Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The Real Change Is Coming

Lyndon LaRouche gave this webcast address on Dec. 3, the 11th and final one of 2009. The event was moderated by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche's West Coast spokesman, and Debra Freeman, his national spokeswoman. The webcast video is archived at http://www.larouchepac.com/webcasts/20091203.html

Harley Schlanger: Good afternoon. On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I'd like to welcome the people who are here in our audience today, and those who are listening on the web. I'm Harley Schlanger, the Western States spokesman for Lyndon LaRouche.

This is one in a series of webcasts presented by Lyndon LaRouche, economist and statesman, who's been presenting, consistently, over the last decade, webcasts that have provided in-depth analysis and forecasts on the economy. And throughout this period, there's not a single forecast that's been made by Mr. LaRouche, which has not proven to be deadly accurate. And up to this point, the fight has been to develop the potential in the United States, to move the country behind this idea of the Four Powers agreement that Mr. LaRouche has been presenting and organizing for, not just in the recent period, but over the last decades. And so today, we're going to hear from Mr. LaRouche on the progress that's been made towards the Four Powers agreement, and further elaboration of the economic crisis that we're facing. So, without further ado, let me introduce Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you, very much.

We have three people present I shall cause to be introduced later in the course of events, who will be running as Democratic candidates, for selection as members of Congress.

I'll just explain what this is about: The three candidates are located respectively from the Boston area, from Texas (that is in the United States, you know), and from the West Coast. And the purpose of their function is to coordinate and create a national campaign around three initial, pivotal Democratic candidates for nomination and election in the coming year, in order to create a pivot around which to begin to mobilize the population now, for what it must do now. And we have to give the American people a perspective, and the Democratic Party, which is presently a shambles, a perspective, for—we're going to create something new.

We're not going to wait until November of next year, for new candidates to be elected, or for January, for these candidates to enter office. We're going to organize now, to get the people ready to clean the mess out in Washington, to replace a lot of key people. But the campaign now, is essentially, creating the three points of reference, for creating a national organization to straighten out the Democratic Party, by setting forth and defining a policy, a national policy.

This is unusual in one respect, but not unusual for the United States. Unlike the parliamentary systems of Europe, which have never been cured of certain diseases, the United States Constitution created a Presidential system, not a parliamentary system. The weakness in much of the candidacy of representatives to the Congress, is that they get the delusion that they're part of a parliamentary system, a European-style parliamentary system, and our Constitutional system is not parliamentary. Their function is as representatives, and they're representatives to a national government, to a Presidential system.

And more than ever, now, we need a Presidential system, because we've got to engage in agreements, solemn agreements with selected governments of the world, either the present governments or their suitable replacements, in order to change the way the world is going as a whole. We have to make that change now, but we have to get the juggernaut in motion, now, to make changes, now, which will be consolidated once the next generation in Congress is in place. The next generation in Congress will not initiate the changes. They will consolidate the changes, as our system of Congressional government is supposed to do.

But we're going to have to make Presidential changes now, which means there's going to have to be some change, of some kind, around the White House. As the recent folly, of the greatest silliness I've ever heard of—more troops into Afghanistan—comes forth, we need some changes in the Presidential department. Because if we don't, we're not going to exist.

And before we get into the question period, I'll ask to have these three candidates presented, who represent New England, Texas, and the West Coast: Three points of reference to define a national perspective for the Democratic Party campaigns of the coming year. They're not candidates representing three points on the map. They're candidates representing what must become an avalanche of candidacies, which are going to transform our government in detail.

- Our Constitutional System -

Anyway, two years ago, on July 25, 2007, I had a webcast, in which I announced that, within a matter of days, the United States would plunge into a deep financial collapse. Three days later, it did. I had warned that the collapse would begin in the area of real estate speculation. It did. I warned what this would lead to, and I made certain specifications.

First of all, that we must have an act, which I prescribed; it was called the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. This act would have frozen those real estate properties, which were in jeopardy of foreclosure in the coming period, in order to have a general reorganization of the field. It would also, in effect, put the banking system as a whole, under a commercial bank standard, under Glass-Steagall; that is, restore Glass-Steagall, which is already really in the Constitution: The Glass-Steagall Act was an implementation of a provision of the Constitution; it was not a change in policy of the United States. Which has to do with the nature of the United States, which unfortunately many Presidents and others have not understood. They think we're some kind of European freak show—we're not. We're the United States.

