Schiller Institute on YouTube Schiller Institute on Facebook RSS

Home >

The Law, the Citizenry and the Government

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
December 2015

PDF of this article, published in the January 8, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, is re-published here with permission.

Immediately below are selected excerpts taken from two live dialogues with Lyndon LaRouche: his discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on December 28, 2015, and his national Fireside Chat on December 30, 2015.

From the Policy Committee Discussion

Lyndon LaRouche: All right,—we have one of the most crucial moments in history for the whole planet. That is, what’s happening through the international system, the United States, the British system, and so forth, Europe in general, is terrible. China is less affected directly, but is indirectly affected. So as of this time, we have entered a period in which the intention is to reduce the population’s resources to effect virtual mass murder.

That is what is in process, unless the Obama Administration is ordered to prevent this thing from happening. So the existence of Obama as President of the United States is, in part, the major issue for life of all human beings on this planet. But! In particular, the United States is responsible.

St. Paul, whose epistles dealt profoundly with the question of Natural Law, in a 1633 painting by Rembrandt.

Now, in other parts of the planet, certain parts of Asia, for example,—Europe is in a mess. Europe is in a terrible mess. It’s a terrible threat. The threat against the people of Europe is monstrous, right now! And I know this material directly, so let’s not debate it in detail. The point also is that China and India and so forth, and Asian nations, are also implicitly threatened by this thing. But the main thing is that the major threat is in the trans-Atlantic region, right now! And we’re looking at a threat of massive death of human beings over the first days, and into the next days. And that’s what is happening right now.

The question is, can we get Obama thrown out of the Presidency now, in time to avoid an absolute disaster?....

Diane Sare: ... Part of the challenge we face is the very deep pessimism and despair of the population. And partly that is challenging to overcome, because in the last 50 years, the culture has so degraded that people look within themselves, and they have a hard time locating a certain quality of emotional strength, and emotional determination, to persevere whatever the obstacles. And I think in that regard, what we saw with the incredible response to the performances of Handel’s Messiah in Manhattan and Brooklyn, is people grappling for something greater, something which they haven’t known about themselves for some time, that will give the strength necessary to actually persevere and to resist the incredible degradation of tolerating and going along with this.

The Wrong Laws

LaRouche: We have a whole century after the Renaissance; the collapse of the Renaissance and that whole century and beyond, has been the kind of destruction which has occurred. We have had over a century of this kind of thing over much of the planet. It’s mass murder. So what’s the law? The law is, mass murder is illegal....

... And this is again the same British animal. The British animal has been the dominant factor, and the British animal is Obama! Obama is a creation of the British system; that was the way it was done.

And what was before then, the Bush family,—well, the Bushes should have been burned.

But we’re at this kind of point: this is reality. And everything that we can do that is right in nature, should be done. Law is not supreme when it violates the principle of law.

Ben Deniston: And I think that can go to what you’re saying on natural law. That the effect of policies that go against the natural necessity of the existence of a growing economy, ends with this result.

LaRouche: I think your point on natural law is the crucial point to emphasize.

Bill Roberts: ... As Michael raised earlier, this crisis is the will of Obama, when he intervened to impose Dodd-Frank and block Glass-Steagall. That was an intervention on behalf of creating this crisis. So it’s not just a financial crisis that Congress finds itself admitting to, but that this was created by the cultural norm that they accepted, the degraded state. And so that has to be taken on, top down.

LaRouche: Well, there’s another, deeper issue here in terms of history. The problem is, that we take laws and we use laws which are wrong laws, and we don’t understand what the real law is. They say, “well, human beings have made a choice; that is, ordinary society’s human beings have made a choice, and this, therefore, is law.”

Now, that is not true! It never was true. Particularly when you look at the appeasers of evil in relatively modern history, that is, since the Renaissance. And what happened with the Renaissance was the introduction immediately afterward,—they shut it down, and they created degeneration. They created mass murder! That’s what happened.

Now, what’s the point? The idea of the law is not the true law; that’s the problem. That was the problem then, after the closing-down of the Renaissance, and we had a big struggle to get something in Europe and elsewhere, which was not evil. And we fought evil repeatedly. And we don’t say that the law,—the letter of the law as provided by some people because they happen to be in power,—that that defines the principle of law for the human species! In other words, the other law is a responsibility of mankind’s security and development, and progress: that is the law! And if that law is defied, if that is defied, then the crime has been committed!

