rent apartment utah

dennis speed: on behalf of the larouche politicalaction committee i want to welcome people here today. my name is dennis speed and weare doing our saturday dialogue with lyndon larouche. this week our key speaker is goingto be will wertz, long-time collaborator with lyndon larouche and one of the people thatjoined lyndon larouche in jail during the period of the 1980s when there was an attemptto destroy larouche and his movement. many of you have been hearing about what we callthe "erinyes principle." we have been talking about this for the last several weeks, andtoday we will be seeing living demonstration of that in will's presentation, in his verypresence here. we will be proceeding the way we usually do; there will be an opening, maybemore extended than normal, followed by questions

and answers, and i think everybody knows theprocedures on questions and answers. if you don't, you ask a question, please try to keepit relatively short, then wait for an answer, then you have one follow-up.i'd like to introduce my long-time friend and collaborator, will wertz.will wertz: hi, i'd like to start with a reference to the ninth letter of friedrich schiller'sletters on the aesthetical education of man, where he says, in reply to the young friendof truth and beauty, he says, what his advice is, "give the world in which you are actingthe direction towards the good, and the quiet rhythm of time will bring about its development.the fabric of error and lawlessness will fall. it must fall. it has already fallen." thenhe goes on to say, very explicitly, "live

with your century, but be not its creature.render to your contemporaries what they need, not what they praise." and he emphasizes thatthis change must occur not only in the outer form, but also in the inner man. i think thatpassage from schiller, very directly, addresses the situation we are in today. because whatwe are seeing is the fall of the edifice of lies which has characterized, really, notonly the united states, but the course of developments in the world over the last 15,16 years; the simultaneous, almost simultaneous, release of the chilcot report on the iraqwar, and the 28 pages one week later on 9/11. at the same time as we see this edifice oflies collapsing, we see the emergence of a new paradigm, both in terms of the culturewhich is commensurate with man's actual nature

as the only creative species in the universe,and also in respect to the development of a new paradigm of economics, both in termsof the eurasian land-bridge, the silk road, the one belt, one road; and also in termsof the efforts on the part of the larouche movement, particularly kesha rogers in texas,to revive the space program, both of which emphasize the actual nature of the human speciesas creative. what i wanted to start with is just to emphasizethat the chilcot report makes it very clear, the iraq war was a war crime, a crime againsthumanity. it starts out by stating that this was not a justified war. it did not meet thecriteria established over the centuries of a just war, that it had to be a last resort,chilcot said it wasn't; that there had to

be an immediate danger, there wasn't. so thisis a war crime, carried out by blair, by bush, by cheney, and the perpetual warfare whichfollowed iraq, including the wars launched by obama in libya and syria, are equally warcrimes, by extension, from the report of the chilcot commission. but you would never havehad the iraq war, you would never have had the overthrow of qaddafi, the attempted overthrowof assad, you would never have had the growth of isis and al-qaeda as you see it in theworld today, in which murder has become commonplace. virtually every day there is another atrocitywhich is committed. not just in europe or turkey or the united states, but also in syria,in the middle east as a whole, in africa, throughout the world, this would never havehappened if there hadn't been the cover-up

of 9/11. and i think that's really the significanceof what we've had. you have to look at the situation to reallyunderstand it, however; you are not going to find the full truth in the chilcot reportor in the 28 pages. if you want to know the full truth, listen to lyndon larouche. because,on 9/11 he was on a radio show based in salt lake city, utah, the jack stockwell show.as he was on that show being interviewed, the events developed as we know them. fromthat moment lyndon larouche identified this as not an act of terror that was planned ina cave somewhere in afghanistan. this, as he said, required tremendous precision, sophistication.it was a military operation, planned over an extended period of time, very clearly.so you have to look at who was responsible

for this.several months earlier, lyndon larouche had forecasted that there would be a terroristattack in the united states. he indicated that this terrorist attack would be used toimpose police-state measures in this country. that is precisely what occurred.lyndon larouche has identified not just saudi arabia, but rather the british empire as responsiblefor this atrocity. he has indicated that there are forces that were complicit in the unitedstates, minimally in allowing it to happen. this is not something you are going to getin the 28 pages, per se. you have to listen to what lyndon larouche has said from thevery word "go" in order to understand exactly what transpired and what the problem is inthe world today.

i would also say that you have, in a certainsense, overlapping developments in terms of key inflection points in the post-world warii period. you have to really go back to the question of roosevelt, the british takeoverafter roosevelt's death, and the successive efforts to reverse roosevelt's overall policy,that attempt carried out by the british and their allies in the united states itself,including the fbi and elements of the cia, particularly the dulles brothers and theirilk. therefore, to understand the overall situation we are faced with today you havealso got look at the fact that lyndon larouche was directly involved, at another, earlierpoint; this is at the point in which, as the reagan administration was coming into power,lyndon larouche was essentially putting together

the program for the reagan administration,including, but not limited to what became the strategic defense initiative. he was negotiatingwith the soviets at that point in order to implement the strategic defense initiative,which was completely different from the policy you have today.today you have a policy in which the united states is moving unilaterally with an anti-missiledefense system which is designed to neutralize the opposition and launch a first strike,whereas what larouche and reagan and teller were advocating was a policy of cooperationwith, at that point, the soviet union, in order to render nuclear weapons obsolete andimpotent. that's the difference. at a certain point in the negotiations theearlier soviet openness to this proposal was