- Columbus's Mission -

We were created by the initiative, or the attempted initiative, of Christopher Columbus, who was following the inspiration of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who had died before that time. But Columbus had consulted with close confederates of Cusa, and Cusa had said, because of the crisis in Europe, due to what we call today, the oligarchical features of European society, that it was necessary to take the best contributions of European culture, and take them across the great oceans of the world, to other shores, in order to create the kind of system of government of nations that was needed.

Columbus was inspired to undertake this project, about 1480 A.D., and as we know, a dozen years later, having received a good deal of advice from the survivors of the associates of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, set forth. This colonization, the exploration and colonization by Columbus, failed, not because it was his fault, but because by 1492, we had entered a period of religious warfare in Europe, which had broken out. It was to break out more seriously around Henry VIII. So Europe, from that period, from 1492, with the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, which was the beginning of this great horror-show, until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, Europe was torn apart by a bloody mess.

So, in this period, while the Habsburgs were still a great power, Europe was unable to realize the objectives which Cusa and others had had for European civilization. And the Hispanic and Portuguese settlements in America had failed, because they were under Habsburg influence. So the beginning of what became the United States, in terms of policy, came with the Plymouth settlement in 1620, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And so, this—the constitutional features, including those of economy, developed in Massachusetts, up until about 1690—was the basis for what later became the United States. The United States was a mission, to take the best of European civilization, to bring it across the waters—at a relatively safe distance, one would hope, from Europe, which was a sinkhole of corruption—and to establish here a place for the best of European civilization in the American continent, and thus, to set a beacon for humanity as a whole. This was in jeopardy at that time, because of James II of England and then, William of Orange.

But at a later point, Leibniz personally had a great influence in England, in a faction which was opposed to this degeneration. And his influence as transmitted back into the United States, by the way of a German scientist, Abraham Kästner, who called attention to the earlier work of Leibniz on this question, came to Benjamin Franklin and Company. And Franklin, as a leader in the United States, set into motion what became the United States Constitutional system. We went through two phases: First of all, the Declaration of Independence, and secondly, the formation of a Federal Constitution.

Now, the Declaration of Independence was won, because, at that time, in Europe, nations of Europe were opposed to the British Empire. Now the British Empire was not an empire of the English people. It was an empire of a certain Venetian interest, a financial interest which controlled the Anglo-Dutch system, especially since the accession of William of Orange. And so, the fight was, by Europe, which supported the United States' struggle for independence—Russia, France, other countries in Continental Europe, rallied to assist the United States through the League of Armed Neutrality—to assist the United States in securing its right to our Presidency.

- A Struggle for U.S. Survival -

What happened, then, later, of course, because of the French Revolution, which was a complicated mess of corruption, was the destruction of France, and the greatest asset that Britain ever had, Napoleon Bonaparte, fought wars on the continent of Europe, which destroyed Europe, to the point that the British Empire was consolidated in 1812-1815. And from that point on, the United States was engaged in a great struggle for its own survival, not only from outside forces, but from corruption which spread within: Like the founding of the Bank of Manhattan by Aaron Burr, an agent of the British and a traitor to the United States, who should have been hung.

So, up until the victory of the Civil War, when we defeated the British who created the Confederacy, we were established. Then Lincoln was shot! And the assassination of our Presidents, and of some Presidents in particular, has been a crucial part of our history. We got into World War I, because of the assassination of McKinley, without which it would not have been possible. We got into World War II, for similar kinds of reasons—the Harding problem was also part of this reason, because it brought the real scum into place in the United States.

We were saved by the Franklin Roosevelt election and what he did. We were ruined by Truman. And we've been ruined, more and more, with a few exceptions, all the way down since that time. Instead of patriots, we have people who admire the British Queen, even Presidents who admire the British Queen—the force of imperialism, the enemy of the United States!

