Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

September 17, 2009 (LPAC)-- In a lengthy discussion yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche reviewed the strategic significance of the current policy brawl over the Nazi healthcare policy that Obama is desperately trying to implement on London's behalf, and of the underlying economic breakdown crisis. His remarks are below:

What I'm looking at as crucial, is you have to look back and forth, because the usual thing about a chronology—people who try to get chronological series often get themselves mistaken, because you have to look at the depth of some things. For example:

On all of these things right now, you have one track, which is the genocide track. That's there, and that's been there all along. But the most crucial thing is the British themselves unleashing, essentially 10 years before planned, certain reports, of which the most significant, and doubly significant, is the leak from this period—this is about the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990—involving Kohl, who is going to Dresden where he is about to announce that he's for the reunification of Germany, rather than a new arrangement with the DDR.

In this period you had this trip of Thatcher to Moscow to meet with Gorbachev, and the discussion between the two of them, which was supposed to be off the record, was apparently on the record, because the recording devices were still functioning. During this period you had a discussion, in which Thatcher said that Gorbachev is, in effect, a British agent, and that she trusts him, and that they have essential agreement. There may have been some difference in perception; there obviously was a difference in perception between what Gorbachev's estimates were and what her estimates were, as well as all around. But nonetheless, that's the point.

So now this has been exposed. This of course exposes George H.W. Bush, as being of course, we understand, he's completely witting in this. He was in London at the crucial point of this process, and he was in on some of this stuff, anyway.

This whole process, of this health care business, has to be looked at from the standpoint of what the long-term global perspective is of the British Empire, and various people who are infected by that. Most significantly, you have the Thatcher and Tony Blair roles during this entire affair. From that period of the last weeks of 1989, and Blair today, that whole interval is one process. And you cannot take events which are strategic in implication, including this health care thing—which is a strategic issue; it is not a health care issue; it's a global, strategic issue—you have to take that entire period from late 1989 to the present, as one piece of work. And you have to analyze everything with all of this together in one pot, because it's not a series of events, it's not a chronology. And the problem we tend to have is that some of our people rely on chronologies.

There is a time sequence, but it's not a chronology. It is not the ticking of the clock which is determining things, with events as such.

The problem is this. For example, the typical way of thinking of the American, who will make a mistake, is to assume that, if a guy made an invention, that the date the guy made the invention will now account for, in a chronology, what happened as a result: if somebody reacted to this and used this invention. In point of fact, the development of a discovery does not occur in that simple kind of chronological ordering of events. But rather there is a process which is ongoing and bridges successive active life spans of individuals. Thus, when a person makes a real scientific discovery, it's usually rooted in something that happened long before then, and has effects long after. And therefore, when you try to put it on a time scale and locate events in chronological sequence, that's when the mistake is made.

In this case, you have to realize that the health care policy of the British and of Hitler go back to things earlier. And therefore we are in a long-term struggle, a cultural struggle, between processes which are like philosophies. And it's these philosophies, and the way they affect events, which determine the real chronology. In other words, chronology is a product of the process, not the source of the process.

So the point was, that Gorbachev was surprised. He may not have thought exactly the way that Thatcher did, although he was a British agent, no question about it. I also had long indications, deep indications, of this, going back to the Hungarian events, in terms of Andropov. Andropov was already, somewhere in that process, a British agent. We do know that, in a certain sense, Khruschev was a British agent, who cut this deal with Bertrand Russell, where a change of policy on Russia and the British, from the Stalin policy, was a whole part of this process. And things have to be looked at that way.

This is where the fun comes in, and the thing is: don't assume that chronological sequences determine history. They do not. And in this case the health care policy is a strategic question which goes way back to the late 19th century, it goes back all the way to Malthus, for example, and the East India Company operations. This is a long-wave strategic policy. You have to look at this whole process from the standpoint of the difference between two English-speaking nations: the U.S. and Great Britain, and their interaction. And this goes all the way back to 1763, really essentially, and it even goes back further to Leibniz in London, in the beginning of the 18th century. These are long-term processes, deeply embedded in society, which involve long term cultural conflicts and so forth. And that's what's being played out today.

The obvious process of adopting Obama is typical of that kind of process. And people who don't think the way I've described, in the ordering of things, and the question of chronology, will make terrible mistakes in judgment, because they will be looking for a chronological series of decisions, where the decisions may be important, but when you're looking at the way the mind is working among various participants in this process, the mind does not work within the framework of a chronological order.

