Watch the video presentation here.
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Afternoon. It's October 20th, 2014. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We broadcast over Google Hangouts OnAir, and we're joined by video conference by Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, joining us from Seattle, Washington; Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts. Kesha Rogers is not joining us today. She's attending a campaign event in Louisiana. And here in the studio I'm joined by Diane Sare, and as you can see, Mr. LaRouche. And I understand Lyn has a few surprises to start with.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, what we've had recently is a report on what Benjamin Deniston has started, and Megan Beets, who has been his leading associate in this particular scientific venture, really reflects, going back three weeks ago, we had a team appearance on the television screen. What we did with our people there, we actually showed up the intrinsic incompetence of most of our rivals in our own organization. Because we presented a case for science which most of our people foolishly forget. That is, what they do, they tend to take the literal explanation given by people which babbles out of their mouth without their understanding what they're saying. And they all try to say things that seem to fit what's expected of them. And what they actually say is actually a form of gibberish, because it has no actual efficient correspondence with the reality they are pretending to address.
What happened here in this case is, to make it short, that Ben had been working on this idea of galactic cycles. And he was assisted by Megan Beets who was following up on this whole process. And between the two of them, what they stimulated, it wasn't limited to them, but what they stimulated was an understanding of what we had done, actually three weeks before, in terms of our attack on this foolish kind of argument about truth, and so forth.
So, the problem is, most people use a form of language, which is actually a form of gibberish, which has no physical significance. Now, what the implication is, we have two kinds of specimens, of speaking specimens, of some of the animals. The dog barks, right? The dog can communicate by barking. The dog can teach people what he wants, or she wants, by barking or by gestures. But the point is, the human being should not be limited to those routines. And so, therefore, the important thing is that most people, ordinary people will use an actual thing which approximates an animal noise, as opposed to an actual statement of an idea, an idea concept.
What has happened is, what Ben has done, and what Megan Beets has done in support of this, is based on a distinction which is made by Vernadsky. Vernadsky was the first who really defined the distinction between the animal and the human. And so, therefore, what Vernadsky did was to define human principles as opposed to animal principles. Most people use, even human beings, use animal sounds as a way of expressing themselves. They don't know why, but what it is, is called convention. It's called habits; it's called traits; it's called all kinds of things.
And so what we had, three weeks ago, we had one team of our own organization on the beginning of the week, who actually presented a conceptual view, which is scientific. Whereas the other people in the same organization, but of a different group, actually gibbered. That is, they used gibberish which they all nodded to. Why? Not because it's true, but because it's conventional. It's habitual.
And the problem we have in life now, is that we depend so much upon ritual kinds of beliefs, ritual kinds of speaking, ritual kinds of conceptions. And we think that because those things are popular, are true, or are extremely important. But they're not! And when you look at the practice of society, you realize these kinds of things.
Now, you take this thing that was done by Ben, and it's gone over for a period of about three years, this kind of investigation, and you find, that thing, shows you what most people think is science, is gibberish. Because they use words, terms, concepts, which do not correspond to any actually efficiently real opposition. And what, to make it very short, what was done by Ben initially, as his initiative, and what was supported by Megan, were two of the contributors into an insight into the real principle. The same thing was done, three weeks, when the Basement team actually presented a non-gibberish of dialogue, as whereas most of our own people, not because they're bad people, but because they are convinced to follow the habit of echoing the habit, and they are speaking gibberish. And since they all like that particular gibberish, they think it's marshmallow, or raspberry, or something like that, they make that mistake! And that's what happened here in this case.
Let's take the case of animal as opposed to human beings. Now, animals and human beings are completely different species. They're different qualities of species. As much as I love my little dog, and also Helga's little dog, but she gave the dog to me, which is very nice of her to do that. [laughter] But anyway, the point is, to understand what human beings are, you have depart from what is the animal speaking, and the form of human speaking, which is really animal speaking. Most people who are speaking are actually making animal noises. They're echoing animal noises in some conventional form which they use. And therefore, I see many people in our own organization, who will speak gibberish. They will go through a recitation of a sequence of words, which has no actual physical meaning. And therefore, they will spout this thing out, and they will quote the kind of line that you quote, to say, "Oh, you mean that!" And they don't understand; they have no insight into reality. What they have is, they assume, that the kissing of the something or other, of a certain kind of statement, creates approval. You are saying something which people like to hear. But it has no content to it; it has no efficient content. It's a descriptive term which has no substance.
