Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarien perjantaisarja loka- ja marraskuussa 2012: Osa 4

Viime viikonvaihteen ja tämän alkuviikon poikkeuksellisten hässäköiden (Suomen kuntavaalit ja Yhdysvaltain Sandy -hirmumyrsky) jälkeen otan tässä viimein tuttuun tapaan esille viime perjantaisen Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarin ko. liikkeen seminaarien perjantaisarjassa.

Tässä osassa 4 esille tulevat asiat käsittelevät edelleen tietenkin pian järjestettäviä Yhdysvaltain presidentinvaaleja (6.11.2012), Barack Obaman huonoutta ja vaarallisuutta, puoluepolitiikan mahdottomuutta, ekonomista järjestelmäromahdusta ja Glass-Steagall -reformin tarvetta, Kolmannen maailmansodan (yleisen ydinsodan) vaaraa, viherfasismia transatlanttisen eliitin alistamis- ja totalitarismikeinona, ihmisen roolia kehittyvän Universumin luovana ja kehittävänä olentona eläinten yläpuolella, Yhdysvaltain alkuperäistä roolia rahatalousimperiumin vastaisena valtiomuotona sekä Lähi-idän kriisiä - Libyan tapahtumia (9/11 - osa 2) ja siinä 9/11 -verkoston ja laajemmin Brittiläisen imperiumin (rahatalouseliitin) tihutöitä.

Erikoisin Lyndon LaRouchen esille tuoma asia liittyy Zbigniew Brzezinskin rooliin maailman geopolitiikassa ja sen historiassa --> Lyndonin havainnon mukaan Zbigniew olisi nyt vanhoilla päivillään pehmenemässä ja ottamassa toisenlaista roolia aikaisempaan verrattuna!... Lisäksi Lyndon ilmoittaa olleensa tekemisissä Zbigniew Brzezinskin kanssa 1970 -luvulla!...

Huomautan vielä, että tämä webcast pidettiin tosiaan ennen Sandy -hirmumyrskyn rantautumista USA:n itärannikolle; tällä meneillään olevalla viikolla myrsky on mitä todennäköisimmin sekoittanut USA:n poliittistakin peliä uudella tavalla, joka varmasti voi ilmetä jollain lailla myös Lyndonin ensi perjantain webcast -seminaarissa esille tulevissa asioissa...

Sitä ennen tässä seuraavaksi tämän kertainen anti ja tässä ovat edelliset perjantaiseminaarien sarjan osat: (Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarien perjantaisarja loka- ja marraskuussa 2012: Osat 1 ja 2 ja Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaarien perjantaisarja loka- ja marraskuussa 2012: Osa 3).


Lyndon LaRouchen webcast -seminaari perjantaina 26.10.2012: Eliminate the Party System

Text Transcript

Keynote (Lyndon LaRouchen alustus): "What we have to think about to to take a little self-reflection on ourselves and the role we're playing here, as apart from what we're saying about the audience and the figures out there. There are certain advantages and limitations in speaking from a platform such as this, in trying to get ideas across to a population. In my knowledge, the populations—and I'm an old geezer at this thing—there are people in society who — I'll only talk about nice people, generally — there are nice people in society who are much more talented through development of their ideas, the way they think, and so forth, than others. In a process such as this, you will find, than in the general audience of the population, you'll find some people who rather quickly will get on at least the scent of the trail that's involved, and some people may take years to catch up with them.

And that's the nature of society. So that when we're speaking, as we speak, in this kind of framework, in this kind of projection, in this kind of audience, what we're addressing, largely, but not exclusively, we're addressing people who are much quicker and better informed than the average person. And that is not something that we should feel is bad. It's necessary. Because, in society, naturally, there's a very tiny part of the total population, even in the United States, for example, or in leading European nations, only a tiny part really gets it, as the word goes.

And, therefore, we try to address ourselves, as I do, knowing that the importance of what we do, and the effect of what we do, depends upon the people through whom what we say radiates. And, therefore, our primary concern is not to talk down to the audience, but, rather, to bring the audience up to the level we're trying to represent. We're going to see that tonight. We'll see that in the event in the beginning of next week. The same thing.

