BEST audio interview of the WEEK:
Lyndon Larouche - A Must !
“Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council,
described LaRouche’s staff in 1984 as one of the
best private intelligence services in the world”
Just click on the link below to listen to the interview:
Lyndon LaRouche Radio Interview with Patrick Timpone
- Oct 31, 2011
Next is the complete transcript of the interview, thanks to LaRouchePac website.
Lyndon LaRouche was the guest on Patrick Timpone’s “Morning Show” on One Radio Network Monday morning. Timpone first interviewed LaRouche on Sept. 20. His website promo for the interview reads:
“We were honored to have Mr. LaRouche join us again this month to give us his views of what’s really going on in governments and politics. Simply stated, we like this man, and encourage you to get to know him by listening to this interview. Mr. LaRouche has an incredibly hopeful and optimistic vision with some wonderfully simple strategies for change. Today’s topics included:
“-President Obama: A madman with a personality comparable to Nero and the property of the British Monarchy
“-How Prescott Bush helped put Hitler into power
“-Libya: The killing of Qaddafi
“-The British Imperial System
“-The plans for depopulation
“-The Occupy Wall Street Movement
“and so much more. Enjoy the show!”
PATRICK TIMPONE: On the line now is a gentleman that we had the honor of talking to for the first time this lifetime several weeks ago, but we brought him back, because he’s got a lot of interesting information that you’re not going to get anywhere else: His name is Lyndon LaRouche.
Mr. LaRouche is … 89-years-old now? Eighty-nine years old! He’s an economist, he’s an author, he’s a politician, and he ran for President five times [sic]; in the 1970s, the money powers didn’t like what he was doing, and wanted to get him out of the deal. And he’s concerned about what’s going on in places such as Libya, that we’re not being told the whole story, and is concerned about the President of the United States, and he wants the President of the United States out! Is that right, Mr. LaRouche?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Absolutely. I can give you a bit of a scoop on something; it will be considered a scoop, and probably will turn out to have been a scoop. The fact is, the situation in terms of the war potential now: If you look at the map, and looking at the positioning of U.S. major military forces, in the flanking area surrounding what’s called the Middle East, you will recognize that in the so-called Middle East, which goes up through Pakistan and so forth, we have a concentration, of a crisis which has been building up, which corresponds to the Balkans crisis, before both World War I and World War II — that kind of situation.
TIMPONE: Give us a little bit of history, because I’ve of course heard of the Balkans and I know the whole England/Balkans thing with Margaret Thatcher, but how did the Balkans play in to getting into World War II, and World War I?
LAROUCHE: Well, it was actually, World War I and II were both organized by the British. World War I, it was obvious: It was the crown prince, who later was the King of England and then died, but he set it into motion, beginning with the ouster of Bismarck from Germany. Because Bismarck was opposed to the launching of what became World War I, because he had made a deal — Bismarck had — had made a deal with the Tsar of Russia, that, in case somebody tried to get a war started in the Balkans, through the Austrian Emperor, that he, Bismarck, had an agreement with the Russian Tsar to jointly block any participation of Russia and Germany in a Balkan war. In order to get the war started, the crown prince of England — the mother was kind of batty, and Victoria was not too serious at that time — but the batty old Queen had a son who organized what became World War I.
It started actually, with Japan-British agreement to start a new war on China. But this went through a process; it went through the 1905 process with the Russians involved in the same war, but then led to 1914, to the actual outbreak of what became World War I.
Now, this then led to a second world war, which the British organized. First of all, they put — the British Monarchy put Hitler into power in Germany!
TIMPONE: How did they do that?
LAROUCHE: Simply, they controlled the situation: What they did, is from 1923, when the great crisis, the breakdown, the hyperinflation in Germany occurred, as a tactic of the French and British at that time, and that set into motion the Hitler operation. And this thing persisted, with U.S. support from the Wall Street gang, including Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the most recent Bush President, actually funded Hitler’s operation, and helped put him into power together with the Bank of England. So, we got World War I, and we got World War II.
Now, these first two wars, the war was prepared, actually, with the Balkan warfare, which was the thing that got the World War I going.
TIMPONE: And before you continue, where are the Balkans so we can get a visual here?
LAROUCHE: Well, you get the whole area of that part of Europe, which is south of Germany, south of Austria itself, going down into Greece and so forth. So that whole area was an area of many smaller nations, nationalities, which were constantly more or less kept in tumult, as a result of the Austro-Hungarian Empire system.