Therefore, in this case, what happened is that Ben's and Megan's particular effort here, has helped us to make clear to people, what the difference is between gibberish and science. The same thing happened three weeks ago, when the Basement team, actually presented a program, which was actually to be contrasted properly to a form of gibberish which is used by our members quite often. They will use this kind of gibberish to come to, what they call an agreement. "Oh, that's a sentiment." They will pick a sentiment and make that an agreement.
What the key thing in life, is that humanity does something that no animal can do. No animal can create a state of mind, a true state of mind. And that's what Vernadsky, and his whole tribe represents — an understanding of that principle. Most people in society today, do not have competent insight into reality. They have conventions which they use as surrogates for reality. And if they're not shocking to the people hearing, they will generally adopt these things, and say, "Oh, Yes. That's true. Oh, Yes. That's true." When in fact, it's actually gibberish.
Now, this is the difference between animal and man. And the problem is that, mankind often prefers to have a popular expression, rather than a competent one. Because the popular expression is one that other people accept. A term that is used, a challenge that is used as a term, is accepted. But most of the time, what most people say, on the radio, on the television screen, and in other kinds of public statement, they are actually speaking gibberish. But people accept the gibberish because it is conventional gibberish, and has a connotation which is extrapolated to be attributed to the meaning.
And so, in this case, what Ben has done, is to actually refer to Vernadsky. Vernadsky was the person who actually defined most clearly, the distinction between man and beast. Most people today actually are more influenced by the beast ideas, than the actual human ideas. They don't think human; they think popular. And therefore, they use popular phrasing, popular terms. And assume that the agreement to those kinds of terms within the course of a conversation is an argument of truth. It's not. And that therefore, most people, like the driver who has no eyesight, is behind the wheel. He has all the wonderful intentions of the world. He wants the feeling of that car moving down the street, or across the neighbor's lot, or whatever it is. And he doesn't recognize the difference. He wants something that he finds consoling, even though it's not true.
The important thing is, Vernadsky made clear, that the gibberish kind of talk that popular [people] usually use, is not scientific, it's a form of gibberish. But it's a form of gibberish made popular by convention. So people use the gibberish of that particular type, and use that for a substitute for reality; and therefore they never find reality. And that's why they often find themselves in the wrong bed. So, in this case, what we have to understand is that human beings, true human being behavior defines a conception of the human mind, which no animal can imitate, and actually most speaking people cannot imitate. Because what they do is they use a convention, what is adopted by them as a convention, a term of expression, which has no correspondence to the reality, as a causal process of reality.
And the problem most people face, in schools, from the beginning of school teaching, they don't think. Not really. What they do, is they adopt terms. They adopt phrases and expressions. But they don't say the words which, expressed as an idea, will change the course of history. And that's the difference, and so, this particular thing done by Ben and Megan, in particular, as the leading spokesman of this process, actually presented that case. We also presented that three weeks ago, in attacking the conventional way of argument. And the conventional method of argument is what mankind must be freed from, because the typical methods of expression, of most of the population, are the things that will kill them all.
OGDEN: Well, let me just say, this is a report by Benjamin Deniston, which is a work in progress. It's called "Galactic Cycles from the Standpoint of Vernadsky's Life Phenomena and the New Physics", which is referring to a paper which was written by Vernadsky, but is now being newly-translated by members of the Basement Team into English; never before translated in full. Where Vernadsky says the phenomenon of life, but also of human creativity, has to overthrow the tyranny of the reductionism of Isaac Newton explicitly, and implicitly, Bertrand Russell. And Bertrand Russell's mathematic reductionism in order to try and kill science and kill creativity, was what Vernadsky was doing battle directly against.
