who are healthy and sane; make those measures happen, and happen fast, on four points that I'm sure of. If we get those four points into place, immediately after throwing Obama out of office, or very shortly after doing that, with a series of, really, a revolutionary turnover in the behavior of the Congress, then we can save the United States.

And that's what our mission should be right now: Save the United States, pending the opportunity to have a new President, in the normal course of events. So, which means, we'll have an interim Presidency, between now and the election of the next Presidency. These are the considerations we have to keep in mind. Therefore, very much, we have to live in the future. We can not solve things presently; we can solve some things presently, but all those things we can do, are things which will prepare, for the election of the next President.

OGDEN: Well, your remarks about Memorial Day and the future, make me think about the discussion that we had on Friday, during the webcast, where you said, the future is defined by the end of the possibility of warfare on this planet. And you think about all the people who have died in wars in the past, but the impossibility of warfare being a relationship between nations in the future, and what that means: The fact that that forces a contemplation of a completely new order of relationships between peoples and between nations. And if that's built on the common problems, the common challenges that all nations face, like you discussed the danger of an asteroid collision, the changes in the solar activity, extreme weather and climate changes; the necessity of great projects, that all nations work together to develop the planet as a whole, that that replaces any kind of Zeusian idea of warfare as a relationship between peoples, and that now, the future must be, if humanity is to survive, must be defined by a Promethean idea of man.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, that's exactly it. That's exactly it. But the problem is, is the population is very weakly prepared, to understand what the word "future" means. They often say, because they say "tradition." And mankind has been destroyed, most frequently, by tradition. The idea that you must stick to something, which you would say is tested and proven, don't change it; which is the idiocy, that you've got in all the recent administrations, since Bill Clinton was out of office, the policy has been, don't change anything, except to ruin it. [laughs] And most of the U.S. population that's still sentient will applaud, that that is the reality.

Everything that they thought they had, even things they thought they had had, are suddenly destroyed, and taken away from them. Health care is taken away from them. They have no health care. The insurance, health-care insurance relationship is non-existent, it's a fraud! And there's a struggle on the part of some private institutions, to come up with a health-care system which is workable, because the Federal health-care system is actually poisonous to their life, their life-expectancy. They will get no efficient help.

For example, we have in the United States, a destruction — and in Europe — of the health-care systems! For example, two systems which I know very well, at least from my standpoint as an expert in the economic system, but some acquaintance, also, with the medical process. About the time, that I went through a recovery on a very serious heart attack, at the time I completed my outing of the primary treatments and the post-operative treatments, the medical system, in Germany, which had been one of the best in the world, because it was largely organized on the basis of the number of wounded survivors from World War II, which had always been a strong system. But the medical system in Germany, in the post-war period, had been the greatest, most leading, best system of health care, in the world, because you required a hospital system, which would accommodate the great variety of needs within the hospital system.

Now the hospital system was based on medical professionals, who participated in creating the hospital. The hospital was essentially a creation, of the medical profession, as such. So what happened was, the change was, throughout the world, the British came in with a new policy: We will now have doctors, as private doctors, under corporate conditions. Now, that meant that even if the physician was very good, what happened is the system lost the benefit of the hospital system: Because the hospital system was an all things system; even if that particular hospital didn't have the skill, others did. If there was a disease, you didn't have an individual physician deciding what that disease is; you would have a concert of interaction, among hospitals and among groups of physicians who would report on what their take was, simultaneously, on what this problem was, and in what parts of the world they were getting it from.

The same thing was going on in Germany. What has happened now, is, since that that time, this happened even in Bill Clinton's time, the hospital system, the medical system was being destroyed. It was going to private doctors, who were running a business, based on medicine, and the same thing with the drug trade, it was based on medicine, but it wasn't designed for the practice of medicine, it was for the money business, a professional business per se.