TIMPONE: So, is the Greek turmoil, Mr. LaRouche, part of this thing now?
LAROUCHE: No, well, that’s a different thing; this is particularly a product of the euro system.
TIMPONE: Okay, so we won’t go there. Okay, so stick with the Balkans, now, and it’s tied into —
LAROUCHE: Well, the Balkans are no longer much of an issue. We had a Balkan war, you know, recently, but that’s out of business right now.
What has happened, since the beginning — or the end, particularly, of the last world war, there’s been a buildup in the Middle East, of perpetual Middle East war, in which various European governments and the United States have been involved. The United States has been involved, especially since the first Iraq War, and since that point, and with the various Israeli conflicts and so forth, you’ve had a buildup which goes into the entirety of that corner of Southwest Asia, which includes, naturally, the ones that we know of, now, where the wars are now.
Now, if you look at that area, and you look at the U.S. Naval fleets and other concentrations, mass concentrations, of U.S. troops and Naval forces in that corner of the world, the southwest corner of Asia. There we have a concentration of U.S. military forces which are prepared to follow up on what happened in Libya. And because of the way they killed the leadership, the personnel of the government of Libya in overthrowing it, set into motion a precondition, where you have Russian interests and other interests of Eurasia are concentrated in an area which is being blown up, by the United States’ support and placing of troops, naval forces, air forces, and ground forces en masse, in this southwest corner of Asia; and this is now the hot-box centered on Syria as the target nation, and also on Iran.
So there is now a situation, for an immediate joint attack, first on Syria, and then on Iran. These are both hot-boxes. Both of these areas have ties into Russia and China.
TIMPONE: Ties — what do you mean by ties?
LAROUCHE: Well, that the war dangers, the issues, the war dangers, the set-up of connections: For example, Syria has protection by treaty agreements with Russia, for example; you have the same kind of thing with China on certain other kinds of agreements. So what you’re looking at, you’re looking at a World War III, which is now, immediately, on the verge of threatened outbreak.
The source of the outbreak comes from London, and from London’s puppet, the President of the United States, who’s a madman. But this madman —
TIMPONE: Excuse me, one second: Lyndon LaRouche, it is http://www.larouchepac.com, and we’ll give you a phone number if you’d like to learn more about that organization, an 800 number. My name is Patrick Timpone. Pretty heady stuff for a Monday morning, but, hey! [laughter] Thirteen minutes after the hour, oneradionetwork.com.
Well, you certainly know how to wake up a crowd, Mr. LaRouche!
So, do you feel really comfortable — I guess you do — calling President Obama a “madman”?
LAROUCHE: Of course he is. He has a personality which is identical in characteristics with that of the Emperor Nero; he has a personality which is exactly, in terms of all characteristic features, exactly a replica of the Emperor Nero.
TIMPONE: How does he get himself to a position to be controlled by these powers?
LAROUCHE: No, he was already a lunatic.
TIMPONE: How do you know that?
LAROUCHE: Well, we’ve been going at this thing for a long time. I’ve been studying this case for a long time, and this is an area of my specialties. But, so, he is that and he is a British asset: He was stuck into the United States under the direction of the British Monarchy. He is actually a property of the British Monarchy. His winning the Presidency, was financially and otherwise backed by the British Monarchy directly. He is not really a choice of the United States, he’s a choice of financial interests which are controlled and centered on the British Monarchy. And you notice the number of times he goes to visit the Queen, hmm?
TIMPONE: Haven’t most Presidents over the years done that? So, are you saying…?
LAROUCHE: Not that way.
TIMPONE: I’m certain Mr. Bush was there with the Queen, and —
LAROUCHE: Well, actually, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the latest Bush, and the father of the previous Bush, were all British agents; Prescott Bush was the guy who, in concert with the British financial system, the Bank of England, — with the Bank of England, put Hitler into power. Prescott Bush himself, who was then working in New York as the head of an institution there, which was British in its background, was the guy who actually sent money to put Hitler into position of leadership, to bail him out, to bail out his party, for Hitler to come to power: So these guys are not exactly good news to have around. We do have them, but they’re not good news as far as I’m concerned.
TIMPONE: Let’s talk about Libya. I heard on the radio, I was listening to NPR [National Public Radio], this story that NATO was leaving; the essence of the story was that NATO was leaving. NATO destroyed 6,000 military targets, and that was it! Give us your assessment, and analysis of how Libya started and what really went on there, and who killed Muammar Qaddafi?