reversed, as andropov became head of the sovietunion, who was a british agent. what larouche said to the people he was speaking to fromthe soviet union, was that if you say no, then the soviet union will collapse in fiveyears. in fact, the soviet union did collapse in approximately six years.in 1988, prior to the collapse of the soviet union, which occurred while larouche was injail, you had the speech that larouche gave in berlin, at the kempinski hotel, in whichhe said that germany would be reunified, that berlin would become its capital, and he proposedeconomic policies to develop poland and to develop, by implication, eastern europe, asit became liberated from the soviet system. this is essentially the policy that alfredherrhausen, the head of deutsche bank at that

time, put forward as well. while larouchewas in jail, herrhausen was assassinated. again, this was not an assassination thatwas carried out by unsophisticated leftist terrorists. it was a high- technology assassination, very similar,in a certain sense, to what occurred in 9/11, which suggests that it was carried out ona much higher level. and larouche has indicated that the assassination really came from thefrench, in particular, and the british. remember, at this point the entire effortwas to prevent germany from becoming an economic powerhouse, engine of economic developmentthat would collaborate with russia, at the point that reunification occurred. so whatwas imposed upon germany at that point, and then the rest of europe, was the euro maastrichttreaty system, which is precisely what has

destroyed europe since that time. of courseyou had the expansion of nato to the east, which we just saw go farther at the recentnato summit in warsaw, where they decided to place battalions of nato troops in thebaltic states and poland, and to go ahead with the anti-missile system in europe. ofcourse at the same time you have an anti-missile defense being set up in south korea, the thaadsystem. lyndon larouche has been at the center of these developments.and of course in the last few weeks we have had the brexit vote, which threatens the veryexistence of the eu and we have also had an attempted coup in turkey, a nato member, inwhich approximately one-third of the generals of this nato army are suspected of participatingin the coup.

so, what we are looking at is a momentousmoment in history, in which lyndon larouche's voice is the voice you have to look at andyou have to hear, if you want to know exactly what has occurred, because he has been there,in each of these situations. he has been, really, at the center of the policy issue,whether it's what occurred in 1988-'89 or whether it's what happened on 9/11.the point that i would make is that we have to basically come to certain conclusions inrespect to the system which has fallen and also the system which has to replace it. thesystem which is falling is the british system. 9/11 was carried out by the british, but withthe saudis essentially as a satrap of the british empire. the british royal family worksdirectly with the very people who were the

key perpetrators of 9/11; this includes charles,as well as the empress elizabeth. and at the other hand, larouche has proposeda very specific campaign to reorganize deutsche bank in germany. deutsche bank has somethingin the range of $72 trillion in derivatives holdings; 51% of their tangible assets aretoxic, which means they're unsaleable, therefore you don't even know what they're worth. andthis bank has been identified as really the center of the systemic risk of the entiresystem. and that bank however was not always likethis. that bank had a directly opposite policy, which was the policy of herrhausen. and sowhat larouche has proposed is that we return to the herrhausen policy, that deutsche bankbe reorganized, that there be a committee

that goes in and basically determines whatvalues, if any, are valid, and those which are not should be discarded. and there shouldbe an injection of capital, such that the bank can actually extend credit for real production,which is what deutsche bank used to do. and this proposal can serve as a model for therest of europe and it can also be an impetus for making sure that similar policies arecarried out here, including glass-steagall, which is in both party platforms, but is stillfar away from being implemented. plus the overall hamiltonian policy of credit-extensionemphasis capital intensive industries, fusion power, and the space program.and the key concept in all of this is productivity. you've got to actually shift the entire geometryaway from the british system's emphasis upon

speculation and reduction of the world's populationby billions, really, which is what their policy is, and you've got to shift it towards anactual economic policy that's oriented towards the actual nature of man as creative, as creative,as productive. so i'll just leave it with that and open itup for discussion. q: hello, everyone. hi, will. this is alvin.of the many things you covered in this overview, in this global process that's unfolding ata very rapid pace, i wanted to shift into what took place earlier this week. as youjust referenced a couple of minutes ago, regarding glass-steagall appearing, most dramatically,it seems to me, suddenly, on the republican platform, but as you mentioned, still a longway to go from actually passing. nevertheless,

wall street is not amused, and all the counter-articlesand so on, to try and crush what continues to grow, continues. so even in this almostindescribable convention center, where they choose statesmen, like the tv character chachito address their audience and deliver an address, no word yet on what the fonz has to say aboutall of this, but this is the kind of level it is. yet, this is brought in, and introduced.and so there's a process underway. and i thought back to some seven years agowhen i had a conversation with a neighborhood fellow on glass-steagall, and a couple ofdays later he came back to me and said, "you know that steagall guy wanted to get rid ofglass-steagall soon after he put it in," and i wasn't aware of that, so i inquired aroundabout what that was. and this "stea-gall,"

as he wanted to be known, this southerner,was a rabid segregationist. not really a good person; so the question was, how could sucha person want to put something like this forward? and the response i got was simple: becauseeverything was about to go to hell. the south had never been reconstructed, and it wouldtake fdr to electrify it, so that's why he was doing it. of course, whatever he triedafterwards didn't matter because fdr took it and ran with it.so i think of that when i think of the various characters or cowards or whatever you wantto call them, that make up the legislative branch of our government, and might they benow just be finally be turning the corner to realize that; as other events throughoutthe whole globe, particularly the problems

of the brexit and all this insanity, thatsince no one a solution, that they might actually, if we do what we need to do, come around andpass this thing? wertz: i think your last point is the issue:if we do what we need to do. i wouldn't have any illusions that the factthat the thing appears in the republican and democratic platforms means that it's goingto be implemented, because the problem is, you have to look at this from the standpointof hamiltonian economics. this is obviously critical to the whole manhattan project andlarouche's four laws which are essentially based upon the four reports put forward byhamilton. there are very few people who actually understand glass-steagall from the standpointof the four laws and what has to be done.