And so therefore, this problem, when the medical system as such, fell into the hands of brutes, like Obama, the result of the medical system became a system of selective mass death! Because diseases were not identified in a timely fashion, the treatments were withheld and not delivered on time, the support, the followup, the reexamination of the disease, or the sickness, was not treated, except by pot luck almost. A few people would manage to survive. But the increase of the potential death rate in the population, especially under Obama, but especially under both Bush and Obama, the death rate has been increasing, potentially.

Now, what happens in that process, is when the population begins to become weakened, by a lack of interim steps, to prevent serious cases, you know, the preliminary, the preventive care, so, then the whole system goes down; when the commitment of the government, to health care is destroyed, by the incompetence, and actual viciousness and maliciousness of this Presidency and his predecessor!

OGDEN: We see that spilling over in a very dramatic way into the VA system, now.

LAROUCHE: Oh, boy, that's the one, that is the tipoff! That is the tipoff. Now, you take not only the VA system, but even people who are soldiers, fighting soldiers, injured, they're being condemned to death, or cruel kinds of conditions of life. They're being dumped on the street without effective pensions; they have no effective care, to a large degree. And yet, you were talking about, you know, millions of people.

And this is what the problem is, is the fact that we don't have a government which is fit for shucks. We have a government on paper, but we have members of Congress, Senators and others, who are so involved in their own money-planning for the reelection, or what the trophy they're taking home when they leave office, are so concerned with that, they have no systemic concern, for the condition of the United States as a nation, or the condition of the Senate or the condition of the House of Representatives, as a reforming institution. The Presidency is the worst of them all: The Presidency needs to be cleaned out entirely! It's like cleaning out a bunch of skunks. Get these guys out, and come in with a fresh leadership.

And that's where we stand. This is the crisis that faces, immediately, the American people, in their own premise. This is what faces similar people, a similar crisis, in Europe, and elsewhere. But these are the things I know directly. And these are the reasons why this President must be heaved out of office, and every skunk that's like him — or that likes him! — should be thrown out of office, too.

We can make, as I've specified, a four-step, — not a four-step, but a four element reform. And that reform of those four elements, which are based largely on the initial design of our system, by Alexander Hamilton, and then the Hamiltonian policy turning up, in terms of the greenbacks. And those two measures saved the United States, even though Hamilton was assassinated by the British interests. But nonetheless, those two things were crucial: Hamilton was crucial, in saving the United States, despite the fact that he was murdered by the British on that account, and by the Wall Street crowd, then, in New York City! They were the backers of the assassination of Hamilton. That's how it happened.

And Lincoln, the same thing: the same policy, it worked! It saved the United States. He was murdered! The United States was crippled. And we had another President later, but he was replaced by a trainee of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt. And we didn't have a decent President, except for two of them, in the interim, until Franklin Roosevelt. And after we lost Franklin Roosevelt, and two others, but also especially, the Kennedys, we lost essentially, the ability of the United States, to create and maintain a competent Presidency of the United States, which means a competent government of the United States.

I mean, Reagan was quite good in what he actually did. He was courageous and good; but the rest of his administration was polluted. Bill Clinton was well-meaning, but he was weakened in picking up the fight, but he had weaknesses in his own operation. And then, they wanted him out; they got him out, and they brought in Dodd-Frank, and Dodd-Frank destroyed the people of the United States.

DIANE SARE: On this point that you made at the beginning about Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, and the question of the future, as you were speaking, it reminded me of the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, which were both won on the Fourth of July in 1863. And it's reported that in Gettysburg, the Union troops, who were marching into Gettysburg, they realized they had to rush to get there, so they had virtually no sleep, and they were marching this 20-mile march, and began to hallucinate — but not really — and they all imagined that they saw George Washington standing by the side of the road, as they were marching to Gettysburg! And it kind of gives me this image of what you're saying. Because you think it's a memory of the United States as an identity, but it's a memory which directs your action to secure a victory for the future.

LAROUCHE: Yeah.