LAROUCHE: Well, that was done by a joint British-directed, and American force; British, French and American force did the killing, and they’re the guys that did it.
TIMPONE: Was he running under a white flag convoy at the time, as has been reported?
LAROUCHE: Yeah. That’s a fair description of the situation, and what we have, we have the details on that. It’s all over the place on the international news lines: That this was a set-up, which was run — the decision was made to kill Qaddafi — by Obama — in order to get this operation pulled.
The decision was, that if they took the guy peacefully, that is, arrested him, that that would be a danger, because then you would have the possibility of a long legal debate, in courts and so forth in Europe, and this would drag things out, and they didn’t want to drag things out. So they simply sent in a French and American force, led under British direction, to assassinate the whole party. It’s all in the international record, the press now: They went ahead and they did a deliberate mass murder.
TIMPONE: Why did they want to get rid of Qaddafi?
LAROUCHE: Well, because Qaddafi, if he was — well, this is part of going to World War III: There was no reason, in terms of issues, to dump Qaddafi. Qaddafi, up until a certain decision was made, was a darling of the Anglo-American interests, and French interests. He was a money bags which they used, and used for certain political purposes. But it became expedient to dump him, because they wanted to go for World War III, that is, to go with the threat which would be World War III, in order to break the will of the nations of Asia. That is, to break Russia and China in particular, and to make a mess of India, that’s the purpose of this operation.
TIMPONE: Okay, let’s stay there a second [station identification], if you care to join us, 888-663-6386; email, firstname.lastname@example.org, also naturalnewsradio.com; larouchepac.com.
So, how can we define, first off, what you mean by “World War III”? I mean — what does that really mean?
LAROUCHE: That means that we have, in this world, we have the fourth Roman Empire; we had the first one, which was an empire; we had the second one which was the Byzantine Empire; then you had a Venetian empire, which was actually called the Crusader system. And then we went through a long period of warfare, from 1492 into 1648, of actually, so-called religious warfare. This led into, later in this process, you had the New Venetian Party so-called, under William of Orange moved in on Britain, and out of that arrival of William of Orange in Britain — or in England, but then Britain, — you had the emergence of an empire, based on the British and French quarrel essentially of the so-called Seven Years’ War, a quarrel which resulted in a victory for the British, over the French, and this, by India and other places falling into the possession of the English power, the British power, by that process, you had the establishment of a British Empire, which became a British Empire, formally, in 1763, in the process of the conclusion of the war with France.
TIMPONE: That’s when they were in India and China and they were everywhere, right?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, they moved everywhere, and now they still do: What they operate through is a financial system, and international monetary-control-system, and most of this period, since that time, you’ve had resistance. France has had resistance to the British; Germany was a resistance to the British; Russia was a resistance to the British, and so forth at various points. But the British Empire, through two world wars, has pretty much boiled down the planet, so you have Russia, China, India, and the United States, and that was about all we had for independent nations, and the United States of course, was the most important in former times, of the resistance to a British world empire.
Now, with the recent Presidents, since the assassination of the Kennedys, we’ve had a drift of the United States into capitulation to the British interest, and we’ve become more and more, through Wall Street, a victim of the British financier imperial system. And that’s the situation now.
Now, this crowd, since we are almost broken, this financial speculation, the Wall Street crisis, the London crisis and so forth, has almost bankrupted most of the world, and you know, hyperinflation beyond belief; the hyperinflation in the trans-Atlantic region now, is worse than it was in Germany in 1923. All it’s waiting for is the little flip and suddenly, somebody realizes that all this big trillions of dollars equivalent of money, of debt out there, ain’t worth anything! And then the whole thing collapses.
So we’re now in a position where we would have a choice between a reform of the international financial systems, to take them out of this hyperinflationary bankruptcy — and that can be done — or without that reorganization, that is, reorganization of Wall Street and the British centers, — this is worthless money, and it should be cancelled. And the whole system should be refinanced by a monetary reform. That can be done. We could actually begin to get out of the present depression in the United States, if we wished to. But that would mean cancelling this big financial interest which is controlled from London; and if that financial system were reorganized, yeah, we could do fine.
TIMPONE: I would take out the New York Federal Reserve.