so our job is to really educate people andto push forward with the whole picture of hamiltonian economics. which means that younot only have the bank separation, which you have under glass-steagall, but you've gotto have credit extension for productive purposes. and it has to be not in green projects, butit has to be for capital-intensive projects, and specifically it has to be for such projectsas fusion power and the space program. and if you don't have that conception, then you'renot going to get a glass-steagall that's really glass-steagall.and i think the importance of what lyndon and helga have emphasized in terms of deutschebank, is critical in this. in a certain sense, i think people should focus on that, becausethis is an initiative which can turn the entire

balance in the world, in the direction ofthe kinds of policies that are required to reorganize a bankrupt system which is drivingthe world to the point of thermonuclear war. and the point that larouche has made is ifyou don't get this transformation of deutsche bank, quickly, then you could have chaos,not only in germany, but throughout europe, and throughout the entire trans-atlantic sector,which would really increase the danger of thermonuclear war. so this is really the crucialthing that has to be done. now in recent days it's been reported thatthere's an internal debate in deutsche bank�it's called "project jade"�it's been coveredin the german press. and what they're considering is whether they should continue to go forwardwith the british idea of a universal bank,

universal banking. so larouche's proposalis actually intersecting a debate within deutsche bank, which is not a debate so far aroundlarouche's policies, but the fact that we are hitting these deutsche bank branches allover the world with lyn and helga's proposal, could actually create the conditions underwhich this could actually be accomplished. something which otherwise seems impossible,this could go into effect. so i think that's really the way we have tolook at this, and not be, in a certain sense, overly impressed with the inclusion of glass-steagallin these two party platforms. q: [daniel burke] thank you. hi, will. welli was quite moved by diane's comments in the webcast last night, when she pointed to theidea that in a moment of tremendous global

crisis, you have to grab on to the future,and that has to be where you center your identity, so to speak.so, i want to ask you to give a little bit more context for this deutsche bank initiative.because, for example, i know very little about the activities of larouche and his organizationin promoting the productive triangle, but i see that this is related to that, both interms of why it could work for germany, why it could work at this specific historicalpoint, and in terms of what needs to be developed out of this. i would put into this the factthat we have the news last week that siemens has agreed to a very large deal in which theyare working on the high-speed rail line between moscow and kazan. so we have the largest,or the most important german industrial company

working on that perspective.and finally, i would add into that milieu the fact of what larouche has been emphasizingin terms of his parallel work with putin, which does overlap in all of this discussion,as well. could you give us a little bit more context?wertz: sure. the proposal which herrhausen put forward was for the creation of the equivalentof kreditanstalt f�r wiederaufbau, which was a credit institution for reconstructionthat was put together after world war ii, which was responsible for what an older generationremembers as the "german economic miracle." this was a devastated country and it rebuiltitself through that institution. and he proposed that such an approach be taken to poland andother eastern european nations.

following the fall of the berlin wall, helgalarouche had proposed, or i'm sure there was a discussion with lyndon larouche, but hewas in jail at the time, and she was in a position to carry out the initiative, theso-called productive triangle, which was then later extended to be the eurasian land-bridgeand a world land-bridge, which we now see advocated, by particularly the chinese, andalso, of course, the russians are working directly with the chinese in terms of theeurasian economic union and the whole silk road perspective. so this has come into existence.what we had proposed at that point, which was initially a european proposal, in termsof a productive triangle in which you would have a triangle running from i think it wasfrom berlin, paris, vienna. and this is an

area of the greatest productive economic densityin europe and population density; and so this was the idea, following the fall of the wall,that you actually move forward. take that opportunity to actually develop the commoninterests of humanity. and unfortunately that opportunity was missed.and it was missed following the assassination of herrhausen, which was meant to be an intimidationof the germans, particularly helmut kohl, the chancellor, to go along with this stranglehold,which has been imposed upon germany and the rest of europe, called the maastricht treaty.at the end of world war ii there was a proposal, i believe it was the morgenthau plan, whichwas to deindustrialize germany. obviously, the policy of the kreditanstalt fur wiederaufbauwas directly opposite to that deindustrialization

policy. but maastricht and the eu have beenessentially an expression of the morgenthau program of deindustrialization. but therestill is an economy in germany; there is a greater concentration of productivity potentialin germany, than elsewhere in europe. and the other side of this is, that you havecertain circles in germany, what's called the mittelstand, that is small and medium-sizedbusinesses; but you also have certain political institutions, including people like steinmeier,former nato official general kujat, willy wimmer, others, who really want to break awayfrom this anti-russian policy and work directly with putin in terms of economic development.and by working with putin, also working with china.so, you have to basically bring that combination

to the fore; and i think the proposal on deutschebank and that lyn and helga have advocated, is crucial to realizing that shift. at thesame time, you have, with the attempted coup in turkey, you also have a potential for amajor shift in terms of the whole situation in syria. and again, putin is at the frontand center of this. as you know, here in manhattan, putin last year, in september at the generalassembly of the un, proposed an international fight against terrorism; along the lines ofthe world war ii alliance against the nazis. the u.s. has resisted that under obama; andthe british have resisted it, they continue to resist it. but with the attempted coupin turkey, there is a potential that turkey might begin to work with russia and iran insyria. this is not realized as of yet. just

