edit SideBar


 [B0-49-7/BFG001]:BFG:L:             1 of 36    Pages
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |
 |                       MORNING BRIEFING                        |
 |                                                               |
 |                   Sunday, December 5, 2010                    |
 |                                                               |
 |                                                               |

 Lyndon LaRouche Leadership Meeting, Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010


 LYN:  Gentlemen who have changed their sex are referred to as
 "missing."  [laughter]  Just in case any of you were sleeping.  I
 had to check.
         DENNIS S:  If they're promiscuous, they're "missing in
         LYN:  "Promisscuous," yes.  Well, anyway.
         Well, I can ri-i-se, sloo-owly, to the occasion.  I presume
 you have read the briefing from this morning.  You know the
 contents.  You've taken temperature and pulse readings of various
 people who have read the briefing, the lead and the two sections.
 You sense a slight change, the environment?  It was a long time
 coming.  It was absolutely indispensable.
         Now, the thing to emphasize, and emphasize very clearly,
 that this whole case, is a case of British intelligence
 operations against us.  And so, don't be engaged in Molly
 coddling.  This is strictly British intelligence, and it's a
 fight we've had since the launching, in particular, of the
 attacks on British drug trafficking, with the {Dope, Inc.}
 operation back in the 1970s.  And that's where the rage comes
 from.  There is no U.S. case.  There's only a British case.
         Now, the heat of the British case, is a reaction to two
 things I did, during the period in which the debate was on, as to
 whether the United States and Britain would go to war against
 Iraq.  In this connection, I was invited to speak in the BBC on
 two occasions, closely paced, in which I exposed the fraud.  And
 the British were very happy at that point to have me expose the
 fraud of the Tony Blair operation, because they were a different
 faction at that time.  These people, they would subsequently
 disappear, in one way, politically, and otherwise.  And then, you
 had someone else in Britain, at a high level, who also said that
 Tony Blair was full of shit, high-level intelligence operative --
 and they killed him: Dr. David Kelly, murdered by the Brits, as
 an example to others who might want to do the same thing that I
 had done and that he had done.
         So, in that context, we had the case of this suicide case in
 Germany.  The kid was -- it can be said, there's no secret about
 it, the kid, because he had told us, that he was taking pills to
 prevent himself from committing suicide, and he was concerned on
 the period immediately prior to his actual suicide, was saying he
 had to get his medication, otherwise he would commit suicide;
 and it was in that particular state of condition that he did
 commit suicide, on a highway near Wiesbaden, throwing himself
 against, successively, three cars, each separately, before he was
 dead.  And the three witnesses, the three drivers and their
 passengers, when contacted by the police, each confirmed, because
 they had stopped because of the involvement of this thing.  And
 so the police  had questioned them, and they had each given
 detailed reports on what had happened on that highway at that
         Erica Duggan came in with her husband, I don't know which
 husband it was -- she had one before and one after, but the
 father of the kid -- and they met with the German police, were
 given a full report of the details, and went back to London,
 saddened, but not otherwise persuaded.  And they got back to
 London, in the context of the assassination of David Kelly, then
 everything changed.  Elements of the British intelligence
 services, British administration, set up an operation, and used
 Erica Duggan as their patsy to start a harassment against us.
 The effort was made by British intelligence to persuade German
 authorities to change their story, through a call with British
 intelligence.  And the German refused.  They said, "these are the
 facts.  What you're proposing is a lie, we're not going along
 with it."
         This led to a number of legal proceedings in Germany, of
 which two were taken by the highest relevant court in Germany,
 saying that the British case was a fraud, in German language, in
 German logic.
         The British have continued with that.  The operation is
 actually run, officially, in the reactivation -- they had this
 case, and they shut it down for a while.  Then it was reopened,
 through British intelligence influence on persuaded judges or
 similar officials, to change their mind, and reopen the case.
 The case is reopened now, still.
         This case was the basis for the Molly-coddle case, entirely.
         Now, then you have an extensive organization of a network
 inside the United States, which {was} tied to British
 intelligence through their European ties.  Now, this goes way
 back, relative to you, before you were born, many of you here
 were born -- I think there's one person in the room who was born
 in a time somewhat relevant to this, but it was only as a child,
 and didn't know what was going on.  [laughs]  You later found out
 a few things that are going on, and did not remain dumb like that
 for the rest of his life in these matters!
         So anyway, what there is, this is a long-standing war.
 Because, in terms, not by actual history, because I had no such
 connections in World War II, nor any such direct connections
 until late in the 1970s.  But there's been a factional war,
 between two factions inside the United States, one of British
 whores, with American passports; and the others are patriots,
 most of whom have died out.  And most of them were either my
 generation, my age group, but my generation but older than I am,
 who have since died.  I'm one of the last remaining figures, who,
 because of the way we connected, after the war, back in the
 1970s, I became in a sense, an associate of this tradition of
 veterans which are largely centered in the intelligence
 community, of veterans from World War II, who were on the
 Roosevelt side as opposed to the Churchill side.  And that
 division, the Wall Street crowd, which were a bunch of fascists
 then, and are a bunch of fascists today, with the  other side,
 sometimes called the "white shoe" crowd, because they liked to
 have white shoes, you know, they'd have these white leather
 shoes, which were used on fashionable golf courses in Connecticut
 and that sort of thing, [laughter]  so these were called the
 "white shoe crowd." And they were Wall Street connected, and all
 pretty much whores, or worse.
         So, they are still tied -- they're the anglophile section,
 that's the Wall Street section.  It's the tradition of treason in
 the United States itself.  But they represent what is Wall Street
 and similar kinds of things: These were the people who backed
 Hitler, until Churchill said, "Please, no.  We have to defend
 ourselves against Hitler," so they had adopt Hitler.  Remember,
 it was George Bush's father, who actually put the money through,
 to save Hitler financially from bankruptcy, in time to make
 Chancellor of Germany.  They were all pro-Nazis:  Brown Brothers
 Harriman was the channel through which they operated, Bush
 operated, in putting the money in, on British behalf, to bail out
 Hitler, in time for Hitler to be made the Chancellor of Germany.
         But then, when the Wehrmacht overran the fascist country,
 called France -- and our enemies in France today are fascists!
 That's their pedigree, including Socialist Party fascists; they
 come in  various flavors, you know, Socialist Party, otherwise,
 lemon-lime, so forth, crap, whatnot.
         So, because of what I was doing, that what I was doing was
 actually giving leadership on certain issues, on policy issues,
 as a Presidential candidate, and these issues attracted the
 attention of the "old boys," who were looking for a way of
 getting back into their role in the intelligence community, and
 so they latched onto me, and said they agreed with me, on what I
 was doing.  Now, what I was doing, had nothing to do with their
 design, they just adopted what I was doing: Which became the SDI.
 And it was because of that, that President Reagan adopted the
 SDI, and actually caused it to be named the Strategic Defense
 Initiative.  And so, we had this lineup, again, on the British
 side, the British ass-kissers of American pedigree, lined up
 against the SDI.
         And the whole history of this period, the character of the
 period is defined by the point that Roosevelt had died.  My
 actual conscious participation in this issue, came when I was in
 Kanchrapara, and a bunch of GIs -- at the camp in India on the
 way into Burma -- and a bunch of soldiers came up and said, "We
 want to talk to you tonight, can we talk to you?" That's fine.
 So they came up, and talked to me, and I knew what they wanted to
 talk about, obviously:  The announcement of the President's death
 had occurred before.  And they said, "Simply, we wanted to ask
 you, what does this mean?"  And I told them, I said, "We were led
 by one of the greatest men in politics.  He's now died, and we
 have a very little man, who's now President, and I'm afraid for
 us; I'm afraid for our country."
         And then I became involved at a later point, in the rather
 hot situation in Bengal, around the struggle against the British,
 against their policies for that period -- which I got into a good
 deal of trouble with the British intelligence services.
 Fortunately, I had friends among the GIs, among the military
 police, and so, I was tipped off to what the British were out to
 do to me.  But this led into the famous Calcutta riots, and
 defined my political future, in my experience there.
         So, I've always been the same thing, and it's the same
 issue.  Though I was not in tight with these intelligence
 services at the time, but during the war, I sided with those
 among veterans and among officers, who agreed with this policy,
 that I, too, shared:  It was a pro-Roosevelt hatred of what the
 British represented, in terms of its influence inside our
 country, and in the world.  And so, it was only in the 1970s,
 about '77, that we finally got this connection, where the "old
 boys,"  me old boy, and some of the old leaders of the OSS, got
 together, as veterans of World War II, and said, "We've got to do
 something about this situation.  What you're doing is
 interesting."  [laughs]  So we've done everything that way since
 on that latch, and you'll find that still things happen, inside
 U.S. politics, among creaking old people, gentlemen such as me,
 that are related to this.
         And we're all that there is, in terms of senior leadership,
 inside the institutions of our government, which has any serious
 commitment to fighting these bastards!  Others come in on it, on
 a much lesser awareness, much lesser commitment; but those of us,
 who are still bearing, to struggle along, with crutches or
 without crutches, or with roller-case or whatever they use these
 days, and that's the case.
         And thus, there is a life/death issue, of conflict, between
 me, and British intelligence, and British ass-kissers, which were
 probably worse than British intelligence.  And this whole case,
 the whole case, the Molly case, is nothing other than an entirely
 a creation of British intelligence, and was allowed to go through
 in the United States, because of the number of British
 ass-kissers in the judicial and legal system.  That's why.
         Now, the point was, is that, as long as the case was going,
 this Molly-coddle case, was going, in the direction it was going
 in, we were sitting there, like sitting ducks, doing nothing
 relevant -- {nothing relevant!  Nothing!  Nothing!  Nothing!
 Nothing relevant!!} to deal with this attack on us.  Why?
 Because of so-called legal appearances, not to upset people in
 the judicial system, too much.  And we had to do something about
 this!  We had to get the truth out about this thing.  The
 evidence had piled up: We had the truth, we don't have all the
 truth -- there are many details we keep discovering; I mean, when
 you turn over a certain kind of thing that's been sitting on the
 ground for a  long time, and you turn it over and all these
 creepy-crawlies are there?  And what happened was, we got to a
 recent point, where we turned over the rug, and all the
 creepy-crawlies were there, white, greasy, ugly looking things,
 maggots, maggot like creatures, and so, I insisted we had to
 expose the truth o fthis matter. There are certain restrictions
 on what you can do about presenting matters which are {sub
 judice}, or actively unresolved {sub judice}.
         But I said, all the stuff that is not in that category, it
 goes out now.  Because the financial crisis that we're getting,
 as a result of this strain, is such that the organization can't
 take it.  So, this is now an overriding question, and the truth
 will be presented, minus those things which formally contradict
 due procedure in legal  proceedings.
         But appearance of regard for the enemy, no longer has any
 bearing: Fear that we might upset somebody, no longer has any
 bearing whatsoever, on our policy.  We're now going for the
 political kill.  And what was produced very carefully, as two
 different statements, which I approved of, because they were
 {right}, have been uttered and been put into circulation, and I'm
 sure are causing consternation in all kinds of interesting
 places, as of yesterday and today.  'Cause once these go out,
 it's all over the place.  And everything against us, is a pile of
 shit!  And that's the trouble of trying to deal with something.
 You know, when you're up with a clean, well-bathed person as an
 enemy, you can get in close and fight with them.  But when you're
 dealing with pure {shit}, it's very unpleasant business!
 [laughter]  And that's what we're up against.  But that has to be
         So, you have a change in environment, because we've done