Matthew Ogden: You know, I think Putin addressed that very clearly in his speech to the United Nations a few months ago, and then also more recently, where he’s taken the question of what is the standard of international law, and how that’s been violated repeatedly by, for example, the Bush and Obama administrations, with the overthrowing of sovereign governments and the imposing of the will of one nation on another nation, which is a definition of aggressive warfare.

That’s the kind of thing that the United Nations was set up in order to prevent in the aftermath of World War II, which was really a major reason why Franklin Roosevelt mobilized the entire American people, in alliance with the Russians at that time, to defeat what was coming out as fascism in Europe in the 1930s. There is a standard of international law, and there’s a standard which the United Nations is intended to represent, and that’s exactly what Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been addressing very clearly in their recent interventions on that question.

What Real Law Is
View full size
21st Century Science & Technology
One aspect of the natural law of progress is the requirement for increased energy consumption per capita. This graphic depicts the leap in population growth (solid line) that follows the increase in energy available per capita (dashed line)—an increase achieved by man’s creative inventions of new technologies.

LaRouche: But there’s a higher question here, which I’ve raised occasionally, which is not raised usually; when it comes to technicalities, it’s not raised; it’s not treated. The problem is that mankind cannot really make the law! That is, mankind does not, by mankind’s own authority as such,—by terms of individual members of societies,—does not really make the law. Because the law is the principle of the progress of the human species, and if the human species is not progressing in its development and its fruition, then the law has been violated! And that’s where the problem lies.

You look at the terrible things that have happened, under which various Renaissances have been crushed; look at what the mass murder was of that. Now we’re talking about a mass murder problem right now. What we’re talking about is the policy of the United States government right now, at least under the current President and the preceding two Presidential terms: Mass murder!

So therefore, there is no law which justifies the existence of the people who do that thing! And therefore, you don’t say, “there’s a technical law, there’s a law on the books.” That is not the law! Because the worst, the most Satanic forces on the planet, have been the law! That’s how it worked!

And the point is that mankind is answerable to a higher law, because mankind is not an Earthling! Mankind is based on a principle which is not that of Earthlings. It is the responsibility of mankind to develop future populations which are more fitting. The assumption is that every generation should be moving progressively, in terms of its natural law, and the natural law is the improvement, the self-improvement of the human species. And only mankind has the power to do that.

So when somebody comes in, in government, and says “We’re government, we have a law.” Who made the law? Who says it’s the law? What’s the law?

Well, you had in Christianity, for example,—under Christianity what happened was the idea of law governing mankind per se, and that’s the higher law. The higher law is that mankind must produce next generations which are superior, for the purpose of mankind, for the progress of mankind. And mankind must rise to higher levels of achievement: That’s God’s law! And we call it God’s law, not this petty law that people gossip about.

But that’s what it is. Mankind has to make progress, and the obligation of law, among nations, is progress for mankind’s condition; better intellectual development; newer, higher levels of knowledge; higher levels of achievement; higher meanings of the existence of mankind, of successive generations of mankind.

And that’s the law, that’s the real law. The technical law, the book law,—that is not the law. The law is that mankind must progress in its nature. That, you know, people die; all right, fine. What’s the law? Well, did they get better people produced in their families? Were their families able to be progressive in going to a higher levels of achievement for mankind? Are we not responsible to take care of the Galaxy, for example? We are responsible!

So who’s going to shut that law down? The law is that mankind must progress, that mankind’s achievement must progress, by that higher standard. You know, we’ve even got other cases on that thing.

Ogden: Well, one thing that comes to mind is Alexander Hamilton, absolutely. That was absolutely the discussion of Alexander Hamilton and his associates in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, the question of natural law. That was the birth of our nation, based on that idea.

An artist’s impression of mankind’s true home, the Milky Way Galaxy.

LaRouche: But the point is, what about the Galaxy? Mankind is responsible to improve upon the Galaxy; that’s implicit. Who could take that away? Who has the right to take that away? Who has the authority to take that away?

Deniston: I think this message needs to go to the Pope, pretty quickly.

LaRouche: I think the Pope should probably be put into suspension. His existence should be in some kind of suspension. He should not be Pope-ular.

