Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1250\deff0\deflang1060{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Calibri;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;} {\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.21.2510;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\sb144\sa192\sl345\slmult0\qj\cf1\highlight2\lang1033\fs21
Good evening everyone. Tonight is March 8, 2013. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I'm welcoming
you to our regular Friday night international live broadcast from larouchepac.com. Tonight's
broadcast will feature, as always, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. We're also joined in the studio
by Jason Ross and Leandra Bernstein. So, without further introduction, I give you Mr. Lyndon
LaRouche.\par Well, as you noticed, there have been some
changes in the structure of the U.S. Congress. They have not been formally defined, but they
are coming on rapidly. What is happening now is obvious; is that the Congress as we have
known it as an institution for a long period of time is now finished. We see that in the
multi-phase arrangement among nominal Republicans, which is becoming quite a complicated business
to keep track of, and Democrats and so forth. So there is no real coherence to the Congress
in the manner that there has been before. Now, that's not pique. There may be a lot
of pique going back and forth in this process, but the issue is not pique. The issue is money,
because we are in a situation where, unless we get a Glass-Steagall bill through quickly,
the United States as a nation is going to disintegrate! This process of hyperinflation,
and all this fakery that Obama is doing and so forth, cannot avoid that. The United States
is already bankrupt! And there is only one way to fix it; there is no other: Glass-Steagall.
And Glass-Steagall the way we've defined it. What Obama is doing and the rest of them are
doing, is simply skating on thinner and thinner ice, and it's not in the wintertime, it's
in the summertime. And that's where we are. So, there's no way in which the present monetary
system of the United States can continue to exist under its present policies. There is
only one way in which the United States can avoid going into total bankruptcy \emdash
and I mean disintegration! And that is Glass-Steagall as we have defined it for action.\par
Now, you see the signs of this. For example, all this withholding of funds is simply fakery.
What they're doing is simply speeding up the hyperinflation. Now, if you look at Germany
back in 1923, you've got a fair idea of what kind of business we're talking about. This
country is bankrupt! This nation is bankrupt! This Presidency is bankrupt! This Congress
is bankrupt! And there's only one way you can get it out of bankruptcy \emdash Glass-Steagall.
Why? Well, the point is, how can you, just by Glass-Steagall, get out of bankruptcy?
Well, it's not too difficult. If your head is screwed on properly, you can understand
this. The point is, that most of the money which has been run through, especially since
Obama came into the Presidency, but also the Bush-league before then, that what they were
doing, and what they had been doing for a period of time, is nothing but gambling. And
they keep losing at the table. Therefore, what you need is, you can't say, "We have
money." Because "money" is now a dirty word; it doesn't mean anything. The fact that you've
got money, when you look at the reputation of what our financial institutions are, they
have a lot of money on their books, but there's nothing worth anything there.\par
So we have to go back to "honest money" in a sense. I wouldn't use the term otherwise,
except to annoy some people who need annoying very seriously. But what we have to do immediately,
is put through Glass-Steagall as an emergency action\i now\i0 . What's happening now if
that does not happen, this system is going to blow out. It's already in a state of hyperinflation.
You have a similar situation in Europe. The Greek situation \emdash hyperinflation. Spain
\emdash hyperinflation. Portugal \emdash hyperinflation. Italy \emdash hyperinflation. Germany on the
edge; France on the edge. It's\~\i over!\i0\~It's over. Obviously, some people are waiting for
something else. Now, one of the things they're waiting for, is war. See, in other words,
this system, this system the way it's organized, the transatlantic system \emdash the U.S.
system included \emdash cannot possibly survive under these conditions without some very clear
change.\par And you've got two very clear options. Option
number one is Glass-Steagall. Option number two is World War III; thermonuclear war. Because
there's no way \emdash Obama is the most worthless President who ever existed from any nation
in the history of mankind. The most bankrupt man in the history of civilization, of statecraft.
There's nothing you can do about it; this thing is hopeless, it's not worth anything.