- The Oligarchical System of Empire -

What you have to look at, is that population policy on the British side is very simple. And it has to do, not with simple issues that were debatable between the British and Leibniz, for example, but it goes to an essential thing. It goes all the way back to Aristotle, and back to the adoption of Aristotle's folly by Euclid. So you have the Euclidean conception, which is the Aristotelean conception, as this was denounced as an Aristotelean conception. This idea was to prevent the technological and cultural development of populations, because if technological and scientific progress occurred, and were to influence sociology, then empires could not exist.

And this whole thing, like the Aristotle operation, came after the death of Plato. It's always been understood that technological and scientific progress affects populations intellectually and otherwise, such that empires cannot exist. It's only by stupefying, keeping populations relatively stupid, at least in their attitude toward progress, that you're able to maintain the oligarchical system of empire.

And thus this policy goes way back, and that's what we're dealing with now. The question of population is not the issue of overpopulation: there is no such thing as overpopulation. There's under-technology; there's a lack of progress. The space program, for example, the killing of the space program, is actually the oligarchical principal, which goes back to at least Aristotle and to Euclid. And those are the kinds of things that you've got to deal with.

You've got to keep that foremost in discussing this. Not to try to come up with a simple something that everyone can understand. Our biggest problem is when we get into this situation of saying we have to stick with ideas that everyone can understand in dealing with history. And that's a big mistake.

What we have to look at is the deterioration of the Obama influence, which is rotting away. The question is, what are the relative tempos of these developments? There's a tendency to throw this whole thing out, or at least mostly out. But there's also a time factor of the rate at which that tendency is coming into effect, the rate at which there is some residual capability of some people around Obama to continue to try to push some of this legislation through. And we know what they are going to stick to: they are going to stick to the euthanasia aspect of this.

- Only the Triple Curve Explains the Economic Reality -

Bernanke and company are acting like a person who is trying to conceal the fact that their institution is bankrupt. He's behaving as if he were aware of that problem. He's behaving as if he believes that the institution may be hopelessly bankrupt.

There are people who recognize, just by looking at my triple curve, what some people even in our organization refused to accept back in 1996. The triple curve is that, that the breakdown crisis is when you get the three effects: the decline in actual physical productivity per capita; combined with an increase in hyperinflation, that is a self-inflating rate of monetary inflation; and you build up toward bankruptcy in financial processes, which become progressively deflationary. This is the case in the past 3 years.

So you have an increasing rate of inflation—that's hyperinflation. The entire monetary process internationally is hyperinflationary. Whereas the financial process, apart from the financing of monetary aggregate, is deflationary. And also deflationary is that you have an ongoing deep depression in terms of physical values—that is, the percentile of the population that is actually producing wealth, physical wealth, not bullshit wealth. And you take these three values, that is physical production, not paper production, not accounting production; and then you have the hyperinflationary curve in monetary aggregates, of which the bail-out was the accelerator of hyperinflation; but you have a deflation in the financial transactions which pertain to the real economy.

So these three factors are there, which mean you're in a system which is inherently going to burst apart. The whole system is worse than bankrupt, and it's going to blow out. There are two ways: it can have a sudden blow-out, or, more likely at this stage, the way this thing will behave in the short term, would be a series of cycles, building up, where it resonates throughout the world, and then it comes to a complete breakdown. That's where we are at.

Bernanke and the others are talking about exactly that. They are living in the triple curve reality, exactly as we've defined it, especially in the recent reports on that, that we've put forth in the webcasts. That's the reality. This means the system is already as good as dead; or worse than as good as dead. It's already begun to rot, even before it dies. So it's a walking corpse, rotting away, waiting to be declared dead.

Say it as my forecast, and describe things in those terms, the triple curve. This is what I presented in January 1996, and this is exactly where the history of the planet has gone in that process, in that way, ever since. We're talking about 13 unlucky years, since January 1996 to 2009.

You've got the connection, of course, between financial processes and monetary processes, by the nature of the system. And there's a certain part of the monetary curve which really cycles with the financial curve: the role of money, the relationship between money, in the financial system, and money in the monetary process. So there's a certain overlap. If you look at this from the standpoint of defining both the distinctions among monetary and financial, from the standpoint of physical economy, as the other curve, then you are able to sort that thing out. You have to do that: in other words, you cannot try to evaluate these things each by themselves. It's the interaction among the three, which is why I defined the triple curve the way I did: not as a statistical curve. Statistics will not show you the problem. There are certain figures that will help show you the problem, but you have to look at the inter-relationship among the three elements: physical economy, as physical product per capita per square kilometer, and the production of physical product, which includes the basic economic physical infrastructure; then you look at the relationship of that, to the relationship between the monetary function and the financial function. But since they overlap, you have to look at the overlap: you can't compare these as independent factors. They are different phases of a common process.