         Now, the other thing is, there have to be some more changes
 of environment of a different nature:  The organization has to
 pull itself together, as a combat organization.  Which means
 that, no longer is any significant consideration, for the enemy's
 opinions, or sensibilities.  People are either with us, or
 they're  against us, because that's the way the fate of the
 United States and civilization will be decided.  You can no
 longer say, "Yes, but..."  It's yes or no, not "yes, but."  "Yes
 butt' is for what?  It's for goats. And we don't want to have any
 goats among us.
         And now, what we're doing now, is, we're getting a Basement
 project, which is going to have logic of its own:  We're
 dealing... we're actually doing what should have been done by a
 lot of people before this: We're taking a certain kinds of
 evidence, scientific evidence, among things like bugs, and one of
 our heroes of the day, on the field, is a water bear.  We have
 some of our people are coddling water bears.
         You have a domain there, in the microscope domain, the fluid
 microscopic domain, where all kinds of extremely odd creatures
 are to be found.  But living a life, and a social life, all their
 own -- I wouldn't know if you call it strictly a social life, but
 if you project a little bit, you can imagine that it's a social
 life, huh?  You know, the animal that jumps out of its skin and
 so forth, in order to get free and be something, all these kinds
 of things -- water bears, all kinds of little animals.  I used to
 look at these things, you know, back  -- what?, about 80 years
 ago, practically. [laughter]
         I'd go to a swamp nearby where I used to live, and when I
 first got a hold of a microscope, I was fascinated, by just going
 and getting swamp water and looking at the stuff through a
 microscope, and watching this stuff wiggle in there, and anything
 that wiggled, I thought was interesting.  And then I learned how
 to tip the reflector, so I'd get a color shading, and they get
 more interesting, because the details are more in focus.  And I
 used to spend a lot of time, looking through a microscope at
 swamp water, getting different samples, and just wondering what
 the devil is going on down there, in this microscopic scale of
 things!  One of the things of my interesting parts of life.
         But now we find the same kind of thing, we're dealing with,
 as with other things, and our conception of science in society,
 is now undergoing a very interesting change.  We're now looking
 at the domain of cosmic radiation, and we're also attack the
 fallacy of sense-certainty:  That the human senses do not tell
 you the truth.  As a matter of fact, they lie to you.  But people
 with brains, who read this evidence, are able to recognize that
 what you're seeing, or smelling, is not true.  But that it is a
 shadow cast by something that is true. And what you see is not
 the truth, what you see is the shadow, which is cast by something
 that is true.  Now, your job, is to determine, what that shadow,
 really means.  What is the reality, the unseen reality which the
 shadow casts?  That's sense-perception.
         Now, those of us who are Riemannians in our method of
 scientific thought, have no problem with this.  Because, just as
 Kepler discovered gravitation, by taking the contrast between two
 qualities of sense-perception, in which gravitation was revealed
 by {neither}, but was revealed only by the contradiction between
 the two, that all discovery of universal physical principles, is
 based on a {contradiction among sense-perceptions} or the
 equivalent shadows, of reality.  And the shadow include things
 that you get in microphysics, all kinds of things.  But it's the
         This is a method which is specifically  Riemannian.  It was
 not originally Riemannian, but we know it today, in terms of
 modern mathematical physics, as Riemannian.  Because it was the
 work on Abelian functions, by Dirichlet and Riemann, and others,
 which defined this method, the Riemannian method, which broke
 away, from forms and shadows, into a concept of reality.  In
 other words, mathematics in itself is merely a shadow-world, at
 its best, when it's not an outright lie.  It's a shadow-world.
 And just as you get with Kepler, in discovery of gravitation,
 it's by understanding how to read, and test, the implications of
 shadows, that you are able to {see clearly}, what your senses do
 not reveal -- exactly as Kepler discovered the principle of
 gravitation, exactly the same way!  We apply that to everything.
         So, the effect of the Abelian function discovery, by Abel,
 as recognized by especially Dirichlet, and by Riemann, was the
 revolutionary change, from what had been previously considered
 the level of Gauss, in modern science.  So now, this already
 existed with Kepler and other kinds of things -- not Kepler, but
 Plato and other things, in ancient science, the same method:
 What you see is not real!  What you smell, unfortunately, is
 really all too real.  But, as was understood by the principle of
 hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, as articulated by Plato, the
 same method is the fundamental scientific method.  Mathematics
 never tells you the truth.  Mathematics is what you can see, as
 shadows, cast by something that is real, something which you can
 not {see}, something which your senses do not directly show you.
 It's shown to you by your ability to understand the contradictory
 nature of the evidence of sense-perceptions, the contrasts
 between, or among, several different, conflicting ideas of
         So therefore, the thought is therefore, focused {not} on
 mathematics.  It's focused on getting through the mathematics to
 get at reality.  The reality is ontologically outside the domain
 of mathematics.  Mathematics is like a footprint.  You wouldn't
 marry a footprint would you?  Maybe a bad marriage would convince
 you to try a footprint instead!  Right?  [laughter]  But that's
 the question of method, the {ontological} question!  And the Abel
 solutions, or partial solutions, inspired Dirichlet and Riemann
 to approach this.  And what Riemann picked on, in the third
 section of his habilitation dissertation, and the concluding
 part, was a summary of this.  In which he said, in the final
 sentence of that third section, "We are now leaving the
 Department of Mathematics, for the Department of Physics. And
 therefore, we are leaving Mathematics {behind us}."  The
 fundamental of competent modern physics, which has it's root, in
 hypothesizing the higher hypothesis, as a method by such as
         So now we've come to point that, since we know this is true,
 we know that everything we see, everything we believe from
 vision, or smell, or so forth, is not true!  It's evidence, it's
 a shadow cast.  Your problem, is how do you decode the shadow
 business, to find a reality, which you can now demonstrate, by
 {positive physical experiment}, the method of physical
 experiment:  How can you demonstrate, that something you can't
 see, and hopefully can not smell, can be shown, to be understood
 as existent, and efficiently so?  So, truth lies in the {unseen},
 the invisible hand that moves the unseen: And that is physical
 science.  Because you can not see physical, not really.  You can
 see the shadow cast by it.
         So therefore, we're coming to a point, where we have a great
 fun thing before us: There's a vast area of knowledge, scientific
 knowledge, which is in chaotic condition.  It's all over the
 place, and it's typified by all  kinds of shadows, by cosmic
 radiation.  In other words, you say:  Well, if what we think we
 see, or what we construct as real, by mathematics, from what we
 can see and smell and so forth, from sense-perception, if that's
 not true, if that's only a shadow, now would you want to marry a
 shadow?  A bad marriage might lead you to that suggestion.  You
 go down there, people getting a marriage license, "I want to
 marry my shadow."  You're not crazy... you're just experienced.
 [laughter]  This often comes up among people considering
 matrimony, they get nervous about that time, wonder what they're
 getting into!
         Anyway, so:  you have all this evidence, cosmic radiation,
 there is no empty space.  Now, people make a big thing about
 Einstein, and other people who talked about this question, of
 physical space-time, and the debates about this thing by various
 kinds of reductionists, which are otherwise called idiots or
 criminals, hmm?  But they don't get the point.  The point is,
 that the universe is not as our senses tell us it is, or
 misinform us! The universe is what is called, "principles."
         Now, you will note, that, actually, in the teaching of
 modern science, in general, no allowance is made for principle --
 none!  You have two systems in European culture, which
 characterize this form of immorality.  One is called
 Aristotelean, in which, certain arbitrary assumptions, {a priori}
 assumptions are imposed, as the basis for showing how lines,
 without substance, shape  the universe!  Lines, without
 substance, shape the universe! That's Aristotle, tottle, tottle
 tottle, tottle... hmm?  So, that's not very good.
         Now, you have another Aristotelean, he really was an
 Aristotelean, despite all his claims to the contrary for public
 edification:  Paolo Sarpi -- Paoooolo... Sarpi.
         Paolo Sarpi is the whore who devised modern European
 culture, especially British and related culture, Anglo-Dutch
 Liberal culture.  So, he said, well, mankind -- now, in  a sense,
 he's really an Aristotelean, but he comes into a period, where
 the Aristotelean system had become an obstacle, to winning a war
 against civilization!  That is, as long as the Catholic party,
 believes in Aristotle, they were incapable of winning a war,
 against modern civilization.  Because they believed in Aristotle.
 Therefore, they denied innovation!
         Now, what happened was, as is explained by a great man, who
 is much defamed for that reason, in devising the art of modern
 warfare,  Machiavelli:  Machiavelli was a follower, in fact,
 directly, of Leonardo da Vinci.  Da Vinci had to flee from Italy,
 into France, northern France, and Machiavelli was then a leading,
 but subordinate official, of the Republic of Florence.  Now, the
 Vatican came down, to try to crush the existence of the Republic
 of Florence, and ultimately succeeded, and therefore,
 Machiavelli, who was an official of the Republic of Florence was
 among those persecuted, for his resistance to the Papacy at that
 time; the Papacy was highly corrupt.
         So now, when he was put under condition of virtually parole,
 conditions of parole, and from this position, where his life was
 in jeopardy at all times, he set forth studies, which became, in
 modern military science the basis for the foundations of all
 competent, modern military science.  Machiavelli.  And he has,
 there are vast volume, a very large volume of his writings, which
 one can, if able, if you have the time and so forth, read and
 it's all there: The conception of modern strategy comes from
 Machiavelli.  Therefore, Machiavelli is among the most hated men,
 in the whole hierarchy of European corruption.  He was equated
 with Satan.
         Now, you had an actually Satanic gentleman in the person of
 Paolo Sarpi, the second generation Venetian generation, or
 de-generation.  And he said, "Well, I'm an Aristotelean -- but
 that's for our knowledge only.  We can't let the mickeys know
 that."  And that's Russell, for example.  Russell proclaims to be
 an Aristotelean, but he's a follower of Sarpi!  Completely!
 Methodologically, in practice.  But he has an ideology which is
         Now, what happens?  Sarpi says what?  "Well, you can do
 anything.  You're getting these Christians, who are opposing the
 Church; these Christians are objecting to this Aristotelean
 policy, and are using the methods of Machiavelli, the methods of
 the Republic of Florence, and they're defeating us!  We crush
 them once in a while, with our troops, with our Habsburg troops,
 but then, they come back and they defeat us!, as resistance
 fighters, using strategies which are defined for them by Niccolò
 Machiavelli!  So, Machiavelli, therefore, is the most hated man
 of that century!  Because he was successful.  And there can be no
 greater crime, than to be intellectually successful: That is what
 the enemy does not like!  People who are intellectually
 successful, in getting at truth, {are not liked}: They are
 troublesome, they spoil the party!
         So anyway. So, what happened is, Sarpi, after this failure
 of the Catholic party, said, "You guys are old fashioned.  Forget
 morals!  You think you can be moral, you think that Aristotle
 defines morality -- cut that shit out!  Aristotle is what we
 believe!  But we're the losing party as long as we believe in
 Aristotle. We see all these guys of the Renaissance, are
 defeating us!  Hey, let's us get smart, let's play {dirty}, by
 our standards.  We're not going to tell the people about
 morality, any more.  We're going to throw away morality,
 absolutely!  Which is what's called, Protestantism." [laughter]
 And so forth!  It is, actually!  That's the foundation.  But you
 had a quarrel with that, which goes back to Henry VIII, and Henry
 VIII was a psycho, just plain psycho, no good.  He had only the
 tops of old Chinese wives or something to eat.  You know, he
 wanted to get a head in marriage -- and he took a lot of them!
 You got to watch out for that kind of stuff.
         So anyway, you have this change, where they say, "what is
 morality?"  And as the British say, {exactly} as Sarpi said, and
 taught, you go by... sense-perception!  Now, since you go by
 sense-perception alone, which means there's no longer the mind
 any more.  You're just brutal.  And the Dutch wars were typical
 of that: absolute brutality!  No morality whatsoever, as Schiller
 describes this thing, in writing the {Wallenstein Trilogy}; he
 did a paper on the Dutch wars, the Dutch-Spanish wars, and
 describes it, and applied that, to guide him in writing the
 Wallenstein plays.