LAROUCHE: Well, the Federal Reserve is hopelessly bankrupt. It has been totally bankrupt. We would have to — we have to do two things: We in the United States, we want to save our nation, and other things that go with that. First of all we would have to go through a financial reorganization, a financial reform, and that can be done. If we did that, with Glass-Steagall, we would open the door for a recovery of the United States, immediately. Now it would not be a great, heroic victory, but it would be a turning of the direction of things upward.
TIMPONE: Let’s tell the people what Glass-Steagall is, just for reference: I think I would be close here, but correct me if I’m wrong, in Clinton era, 1998 or so, they repealed Glass-Steagall. And before that, you had to be either an investment bank or a regular bank, you couldn’t bet with derivatives, the people’s money. But now it’s all just one big soup and they do whatever they want, pretty much.
LAROUCHE: Just restoring that, restoring Glass-Steagall will, immediately, probably eliminate Wall Street.
TIMPONE: Eliminate? Yeah… because, let’s see, why? Well, let’s take, for example — I don’t want to get too off track, but this is interesting to us: If we reinstated Glass-Steagall, as you’re suggesting, Goldman Sachs which is really an investment bank, how would that change what they’re able to do?
LAROUCHE: What we would be doing, we would take those sections of banks, which are actually — where the function of the bank — you know the banks have different functions; banks which conform to the Glass-Steagall standard, those parts of those banks would be pulled out from the other parts of those banks. And the other parts of those banks would be left on their own. But since what they would have, is worthless, they would all disappear.
That would be no hardship for the people of the United States, or for our economic system. It would simply mean two things: first of all, Glass-Steagall would clean the mess up. It would wipe out a great mass of debt! But then, we would find out that the remaining good investments held in banks or similar kinds of institutions, that those would be insufficient to have growth in the economy. That would mean, that since the Federal Reserve System is now worthless, essentially worthless, it has to be purged of most of its assets, that in that case, we need to go back to the Hamiltonian bank, and create a Third Bank of the United States, which was our original Constitutional system.
Under those conditions, what would happen is this: You would have certain money available, left over in the legitimate banking process. That money would not be sufficient, however, to revive the economy as a whole, from this disaster. In that case, what we have to do, is create the Third Bank of the United States, the Hamiltonian Third Bank. That would mean that the Federal government would create a debt of its own, a legitimate debt. That debt, which would be accountable through the functions of this new bank, the Third National Bank of the United States, the kind of thing we used to get out of the debt of the Revolutionary War: That money would go to certain projects, which were investment projects by the Federal government, as in public works and things like that; or, the Federal government would loan, authorize the loaning, through the bank, of some of this credit, for private businesses. For example, we have a great project, ready to start right now — it’s been there ever since, — well, Kennedy was dead, but Kennedy had signed onto this project, the NAWAPA project.
The NAWAPA project would have an effect on the national economy, which would revive most of the broken-down areas of the United States, in their participation in supply things that go into this great NAWAPA project. So, things like that —
TIMPONE: How do you spell that?
LAROUCHE: NAWAPA, North American Water and Power Alliance.
TIMPONE: Let me stop here a minute: This Third National Bank of the United States, would it then create — it would create Federal Reserve…? They wouldn’t be Federal Reserve, they would be United States notes? And they would create these units, or digits or dollars, and then loan them out, but there wouldn’t be any debt that the Treasury would incur?
LAROUCHE: Oh yes, it would incur.
TIMPONE: It would incur? Why wouldn’t we just have the Treasury create the dollars, and then there would be no debt?
LAROUCHE: Well, that’s what they’ll be doing in effect.
TIMPONE: What’s that?
LAROUCHE: That’s what we do in effect. We actually — everything we actually loan out, will be actually invested, in actual production, or related things. In other words, a debt that’s limited to what the Federal government loans out, and it loans out, first of all, to the government itself, which comes under the U.S. budget system. What’s put into the U.S. budget system, to finance Federal projects, as such, that’s one category; the other category is the loaning of Federal credit through the national banking system, into government projects done with private interests. In other words, you want to build a new industry some place, then that debt now becomes the asset, and a liability of that industry.
TIMPONE: I see, I see. And if there’s profits to be made from this new bank, those profits go to the people.
LAROUCHE: Essentially they do, in one way or the other: For example, most of the money that’s spent for projects will be spent on things that involve the employment of people; on the supplies, and the production of material used in the production, which the people are employed in. In other words, you’re cycling all this debt, is being cycled through authorized expenditures by the Federal government, which are largely investments in the improvement and increase of the productivity of the nation.