LAROUCHE: Go in a shopping store, a grocery or whatever, you look at the meat. You look at the goods on display. You look at it; you identify that as reality. You do not identify what it does, what its efficiency is, its appropriateness is, its relevance is to humanity. That's the point. And therefore, this role of Vernadsky corresponds to the greatest writings of all people that we know of great writings. They always avoid that kind of crap, which most people believe in. They believe that communication in those terms are the acceptable forms of discussion — and they're all idiots, really, in the end. And they will find themselves in a mess, as people, because they think like idiots. And that's what the importance of Vernadsky essentially is, in this particular case. It has much amplification; there are many ways we can actually qualify and show clearly what the truth of this whole thing is, but nobody stops to take on the truth. Therefore, they take their conventional beliefs, their conventional habits, just like a barking dog, and they have, most of them have very little content to their species, but more than merely barking dogs. I don't know about the fish
SARE: Well I think we're now at a point in history where that kind of gobbled-gook will kill people. And I brought in today this — for people can see [holds up paper] — this is the sheet that was handed out by the CDC to nurses on protective gear protocols for Ebola. Now I thought maybe I was making a mistake when I looked at it; maybe it was just normal protective gear, not Ebola per se. And actually they talk about Ebola on the bottom one. This will kill nurses in the hundreds and thousands, because it is not airtight, it is not fluid-tight. They say things like "Change gloves when torn or contaminated." If your gloves are torn and contaminated, you may be as good as dead. And when you speak with people who deal with situations like this, my colleague Bruce Todd, who ran for lieutenant governor when I ran for governor, worked in a nuclear power plant. And we went to tour a nuclear power plant; and they have two exams for the employees. One is a written exam on the chemistry and the chemical experiments, on which you have to score 95%. The other is an exam on a mock control panel — what do you do if X happens? What do you do if Y happens? On that exam, you must score 100% or you're out. And it's the same thing with this; what he said is when they wear protective gear to go into an area where there may be radiation, everything is covered and you are supervised. And when you come out of that situation, you have a supervisor watching you remove the protective gear, because — and the doctors said this as well — that the time that you're likely to make a mistake is after doing a number of hard hours of work, wearing this stuff that makes you sweat. It's hot; it's uncomfortable. And when you come out of that situation, you need someone other than you to watch what you are doing, to make sure you don't slip up.
What the CDC is handing the nurses as official protocol for this, is normal surgical gear that ties in the back with holes and gapes. And most hospitals have had no instruction and no protocol. So, it's worse, I mean, it's beyond incompetent; it is murder, it's genocide. And it's what you said about Obama, who, his lies on the question of Ebola will kill millions of people.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, absolutely.
OGDEN: And this is directly what Bertrand Russell called for. Bertrand Russell called for a Black Death once every generation, and the bestial view of man that Bertrand Russell advocated is exactly what we now see as policy, which is threatening exactly that — a Black Death for this generation.
SARE: One other thing I want to add, because I mentioned that Debra Hanania-Freeman's interview, which has been on LaRouche PAC, I have been circulating widely to many people. And I've been getting comments — the thing they're most upset about is why we're saying a travel ban won't work; and then they say "What do we do?" And they are really in denial; it's as if if I put my hands over my eyes, just please tell me that if I put my hands over my eyes, that this will go away, and I will not get sick, and I don't have to think about it. And what you said, Lyn, last week, that people have to get the idea that unless we address this as a global, strategic issue and we work with the other nations who have expertise in this area, there is no such thing as personal survival.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, absolutely true.
BRINKLEY: Just on this same issue, you brought up over the weekend, the refusal to take leadership, to accept leadership, sometimes can be criminal. And this is, an addition to the point you're bringing up about language and how you're discussing various issues, because what Obama said directly on Saturday, two things of the type you're discussing. Certain facts that sound good, but obscure the truth, as Diane's bringing up. But, one, that it's difficult to catch. He said that Ebola is difficult to catch — only by direct contact with bodily fluids of a sick person can you get it. Well, I mean, for one, there was this NBC cameraman who got it, who had been following CDC protocol — washing with chlorine, covering himself, not touching anybody — but he somehow got it. So, one, how is this possible, and how did this happen? The point is it's obviously not "not airborne" as Obama is saying; it is an aerosol. But they're trying to obscure the scientific reality of what we do and don't know about how this disease is transmitted. And the point that you made this weekend, is that we have to look at the rate of disease and the infection rate. Which has been a 70% death rate of anybody infected with this disease.
Another point that's being put out in the media is that only 3 people out of 310 million in the United States have gotten this, so it can't be that bad. But this is not, does not demonstrate the actual conditions when we look at this other question of the rate of increase of death. Anyway, there were other conditions; actually just one is also that the US military troops that are now in Liberia are not being provided with haz-mat suits; that they're being given only gloves and masks, because they're following this assumption, this fraud peddled by the President. So they're staying at hotels and public facilities in Monrovia, and they've said that they're not going to be touching any people because they're just building things, but they're going to be in a public area where we've already seen an ability of transmittal which directly through contact. This is really a murderous policy that the President is representing.
