Jump to content
The Education Forum

President Obama is headed for a breakdown


Terry Mauro
 Share

Recommended Posts

JOHN HOEFLE: Welcome to the LaRouche PAC Weekly Report.

Today is Oct. 27, 2010. I'm John Hoefle, and with me today in

the studio are Jeff Steinberg and Lyndon LaRouche.

So, Lyn, there's some interesting developments in the White

House, among other things.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: It's quite a serious one, which has cited

some humorous comment over the waves, over the night. The thing

is, I think most people know about it, but, the President of the

United States, in a fairly ominous action -- of a different kind

of ominous action, was attending a Rhode Island event which was

sponsored to fund him and his campaigns, at $7,500 a clip for

about 50 guests. And before the meal was served, the President

got up, and announced he had to leave. He had to go home to put

his children to bed, and poop the dog, or scoop the pooper of the

dog. [laughter] Now, this has caused great amusement, but also,

it causes great concern, which has a double side to it: The

concern, on the one hand, is bad, but the implication may be

good.

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown. So, we have a Woodrow Wilson case, of a different

flavor, now, in the White House. And there are all kinds of

things on the horizon, which shudder with the implications of

this from various parts of the country.

Now, the other side is, it's hopeful in the sense, that he's

at the point, where people have to recognize, we have a worse

than Woodrow Wilson case, in which the President's wife is not

able to perform the kind of soothing function, which Woodrow

Wilson's wife performed for him, in his moment of last extremity.

So, that, we're going to be faced with the fact, where it becomes

absolutely necessary, to immediately take the required action.

Which means that the Congress will have to be called back into

session, very soon, probably by Monday, at the way things are

going. I can not predict exactly when, but we have to think in

certain terms of reference. That the mental state of the

President, as I first defined it on April 11th, 2009, has

consistently followed the trend, which I have recognized since

that time, and it's now come to the breaking point. What he did,

last night, in Rhode Island, that walkout, shows a complete

breakdown, in process. And this means, that it's not something

that threatens down the line, a few weeks or so: It's now. This

President is no longer competent to be President.

And we have the worst world crisis, in terms of economy,

that has ever existed in modern civilization, which is

planet-wide. And the President of the United States is crucial,

because if the United States goes under, the entire world will

immediately go under in chain-reaction fashion. If the United

States goes under, the British system, the Western and Central

European system will go, the Russian system will go; and then

later, China, India, and so forth in that part of the world. And

of course, China and India, and so forth, can not sustain world

stability, when the whole system has gone into something worse,

on a global scale, than Weimar 1923 hyperinflation. That's where

we're at that point, the equivalent of that point, but on a

global scale, with none of the constraints that operated in terms

1923. This is {far worse} than 1923 Germany, on a world scale,

because there's no stopping points.

And many people who are leading people, economists and so

forth, have gone gutless on me on this one: They're so

frightened, probably by threats among other things, from the

Presidency, because the threats are really out there -- this is

wild, and the President is now insane! I can say, assuredly,

now, with this behavior, which I've been diagnosing, accurately,

since the 11th of April last year, this man is now gone

completely bonkers!

And you have the United States is keystone, in terms of the

situation of the world as a whole, because if the United States

goes, you have a chain reaction, which will wipe out this whole

Inter-Alpha, among other things. It can not withstand this,

because the effects are real. And people who think like the

British, don't think in terms of real things. Sometimes they do,

when they're getting nasty, and pulling dirty tricks on people.

When it comes to this kind of reality, they're not really sane,

because they're trapped in their own ideology. Usually the

British are able to escape from their own ideology, and play

dirty tricks, behind the screen of an ideology. But this one,

they can't do. Because the whole world's going under.

What we have is the situation currently, which is, the

United States and other nations are already hopelessly bankrupt:

That is to say, that to the degree that we are able, in a

diminishing degree, to maintain the absolute necessities of human

life, for a growing portion of our own population, and we have a

similar situation in Europe, it's spreading around the world, you

are already using up past resources. We are not supporting the

world economy on the basis of presently produced resources!

We're managing to struggle along, with a diminishing larder, a

rapidly diminishing larger.

So, at this point, if we lose the continuity, of a

reversible policy, in the United States, then the United States

goes under. And if the United States goes under, despite {all}

the dream world from Europe and so forth, the world goes under,

too. It's the end of civilization.

Therefore, since we need a President, a real President -- it

can even be the current Vice President; it would be suitable for

this purpose, as a member of a team, a team of people who are

going to work together, then we could make the necessary

decisions. Because we could take the actions, which are, first,

Glass-Steagall, and then, going immediately for a negotiation of

an international fixed-exchange-rate system. Because the only

way you can save the world, is, by now, quickly introducing, a

global fixed-exchange-rate system. But to do that, first, you've

got to put a Glass-Steagall law, quickly, through in the United

States. And I would say, that we would push -- if I were

President -- I would say we're going to push it for this coming

week: both actions.

And I think we could get it through, because the world now

knows -- Western Europe, it's a hopeless situation. Absolutely

hopeless. They may pretend otherwise, but it's hopeless. Russia

has got itself into a hopeless situation, because Russian policy

is now enslaved, to the pirates of the Caribbean, who are all

these funny places like these islands out there, "Pidgeonhole

Bank," and is running this thing in Russia or so forth. You have

it both in the Antilles and so forth.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Antigua.