today, lavrov reiterated that the russianshave provided certain information to the turks about the arms and jihadists who continueto go across the border into syria from turkey. he said, we expect that they will answer thosequestions, and that they will take measures that are appropriate, if the warming of relationsbetween russia and turkey is to proceed. so, what lyndon larouche said just the otherday is, what you have to watch is, is putin able to pull erdogan into an effective fightagainst isis and al-nusra; which, in fact, turkey has supported, along with saudi arabia,qatar, and of course the british and obama over this entire period.i think the real issue here is to bring the united states into an alliance with putinand the chinese around the brics process the

way we have expressed it; around the wholeone belt, one road policy; and obviously around space cooperation. and those areas which actuallyemphasize the nature of man from the standpoint of increases in per capita productivity; that'sthe real issue that's in the center of all this. it has always been in the center ofwhat lyndon larouche has advocated; which is the policy of hamilton � that the realsource of wealth is the productive powers of the mind. you have to have an economicpolicy which fosters those productive powers of the mind. this is a concept which larouchedeveloped many years ago, which is called potential relative population-density; andthe basic idea is that you want to increase relative population-density and the standardof living of that population. but the key

thing you have to focus on, is increasingthe mental potential which is the productive powers, the creative powers of the mind. that'sthe source of wealth, that's the source of the future for humanity.going back to this book from schiller, what he said is, "live with your century, but donot be its creature." this has not been a good century, the last one; and this one hasstarted out poorly. so the point is, don't be a creature of your environment, of thepopular opinion that surrounds you; don't just tell people what they're going to praise,but what they need. that's what lyndon and helga larouche have done, that's what thismovement has done; and that's what is really needed by humanity at this juncture.q: hello, my name is d�a�. we have got

the 28 pages released. two things: one, theywere released; and we got the congress to do something. before this, it was just sittingthere. i thought that what was going to happen after that was to remove obama; but nothinghappened that way. it's like they did something, and then they forgot what they were doing.[laughter] we have putin, which is a positive thing;we have obama, which is a loose cannon, running around shooting cannonballs at everybody.the things we want to do, are going to be destroyed because he's there; and perhapsthe whole world may be destroyed because of him, obama. killing, killing, killing. wehave two sides. one is the bestiality side, obama; and the positive side, humanity, putin.we have a possibility of the 25th amendment;

how can that be pursued? we have many congressmen;what's going to happen when they go out of session? that's going to happen at the endof this month. we got to do something; we can't just sit here. what can we do?wertz: well, i agree with you. once the chilcot report had been released, and once the 28pages were released, then there should have been, and there must still be, an outcry toreverse course totally; including removal of obama. that's the whole point. his policyin libya, his policy in syria, his policy of warfare against russia and china; theseare crimes against humanity which are based upon the lies and cover-up of 9/11 in thefirst place, and also of the iraq war. for instance, the state department basically saidafter the release of the 28 pages, that there

will be no change in u.s. policy towards saudiarabia; they're our trusted ally. the same ally that was responsible for 9/11.q: [follow-up] so, have we had a chance to go �wertz: the same ally that we're working with right now, that is supporting isis and al-nusra.so, the point is, that has to be changed immediately. also, it's obama who says we have a specialrelationship with great britain; after it has just been documented that great britain� along with bush and cheney � were responsible for war crimes in terms of the iraq war. theyworked together on this; but they also worked together in terms of 9/11.so, we need a total reversal right now with the evidence already in, with our policy inrespect to britain and our policy in respect

to saudi arabia. the perpetrators of theseillegal wars, which are crimes against humanity, they should be brought to justice; just asthe murderers in the cranes of ibykus were brought to justice at the end of that poem.that's what is required right now. they violated natural law. natural law will assert itself;unfortunately, it can also assert itself by indiscriminate destruction.so the responsibility is on our shoulders to ensure that as an instrument of naturallaw, that natural law actually results in a future for humanity. this whole apparatusneeds to be pushed aside immediately. it's true, as lyndon larouche said today,the congress has well-known limitations. some of them will do certain things which are good;but they do not operate from the standpoint

of a full understanding of the nature of thecrisis that humanity is facing right now. they do not operate from the standpoint ofan understanding of principles of economics. most of them are schizophrenic; some of themmight say we should have a dialogue with russia, and then are bellicose towards china. there'sa certain kind of insanity among these congressional figures; some are better than others. whati'm saying is, it's up to us. q: [follow-up] they don't do anything. [crosstalk]wertz: it's up to us; that's the issue. don't look to the congress to do anything otherthan what we insisted they do. q: hi everybody, i'm p� from connecticut.a couple of weeks ago, before the 28 pages were released, i had a thought how to getit out in the best way. so, i went to all

the town halls surrounding my area � i thinkit was a half a dozen or so. and you have to set up a meeting with the elected officials;which i kind of knew, but i wanted to drop the information off, so that at least theycould read it and then see what happens after that. most of the receptionists were verynice. anyway, this past week, i decided to go backon a follow-up; so i walked in the offices, and wow! there was a total blank. they wouldn'teven discuss anything � nothing. they said "this is not allowed" in our building. i said,"what kind of government do we have here?" not to get into an argument, i said, "ok,but this is really a necessary thing that we have to do." and i'm sure whatever wasread, they know what's going on. we need everybody

now, not tomorrow.so anyway, i left; i was very down. so i started going to the fire departments; and they knowwho i am. it was the same thing; it was as if somebody went around to all these publicplaces, government buildings, and said "do not allow anybody in here with any kind ofpolitics." so, i figured, i'm not doing too good. i'm going to the fire department thati grew up in, in my neighborhood. so, i went there and they said, "no, we can't talk aboutthis. just leave." so i said, "just read it." "no, no, no."so, i started walking away; and then i said, "i'm not walking away." so, i went back inthere, and i said, "how would all the first responders that died that day find out thatyour company didn't do anything to bring them