Deniston: Well, the precedent of Cusa really sticks out in my mind. Because you see his work on science, also his work on the nation-state, the idea of a government of a republic,—it flows from the discovery he made, a higher conception about mankind’s creative mission and existence in the universe. And that was the basis then, for him to develop and take further conceptions about how must society organize itself to facilitate this progress.

The Principle of Law

LaRouche: You have to look at Brunelleschi, too. Brunelleschi was very important in this; the Renaissance would not have occurred without Brunelleschi. It was going to be one of the old, usual kinds of systems of government. And Brunelleschi forced it, and what happened was that the Renaissance as such was continued.

But then that got crushed! It got crushed in the beginning of the next century, which became an evil thing, just like what we’re talking about now! That’s what happened after that, after the end of that century: it came down. And that is what happened in the various stages of Renaissance efforts after that point.

No, there is a higher law, and we have to really specify there is a higher law for mankind. And mankind is not limited to being an Earthling; that’s also the case. Mankind goes out to higher levels of achievement, beyond what we call nature, natural nature. And the development of mankind is through the progress of the development of mankind’s ability to create, and that is the directly pertinent precedent for law. Are you creating a level of achievement for subsequent generations? That’s the issue!

White House/Tina Hager
George W. Bush during his meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at the Crawford Ranch in April 2002.

And this thing is Satanic! And that’s the only way to say it: “This is entirely Satanic, directly Satanic.” That Obama and everything he represents is a Satanic personality, and therefore should not be considered human.

Because the right to have rights depends upon your humanity. And humanity is something which is dependent upon the reconstruction of the birth of new generations of human birth and development and progress. And that’s the principle of law, and that’s the only law that mankind has ever been able to define. Does mankind become a better, more powerful force for good, in the history of mankind? That’s the issue!

And this is Satanic! And we have to use the word Satanic, to describe those who are making these orders. You say, “Well this is the law;”—well, you are operating under Satanic law. We are under the order of anti-Satanic law.

And we have to do it that way. If you don’t do it, if you don’t go to this question of what’s a higher principle, and you say, “Well, assume we have a human order of principle.”... But that’s not the principle; the existence of mankind does not depend upon these kinds of caprices! It depends entirely upon the progress of mankind as a species! And mankind has the only power that has a willful capability of improvement in species.

From the Fireside Chat

Lyndon LaRouche: But the crucial thing here, of course, is that we have to understand that we’re working under a threat of extinction. By that I mean the fact that the typical American can have his job, his life rights, all kinds of things taken away from him in the course of even weeks and months. That’s what’s on now. That’s what’s coming from Obama, it’s coming from his program. It’s coming from the British Empire, the British Empire as such.

It means also some Satanic elements, like 9/11, the 9/11 crisis: Here we had a number of citizens, especially concentrated in Manhattan And they were subjected to mass killing, especially in the southern part of Manhattan; one spot in Washington, mass murder. The mass murder has never been uncovered. The Congress of the United States, the institutions that go with the Congress of the United States, have always suppressed as much as possible the fact of what happened in 9/11.

What was 9/11? I’ll tell you what 9/11 is, and it’s what you’re going to think about. What happened was that the British Empire, which was working with the Saudis, Saudi agents as well as the British agents,—and they ran an operation which invaded the United States, in their own operation, and they created a mass murder operation in that time, during the attacks on particularly Manhattan.

Now, this thing was going on already, it had been. It was run by the British and the British Monarchy in cohesion with the Saudis. These are our mortal enemies. And that has to be remembered. There has never been justice delivered to the victims, to the memory of the victims, of those who died in Manhattan by Saudi agents and British agents. Never!

What Is the United States?

But since that time, there’s always been a moot argument that we must not offend the Saudis and the British, the ones who murdered our citizens. And it means all the terrorist screwballs and so forth, which have come up under the Bush family and Obama. And the name of Bush, and of Obama, is the most hateful thought which any honest American can experience. And therefore, the important thing we have to say: The members of Congress who sanctified the suppression of the 9/11 information are treasonous agents working against the United States, in effect, now.

And you want to digest that a little bit, because here we are: We were attacked by the British. It was a British-Saudi oil business, and this is the thing that led to 9/11. And the Presidency of the United States, the majority of the forces of the Congress, and other people involved in this sort of thing, along with the British all along,—they committed warfare, in effect, against the United States. And those members of Congress who still cover up for what the Saudis did and what the British did in 9/11,—these people are not members of our government; they’re only traitors.