So, this is a continuous struggle, by a nation—our nation—which has a philosophical intent, a Constitutional intent, which is the greatest on this planet. Our Constitution is a true Constitution. It is not a catch-all of odds and ends, rules which are voted up. We're a mission-oriented nation, a mission-oriented nation to be a republic, but also be a factor for world civilization as a whole, as Franklin Roosevelt understood this. And what he would have done, and attempted to do, had he not been replaced by a successor, Truman, who was a skunk. Eisenhower was a good President, but his administration was a skunk—not as bad as Truman, perhaps, but still a skunk.

Then, you had Kennedy: Now, I didn't really admire the Kennedy family at that time. I didn't think they were the best thing for the United States, but John did a fairly good job. And he listened to Douglas MacArthur, which is what got him killed: Because MacArthur advised him, to the effect that the United States must not become involved in any extended land war in Asia. And Kennedy was committed to that. And the only way they were going to get that policy turned around, was to kill him! And they did. And it wasn't some "Oswald" character. It was three other guys, associated with the attempted assassination of de Gaulle, from France and Spain, who walked in and did the job.

But the killing of Kennedy meant that we were going to war. It took us a decade, after the killing of Kennedy, before we fully got into the war, but the steps were made. Since that time, we've been in extended land wars in Asia, and other places! Wars that never should have been fought. Wars we could have won, without a war! If you have enough strength, where people have to listen to you, and they can't make war against you, and you've got a good case, by diplomacy and by imaginative approaches, you can usually resolve a problem of that nature, which might lead to war, without actually fighting it.

The point is, to be able to defend one's nation if necessary, but to use that capability to prevent your having to be drawn into wars. What has ruined the world? How have empires, repeatedly, since the time of the Peloponnesian War, how have empires in European civilization, been able to rule over nations? By extended war. The Peloponnesian War, for example! Greece had prevailed over the Persian Empire, and the Peloponnesian War—the Greeks destroyed themselves! Between three financial groups, one in Athens, one in Corinth, and one in Syracuse. The whole history of the Roman Empire was an empire ruled by what? By killing off, wars among subordinate groups, by organizing wars among its intended victims.

How was civilization destroyed in the 14th Century? When the Venetians organized wars in the 14th Century, which became the New Dark Age. How was Europe weakened and destroyed in the 16th Century, in the 17th Century? By war! 1492, with the Expulsion of the Jews, to 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. How was an empire created by the British? By the Seven Years War! The nations of Europe got into a quarrel, and the British and Dutch sat there, and waited to collect the empire. They didn't get an empire of the British monarchy, but they got an empire of the British East India Company, which was the empire at that time.

So, how was Europe managed? As Bismarck said in the 1890s, after he'd been discharged: We're going to have another Seven Years War! A general war in Europe, a Seven Years War, to ruin Europe in the interest of the British Empire! And that's what happened.

They killed McKinley. And the United States, which was committed to opposing the British Empire, switched, because a nephew of a traitor, Teddy Roosevelt, became President, and we switched sides! Woodrow Wilson, the great leader of the Ku Klux Klan, the man who reorganized the Ku Klux Klan in the postwar period. Again, we went into World War I, like idiots! We had no business there. We were destroyed, and weakened, and the killing of McKinley made that possible, just as the killing of Kennedy made possible what has happened to us since his death. Johnson was scared: He was convinced those three rifles were aimed at the back of his neck, if he should oppose their policy. He backed off. He let us be ruined—because he was scared! And, not without some justification, considering the record of things. Presidents get killed.

The way they got World War I going: It started with Bismarck. Bismarck was fired under British influence. The British ordered his being fired as Chancellor of Germany, and we got into war. How did it happen? First, they killed the President of France, Sadi Carnot. And they do similar things. Now, how did they get the whole thing going? By killing McKinley! It never would have happened if McKinley hadn't been killed. We were turned around.

- We Do Not Need Wars! -

We were ruined by getting involved in that war in Indochina, which we had no business getting into. We're now being ruined in a similar way, by the British, in Afghanistan! Idiocy! Insanity! We don't really need to make wars! We may have to use military force, but actually, today—the way it stands today, if we do the right thing, we do not need wars. We may need certain special actions, short-term special actions, but we won't need wars. You want to fight a general war? You want to fight a nuclear war? You want to fight a thermonuclear war? You want a war of diseases, plagues? You want a call for all-out war, in the world? No!

