Vært Matthew Ogden: Aftenens udsendelse er noget speciel. Mange af jer ved, at hr. Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag blev fejret for en uge siden, den 8. sept.; 95 år, en moden alder. Jeg lægger et billede op på skærmen af hr. LaRouche ved sin fødselsdagsfest den følgende dag. Det var en meget glædelig fest. Mange af de hilsner, der kom fra hele verden, var varme lykønskninger og hyldest fra mennesker, der har kendt hr. LaRouche, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche, og som respekterer hans bidrag til at ændre verdenshistoriens gang hen over disse mange og produktive 95 år. Nogle af disse hilsner er blevet samlet i et Festskrift; heriblandt hilsner fra meget fremtrædende politiske ledere fra USA – valgte repræsentanter og tidligere valgte repræsentanter. Richard Black fra Virginia, tidligere kongresmedlem Lacy Clay, tidligere justitsminister Ramsey Clark har sendt de varmeste hilsner. Tidligere senator Mike Gravel, der ligeledes har været præsidentkandidat og er berømt for Pentagon Papirerne. Der var dr. Hal Cooper, en ingeniør, der har arbejdet meget hårdt på visionen om Verdenslandbroen og har deltaget i nogle af de seneste begivenheder i New York City. Mark Sweazey, der er en leder af UAW (United Automobile Workers) fra Ohio, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche for at stoppe nedlukningen af automobilindustrien. Carol Smith, en aktivist fra Kentucky. Ron og Denna Wierczorek, meget kendte aktivister fra South Dakota, borgere i dette land. Så er der kunstnere – Maestro Anthony Morss fra New York City, en fremtrædende dirigent; Alan Leathers, en sanger fra Washington, D.C. Dernæst, politiske, videnskabelige og militære ledere fra hele verden. Latinamerika – fra Argentina, Bolivia, Brasilien, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru. Der kom hilsner andre steder fra; fra hele Asien, inklusive flere hilsner fra Kina og Rusland. Folk fra Australien, Malaysia, Filippinerne, Thailand. Vi havde en rapport herfra for nylig; hr. Pakdee Tanapura, der arrangerede det meget succesfulde møde om Kra-kanalen, der netop fandt sted i mandags. Fra Spanien, og endda fra Yemen fra hr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, der er præsident for BRIKS’ Ungdomskabinet. Vi håber at kunne udsende et interview med ham i løbet af de næste par dages aktivisme, han vil gennemføre i Yemen for at stoppe saudiernes folkemordskrig mod det yemenitiske folk.
Men, som I ser, så er det kun et lille udvalg af de mange varme hilsner, der er kommet fra hele verden og hele USA i denne glædelige anledning af hr. LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag.
I aften vil vi faktisk gå nogle år tilbage i tiden. Vi vil gå fem år tilbage til hr. LaRouches 90-års fødselsdag. Ved denne lejlighed holdt hr. LaRouche en tale, der nu er blevet temmelig berømt, og hvori han kræver afslutningen af partisystemet; men han fremlægger også programmet for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning og en helt ny vision for det, der må sker mht. internationale relationer og dette lands politik.
Der er sket meget siden dengang, for fem år siden. Det synes næsten at være en evighed siden, mht. verdenshistoriens forløb. Hvis man tænker på, hvad der er sket, så blev denne tale, som vi skal ske et klip fra, holdt før kineserne vedtog den Nye Silkevej som deres officielle politik – Bælte & Vej Initiativet; før overfloden af nye udviklingsbanker, der kom fra BRIKS-landene – den Ny Udviklingsbank og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank; før alle disse udviklinger fandt sted i udlandet. Og selvfølgelig, før det skelsættende valg i 2016 her i USA.
Hvis man ser på, hvad der er sket i USA, i betragtning af, at denne tale, som vi skal se et klip fra, blev holdt under præsidentvalgkampen i 2012 mellem Barack Obama og Mitt Romney. Men det er næsten fænomenalt, hvor forudvidende, hr. LaRouche var, mht. det, der ville finde sted i USA; noget, som ingen andre så komme og sikkert ikke troede på, da de hørte hr. LaRouches ord dengang. Begge de såkaldte politiske partier i dette forrige præsidentvalg ophørte med at eksistere i deres tidligere form. Der er intet genkendeligt Demokratisk Parti, eller Republikansk Parti. Der er måske nogle af de samme personer, men ikke de såkaldte establishment-partier, vi havde før 2016, før oprøret i det Demokratiske Parti, der formede sig omkring Bernie Sanders, og dernæst oprøret i det Republikanske Parti omkring Donald Trump; før begge disse ting indtraf, fremlagde hr. LaRouche det, han kaldte afslutningen af establishment-partisystemet, der var i færd med at ødelægge selve USA’s sjæl.