SARE: And I think, that being case, there's two questions ahead of us: One, Kesha's run-off comes the day after Memorial Day, where people should take the occasion to take some courage to win, and the question that's also before the Democrats right now, as we were discussing, the Benghazi Select Committee begins today, and what the Democratic Party, or certain members of the Democratic Party, are going to do around the question of the impeachment of Obama? If they will stand for the nation, which is what allows us to then have a viable solution; or if they call capitulate, in which case, you have total insanity, with these Republican lunatics, who think Obama should be provoking thermonuclear war, and we should kill everyone off by getting rid of Social Security and Medicare, and that becomes the dominant fight.

So I think all of these questions are before us, really, in the coming days.

LAROUCHE: But, three-quarters of the population, the citizens, hate Obama!

SARE: Yes.

LAROUCHE: And therefore, what does the Senate and House of Representatives face, in the event of Obama's being thrown out of office? You're going to suddenly find they sing, "Oh, did I ever say that?" [laughter] "I must have been misunderstood."

No, that's where we are. The point is, it's a matter of time. You have to get certain things done, which will shift the tendency, in time. And, for example, if some Democrats push on the effective impeachment of Obama, by obvious ways of doing that, by setting him up — step, by step, by step, by step! Proof, by proof, by proof! Drop, by drop, by drop — until the last drop falls and he falls. That's the way it has to be done.

The question is, is the timing right? Can we get the timing accelerated, appropriately? With the three-quarters of the population hating Obama, we'll get the courage as well as the chance, to throw this bum out office.

RACHEL BROWN: On this question of Clinton that you brought up earlier, just one note, is that he was pushed to repeal Glass-Steagall in both 1995 and 1997, by his Treasury Secretary Rubin and others, and he refused it both times. And it wasn't until the sucking device was brought into the basement that they were able to get rid of that. But just to note also, he made the point, in this discussion last week, that it was not countering the discussion around his economic record, that income inequality changed during his Presidency, that every part of the population, and actually the lowest part of the population had their income increased the most under his Presidency, as I believe in the century, or at least in the recent period. And he said, that wasn't random, that was a question of policy. Because what we've done recently is just increase investment into money making, and not into the actual, real economy. So he did make this distinction between a speculative monetary-financial system, which does not uplift anything; and what we need is an actual policy. And you've also had that brought up with Glazyev.

So these are two people, that you have definitely influenced, with this understanding of the American policy. So it's a step in the right direction, but it's not going to be done until Obama is removed. So, we have to increase the urgency on this question, but just that that distinction needs to be increased. It's beginning to be made, but it needs to be vastly increased.

LAROUCHE: Well, as I explained this process on Friday, and again on Saturday in the internal discussion, the point was, because Bush, that is Bush Sr., was such a disgusting character, such a moral failure, and really an idiot; his mind was not that good any more; it never had been very good either, but so, what happened is, you had a situation in which a sudden blow, where the whole system of that time, the previous administration, had suddenly disgraced itself, you had a sudden popular surge, for Bill Clinton out of the blue. And this was the fact that the others were so disgusting, that he actually became President by default.

Now, he also picked up a default, which was his Vice President, who was inherently a default. But people were overlooking this thing that was hanging around the rear-end of Clinton, hmm? And therefore Clinton was very greatly weakened by two things. First of all, he'd come in, as the alternative to the preceding government. He had not come in, on the basis of being a leader above the other contenders. They fell below him. That's how he got his Presidency, twice. And each time, with this piece of crap called the Vice President, hanging around his back, because that was his biggest problem, he held back.

Now, all during most of this period, during the latter part of his first Presidency, and throughout the second, I was in indirect contact with him all the way. Not every day, so forth, but through the channels which had been arranged, on important issues, that he thought were important, the discussion was always directed in such a way that I had access to nearly all of the decisions he made which were actually crucial in that respect.

I had a situation in Russia, for example, where I had organized, with the agreement of figures of the Russian government, at that time; I'd been working in and out of Russia occasionally, and had had discussions about policy, and these Russians who were leaders, came to an agreement. They came from different parts of the whole political structure.

But we had a meeting there, in the nation's capital, and this discussion resolved, with a discussion with me, on a proposal to present to the United States, to the Clinton Administration. Clinton said it was a good idea, but he wasn't ready to do it. As a result of this, events intervened, and what we had is the potential was a solid solution, for the Russia situation. We lost it, because Bill Clinton found himself in the position, not to take the action, which he knew he had to take.