TIMPONE: And now, we have the Federal Reserve Bank of New York with the power, and that’s privately owned.
LAROUCHE: Essentially yes. This was what Woodrow Wilson set up.
TIMPONE: So this was part and parcel of back to the money powers, of how they can do what they do.
LAROUCHE: That’s the killing of McKinley, the assassination of McKinley; Teddy Roosevelt’s and Wilson’s operation: The killing of McKinley and the installation of Teddy Roosevelt, the installation of Woodrow Wilson and what went on in the 1920s, is the change in character of direction of the United States’ development, which led to the mess that Franklin Roosevelt cleaned up. But then we had to clean it up all over again, after Truman. And other things, and especially after Kennedy.
The last time we had a Presidency which was actually moving in the direction of net growth, was under John F. Kennedy.
TIMPONE: And how would you describe “net growth”? What was Kennedy doing?
LAROUCHE: Well, in other words, if the people as a whole, if the nation as a whole, is more wealthy per capita, in physical terms, then that means we got growth. If you’re not getting the physical increase of wealth, through the processes of the American people, through their businesses, if you’re not getting that, you’re not getting growth. If you’re going into debt, and debt, and debt, and there’s nothing shown for it physically, in net physical terms, you’re going down.
TIMPONE: Real assets: buildings, machinery, real assets.
LAROUCHE: Real assets, yeah, all kinds of real assets. In other words, you look at the increase of the productive power of labor, and standard of living, per capita and per square kilometer, and that’s your real physical measure of growth.
TIMPONE: And now the median income is going down!
LAROUCHE: It’s plunging!
LAROUCHE: It’s plunging: This rate of hyperinflation? Every increment of hyperinflation is a slashing of national income! You have idiots who are counting the money out there, the money denomination of wealth, and counting on that, but the fact is, the hyperinflationary process which is going on, means that we’re getting less! For example, the attempt to really start cutting out Social Security entirely, right now. Why? They say, “We haven’t got enough money.” Why don’t they have enough money? They have lots of money. They’re making trillions of them, of money, why aren’t we growing? Because we’re not spending it on anything that is growth. We are going bankrupt!
TIMPONE: Yeah, you spend it on bombs and blow it up.
LAROUCHE: You just waste it.
TIMPONE: You just destroyed capital. Stay right there: Lyndon LaRouche, his phone number with his organization if you’re interested in learning more about what they’re up to — Mr. LaRouche is 89 and going strong — it is, larouchepac.com. Maybe what he’s saying makes sense to you. His number is 800-929-7566. I’m sure he has email lists and stuff like that, probably even has donations. I don’t know how they support themselves; we’ll ask him. It is larouchepac.com. Having an interesting conversation with an interesting man: 89-year-old Lyndon LaRouche. Ran for President five times, wow!
So, you said something that I find fascinating, that I’d like to understand more. You said that this whole Libya, Syria, all this is moving into World War III, that will break the will of China and Russia. I don’t understand what you mean by that.
LAROUCHE: Well, the point is, you have — first of all, you have the world as a whole, especially in the trans-Atlantic region is now hopelessly bankrupt. There is no part of the world, in the trans-Atlantic region, which is not, in net effect, bankrupt. So that’s one part of the thing. The dominant feature of this whole region, particularly when you get totally British stooge types, like the two Bush terms, and his father as well: Bush and Obama are the typification of losers — actually Nixon was earlier; Carter was also a disaster. Clinton was not a great success in the financial side of the things, but he did create a certain amount of stability for which people were grateful enough to vote for him two times; but in general, this is the kind of situation, where we’re in a situation where the economy of the world, in general, has been disintegrating. If you measure physical benefits, and stability, per capita, throughout the world, we’re in a general contraction.
TIMPONE: Mm-hmm. So that means that there may be a lot of paper dollars, or euros, or whatever, but assets and debt and GDP growth, and people’s ability to live and all that, has just been steadily declining. We know that’s the case, worldwide!
LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. So, now, what happens is, we got into a situation, in which someone is deciding to reduce the population. The British Monarchy, through its family circles and through the British family groupings, is actually committed to reducing the world’s population to — in a fairly short time — to less than 1 billion people; and we have about 7 billion people being counted now.