It doesn't translate into food, it doesn't translate into health care, it doesn't translate
into anything that has any value. It is simply hyperinflationary make-believe money. And
obviously their game is \emdash their game has a policy. Let me just get to the really
dirty part about this.\par What is going on? Why is the British monarchy
controlling the President of the United States the way they're doing? Because he's nothing
but a puppet of the British monarchy; that's all he is. So, what's he up to? Well, let's
look to Great Britain. You had back in \emdash we had a Danish campaign that didn't work
out too well for the British, and the result of that was that the Queen came on with a
program for reduction of the human population. That is, the reduction of the human species
from 7 billion people, estimated, to a rapid descent to approximately 1 billion people.
That is the policy of the Queen. Those are the policies of cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, which
you're seeing in the United States and elsewhere. Look at the price of food. Why is the price
of food so high? Because the value of the dollar is so low; it's that simple.\par
Now, if we go to Glass-Steagall, that means we will reduce \emdash you take all of that
money that's classified as money in the one sense, but ain't. In other words, the assumption
in terms of money is that money can have a stable value, and therefore, your purpose
is that you can get a lot of money, but you've got to match it with things that people consume,
or investments and things of that sort \emdash physical investments. You've got to turn the
money into something which is useful to society. And there's nothing of that there. This has
been coming on, step by step, for a long time; since the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
which is when the turn came in this direction. But then, once Bill Clinton was out of office,
then things began to accelerate. And now the United States is bankrupt. At the same time,
the system of government, the Congressional system, is also disintegrating. And that is
one of the healthiest things that's happening. I mean, you've got Republicans who are no
longer Republicans, there are two or three varieties of these. Same thing with the Democrats.
The Democrats aren't yet that obvious, but they will be very soon. So, we're in a situation
where this system has no value. And people out there, who are talking about the money
they have, the savings they have, the credit they have, the value of the property that
they say they have \emdash it's all bunk! There is no such value. It's only paper waste
money; it's not even exchangeable. There's no attempt to exchange it. They just keep
piling it on, and counting it more and more digits in the figure. So as of now, anybody
today, who thinks that any of these party systems have\~\i anything\i0\~that's competent,
under which this United States can survive, they have to be nuts, or almost stone-dead
foolish. Because there's nothing for them here.\par
But on the other hand, there is something we\~\i can\i0\~have. We can have it under
our Constitution. Glass-Steagall means that all the money that doesn't fit reality, simply
is not counted. We'll bring the accounts into balance under a Glass-Steagall reform. And
all the money that doesn't fit in those shoes is not counted anymore. Now that means a lot
of so-called wealthy people are suddenly going to get very broke, but the rest of us have
been through that long enough anyway. We're not going to worry about them. We have to
worry about getting people productively employed, about their income, their nourishment, their
health care, and other real things. We can do that under Glass-Steagall, but we've got
to get Glass-Steagall rammed through early before the actual full crash occurs. Otherwise,
you \emdash whoever you are out there \emdash don't have nothing! Unless you get Glass-Steagall
now, there's no way you can have anything if they don't give you Glass-Steagall now.\par
Now, I'm an expert in this matter, as a lot of people in our Congress are not. Certainly
the President is not competent on this question, either. But we can do it. All it takes is
the kind of action Franklin Roosevelt took in 1932-1933. That action will \emdash but
is has to be on the basis of a Glass-Steagall plan. And a Glass-Steagall plan under that
basis, under that kind of reform, we can. Because once we get rid of this garbage, which
we just simply ignore, because it has no value whatsoever, it can't be traded for anything,
it's not worth anything. So, the U.S. government will then have to create a credit system,
in which we will extend credit for employment, for purchases, things of that sort that are
real. The objective is to get more people back to work, real work and real incomes.
And we can do that; the government of the United States, under our Constitution, has
the ability to organize such measures. And the time has come that we can no longer ignore
the fact that we have to do that. And what that has done, that reality has caught up
with the members of the Congress, the Senate in particular. The Democrats also; they're
faced now with a reality where neither of them can do anything competently, because
they don't have a system that allows them to do it. All they would have to do is have
Glass-Steagall enacted as law, and I can tell you that we have the means to organize exactly
what needs to be done to save this nation, and to save the people in it. You sit around
and say, "Well, the Democrats" this, and "the Republicans" that. Well, the Republicans don't
really exist anymore. There are many varieties, just like Heinz's many varieties of Republicans
and Democrats alike. The Democrats are going to get sorted out, too, and we've seen that
in the results of the recent period.\par So, we're at a point where we've got one thing
to do: If you want to be alive, if you want your neighbors to be alive, if you want this
economy to exist,\~\i you, as a citizen, now\i0\~must commit yourself\~\i now\i0\~to force through
Glass-Steagall immediately together with an included credit system facility built into
it. We will then be creating the jobs needed, productive jobs generally, which people need
as places to work and sources of income. We can do it. We did it; it was a hard job done
in the 1930s, 1933 on. A very hard job to get our people out of stark, real stark poverty.