We got, in the later period, in the August of that later year, and we had a general breakdown of the international financial system, centered on the Russian bond circulation. This occurred in August that year, was when it hit. And so, I had, again, as I often had, had the occasion to get a question from Bill, on what the problems were and what the solutions might be. He said, "That's right. We're going for it." It was an excellent program, it would have worked. It would have saved the United States, from what happened afterward, all the way to the present time. Because it was a question of a reform, of the international reform of the international financial system, which the United States was in a position to do, through Bill Clinton, had he had the backing of his own government.

So the fact that people abandoned him, under this incident, which was set up for that purpose, and members of his own government turned against him and went over to the other side, which is what caused the horrible thing that happened afterward, with the Bush Administration. And with this whole scheme.

So, that's the problem.

Now, today, the situation is, that Bill still is the person he was when he became — but more informed, more experienced than he was then. He now knows that something has to be done; he's known this implicitly all along. His view is, is it feasible to do this? it would sometimes reach out and try to grab opportunities which might solve this problem, the Obama problem in particular. And so, he tried to deal with this problem, the Obama election was the real crisis one. And for him, for Hillary, too, it was a real crisis! And I was in touch, less than before, during that subsequent period.

And so, what's happened recently, he's come to the point, that he threw out what is a broad definition of a policy which would save the United States. His intention was the right one. What it lacked, was scientific precision in terms of the mechanisms. He's very well informed. I mean, he's no slouch, he's not some amateur coming through: I mean, as a thinking President, as a thinking politician, he's a very good person, very efficient person. But, you need something more than just a very good President: You need somebody with that President, who's on the scene who can contribute some of the technical scientific precision needed to solve the problem. Now, I'm probably the best person right now in the United States to do that.

So therefore, on this past Friday, I responded, to him, and to the question that was posed to me, there, in the Friday webcast, and I laid out, piece by piece, in each of the questions that were thrown at me, I made a response to that. And then on the following day, on Saturday, at the meeting, Saturday, I went through the thing again, in detail, going through the whole implication of what Bill Clinton's role was.

So we now have on the record, at least among people who are still sentient in my organization, we have on the record, a design which is the essential design which is workable. Now, you have to make it work! By winning for it! But the design itself will work and will save the United States. Because if we move fast enough, we can shut down Wall Street, before the bail-in hits in.

The danger now, is if the bail-in were to hit the United States now, or sometime very soon, and nothing were done in the nature of the direction of what I laid out, in response to what Bill said, then the United States' situation would be hopeless. The people of the United States would be in a hopeless situation, from which there would be no immediate solution. The death rate in the United States would increase massively, and suddenly, because the breakdown of the entire financial system of the United States, which is what a Wall Street collapse, on its own, would do, would destroy most of the people of the United States.

So my job was to provide, shall we say, the technical, scientific advice to Bill, by which he, as a former President, could actually, more efficiently present, the mobilization of people, and mobilize them around the alternative. I have the alternative, that's my job; I have the scientific alternative. I know the history of the economy of the United States, probably better than most people on the whole planet. So that's my skill; I'm throwing that in.

OGDEN: I think the ability to be able to preempt the future like that, that's leadership. Because, as you said, this thing is inevitably coming down, the fact that they have transitioned into a bail-in phase, has indicated the fact that, as you said before, the elevator is on 70th floor, and it's crashing without a cable — the cable has been cut. And so, there's only these four elements of a comprehensive solution, will scientifically address the ability to say, "this system's dead, we need to create an entirely new one."

LAROUCHE: What blocks them, is, people think that money is power. That's where the problem comes. Now, if you understand Alexander Hamilton's role, and really understand it, you understand that money has no intrinsic value. The whole system of our economy, under the original Presidency of the United States, the whole system, which was pulled together under the direction of him, under Hamilton, now, since Benjamin Franklin was no longer alive to do the job, Hamilton was the one person in the United States who was qualified to advise the Federal government, about what to do about the new government. And he did a job, in his first term of President Washington, what he did, was actually the scientific solution, to the intention Federal Constitution of the United States.