STEGER: Lyn, in this presentation you made three weeks ago, what was striking about the discussion was that it started from the question of human immortality. It started from the standpoint of the space exploration program and the kind of fine characteristics that really define the human existence. And that's what's so critical right now; that's what's missing in the entire political discussion right now. It's either "Don't panic; everything's fine," or "Freak-out, panic, become hysterical," from all of the political gibberish from both political sides. And there's no competent approach. I thought what the Boston University professor said, she made a presentation at Harvard last week; it was very clear. Under the cases she was dealing with, in the clinic she was working at, survival rate was 60%. That's an inverse, practically an inverse of the death rates of most of the other conditions. So clearly the ability to get a handle on this disease is really a question of commitment. As she said, to put your life, people's lives have to be put on the line to save this. And we can do that; we've got a commitment from people in the United States, that is now coming from the political leadership. And that's what is going to define the process right now; and the only way to really do that is to get Obama out. And the day is ahead; and this can't wait. Waiting until the election period, waiting for so-called bureaucratic time is not going to function. And Vernadsky makes this clear. If the noetic doesn't assert itself, the biotic will; and that's exactly what's happening in this case. Mankind has not exerted itself to develop mankind in an efficient form over these decades. And what's now occurring is exactly these British imperialists like Russell and Prince Philip have intended. And that's got to be shut down now. Mankind has to assert itself. The BRICS nations, [inaudible 27:07] processes, the conference we held in Germany, indicate where mankind can go, and what has to determine the leadership now in the United States.
LAROUCHE: You've got to address that point effectively in language, public language. You've got to go on the attack against the supporters of Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell is probably the virtual Satan of his time. That he did what he did was Satanic; it was Satanic not only in effect, it was Satanic in intention. More in intention than in effect. And that's what has happened across the waters of the Atlantic and beyond. What is happening now is, the British Empire, which is the carryover from Bertrand Russell, that death match, is the enemy! The British Queen, the British Empire, the British monarchy, is the enemy of the human species! Because that's what's created all this stuff. We've had knowledge of how to deal with medicine; we've had knowledge of how to fight disease. Why do we get killed by disease? Because of people like Bertrand Russell. And if you go through Bertrand Russell, and take all the people who admired Bertrand Russell in his lifetime and afterwards, you're talking about a Satanic force of pure evil. And don't try to pick on this problem or that problem. The question is here, pure evil. And Bertrand Russell and those who follow him — like the Queen, like other members of the British royal family, are evil, intrinsically!
This is where all this disease comes from; this is where all these problems come from. They wouldn't occur, except for the influence of the British Empire. And the British Empire's influence was only possible through the British monarchy. If you want to eliminate evil; if you want to eliminate death; get rid of the British monarchy!
OGDEN: Maybe that's why the Queen of England admires bats so much.
LAROUCHE: Oh yes.
OGDEN: Bats are one of the most efficient carriers and vectors of the Ebola virus.
LAROUCHE: Exactly; exactly. That's the fact of the matter, and we should probably ask the Queen, "Are you an Ebola virus, Your Majesty?" It probably is, probably is.
OGDEN: She is batty!
CHRISTIE: Well, I think it goes right to what Lyn, what you'd done already back in the '70s, and already calling out the potential on these pandemics. Because what you identified was, on the one hand, you know that the British Empire has a specific policy of unleashing these kinds of diseases as part of their population control. But what you had identified is that when you have a petri dish of poverty by the takedown of the physical economy under the British imperial policies of the IMF and so forth, then that's how you can create it. But I think this also goes to what you're saying on the language question, because how do you take a society such as the United States in the early '70s, who had gone through what Roosevelt had done to revive the American System, who had gone through what Kennedy had done with the space program, who knew that there was a fundamental connection between scientific principle and physical economy. And to destroy that, you had to destroy the minds of the population; you had to bring in environmentalism, you had to bring in monetarism, you had to bring in the idea that we could just make money off the stock market. All this kind of crap which was brought in through the destruction of the human mind.