justice?" they said, "what do you mean?" isaid, "exactly what i'm saying. we have the opportunity for a payback." so, they let mein, and i started talking and i explained everything about the 28 pages and blah, blah,blah. then i said, "look guys, i want to be proud of this station. i grew up here. i wantto be proud. i want you guys to participate, do something." i said, "i'm a messenger andthis is all i do. and i hate to tell people after the fact, that you did nothing, becausei mean, this is history." so they were, like, "ok, ok, ok!" they weresigning the thing, and calling and so on. and i says, "how about a donation to helpus out. because we don't have the funds that politicians have." so they said, all right,and they scrapped up $50 bucks. i thanked

them, and i said, "look, what you're doing,i wish everybody would do, because then we could get right to the end of this."so i left and i was happy as could be. and that was my report. [applause]wertz: i think the key thing is you have to persist, as you did in that situation. youhave to realize that this edifice of lies, is crumbling; it's already fallen, as schillersaid. we just have to make sure that it's a rapid collapse! [laughs] and that there'sthe appropriate system which is put into place as the alternative, which really reflectshumanity. so it really is a question of persistence,and it underscores the importance of what we are doing, what lyn has done, as this kindof voice. because others can be very easily

self-satisfied by what's been accomplishedalready. and i'd just go back to � if you look atthis, lyndon larouche has from the beginning said this was a british-saudi operation withcomplicity of some forces within the united states. the british side is not really featuredin the 28 pages, but you have to understand it. and i'll just give you some indicationsof this: the fact of the matter is, as i said in the beginning, the british royal familyis completely in bed with the saudi royal family. it's not clear who is the harem inthis arrangement, but that's the situation. saudi arabia was created by the british; thefirst king of saudi arabia, king saud of course, was on the british payroll for over 10 years,before he finally succeeded in 1932 in taking

power and creating this artificial structure.now, so saudi arabia is a british satrap. what you're dealing with in respect to saudiarabia, is the british empire. one of the things that's not generally known, is, we'vediscussed the al yamamah deal, which was the arms for oil deal between the u.k. and saudiarabia, and the slush fund which was created, much of which went as a commission to princebandar. but the relationships between the royal familyof saudi arabia, and britain are even much closer. for instance, at oxford, there's aninstitution called the oxford center for islamic studies; this was created in 1985. princecharles became the patron of it in 1993; in 1990 bandar had contributed $13-$24 millionto fund this thing. prince turki al-faisal,

bandar's brother-in-law who was head of saudi intelligence for an extended periodof time � he resigned just one week before 9/11 � for over 20 years. he's on the boardof trustees of prince charles's center for islamic studies. one of the founders of thisorganization, which prince charles is the patron of, as abdullah naseef, who's beingsued by the 9/11 families for having knowingly provided funds to al-qaeda. another personwho was on the board of trustees of this society, run by prince charles, was yusuf qarawadi,the muslim brotherhood cleric based on qatar, who issued the fatwa to kill qaddafi and tokill assad. these are the people that prince charles works directly with.and al-turki who was the handler of osama bin laden, as head of saudi intelligence hewas the handler of osama bin laden, he's on

the board of trustees of prince charles'soxford center for islamic studies. he's also chair of the strategy advisory committee ofprince charles's society, and this center for islamic studies also had the mohammadbin laden chair, which is endowed by the bin laden family; that's the father of osama binladen. this is the organization run by prince charles!and when prince charles and camilla got married they invited eight royal families: two ofthose were al-turki and his wife, and bandar and his wife, al-turki's sister. that's howclose this operation is. so this is real: it's not just the saudis, it's the britishwho run the saudis. and you have the problem of the u.s. special relationship with thesame british, the same queen, as expressed

not only by obama, but by many others previously.you also had the fact, that this was a highly sophisticated aviation task; there's one formerboeing pilot whose name is marshall, and he basically said that you could not carriedout these maneuvers that were carried out by these pilots, without test flights goingthrough the various maneuvers; they were very sophisticated maneuvers. now, who are we talkingabout? we're talking about bandar; bandar went to the royal air force college in cranwell.he graduated there. his wife's brother also graduated there, they were classmates. princecharles graduated from the raf. prince charles and bandar had the same instructor, richardjohns, at raf. so what are you talking about? and also one of bandar's brothers was a commanderof the saudi military forces during the first

gulf war.you're talking about a military nexus which is british-saudi which specializes in aviation.bandar was top gun in the saudi air force. one thing that marshall points out in hisbook the big bamboozle is, nobody thinks that you can fly a boeing plane on the basis oftraining in small aircraft. it's impossible; so where'd they get the training? maybe youhave to look at this raf saudi air force connection, and then you find out that the 28 pages, whatdoes it say? at least two people were considered to be saudi intelligence agents: bayoumi andbassnan. and these guys are known to be osama bin laden.bayoumi worked for a company which was a subsidiary of a saudi aviation company, dallah avco,and it was a no-show job. before the first