LAROUCHE: Exactly, exactly. If you don't Russian, you

can't get admission.

STEINBERG: Exactly! You can't get a cup of coffee in

Antigua --

LAROUCHE: If you don't speak Russian?

STEINBERG: Right! [laughter]

LAROUCHE: So, they're in that kind of situation. So, we

have to do that.

Now, the measures we have to take, are fairly simple in

terms of definition. Glass-Steagall, Franklin Roosevelt's

Glass-Steagall law, that's clear. It's a known entity, it worked

when it was in effect, it'll work now. But without

Glass-Steagall, we can not get out from under this big bubble.

We've got to get out from under the bubbles. And the only way

you can do it, is Glass-Steagall. But, then, you turn around,

you have to look at the world situation, because the whole world

is about to go into a chain-reaction collapse. Therefore, you

have to immediately stop this loose money, and the only way to

do, that is with a fixed-exchange-rate system. Which means, that

other nations will have to do the equivalent of a Glass-Steagall

reform of their own system.

Now, this will mean, it will break up the whole euro system.

It means destroying the euro system. But the euro system itself

is inclined to destroy itself.

HOEFLE: It's doing a good job of it.

LAROUCHE: Right, exactly. So therefore, the Europeans have

no option for survival, without getting out of the euro system.

They just have to vote to agree, to cancel the whole system! The

agreement is cancelled. Then Germany and other countries can

begin to organize their survival, particularly if we have a

fixed-exchange-rate system internationally.

Now, solves the problem of China, China's relationship to

the United States, a fixed-exchange-rate system, will solve the

problem. The reason we have a problem, is because the United

States refuses to accepted a fixed-exchange- rate system. If we

have a fixed-exchange-rate agreement with China, that solves that

problem. It doesn't solve Wall Street's problem, but that's

simple: We eliminate Wall Street. [Hoefle chuckles]

These are the kinds of remedial measures which must be taken

immediately if we're going to save civilization. It's no longer

a matter of a bankrupt nation, or this kind of crisis, or the

other. We're now at a point, that very dramatic actions of the

type that Franklin Roosevelt had in mind, this temperament of

Franklin Roosevelt, going into the Presidency in 1933, {that's}

what you need. That's where you're at, now. If you're not

willing to think that way, you're not fit to govern the United

States. And all we have to do, is have the sitting Vice

President, decide he's going to act like a President. And I

think if we can get these conditions through, that he will be

content to be President. I don't think he would like to be

President under the present conditions. I think he'd rather have

the other guy take the brunt on this one.

STEINBERG: Right.

LAROUCHE: But I think that his long-standing desire to be

President, could be realized now, to the advantage of the country

and the world. Because, all he has to do, is do a few fairly

simple things, which assure him, that his Presidency will be, for

the next two years, a successful one. I think he'll take it! If

he's convinced that that's the deal. And that would make a very

simple remedy, for a lot of problems. Because the current

President is clinically insane. I can say that: I'm an expert in

this area. I've established my expertise. I've been right on

this guy, all the way through, and I can tell you exactly what's

going on inside him, his head. You do want to know about it.

[laughter]

STEINBERG: You actually had, the other day, the latest

installment of these "Ulsterman" reports from insiders in and

around the White House, an incident a few days ago, very similar

to what was described in Rhode Island, on "Off the Cuff" this

morning, and in the news, namely that there was a full-dress

National Security Council meeting scheduled last week, to begin

the process of reviewing what's going on in Afghanistan. There

were 22 people in the room, it was scheduled for a certain time:

Obama breezed in, 10-15 minutes late, giggling with some aides,

sat down, completely disinterested; after about 10 minutes,

without even taking notes, got up and left, and designated some

staff people to handle the rest of the meeting, and walked out.

There were people from the Joint Chiefs of Staff there, and

similar reaction: You're dealing with somebody who's clearly

going through a psychological meltdown.

And, as you know, Lyn, we heard some reports from some

leading Democrats yesterday, that there's a panic over the idea,

that after Tuesday's election results, we're going to go into a

situation of ungovernability. And you had a very simple answer

to that, you said, "Get Obama out of there, and we've got all the

conditions at hand to be able to govern, through this crisis."

LAROUCHE: We have, we have. But the key thing, I understand

he was giggling on the way out!

STEINBERG: Yes, exactly.

LAROUCHE: As well, as on the way in.

STEINBERG: Exactly, yeah.

LAROUCHE: Well, this guy is really cracked up. We have

full evidence, as much as you get from the outside, that {this

guy is a gone bunny.} He's got to be removed from the White

House now. This means that the Vice President must get a

majority among the members of the cabinet, he must take the

action, and he must initiate, with their backing, a call for

recalling the members of Congress, back to the Congress for an

emergency session, to consider action under section 4 of the 25th

Amendment.

Get the guy out! Let the Vice President take over,

preferably {before} the election on Tuesday, preferably before

then! I would say, my agenda would be, to have, by the weekend,

is to have -- he, the Vice President, and a majority of the

cabinet, agreement that this is necessary, by confronting them

with the full evidence of what the problem is here. And this

Rhode Island event is drawing the last straw. This is a total

gone! He's gone!

And therefore, we can -- then, the Vice President can call

in, the members of Congress under the provision of the 25th

Amendment, and they can be faced with making the decision. Now,

if we can get them in, on Monday, they're under the hammer.