And I saw it then, I've seen it, and I know what that looks like. And what we're looking
at now is much worse than what you would see in the Depression; that's where we're at.\par
The time has come that we have to make a decision. Are we going to make a decision among politicians?
No. We're going to make a decision about whether you want to live or not; whether you want
the nation to exist or not. And there's only one thing within the framework of our Constitution
which will let us in the United States do the things quickly, which we must do quickly,
to bring this nation out of the threat of its own destruction. Anything else \emdash
if you're talking about something else, you're one of the nitwits.\par
Thank you very much. If you're just tuning in, you're watching a live webcast with Mr.
Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche has finished his opening remarks, and I would just like
to ask Mr. Jason Ross to come to the podium.\par Well, we had a pretty good example, actually,
of standing up on principle this week, as opposed to the partisan pique that you were
contrasting that to, with the frankly exciting filibuster made by Senator Paul about John
Brennan's nomination to be director of the CIA. This has really caused quite a commotion.
The cover story on the New York Times is "Senate Filibuster Scrambles Both Left and Right."
While Senator Paul was having this filibuster, while he had support from mostly Republicans,
but a Democratic Senator as well, other factions of the Republican Party were enjoying an incredibly
fancy lobster dinner with President Obama. And later, some of them rather snottily chided
Rand Paul for standing up for due process. So, it bore fruit. The next day, Attorney
General Holder wrote a letter to Senator Paul, and his letter said \emdash because Paul's
point was, it's a simple question. Why has the administration not answered this simple
question: Is it legal for the President to kill an American on American soil? And that
should be a simple no. But, that answer was not coming from the administration. In fact,
Holder said, we haven't done it before, it's unlikely to occur; there might be a situation
where we'd have to think about it, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. That's
not a no. After this filibuster, Attorney General Holder wrote a letter, and he said,
"Dear Senator Paul, It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question.
Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not
engaged in combat, on American soil? The answer to that question is no." Finally.\par
So, this is very important. It's a very important for the fact that we don't have a dictatorship
in this country, for the power of the legislature. We have a system of due process in this country.
You might say it's a small victory to say that we can't be killed by a drone any day,
but more broadly, it's very important, because I think it's the first time the Obama administration
has recognized that there is\~\i anything\i0\~that it cannot do. This is a new step. I'm going
to have to read a quote here. This is one quote from Paul's filibuster, and it gets
at what you brought up just now about hyperinflation.\par He said, "You know, when World War II [sic]
ended, the currency was being destroyed in Germany in 1923 because the paper money became
so worthless that people wheeled it around in wheelbarrows. They burned it for fuel.