And I think the way that it happens, and I think the point of Vernadsky going explicitly after Newton, because I was reminded, we were having some discussions on the fight between Newton and Leibniz here. And one of the things that's very notable, because Riemann himself, his scientific work created the conditions for Planck, Einstein and Vernadsky to come about, but Riemann explicitly identifies that Newton himself didn't believe his own garbage on the idea that the gravitational action occurred because of the relationship between the mass objects, mediated between nothing, mediated between an empty space. Newton identified that anybody who believed that is completely insane, so he doesn't even believe his own stuff. But why does he do it? It's because as part of British Empire's policy, if you're going to destroy and subjugate a population to slavery, then you have to knock out their ability to find causality, their ability to find a cause-and-effect relationship in the domain of principles, and how that unfolds. And so, how do you destroy a population and get them to go with environmentalism? How do you destroy a population to go with the monetarism and globalization and everything that goes with the conditions to create this disease? Or to believe what Diane just went through? There is known science behind this, but people just have this, they can believe that because they've lost a connect between the actual physical reality and economy and the human mind. And that's done through this language process.
LAROUCHE: You want to emphasize one thing — is the common problem is, that people are made stupid by accepting conventions which do not correspond to reality. By eating food which is not corresponding to security of digestion; that sort of thing. The deliberate use of methods and practices and substances, entertainment. How many people have been killed by entertainment? Because the entertainment which they accepted became the standard of attraction which encouraged them to become stupid in their behavior. Like public sex behavior, popular sex behavior, among young kids and others who play games with sex. That's dangerous, you know. You got to be careful where you put your sex, because it may come back and take you on next. So therefore, these kinds of questions of value are crucial. And we have in society the ability to make these kinds of determinations to detect these kinds of problems; these kinds of threats. And by the same method of not having venereal diseases, which might kill you! So, you don't have venereal disease practice; you don't even innocents, so-called, entrap you into that kind of disease. You don't do it! And you can actually cause a pretty good wipe-out of population by venereal diseases, you know. And it has been done before. And what we have is, we have a venereal disease of a political kind, which is what many people in the United States. And they wonder why they're sick!
SARE: Now, there is an antidote. Your wife has been presiding over an extraordinary conference in Germany, of the Schiller Institute — its 30th anniversary. There's a very diverse group of speakers from all over the world, and I have not had a chance to take in the full power of what was done there. Excepting one thing that comes across very clearly is that these leaders are definitely getting a sense of urgency, and the need to act in real time. And you see from some of these countries that are leaders in the BRICS, for example, I was very struck by President Xi Jinping, who, over the weekend addressed a gathering of artists. And he admonished them; he said your art, don't seek popularity, don't seek commercial gain, because it will infect your art with the stench of money. And what we are looking for is a moral standard, and creativity. It's very, very striking to have the head of state thinking of the role of the artist in this way, and that dynamic. And I understand there was a performance of Beethoven's opera, Fidelio, which again gets at some of these qualities of what it means to be human. And I think one of the most — well, there are many things that Bertrand Russell did which exposed his evil, but in particular, I keep thinking of this; where he writes about we can determine how much it will cost per student to make them believe that snow is black. To specifically destroy the ability of a human being to think creatively.
And that's what we see is lacking in this response of people to this crisis now of Ebola. They want a square; they want a thing; they don't like the uncertainty of actually having to think through something where we won't know all the answers.
LAROUCHE: Let's take the case of the relevant case, of the typical school class, public school class or senior class, or something of that nature, of a university lecture class. You will find that in many cases, these things are actually destructive, because they are organized in order to try to control the behavior of the students, or the other relevant victims. And therefore, people are rewarded by this kind of manipulation, to succeed in getting a good mark on something which may be poisonous in the end in its effect. And therefore, the idea of truth is not a matter of the grade on a classroom schedule. The truth of the matter is the ability of the human mind as such, as the individual human mind, to voluntarily recognize a course of action which is good for society, or good for them in particular. What we have in society today is the typical classroom is what the teacher teaches, is what the school teaches, is what the institutions teach. And most of this is junk; most of this is poisonous. What people say is the standard of behavior is the standard of death; it just comes on more slowly or faster as the occasion divines.
And that's the point; we have to have a humanity, which as a I gave the example of what we did in this one day three weeks ago, rather than doing this stupid kind of thing — which was really actually quite stupid — of the one team which was trying to represent a representation of the ideas of the organization. It was all stupid! It had no relationship to reality. Whereas, our smaller team, which produced this thing, was meaningful. And what Ben did and the team did on that occasion, is an example of the difference between science, reason, accomplishment and so forth, as opposed to stupidity. Whereas most of our people were saying things, which they were saying on the basis of this was accepted. So the idea that the accepted standard was used instead of the competent one, is exactly the way syphilis and death come to meet people who are unwarranted.