What happened is the later Presidents, who were essentially skunks, you know, those four Presidents, were essentially skunks, because they were opportunists, and they went for states' rights. States' rights, by the states, on financial matters, in dealing with foreign governments was the means by which the British Empire and other European agencies, were able to undermine and destroy the integrity of the United States Constitution. So you had, with James Monroe, you had a return to the better. The banking system was set up during the Monroe period and John Quincy Adams. That worked.

The problem was, that once the British Empire came in, with a skunk, who was working under the direction of a British agent, who controlled the selection of the Presidency of the United States on behalf of the British Empire, and brought two skunks, who were actually traitors to the United States, under the direct control of the British Empire, from abroad: Jackson and Van Buren.

These two — there was no successful President, from a Constitutional standpoint, from Jackson until Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln revived, explicitly, the leading economic policy of his great predecessors, especially John Quincy Adams.

OGDEN: Who was his mentor.

LAROUCHE: And John Quincy Adams was actually a very strong influence, personally, in close association with John Quincy Adams later. So then, what happens, the British Empire directly, intervenes, through a Canadian channel, to assassinate Lincoln. We did not have an effective government, from the standpoint of our Constitutional purpose, up until we had another President, who was then promptly assassinated, and then we got, as a replacement, was stuck in as an actual trained tool of the Confederacy — trained tool of the head, of the leading mass murderer of the Confederacy!

We had one President, who was harmless, after that. But then we had one other President, later, after Woodrow Wilson, and Woodrow Wilson, was the Ku Klux Kian reorganizers, from the White House!

OGDEN: And a thoroughgoing Anglophile, loved the British Empire!

LAROUCHE: Well, Anglophiles often tend to be British agents. In this case, that's exactly what it was. So therefore, we had that thing.

Then we had Roosevelt's in; the minute Roosevelt is dead, Truman is brought in, as a British agent, or a Wall Street agent actually, which, the thing is sort of interchangeable. He's a skunk. He wrecked the United States economy. We had a President who came in, a former general, who did what he could, but he was limited by the effects of what had happened there under Truman.

So then, we had John F. Kennedy, and Kennedy was sterling. He was assassinated by agents — or shall we say, interests I know, personally. I know what interest assassinated Kennedy and why! Then, his brother, Robert, was on the verge of being designated by the Democratic Party as the next Presidential candidate. On the day before that was to be made official, in the proceeding of the next day, he was assassinated. We didn't have a good President, during the entirety of the period up until the new Presidency in the 1980s. With whom I worked, for a time.

And after that, with the Bushes, disaster, disaster, disaster, disaster. Then, because the Bushes were so unsuccessful, Bill Clinton, by default, was able to organize the gaining of the actual Presidency of the United States, for two terms. But he was held back, by the fact that he was not really — it was the weakness of his adversaries, his opposition, which enabled him to function. He became stronger, in terms of his own thinking, policy, and so forth, during the two terms, up to the time, that the frame-up which was organized by the British intelligence service, organized a campaign against him, which was taken up by the Republican Party. So the Republican Party organized the frame-up, to pull Bill Clinton into the place, in the basement — including his own Vice President, was completely complicit in this! — they set him up, for the scandal.

Then everything piled in on the scandal, the Republican Party chiefly, and the British, and the Democratic Party began to fold, and turned into a bunch of skunks of opportunists. So, Bill was then out, and he went out on the basis that he had lost the ability to lead a charge against Wall Street.

What happened was, that he thought that by just giving in on Glass-Steagall, that that would be the end of the damage, because he thought there was nothing else he could do about it. But they found, then, the Dodd-Frank came in, and this, is a young lady who now, sitting across in the process here, who personally knows exactly who this guy was, who was Barney Frank. And Barney Frank was a key instrument in the whole operation, of sinking Bill Clinton and destroying the United States.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Well, you know, just on this question of the bail-in, and then, really, what real economics is, as how Hamilton and so forth look at it, which is implicitly, or explicitly against the states' rights phenomenon, because you want to think of the economic process as an integrated system.