You may have to discipline a certain part of the world, and bring peace—but you're in there to bring peace, and enforce the peace. Not to fight general wars. And we're used by the British Empire, or what the real empire is, to get us to do foolish things, to get into foolish quarrels, with people who may be problematic, but there's a better way to deal with the thing.

And people are ambitious, to fight these wars—and sometimes the folly is McChrystal clear. It's a piece of insanity, and the President makes it even worse than McChrystal did, and his crowd.

So that's our problem.

We are a nation, based on a European cultural basis, a basis which was defined by the circles of Nicholas of Cusa, who was the central figure and the architect of modern European science and culture. And the effort was, when what happened with Constantinople and following that, when Europe was going back into disgusting conditions again, after the Renaissance, they said: "Go across the oceans. Meet people across the oceans. And take our cultural achievements with us to these people, but don't take our diseases, our political diseases with you." And that, in effect, was done. And we, with this picture which I've given some general outline to, we in a sense, produced a nation. Which is the only possible rallying point, still today, to save this planet from Hell. Without this nation, you can not organize the world to avoid the Hell that's coming down on it now, without this United States.

And we have to deal with our United States as an instrument, for that purpose. We have to have a Presidency, a Presidential system—and we don't have a Congressional system, we have a Presidential system! And the Congressional function is a part of the Presidential system; it's not an independent factor. We need a Presidential system that functions. And we're going to have put this President, either in a cage inside the Oval Office, probably with rubber walls, and somehow get a Presidency. And if he can't do that, we're going to have to replace him. Because, without a functioning Presidency of the United States, I don't see much of a chance for civilization in the period today. I don't believe in making promises that are not feasible: I don't see a possibility, under this President and his present behavior, I don't see any chance for the United States, or the world.

- A Mission for All Mankind -

Now, what has happened is this: Europe has been destroyed. Western and Central Europe have no functional value today. I think that France and Germany, if they were freed of British control, under the present European system, would tend to go back to sensible approaches and would cooperate with us, and others. But as long as they're stuck in the euro system, Western and Central Europe is not going to go anywhere, anywhere good. And since what happened this past weekend, as you now see, the entire financial system of the world is disintegrating. Whole nations are bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt! We're in a general breakdown crisis, a chain-reaction breakdown crisis, of the entire international monetary-financial system, and economic system.

Now, what I've done, is to propose, some time ago, that we get certain people in Russia, China, and India, and the United States, as a bloc of nations, around which to combine our sufficiently powerful bloc, as a combination, to force the needed changes on a planetary level. In other words, by changes, I don't mean "jobs." You know, the idea of giving somebody a job to rake leaves, is not exactly an economic development program.

What we need is production jobs! We need nuclear power. We need a national rail system. We need a space program, a real space program, revived! Because we don't have factories of any significance any more—we shut them down! Especially under George W. Bush, Jr., and this thing in there—they shut it down! What happened to the automobile industry? What's happened to the aircraft industry? Go on, through all the high-tech industries we had: What happened to them? They're gone! We still have the knowledge of that technology, but we are losing the people who are able to practice it.

We have "jobs"—yes! What are "jobs" worth? Raking leaves? You build a world by raking leaves, or doing social work? No, you build industries.

Today, that means, for example, nuclear power. Technologically, it's impossible to develop the population of this planet without nuclear power, on an extensive basis—and that's not enough. What you have to count on, is higher energy-flux density. You have to increase the energy-flux density of the power in the hands of labor. If you can't do that, you can not achieve the productivity necessary to save this nation and save the world.

We're talking about a vast program of this! We have to go to space! We have to undertake the industrialization of the Moon, because if we don't do industrialization of the Moon, we can't get to Mars. And if we can't get to Mars—which may take several generations to do that, with human beings; we can get there already with slow craft in 300 days, or something like that. But if you're going to bring human beings there, you've got to talk about a mere few days, between Moon orbit and Mars orbit. And that involves some problems. But we pretty much shut down NASA, which was the mission-orientation for that sort of thing.