For example, let's take a problem: How many people in the United States, as an adult audience, really understand what the devil is going on? How many of them have any idea in the world? Because, if they were all intelligent people, none of them would vote for Obama, for example. And they would give also his rival a very hard run for his money. Because they wouldn't put up with the nonsense which is typical of the addresses of the candidates to their audiences...". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, miten Lyndon LaRouche jatkoi alustustaan -->

Question 1: The Unique Role of the United States (Yhdysvaltojen ainutlaatuinen rooli): "I'd like to ask you a question, in the context of the last Presidential debate, the debate on foreign policy, and raise your attention and our audience's attention to a recent report, a report that just came out today from Fox News on exactly what was known and what was occurring over the course of approximately 6.5 hours when the U.S. Embassy was attacked in Benghazi. Essentially what had happened was that a CIA team had been told three times by their superiors, by their higher-ups, to stand down and not to rush to the aid of the members inside our embassy. Told three times when they requested permission, when they, and then against orders, the members of this team went to the consulate to evacuate our ambassadors, looking for of course, Ambassador Stevens, whom they didn't find until later. They had requested between 9pm and 12 midnight, they had requested help, but there was none. No specter gunships. There was a drone, a survey drone, that was flying overhead throughout the course of this entire incident that was basically live streaming footage to anybody who had the security clearance inside the United States, including the White House Situation Room. No special operations came.

So, that report just came out, and this is within the context of a continuing debate concerning what American influence and power should be in the world today. There was some reference in the Presidential debates to our role as nation builders. Obama referenced our role as nation builders. Perhaps we could take the example of Iraq, which is currently embroiled in a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis; or maybe Libya, where this fiasco has occurred and is continuing to yield very rotten fruit. Or maybe in Syria, where there is a civil war; where Syrian rebels are now armed with Stinger missiles which oddly enough have "Made in America," well, are made in America. And how about our nation building in Afghanistan, maybe based on the role of Great Britain in the 1840s, Great Britain in the 1870s, the U.S.S.R. in the 1970s and 1980s.

So, with that being said, I'd also like to bring to your attention a statement by Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Charlie Rose show just this past Tuesday, which was very, very interesting; especially considering who he is, what his role has been historically, where he warned on this show of the consequences of arming rebel groups in the Middle East. Looking at the consequences of arming these rebels, and saying explicitly not to listen to Britain and France, not to assume that Saudi Arabia is our friend in this situation, and saying we should be working closely with Russia and China, in particular on the Syria question toward a workable solution, not just dictating the policy as we all come to the table.

So, I'd like to ask you, because it is the most relevant foreign policy question, what, given the world situation today and our unique role as the United States, what is the appropriate role that we should have in this context in international relations?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 2: The 9/11 Network (9/11 -verkosto): "Well, on the subject of nation building, I wanted to talk about our nation a little bit. But first, I just want to, for people, it's worth reminding people that although for weeks from the Obama administration that everything was the result of a stupid YouTube video, Lyn you had very quickly identified it as 9/11 part two, which some of our contacts may have thought "Well, four people were killed; this hardly seems the magnitude of 9/11 part one. Why make the comparison?" But as we've found out more and more about the cover-up that's been taking place, about the obvious connection which was clear to you from the beginning, of the networks with Saudi Arabia, the terrorist networks that are being protected in the 28 pages, etc., it's clear this is a coordinated, it is the same kind of grouping. And that when you look at the crisis that we're seeing in these different nations — as Leandra discussed, Syria, Libya, Mali, the attack in Sudan by the Israelis — this isn't, these aren't individual crises, and as you said this is an intention to inflame the situation and that is itself the policy.

Look, I wanted to ask you about something domestic here. You wrote in your new paper which is called "Man's Crucial Future Role in Space," you wrote about some very intriguing things about Mitt Romney. I wanted to read a paragraph from this and ask you a question. You wrote that "A Governor Romney believing himself a 'supreme businessman' in the White House, should make both him and any competent economist shudder—if one could find such an economist these days. Given the choices which confront the United States at this state of the national election-process, a President Romney in 'the White House,' might be tolerable, if the 'businessman' side of his nature were subordinated to the implications of the original U.S. Glass-Steagall law. Without that law, the U.S.A. were now doomed, and that would now come on immediately."

Here's what I wanted to ask you about. President Obama was recently interviewed by Rolling Stone, which you might not think is the biggest economics journal around, but he said something very intriguing in it. He was asked about economics, and Obama said, "There is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic. Lehman Brothers wasn't a commercial bank, it was an investment bank. AIG wasn't an FDIC-insured bank, it was an insurance institution. So the problem in today's financial sector can't be solved simply by reimposing models that were created in the 1930s." He then goes on to say that he'd like to change how people get compensated instead, as though executives making money was the cause of the world financial situation. I'd just like to get your thoughts on uh, if you'd like to say more about Romney and a businessman versus a scientific economist, and about I suppose what Obama said is hardly a surprise, but maybe you'd like to say something about it.". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 3: The 28 Pages (28 sivua): "Now, just in terms of the second half of what Jason brought up in his question, you might want to address that, too.