And the process is described as a general breakdown process, which is not a mechanical, statistical relationship among these things. It's a breakdown process: the employment in production efforts, physical productive efforts, essentially, the financial growth of the economy in terms of real things, and then the monetary process which is now, since Greenspan, in a purely hyperinflationary mode, essentially since October of 1987. It's been in a long-term hyperinflationary mode under Greenspan's policy globally.

But now, to understand what the inter-relationship between the monetary and financial processes is, you have look at the physical process. Take the relationship among the three as a functional relationship, then you get a sense of how this thing is working.

Say from me that Bernanke is, of course, utterly incompetent, and to a degree of gross stupidity. His process of printing money, is simply already hyperinflationary. What is collapsing is the sense of the financial world, which is collapsing on them. And the more they print money, the greater the rate of collapse in the financial sector. Because the physical production is collapsing. The financial sector's great problems are based on problems in the physical sector.

What Bernanke and company have done, is what Greenspan did, really clearly, coming out of October 1987, is they say we pump monetary aggregate in, and it's the monetary aggregate that will cause a recovery. And therefore they say that in order to have a recovery, we have to put in a higher rate of monetary aggregation, in order to increase employment. But it's the higher rate of monetary aggregation that is crushing employment!

So there's only one thing you can do in a case like this: you put the damned system through bankruptcy, and eliminate the monetary system. You get the financial system and the physical economy as your only real elements which are determining the international process; then you can get a recovery, especially through a Glass-Steagall standard and reorganization. But you have to bankrupt this entire monetary system, which is directly opposite to what these creeps are doing.

You have to go back to when we proposed the HBPA in 2007. At that point, we could still have a simple reorganization in bankruptcy procedure, which would have stabilized the situation and would have allowed a recovery, driven by a federal credit system. What they did to prevent that from being installed, with this hyperinflationary system, a really runaway inflationary system, what they did, as typified by Dodd and Barney Frank, was the worst possible thing you could do. So you turn a major crisis into a hopeless crisis.

These are the conceptions that we have to put across and emphasize, not as explanations someplace or commentaries, but we have to put this in place as being the issue. When people talk about economy, this is the issue. And if they are not talking about this issue, then they are just babbling away nonsense.

We should make this argument, and put it in print right way, and say this is what I'm saying. Because we do have a core of economists who have come to understand the triple curve. It's those who don't understand the triple curve, or look at it as some kind of a novelty, who don't understand that that's the basis for all competent monetary and physical theory. We will have a monetary process of some sort, which is a byproduct of a physical process. But, you have to explain it as it actually is connected, this triple curve concept.

- Britain and the Hitler Model -

You can go back and show it. Even though what happened in Germany back in 1923 was artificially induced, politically; what we have today is a global model, which is not a contained situation, as Germany in 1923 was. But the global model is the same kind of problem.

They tried to get a monetary answer: they wanted to pay the war debt, the Versailles war debt, which was sucking at the system. And you maintain the economy to the degree you can use it to try to generate growth in the economy to pay the war debt.

This had the opposite effect: it made the war debt problem impossible. And sooner or later something was going to happen. And when the French occupation of the Ruhr occurred, that triggered the whole thing, because production was being shut down, not because of the German strikers—it was not the strike of the German workers that caused that. What caused it was the French were determined to loot Germany; that's what they were in there for, was to loot the Rhineland, especially the Ruhr. And they were stealing whole sections of the German industry in mining and steel and so forth. They were stealing it and hauling it across the border to France. And so it was the French stealing of German assets through the troop occupation of the Rhineland, which set this thing off, as a detonator. But the problem was already inherent, systemically inherent, beforehand. So it was not the Rhineland, or the strikers, which set this thing off; it was the French, with of course British backing, who were looting Germany of its industry and mining capability and moving it to France. And the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland by the French was that purpose. The strikers were striking against that, that the French were doing.

Montagu Norman is crucial in the process throughout this entire period, and in putting Hitler into power. Together with Brown Brothers Harriman, which was an extension of Montagu Norman, this was the whole damned thing, including putting Hitler into power.

These guys are really nuts: they are stupid and nuts!