         So, here you have sense-perception.  Ah!  Now, what happens?
 Belief in sense-perception means that you abandon science, for
 mathematics. That's Sarpianism:  in other words, you are, what
 you sense.  And what you sense, is limited to what?  It's limited
 to {sense-perceptions}.  No longer science!  Because science does
 not accept sense-perceptions as real.  Science accepts
 sense-perceptions only as a form of {shadows, cast by reality!}
 Not as reality.  So, that's why our famous 1950 show, {"Die
 Hauptsache ist der Effekt, tschicke, tschicke, tschicke,
 tschick'"}: The reality is the effect, the important thing is the
         So now, the effect is what?  The shadow!  The shadow is
 reality.  So, now you have shadowy relationships with people.
         So thus, you have, no longer, science.  You have no longer,
 morality!  Because there can be no morality, which does not
 correspond, to the {real persons}, not to the shadows!  Morality
 is a matter of {real people}, not their shadows, or not shadows
 in general.
         So, but what happens then?  You get the British system, and
 you take  Adam Smith, and  Adam Smith is word for word, a copy of
 Sarpi:  there is no reality, there are only shadows!  There's no
 truth, there's only shadows.  All we know is pleasure and pain,
 pleasure or pain -- that's all we know.  That's the British
 system.  That is the system of Sarpi.
         That is {liberalism}!  There is no truth! There's only a
 sense-perception.  Now, you take the whole population, and you
 divide people into different categories:  Well, what there is,
 is, what you feel.  Do you feel pained, do you feel pleased?
 Which?  Ahh!  Well, that's fine, that's a good system, then.
         But what if you have a different sense of what {pleeases}
 you, as to what {paaains} you?  Oh, well, then we have a
 conflict, don't we?  Because people who's perceptions are
 pleasure and pain, often conflict, in shading or in absolute
 terms.  Now we can go kill each other!  And the masses of
 society, such as the British Empire, does precisely that!
         There is no truth, you see?  There's only pleasure and pain:
 He thinks that pleasure.  He thinks {that's} pain.  Now, {he}
 thinks differently:  He thinks that {that} is pleasure, and that
 {that} is {pain}!  And they're about to kill each other over that
 issue: pleasure and pain.
         That's how you organize an empire! That's what the Roman
 Empire did!  That's what all empires did.  That's what the Cult
 of Apollo did, the same thing!  Pleasure and pain.  Aristotle
 actually believed in pleasure and pain, fundamentally, in the
 basis of people who are ignorant, that I can pose arbitrary laws,
 arbitrary terms, with no reason whatsoever, except mathematics.
 And I can make 'em up, {a priori}!  {A priori!}  No basis
 whatsoever!  Just -- I am deciding.  And I can poison you, said
 Aristotle, if you don't agree, because I'm an expert in
 poisoning, which is what his fundamental occupation was.
         So, this created Euclid, out of a piece of shit.  And the
 same thing:  Euclid says, "there is no reality. There are only
 lines." Where's the substance?  "No, no substance!  Lines!"  You
 know, like mapping, mapping territory, defining boundary
 conditions of property lines,  -- just lines!  That's everything.
 No physics.  No physical.  Yeah, physical exists, but the {lines}
 determine!  {The line are everything!}  And you can all derive
 them, in the way that we prescribe, for, Euclid!  Nothing exists.
         And then you have a lot of arbitrary stuff in Euclid, which
 is not the systematic stuff, and that's thrown in as an also-ran.
 And so, that's what you have.
         So now you have this kind of conception, where you have a
 society which has {no moral principle}, in the proper terms.
 Morality is something which some people dictate, contrary to what
 other people dictate. They have different moralities, and {they
 kill over them!}  They can kill over the fact that they speak
 different languages!  That they have different color skins, all
 these kinds of things -- where pleasure/pain is slightly
 different for each group, you set them out to kill each other, to
 bring pleasure/pain as an organization of society, within the
 preference of someone!  And many of the people just completely
 disappear because they kill each other off, and therefore,
 there's no winner, because they're all losers.
         Now, what we call science today, is dominated by a
 priesthood, a cult priesthood, called "peer-review committees."
 These are certain types of magazines, periodicals and other
 things, which make decrees, about what will be considered {truth}
 in science.  It's not based on experimental test, it's based on
 some mumbo-jumbo.  And you will find peer-review committees.  The
 whole environmentalist doctrine, is based on peer-review
 committees.  And you have people who come out with scientific
 degrees, from various universities, and what they believe is a
 goddamned lie!  But why do they believe it?  Because peer-review
 committees have determined this!  Peer-review committees control
 universities, university professors who do not conform to
 peer-review standards, can be discharged for failing to conform
 to peer-review standards!  Therefore:  If you want to keep your
 career, you kiss ass!  And that is your line of vision, to the
 ass you're about to kiss: it's call academic principles.  Get to
 the base, get to the bottom of the issue.  Yes!  Kiss ass!
         So that's what you're dealing with!
         So, now, we come into this condition, where it's taught, the
 influence of Euclid -- which means Aristotle -- still dominates
 science today, official science.  It's called, "The Ass-Kissing
 View of the Universe, from Underneath."  This is called science.
 This is what people get degrees for -- or they get the "third
 degree" if they don't.  Or just bounced out of the university, or
 bounced out of their job, whatever they do, if they don't teach
 this, and don't agree with this, don't cater to this.
         There is no truth: What does that mean?  That means we still
 believe in space and time.  Take what is actually taught!  Look
 at what is actually taught, look at the doctrine.  The doctrine
 is, space and time.  Matter, space, and time.  No matter what all
 the jabber is about mathematical this and that, mumbo-jumbo, that
 is exactly what it is!  Therefore, you have the idea of space --
 there is no space!  Space as such does not exist.  It's an
 arbitrary assumption.
         Now, what we find is out there, is what we're dealing with,
 is, cosmic radiation.  And what you have is, you have
 singularities, which, in terms of cosmic radiation, are the
 connections among various parts of the universe.  You have no
 absolute scale, or metrical scale for measuring the universe!
 All you have is this set of relationships, which are cosmic
 radiation types of relationships!
         So, now we have a vast accumulation, because science goes
 on, the practice of science, despite all this gibberish, and you
 have a vast accumulation of all kinds of evidence,
 laboratory-grade evidence, which indicates this nature of the
 things, the space-time, as such; because space and time are not
 separable concepts.  The very {idea} of space?  How do you define
 absolute space?  Hmm?  There are certain universal funny
 principles in physics which come up, huh? The fine structure
 concept, for example, which is an attempt to deal with this
 problem and an attempt to reconcile the fact that this problem
         But, there's no measure of how big the universe is!  The
 measure of the universe is, relative!  It's relative to certain
 relations, which are primarily, space-time relationships.  So a
 space-time relationship is not an independent metric; it's a
 relative metric.  It's a way of describing the ordering of
         Now, we have, then, this other domain which we're plunging
 into, right now, which I'm concerned with just setting up some
 ground rules for organization on this material, which other
 people will now do, and write the programs which pertain to all
 this detail.  Right now, we're doing two things: We're getting
 together a {great mass of stuff}, that has been stuck up there,
 and here, and so forth, all over the place.  We're accumulating
 it and trying to bring it into some approximate degree of
 {order}.  And one of the basic orders, is frequencies.  Just take
 frequencies,  and order these things according to frequencies,
 and then find out what kind of critters and situations these
 various things and various frequencies happen to coincide with,
 get some sense of order.  Now, let's take some species, the
 behavior of species, the difference between species of living
 organism, find out how they behave.  Find those areas of the
 field, in which are consistent with living processes and those
 which are very unpleasant from the standpoint of living
         Look at the way  the Solar System, and the galaxy is
 organized:  It's organized, as the existence of the Earth, within
 Solar System is organized, to screen out, and protect certain
 parts of the system from other parts of the system, from things
 that would be fatal, to life on Earth!  And we have all kinds of
 protection, a screen of protection, which allows life on Earth to
 function.  We have an organization of the galaxy in which the
 same is true.  And all we have, because there's been a neglect of
 truth -- truth being the nature of things, as opposed to the
 Cartesian or similar kind of thing.  We have all this information
 which has been accumulated, accumulated, accumulated, on various
 kinds of experimental results, like our looking through the
 microscope at our dear friend the water bear.
         And all these kinds of things, you put this together, and
 you look at it from the standpoint, let's understand ourselves,
 that what we're dealing with, is we're dealing with no space and
 time, we're dealing with space-time.  Now, let's look at this
 from the standpoint of {living processes}, as opposed to
 non-living.  Let's look at the relationship between living
 processes and non-living processes.  We've got all this
 information, which is jumbled, it's like something -- you know,
 all the ideas that were thrown in the closet someplace, with no
 ordering in the collection.  So, we go into the closet, we take
 this known information, or start to sort it out, and put it into
 different boxes.  Now, these boxes will not tell us exactly what
 it's all about, but they will get some order in the thing!
         So, we go in through a  second phase, to try to find out
 what the ordering principles are.  And we're looking especially
 at certain phenomena, and we're being prejudiced, we're always
 looking, first of all, for what's good for human beings, and
 what's not so good for human beings, you know, like disease, for
 example.  What do you do with a disease to modify an infectious
 agent which is no longer harmful to people, but is still there?
 For example, that sort of thing.  You start to make categories.
         So, now, you go into a different dimension of thinking about
 mankind: And when you think about going into Mars or things like
 that, or to Mars, you think about going into various parts of the
 galaxy, when you get into very high velocity processes, which can
 allow you to do that, at least by remote control, you now got a
 complete different conception of the universe!  All this bullshit
 is put aside.  You're now beginning to sort out principles which
 control the invisible causes, of {visible facts} -- the invisible
 causes of visible phenomena.  Hmm?
         And that's what we're venturing on.
         Now, where will it take us?  What difference does it make?
 We're taking a journey.
         "Where're you going?" "What difference does it make, we're
 going!  We're discovering!  We're on a voyage of discovery!"  And
 the voyage of discovery is {moral}.  The discovery of the
 universe, in which we live, to understand it, to understand what
 we can do with it, and what we can't do with it, that's morality.
 And the role of human beings, as the only known cognitive being
 in the universe! We don't shake hands with deities, but we do
 know something about people who are less than deities, and we can
 shake hands with them!  And say, "Hey you, Sub-Deity, glad to
 meet you."  Or something like that.
         And that's where we're at!  And at this point, with this
 Basement operation, we're coming exactly into that perspective,
 in which we're going at physical phenomena, we're sorting them
 out, we're trying to understand the relations better.  We're
 looking at what is offered to us as human beings, as, like
 NAWAPA's a good example.  NAWAPA's an example of exactly the
 morality we have to bring to bear, on the human condition.  We're
 taking an {aspect} of history, an aspect of reality, and chewing
 on it, as ours!  We're doing things which are useful for mankind,
 as a result of chewing on these things.  It's good!  It's {fun!}
 It's what I call {fun}.  I believe in {fun}, of this type:
 discovering things you thought were true, are not true, that's
 {fun}!  Discovering thing that you didn't know exist, that you
 discover are true, or bad, or whatever, that {fun}!  Discovering
 poison is fun, because now you know how to avoid it.  [laughter]
         And that's where we are.  And that's where we've got to  get
 the human race to go.  We've got to get rid of this Sarpian
 thing, this pleasure/pain principle, as such, as a moral
 principle.  We've got to realize that humanity has a capacity for
 reason which we discover in no other species, therefore we are
 pro-human.  We are factionally strong on that: We believe in
 humanity.  And therefore, we will do everything to promote
 humanity's ability to perform the roles which are implicit in his
 powers, the creative roles.  And that is good.  Where's it going
 to lead? Who cares?  Getting there, is good! The ability to get
 there, is good.  The ability to enlarge the areas of
 accomplishment available to living processes is good.
         And as I say, and this is my meaning when I say it:  "Let's
 have some fun."  That's what I mean, by fun.  Okay!