Vi har set dette fortsætte i 2016-valget, meget klart. Der var meget mere, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Se f.eks. på den brede støtte til Glass/Steagall; noget, vi skal høre hr. LaRouche tale om i denne tale fra for fem år siden. Se på den brede støtte til infrastruktur, til produktive jobs; se på den brede opposition til konfrontationen med Rusland, der ville føre til Tredje Verdenskrig. Det er, hvad Hillary Clintons kampagne repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Dette er, hvad det etablerede Republikanske Partis forskellige kampagner repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Der var meget mere på det tidspunkt, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Det var i realiteten LaRouche-programmet.
Går vi frem til nutiden og ser, hvad der er sket i USA i de seneste par uger, ser vi igen, at det amerikanske folk forenes. Se, hvad der skete i Houston omkring Harvey; den form for uselviskhed og næstekærlighed, som folk viste ved at gå ud for at redde og beskytte folk mod denne naturkatastrofe. Dette kendte ikke til skel; der var ingen partilinjer. Der var ikke noget, »Er du et flertal, er du et mindretal? Er du Republikaner, er du Demokrat? Er du konservativ, er du liberal?« Alle var amerikanere. Den samme stemning skete i Florida i kølvandet på orkanen Irma dér. Vi ser nu, at det endda smitter i politik i Washington. I en meget spirende form, men USA’s præsident har nu virkelig fornærmet establishment-personerne i det Republikanske Parti – Mitch McConnell og Paul Ryan og deres lige – ved at række ud til det Demokratiske Parti for at gennemføre et genrejsningsprogram for Houston og begynde at arbejde på noget af den politik, der burde have været politik fra Dag Ét. Dette skulle have været hans første 100 dage i embedet: Infrastruktur; produktive jobs. Dette begynder nu endelig at vise sig i en spirende form; og det er vores ansvar at forsætte med at lede.
Men jeg vil afspille dette uddrag af hr. LaRouches bemærkninger.
(Se hele LaRouche 90-års tale her (dansk): »Evnen til at gøre det gode – Mennesket har en særlig opgave i universet«)
Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:
I think you’ll find it fascinating
reflecting on what has happened in the past five years between
Mr. LaRouche’s 90th birthday and Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday.
In fact, what is the power of ideas to shape history? What do we
have to expect in the days, weeks, months, and years to come?
This is the vision that leadership, that statesman-like
leadership that you’re about to hear from Mr. LaRouche. This is
how history is formed.
[BEGIN VIDEO]
LYNDON LaRouche: … The problem is, {the party system}.
Now, George Washington, President George Washington and
others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent
republic, tried to {prevent} the formation of {a party system}.
And I think, the time has come, to eliminate {the party system}.
[applause] At this time, it’s the only way, formally, through
the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of
these two kinds of Presidents.
What’s wrong? Why should we have {party systems}? We have
a Constitution, which is defined; the Constitution is fine, if
it’s carried through, as intended; it is our system. But why do
we have to have parties intervening in between the process of
selecting Presidential leadership in national government? Why do
we do that? What screwball invented this kind of nonsense?
Because that’s what happened: People become partisan, and say,
“which party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!”
No party has that kind of right! There can not be a party,
that has the right, to oversee and control the destiny of the
nation! You can have a President, there’s nothing wrong with
that. But you can’t have a President as the President of a
party. Or, you can not have a conniving, between two
Presidential teams, or two party teams, which connive by special
agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a
national government! These things are obscenities, which leaders
of our nation, beginning from the George Washington
Administration, recognized as evils! And the idea of going to a
European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt — by
its very nature, not necessarily by the {intention} of the
people, or the intention of the politicians, {they just don’t
know any better!}
And the only way this can be done, is, if we infect the
population, with the realization, {we do not want a party
system!} We have state governments, don’t we? Under our
Constitution. We have local governments, within state
governments, under our Constitution. We have bodies which the
nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government,
the military and the rest of it. {So we don’t need parties!}
They don’t do any damned good!