So it’s a contraction of the world idea, which is centered in the British Empire, and its influences,— for example, most of continental Europe, Western and Central continental Europe, is nothing but a puppet of the British Monarchy, with some rare exceptions. So all these nations no longer have national sovereignty. Mainland Europe does not have any national sovereignty any more. They’re essentially a puppet, under the control of the British Kingdom.
Now, you have Russia, which is coming back, and has very significant territory, and assets, though a diminished population relative what it was before. They’re reorganizing. China is a relatively very successful economy. India’s not doing too badly; they have their problems, and so forth. But you have, therefore, the trans-Atlantic region is a concentration of decline.
The British now have extended their power, but actually the British system has gobbled up continental Europe, or Western and Central continental Europe, because they control it. The governments of Europe no longer really exist as governments. It’s call “governance,” a term which is used by Tony Blair. So that’s the situation.
Now, so you have therefore, in Asia, you have Russia, a tremendous territory with tremendous assets in that territory, with a slightly diminished and diminishing population, but still skilled. China which is vigorously growing, though it has a deficit, which it covers by exports. India is doing fairly stably, and other parts of Asia, like Japan, Korea, and so forth are doing not badly. So therefore, you have an Asian section of the world, which is doing relatively better. And a trans-Atlantic section of world which is then a disaster. Therefore, the British, and their cronies, see the power of Asia — Russia, China, India, and other countries — as being a threat to the British Empire, or the British system’s empire. And therefore, you get, in this situation, you get the threat, organized by the British, which they’ve done many times before, of war!
Now, the target now, is the use of war which will cause the destruction of Russia, China, India and the other countries of this region. How do you do it?
TIMPONE: Physical destruction?
TIMPONE: Or, financial destruction?
LAROUCHE: No — both!
TIMPONE: Hmm! Well, that seems like a big thing to chew up though. China has, you know, millions — I mean are you talking about nuclear?
LAROUCHE: You’re talking about the threat of a general nuclear warfare. And the bluff to attempt to get the Asian section to capitulate, to avoid general warfare; but you’re talking about nuclear warfare. And you’ve got the nuclear warfare of the United States is largely concentrated in the area flanking Asia: from the Mediterranean, to the Indian Ocean, and so forth. That’s what’s going on!
TIMPONE: But these people are smart enough, Mr. LaRouche, to know that you start dropping nuclear bombs around the world, that there’s nothing worth saving anyway. I mean, this stuff lasts for a thousand years, this nuclear radiation!
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, I know, but —
TIMPONE: Are they that stupid?
LAROUCHE: Not stupid: Mad.
TIMPONE: Mad. Hmm.
All right, let’s get back to what’s going on in North Africa, Libya, Syria, Egypt, all of these, you’re saying, were not as we are told — that they are initiated by the money powers to destabilize these regions.
LAROUCHE: No. Because Libya was a big financial — under Qaddafi, Libya was an asset of the European financial interests, and the British interests in particular.
TIMPONE: With the oil and water, and such.
LAROUCHE: Everything, all kinds of things were in that! Yeah, sure! But this whole — but the Middle East, it’s a perpetual war scene. But it’s been kept that way: The potentiality in these regions, and I know these regions fairly well, the economy, they are regions which, without warfare, were ready to go through real development, and they were cut off from it. You take, you know, the putting of opium into Afghanistan: there was originally no opium in Afghanistan before these Afghan wars! It was a stable part of the world. It was a funny part of the world, you wouldn’t maybe like to live there, under those conditions, but it was a stable part of the world. It had its problems.
Iraq was a relatively stable part of the world. It had a kind of dictatorship that developed there, but it was a stable part of the world; it was a strong culture.
Most of these areas involve people who had a fairly good impetus on cultural development, and it was through these manipulations, after World War II, a whole series of range of this thing, that we got into these kinds of messes.
TIMPONE: Why is stability a threat to the money powers, the British Monarchy, the powers that be?
LAROUCHE: The British are not so dumb, that is, the real ones we’re talking about, they’re not so dumb that they don’t realize that money doesn’t really amount to anything, and having money power doesn’t really get you anything in the long run. It’s the power to control development which is the issue. And you’re talking about imperialists, and imperialists do not give a damn, really, about people. They care only about keeping their power, and they think about their relative power, in respect to other powers, and things like that.
They don’t really give a damn about people in general! So don’t assume that national interests, as represented by people, necessarily correspond to political interests, represented by empires or things like empires: You have a wealthy group, or so-called wealthy group, which controls a nation, or set of nations, and that’s the issue.