And the time has come, we’ve got to clean this thing up. The first step we have to take: we have to force the Congress, in its shame, to lift the 9/11 ban. Until that time, the United States has not been honored by its Presidents, by its leading representatives in the Congress, and other agents. It has to be done now.

And now we’re facing a great danger to the people of the United States, a great danger; one greater than anything most of them have ever thought of. And therefore, we have to,—as people,—we have to force our government to do the right thing, and stop covering up the intrinsic criminality, intrinsic to the British system and to the British system’s golliwog, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and the British Monarchy are one piece, two parts of the same piece. They’re both evil. And those who are acting to support 9/11, are complicit with evil, not only against the United States and the people of the United States but against humanity in general.

We’ve got to clean the mess up. And some people will enjoy doing that, especially some people whose families came from the southern quarter of Manhattan.

Question: [Describes how an employee of a Congressman’s office became fascinated with the Manhattan choral process, after discussion with a young LaRouche organizer.] But I just wanted to fill you in on this, and hear what you have to respond, because it seems to me they need this just as much as the rest of the citizenry does,—to hear what we’re doing, and to see it uplift them, and we should invite them along as well.

LaRouche: I think you’ve got a very good beginning there, a keystone effort. Because what needs to be understood, is avoided; that people will try to limit their discussions to things that they think are acceptable, or in some way they have a special attitude about them. When the problem is that we have to have a population mobilized, by itself in a sense, and by whatever we can contribute to make that happen; for the people of the United States to take charge of the United States, of the people of the United States.

In other words, the problem is that the typical reaction is the idea of, “we’re only amateurs, and we have to listen to the higher authority of higher elected people or elected officials” of that type. And the problem is that people do not have the psychology, in themselves, to realize that they cannot just simply ask funny questions of admirable people. We have to realize that we have to get our citizens in like soldiers. It doesn’t mean they’re taking guns or something,—they are like soldiers, they are part of an army; an army of citizens, and as an army of citizens whose power is to chastise and inspire the citizenry in general, and especially so-called authorities in high places.

That has to be the principle. This idea, “This guy’s a bigshot, he’s around all the world and so forth,” that doesn’t really sell anything, really, to anyone who understands reality. Yes, there is a reason to appreciate the achievements of some people in the discoveries they’ve made, and the fact that they may also be teachers, as well as leaders in a Congress or something like that, or officials in general.

But the point is, there has to be a reciprocal relationship between the ordinary citizens and the medium-level citizen and so forth, and the leadership. There has to be a process which is not a “your taste; my taste; his flavor; her flavor,” this sort of thing. That’s not the way. You have to bring people together, and bring them as groups from all walks of life, so to speak, to digest among themselves, in their discussion, and in the cross-discussion with other groups and similar groups; there has to be a commonality of development, of determining what kind of ideas should be promoted, and what role these ideas should contribute.

And that issue is where we’ve lost it in the United States in general. Very few people in the United States, as citizens or potential citizens, have ever been able to understand what the principle of Congress must be; what the United States is. Most people will talk about the United States, but they don’t know what it is, and they never knew what it was. And that’s what we have to fix.

What is Citizenship?
creative commons/Daderot
“The Lexington Minuteman,” a sculpture of Captain John Parker done by Henry Hudson Kitson and erected in 1900.

Q: Now, I have a question from a gentleman who hopefully heard what you just said, but it’s along similar lines, communicated through the internet. He asks: “Why has Obama been allowed to stay in office this long and has destroyed America without question? The spineless Congress and Senate hadn’t gone against him nor denied his executive orders; why are they all afraid of that weasel?”

LaRouche: Okay, he’s absolutely correct in placing the problem exactly there. The problem essentially is that the idea of freedom of the citizen is the right of the citizen to participate in election, the process of election, to participate in the discussion of policy; not someone who comes out like a beggar, saying “Please, Mr. Wiseguy, tell me what the news is?” Well, that’s not very good influence.