Because the vote is going to be -- now, there's of course, early

elections in many parts of the country, but the hammer is on

them, on Tuesday, in the Tuesday voting. And under those

conditions, every member of Congress, his chances of being

re-elected, depends on the way he votes on this question of the

25th Amendment! And also, which means, they have to jam in, on

the fixed-exchange-rate system, but on the first Glass-Steagall

Act. Glass-Steagall is ready to go immediately. Go with that.

Go with that on Monday! If you go with that Monday, then fight

out with the world getting a fixed-exchange-rate system, then by

Tuesday, or Wednesday morning, you may have a go situation for

recovery of the planet, with other measures taken.

But right now, as long as this poor nut, this guy who's

obviously clinically insane, remains President, there's no chance

of doing this stuff. He certainly won't do it under it, under

his condition of insanity. And I think that the White House,

otherwise, the Vice President and the cabinet should be scared

enough, right now, that they know they have to do something like

this. And, it's not dictatorial; it's simply going back to our

Constitution, and the legislation which is pertinent to that

Constitution, and taking a Constitutional action, to bring

stability to United States, and to restore a spark of confidence,

to a world which is about ready to blow up!

STEINBERG: You know, the 25th Amendment, section 4, has

never been formally invoked. But it has been adopted as a

consideration on a number of occasions previously, including a

couple of times during the Reagan Presidency, including the day

he was shot; and it also came up during the final days of Nixon.

And I think that had Nixon not made the wise decision to resign

and leave down, even before the impeachment trial in the Senate,

there were people ready to invoke section 4, because at the very

end, the reports I've gotten from people who were pretty close in

at that time, is that Nixon was off the deep end: He was

drinking heavily, under medication, and was ready to blow.

So, Biden is afraid of the implications of it, but I think

it's unavoidable, and the framers of the 25th Amendment had this

exact kind of situation in mind.

LAROUCHE: And Biden should recognize, that he has more to

fear from not acting, than from acting.

STEINBERG: Absolutely.

LAROUCHE: I mean, I know the blackmail, I know the death

threats, and so forth, this kind of atmosphere, which exists in

that environment. Because you have some real fascists in the

woodwork around there. And they're prepared to act! And the

only way to stave them off, is not to coddle them. The way, is

to take the preemptive action, which eliminates their power to do

damage.

Once we do it, I assure you, that we can get the breakup of

the European Union, back to sovereign nation-states.

STEINBERG: Back to de Gaulle's idea.

LAROUCHE: Right. That will mean, immediately, the

possibility, minus the problem we have inside Germany, of

bringing Germany back into the fold as a keystone nation, rather

the nation that has to pay everybody else's debts. That means,

again, -- because Germany is one of the few nations which still

has, residually, even though it's not using it at home, the

technological capability of being a positive factor in

development of other nations. We have a shortage,

internationally, of the technologies required to sustain the

planet. Germany has the knowledge, still, of how to do some of

that production, and can be a key factor and multiplier, of the

possibility of saving the planet, from this mess. But that's the

condition we're faced with, right now.

HOEFLE: That would be a real October Surprise -- a good one,

for a change.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. The point is, do we have people who have

the guts to do it. And guts means, do you have the competence to

understand, what it is you have to do? To understand why you

must do it? It's like a decision in war, like command in

warfare. It's like the case of George Washington crossing the

Delaware: The United States had no ability to win a war against

the British at that time. But, by Washington recognizing that,

and under desperate conditions, and desperate conditions of

movement, moved in on Trenton! And that saved the United States'

existence, at that time!

And so, in a case like this, often, in really strategic

situations, like the case of Friedrich der Grosse, his famous

battle, that, he had tired troops, his troop strength was less

than that of the Austrian opposition, and he whipped them, by

outflanking them, twice in the same day, by getting his troops,

who were also ready exhausted, to make a deployment which the

Austrians thought impossible, because they had a Classical

double-envelopment operation in place, perfectly designed, based

on the Roman example. And he outflanked them, from an inferior

position in strength, in both his troops, who exhausted from a

fast march, and from the fact that they were totally outnumbered.

But they took these excellently poised Austrian forces, and they

whipped them twice in the same day on the same battlefield.

And often, in real history, -- I mean, things like that have

happened in U.S. history, for example, repeatedly, military

history, is, {you don't play by the rules.} You look at the

table, you look what the rules are; and you add a new rule, which

was not in the book then. IN warfare, you do that. You add a

new rule, you added new dimension, like what MacArthur did, in

Korea, in the Inchon landing! Completely outflanked the entire

situation! And, it's that kind of thinking, which as it applies

to political actions, in general, including financial-political

actions, as well as to warfare, that you must, in a strategic

situation {think strategically}! And you have to think in these

kinds of terms, like those of Friedrich der Grosse and so forth:

You must think, outthink! Get off the table! Don't play warfare

on the table! Play {off} the table, attack the table from

outside.

And that's what was required here: A very simple kind of

action: You want, impeachment, Glass-Steagall, and go for

negotiating a fixed-exchange rate system. Those are the measures

which can lead to the survival of civilization! Simply outflank

the situation, the present situation, in the simplest possible

way. Because, the minute you show the American people, in

particular, that we have a scheme that's going to prevent them

from going Hell, which they're going to right now, they're going

to react positively. They'll say, "At last! The bullxxxx's

over."