Now, the Mars project is necessary for humanity, in the sense that humanity functions on the basis of something about human beings which animals don't have. The animal world has creativity in the development of species, new species, varieties, and so forth. Even the non-living world undergoes development. The universe, the physical universe, is undergoing development all the time. But it has no will to develop! It has no knowledgeable will to choose to develop. It develops because the creativity is built into the universe. Man is different. Man has the willful creativity, to shape the universe. And therefore, man can not function without having the inspiration, to use that ability, that creative power, to achieve higher goals, than are currently practiced.

For example, we have a planet of very poor people, in Asia, in particular, and in Africa—a terrible mass of poor people! We're running short of many resources. We have to create new resources. We have to increase the productive powers of labor of the existing population. We have 6.7 billion people now on this planet—we're headed towards 7. We have to progress, to meet that challenge. We have to inspire our people, each in their own culture, to take this mission-orientation for mankind as their responsibility.

- A Challenge to Mankind's Creative Powers -

In order to challenge people, what do you do? You educate them, and you adopt missions, which make goals, higher goals, clear to those people. And children say, "I want to do this." We had, back in the 1960s, even into the beginning of the '70s, we had children who would say, "I want to go into space." The Moon landing program of NASA was an inspiration. The Russian Soviet program was also an inspiration to the planet! You have to have these kinds of goals, of missions for mankind, for mankind to use his creative powers, to raise humanity to a higher level of existence. You have to talk to your children and your grandchildren about this kind of goal. And it's only when you get their imagination stirred that they become creative. And without bestirring that creativity, mankind does not progress. Hmm?

And that's what we used to say about the United States; we were a nation that was committed to that sort of thing. What we did under Franklin Roosevelt was an example of the nation which had been crushed, under a legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson, and similar types of scoundrels. We were almost destroyed. But we rebuilt. And facing the challenge of the war in Europe, and the challenge of unemployment, the challenges here, we mobilized our people, to create a machine, which was the most powerful machine the world had ever seen: the machinery of the United States which was deployed for World War II.

The intention was to continue the development of that machine in the post-war period, not for war purposes, but for construction of the planet. Roosevelt had a clear plan for this thing. Truman had a different idea: Truman kissed the butt of Winston Churchill—and we've been getting backlash from that ever since. We destroyed most of our capability. We destroyed our industries, we just shut them down! We had all kinds of projects, for post-war projects, which would have led to great achievements, and we shut them down.

Nuclear power was one example of this thing. It was feasible in principle. Sometimes, it takes a couple of generations; once an idea is clear and feasible, it may take you two or three generations to actually bring it online, as effective.

But the way in which you organize mankind—two questions: First, we have to understand culture. We have to understand national cultures, in particular, because national cultures embody—within the use of language and other things—embody the inherited bits of knowledge and experience of past generations of that people. Therefore, you can not go into a country and say—you can't create a Tower of Babel, a one-world economy. You have to use the culture, the various cultures of the people, as your mobilizing force: Because it's in their imagination, the powers of imagination, which is associated with their culture, in which they are able to mobilize creativity. So you want to create the opportunity, for upgrading them, through fostering the benefits of their own creativity, and inform them of the objectives that other people were achieving, which they may copy and build upon.

So you need a system of sovereign nation-states, of sovereign people, different cultures, each with its own sovereign expression. And the unity of these people for a common purpose, the purpose of humanity. To do that you must stir the imagination, the powers of the imagination of the people. And that means: Reach to space! We're going to Mars. It will probably take us three to four generations to do that, to solve the scientific problems that are involved in overcoming very high speeds or rates of acceleration in interplanetary travel, which is required for moving mankind around. And this is not easy, but we know we can solve the problem. We just have to go through the steps of solving it. It will take us two or three generations or more, but we'll get there.