TIMPONE: We’re talking with Lyndon LaRouche. It’s larouchepac.com. It is 12 minutes before the hour, this is Patrick Timpone, oneradionetwork.com. So, we have listeners here, around the world, on a Monday morning, hearing this, going — “Whoa!”
So, in your opinion, what’s a fella to do? Let’s close the show out with some ideas: Do we just hunker down as a culture to protect ourselves? Or, — because, if these people have as much control as you say, then how could a President ever get in there that could do anything? Or, with the amount of money that’s in Congress, how could anything ever change as far as the foreign policy, and the vision of these United States? How would it be possible?
LAROUCHE: I’ll tell you — well, it’s perfectly possible, because we are living — we’re living in a galaxy; now, this is a very large thing from our standpoint, sitting here someplace on Earth, you know. This looks very, very big, and it’s very, very old, and it’s very powerful! And we’re also in a solar system, which is a much smaller operation, tiny relative to the galaxy, but we’re in there, in this Solar System. And we’re here on Earth, and we know a lot — I mean, I specialize in this thing, we know a lot about these kinds of things, and I have associates who work with me, who know a lot about these things, and we work on this business.
If you look back, say, a half-billion years, if you look back at some of these charts you can dig out from various places, to show you what kind of stratification of living processes existed on Earth, at certain times in the past, over, shall we say, the last half-billion years, hmm? And that’s a cognizable entity. And you look at what’s happened to the development of the planet, in terms of what we find of former kinds of life, living processes, that has a whole history: And you find that the development of living processes, going from little unicellular things, up to modern mankind, is a progress of mankind. Mankind is actually increasing its power, in terms of life, as a species, all the way through!
That mankind is instinctively progressive. And we have some people who say that mankind is limited, you know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is bunk, which was made popular in the 19th century. But mankind is naturally inclined to good: to good, that is, in the sense of the production of people, the development of people, the rising to higher levels of existence of mankind,— this is mankind’s natural impulse.
But then, you have an interest, which says, “No! We don’t want you becoming independent, we don’t want you becoming wealthy! We want to control you!” And you have groups of people, called an oligarchy, oligarchical groups, which have struggled to control the conditions of mankind’s life for as far back as we know.
TIMPONE: As far back as we know!
TIMPONE: Yeah. That’s planet Earth.
LAROUCHE: So, this is our struggle, the struggle of humanity to assert itself as humanity, and what, you know, what you call “the ordinary guy” wants, or should understand he should want. And that’s it! But we have forces who say, “No, no, no, we want to control this planet. We want to keep you as cattle. We don’t want you as really human beings, we want you as a variety of cattle.” And, that’s what the struggle is.
TIMPONE: That’s where we are. So, now, how do you — now, this is a philosophical/spiritual question: As souls, as spiritual beings here, then, do you think that we take the easy way out if we hunker down, just take care of our family, and maybe it’ll all implode and we’re going to survive; or, that we need to be out there in the street, like occupying — I guess it’s different for everybody, ’cause we all have different experiences that we need to do on this planet.
LAROUCHE: Well, mankind as a whole has to go forward in rising, in its power, in the power of the human being to live. That is, the power to have a larger population; we’re now reaching officially 7 billion people.
TIMPONE: Seven billion, yeah.
LAROUCHE: But see, mankind’s destiny is not really limited to Earth. Mankind’s destiny, if we study the history of this process, going back, seeing a half-billion years of life-forms that we know about, on Earth, the destiny has been to go to higher forms of expression of living processes. Now, with mankind, we’ve entered, for the first time that we know of, the species which actually, intellectually, is going to higher and higher levels of power, to change the course of history, of physical history, of man on Earth.
We also know, that we are destined to go to extraterrestrial ventures, that in order to deal with some of the problems on Earth, including some weather problems interestingly, you have to go out to other planets in the Solar System, and take those into account. We have explore these planets, we’re going to have put people on these planets, as pioneers; we’re going to have to extend man’s reach and influence, to control some of the weather systems that come out of the galaxy,— they don’t come out of the Earth. Much of our weather is determined by the galaxy, from forces in the galaxy, not even within the Solar System.
So that mankind’s obvious destiny, being on Earth, is to extend mankind’s role and habitation, into other parts of our Solar System and the galaxy: That’s our ultimate destiny! So, we are an instrument of development, a pinnacle of development within the Solar System, and potentially beyond.