STEINBERG: Well, you've got, just in the immediate days

ahead, not only do we have the elections, next Tuesday, Nov. 2nd,

but the exact same day, you have the FOMC -- Federal Open Market

Committee -- meeting. And by every indication, they're prepared

to go with a complete hyperinflationary blowout policy, maybe as

much as $4 trillion, in new, hot money, to bail out this

mortgage-backed securities and the rest of the bubble.

LAROUCHE: What about a Glass-Steagall law at that point?

STEINBERG: Exactly, exactly!

LAROUCHE: That's outflanking the sons-of --

STEINBERG: Exactly. And then, days later, you've got the

G20 meeting in South Korea. We got a question from one of our

Asian diplomatic contacts just earlier today, because you had

this meeting last weekend of the finance minister and central

bankers of the G20, and Geithner was there. And the meeting was,

by all accounts, complete hysteria over this hyperinflationary

issue, which they characterized as "competitive devaluations."

But the South Koreans came out of it, saying that out of the

chaos, at least there was an agreement to avoid getting into this

kind of currency war race to the bottom, and the question posed

was, "Are we at a moment, where it's appropriate to put this

question of a New Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system on the

table?"

LAROUCHE: Take the question of China, the neighbor of Korea

-- China, think of it.

STEINBERG: Right.

LAROUCHE: What is the issue, because the United States and

China? Now, if we start with Glass-Steagall, we get Obama out,

get Glass-Steagall and we go to a proposal of a

fixed-exchange-rate system -- will the Chinese support a

fixed-exchange-rate system?

STEINBERG: Hundred percent.

LAROUCHE: Will the Indians support it?

STEINBERG: Absolutely. [laughs] They'll rejoice.

LAROUCHE: Will the Russians support it?

STEINBERG: Mm-hmm.

LAROUCHE: Well, it would mean some shakeups in Russia.

STEINBERG: Yeah, exactly.

LAROUCHE: Will Europe support it? Well, if it means the

breakup of the European Union. Break that up, now. And then

Europe is freed from this garbage. Germany begins to function

immediately, again, provided they get the nuts out of control.

France will probably have a new President, because this one will

probably -- like Rumpelstiltskin, will probably tear himself

apart, in rage, at the change.

STEINBERG: [laughs] Right! Follow Michelle Obama's

example.

LAROUCHE: Exactly! So, under those conditions, by flanking

those conditions properly, and moving on actions which are in the

common interest of nations, particularly of nations which have a

consciousness of this point of interest, and realize that a

common interest on this question is the best solution, and if

China's in agreement with this, well, what can the United States

say? The United States having a fixed-exchange-rate system with

China, Japan, and Korea, and India, means that the whole world is

going to go back in order. It won't be nice at first -- it'll

muddy, it'll be broken down, and shantytown. {But!} We will be

on the way {up}, rather than the way down.

HOEFLE: I look at this, and I keep thinking about the

Malaysian monkey trap. [laughter]

LAROUCHE: You like that, huh?

HOEFLE: Yeah! Because, all we have to do, is let go of our

delusions and we can solve these problems,

LAROUCHE: Exactly.

HOEFLE: And there's nothing really complicated about it.

It's not hard to understand policies. The difficulty is finding

the {guts} to look it in the eye, and say, "Okay, look, this is

{nuts}! And we can't continue to do this. We have to give this

up!"

LAROUCHE: The problem is, only in shocks do people "get

it," when they see, this is the only available solution, because

it's the only available, visible solution, it's made visible to

them, they will tend the accept it. And if some important

nations start the process, you will get the agreement. The

problem is, that most people, including most governments, and

most political forces in the world, are not competent in economy.

So they don't understand economy as a principle. They have no

competent understanding of economy as a principle -- they're

monetarists. But, when they're faced with a certain concrete

situation, in which a certain agreement on monetary affairs, is

necessary to save their {butt}, they will adopt the policy on the

basis of the need to save their butt right now! And it's only

under conditions of an {immediate} crisis, that you can get those

kinds of decisions through. Because you don't have nations,

which have populations, or leadership, which are competent to

deal with this situation! But, they're competent to react, in a

certain way, under certain conditions. And as long as you're not

doing any damage to civilization, which means, you're not going

to start setting up dictatorships, but quite the contrary, since

you're going back to sovereign nation-states and negotiate with

sovereign nation-states on common interests, and you're going to

see to find common interests, rather than this kind of bullying

operation.

And that's the only way, at a time like this, that you can

get through the change which is needed. And the changes have to

be elementary: Impeachment, Glass-Steagall, and then go for

fixed-exchange-rate system. Those measures will, in and of

themselves, which are feasible, now on a global basis, with good

negotiations, those measures alone will save the United States,

and will permit the saving of the world situation.

And that's the only shot there is. Because, it's simple!

What can you get through, which will actually solve the problem,

not what you think you can get through -- that's the usual stuff

-- but what can you get through that will {solve the problem.}

That little thing "solve the problem" is the clause you have to

attach to any of those things, or policy recommendations.

HOEFLE: The consequences of not solving the problem, are a

descent into a new Dark Age.

LAROUCHE: Exactly!

HOEFLE: And we're in it, we're in it, and we have to start

climbing out of it, very quickly.