It became virtually worthless overnight. The beginning of Sept. 23, I think it was 10,
15 marks for a loaf of bread. By Sept. 14, it was a thousand marks. Sept. 30, a hundred
thousand marks. Oct. 15, a couple of million marks for a loaf of bread. It was a chaotic
situation. Out of that chaos, Hitler was elected, democratically. They elected him out of this
chaos. The isn't that anybody in our country is Hitler \emdash I am not accusing anybody
of being that evil. It's an analogy, it's a mis-used analogy. In a democracy, you could
some day elect somebody, who is very evil, and that's why we don't give the power to
the government. It's a point to be made historically, that occasionally even a democracy gets it
wrong. So when a democracy gets it wrong, you want the law to be there in its place,
you want the rule of law."\par So let me ask you a question, that comes from
a D.C. source, the question is, "Mr. LaRouche, now that the issue of Presidential violations
of the balance of power has come into more prominence, through the bipartisan filibuster
led by Sen. Rand Paul, along with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and others, what additional
measures could the legislature take, to further this balance of power? I believe that the
filibuster debate shook the landscape of the White House, to a certain extent, and significantly
put the issue of the Executive's violations of the balance of power into national prominence,
even though it did not resolve the issue. Could you give your assessment of this?"\par
You have to go back in the history of the United States a bit, in order to see exactly,
clearly, how our system works, when it does work. Now, what we had, for much of our system,
we've had a system of Congressional rule, Congressional\~\i party\i0 rule, and it was
a question of a fight between two parties, both for the majority position \emdash or,
not just the two parties, but the majority party system itself \emdash and that was the
way we ran. So, we didn't have, after, particularly, Andrew Jackson was brought into power, we
did not have \emdash except for very rare intervals \emdash we never had a system based
on our Constitution. Because the party system got in the way. The party system became the
substitute. And therefore the question of who had the majority of the party votes, was
the key issue. And now we've come to a point, where that has broken down. It's crumbled
during this lobbying period in the Congress.\par So the point is now, now that that condition
exists, Glory Hallelujah! We don't have a majority party system any more! We have a
system which is fragmented, are people who may be Republicans, they may call themselves
Democrats, that's their choice, in running for office and occupying office. But we don't
have a\~\i party\i0 , taking over the authorities of the Federal government, to determine, by
adjustment of the party system, to use that as a way of controlling the policy of the
government.\par Now this, under Andrew Jackson and what followed,
up until the actual Civil War, that kind of corruption ruled. And actually, the U.S. government
in that period, was run from New York City, and to some degree, Boston,\~\i by British
bankers\i0 . So the British bankers who funded the campaigns of the candidates, or controlled
the funding of those candidates, by manipulating the candidacy system, were able to have a
majority rule system, or the equivalent, or a plurality system, of rule.\par
And therefore, we did not have, actually \emdash you want to call it a democratic system. Well,
the democratic system you had in ancient Athens was also not so good. So, now we've got a
bunch of people who are, come from various varieties and flavors of Democrats, Republicans,
and who knows what else. And that's\~\i good\i0 . That's\~\i good\i0 . Because that means
they can no longer have party rule controlling the Federal government! We should never have
had it! If you have it on the basis of belief, on issue, and so forth, that's fine, if it
works out that way on a merit. But if it works out as a scheme, to line up people to vote
to constitute a majority for somebody's interest, that's a fake. And that's what we've been
living under, too long.\par Look what's happened, for example, with the
case of President Franklin Roosevelt. He was put in a position, on his campaign for a fourth
term, in which they pulled a mug in on him: Truman. So you had a majority that came in
on the last term, and that majority turned a great achievement of the United States under
President Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, into a disaster. The last years of President Roosevelt's
life were lived with the curse of Truman.\par If you look at the measures, the policies
that Franklin Roosevelt had installed up to that point, the agreements he'd reached, the
post-war intentions which he had established. Now look at the record: What happened, between
the time that he left office, and came into a fourth term, was elected to a fourth term
\emdash but on what conditions \emdash and what were the results? Under the Truman Administration,
you saw the full light: This was a disaster, and\~\i we never recovered\i0\~from that disaster.
We did recover in a sense, under John F. Kennedy.\~\i But they killed him, and we never had an honest
party system after that.\i0\par Now we have, the Republican Party is now in
a sense a fragmented, in terms of its views on hot issues. The Democratic Party is going
to go through the same process, slowed down by the factor of Obama, but the Obama thing
is going to backfire against the Democrats, too. So now we've come to the point, we have
to get\~\i rid\i0\~of that kind of party system. People can choose their parties that they
want to affiliate with, but the idea of operating on the basis of control of the United States
policy by a\~\i party system\i0 , that must come to an end. And what Rand Paul did, in
his particular action, went a long way, as of now, toward setting the end of the party
system into motion. People can still have political parties, but the idea of rule by
party majority, that has to come to an end.\par Before I ask Leandra to come to the podium,
I just want to underscore what you just said, because this is very significant. Not only
on the floor of the Senate did you have over a dozen members of the United States Senate