So, our existence is to do what we might call “good.” That when we pass the mantle from one generation to the next, we go upward: We must continue to go upward, because we have a mission of mankind to perform within this Solar System, as well as on Earth, and beyond. And we have to accept the moral commitment to progress, to rise to greater capabilities, to develop the mind of man, the creative powers of the mind of man, that mankind shall proceed onward and upward, forever.
TIMPONE: Hmm! So each one of us, Mr. LaRouche, can do what we can, to do good, and to keep expanding, spiritually, emotionally, physically — I mean, we can do everything we can do every day, and that’s the best we can do!
LAROUCHE: Yes. Because the creation means, that we live at a certain level of culture now, but our objective is, is to advance that level of culture, through each generation that comes after us. The idea of progress, as you see it in the history of the United States, from the settlements in early Massachusetts, we have gone step by step, and in large degree, we in North America, have created much of the technology which allows this; that one generation contributes the creation of a new discovery, as its gift to the next generation: And that is really the meaning of life.
TIMPONE: Hmm, yeah. Very well said. And just as a sign, we have an email from Justin, wanting to know your opinion on the “Occupy” movement around the country. He wants to know if you think this is just some passing fancy, or is this the beginning of a global and political revolution in the country and the world?
LAROUCHE: Well, there will be a political revolution in the country of one kind or another, always.
TIMPONE: Is it starting now, do you think? With this “Occupy” movement?
LAROUCHE: A new movement? I don’t know that particular form as such. But I think the point is, rather than any particular kind of gimmick kind of movement, — I don’t like gimmick kinds of movements; because progress involves one generation making a discovery of principle, which is passed on, to the improvement to the successive generation. So I think we should be more modest in presuming that we have the answer. I think we should be committed to discovering, or helping the next generation, discover the answer. And that if we continue in that upward direction, mankind can do all right.
TIMPONE: Hmm! Well, we’re certainly learning more and more about how to take care of ourselves, using our free will and our power of our minds, and our heart. How do you manage to take care of yourself so well over these 89 years? Your mind is just as good as ever!
LAROUCHE: Well, almost as good. You get a little flakey around the edges, but that’s not serious. It hasn’t hit me seriously in any way. My memory is sometimes a bit edgy at points. But everything I need generally seems to function fairly well! And I’m still doing creative work, and enjoying the fact of educating people, including scientists who need that education, so I’m in the ballpark.
TIMPONE: Hmm, you stay in the game all the time, don’t you?
LAROUCHE: Yep! I work all the time
TIMPONE: How many — you work all the time? [laughs]
LAROUCHE: I just work all the time: That’s what I like! I like to work!
TIMPONE: Uh-huh. And at larouchepac.com you all do: You produce videos. Tell us a little bit about what you do, there in the couple minutes remaining.
LAROUCHE: Well, we’re concentrating on — we have two really leading sections, including our overall section, but two leading sections among our younger people, that is people in their late twenties and early thirties in particular, many of whom, or a good number of whom are scientists, and otherwise, do other kinds of things which are highly skilled, or increasingly skilled activities. And these things, in and of themselves, make me happy, and I think make my associates happy who are doing this.
But our real happiness lies in the fact that we have before us certain tasks which need to be done; we have the capability of delivering something needed to promote those tasks, and that’s what we do.
TIMPONE: Wow! It’s a very big, broad, holistic kind of a picture, rather than just be a commentator and say, “this is bad, this is bad,” but you really are doing some proactive things with the people and the research.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, ’cause that’s what you should do, I think, in life. The idea is creativity: Always do, move in a direction where the next generation is going to have the benefit of discoveries which will make the world better for the coming generation than it has been for us.
TIMPONE: Well! Fair enough. We’ll leave it at that. Mr. LaRouche, always a pleasure. Thanks for being available to us.
LAROUCHE: Thank you.
TIMPONE: We’ll see you real soon. Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, wow! I like that fellow! LaRouchePAC.com; his number is 800-929-7566. There’s some real meat on that bone, isn’t there? That whole idea? Sounds good to me.
* Image reference: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this audio interview and corresponding transcript are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CanadaNewsLibre. The contents of this audio interview and its transcript are of sole responsibility of the author(s). CanadaNewsLibre will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements.
http://canadanewslibre contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
ↄ⃝ Copyleft CanadaNewsLibre 2011