LAROUCHE: I saw a thing, this "Red, White, and Blue" thing

[candidates' debate] in Texas. And you had this loud-mouth,

babbling representative of the Democratic Party faction, just

doing everything to block Kesha out, possible. Well, we fixed

that, because Kesha went out, and made her own statement, which

was probably one of the most -- is the most decent kind, of

statesmanlike promotion, by any candidate, in sight, in this

entire period! Her statement to the world, on the situation in

Texas, and her appeal on this situation, is the finest statement,

of statesmanship, that I've seen produced on the hustings, in

this whole season! And I think intelligent people in Texas, and

around the world, will appreciate that fact! Because she spoke

the truth, and spoke it plainly, and clearly! And simply! And

that's the way you have to deal with the American people, at this

time.

You've got to give them clear, relevant, and simple

proposals, for actions which they can look back on, and say, it

was the right decision.

STEINBERG: Lyn, in that context, the other thing that

you've been pushing very strongly for the last several months, as

the cornerstone to a recovery policy for the U.S., is the North

American Water and Power Alliance, program, which is getting a

lot of enthusiasm and traction among the engineering and related

fields, that understand the implications of this.

LAROUCHE: What we've got, is a situation, essentially, all

we have to do is get the agreement with Canada, and Canada really

has no good choice, except to do this. Because they're

suffering, maybe more or less, than we are, in their

circumstances. Also, the future of Canada, depends, as the

Canadian government and others know, on the Arctic question: That

the challenge to Canada for its future, as a nation, dependents

upon cooperation on the Arctic, for various reasons.

Now, the only way that can be realized -- Canada can not

handle that by itself; it can not solve that problem. {But!}

Canada in a partnership, with the United States, and with giving

something to Mexico, as a bribe, shall we say -- that's what you

have to do, at this time, NAWAPA will mean, for this area, an

increase of {4 million productive jobs}. And the actual

rostering of that employment, will come immediately. In other

words, it won't be "eventually," 4 million jobs, it will mean

that the rostering of the cadre which is going to start the

process and the follow-up of getting more people involved, up to

4 million people will come very rapidly!

It will be on credit, yes! But, by the Glass-Steagall

measure, you will be able, therefore, to stop this flow of

bailout -- you just cancel it! And they've got these guys who

have these bailout funds, they're going to sit ther,e and they're

either going to pay the debt themselves, or they're going to be

liquidated.

So therefore, at that point, the Federal government will

have the ability, to issue credit for two general purposes: One,

we have states that {are now nonfunctional!} We have also major

cities in these states, which are nonfunctional, and in other

communities. Therefore, we have to have Federal bailout, for

these states, state governments, and for key municipal

governments, and others. Now, that's one thing. That's not a

safe investment, but that's an investment in the security of the

nation, and of the states.

We can not have police fired, firemen fired, municipal

functions destroyed -- it can not be allowed. All right, Wall

Street's going to have to eat that!

STEINBERG: Right!

LAROUCHE: Then, we have to then have projects, which will

actually generate a reconstruction of what had been the

industrial product of the United States, and agriculture.

Now, we have two problems we face: One is the lack of the

industrial and related development, which is the infrastructure

of industrial development. Secondly, is we have a water crisis

in the United States, based on the sinking of the aquifers around

the area of the 20-inch rainfall line. If these two things are

not addressed, we can't rebuild the United States. There's no

solution. {But!} If we enact NAWAPA, we {immediately} put

people to work, in the NAWAPA project itself, in millions of

people, because that's what it's going to take. You're going to

have to set up construction in various parts of the NAWAPA

project, in various parts. You're going to have build up a whole

apparatus, in each area of the buildup -- like the state of Idaho

is going to become a bonanza for employment! Because it's got

control with the greatest concentration of the pumping function

of the entire system.

So, Canada will benefit immediately, in a tremendous degree.

Whole things that are not possible for Canada now, will become

possible.

So, now we have these areas we're going to develop: This

will take us, really, involve about 3 million people employed.

Now, in order to do this, we're going to have to get a lot of

material into those areas, where the actual construction of

NAWAPA is occurring. We're going to have to revive the economies

of Pennsylvania, of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, out to St.

Louis: because it's in that area where we have the greatest

concentration of {lost} capacity, which can be revived, in terms

of skills and traditions, to produce a new set of modern rail

systems. And also, when you're going into mountain areas, you

don't want a rail system -- you want a maglev system. In other

words, you're going up a few thousand feet, in this area, like

Idaho, you don't want to have a train that's running on straight

rail. You need a maglev system, which is the only efficient way,

to actually deliver freight, into those areas as such.

Therefore, so, now you're going to create, in addition to

the NAWAPA project itself, the NAWAPA project is going to depend

upon a supply which has to come from other parts of the United

States. So you're going to revive everything that looks like a

decent industrial capability of the United States, and a

scientific capability, and you're going to put it back to work!

Because it's going to be employed, because the NAWAPA project is

going to demand that employment!

Now, all this stuff, in terms of -- you talk about 30-year

financing, credit financing: Well, in 30 years or so, by the time

we have the essentials of NAWAPA completed, everything would be

liquid! We would have increased the productivity of the United

States, you would have a growth in productivity, backed by solid

physical assets, and by assets in the form of the developments of

the minds and capabilities of large parts of our population,

which are no longer presently capable of doing anything.