You have to bring the people together. Now admittedly, during the first seven Presidential terms of the United States after George Washington, this principle was not really understood well. And we had one good President after that, a great President. Then he was kicked out office after this crucial one term. And after that, there was a run-down up to Abraham Lincoln’s role, there was a rundown of mostly fakers, in the name of Presidents. And we had big trouble with this, of course, with the Southerners, because that was an extension of that problem.

We never had a unified United States since that time, since the beginning,—for instance, the death of Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s service in particular, as President; then there were a few good things, plus terrible mistakes. You cannot say that at that time, there was much of anything of solidarity among citizens. There were a few times, you know, people would—well, the Civil War was an important struggle. The losers were still losers, for the most part, and their progeny were generally also losers, like the others.

But the United States has not been a clean operation. It has not been a united nation, not since just the beginning: Alexander Hamilton and President Washington, that was the beginning of only a Presidency. But, since that time, ups and downs, ups and downs.

And the United States has had British influence coming in, other kinds of foreign influence coming in, foreign influences from France; foreign influence from Britain, and from other quarters.

So the United States has never really been, except in momentary cases, like in fighting the Civil War..., there’s not really been much solidarity. And we had some under Franklin Roosevelt, but look what happened. Once the Republican Party was able to win an election against the President of the United States [in 1944], that he took a back seat, a low back seat, and the orders were given by the Republican Party and the Republican Party was, in other words, the FBI. The Federal Bureau of Investigation became the government of the United States, pushing out Franklin Roosevelt, who, while still President, was pushed out of that role, and his people were pushed out of that role.

And since that time, more or less, there has been no such thing as solidarity among American citizens. And therefore, we have to take the crises that we have to deal with, and we have to make sure that those crises actually mobilize us to a system of solidarity, real solidarity, where citizens are enabled to participate in what citizens and leaders of government at the same time, must deal with. And we don’t have that. We haven’t had that for a long, long time.

Q: I wonder if we all should remove our life savings, and close our accounts. Much is in 401ks and life insurance policies. Those with regular savings, will they be affected? 401ks? Insurance policies? I am prepared for chaos, no matter what comes. What do you think we should do?

We Don’t Depend on Money
Library of Congress
Rural electrification, one of FDR’s major initiatives, in California’s San Joaquin Valley in 1938.

LaRouche: I think, first of all, you have to recognize what the nature of the problem is. Now, on the surface of what you’re describing, I can understand that immediately; I don’t have any problem with that. The problem is, what’s the follow-up? What’s the consequence of your trying to do something to deal with that problem, that misuse of economy? And that’s where the problem lies.

You have to understand that what is being done to us now, is that through Wall Street and things like Wall Street in the United States in particular, what we’re doing is we’re jeopardizing the very existing life, personal life, of most people in the United States itself. And unless we interject action, to prevent that consequence from occurring....

We have to throw out President Obama, throw him out of office immediately; get rid of people in the government agencies, of government function, who do the same thing: who cheat; who steal and cheat. And yet they walk around day-to-day, place to place, and they are treated as authorities, authorities of the seats of government; or the members of Congress, and the institutions associated with those members of Congress. And these guys are committing murder, they’re committing crimes against the people of the United States. The Wall Street gang should be cleaned out.

You have to go look at one thing: What did Franklin Roosevelt do when he became President? What did he do to deal with what had happened under Hoover and Hoover’s associates? What did Franklin Roosevelt do? He was merciless. He put them in jail for great fraud. And he took the people who had been robbed,—all their access to wealth, even accumulation of savings and so forth, were being taken away from them: And Franklin Roosevelt intervened to deal with that. And what did he do? He acted to wipe out everything that was criminal about Wall Street and similar institutions. This is applied not only to the United States itself, but Franklin Roosevelt also understood that we had to deal with other nations, foreign nations on the same standard of judgment.

Now, we didn’t always get our way on that thing from the United States, but we’re in a time now, where you want to throw Wall Street out of existence, put ’em someplace where they beg, go beg, go beg for something. Because they’ve got nothing coming to them! They have robbed the people of the United States, they’ve cheated them to the bottom of everything.

What we need to do is mobilize the people, the citizens, to look at the problem,—look at the problem the way Franklin Roosevelt looked at this problem, the way he dealt with them. His action was correct. Now, what did he do? The United States was bankrupt; under Franklin Roosevelt, through the Hoover system the United States was bankrupt. How did Franklin Roosevelt save the United States from continuing to be bankrupt? By using the powers of government, the powers that lie in government, through the people, and to make sure that we provide credit, credit for people who have no employment but need it; who suffer from want.