                          - DIALOGUE -

         LYN:  John wants some fun, too, you know.  Especially after
 what he's been through, a little fun would be well received.  Not
 overdosed yet.
         HECTOR:  So, is that already been taking place, putting
 these things into order?  Has this already been taking place in
 the Basement?
         LYN:  That's what we're working on.  What I'm doing, is I'm
 doing a pilot run, a  pilot statement on this mission, and at the
 same time, what's happening down there, or, up there, whichever
 way you want to look at it -- depends on what your viewpoint is
 -- is to get this thing going.  Because everything we wish to do,
 in every kind of project -- you know, imagine that you're doing
 scientific work, like a laboratory, you're dealing with diseases
 and various other things in this laboratory.  And some guy comes
 in with a crisis, and says, "can you help me?"  And the
 pharmacist will  run back into his shop and figure out what he's
 got there that is recommended medically, and what he's allowed to
 dispense. So, what you want to build up, is science is like a
 giant shop, the equivalent of a pharmaceutical shop, the infinite
 pharmacy, which contains all these things which are powers you
 can administer to help mankind.
         And somebody comes running in with a project, like a
 disease, and says, "what do I do for this headache?"  And you ask
 him a few questions, and you say, "well,"  call up the physician,
 and say, "I think we got something for you."  And that's what
 we're doing in the Basement.  Exactly what we're doing -- when
 we're on the job.
         Do we know this?  Do we understand it?  All right, let's do
 what we do?  Let's amplify our resources!  Let's amplify the
 range of the {materia medica}, for these various kinds of
 headaches.  But let's concentrate on that, concentrate on the
 mission, which should be the mission of science, is to build up
 the {repertoire of capability} for the needs of mankind.  And
 then take, as each problem comes up, respond to the problem on
 the basis of building up this inventory of capabilities.  And
 therefore, building up this inventory and learning how to build
 it up, is key to everything.  So how do you learn to build it up?
 You do more experiments.  You do a crucial experiment.  Do
 something you never did before, to force yourself to see a
 problem you may have overlooked, or a type of problem.  Now, you
 have a technique; now you are able to think about how you will
 approach these kinds of problems.
         It's the love of the universe!  Love living in this
 universe, with all these wonderful opportunities, to do things!
 Huh? That's morality.  You love the universe, hey, it's great!
 Best experience I ever had. [laughter]  Hector thinks so -- it's
         So, that's the state of affairs we're at today.  And we're
 meeting all kinds of friends in the microscope, all kinds of
 things.  It's fun!  That's why I recommend it to people, it's
 fun.  And that, to me, is the definition of fun.  Solving
 something that disgusts you, because you shouldn't have this
 problem, so let's get rid of it.  It's a better way to live,
 anyway; it's more natural for human beings.

         SKY:  So, we've got a lot of material we've had -- Just so
 people know, we mentioned it before, back when we started
 compiling sort of a data base, back when you first requested it,
 we pulled together all this stuff around the cosmic radiation
 project.  There's a lot of material that we're going over right
 now, and digesting in this context, that Lyn's initiated in
 pushing for the more than five senses.  And likely the next few
 weeks, we'll be having things come out in the form of shorter, if
 not for publishing, at least for internal, circulation, which
 would summarize why what we're looking at, and why it's relevant,
 on our way towards a bigger, more coherent presentation.
         LYN:  Yeah, we should also emphasize Sky, that we find  --
 it's what we're doing already.  We're not merely finding
 increments of knowledge, we're getting {categories} of knowledge!
 And that's what's most important, we're getting into whole
 categories of knowledge, and that's what the real fun is.  That's
 where you're really making headway, you open up whole categories.
 And it's simply -- we're at the point, from a practical
 standpoint, we have things we can sort out in a certain degree.
 It's like you're digging into a rubbish bin to try to find things
 that you can salvage.  And you find, "oh! Well, this is really
 interesting!"  right?  And that's the way it works. [laughter]
 So you're building up your repertoire of capability by just
 working, by working in a certain way, looking for certain kinds
 of opportunities, taking them as they fall in your hands.  "And,
 what's this?  Oh, this is interesting, let's see what this does."
 That's all you do.  And that's science, there's a principle
 involved, which is not based on any {a priori} presumption.
 There's an accumulation of experience which amounts to knowledge.
         And I find the Basement operates as a good temperature, in
 the Basement, as to whether this is going on, or not.  If it's
 going on in the Basement, it's doing well.  If it's not going on,
 then the Basement is falling behind. It's this kind of
 adventurous spirit, which is the essential aspect of science.
 Adventurous spirit, mind you!  I always have liked that, I
 always have done that: I always have been adventurous in this
 way.  If it hadn't been done before, I would like to do it.

         MALE:  Hey, Lyn.  Would you like us to treat this Wurlitzer
 piece in video form?
         LYN:  Sure!  Anything we can do in this direction.  All you
 have to do, is we just... Purcellville is not this far from the
 Basement, right?  We have Basement motives here.  But, we're
 always getting objective material, which are illustrations of a
 principle.  An illustration of a principle is a very good thing,
 because it's the best kind of knowledge.  That means, you're
 putting people through the intellectual experience of discovering
 what they recognize as a principle.  And the most important thing
 in all education, is to focus it on causing students, and others,
 to experience the discovery of a principle.  You think back, most
 of our people have had some experience with education, despite
 what's going on in the world, generally, today.  And you'll find
 that the most interesting stuff is exactly that.  You'll get over
 the tedium of fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, is not fun.
 Some people, like John von Neumann, who's a mental case, liked
 fact, fact, fact, fact, fact, fact.
         But good people don't like fact, fact, fact, fact, fact,
 fact, -- they like fun!  "Hey!  This is interesting!"  That's how
 you should teach!  That's how universities should be run:  "This
 is interesting!"  That's the way to teach!  Because first of
 all, it's memorable; it attracts attention not revulsion
 [laughter], and it actually will lead you into the most
 interesting areas for the development of the intellectual powers
 of the person.  You want to teach? Inspire the students.  You
 want them to see it?  Inspire them!  By their exposure to
 surprise, to discovery of something which is tantamount to a
 principle:  "Hey, this works!  How the hell does {this} work?"
 Huh?  That's the essence of a successful educational program.
         The students are sitting there with their notes, you know,
 these obedient students, they got a pen -- these days, usually --
 a pen; a computer's not too good for this purpose.  Your fingers
 get all messed up and they get confused.  But they sit there, and
 they're coming in, and they think you're going to teach them
 this.  And you say, "Oh God!  I would never do that to them,
 would I?"  So you go in there, they're all prepared, they're
 poised to take notes. And you say, "Omigod, this is awful!  This
 is going to be a nightmare.  What do I do to break this up?"  So,
 you tell 'em a story!  "Well, you know what happened today, I
 don't know if you heard about this before, but what I ran into on
 the way to work today, was... uhm..."  "Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?!
 Where're my notes?!"  And you shake them up!  Don't let them
 demand what they consider an "orderly arrangement."  Shake them
 up!  Hit them with surprise.  Because, all creativity, in human
 thinking, is expressed, in the modality of sudden sense of
 surprise!  If you don't have surprises, you don't have education.
 You have boredom... BO-ORREDOM!  And then, when they graduate
 from university, they use Boredom, they punish people, by
 imposing Boredom upon them!  Anyway.