And you know, what struck me about the whole program, of the bail-in, is not that they're going to steal people's money. The British Empire knows what we know, is that the underlying premise of this system, is that it can't go on. It's a Ponzi scheme, based on a shrinking base of physical economic activity, upon which that pyramid scam is involved on. So they know they have to dry out the system; but it's not just simply that they're going to steal some money or something, it's that they're creating a new system. And you look at part of what this fracking operation is, 'cause a lot of people will say, "Oh, you can't attack fracking, because that's the only thing that's going on in terms of economic activity.

Well, yeah! In part it is, because that's the whole idea, is they're going to create a new — it's not just a new financial system, or a new set of banks, but it's a new orientation in the economy, that the only way you can survive, is getting in on that! But, of course, that's a cannibalistic model. We're literally destroying ourselves, versus what you see going on, in Eurasia now, where they have understood, Lyn, through your economics, but it really is what Hamilton and these guys laid out. It's not separate entities. You can't think of economics as a compilation of separate entities that are sort of doing what they want to do; but you have to think of it as an integrated complex, a sort of single organism, an agro-industrial enterprise on its own, that has be making the higher upshifts, that has to be committed to the future developments in technology and scientific... you know.

So, I just wanted to make that point — yeah, go ahead.

LAROUCHE: Because, what's the story? In the history of mankind, and what is called the pre-history of mankind, go back to the Classical Greek sources which give you the best key, to studying exactly, to tracing out exactly what went wrong with the human civilization at a certain point in history, which is considered legendary, but it's not legendary. The evil force was that of a fellow called Zeus. But that was in the Greek term, that was in the Greek version. In the other version, he was called "Satan." That was the name of Satan, and the Greek name of Satan, was Zeus.

So you had the conflict, between Prometheus, who represented human progress, in science, in intelligence, in conditions of life. He was actually, in terms of the original story, was the inventor of chemistry, and the whole basis of the human existence, of the so-called human soul, is based on the principle of chemistry: No animal can be compared with the human being, except Zeusians, otherwise called, Satanists.. And the most famous Satanist organizations in the world, in modern history, or relatively modern history, were the Roman Empire, and, the British Empire! These are the two, most explicitly Satanic, in terms of intention, in terms of policy, in terms of design, in terms of practice, the Roman Empire — there are other evil empires, evil arrangements, cultures and so forth in society — but this, on a global scale, the global scale or the approximately global scale, of the true Satan, is the Roman Empire, first; and the copy of the Roman Empire which is called, the British Empire and its Dutch attachment.

That's what the problem is. And that's what the United States was built up to defeat! By whom? By the Renaissance, on the prompting of Jeanne d'Arc, who was murdered by the British, or the Normans — burned alive! Her ashes were burned, the ashes themselves were distributed and destroyed!

But a Christian Council going on at the same time, heard news of what had been done, and organized what became known as the Golden Renaissance, of the Brunelleschi, Nicholas of Cusa, and, one of the greatest scientists in all modern history, who discovered the Solar System: Johannes Kepler

And from that point, from Kepler, you had people like Leibniz, who developed as a leader of the exposition of the implications of what Cusa and company had done! And this was the process which led, through Leibniz, into the foundations of the United States, directly. Remember, Leibniz was still young, when the Massachusetts Bay Colony was being created. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was an instrument of the Renaissance, and after the Bay Colony was shattered, by the Dutch at that time, who became known as the British Empire later on, because it was the Dutch kings and so forth who created the so-called British Empire. They fractured it, together. And therefore, what you had, is the war of the United States against the evil of Europe, the evil forces in Europe. The United States, by its creation, by the mobilization of the creation of the United States, created in Europe forces, which rallied to defeat the Satanic evil, which is the British Empire, and was the empire, even then, in that time.