come to join Rand Paul in his filibuster, his 13-hour filibuster, which he himself said
he didn't expect \emdash he didn't think that there were going to be other members of the
Senate that would join him there, and this was completely unexpected. But some of the
members of the Senate that came, included Senator Ron Wyden, who is a Democrat, but
is putting up a fight against the Obama Administration's dictatorship. And Senator Wyden today was
interviewed, and he said look, there's a new non-partisan movement sweeping this country,
which is to fight against the violations by this President of the U.S. Constitution, and
to defend it.\par And also you had Mitch McConnell show up,
the leadership so-called of the Republican Party, showed up and vocally stood there on
the floor of the Senate, and supported Rand Paul's filibuster, and said that he would
vote against Brennan, together with Rand Paul, despite the fact that Harry Reid, the leader
of the Democratic Party, came to shut it down. And he was\~\i ignored\i0 . Rand Paul said,
"I\~\i will\i0 not yield the floor."\par Now, the other thing that I think is just
very important, is the factor of the acknowledgment, that this is \emdash you know, these Senators
realize that they were standing on the stage of history. And it brought out the best of
them all! Despite anything else, you know, very significantly, you had Sen. Ted Cruz,
a freshman Senator from Texas, reciting the monologue from\~\i Henry the Fifth\i0 , that
he delivers on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt, St. Crispin's Eve, saying, "We few, we happy
few, we band of brothers," and the acknowledgment that even if the majority is going along with
the violation of the U.S. Constitution, there will be a handful of those who stand on principle
and are willing to fight for this. So, I think that the period of history that we're in and
everything that you have been saying, really since your 90th birthday address, that it's
time to destroy and break this party rule, this party system, that we really are at a
profound moment in history, and I think the profound drama of this historical moment really
can sink in for people.\par Now, the question is, how do we escalate?
And I would like to ask Leandra Bernstein to come to the podium to pose a question on
this subject.\par I would like to raise a question that was
absent from the 13 hour filibuster. There were glimmers of a potentially groundbreaking
issue coming to the floor of the Senate, yet it was not brought up.\par
During the course of the drone debate there has been a lot of discussion about the September
2001 authorization for use of military force, that was the authorization that Congress gave
to the President on Sept. 14th, after the 9/11 attacks \emdash I'll just read it here
\emdash "authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate forces against
those nations, organizations, or persons, he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred Sept. 11th 2001, or, who harbored such organizations
or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the
United States by such nations..." and so on.\par Now, this is what was used in the 16-page
drone memo to basically authorized the President through solely Executive organizations who
carry out, like the JSOC organization, the CIA, to carry out these drone killings, was
done under the auspices of this Congressional authorization. So, when that came up in the
drone discussion, it really brings us back to the original 9/11 attacks, and what was
intended to come as a result of those attacks? And I'll note, recently there has been \emdash
we've discussed it here, before \emdash there has been a call to repeat the authorization
for use of military force, the 2001 act, and that's something that should go straight ahead.
But, what would get to the heart of the matter, is to really uncover what happened on that
day? What forces were at play on Sept. 11th 2001? And what we know from the work of former
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, who was the head of the 9/11 Commission, we know that there
were 28 pages of that report which the Bush White House essentially deemed unfit to print,
not because of issues of national security, but because of the political implications.
And we know, without any doubt, that those 28 pages in that 9/11 report, go directly
at the Saudi monarchy's involvement in the financing of the 9/11 attacks.\par
And so, I'd like you to say what you can \emdash I mean, it's also useful that Rep. Walter
Jones has issued a statement calling for the release of these 28 pages, but also significant
as well, that Barack Obama's recently appointed CIA director John Brennan was orchestral in
blocking Barack Obama's release of the 28 pages, which was demanded of him when he first
came into office, and it was Brennan himself who worked to prevent that material from coming
to light.\par So if you could remark on this situation as
an escalation of the now, out in the open fight against the drone war, to get at this
matter?\par Yes. Yes, I do have a certain amount of knowledge
in this matter, and quite apart from these hidden, suppressed documents.\par
We know that the 9/11 operation, as it's been called, was organized by a trio of agencies:
the British Monarchy, the BAE military institution, and the Saudi government. And we also know
that the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States\~\i was involved in organizing
the funding of the pilots who participated in those attacks.\i0\~And we also know, that
the Bush administration knew that this was this case, because the it was the Bush administration
that organized the safe exit, of those Saudi families which were tied to that part of Saudi
business in the United States. You had the whole nation was shut down, at that point,
no one could fly in or out, except the Saudis, who were escorted out from Texas and other
places where they had been treated, meeting with the Bush family, for example.\par
So this whole operation then, was entirely that. But what's the significance? The significance
is very simple: Who could get the United States which had just suffered a major attack, from
Saudi and British forces who were involved in this, because the British institutions,
the BAE and the Saudi institutions were all part of this operation, so, who could do that?