         LEANDRA:  Lyn,  the question was on the piece that was put
 on the website on the legal case.  Should we go with that in a
         LYN:  Why not?  Just check with our experts here.  They'll
 tell you what is not allowed.  But, no, that's what you want:
 You want the imagination to flow freely, in the sense -- not on
 the question of fact -- but on way of conveying ideas.  You know,
 you got all things, like the -- see, we don't know yet, whether
 it's MI5 or MI6 that's running this operation.  That we don't
 know:  But it's pretty much the same thing, isn't it?  So
 therefore, it's being run by British intelligence:  How do you
 think they got the court to reverse itself, the same officials of
 the court to reverse themselves, and to revive a case that had
 been cancelled, by them?  MI5 or MI6, and the Queen herself.  The
 Fuckin' Queen!  [laughter]  intervened!  And said, the case is
 active again.  And they turned this poor little witch out, loose.
 To run around the world, and annoy our people.  Well, one good
 turn deserves another: We'll annoy them.
         So, but therefore, the point is, you've got to get a sense
 of contempt -- your basic thing is to convey the contemptibility
 of what this is.  And the best way to use, of course, is through
 dramatic ability, illustration.  We have a Machiavelli, all kinds
 of people, who dealt with that thing.  Now, it becomes in the
 department of art, doesn't it?  Classical artistic composition,
 the use of the sense of irony, as a weapon.  To make this
 obvious, of these fuckers -- "They're doing that, again!? The
 same ol' shit!?  I mean, what a bunch of stinkers these are!"
 And what you do, is you use the enemy's own behavior by that
 means, to make the enemy look ridiculous and contemptible in the
 eyes of the enemy.  So you just do that.  you don't have to get
 -- you know, this idea of brute force things -- subtlety is
 excellent.  If you can make people laugh, you can win.

         CHANCE:  You know, we've been having a lot of discussions in
 Purcellville about irony, and it's interesting now, because the
 discussions take the form of not using irony as some tool per se,
 but actually having irony as a standard of production.  That it's
 something that we do in every one of our videos, it's the
         And what's interesting, what I'm starting to find is that,
 it used to be the case, that when people talked about irony, or
 when they tried to do it, it was just some funny thing, like
 "irony" is a joke.  But now, it's actually to saturate itself in
 a bunch of different places in the production.  Which is useful.
         LYN:  The principle of irony, lies in the ambiguity of terms
 and structures.  And, I can tell when people have a mental
 problem , that is, in the way they think, by their inability to
 employ irony where it is appropriate.  Like, you take
 Shakespeare's rather famous Third Act soliloquy, and when someone
 says, "to be or not to be" onstage, I say, "what?  This is an
         Why?  Because he's not saying,
         "To {be}?
         "Or, {not} to be?"
         Because that's what Shakespeare's written.  It's not "to be
 or not to be"; it's
         "To {be}?
         "Or, {not} to be?"
         Because, and then you take the rest of the soliloquy.
 What's he done?  Pairwise: "this, not this; this, not this; this,
 but this; this, but this.... I'm fucked!"  [laughter]  That's
 exactly what -- And all through Shakespeare: "What's Hecuba, to
 him? Or he to Hecuba, that he should {weep} for her?"  Aw! Huh?
 Irony!  That's his case:  he's talking about a drama.  He has no
 sense of irony!  "What's Hecuba?" No irony!  There's irony in the
 case of Hecuba -- where is it?  Well, it's not for him.  His is
 {rage}!  {Pure rage!  Irrational, stupid, bestial rage!}  Ugh!
 And cowardice, also.  "Ah!  The play's the thing, wherein, I'll
 catch the conscience of the king -- hehheheh!"  Complete failure,
 right?  Next act, boom!  I quit!
         Irony is the {essence} of communication, because there's no
 reality which corresponds to a literal statement.  It may be a
 comment {on} the reality, which is -- but it's not an idea!  And
 idea is based on irony.  Especially on  metaphor.  And no editor,
 of the {New York Times}  school, can actually use it. They're not
 competent.  And most university and secondary school education,
 irony does not exist!  Not real, true irony.  That's the whole
 thing in drama, when you talk about this -- what we're worried
 about in the case of presenting {Don Giovanni}:  The problem is,
 if you aren't able, to master the presentation, in terms of
 irony, actual irony, {in depth, all the way through}, if you try
 to do a straight performance, it's an incompetent performance.
 You have to read the score, and read the intention of Mozart --
 yeah, you can enjoy the performance, in the audience, if you're
 an informed audience, you can enjoy it better.  {But!} most
 audiences are not capable, on their own power, of generating the
 comprehension of the drama, if it's properly presented.  Only the
 painstaking and intense study, of the arts of irony, by all the
 players and the director, can bring this thing to a successful
         You're trying to perfect it from a standpoint of schoolbook
 performance -- you'll make a mess of it.  It will not be
 convincing!  You have parts that are easily convincing, like for
 example, the scene of the throwing Don Giovanni into Hell:  That
 is {very} convincing in itself.  But the rest of the thing,
 you've got most of the parts have to be developed, for irony!
 Don't try to do a straight interpretation.  Think of the context!
 Think of the personalities, and how one personality is saying
 something, which means something to them, different than what it
 means to somebody else -- how do you convey that?
         You're dealing with an audience and a body of people that
 don't understand this!  Because they don't understand irony: They
 don't see what's {wrong}, that I recognize as wrong, because it
 doesn't contain the appropriate ironies, or expression of irony.
 Even though the irony is written into the performance, it's not
 performed that way: It's performed according to a "rule," not
 according to the idea of principle.  And if an idea is not
 ironical, you shouldn't utter it.  hmm?
         The same thing in music.  Without irony, any great
 composition is not competently performed.  {Irony}.  Like the
 irony of the {St. John Passion}, the mother, his famous role, by
 Bach:  It's {totally ironical!}  And if you don't get that into
 the performance, it doesn't work; the whole thing falls apart.
 One has to get into the actual intellect, not the formalities.
         See people are constrained -- a typical situation, a
 dramatic situation:  people are constrained, to say things in
 ways which are acceptable to the audience to which they're
 addressing.  {But they don't like it!}  So they will have an
 intonation in their manner of speaking, that set of words, which
 conveys the fact -- by itself -- that what they're saying, is
 {not} sincere.  And it's that insincerity, and take the {Don
 Giovanni} -- it's full of insincerities!  They're totally
 insincere!  And the main thing, is to have this {flow} of
 insincerity, which {is always taking the audience by surprise!}
 That's the texture of the thing, which makes it come alive!
         What makes drama work, is a constant factor of {surprise!}
 Not trying to interpret the thing, to eliminate surprise.  Not to
 try a deductive approach to presenting ideas.  But to say words
 in your mouth, when two people say the same set of words, and
 echo one another; and one says, sincerely, and the other says,
 "yes, I AGREE with you!"
         So the irony, {irony!}  There is no such thing, as a proper
 parsing, of the words of a speech, {no} such thing!  And when
 people try to do it, often they make a mess of it.  They think
 they're being artistic, but there's no {meaning} to what they're
 doing, so how is that artistic?  Hmm? If you're not torturing
 the people, you're not really saying very much, are you?  The
 best way to get their attention is to torture them, isn't it?
 Because they think that you're saying -- one character is saying
 exactly what the other character does not wish to recognize...
 but he has to hear it, {and is he angry?}  But he has to show,
 that he's polite.  So how does he get a leer, into his voice?  He
 repeats the very, same words, that the first speaker used,
 exactly, but then, he repeats it, and it turns into the
 {opposite} of what the first speaker's statement implies!
         And that's what makes great drama work!  Because if you
 don't have a conflict among the speakers, how do you have ideas?
 Where's the dialogue?  What're the actors supposed to do?  Pat
 each other's ass, or something? That's not very entertaining,
 especially after two acts of it!  [laughter]  You see my point,
 you take my point, as the Irish would say.
         Or, the Irish would say, "Yes, I'll take your point... and
 put it where it will do the most good!"
         You should be aware, that sometimes when I say things, I may
 not mean, exactly what you think I mean, because you're being
 careless about your hearing things.  Like when the cannibal says,
 "Come to dinner?"
         Well, we have a very stupid society we live in today,
 they've lost the Classical arts, and this used to be known to
 people who were educated decently, this whole arts of irony.  It
 was well know.  It's died out.  And you know where it's died out?
 Music:  It's died out because the Congress for Cultural Freedom,
 which was imposed as a doctrine in Europe, and it destroyed the
 sense of irony.  It destroyed all Classical artistic composition
 and performance, and the conceptions associated with it.  It
 destroyed music, the performance of music:  Because what had been
 the idea of irony, had been the distinction of Classical
 composition, Classical artistic composition in all dimensions.
 It's based on irony, not on words!  Not on the interpretation of
 words, but the conflicts on the interpretation of words!  Huh?
 And that's what was lost in the postwar generation.  That's why
 the postwar generation is less intelligent than my generation,
 because of that.  Because my generation lived in the domain of
 irony, and it was associated with the Classical artistic
 composition and its expression.  And that was lost in the postwar
         "I don' b'lieve in conspiracy theories!" Well, a guy who
 says that is obviously some kind of a wretch, but that was
 typical.  Everything is reductionist, reductionist.  And so, they
 made the population harmless to the enemy, by making it stupid.
 What people think is acceptable public behavior today, is
 actually an expression of stupidity!  And people become very
 angry, if you use irony!  They think you're looking down on them.
 Well, how can you help but look down, if you're from a much
 higher intellectual position?  And they're down there, groveling
 on the ground, muttering ground sounds.

         MALE:  But it's meant to uplift them.
         LYN:  Hmm?  Yeah.  So anyway, it's fun isn't it.  Life is
 fun, you have to make it so.  It's made so, by this form of play,
 and life is then playful, everything is playful, even when it's
 serious.  And if it's playful, it's more serious than if it's not
 playful.  If there's no irony, it's boring.  If it's boring, it's
 not inspiring.  Obviously -- it should be obvious.  Except to an
         No, you take the Southern racist type, which I've met:  Any
 sense of irony will get them up their back, and they're ready to
 kill.  Hmm?  They have no sense of humor.  They have a sense of
 groveling over torture, killing people, torturing people, ruining
 them, making them suffer -- that's their pleasure!  It's
         Anyway.  So, what do you guys got to say?  She wants to get
 back to her water bears.  One of her water bears is pregnant.
 [laughter]  She has to change its diaper.
         Well, this has caused quite a bit of entertainment,
 amusement down in the Basement, the water bears.  It's one of
 Sky's pets, and Sky made the water bear very popular.  And people
 began looking for water bears, and now recently they've begun to
 adopt them and give them names, as pets!  [laughs]
         Anyway, so, wen ist los.