That evil empire, the British Empire, by corrupting members of our own Congress, by corrupting them, with a system, of states' rights in economics, destroyed the strength of the United States' ability to defend its own existence. And there are only a few cases, very important cases, in the history of the United States, where that effort worked. One of them, most notably, was, of course, Alexander Hamilton, the genius who discovered the exact mechanism, by which the U.S. Constitution could be turned into an instrument of success. If was the sabotage, the assassination of him, and the corruption of the Presidents who followed Washington, until Monroe and John Quincy Adams, that destroyed the root of the United States.

Now, Monroe and John Quincy Adams built up, together, a system of banking in the United States, which worked. This continued, and was developed into a very strong institution, of the type required under John Quincy Adams. Then you had the British Empire directly intervene, through New York City and similar kinds of places, where the foreign bankers were centered, there were some in Massachusetts as well; but the foreign bankers based in the Manhattan area, who were all foreigners, and they were leading British, international institutions, moved in, and brought in the guy who assassinated — personally assassinated — our Vice President, and killed Hamilton.

And then, Hamilton's work was influential in getting back, through John Quincy Adams in particular, toward the consolidation of a banking system which would have saved the United States. That was destroyed by the British, through the operation of putting that idiot Jackson, and Van Buren, into power.

Since that time, there was no effective government of the United States, until Abraham Lincoln. Then Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by the British Empire, directly. It was the British Empire, itself, which explicitly ordered the organization, in Canada, of the deployment of forces which were involved in the assassination of President Lincoln.

And that's the natural situation. So then, since that time, we've had a constant, robust back and forth, in terms of trying to save the United States, and the problem has been, especially, as today: states' rights! The fact that the United States is not sovereign, because the British control us, why? Because of the effect of states' rights.

So, what we have to do, is simply go back to the principles which were defined by Alexander Hamilton, in terms of the economic policy of the United States, and do that now. And I have, what I have described, and I reported of course publicly, recently, this past Friday and Saturday, what I report there, is the mechanism, which precisely satisfies the intention embodied in the original intention, of the government of the United States, under George Washington, done by Alexander Hamilton. That worked for Abraham Lincoln. The killing of Lincoln, shut it off.

Roosevelt was working in the same direction. He was killed, they shut it off. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy was pushing in the same direction, under the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt, who understood her husband's, Franklin Roosevelt's intentions. He was killed! Then his murderer killed Robert Kennedy.

We had a decent President in the form of Ronald Reagan. We didn't have much of anything by a President during the 1970s. Reagan was a promising, and in part, successful, President, but he was also a target of assassination. And the assassination put him out of action for a period of time, which gave him a loss of control over the position and policies he had.

This is what has to be understood! There is a Satanic force in this planet, typified by the British Empire, that is the enemy of the United States. Unfortunately, there are many whorish members of the Congress, and other institutions, who prefer to kiss the butt, of the British, rather than the sovereignty of the United States.

And the Fourth of July and Memorial Day, are fitting occasions, to think about that true history of the United States.

KESHA ROGERS: Absolutely. And I think that it's appropriate to say, that states' rights are Zeusian, while the true American system is a real Promethean system. And you think about states' rights, actually deny the access to knowing the future, and to actually facing and creating the future, especially because, if you don't have a policy around what is your national interest, that's why Benjamin Franklin was known as the Prometheus of our American Republic, the Promethean of our American Republic.

And you think about, my campaign, this is the flank that we have, and what is going to be required to gain victory in this campaign, because it's not going to be actually acting on, or getting people to act on past friends, or past experiences, but to actually recognize that the existence of the development of our nation, has always been on the commitment toward chasing and changing the future. And any great President, or any great leader in our society, whether it be Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln, you know, one thing that they recognized is that these were all individuals who responded to the call of the future. They weren't actually acting on what had already happened on what already happened in the past, they were acting on what was being required of our nation, for the future.

And so, what was required of the nation, as Benjamin Franklin said, "I give you a Republic, if you can keep it," and this is what it's going to take to keep it.