I mean, it’s like Franklin Roosevelt: If Franklin Roosevelt
had just been the President and didn’t have to deal with these
damned parties, we would haven’t the mess we got into. What we
need, we need to have {not} a contention, over which {party} is
going to win, when the party was {not] inherent in the conception
of nation. What we need is a Federal Republic, with its state
composition and other local compositions playing their role.
{We don’t need this party system} which is a system of
inherently corruption. What we need, is the election, due
process election, of a composition of government. And we don’t
want people diverting the attention of the population, from the
issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! {That’s}
where the problem lies!
When you rely on parties, as such, you set up a kind of
controversy, or competition, for power, between or among party
systems. These party systems then {excite the passions} of the
foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the
{party, first}, and the {nation, second!} When it must be the
{nation, first,} and the not the party.
The voluntary part of the system, that’s fine; the citizen
has a right, to make formations, to make agreements among
themselves, and to cast their votes accordingly, and to discuss
these matters accordingly. But we don’t want the top-down rule
of a party system, which is controlled by the money sent to them,
by financial interests which control the money which gives one
party advantage over the other! You want the bare citizen, as a
citizen, to have an equal right, and independence of this party
system.
This has been said, again and again, in the course of the
history of the United States! That people with insight, realize
the essence of the corruption in the United States, is based in
and derived from the use of the party system. And you see it
right now: You have, the nation is now mortgaged, for the
selection of its government, its national government, is
mortgaged to the {party system!} Everything is stopped, except
which party is going to win! And one is almost as bad as the
other.
And why should we be spending our time, selecting a
government, of two parties, neither of which is fit to be our
government! Why don’t we have a national government selected in
the way that George Washington, for example, President George
Washington, had intended? We would not {have} that mess! And
the citizen would be called upon, not to decide who’s butt he
wants to kiss, but rather what the issues are and programs that
this citizen wishes to express. We want to engage the citizen in
the dialogue! We don’t want to take the competition {between}
groups of citizens. {We want the citizen to force the reality,
that he or she is voting for the government.} And what the
citizens do in voting for a government, will determine the fate
of the nation.
We want to {confront} the citizen, with the responsibility
of {his} being accountable, or her being accountable, for the
responsibility of what government is, and what it becomes. We
have to {force} responsibility upon the individual citizen, as a
citizen, not as a sucker, playing into some kind of game. And
this has been understood for a long time, by the best thinkers of
the United States, that it is the party system, as typified by
the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt
Presidencies in our history. And the corruption that was done,
to the United States, by the election of Andrew Jackson, and the
people who controlled him, which were British bankers; so,
Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers: They
owned him. They ran him. And it was because of the party
system, that this could happen.
And we got the same thing today: You’re shacked up with a
couple of clowns — Dummo and the Crook, and the Insane Crook.
Now, the only thing we can do, or the only thing I can do,
on this thing right now, apart from telling you about this
wonderful information, is to awaken you to realize what we’re
really up against, to recognize what the real problems are. If
you’re thinking about looking at this mess out there, from the
standpoint of Democratic or Republican, you’re not thinking!
Because you’re not thinking in terms of the essential interest.
Because what you’re doing, whatever you do, you are imprisoned to
pledging your support, to a party! Not to the nation. Yes, you
say, “to the nation,” but it’s the party that controls you. And
that is how Andrew Jackson destroyed the United States, was with
the party system! That’s what doomed Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin
Roosevelt would never have had this clown, Truman, stuck on him,
except for the party system business. And that’s where our
problem lies.
And we have to make that clear. Because we know what the
state of mind is? What’s the state of mind of the voter? He’s
playing football, not politics! He’s playing a version of
football, baseball, whatever — gambling! Racketeering,
whatever! And his mind, his passion, is associated with winning
this, for this party, this team, this that, that and so forth —
{not for the nation!} The objective of our system of government
must be to {force the citizen, as a citizen, to think through
what the national interest is!} And we don’t do it. We say,
“Which party are you going to support?” Well, what’s the party
going to do? “Well, I think it’s a good party,” in other words,
they don’t know what the hell they’re doing — and they’re
passion is involved in being sure they won’t do it. And that’s
where we stand. And that’s the thing we’ve got to think about.
And you’ve got to destroy the self-confidence of those
damned fools, who think that the “party vote,” the vote for the
party {should determine the decision of the nation.} That is a
false and fraudulent conception, and it’s about time we called a
halt to it. And right now, would be a very good time. All
right. [applause]
Now, what’re we going to do? Let’s lay out, here, we have
our organization. We have a conception of how to organize this
nation, how to deal with the great crisis, the financial crisis,
the economic crises, which occur in this nation; and which occur,
also, similarly, in other nations, which I think would tend, at
this time, to look with a friendly eye at what I might propose
here, right now.