What we did is, we changed the character of the United States, from Franklin Roosevelt’s assumption of the Presidency to the point of the damned election of the Republicans which took the real power of Franklin Roosevelt out of his hands, and put it into the hands of really the same people within the Hoover circles.

And therefore, what we have to do, is we operate on the basis that the government of the United States will use its potential credit to assist in providing the opportunities of work and of necessity, as well, in order to build up the per-capita capabilities of the citizens within the United States, all kinds of citizens; and to do this by aid of making investments in creating construction. One of the greatest things was the so-called Hoover Dam, same thing.

So the idea is that we do not depend on counterfeit money; we do not depend upon money per se. We depend upon a system of credit, which has a valid base for advancing the productive powers of labor, of mankind in general. In other words, you take a person off the streets; they’re absolutely hopeless in terms of their financial situation. Franklin Roosevelt’s administration gave provision to save people from dying on the streets! Like the streets of Manhattan!

And what we did, is we built up an economic growth inside the United States, within the term of Franklin Roosevelt prior to the new election, Wall Street election. And we created the most powerful improvement in human life that mankind has ever experienced, heretofore. And that’s the principle. We are responsible for the people; we who lead the nation, we are responsible for the care of the people. And when the care of the people is poor, because it’s been stripped of its assets, it’s the duty of government to promote the advancement of the skills and achievements of every citizen and every person. And that’s our job.

Law & Government: Hamilton vs. Hobbes

Jan. 3—Between late 1774 and early 1775 an exchange of five public letters took place between Alexander Hamilton and an individual who wrote under the pseudonym A.W. Farmer (A Westchester Farmer). At the time, A.W. Farmer’s identity was unknown, but it was later revealed as Samuel Seabury, a prominent Anglican clergyman and a devoted loyalist to Britain during the American Revolution. Seabury later became the first American Episcopal bishop.

In three widely circulated public missives—“Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress,” “The Congress Canvassed,” and “A View of the Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies”—Seabury proclaimed not only his irrevocable loyalty to the British Crown, but in the last of the three documents, he is explicit in his demand that the colonies must submit to the “rule of law,” i.e., they must obey the legal diktats of the British Crown and Parliament.

New York Historical Society
New Yorkers pull down the statue of King George III on July 9, 1976.

Hamilton wrote two replies to Seabury (A.W. Farmer), and it is in the second of those replies, titled “The Farmer Refuted,” that the then eighteen-year-old Hamilton strikes directly at the foundation of oligarchical law. Written in February of 1775, two months prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord, “The Farmer Refuted” goes beyond Hamilton’s first response to Seabury, wherein he had argued for the right of the newly formed Continental Congress to resist oppressive measures emanating from London; rather, in “The Farmer Refuted” Hamilton goes to the very heart of the matter at hand, i.e., the actual nature of law and government itself. Addressing “A.W. Farmer” directly, Hamilton says:

There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. [Thomas] Hobbes, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he ran into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe.

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind: the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety.

Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity.

Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience.

When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.

Hamilton’s reference to Thomas Hobbes is not capricious, for it was Hobbes, in his Leviathan (1651), who first enunciated the explicit doctrine of man-made Positive Law as supreme over human society, a theory of law divorced from any universal concept of morality or the human identity. So-called man-made “positive law” is grounded in the Thomas Hobbes/Adam Smith/Jeremy Bentham belief that human beings are beasts, motivated by the animalistic desire for the “pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.” The “rule of law,” as defined by Hobbes, is a system of man-made law divorced from any higher concept of natural law, and it is to be imposed on the population through arbitrary rules, to which the people are required to submit.

In truth, this British concept of law, a notion of law designed to govern an oligarchical empire, was created in order to overturn and eradicate earlier Christian concepts of law, such as that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who asserted the primacy of natural law over man-made law, stating that where “it [man-made law] is at variance with natural law it will not be a law, but spoilt law.”

Centuries later, in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963), Dr. Martin Luther King would write:

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

What Is our Government Now?