                       - NEWS SUMMARIES -

                          - LAROUCHE -

         LPAC NAWAPA CONFERENCES were held today in Pasadena,
 California and in Washington State, building the core of experts
 and broader political movement behind LaRouche's policy solution
 to the breakdown crisis. The LPAC website is featuring full
 coverage of the events--make sure you tune in.

 bringing the whole international financial system down with it.
 (see slug)

 A first report on the BueSo national convention, addressed by
 Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Jacques Cheminade, Harley Schlanger and
 others. (see slug)

                          - ECONOMICS -

 the same loan portfolio to various banks, while keeping it as an
 asset on their own books--just like the mortgage mess in the U.S.
 LaRouche commented: "This whole thing is a total fraud. You have
 to consider the {psychological} side of the bubble. They get in
 deep, and then they try to cover up their thievery."

         SANTANDER BANK OF BRAZIL was forced to recapitalize its
 Banif Real Estate Investment Fund, the largest investment fund in
 the country, because it is bankrupt. After a two-year freeze on
 any withdrawals from the fund, obtained by Santander to stop a
 2008 run against the institution, reached its term this week, no
 one could be found who was crazy enough to buy the fund, which
 has 67% of its money in the bankrupt real estate sector. So
 Santander had to cover it.

 involved in their sale of mortgage-backed securities, could open
 up the entire Pandora's Box of fraud in the mortgage business.
 (see slug)

         BERNANKE'S LATEST: If you liked QE2, you're gonna love QE3.
 Bernanke to appear on CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday to defend
 QE2's $600 billion, and announce more to come.

         DID GERMAN CHANCELLOR MERKEL threaten to leave the euro?
 (see slug)

         CHINA CALLS FOR Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

 U.S.! (see slug)

                        - UNITED STATES -

 (see slug)

         LAROUCHE ON THE RANGEL CASE and its sequel: A foreign
 government is running Star Chambers here in the U.S. (see slug)

 is now here: Just look at the Rangel censure vote, and how Obama
 is handling the tax extension brouhaha in Congress. (see slugs)

 turned away after the agency ran out of money. Many had spent all
 night waiting outside in subfreezing temperatures, and told
 reporters afterwards that they couldn't afford to pay both the
 rent, and heating and electricity bills.

                           - RUSSIA -

 CHINA," says Newsweek. (see slug)

                       LEADING DEVELOPMENTS


 Dec. 4 (LPAC)--The whole international financial system is coming
 down, in a chain-reaction fashion, and it is happening {now},
 Lyndon LaRouche stressed today. The emerging picture of the
 imploding Brazilian credit bubble and banking system, LaRouche
 noted, is simply making clear what I've said all along: that the
 BRIC is the weak point in the whole Ponzi scheme set up by the
 Inter-Alpha Group of banks going back to 1971, and things tend to
 break apart at their weakest point.
         The whole world system, centered on the Inter-Alpha Group,
 is now coming down. There is nothing they can do to prevent it,
 except to try to establish fascist dictatorships, but that won't
 work either at this point--we are beyond that. The only thing
 that will actually work, LaRouche stressed, is a global
 Glass-Steagall reorganization, the American System of credit, but
 the guys in charge today won't do it, and prefer to bring the
 whole world down with them.
         I could handle it, LaRouche said, but anything less than my
 program will not work.
         All crashes go like this, LaRouche added. The BRIC
 cover-story was used to sucker in certain Cayman Island-based
 Russians and others to the carry trade Ponzi scheme. That has
 been stretched beyond the limit, in order to create a phony
 appearance of value behind the Inter-Alpha Group banks. So the
 weakest point was used to cover up the vulnerabilities of the
 largest parts of the scheme. Then, when the weakest link breaks,
 it detonates the biggest portions, and everything goes.
         The BRIC and the Brazilian carry trade were always a
 cover-up, LaRouche said; they are a kind of financial
 transvestite hiding very ugly things underneath. And the Brazil
 illusion could only be maintained with a special kind of
 dictatorship, which is not possible elsewhere at this point.
         So the Brazil meltdown is a signal that the whole system is
 coming down. Things are crumbling at the edges, but it's all
 coming down {now}. [dns]


 Report on BüSo National Convention, part 1

 Dec. 4--The Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität (BüSo), the
 political party of the LaRouche movement in Germany, held its
 national convention with 82 party delegates plus another 20
 guests from the LaRouche movement in France, Denmark, Italy,
 Sweden and other European countries, today. Besides the keynote
 address by party chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the convention
 received support telegrams from the leaders of the EAP in Sweden
 (Hussein Askary) and the Movisol in Italy (Liliana Gorini), as
 well as speeches by Jacques Cheminade, chairman of the Solidarité
 et Progrès party in France and French Presidential candidate for
 the 2012 elections, and by Harley Schlanger, representative of
 the LaRouche Democrats in the United States. The convention
 opened with a moving performance by the German-European LaRouche
 Youth Chorus, of the final chorus of Ludwig van Beethoven's Ninth
 Symphony, arranged for instrumental accompaniment by strings,
 flute and piano, conducted by the LYM's Sergei Strid.
         Helga began her keynote by addressing the fact that mankind
 has arrived at a crucial moment of decision, either being doomed,
 to collapse together with the globalized financial empire, or
 being able to build a new just world economic order. She gave a
 review of the crucial phases of the ongoing collapse of the
 global financial-imperial system, from the end of July 2007 on,
 with its nearly total systemic meltdown points in September 2008
 and May 2010. She then recalled the entire collapse cycle which
 began in 1971 with the abolition of the old Bretton Woods system,
 with the creation of the Inter-Alpha Group of banks in the same
 year, and the global propaganda for a paradigm shift towards
 genocidal policies--the 1974 Bucharest conference on population
 control and Henry Kissinger's infamous raw-material-grabbing
 memorandum NSSM 200, and Alan Greenspan's 1984 call for an end to
 Glass-Steagall--being crucial steps in this direction.
         In the present crisis, the Irish people's resistance against
 the scandalous plan for a giant banking bailout is a crucial line
 of defense, and the Irish fighting spirit and love of sovereignty
 and freedom, exemplied by the role of the Sinn Fein movement,
 must be a model also for Germany, for example, but not just for
 the Germans, Helga said, elaborating on the fact that neither the
 EU, nor the euro system, nor the Lisbon Treaty have any
 legitimacy, because they are designs of the oligarchy, against
 the people, whereas legitimacy always has to come from the
 people, through the people, and for the people. But the latter
 has to do with sovereignty, and with cooperation between
 nation-states, each working  for the mutual good of the
 other--which is the opposite of what Eurocrats like the ECB's
 Trichet, who just recently denounced the Westphalian system, like
 Tony Blair in his infamous Chicago speech of 1999, promoting the
 EU dictatorship design which implies the ruin of all, instead.
         The principle of the Westphalian Peace of 1648, Helga
 explained, is based on Nikolaus von Kues' concept of the harmony
 of the macrocosm being made possible only by the cooperation of
 the many microcosms, and this implies an image of man which the
 oligarchs, who want to reduce the world population to 2 billion
 humans, do not have. For Europe in particular, the oligarchical
 forces of the financial empire want the total bailout of the
 Inter-Alpha Group of banks and their network, through a monstrous
 transfer union in which Germany, the leading economic power of
 Europe, is turned into the paymaster, doomed to absolute ruin, of
 all the rest. Therefore, exiting from the EU and the euro system,
 returning to the d-mark, is the life preserver for Germany. None
 of that is going against Europe, it goes against the supposed
 "Europe" of the Empire, and it is oriented towards the real
 "Europe of the Fatherlands," Helga elaborated also during the
 discussion following her keynote.
         The non-oligarchical image of man has to be developed on the
 basis and in the tradition  of, the concepts of the great minds
 of history like Cusa, Kepler, Schiller and Beethoven, Helga said,
 and with that image restored, Germany and its productive industry
 Tunnel, in long-term cooperation contracts with other nations,
 with a duration of 50 years. Glass-Steagall,  a fixed
 international exchange rate system, and great projects for
 mankind's development, along LaRouche's proposal for the Eurasian
 Land-Bridge development, NAWAPA, and Africa's Transaqua project,
 are an absolute must to be achieved at this crucial crossroads
 for mankind--the unacceptable alternative would be a new dark
 age. For Germany in particular, its industry and highly-skilled
 labor force can contribute to global progress, with vanguard
 technologies like maglev trains, space technologies and a whole
 spectrum of nuclear power variants.
         Helga's speech was followed by a review of BüSo activities
 since the last national party convention in October 2008,
 presented by vice chairwoman Elke Fimmen. Shortly after that
 party convention, the U.S. Presidential elections took place, and
 the world's leaders were entering the process of the G-20
 summitry, which unfortunately replaced the potential of a new
 Bretton Woods, which still had been at the center of discussion
 before. In December 2008, the LaRouches campaigned for an
 anti-imperial alternative, at events at the European Parliament,
 in India, followed by interventions in Italy. In February 2009,
 the Rüsselsheim international conference of the Schiller
 Institute, a diplomatic seminar Helga had in Copenhagen, and the
 participation of the BüSo in the state parliamentary elections in
 Hesse and in Saxony, as well as the European Parliament and
 German national elections, were high points of the LaRouche
 movement's political intervention. One may add the renewed joint
 call for a New Bretton Woods which Helga launched together with
 Ukraine's Natalia Vitrenko, and the months-long campaign to
 expose the truth about Obama's genocidal "health reform." In
 2010, the North Rhine-Westphalia state parliamentary election
 campaign, and the intervention against the Green movement's "hot
 autumn" in Stuttgart and Gorleben were a prime focus of BüSo
 activities, Elke elaborated, calling attention to the crucial
 role which the BüSo will play, in the state parliamentary
 elections of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, and in
 Berlin, during 2011.
         Such political interventions require solid and expanded
 funding, which can be secured only if more and more of the
 supporters that the BüSo has, are recruited into active party
 members, who themselves begin to recruit new members and
 supporters, elaborated BüSo party treasurer  Klaus Fimmen, in his
 report on the party's finances.
         The first round of convention speeches was concluded with a
 report by Katarzyna ("Kasia") Kruczkowski, chairwoman of the BüSo
 state party section of North Rhine-Westphalia, who gave a vivid
 account of how the Texas primary election breakthrough of
 LaRouche Democrat Kesha Rogers injected a strong dose of optimism
 into the BüSo's intervention in that state's election campaign in
 the spring of 2010--a campaign, which sparked the interest of
 many voters not least through the BüSo campaign poster, "First
 Kesha, Now Kasia!" The poster firmly set this regional campaign
 in Germany in the international context, and Kesha's personal
 appearance in six cities throughout North Rhine-Westphalia during
 the last week of the election campaign there, made an enormous
 impact  on voters--as did the BüSo's secret weapon of choral
 singing in street deployments, which reawakened the sense of
 beauty, as a sign of a better culture than the counter-culture
 which still dominates the scence today, in voters' minds. A
 similarly important impact was made by the BüSo's election
 campaign  spot, reproduced as a DVD for mass circulation, on the
 party's program "From Duisburg to Mars." A real network of
 contacts and supporters, which secures the mass distribution of
 leaflets on a weekly basis now, has developed from this intensive
 election campaign, Kasia reported, also presenting live footage
 from the party's street organizing during the election campaign.
 (to be continued)