ROBERTS: Well, the standard right now that clearly that Americans are being faced with, is what is going to be the impact of their action on humanity. And the crisis of Ebola, the financial breakdown crisis, the spread of terrorism, is forcing people to have to think about what is actually going to be the effect of your actions. Not practical, not how can you do something to hide, or fit in, or keep your head down; which is typically the way that Americans unfortunately think. But we're faced with the extinction of mankind. Now, the extinction of mankind has never happened before, so there's no formula. And you can see in that context the pollution of this idea of don't panic someone; if it hasn't happened yet, don't try to create a panic; if it hasn't gone airborne, don't say it's possible it can go airborne, that'll create a panic. But you can definitely see the kind of imposed limitation of the average person who does not think in terms of, "Is the way that you think viable for the survival of humanity?" And that's the standard right now.
LAROUCHE: Well, that's the issue of the Black Death; that's what the Black Death is. We had a point where most of the population in Europe was going in that century into dead-end death. And something which we don't fully understand today, in effect saved humanity from it whore essence. And clearly transmits the development of the trans-Atlantic region; all were reflections of this kind of thing. And therefore, the point is, we cannot go by the standard; we cannot go by these fixed standards, these presumptions. We have to use a scientific standard or something which compares to a meaningful scientific standard. In other words, a practice which is approaching that standard; whether it's achieving it or not. If you're going in the right direction in terms of your practice, you might have a fairly good chance of progressing, even becoming successful. But if you violate these standards, as the Black Death did to much of Europe, then you can have an extermination of the human species. And what we're leading with now, which Obama typifies, everything about Obama's policy corresponds to the Black Death of the human species. Because if he continues in the direction he's continuing, the effect of his influence over the planet will be the extermination of the population of every part of the planet which does not remain out of his reach.
CHRISTIE: What Bill just identified, this idea that the psychological, you know, we don't want to say the truth, because we don't want to panic people, this is the behaviorists that Lyn, you identified in April 2009, when you gave the speech on Obama being like Nero. That was in the context of these economic behaviorists that ran the Obama administration. And this is how these guys think; they think you can manage elements of the economy, manage physical health through this psychological manipulation instead of looking at it as the actual physics of it. And this is something that this Osterholm guy made the point of — if you don't tell the population the truth and then you are going back and forth on the truth, that's the actual real panic. But what they're doing, it's all on line with this behaviorism stuff; the psychological manipulation and control of the population.
LAROUCHE: Well, we do know, as human beings, from a scientific standpoint, we do know the direction of behavior of human beings in society which will secure society with a successful continuation and progress. We do know that, and all the problems come from the people who were influenced to reject that, or to just avoid it. Therefore, we open the gates to Hell by not paying attention to simple rules of behavior which are accessible to us, which our parents in many cases had provided us. They provided us — some of them are poor, some are rich; all tended to provide for us. We didn't have true evil, but Bertrand Russell gave you a good dose of thorough evil. As a matter of fact, Bertrand Russell was the man of evil of his age, of his generation. He was the most evil man that we know of in the history of mankind in our age. And that's what's coming out at us; what's coming out of Wall Street; what's coming out of Obama. The man is evil! Can't we recognize that the President of the United States in this case happens to be personally evil? All the evidence is there. Why are we so stupid we don't recognize that he's evil? And throw him out of office, as we should. Why do we want to keep this guy on? Why do you want Venetian, want this or that, disease? Why do you want that?
The point is, our people are so conditioned by brainwashing that they bend over in one sense or another, to adapt to evil, because they say, "You got to learn how to get ahead in society." And the head goes in the wrong direction, probably to the wrong aperture, actually.
SARE: Well, I think Americans should really take seriously one of the reports we got from the conference that Helga gave about what people are thinking about the United States. And I think Americans should take this as a personal challenge, which is the world is wondering, is there in the United States the determination to revive our nation to its identity, as Alexander Hamilton intended? And John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, and what you particularly embody today. Because that is the challenge to the American people, which is, are you going to stand up for what our republic represents, and therefore act to solve this? Or, are we going to doom all of mankind? It really is in our hands.
OGDEN: Well, I think that's a good concluding point for today. As Diane mentioned, the proceedings of this conference will be available on the newparadigm.schillerinstitute site. And I think we're all looking forward to getting a better idea of that. And hopefully the report that Lyn, you referred to — from Ben Deniston — in the beginning will be available soon for circulation. So you can keep your eyes out for that.
So, I want to thank you for joining us, and thank you everybody. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.