And so now, today, you know, our generation, we're not acting on trying to turn things around that already happened in the past, but we're actually trying to respond to the phone call from the generations to come, that are actually calling on us, right now, and saying, "Hey! What're you doing, to make sure that you don't mess up what is required for us to have a future?"

So, I think this question of the Promethean idea — what's Prometheus? Prometheus gave people, human beings access to foreknowledge of the future. The British Empire, the system of states' rights, is, "you can't know that! Stay in your place, you're just slave!" And it's not about you know crystal balls, and knowing the future from the standpoint of we'll just kind of wait and see what happens, but the way you're going to know it is, that you're going to actually transform it.

And I was just going to say, we had a meeting last night, a small group of people from our campaign. They came out, this is the first day of the early voting of the campaign, and we're gathering people all over the state, and we actually were, in the course of the discussion last night, giving people the sense that, this is what you're actually going out and recruiting people to and organizing people around. And it's completely transformed the audience. You know, you had people that said, "you know, when we were in school, our education system during the time..." one gentleman said, our education system in the 1960s, during the time of the coming of President John F. Kennedy, had required of us that in order to be prepared and know what was going on around us in society, in order to be prepared for what was to come, we had to have knowledge in chemistry, we had to have knowledge in real Classical education and science. It wasn't just the space program and the Moon shot; it was something that was, we were a part of it, everybody was a part of it, the whole education system was a part of it; everything that we were moving toward was a part of it. And, that that identity has been lost!

And so, when you think about, something, for instance, like the NAWAPA, what people were preparing for was NAWAPA in the 1960s, was the actual call of the future. Because we didn't take up that call, now, the question is, now in the present — which was their future — we have the responsibility of taking up the call for the future of the generations to come. So, that's pretty exciting. [LaRouche laughs]

BILL ROBERTS: That's absolutely right. And I think that this period is a period in which we have to really have a development of the confidence of the American population, in the government — of course, a post-Obama government. Because, I'm just reminded, we obviously do not have the type of Renaissance culture, or Promethean identity in the population, that even, I think Alexander Hamilton was able to sort of tap into. But if you look at the argument over the Constitutionality of the National Bank versus states' rights, Hamilton was — it was almost explicit the way he was laying this question of the necessity of the government having the powers to carrying out the development of the Promethean identity of man.

He says that Jefferson defined that which was necessary for the government to do, and nothing could be done by the Federal government that went beyond this. But he said that the limitation to the power of the Federal government, must be to only do those things which, if they weren't done, there would be a negative consequence. In other words, it was explicitly this idea, and Hamilton said that that idea of necessity, it changes the definition of necessity. Because you're no longer dealing with the question of the need, the necessity for progress! There was no conception...! And so Hamilton was educating the population to see, that government must be Promethean.

And I think, what we have with this campaign, here in Texas and in California, comes right up against, as Kesha said, this issue of what has been the result of not having developed the programs and the scientific capabilities, to see the future? We've come up against a sneak attack by the Sun and the galaxy, who have slapped us in the face with the reality, that human beings have to be Promethean. And if we're not, then we are dealing with a day of reckoning.

OGDEN: Mike, do you have anything that you'd like to add before we conclude?

MIKE STEGER: We're clearly at a historical moment in history. Lyn, you had raised, at the beginning of these campaigns, that it's a question of west of the Mississippi, throughout the Western States, and really, across the Pacific. And clearly, with what Kesha's got now in Texas, and with the response here with my campaign in San Francisco from the Chinese community, and what's happening this week with Russia and China, largely from your intervention and your wife's over the last 20, 30 years, we really are at a unique moment in history, and it just requires the participation at a Promethean level of an increasing number of our citizens, and of a leadership in this country, to take advantage of that.

And so, we've got a few weeks, here before the campaigns are resolved, and we should do everything possible to take advantage of this historical period.

LAROUCHE: Good.

OGDEN: And, a week from tomorrow is the final voting day in Texas, May 27th. And as Kesha has just said, early voting has begun as of today, and there's a lot of activity on the ground there. So we'll be keeping people up to date, I'm sure.

Thank you for joining us, and that brings a conclusion to our show today.