All right: First of all, the world is bankrupt. The
trans-Atlantic region is {totally, hopelessly bankrupt!} Every
part of Western and Central Europe is totally bankrupt! It’s
{incurably} bankrupt, under its present system. Nothing be done
to save it in its present form. There’s no way you can bail it
out! There’s no way you can take it out of this — except one
way: Glass-Steagall.
Now, of late, you will have observed that Glass-Steagall has
become increasingly popular, in England, in the continent of
Europe, and other notable places! So what does Glass-Steagall
do? Well, essentially it says that the system of government
we’re running under right now, is hopelessly corrupt; so, let’s
shut it down! Let’s shut down all the bail out. We’re not going
to pay it! We jes’ ain’t gonna pay it! [applause]
So what’re we going to do? Well, we’re going to have a
grand old time: We’re going to go to a straight credit system,
which is Glass-Steagall, immediately! Now, that means, that all
those other guys, the gamblers, Wall Street types and so forth,
are going to find themselves sitting — well: They have all
these claims. All these values. They own all this property, in
terms of title. But we say, the point is here, with
Glass-Steagall, that you can run your kind of banking system if
you want to — under penalties of law, of course! But you don’t
have any right to come to the Federal government, to demand that
the Federal government bail them out, if they happen to go
bankrupt.
Now, I can tell you, as you probably have suspected, that
practically every part of the whole system in the United States,
today, {is already hopelessly, incurably bankrupt!} And there’s
only one way we can escape from this bankruptcy: You want to
have some money to live on? There’s one thing you got to do:
Glass-Steagall! And that will open the… it won’t solve the
problem, but it will open the gates, to permit the problem to be
solved.
If you take, and say, all these things that are not and
don’t conform to Glass-Steagall, all these things must be
cancelled. That means these banks can still have their banking
system, as long as they don’t go bankrupt. We’re not going to
shut them down arbitrarily, we’re just letting them out on their
own, and saying, “this is not our business. The Federal
government is not responsible for this.”
All right, now that will reduce the debt of the United
States, {tremendously!} It would have a similar effect in
nations of Europe! The French banks would not be pleased with
- They would probably say some very nasty things about me,
but… things like that.
But the point is, the world now knows, and increasingly in
Europe, and starting in England and other countries in Europe
itself, there’s an understanding that Glass-Steagall is a
necessary alternative. And these guys are having a terrible
time, in fighting off the Glass-Steagall popularity. But that
will do it.
The problem is, because we waited so long, since we
cancelled Glass-Steagall, we waited too long, and they ran up a
hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming. So
therefore, the result is, if we go with Glass-Steagall, we’re
going to have relatively little money, under our Federal system;
because we wasted it by throwing it into the garbage pail, and we
can’t get it back. So therefore, we’re going to have to go to
another measure. Now, I said, national banking. Now, why
national banking? Because, unless you create a banking system,
under the U.S. government, under protection and regulation of the
U.S. government, you can’t do anything much with the economy.
We have very little industry left in the United States, it’s
been systematically destroyed. Especially since the last three
terms of the Presidency. We have been running a garbage pail;
and therefore, we have no means, by ordinary means, to save the
economy. We don’t have jobs. Now, as most of you know, under
NAWAPA, we would create, quickly, {4 million or more jobs} —
real jobs! Really productive jobs. We would create, at least,
immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of
jobs. We would start the process of a general recovery of the
United States — but oh! Wait a minute! Got one more problem.
Where’s the money going to come from, that we’re going to loan,
for NAWAPA, and loan for other high-technology jobs, and certain
other kinds of skilled jobs? The Federal government is going to
have to {create credit}, which will be run through national
banking system, so that under national banking and Federal
government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these
jobs.
Let’s take the practical question of the food supply in the
United States right now: As you probably know, food is about to
be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything
possible to destroy it. Because they’re doing everything to
destroy food, for fuels.
So therefore, what’re we going to do? Well, what we’re
going to do, is by giving the Federal credit, into, say, the
NAWAPA system, we’re going to create a flow of credit, into the
various phases of this process, which will immediately charge
NAWAPA, in particular, and other things that go with NAWAPA. We
have also, we have the lost auto industry, the whole Detroit
system, for example, and we’re going to put that back into work!