We know exactly who did it: It was done by the British Monarchy! The British Monarchy
set the whole thing up! That's the guilty party, and that's what the cover-up's all
about!\par Now, I think the simple thing is, I think
the British Monarchy should, shall we say, be restrained.\par
Now, what is the British Monarchy's policy now? You had, there was campaign for Green
issues, centered in Denmark; what happened? Well, the Queen was very upset, but she made
her point of view very clear. Her intention, and this is clear, her intention has been,
to reduce the present population of the planet, from approximately 7 billion people to the
order of approximately 1!\~\i That is the Green policy of the British Monarchy\i0 , and
most of the other things that are occurring here in the United States are the same thing.\par
Why are the American people stripped of a food supply? Why did Monsanto and other companies,
so forth, involve themselves with the Federal government, in cutting down the food supply
of the United States? Who is starving the people of the United States? The same interests.\~\i
The British Empire interests!\i0\~They are the ones who are responsible. They are responsible
for the kind of warfare that's going on on these issues now.\par
And what we have, is we have people in the United States, in high positions of government,
high positions of politics, and of business interests, of banking interests, of the kind
that have swallowed everything up,\~\i that's\i0\~where the enemy lies! And the point is, the United
States has been\~\i betrayed by its own government, knowledgeably!\i0 Don't you think that they
know what this thing is? Don't you think this is known? How can you suppress something without
knowing what it is you're suppressing?\par No, this is the great crime, this is a great\~\i
treason\i0 , by all of those officials of the government in the United States, who are
complicit in the coverup! The evidence was there. Why, then, if the evidence is not there,
why don't they just publish it, the 28 pages? Why don't they? Because they're covering it
up!\~\i Because they're working for a foreign power against the people of the United States!\i0\~That's
the truth of the matter, and if the people of the United States realize what has been
done to them, they will demand relief from the kind of crap they've been put through
all of these years, especially since 2001.\par Well, in the views of some, relief is right
around the corner. This week, we saw the Dow reach a record level, and this is causing
euphoria among some people. In fact, if recent history is a reliable guide, this means that
we've turned the corner, we've rounded the bend, the recession is in its final throes,
and will soon give way to a complete collapse of the economy. Compare the economy right
now, to October 2007, which is a time you might remember, right before a major economic
collapse! The other thing that happened in October 2007 is the Dow reached a record high!
In fact, almost exactly the same value that it reached this week.\par
Let's just compare what things were like then, so we can show that the recession's turning
around. In 2007, gas cost $2.75; today it's $3.73. Unemployment of people in the labor
force, not even including labor force dropouts, unemployment of people in the labor force,
was 6.7 million then. It's now doubled to 13.2. The number of Americans on food stamps,
27 million, at the last peak of the Dow. Today, 48 million. The Fed's balance sheet, under
$1 trillion then, over $3 trillion now. Debt, as a percentage of our GDP, 38% in 2007; today,
doubling to 74%. Total U.S. debt, $9 trillion in 2007, $16.4 trillion today.\par
So, if anybody's thinking that the Dow's high right now, means that everything's turning
around, things are looking good right now \emdash I mean, if anybody could even think
that, then I don't know if they would have been able to get through as much of this program
as to be able to see this question, but, it would be a very foolish way of thinking! [laughter]\par
Now, compare this to some other funding figures. I, just earlier this week, got a tour of Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory, where they're doing some really exciting work on plasma, for the
purpose of creating fusion. The ITER project, the international fusion project being built
in France, it's a project that costs somewhere between $16-$17 billion over the ten-year
construction project; it's expected to be online in 2018, this project, the U.S., one
of the seven nations participating in building it is contributing $45 million a year! For
a $16-$17 billion project!\par At the Princeton Physics Lab, they're working
on a new design for Stellerator, which is a different approach to fusion than the tokamaks
that are typically used. It works more with the dynamics of the plasma. They've built
the parts, they need to assemble them, and put them in a space with power supplies and
diagnostics equipment: that would cost $40-$45 million. After they built the parts, they
found out, they couldn't get the funding to put them together, which would be about $45
million.\par Now, compare this to a much lower form of