We do not depend upon other people’s money! We depend upon what the United States represents in its characteristics of its institution, and we are determined to provide growth and advancement in the condition of life of the parts of the nation and the individuals of the nation. And that’s what Franklin Roosevelt did! And that is the only thing that is worthwhile considering as a policy for planning for the condition of the United States right now, and for many other parts of the world also.

We just have to get back to that principle which Franklin Roosevelt, while in power, understood and demonstrated very clearly. We don’t have to invent something new. We simply have to do what Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration did, by putting Wall Street in jail, with serious jail time, among other things; and the loss of their money. And we’ve got to do the same thing again, which means, also, that the Federal government must act not to promote wealth as such, but to promote the growth of productivity of the citizens, and the results of that growth in terms of the benefits realized by human beings who are the citizens.

Q: My really big question is, does LaRouche PAC have Congressional support for the current effort? All I see thus far is I can’t see Congress taking action until after a big event of financial crisis or total executive misconduct. What do you think?

White House/Pete Souza
President Obama announces one of his many murders—that of Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

LaRouche: Well, he’s right. The point is the present government, under the Bushes, in particular, the Bush succession,—and Obama, is the worst of all possible Presidents to be considered so far. He’s actually of a character of a Satanic characteristic. That is, his morality, or substitute for morality, is Satanic intrinsically. Every Tuesday, Obama has on the record so far,—has ordered people to be killed, with no valid protest of this, on this account. And they died; and Obama does that generally on Tuesdays. So you have a President who kills innocent citizens on his own impulses, and does it regularly.

Now you have a Congress, Congress in general; the Congress is fully aware of this! And what do they do about it? Nothing.

So what kind of a government do we have? We have a government. on the one hand, of professional Satanists; on the other hand, cowards. And that fact has to be rubbed in without remorse; rub it in!

You’ve got many members of Congress who are gutless wonders, and yet they call themselves the policymakers of nations. I don’t think we need gutless wonders as members of Congress.

Q: Will the recent Seymour Hersh revelations of U.S. military giving Obama the middle finger and sharing intelligence with the Russians on the Daesh [ISIS], inspire Americans to take back their country?

LaRouche: I think I would read that a little bit differently. First of all, the entirety of the government of the United States today, pretty much all the officials and so forth, and especially Obama; Obama’s among the worst mis-representatives of the United States: he’s evil. Obama is an evil person. He should not have been President, ever! He’s evil!

Now, the question of whether he’s a President or not has come into doubt; of how Hillary lost the nomination for President to Obama. Now, that’s a very strange thing, but in any case at a certain point I still thought that she was a valid person, and I spoke to her, and she asked my advice and I gave her my advice. But then she got under pressure from Obama. And from that standpoint on, things began to get pretty bad.

Now Hillary is not exactly a genius, not when it comes to science, nor when it comes to the profession of science; she never was. She was a lawyer, and she worked as a lawyer. And you have lawyers sometimes who are disenchanted by anything except the law profession.

The Legal Profession

Now, the law profession in the United States is filled with a lot of corruption. The courts are filled with corruption, because they treat legal matters, of law, they treat them in a certain way which is contrary to morality. They get by with doing things which a decent person would never allow to happen. And so, that’s where the problem comes in: we don’t really have checks and balances in any real sense, in terms of how the U.S. government is composed and how it is to operate,—we don’t have it. Nor do we have it in our practice in general. The United States is dominated by Bertrand Russell’s legacy, a kind of corruption, inherent corruption.

So the problem is, how can we get a system of government inside the United States which is fit for the use of the government of the United States? We have a few individuals who have a conscience in these matters, but those who have consciences have two problems, of two varieties: One variety is, they’re very concerned; their conscience is stricken by what they did not do that they should have done. And the other is like Hillary, who doesn’t give a damn what the truth is, when she’s working for Obama, as she is now!

And she has no moral conscience in that sense. She may have a conscience of her daughter, a conscience of members of her family, this sort of thing; it’s all personal stuff. But when it comes to the interaction among members of government, or bodies of government, these standards are corruption. And she’s corrupt! She’s inherently corrupt, morally corrupt! There’s no doubt of it.

And so, there are a lot of people in the Congress and in the courts, who are corrupt in that way: they outnumber the people who are not corrupt, not necessarily in numbers, but in terms of influence. Some of the most powerful people in legislation, law generally, in government in general, are the worst, absolute worst, among the members of government of the United States.

That has to be changed, and it must be changed.