So, we’re going to create, instantly, that is, by Federal decree
— instantly create sufficient growth, not only to get rid of
this hopeless debt, which never was really a legitimate debt, at
all, and we’re going to restart the economy, by taking people,
when you have very few people who are actually involved in
productive jobs, they’re not involved in producing things;
they’re mostly employed in various kinds of services, which are
not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value
to the U.S. economy. They’re simply pass-outs, under one guise
or the other.
So in this case, we are launching a recovery of the U.S.
economy, by supply the credit, as we did in the beginning of the
development of our economy, after we won our Revolution, we’re
going back to that system of recovery to get things moving, and
it’s going to start immediately. And the easiest way for us to
do this, is NAWAPA. NAWAPA is a project, which is relevant,
because it’s focused on {water management}. And the problem we
have in the United States today, is a water management problem!
In the Central States, we don’t have rain! We don’t the means to
grow crops. And we don’t have people who are employed, in
actually productive forms of employment! Physically productive
forms of employment.
The difference is, with this kind of reform, of three steps:
NAWAPA as a driver, an incentive driver, which will save the
organization of production in the Central and Western States of
the United States! The going back into the area of the so-called
Detroit area, with several million jobs, immediately, will have a
similar effect. Which means that we then can use a credit
system, managed under Federal control, as we’ve used credit
systems, like Franklin Roosevelt did in the past, and use that
kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall type government
system, and we can start the regrowth of the U.S. economy.
We also have, as a byproduct of this: If we as the United
States {do} this, you will find that the nations of Eurasia, will
join us. You will find that nations of Europe, who are now being
destroyed by their own system, will now go back into functioning,
and we will use international credit, which is an extension of
the national banking concept, instead of speculation, in order to
restart the economy. And that can be done.
So there is a practical solution, a {sane} practical
solution, as opposed to the other kind, for this problem we have
as a nation. How far are we from getting it, is the question?
Well, that depends. It depends how desperate people are,
and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of
attachment to a solution. Our job is to present the solutions.
You know, society is actually led, when it’s led, by a tiny
minority of the human race. We have not, because of our
underdevelopment, we have not built up nation systems, which are
actually rationally, and truly represent {the will of human
beings.} What we approach is the conditional will of human
beings, by providing them with promises, which we hopefully can
keep, and that they will be satisfied by trusting us, by the
means of the measures we offer to them, as suggestions. A very
tiny minority, of the human population in all nations, actually
has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of
how an economy runs or how it should be run. We have to bring
them to us, to our ideas, our conceptions, based on the fact that
they need precisely the solutions that we present. It may not
exactly what they would dream for, but it’s what we could
deliver! And if people understand that that’s what the game is,
they’ll accept it, at least in large part.
It’s what they can believe that we can deliver. And it’s
our saying that we can deliver this, but we {can’t do that, yet}.
And if you promise everything, they’re not going to trust you,
and for good reason. If you give specific promises, that {will
work}, and make sense, and can be explained to the people, it’ll
work! And if they don’t accept it, that’s their fault!
But our responsibility, which is limited — we don’t run the
world; we don’t have powers to supervise the world as a whole. We
can only argue! We can only argue as an intelligentsia, that we
have done some thinking that the other people have not yet caught
onto, or didn’t know about. And we can tell them, what [we} can
do! What {we} understand, what {will} work for them; and say,
“We’re going to have to work harder, and better, in order to
fulfill the kind of promises we wish to deliver.” And say, we
need their cooperation in doing that.
We’ve got to give them a sense, that whatever we’re
promising them, we’re committed to delivering, and that our
promise of delivery has been made credible to them. And that
experience, as in the case of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery in
the United States during the 1930s, the same program, the same
policy that Franklin Roosevelt used in reviving the U.S. economy.
But we have to tell these guys, “Stop being the kind of
idiot, who believes in the party system! That’s number one.
Number two, don’t believe in Obama, get him out of there, and
make sure he’s removed quickly.” And we’re going to have to
figure out what we’re going to do about this Republican.
[laughter] Because that’s a real weak point, there.
However, I believe this: If we can establish a functional
Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the
United States under George Washington’s Presidency, if we have a
President, and we use our system of government, our
constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem.
Not the way people would like, by “wish factory” or something,
but by the fact, we can point the direction, and it’s up to the
people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the
direction.
{But we must do what is not done right now}: The problem
with government now, is that the U.S. government and its
functions, are chiefly one, big, damned lie! They promise things
that do not exist, or will not exist, and make rules which make
no sense, and are willing to get into wars, by which civilization
and mankind in general, could be destroyed. And we have to use
that argument and that bill of particulars, as a method of
convincing them, this has to be done.