two hijackers arrived in the country, he $465a month; they arrived in the country, his stipend was increased to $3,700. so he's gettingmoney, essentially from the ministry of defense; the hijackers themselves are known to havebeen in touch with several saudi naval officers while they were in this country.bayoumi is the guy who met them, set everything up, he signed their lease, he paid their security,he paid their first month's rent, this guy was investigated by the fbi in 1998-1999 forterrorist connections � and not flagged. and then he's the guy who runs this operation.the first two hijackers lived in an apartment with an fbi informant, which is stated inthe 28 pages. the other guy, bassnan, his wife receives $2,000 a month from haifa, bandar'swife, and the sister of al-turki. he and his

wife also cashed two checks which came directlyfrom bandar, one for $10,000 and one for $15,000. osama bin laden's half-brother worked in thesaudi arabian embassy in washington, d.c. this guy bassnan was known to the fbi, becausein 1992, he held a party in his apartment in washington, d.c. for the blind sheikh.so the point is, the evidence is in: this is a british-saudi operation with complicityof certain forces in the united states. and if you look at it very closely, the fbi knewabout these two guys; the first two hijackers were staying in an apartment with an fbi informant.what the report starts out by saying is that they didn't pay close attention to saudi nationalsin the united states, because saudi arabia is out "ally."but we also know from other reports in the

28 pages, that from 1996 on, the saudis wereuncooperative with respect to osama bin laden. there was even one guy who was responsiblefor osama bin laden's finances, all of his finances, when he was in sudan; and in 1996,when osama bin laden's operations in sudan were shut down, this guy moved to london,the home of all terrorists. and then he moved back to saudi arabia, and the u.s. asked tobe able to interrogate this guy; he knows osama bin laden's finances through and through.and they said, "no, he's a poor guy, he doesn't know anything." and they wouldn't let himbe interrogated. and then you also have the statement thatthe saudis did not cooperate either before, during or after the operation. so this whatyou're dealing with here. i think that we

just have to drive this whole point home:it's the british empire that should be shut down! they are the ones who are driving fornuclear war; they are the ones whose financial system is collapsing; they're the ones whoare committed to reducing the world's population by billions.so it's not just a question of tony blair, or bush, or cheney or obama: it's queen elizabethand charles who are responsible for this policy. so why do we have a special relationship withthem? why do we continue to work with the saudis in trying to overthrow assad? i thinkthose are questions that have to be answered: why is obama still in office, when he's stillcarrying out this policy on behalf of the perpetrators of 9/11?and vitaly churkin, the russian ambassador

to the un, on friday sent a letter to theun security council warning that there could be a military operation in eastern ukraine,carried out by kiev. you're on the verge of that kind of situation, right now.just to conclude: the 28 pages, getting them out is a victory that we're responsible for,and the manhattan project in particular is responsible for. but issue here is, this broaderpicture which is not fully understood by any congressman, or for that matter by most familymembers of the victims and so forth. so you've got to really proceed from this higher levelof what's at stake. q: [diane sare] i had an opportunity to bein the field for the first time in a very long time, a couple days ago, and i was alittle bit surprised at how non-reactive the

population of manhattan was on the questionof 9/11 and other questions; and it reminded me a little bit of a very close friend ofmine who was in iraq during the "surge" under bush. and what happened is, he arrived there,and there were strikes, and a lot of people were killed. and the tone of our conversation� this was by email � changed, i said, "aren't you afraid?" because the whole thingabout the iraq war, and i think vietnam in a sense was maybe the beginning of this, isyou're in a war where there's no frontlines, there's no area of combat and area where there'snot in combat, so you know that at any moment you can be blown up by an ied or whatever.and i could detect a kind of closing. and the person said, "you just don't think aboutanything else except what's right in front

of you, and that's it. you don't worry aboutthe future, you don't think about the past. you focus on your entire concentration onthe specific detail that you're occupied with, and nothing else." and i think in a sense,the american population has begun to be in this frame of mind, because the crisis is� because people are being hit by one thing after the next, either it's their own personaleconomic hardship or their kid that's having a drug addiction, or whatever; and then youhave this mass shootings on top of this. and there's a kind of a deadness.and i was reflecting on therefore the power of this "living memorial" idea, the powerof classical music as a way to give people access to what is probably overwhelming emotionsabout the period that we're in; and i was

thinking since schiller has had a lot to sayabout this, particularly in the aesthetical letters and you're here, i was wondering ifyou have some thoughts on schiller's concept of the education of one's emotions, and howto access this in a period such as we're in right now?wertz: i think schiller had a good commentary on the u.s. presidential elections. he basicallysaid those who follow their senses are savages, those who try to operate from deductive logicand formalism are barbarians. so you're sort of confronted with barbarians and savages.that's the geometry that's being imposed on the u.s. population at this point. the basicpoint is, schiller and nicholas of cusa are very much alike in what they actually argue.schiller says a man is not man except when

he's engaged in creative play. that's oneof the major points that he makes in the letters on the aesthetical education of man.and the point is, schiller, like others in the tradition of plato, as opposed to aristotle,know that � i always refer to the short story by edgar allan poe "mellonta tauta,"which is that the oligarchy can control you if you only think there are two pathways totruth, empiricism based on induction from sense-perceptions; or deductive logic in whichyou're making deduction from categories which are also derived from sense-perception. andyou're sort of in a trap, if you think in those terms. and he compared those who advocatesense-perception to francis bacon, the philosopher of empiricism; and those who operate fromthe standpoint of logical deduction, to aristotle.