So, these two approaches: One, deal with the emergency

situation. Stabilize the states immediately; put them through

reorganization, under Federal protection and subsidy. That

stabilizes the population. Now, get a real driver, and a big

driver, which is NAWAPA, and NAWAPA will mean the implication of

having {4 million jobs}, real jobs, productive jobs! In the

United States, {fast!} That means we go from a bankrupt economy,

to a reviving economy: It's the same principle that Franklin

Roosevelt used, when he came into office, with a plan. Well,

this is a plan! The plan exists. We're not imitating what

happened with the Tennessee Valley Authority: This is a much

bigger, and much higher quality. We're now in space! Because

we're now going into the Arctic area, which Canada has to go

into, too; but, we're going into the Arctic area, not as a

subsidizing the Arctic area, but we're using the Arctic area

development, to enable NAWAPA! So, there's a payback, coming in

the line right away.

Now, with the transportation system you have to build, in

Canada and in the United States, in order to handle this process,

you are going to revive the economies of these countries, and put

them on a growth pattern, which is otherwise impossible.

And once we do that, then we're going to go cross the Bering

Straits, probably with both, a tunnel and a rail system -- both,

would make sense. Then Russia, with this whole area of Siberia,

which is now neglected, but has a rich concentration of essential

resources, the people of Asia, in particular, need -- but

Russia's not able now to develop that, although we have the

scientific capability among some people as old as I am, in

Russia, who know how to do these things.

So therefore, now you're giving Russia, a program which will

solidify its cooperative relationship with China. China

requires, from Russia -- it doesn't require putting Chinese

people into Siberia; what it requires is developing, in the

Siberian area, and similar places, developing the sources of

minerals, especially rare earth, all kinds of things which are

needed by China and by India, by the southern part of Asia. So

therefore, you now have got a program, which is now saving Russia

from the present crisis, helping China to develop, solve its

problem; you're helping India, you're helping the nations of

Asia. You also are creating a market by this development, for

Europe! Because Europe, particularly France and Germany, can

readily participate in a significant way, in the development

centered in Asia.

So therefore, we have at hand, with a few, simple

conceptions, as like what we planned on the Darién Gap, this same

kind of thing: We have the ability to change the character of the

planet, from a dying planet, which it is now, to a viable planet,

with a few, clearly struck, identifications of measures to be

taken. And other measures which are obvious will follow. We've

created the impetus for the other measures which we want to

consider, to come into reality. You never started a great

project of this type, without great spillovers, that you didn't

really plan for.

STEINBERG: Right. [laughs]

LAROUCHE: You just start to get what's called "famous

American ingenuity," which we used to have! What you have to do,

is build an industry, one industry in a metropolitan area, and

you will find all kinds of industries, smaller ones that are

springing up, which you didn't really plan for! [laughter]

STEINBERG: Right! People dusting off inventions that

they've had sitting in their garage for decades!

LAROUCHE: You need to get that spirit going back among our

people.

HOEFLE: This is the antithesis of this green fascist

movement.

LAROUCHE: Sure. Well, the green fascist movement is worse

than that: This is a legacy of the Cult of Delphi, among others:

That in ancient times, when maritime technology was the leading

part of the world, and the monopoly on maritime technology was

held by a very small part of the world population, these were the

people who could navigate from across the Atlantic Ocean, into

the Mediterranean, into the Pacific region, Indian Ocean region.

And so, these mariners became, in the fall of the Persian Empire,

became actually the dominant factor, in Europe, through the

Mediterranean, largely. And a whole section of these mariners

became, what they call -- they called themselves "gods."

And you had Aeschylus' famous {Prometheus} trilogy, of which

the middle part survived, {Prometheus Bound}, that this

conception was, that the gods prohibit the other people, from

having the rights of the gods, and therefore, they would say, "we

don't allow fire," which is what is used in the Aeschylus -- "we

don't allow fire" to the poor people. "Fire is only for the

gods. "

Now, who were the gods? The gods are this caste, which

comes from a maritime culture, which has a superior technology to

that of the land-lubbers. And therefore, they used this

superiority for a tyranny, and they actually control the {size}

of the populations of people, because if the people become

skilled, then the people can not be controlled by the oligarchs.

Therefore, you have to keep the people {stupid}: Don't let them

have technology, like the use of fire, because the difference

between mankind and an ape, is fire. Apes don't like fire!

Mankind lives on fire. There's a big difference!

So therefore, you had this kind of system. So, we have a

legacy of oligarchism, which in terms of European and

trans-Atlantic civilization, comes out of this area, this

maritime area, this oligarchical system. They are the ones who

invented the idea of currency as a medium of empire. In other

words, what we call currency today, has no real value. It has no

intrinsic value. And, as a matter of fact, the problem is, when

we treat money as value, we do what was done now: We try to get

money, but we do it by destroying physical production, and the

means of labor. So therefore, our conception of value, by

attributing value to a monetary system, then what you're doing,

you're destroying the people and you're destroying the system.

And that's what the problem has been.

So the idea of a fixed-exchange-rate system, and a system

like the system in Massachusetts, during the period under --

STEINBERG: The Mathers, and --

LAROUCHE: Yeah, before the British came in there, and

screwed it up, in Massachusetts. That's been the great crisis:

The domination of the world, by intrinsically imperialist

networks, of monetarists systems -- sometimes in quarrel with

each other, sometimes altogether -- and we've now got this sense

of an altogether monetary system. The monetary system must be

destroyed. Because what we're doing, is, we're not paying

enough, to pay for the cost of production, of things that we

need! In terms of infrastructure and anything else. And the

reason we're not, is because we're allowing a bunch of parasites,

to use their control over the monetarists, to use their control

over the monetarist system, to milk and loot the population, and

destroy the economy!