technology that does get financing: How much money was lost on Solyndra? Which studied
the incredibly new design of using\i sunlight\i0 , to create electricity? $500 million! Okay,\~\i
ten times\i0\~the total amount the U.S. is going to contribute to this new fusion design
in France, that's how much was lost just on Solyndra, to say nothing of the amount we're
wasting every year on solar panels, on windmills, which, like I said, they were a good breakthrough
a few centuries ago, but not any more! It'd be like saying "a horse and buggy's a great
idea."\par Now, let me ask you about this: If you compare
the enthusiasm of the Dow going up, to the state of the real economy, it's like there's
two completely different worlds being described here. So let me ask you: If we're not supposed
to look at the stock markets as an economic indicator, what\~\i would\i0\~be useful indicators
of economic growth? What are we trying to create? What are we looking to see?\par
We're trying to essentially increase the productive powers of labor, that's the simple codeword
for the whole process. Which means you want to increase the energy flux density, that
is it means the power, the concentration of power that you use for production and for
everything else, you increase that. As a matter of fact, if you look at the history of all
living processes, insofar as we know them, long before the history of mankind began,
we find that there's a steady growth of energy flux density, in the succession of varieties
of species, both in the plant life and in animal life, and in human life.\par
So the essential requirement for success of life on this planet, whether in plant life,
in animal life, or human beings, is always the increase of energy flux density, going
to higher concentrations of power. This not only occurs in that form, it occurs also in
the biological form: The species are improved in their ability to concentrate their effects.\par
So therefore, what is being done now, in the name of the Green policy, is directly opposed
to the history of life in general! What is this all about? Well, back to the Queen. The
Queen said her intention is, that in relatively short period time \emdash this came out of
the Copenhagen proceeding and so forth \emdash that the population of the planet must be
reduced from 7 billion people to about 1, and that's the intention. The same intention
is the Green policy: The Green policy is a\~\i mass human *** policy!\i0 And people who
are supporting it are actually murderers, whether they understand what *** is or
not!\par So therefore, if humanity is going to continue
to exist, we're going to recognize that the Queen and her policies are a policy for\~\i
genocide against the human species!\i0\~For example, you talk about 7 billion people?
In China, you're talking about 1.4 or so billion people; India, more than 1.1 billion people.
So you're talking about a sweeping wipeouts of entire parts of the human species! The
wipe-out method is to\~\i reduce\i0\~the productive powers of labor, to\~\i lower\i0\~the energy
flux density! The policy of the Queen, the policy of her great majesty, the Queen is\~\i
mass *** of the human population!\i0\par And that is\~\i perfectly consistent\i0 , with
9/11 #1 and #2! That's the intention of this President we have! That's\~\i his\i0\~policy!
His policy is a policy of genocide! Does he say he's going to commit genocide? No! He
doesn't have to say that, he has to give the orders that cause the genocide to occur!\par
So therefore, we're at a point, that there've got to be some big changes made very fast,
now, because \emdash I mean, I don't think Satan is quite as evil as this Queen has been.\par
[laughs] Well, it's good to know that the Queen doesn't have competition with Satan.\par
Now, on this subject, there is a question that came in on the strategic situation, mainly
relations between the United States and Russia. And we will be putting out a video on the
LaRouche PAC site, very soon, on some of the bluffing on the part of the Obama Administration,
but then, a very serious response from the Russians to the threat of a potential thermonuclear
World War III. For example, there was a recent article in the\i Moscow Times\i0\~by Vladimir
Kozin, researcher at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies and a member of the Putin
Presidential administration. And what he indicated is that the missile defense system that the
United States is putting up surrounding Russia, obviously has no other target \emdash not
Iran, not North Korea \emdash it has no other target than Russia. He said, the only purpose
of the U.S. missile defense equipment deployed in Europe is to destroy Russian intercontinental
ballistic missiles. "The fact that our country is never mentioned in the missile shield program
as a potential participant, proves that it is aimed at Russia."\par
Moreover, there was an incredible blustering out of the journal of the U.S. Air University;
it was written by a few academics, basically arguing that the era Mutually Assured Destruction
was entirely over, because of technological advances made in U.S. nuclear deterrence,
that would make a U.S. first strike so devastating that no nation could launch a second strike,