and he said that these two methods are likecreeping and crawling: which are two very good descriptions in my mind, because theysound very much alike and it's hard to distinguish between them.but what he says is, that's not human nature. human nature is characterized by soaring,not creeping and crawling, based upon hypotheses, the creative powers of the human mind.and that's really the task and that's what schiller puts forward. you've got to educateyour emotions, such that you are actually operating on the level of creative play. andso that, for instance, rather than being just a follower of immanuel kant and doing yourduty, your moral duty, as a negation of the negation, in other words in the negation ofsense-perception which is negative, there's

got to be what lyndon larouche used to calla "self-subsisting positive." where you're actually doing your duty, but with joy. that'sthe issue, and that's what you find expressed in friedrich schiller's poem the ode to joy,it's what you find in beethoven's setting of that in the ninth symphony.so the basic idea is that you've got to free yourself, from all of the sort of externalconditioning and determinations of how you think, from your environment. again, don'tbe the creature of your century; live in it, but don't be its creature. don't just do whatyour neighbors are going to praise, give them what they need. so that means rising to ahigher level. nicholas of cusa basically puts this forward, he says, the only way you canachieve world harmony, peace, is the extent

to which individuals who are otherwise fools,by operating on a level of induction or deduction, rise to the level of creative reason in harmonywith the logos. that's the only basis upon which you can actually have cultures thatare different, religions which are different, actually functioning from the necessary standpoint.this morning, lyndon larouche was briefed on a conference which was just took placein munich this week or last week, and one of the speakers spoke about nicholas of cusa'sessay called on the peace of faith, de pace fidei. and he wrote this after the turks hadjust taken over constantinople, with the slaughter of christians. and the whole point that hemakes is that you can have peace on earth to the extent that you recognize that whatis common to all religions, and not even religions,

he also includes greek philosophers, who donot profess particular religions or denominations; the only basis is to recognize the natureof the human being, as both capable of creative reason insofar as they're in the living imageof the creator, and also capable of what's referred to as agap�, that is, love: loveof the truth, love of humanity. and if you get people to rise to that level,then you can have peace. not on some other level. because effectively the empiricistwill play people off against each other, playing on their emotions, playing on their fixedopinions, derived from deductive logic. that's the basic idea.and i think if you look at some of the great thinkers throughout history, you look at krafftehricke, that we've referred to quite frequently,

he's motivated by this conception, that manis not an earthling. that he's driven by an extraterrestrial imperative. or, you lookat vernadsky, the russian scientist: and he argues that man, through his no�tic or creativecapability, is actually a geological force within the universe.or, you go back to nicholas of cusa, who argued that man is a microcosm of the macrocosm,of the universe. and that man is an instrument for the unfolding in time of that which isenfolded in the mind of the creator. that's man's purpose.and so, i think that that's really the whole point that lyndon and helga larouche havebeen emphasizing in terms of a new paradigm: we have to operate from that standpoint, notfrom the standpoint of littleness. small is

not beautiful. well, neither is large, perse, either. [laughter] but the basic point is, what is beautifulis the human being. nicholas of cusa actually says that therewould not be a universe if there was not man. and it's that conception of man which is crucial.it's man as creative intellect; man as essentially a geological force, a no�tic force whichhas geological impact and extraterrestrial impact, as an evolutionary force for the furthercreation of the universe. and as difficult as that may be, that's what has got to bethe self-conception of human beings and the motivation, the mission.q: [ren�e sigerson] hi will. i'd like you to say a few things in that connection aboutvladimir putin. because lyn has emphasized

in various ways, the latest formulation iheard is � and this is not a precise quote � is that when lyn was thrown in jail, thatputin was introduced in order to rise to the occasion to fill the gap of leadership.i had found that in general, that to the extent that americans don't yet fully understandthe connection between the economic warfare and the military irregular warfare, terrorism,that goes on, on this planet, that it was all too easy of the enemy to simply demonizeputin, which has caused a gap, in people's memory. namely, the circumstances under whichhe was brought in which have to do with chechnya. and the chechen phenomenon is an arc, overthis british-saudi phenomenon. so i wonder if you would fill in the role.i mean, most americans, what they know about

chechens, that these two kids in boston werechechens, that's what they know. they don't know that the integral relationship betweenthe british empire and what later became the saudi arabian phenomenon. so i wonder if youwould go through that, and possibly touch on what happened in serbia. lyn also broughtthat up; what happened in serbia, during the 1990s, when primakov � when there was anattempt to create to create a dialogue between the russian prime minister and clinton; andgore et al. sabotaged this, but it was going on during the period of the serbian war, whichwas sort of a pre-staging ground for everything that happened afterwards. so i wonder if youcould say a few things about this? wertz: well, as lyn has emphasized, in a certainsense, that which defines putin's identity

was the fight against the nazis, where somethinglike 27 million soviet citizens were killed � far more than anyplace else. and thisincluded family members of putin's. so you think about it in a certain sense, i think,in terms of the parallel to lyn. lyn fought in world war ii; and upon roosevelt's deathhe was approached by some of his fellow soldiers who wanted to see what he had to think about,what does this mean? and lyn was very concerned, and said he's being replaced by a small man.who as it turned out was basically being run by churchill and in this country by the fbi,j. edgar hoover. and did the british bidding with dropping the atomic bombs on japan.now, lyn came out of that with a commitment: he came back to this country, and i thinkthat whole experience obviously shaped him,

because he also saw the british murder ofindians, at the point at which they were fighting for independence; and independence which roosevelthad tried to support before his death. so that was a formative experience in lyn'scase. i'm not saying it's the only formative experience, but it's a very significant one,which is parallel to putin's experience in terms of his family members dying. you seeputin participating in these immortal regiment parades in moscow, carrying the picture offamily relatives. this is what motivates him, which is a motivation which is not just � heis actually like lyn and helga, a patriot and also a world-citizen. he's not just doingthis for russian interests, but he is a firm defender of russian sovereignty, and he knowsthe history of the repeated attempts to invade