But as long as we inspire our young people, especially younger people, to look at their adulthood—we've got people in their twenties; they're going to be functioning, probably, for 50 years to come, if we can get Obama out of office; he doesn't seem to be in favor of that sort of thing—and they should be looking forward to what they're going to produce, within their own lifetime, as benefits for humanity, of which they will be proud. It's a span of about 60 years, approximately, that they think in terms of. Most people think that way, if they live that long. And when people can find a purpose in their life, in the sense that what they are doing now, what they are preparing themselves to accomplish, will lead, within their own lifetime, to the foundations of something much better than they have today, that's when you can capture and sustain the imagination of a people, in its own culture. And when people are united, even if they have different cultures, if they're united by a common purpose, to do this!, to cooperate to do this!—then we have peace among nations on this planet. And that should be our goal. It should be our goal, now.

What seems impossible to small-minded people, are the ideas that are necessary, to get out the pit we're in today.

- We Don't Need Wall Street! -

So, we're in a very interesting crisis, right now. And it started in a sense—the present crisis, in its present form—started back then, back in 2007, when I proposed the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. Now, this act was not adopted, because of people like Barney Frank, who was up front on this sort of thing. And Barney's a funny guy: We've never been able to determine exactly what language he speaks, but we know he's there—and we're not too pleased by it.

Anyway, so they led the charge, in opposing the installation of my Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. And there were many people in leading positions, including governors of states, in the United States, who were prepared to move, to push that act forward. And it could have been implemented by the Autumn of 2007. What Barney Frank and his cohorts did was exactly the opposite. They wrecked that. And what became the process of bailout, in its early phases—bailing out corrupt banks, bailing the swindlers of Wall Street and similar kinds of things—became the objective. They did nothing to stop the loss of homes of American citizens. They did nothing to save jobs, industrial jobs. They did nothing to maintain education. They did nothing to maintain and improve health care. But they went in exactly the opposite direction. And they became slaves of the British Empire, the little tiny Queen of the British Empire.

And so, we built up—we have trillions of dollars, tens of trillions of dollars, right on the books in the United States of worthless debt! Which was imposed upon us, by bailout of things which we should let go bankrupt! We don't need Wall Street! This economy doesn't need it!

We need a Constitutional banking system, of the type, which Alexander Hamilton prescribed, and which is embedded in our Constitution. So, why don't we just stick to our Constitution? We are supposed to be, not a monetary system—we're not a monetary system, we're a credit system! The government of the United States has a monopoly, Constitutionally, on the creation of credit, and of public credit! No other institution should be allowed, and should go to jail if they try, to inflate things by coining their own money, such as by a central bank! That's a swindle. These people belong in jail. And they should have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them! But in this case, these people were able to bail out bankrupt institutions which were hopelessly corrupt, and wreck the United States!

What do we do about this? The solution is simple: You have to have the guts to do it. If you don't have the guts to do it, you're not going to have a United States; you're not going to have a Europe. Have you got the guts to do it? Are you worth your salt? Are you going to do it? Put this thing through bankruptcy reorganization: We have the precedent with the former Glass-Steagall Act, which was actually nothing but an implementation of a provision of the U.S. Federal Constitution. We are a credit system, not a monetary system! Monetary systems are illegal, with respect to our Constitution. They were practicing an illegal practice, an un-Constitutional practice.

Sorry, buddy! We found an honest judge, and you're about to lose all these ill-gotten gains you had. We don't need Goldman Sachs. We don't need these kinds of things that Roosevelt tried to free us from. We don't need them!

What we need is a good, sound system, a commercial banking system such as what we used to understand as a commercial banking standard. But we need to create a credit system under the U.S. Federal government and our Constitution, because we're going to have to cancel this $23 trillion of waste paper, as debt—just wipe it off the books! And the Federal government then has to have a single act, rammed through the Congress, which creates a supply of credit for several purposes. One, we don't create jobs. When these guys talk about "jobs" today, they're talking about handouts, picking up paper, digging your fingers in your nostrils, and cleaning out your nostrils, or something like that! It's worthless!

We mean, productive jobs! In certain categories: We don't have an auto industry! We're losing the aircraft industry! We're losing the power industry! We're losing everything that's worthwhile. We're taking people who have skills, but are aging, we're throwing them out on the streets. We're threatening to kill them, by health-care policies which are as intentionally mass-murderous as Adolf Hitler's! Which we have on the books, right now, that are being voted up or down. We don't need this. What we need is real work!