that we could disarm our adversary entirely by destroying their nuclear weapons.\par
Now, it's coincidental that a number of days after this was published and got some circulation,
Joe Biden was giving a statement to AIPAC, on the issue of where the Obama Administration stands on Iran developing
nuclear weapons. And Joe Biden's statement was, "the President of the United States can
not and does not bluff"! So, it's \emdash well, maybe not entirely directly related,
certainly an interesting coincidence.\par Now, to get to the question from this official
in Washington, D.C., also this week, the new Secretary of State John Kerry announced $60
million in aid to go to Syrian rebel groups, and I have to say, if you're a Syrian rebel,
if you're a member of al-Qaeda, you really have to start hedging your bets! I mean, on
the one hand, John Brennan, Barack Obama, destroy you with a drone, on any given day;
but on the other hand, John Kerry might just give you $60 million! So, I mean, I shouldn't
make light of that, given the seriousness of the situation, but to get to the question:
There are two sharply different views towards relations with Russia. On the one hand the
recent meteor and asteroid events have sharpened some thinking in the United States for greater
cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, especially in the direction of the Strategic Defense
of Earth. But the White House's further support for Syrian rebels and its policy on ballistic
missile defense continue to be provocative toward Russia. What, in your assessment could
be done to encourage that could reduce the tension between the U.S. and Russia?\par
Well, you have to understand that as long as the Queen is the Queen of England, and
as long as her lackeys are her lackeys, including Obama lackey, then they are going to act like
lackeys, the lackeys they are. So, the point is, of trying to deal with these guys, to
essentially bargain with them, you're not going to bargain with 'em! You're going to
take them at their word, and act accordingly. You're going to act accordingly: If they won't
do what they should do, you will have to do what you should do.\par
That's the situation that's created. You're talking about 1.4 billion in China, they're
targetted! That's what they're talking about! 1.1 to 1.2 in India, that's what they're talking
about! They're talking about getting down to about 1 billion people on this planet,
fast! And it's only if we can awaken the American people in particular, to the reality, of what
these bums are, that they think are their Presidents,\~\i you're going to have, a bloody
thermonuclear war!\i0\par You're at a point, where you have the British
Monarchy, which is controlling this President: This President is nothing but a stooge for
the British Monarchy. That's what he is! He really has no loyalty to the United States,
so I don't know why we worry about his being a President. He has no loyalty to the United
States. He has no loyalty to the American people. The point is,\~\i this thing has to
be crushed!\i0\~And if the United States won't do it, since we apparently have some of this
power, then somebody's going to do it\~\i to us\i0 .\par
We have never been in greater danger of general warfare, than we are in this period. And there
is no solution to this threat, unless you bring Obama out of power! And the Queen, too.
But the Queen couldn't do anything much, on this level, without control of the United
States. So, we've got to take the power of the United States\~\i out\i0\~of the hands
of this President! Because he's a criminal! He doesn't have any automatic great power!
His power is limited to the fact that he honors his obligation as President, and performs
the function properly: If he's taking off on some other intention, then\i he's a traitor
to the United States!\i0\~And that's where we are.\par
We have people who are submitting to all kinds of abuses. They're out there, they're starving,
they're being destroyed, their children are being destroyed! The whole culture of the
United States is being destroyed, and we're sitting here and allowing that to happen to
our people? What kind of leaders do we have that allow that? You know what I think about
John Kerry, I'm not going to tell you. But I'll let you guess! Because I once tried,
called upon by Clinton, to jump in and try to support this guy in his campaign for President:\~\i
I regret that deeply\i0 , as of now!\par But the point is, we're in that situation.
We're now threatened by this kind of situation. And therefore, we either act as we should
act, given the facts, or we know where we're going to go, and it ain't good.\par
Well, I want to thank you Lyn. That's the conclusion for our webcast tonight, but there's\~\i
a lot\i0\~that we have on our plate. A lot is going to change between now and next Friday,
as I think we've all now, retrospectively, looking at the past week, between last Friday
and today, we can realize, that's the kind of period that we're in.\par
So, that brings a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I'd like to thank Lyn; thank Jason;
thank Leandra, and thank you all for watching. Good night.\par
\pard\sa200\sl276\slmult1\qj\cf0\highlight0\f1\fs22 \par
}