 Dec. 4, 2010 (LPAC)--The vote Thursday evening, Dec. 2, which
 defeated G.K. Butterfield's (D-N.C.) resolution to substitute a
 letter of reprimand for a humiliating censure of Rep. Charles
 Rangel, which was 143 Democrats and 3 Republicans in favor,
 versus 105 Democrats and 162 Republicans opposed, shows that a
 majority of the Democratic caucus opposed the censure, and wanted
 the lesser charge instead, despite Pelosi's aggravated
 machinations.  Rangel was lynched by the post-election fascist
 alliance of Obama Democrats and Rand Paul Republicans, "and we
 should call it a fascist alliance," LaRouche insisted today.
         Articles in Roll Call and Politico today highlight Pelosi's
 evil role in this.  In a caucus meeting before the debate, she
 tried to rule out of order any amendment which would reduce
 Rangel's punishment.  When the floor-vote came on the amendment
 to do so, she ostentatiously abstained from lobbying votes, but
 instead stared intently at the board which showed how each member
 was voting.  But she sent all her top errand-boys, George Miller
 and Anna Eshoo of California and Steve Israel of New York, to
 vote against.  Once the scaredy-cat Democrats saw how Pelosi
 wanted them to vote, the votes swung against the amendment and it
 was defeated.
         In a discussion Dec. 2, LaRouche said, "in Congress Charlie
 Rangel is a hero surrounded by gutless wonders.  People realize
 they are gutless, and can be destroyed with impunity. The problem
 is the Democrats who failed to act before Nov 2. They thought
 they would make their move after the elections, but I knew they
 wouldn't.  Now we have a vacuum of power."



 Dec. 4 (LPAC)--It would appear that a new financial instrument is
 all the rage in world financial markets of late, including in
 trendy Brazil. After MBS and CDS, we now have the "LCS"--which
 stands for "Lie, Cheat, and Steal."
         It turns out that Brazil's 20th largest bank, Banco
 Panamericano, had to be bailed out by the country's Central Bank
 on Nov. 9 for a modest $1.5 billion, because they had committed
 the indiscretion of selling portions of their loan portfolio to
 other banks... umm, two and three times... uhh, and also left
 those loans on their own books as assets. This creative
 accounting was overseen by the prestigious international
 accounting firm, Deloitte and Touche, whose major client in
 Brazil is the Inter-Alpha Group's Santander Bank.
         Panamericano ran into trouble when their non-performing loan
 ratio broke 20%, mainly due to heavy involvment in the
 "check-off" payment consumer credit bubble which has spread
 across the Brazilian banking system. Typical are automobile and
 motorcycle loans with terms of 84 months. This domestic credit
 bubble, "Bolha Brasil," has grown from 20% to 45% of GDP, over
 the last few years.
         So what's the difference between multiple listings of
 non-performing loans as assets on different sets of books in
 Brazil, and the U.S. mortgage market? Absolutely none.
         Everything indicates that what Banco Panamericano did was
 also fairly standard across the Brazilian banking system.
 Bloomberg reported on Nov. 25 that at least two of Brazil's
 biggest banks are now reviewing their internal rules after the
 Panamericano scandal. Central Bank head Henrique Meirelles said
 Panamericano was bailed out to avoid wider risk to the banking
 system as a whole. And the head of the Brazilian government's
 bank guarantee fund found it necessary to insist that there was
 "absolutely no evidence" that banks were having trouble selling
 loan portfolios to each other.
         This whole thing is a total fraud, Lyndon LaRouche commented
 today. This is what speculators always do: you have to consider
 the {psychological} side of the bubble. They get in deep, and
 then they try to cover up their thievery. It's classic: some weak
 bank gets out on thin ice, and they can't dump it, and so it ends
 up dragging everything else down with it. But the cause of the
 crisis is not the weak bank; it's the bankruptcy of the entire
 system. [dns]


 Dec. 4 -- China expects to sign a number of cooperation documents
 with other nations on high-speed and other railway development,
 at the Seventh World Congress on High Speed Rail in Beijing,
 {China Daily} quoted Chen Juemin, head of the international
 cooperation department at the Ministry of Railways. The Congress,
 sponsored by the International Union of Railways (UIC) and
 Chinese Rail Ministry, will take place in Beijing Dec. 7-9, the
 first time it has been held outside Europe. Among the agreements,
 Chen said, is one already initiated between CSR Corporation Ltd,
 one of China's biggest rail vehicle producers, and the U.S.
 General Electric Co, to establish a joint venture in the U.S. to
 manufacture high-speed trains using Chinese technology. The
 agreement will likely be signed during the conference, {China
 Daily} reported. U.S. press reports say that the two corporations
 may bid to build high-speed train lines in California and
 Florida. CSR chairman Zhao Xiaogang, told the press in Hong Kong
 yesterday that they may jointly bid for a project on the US east
         China may also sign agreements or memoranda of understanding
 with railway authorities and enterprises in Turkey, Sweden,
 Germany, Bulgaria, Canada, Slovenia and North Korea, Chen said,
 although not all will be for high-speed trains. China currently
 has the largest (by far) high speed rail network in the world,
 and in the next year or so will have more than the rest of the
 world put together. It has also designed and built the fastest
 and longest rail lines, and is beginning to build in challenging
 terrain as its mountainous southwest.
         The CSR-General Electric association could compete with
 leading companies, including Canada's Bombardier Inc., Frances
 Alstom SA and East Japan Railway Co., making it possible for a
 U.S. company to bid on U.S. contracts. China has also proposed
 helping finance the California high speed rail line.
         China is also working with Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand and
 Laos to plan and develop high-speed rail links to Southeast Asia,
 and with Turkey and Bulgaria, to connect to Europe. There are
 also discussions ongoing with Iran. (mmc)


 Dec. 4 -- Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao proposed establishing
 a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) development bank, to
 deepen financial cooperation among member nations, China's {21st
 Century Business Herald} reported Dec. 2. At the SCO summit in
 Dushanbe Nov. 25, Wen called for research into setting up the
 bank. Bank capitalization would begin at about $10 billion, of
 which China pledged to contribute $8 billion. The SCO has already
 set up an Interbank Consortium for cooperation among its members,
 which are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and
         The new proposal was welcomed by the Central Asian
 republics, but the Russian side was less enthusiastic, the
 {Herald} reported. The Russian side, according to the {Herald}
 sources, is more interested in security cooperation, in which the
 Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (of the nations
 which were members of the former Soviet Union) is playing a
 greater role than the SCO.
         China's {Global Times} on Dec. 2 quoted Gennady Chuprin, an
 adviser at Russia's Academy of Science and China expert, that
 economic cooperation would gradually become the largest SCO
 activity. "This is Beijing's point of view, that economy must go
 first," he said, and the global financial crisis proved this view
 correct. "Beijing sees the initiative as a means of supporting
 the Central Asian countries, whose financial systems have been
 ruined," Chuprin said. Currently, Central Asian nations get
 financial support from the Eurasian Economic Community treaty
 institution, but China is not a member, despite its large-scale
 trade with Central Asia. "So the countries' leaders will be happy
 to receive support from Beijing to finance their national
 infrastructure in the current context where their own financial
 institutions have been gradually fading," Chuprin said. (mmc)


 Dec. 4 (LPAC)--This week, a Pennsylvania judge refused to dismiss
 certain claims in a lawsuit filed by the Federal Home Loan Bank
 (FHLB) of Pittsburgh against JPMorgan Chase and Countrywide
 Financial (now owned by Bank of America). The suit alleges that
 JPMorgan and Countrywide provided incomplete and inaccurate
 information about the risks associated with $2.8 billion in
 mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that they had sold to FHLB,
 which FHLB is now demanding be bought back by the sellers. There
 is a tidal wave of such MBS "buy-back" demands across the country
 facing the fraudsters.
         While the judge sided with the defendants, which also
 included the major ratings firms, on some of the bank's claims,
 he let the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation stand. "I cannot
 conclude that the information and warnings in the offering
 statements bar plaintiff's misrepresentation claims," wrote Judge
 R. Stanton Wettick Jr. in the Nov. 29 opinion. The bank claims it
 wouldn't have bought the bonds if JPMorgan, which sold them, and
 the ratings companies had provided complete and accurate
 information regarding the risks of nonpayment, the judge said in
 his description of the complaint.
         This suit, and others that the Federal Home Loan Banks of
 Seattle, Chicago, San Francsico and Indianapolis are also
 pressing, has the potential to unravel the entire mortgage scam,
 since the entire mortgage market was, and is, based on just such
 fraudulent misrepresentation. [cjo]


 Dec. 4 (EIRNS)--Did German Chancellor Angela Merkel threaten to
 leave the euro? According to unnamed sources cited by the
 {Guardian}, Merkel made exactly that threat during the European
 Union summit in Brussels at the end of October where the Irish
 bailout and euro crisis was at the top of the agenda.
         She reportedly made the comment during an argument with
 Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou, during the Oct. 28 dinner
 attended by 27 EU heads of government and state, the presidents
 of the European Commission Barroso, European Council Van Rompuy,
 and European Central Bank Trichet, at which Panpandreou accused
 Merkel of putting forward proposals that were "undemocratic." His
 reference was to her demand for reopening the Lisbon Treaty, in
 order to establish a permanent system of bailout funding combined
 with investor losses ("haircuts") to deal with debt crises, and
 she called for bailed-out countries to lose voting rights in EU
         In response Merkel said, "If this is the sort of club the
 euro is becoming, perhaps Germany should leave."
         Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert would not comment on her
 remarks, but the threat he told the {Guardian} yesterday, was
 "not plausible. The Chancellor sees the euro as the central
 European project, wants to secure and defend it, and the
 government is not at all thinking of leaving it. Germany is
 unconditionally and resolutely committed to the euro."
         The {Guardian} put the story out on its own wire service,
 which was picked up by the {Irish Times}. [dea]