And the key thing is this, to come back to the theme I
started with: Space. It’s obvious, there’s a limited timeframe
within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system
of the Sun, the current Sun system. The Sun has a limited —
some people say 2 billion years; some would say, well, long
before 2 billion years, the Sun is going to act up, and life is
going to be {most unpleasant} on this planet!
So, we as mankind, have to address this question. And it’s
obvious that to address this question, we have to give new
attention, to space, the questions of space. We have to find
ways of intervening in the space system, or the solar space
system and so forth, and this is possible. But we must turn to
that direction, to think, “well, we can’t stand around, following
a fixed recipe, like a kitchen cookbook recipe, forever. We have
to anticipate the problems which face mankind in the future, we
have to search for solutions to those problems, and we’ve got to
convince people.
And the big thing you have to do, is this: Most people in
the United States today, behave stupidly, and this, of course, is
helped by the educational system, it’s helped by the terrible
conditions of life of children, as well as adolescents, and there
are many things that have to be done. And our job is, as a
minority in society, and with other minorities in society which
{wish} to find and initiate true solutions for these problems,
we have to get out, and convince people, and educate them.
And in particular, get them immediately to understand, that
these two Presidencies that they’ve stuck out there for voting,
ain’t shucks! And we’ve got to do something about that, and the
best way, is to go out and say that these guys aren’t fit to run
anything, and give some indications of what we’re thinking.
It can work. It can work because the situation of all
humanity, on this planet right now, is almost a hopeless one. The
war danger, the thermonuclear war which is hanging over us right
now, is threat number one. The shortage of food in the United
States, for people, citizens of the United States, is another.
The conditions of health care, are another. All of these
conditions are intolerable! {And nobody’s doing a damned thing
about it, from the standpoint of government on down!} I don’t
hear of any big riots coming out of the Congress, against the
lack of such needed reforms! They’re going by… the party
system. And I think we have to just treat the party system, as
the kind of fraud that it has always been!
We should have a system of representative government, in
which the citizens can use those other citizens who are the most
qualified, and the most committed, to provide leadership, to
provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the
rest. If you can’t be something, inspire it in somebody else.
Thank you. [ovation] [END VIDEO]
OGDEN: So as you can see, this is a speech which remains
very timely in terms of its urgent political importance, and we
would encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety; we’ll
make that available for you.
But if you just thinking about what you’ve just heard, the
economic program, the prescience of what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks
there were, five years ago, our country still finds itself in a
state of dire economic emergency, perhaps even having gotten
worse in the last five years; and that program is still urgent
in terms of its implementation.
But what {has} changed is, indeed, the party structure as we
thought we knew it at that time, has ceased to exist, in terms of
the two establishment parties — what was the Democratic Party
and what was the Republican Party. And this is a change,
perhaps, in par with what we saw in the middle of the 19th
century when the two established parties at that time nearly
ceased to exist: This was a turmoil out of which, perhaps the
greatest President of our entire history, Abraham Lincoln,
emerged.
But our responsibility, and what we have to recognize, is
that the importance of Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the
importance of the leadership of that small minority which he was
discussing, is perhaps more important now, because of this very
reality, than ever before. As you just heard Mr. LaRouche
describe, in a very eloquent way, our job is to present the
solution, because society is actually led, by a very tiny
minority of intellectual leaders, and society as a whole invests
their trust in those whom they are confident have their best
interests in mind, and have the unique understanding of what must
be done; a very tiny minority has any qualified understanding of
how an economy actually must be run, and can deliver on that
understanding, which is the crucial ingredient. That’s where
leadership comes from, that’s what makes leadership qualified,
and that’s what serves as the actual qualified leadership in a
republic such as ours.
Now, speaking of a republic, as my colleague Benjamin
Deniston noted in his {Festschrift} contribution to Mr.
LaRouche’s 95th birthday: “When age is measured, not merely in
years, but in wisdom and in creativity, and especially in
contributions to the progress of society, we can truly say,
taking due note of Plato’s famous {Timaeus} dialogue, we are
truly blessed with Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday, to have an old
man among us, a {very} old man among us.”
So we wish Mr. LaRouche a very happy 95th birthday, and we
wish him many more.
Thank you very much for tuning in to this special broadcast
tonight, and we encourage you to watch that address in its
entirety. Thank you and good night.