So therefore, this was always the implication of the

American System, as against the European monetarist system, or

the Venetian system, as it's sometimes called. And so, this is

the problem: We have to realize, that the reason we're in

trouble, is because we have gone to a {monetarist} system, which

came to us, as a break from the Roosevelt system. First of all,

the break from Roosevelt himself, and his policy, which is his

death. And then, the monetarist reforms, like 1971, and also, it

was done, again, by J.P. Morgan and Co., with unleashing this

great wave of speculation, financial speculation, which we have

today!

So, essentially, we have to wipe the books of this crap! Go

back to a fixed-exchange monetary system, of a Roosevelt type, to

a Glass-Steagall standard in banking, and then we're all right.

But, the problem is, if we do that, we're going to destroy

Wall Street, and London.

HOEFLE: Oh, no! [laughter]

LAROUCHE: Isn't it awful? I mean -- destroying all those

poor people on Wall Street! And those firms, those parasites.

We don't show decent respect for parasites, these days!

STEINBERG: But under NAWAPA, there will be decent jobs for

them, in Idaho, to learn some basic skills.

LAROUCHE: I'm not sure about that! I don't even think

they'll want to live under a system, which actually works to

human benefit! It's contrary to their instincts.

STEINBERG: Lyn, before we end today, the other development

that you forecast, and warned about last February, that's

surfaced just in the last few days, is this eruption of cholera

in, not only Haiti, but also across the Atlantic, in Central

Africa. But, in the Haiti case, this is a totally, manmade

crisis, because, everybody knows that with the availability of

fresh water, and minimal sanitation, you can wipe out a cholera

epidemic very quickly: And here you've got the President of the

United States, who at any moment, could order the U.S. military,

the medical ships, and everything else, in there; this problem

could be solved. But you've got an absolute commitment to let

those people in Haiti die.

LAROUCHE: {It's the intention, to let them die!} The

intention by the President of the United States, to let them die!

Because he's been presented with the facts, by the former

President of the United States --

STEINBERG: Right, exactly.

LAROUCHE: Clinton. He's been presented with this,

explicitly. And he said, "No."

Now, the dying has started, and the President of the United

States, who is going clinically insane, in the meantime, has now

made a decision, {to let this rip!} This puts him in the Hitler

class, together with his own health-care policy, which he

borrowed from Tony Blair. Who is also a no-goodnik.

STEINBERG: Right. Which was borrowed from Hitler,

directly.

LAROUCHE: Exactly: Copied from Hitler. But the British

introduced it to Hitler.

STEINBERG: I mean, it's really striking, that really, in a

few week period, you had, on the one hand, the role of NASA as

part of an international rescue operation down in Chile with the

miners, as an example of what can be done, on very short notice,

when you unleash human creativity, and technological skills, to

solve a life-and-death problem. And then, you've got the

President of the United States, and people in the Congressional

Black Caucus, are cursing him out over the fact that they know

what has to be done in Haiti, and it simply requires the

President, lifting his block on it! So, they know that it's

willful murder!

LAROUCHE: Why don't we admit to the fact that President

will never agree to it?

STEINBERG: Exactly.

LAROUCHE: Okay: Therefore, if you want to do something, you

have to eliminate this President. Send him into the nuthouse,

which is where he belongs, right now.

STEINBERG: Yeah. So, back to John's Malaysian monkey trap.

I guess the message to Joe Biden, is "let go of the nut."

[laughter]

HOEFLE: Yeah! "Let go of the nut, and we'll be on the path

to recovery!"

LAROUCHE: I think that's a good motto for this week, don't

you think? Let go of the nut! Crack the nut! Stop the shell

game.

HOEFLE: Well, that seems like a good place to break.

LAROUCHE: Get out of the monkey trap.

HOEFLE: Yeah, that's your thought for the day. This has

been the LaRouche PAC Weekly Report. Thank you for watching, and

we'll see you next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

this election cycle the TEA Pah-tay is stealing most of the old fools thunder -- he's got to go way out there to get any attention at all...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

LaRouche made this assessment based on a dumb joke? Read closer "Stinker", that was hardly what LaRouche said. As far as predictions I recall our debate over derivatives, where you took the same uninformed position and sure enough the whole shebang came apart right on schedule.

And look the "Stinker" and Healy both have the same capacity to "block" out the truth. The "debunker" and the "truther" are not so different after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

Obama may or may not be having a nervous breakdown. Or he may have one after the November election. In any event

Michael Gerson in my opinion analyzed Obama accurately in his recent column:

-----

Obama the snob

By Michael Gerson

Op-Ed Columnist

Washington Post

Tuesday, October 19, 2010; A15

After a series of ineffective public messages -- leaving the political landscape dotted with dry rhetorical wells -- President Obama has hit upon a closing argument.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now," he recently told a group of Democratic donors in Massachusetts, "and facts and science and argument [do] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country is scared."

Let's unpack these remarks.

Obama clearly believes that his brand of politics represents "facts and science and argument." His opponents, in disturbing contrast, are using the more fearful, primitive portion of their brains. Obama views himself as the neocortical leader -- the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains -- the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.

Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president.

The neocortical presidency destroys the possibility of political dialogue. What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away.

It is ironic that the great defender of "science" should be in the thrall of pseudoscience. Human beings under stress are not hard-wired for stupidity, which would be a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. The calculation of risk and a preference for proven practices are the conservative contributions to the survival of the species. Whatever neuroscience may explain about political behavior, it does not mean that the fears of massive debt and intrusive government are irrational.