Let me just say, Obama's opposition to Glass-Steagall is not merely something based on financial reasoning, or something like that. This is an integral part of his role as the defense of the British Empire, as well. And as has been said by, for example, the Russian anti-drug chief, Viktor Ivanov, if you want to shut down the international dope trade, you institute a global Glass-Steagall, you break up the criminal banks.

This was also well documented in the Senate Levin-Coburn report, that one of the major sources of funding of the first 9/11, was being laundered through drug money laundering and other money laundering, through Saudi banks, and that this was what was being channelled through Prince Bandar, into the United States to fund these 9/11 hijackers.

Again: This is a financial empire, in the way that you posed it, going all the way back to the British East India Company of 1763. I just wanted to give you a chance to address that part of Jason's question.

Also, in light of what you brought up in your opening remarks, in terms of the looming hyperinflation, in both Europe and the United States, if you want to.". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 4: The Death of the Party System (Puoluejärjestelmän kuolema): "Well, on the subject of man versus animals, I'd like to ask you a question about the party system, political parties. And I've been struck by your continuing discussion of essentially a nonpartisan, or anti-partisan, government. And you've stated numerous times publicly that you'd been borrowing the best from the Republicans, from the Democrats, from members of the military, retired, and so forth; but, I'm still unclear, and I think that others are unclear about how you would actually constitute this kind of government. Because throughout American history, what you've found is there are champions of great changes in the nation, in line with our founding principles.

And at the same time, there is capitulation to partisanship. There's capitulation, there are compromises, there are also reasonable compromises that have occurred in our nation's history. For example, our first Treasury Secretary, standing behind Thomas Jefferson in his election against the traitor Aaron Burr, even though Thomas Jefferson was fundamentally at odds with Hamilton on the issue of a critical part of our Constitution, the national banking system. And that was a compromise. But it was a compromise which was in the interest of the nation as a whole. And it's an interesting position that any politician has in this country, where, unlike any other profession, they're expected to risk their lives, their credibility, to sacrifice everything for the country! And there are few other professions as potentially noble, as that.

So, in line with that, we have had these champions of the cause for the national good. John Quincy Adams, of course, comes to mind, not only for his continuing fight, despite being shut down, forbidden to speak on the floor of the House, on the issue of slavery!

Continued that fight, to hold the nation together. His fight, even though the friends of Andrew Jackson shut him up on the House floor, when he was speaking in defense of the National Bank, which Jackson was destroying, he continued that fight. And he worked, as he himself was a beacon, for the interests of the nation, across party lines.

And you've seen these kinds of champions. You saw it in George Norris, a Republican, who was taken over to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's side, and became the namesake for Norris Dam on the Tennessee River: The first dam constructed in the Tennessee Valley Authority, was named after this man.

So, not to go on too long on great people in our history, but you do see that these seismic shifts in U.S. policy, have all had these champions, and others fall in line behind them. But concerning your opening remarks, where do we find these champions? And the bigger question is, what is the rallying cry?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->

Question 5: The Human Species in a Developing Universe (Ihmislaji kehittyvässä maailmankaikkeudessa): "Well, on the subject of our species: The human species is certainly unlike any other. If you look at the chart of human population over the history of, at least the recent history, it resembles more the evolution of life as a whole, than of any individual species. Now, that entire distinction between our species and the rest of life is completely ignored by the Greenie outlook, which goes beyond that to impose a false idea even on the purely biological aspects of nature, the idea of stasis: That nature as a whole tends towards a fixed condition, which is belied by the history of life. It's not true about the conditions on our Earth: Even if you just look over tens of thousands of years, you see massive changes, in climate, in all sorts of things on our own planet.

Now, right now, the outlook, it's very clearly used as a tool for the depopulation goal of the imperial outlook you had mentioned. Where, right now, corn prices are going through the roof, yet farmers are unable to get any relief from the Federal government on the renewable fuels mandate! So, corn that could be going to livestock, is instead being turned into gasoline.

So, this whole approach doesn't make any sense economically, and it has got an incredible evil within it. The outlook that it creates in people, in particular the young, of conceiving of themselves as a burden on the Earth. I mean, it's essentially an outlook of suicide, and it's contradicted by even just recently, a press release on a study that came out from NASA Goddard just a week ago, that, using some of our telescopes to look into the past at very ancient galaxies, they found that even on the sale of galaxies as a whole, there's an actual trend towards development: That galaxies have become more and more ordered, like the way we see them today, like our galaxy.

So, if the general guiding theory of our nation is that people are bad, that makes it very hard to get anything done, and to have the kind of culture that you said is required for science and for anything else! Would you like to say anything about that?". Käy kuuntelemassa linkistä / lukemassa tekstiversiosta, mitä Lyndon LaRouche vastasi -->