                           UNITED STATES


 Dec. 4, 2010 (LPAC)--Charles Rangel's first response to the House
 vote was a comment to reporters immediately after (CQ
         RANGEL: ... "members, my predecessors suffered because they
 didn't allow him to be a member before they decided that he
 should be expelled.
         "But notwithstanding that, we do know that we are a
 political body, and even though it is painful to accept this
 vote, I am fully aware that this vote reflects perhaps the
 thinking not just of the members, but the political tide and the
 constituency of this body.
         "Having said that, and having my opportunity to do what I
 wanted to do initially, and that is to make certain that this
 body and this country would know that at no time has it ever
 entered my mind to enrich myself or to do violence to the honesty
 that is expected of all of us in this House,--
         "I think that has been proven, and that has been what I have
 been asking for, and that's why I have admitted to mistakes, and
 was prepared to do what I have done.
         "I understand that this is a new criterion and a
 breakthrough in order to teach somebody a higher lesson than
 those that in the past have done far more harm to the reputation
 of this body than I.
         "But I just would just want all of you to know that in my
 heart, I truly feel good.  It is not just all of the commitments
 that I made to God in 1950.  A lot of it has to do with the fact
 that I know in my heart that I'm not going to be judged by this
 Congress, but I'm going to be judged by my life, my activities,
 my contributions to society, and I just apologize for the awkward
 position that some of you are in.
         "But at the end of the day, as I started off saying,
 compared to where I've been, I haven't had a bad day since. Thank
 you." (APPLAUSE)
         His second response was a press release posted to his
 website yesterday:
         "Now that the Ethics proceedings have passed, I will put the
 pain behind me as well.  I will focus on lessening the pain of
 the American people during these challenging times in our
         "There is so much to be done to help those who are
 struggling to put food on their tables, and to restore their
 self-esteem and dignity.  I will continue to work even harder to
 create new jobs, improve our childrens education, and provide
 better healthcare for all.
         "We must bring back our troops from currently being in harms
 way, and make sure they and their families have the resources
 they need at home.  Its not just the right thing, but the best
 thing for America.
         "I am honored to represent my constituents in the Upper
 Manhattan district.  I am honored to serve the American people. I
 look forward to moving our great nation forward and making
 America strong again."  [ap]


 Dec. 4, 2010 (LPAC)--In the aftermath of the latest Rangel
 frameup Dec. 2, the Congressional Black Caucus is furious at
 Nancy Pelosi and her machinations, and rightly so.  But why will
 none of them, except only incoming Black Caucus head Emanuel
 Cleaver (D-Mo.) give their names to Politico and Roll Call, to
 whom they vent their anger? One CBC member even told Politico
 that it would be "suicidal" to comment on relations between
 Pelosi and the Black Caucus.
         Still more inquests are going on.  Some Black Caucus members
 took a Caribbean trip in 2008, which was investigated by the
 Ethics Committee.  All the members were cleared except for
 Rangel; as they did again just this week, the so-called Ethics
 Committee established a new precedent just for him earlier this
 year.  They ruled that he was guilty of accepting corporate money
 for travel, even though he had not known corporate money was
 involved.  But in the new Rangel precedent, the committee decided
 that he was guilty even though he had not known.  This was one of
 the so-called violations that Pelosi used to force Rangel to
 resign as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in March.
         Now it is known that the Justice Department is investigating
 that same 2008 trip.  Rangel has been told he is not a target,
 but other Black Caucus members clearly are targets.
         And an Ethics Committee (and Black Caucus) member who ably
 defended Rangel, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, is himself
 now being investigated by the Ethics Committee,-- this for the
 heinous crime of spending the unused part of per-diem travel
 expenses after the end of a trip!
         LaRouche responded: "If they're doing that in the Congress,
 they're a bunch of f**king s**theads.  They don't give a damn
 what they bring down on their own head!  It's a Democratic Party
 which is destroying itself.  We're talking about a damn fascist
 conspiracy!  It's a British conspiracy; it's the hand of a
 foreign power operating inside and controlling our government."


 Dec. 4 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche pointedly noted, this afternoon,
 that he had warned the Democrats before the election {not} to
 wait until after the election to fight against the Obama-Pelosi
 dictatorship, but they ignored him and did, and now we're getting
 the fascist alliance between Obama-Pelosi and the Republicans
 that he had warned about.
         LaRouche was responding to numerous developments in
 Washington, including the Rangel witchhunt and the report that
 Obama had appointed Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and
 Office of Management and Budget director Jacob Lew, to negotiate
 with the Republicans on a deal around extending the Bush-era tax
 cuts. The White House made the announcement after talks between
 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate broke down in acrimony
 because the Republicans want to extend everything, and Democrats
 want to limit the extension to lower and middle income taxpayers.
 Just to make their point, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
 scheduled two cloture votes today on bills to do just that, one
 to extend the tax cuts only for taxpayers making $250,000 a year
 or less, and the second that would include taxpayers up to $1
 million. Both bills fell seven votes short of the 60 required for
 cloture, a result that was a foregone conclusion when Reid
 scheduled the votes, yesterday. Politico noted in its coverage on
 Dec. 2 that the White House had been involved in negotiations
 with both sides, "stoking suspicion among Democrats that Obama is
 seeking to cut a separate deal with the GOP." [cjo]



 Dec. 4 -- Viktor Ivanov, head of Russia's Federal Drug Control
 Service, and a close collaborator of Prime Minister Vladimir
 Putin, is "Putin's envoy to open a back channel of security
 cooperation with China," Newsweek reported in an article
 published yesterday, based on an interview with Ivanov. While
 both Russia and China want to expand relations with Central Asia,
 especially as, Newsweek asserted, the U.S. "withdraws" from
 Afghanistan, "neither side wants a great-game-style confrontation
 over spheres of influence, because Moscow and Beijing also plan
 to boost energy cooperation."
         Ivanov, who has repeatedly demanded the destruction of
 Afghan opium production and the drug trafficking cartels, is
 "Russia's secret weapon to expand security ties with China,"
 Newsweek reported. In late November, Ivanov was in Beijing and
 Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang, leading a delegation of security
 officials. "But the real reason I came to China is to activate
 the outmoded and rusty Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO),"
 Ivanov told Newsweek. "A revamped SCO would be able to have a
 significant voice in the international arena, in the G8 and G20,"
 he said.
         The SCO could also influence Chinese security policy, the
 article reported, quoting Yuri Krupnov, director of the Institute
 of Regional Development and Demography saying: "We hope to put
 Russia's ideas in China's mind." Krupnov's report on the
 development of the new Russian Vostochny Cosmodrome, was
 presented at the Schiller Institute conference in Kiedrich,
 Germany in 2007, and he led a project to produce a development
 program for Afghanistan to counter the drug black economy,
 published in 2009.
         In addition, Ivanov told Newsweek, "Russia and China, by
 using the drug issue, should put their efforts together to
 stabilize the situation in Pakistan." (mmc)

 |                                                               |
 |               NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS BULLETIN              |
 |                                                               |
 |                     Sunday, Dec. 5, 2010                      |
 |                                                               |

 LaRouche Show, Dec. 4:

         In a double-header format this week, Tony Papert gave an
 overview on the blow-out of the Inter-Alpha system; this was
 followed by a physical-economic briefing on the instability in
 the U.S. farmbelt, by Iowa activist farmer Richard Baker, who
 stressed that there are no grain reserves, and continued food
 production can't be taken for granted.
         Tony began by giving some of the gory details released Dec.
 1, about the gigantic Federal Reserve and U.S. government $16
 trillion bail-out operations to select banks, companies and even
 individuals, through the Term Auction Facility, and all the other
 infamous hand-out channels. Prominent among the recipients are
 foreign banks, namely Inter-Alpha banks, whose history Tony gave,
 going back to 1971, and how a "substitute world monetary
 system"--in fact a financial empire--came to replace the original
 fixed-exchange rate Bretton Woods system.
         Tony emphasized that, "The secret behind every day's news"
 today, when you hear about so-called individual "financial"
 crises, e.g. in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, or in the U.S.
 is just that this whole Inter-Alpha system is bankrupt. It should
 be put down right now. He gave updates on the situation in
 Ireland; and on what needs to be put in place with the
 Glass-Steagall reinstatement.
         Dick Baker began his briefing by going back to the FDR
 policies to roll-back the Great Depression, and what this meant
 for farmers and the general economy. There were programs for
 parity pricing, backing young farmers to get started, and other
 supports for food security.
         Baker took his account up to the present. Parity pricing was
 phased out entirely. Globalization was begun. The WTO dis-allowed
 any food reserves at all. The depopulation of the farmbelt has
 taken place on a wide scale, as towns have emptied out, school
 systems, churches and public institutions have declined. The
 young moved away. Wall Street now runs "the markets," and a few
 giant agro-cartel companies, like Cargill and ADM, hold control.
         Speculation is out-of-control. It's no help to the farmer to
 have wild price swings for your output, when also, your inputs
 are hyperinflating. In the 1950s, it was considered a big deal if
 corn went up by 10 cents a bushel in two months. This year, corn
 prices went up almost 50% in just a few months!
         He gave examples of how farmland prices are being wildly
 bid-up in Iowa right now, due to the influx of funds from "people
 outside the realm of agriculture" who don't have a place to put
 their money in the crash, other than gold and land. This is
 causing havoc.
         None of this has to be. It's time to overturn it and
 rebuild. For example, Baker touched on how a Federal program to
 start off young people in farming could be tied to opening up new
 agriculture land with NAWAPA. (mgm)

                 - DECEMBER 11TH LAROUCHE SHOW -

         Guests: Guest panel to include Leni Rubinstein, EIR
 Correspondent at the UN; and others TBA
         Host: Marcia Merry Baker
         3-4pm ET
         Post-Show Message Line: 916 233 0630, Box 595
         Intro:______ Off the Cuff
         Message #1:_____ Webcast or LPAC-TV
         Message #2:_____ Webcast or LaRouche Show

 called from the Basement go to:


                        GENERAL CALENDAR

 Dec 3-6
         Council of State Governments National Conference,
 Providence, RI.

                            - 2011 -
 Jan 22
         Lyndon LaRouche webcast. 1pm Eastern

 Feb 26-28
         National Governors Association Winter Meeting, Washington,


 Dec 1
         LEESBURG: We will meet every other Wednesday, beginning Nov.
 17th at 7 pm at: Bella Luna the Italian Ristorante, 19 South King
 Street, Leesburg; (703)777-5001.  Parking in the town parking
 structure is free in the evenings.

 WARRENTON December Meeting dates TBA
         WARRENTON: We will meet every other Wednesday at 7:30 pm
 at: Denny's, 7323 Comfort Inn Dr., Warrenton; (540) 347-040


 In addition to Congressional Town Hall Meetings and Campaign
 Events, please see individual calendar listings for groups
 including Tea Party, Manufacturing, and Farmers.

 National Farmers Union. list is alpha by state for  Nov.-Jan
 ck website for additional info. (Dates and locations are subject
 to change. Please contact the individual Farmers Union offices
 for further details)

 CALIFORNIA - Jan. 21-22, 2011
 HAWAII - Nov. 27-28, 2010

                     *** END OF BRIEFING ***
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on October 27, 2012, at 04:00 PM