There have been several recent attempts to explain Obama's worldview as the result of his post-colonial father or his early socialist mentors -- Gnostic attempts to produce the hidden key that unlocks the man. The reality is simpler. In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are "hard-wired not to always think clearly." Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob.

Not that there is anything wrong with this. Some of my best friends are intellectual snobs. But they don't make very good politicians. Somehow, an aristocrat such as Franklin Roosevelt was able to convince millions of average Americans that he was firmly on their side. But the old social aristocracy could have been taught a thing or two about snobbery by the intellectual upper class -- conditioned to believe their superiority is founded not on wealth or lineage but on "facts and science and argument."

What must Democrats trying to compete in Pennsylvania or Ohio think when they hear Obama make arguments such as these? Do they realize the tremendous mistake they have made, tying their political fortunes to a leader who makes Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry look like prairie populists in comparison?

This is not just a political problem; it is a governing challenge. There is fear out there in America -- not because of the lizard brain but because of objective economic conditions. And a reactionary populism can be disturbing when it targets minorities, immigrants and intellectuals. But intellectual disdain among elites feeds this destructive populism rather than directing or defusing it. Obama is helping to cause what he criticizes.

It is among the nobler callings of a leader to understand public fears and then place them in the context of national commitments. Yes, the American dream is fragile, but it won't be recovered by abandoning American ideals. Yes, the borders must be controlled and terrorism is a mortal threat -- but we can't give in to stereotyping and hatred.

One response to social stress doesn't help at all: telling people their fears result from primitive irrationality. Obama may think that many of his fellow citizens can't reason. But they can still vote.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he appeared pretty rational on the john stewart interview. he is just a man, it would be hard to keep your head in that job. he is not a political genius, if you listen to right wing radio, you know how nuts it is getting and for him to say a large group of people are irrational because they are scared, seems technically correct to me. the last president to leave the job with their head held high? eisenhower or truman?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

The last thing the vast majority of U.S. voters needed was the election of another right wing, authoritarian, advocate for imperial presidency; the status quo, especially because he had dressed himself up in sheeps clothing. He campaigned as if he intended to make abusive, concentrated wealth and power accountable, or at least confronted, and other than making some empty overtures, and possibly a benefit from the still unknown potential of his appointee, Justice Sotomayor to know right from wrong in her SCOTUS decisions, Obama has conducted his presidency as the best that money can buy.

Larouche is reacting to Obama's words and deeds as someone oriented far to the left of him would be expected to. I feel Larouche's disappointment, but not his concern. I had no expectations of Obama leading change. He certainly is not going to disappoint the elite who placed him in his position. They can expect to get what they've paid for. Obama is on the stage to eliminate the risk that anyone will notice and take exception to the people behind the curtain. If Larouche is correct about the impending incapacitation of this president, those behind the curtain will simply shout, "next" and an obliging understudy will scurry onto the stage to take Obama's place.

Someone close to me met Obama in this autumn season, shook his hand, looked him in the eye, and briefly conversed. This person also had the same experience with former president Bush, three years ago. Bush seemed alive and engaged, with a forceful grip, and Obama did not. The impression passed to me was that Joe Biden was suprisingly personable and talkative during the same recent event.

Anecdotal observation of these political leaders, especially from a distance, is probably no more indicative of anything than the face to face encounters described by someone close to me. Look at the photos of FDR's face during his last meeting with Stalin. You look at the photos and you have to wonder how he was able to withstand the rigors of the travel.

They speak english in Belize and the government there seems less dominated by an outlaw oligarchy than the one Obama is fronting for. The climate and cost of living there also seem favorable. Life is short. I don't want to end up resembling Larouche, elderly and agitated.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LYNDON LADOUCHE:

What this indicates, that the President is very close to a

total breakdown, a total mental breakdown, and he's so close,

that we have to say, between now, Wednesday, and next Tuesday,

when the election, or will be completed, actually, on the

following day, on Wednesday, that during this period, we're at a

time, where the rate of degeneration of this President's mental

condition, is so rapid, and accelerating at such a rate, that we

don't know he's going to make it, to the Tuesday election. Which

means that, the Vice President, has now got to do some very

serious rethinking, of his resistance to the 25th Amendment,

section 4, option.

This guy is, obviously, on the verge of a total nervous

breakdown...

Obama makes a dumb joke and from this the octogenarian crank concludes Obama is "obviously, on the verge of a total nervous breakdown"!? Sounds like a case of projection. I imagine this is one of the 'predictions' his followers will conveniently forget when they go on about his abilities to predict the future.

LaRouche made this assessment based on a dumb joke? Read closer "Stinker", that was hardly what LaRouche said.

Either he was referring to the joke or Obama only staying at the dinner for about 20 minutes. Even if he meant the latter he has no idea why Obama left when he did or even he intended to stay the whole time to begin with so his comments were without basis.

As far as predictions I recall our debate over derivatives, where you took the same uninformed position and sure enough the whole shebang came apart right on schedule.

Yes I was wrong about that but your guru has been predicting imminent economic collapse since the late 80's.

And look the "Stinker" and Healy both have the same capacity to "block" out the truth. The "debunker" and the "truther" are not so different after all.

I've seen you and Lamson agree on things as well, it doesn't prove anything. Also AFAIK Healy isn't a "truther".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...