russia and dismember it.the whole chechen situation ultimately goes back to a plan to destroy the soviet union,which gave rise to al-qaeda, of all things. and the basic plan was put forward by bernardlewis, a brit, and in a certain sense, implemented by brzezinski under the carter administration,which was essentially to create an arc of crisis around the soviet union, in order tocollapse the soviet union. and this later then became the whole situation in chechnya,which is on the southern border of russia, sort of the belly of russia.and the fact of the matter is that the chechens were supported then by saudi arabia. theywere supported by the british. recently, putin made the comment that there were many in thewest, who instead of supporting russia, ended

up supporting the chechen terrorists. andmany of these terrorists are now, in syria; some of the leading members of isis are chechens.this is one of the reasons that putin gave for going into syria, at the request of assad,for military assistance, because many of those fighting in syria, including the chechensprominently, but others as well, putin realized, would come back and carry out terrorist operationsin russia, which is a continuation of this arc of crisis policy of bernard lewis andzbigniew brzezinski, which lyn opposed in a film documentary that he did in 1999, calledstorm over asia. and what you have to realize is that oncelyn was released from prison, he went to russia, and participated with circles from the russianacademy of sciences; he didn't have direct

contact with putin, but many of these peoplewere in the circles that were related to putin. and what he was attempting to do, was, � he'ssaid this many times � he had worked out a plan for cooperation between russia andthe united states. at the time, he was in communication indirectly with bill clinton,around this; bill clinton was not prepared to move on the policy at the point that lynhad the discussions with the russians. and then, of course, he came under severe attackwith the impeachment proceedings around this british set up of lewinsky � precisely atthe moment that he went to the council on foreign relations and called for a "new financialarchitecture," along the lines of what lyn was proposing.but what happened is, of course you had the

balkans war, and the dismemberment of yugoslaviain the same general period of the 1990s, while clinton was president. and primakov was partof these circles in russia, that lyn was in contact with, in terms of the russian academyof sciences. and he was an advocate of a concept which was essentially the same as lyndon larouche's:he called for cooperation between russia, china, and india; lyn had a four power conceptof the united states, russia, china, and india, to defeat the british empire; that that combinationof countries would be sufficient to destroy the british empire.and of course, that's what we're fighting for now. we've got three of them, we justhave to bring the united states into the mix; and maybe germany will play a role in this,as well.

but the nato bombing started, as the pointthat primakov was going to come to the united states to visit with clinton and the flightwas called off! he was in the air, and the flight had to turn around, because the bombinghad started on serbia. i mean, that's exactly what occurred. and this is all the lead-upto the period of 9/11! and of course, you've got all sorts of al-qaedaterrorism that were incubated in this balkans war, in kosovo and so forth. the saudis wereall over the place; they were all over the place there; they were all over the placein chechnya and dagestan in that period. so what you've got is, lyn was waging thisfight, for a new financial architecture, working again as he had with the sdi for reagan, hewas working indirectly with bill clinton,

on behalf of a new bretton woods system, anda new financial architecture. and that was sabotaged, from within the united states,by republicans and by gore elements, gorey elements in washington, d.c.and clinton was not backed up by his wife; his wife stabbed him in the back in this wholeprocess. so that's what you're dealing with. there'sa certain parallelism of effort by putin and by lyn. and lyn has said, putin is a creativeleader, who operates strategically, as you can see by what he's done, particularly insyria, but not limited to that. and he's operating on the basis of principle: that's the basicpoint, as you can see in his un general assembly speech last september. the principles of theun charter, questions of national sovereignty,

no to regime change. and at every point, proposingeffectively a united front, even to his enemies. i mean, erdogan did what putin said, apologize� and he accepted the apology. not that they won't continue to press for a changein policy on the terrorist issue; they will! `but the point is, he continues to proposea joint campaign against isis and al nusra. obama has resisted. kerry's trying to bringsomething about in terms of coordination; we'll see how that goes. but the point isthat putin really is the biggest ally that we have in the united states, and also inother locations throughout the world, along with chinese, xi jinping.and again, as lyn just recently said, one of the critical things is to bring into existencea working relationship between certain circles

in germany, and putin. that would be verycritical right now. also if putin can actually pull turkey into this fight against isis andal-nusra: both of those measures would be very important in terms of thwarting the dangerof war. and hopefully there could also be coordinationin terms of the economic collaboration. the chinese asked for the united states to jointhe brics and the aiib. obama refused. perhaps the deutsche bank initiative will facilitatethat kind of shift. q: [follow-up] of course the repeal of glass-steagallis 1999. so... wertz: yeah, exactly. it's exactly at thepoint that bill clinton came under massive pressure, effectively because of his collaborationwith larouche. and the possibility of a revolutionary

change globally, at that moment. and then9/11 hits, after glass-steagall has been repealed, and the serbia war which again, is a war whichdid not have the authority of the un. [applause] speed: good. so, we're at our conclusion.i just want to say a couple things concerning the manhattan project and this particularpresentation of today. we are going to be going into an implementation section now,and certainly the material that you heard and some of the things that we know aboutwhat can be done were made very clear. i did mention, and some people came in afterwards,that will was a political prisoner with lyndon larouche. they were both sent to jail in 1989.i said, that the erinyes principle was exemplified by him: and that means, not merely that justiceultimately prevails, but that the only thing

that exists fundamentally in the universe,is justice. and if you stick by that and persist in that, that's what triumphs, because youdon't betray it. [applause]