Now, we've got a youth population, which is not accustomed to real work. Well, there weren't the jobs available to get it! We destroyed the auto industry; the apprentice program that went with that is gone. All our high-tech industries are virtually shattered—we have nothing. We've got to build it back again.

Therefore, we have to take a number of things, that we can do, which will re-create the kind of industrial-agricultural potential which we formerly had, which we've lost. And we find that we are in the same situation in that respect that you find, in Russia, the largest national area in the world, and with some very important features; and China, and India, and other countries, where they have a very large part of the population which is exceedingly poor and unskilled.

Now therefore, if we're going to have a future for humanity, we have to solve that problem. And we have to do it in our own country, as part of that.

- Uniting the Planet -

Now, I have some measures that I've indicated to my friends, but I've also some measures which I've indicated to some governments around the world, and friends of governments around the world: that we simply take four nations, the United States, Russia, China, and India, which, together with nations which are closely associated with them, represent the greatest power on this planet, in terms of people power. And that we create a new order of affairs among allied, cooperating, sovereign nation-states, to solve this problem; to solve the problem of underdevelopment where it occurs with large populations like India, China, and so forth—large parts of the population are totally undeveloped—and to develop it.

We have a shortage of development of sources of certain essential raw materials. We're going to have to build a system of cooperation to solve that problem. Russia, for example: The north of Russia, in Siberia, has one of those areas of the world where there's a great concentration of mineral wealth. But it's a tundra area; it's an Arctic area, like northern Canada, which is a similar kind of area; like Alaska. You can't just go up there, as they do in Africa, and steal the raw materials and walk away with it, and put it on a boat and ship it someplace else! No! You have to develop the area, you have to develop the production, which means you have to put people there! You have to build residences there, under those kinds of conditions—we can do that! We have to build the industries, which will not only extract raw materials which are needed, but which will develop them, into a semi-finished product for application. We therefore, have to take the areas of the world, where we have dense populations, where there's inadequate development—we're going to have to produce the raw-materials development program, which will solve the problem for them.

So this kind of cooperation among nations, which means long-term capital investment—we're talking about 50-year, 100-year kinds of investment—this is what we need. And this, in three or four generations, we can change this planet, to reach certain objectives which are within our reach, under those conditions.

And therefore, what we need to do, for example, I have one project: the United States. We've lost most of our industry. Well, we can do one thing. We can do one thing which was international: We can unite Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas. How? By a single rail system. If you build the railway tunnel/bridge system through the Bering Strait, which is a well-defined project and a feasible project, you take that area of Siberia, you link into Alaska, down through Canada, down through the Darien Strait in South America, and down to the tip of South America. You do the same thing in the other direction, in Eurasia, down into Africa. And therefore, you can effectively, for most of this planet, now create a high-speed system of mass transportation, for passengers and freight, which is more efficient than any short- or medium-term aircraft travel, and much more efficient than highway travel, in terms of cost and effectiveness.

We can do that. We can unite this mega-planet, or this mega-continent, composed of Africa, the Americas, and Eurasia. And the Australians are eager to cooperate, because Australia has a great mass of such things as uranium and thorium, which are the fine ingredients of nuclear power, these days. So therefore, Australia will be invited to contribute its development of its relevant industries in this large area they have for themselves as a nation, and they will have a future, in the world, by playing this kind of role of cooperation, as Australia, with Asia in particular. Hmm?

So we can unite the world, on the basis of the fact that we are going to have a division of labor, among respectively sovereign nation-states. And how are we going to do it?

- Cancel the Monetary Systems -

Well, we're not going to have a monetary system. Monetary systems have to be cancelled. And you do that by cancelling all the worthless debt around. Like you go into a bank, you go into a bank under Glass-Steagall: You find there are a lot of bad assets in that bank, a lot of bad obligations. And you have the orders come in, for reorganization under Glass-Steagall or similar law, the way Roosevelt did in the original Glass-Steagall operation. And you say, "That's crap, pffftt!, forget it! It's gone!" "This is solid, this meets a Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, or a savings bank, or similar kinds of banks. That stays!"

Now, when we clean that mess up, now you turn around, and now, you create a new debt, which is, the Federal government authorizes the creation of a mass of utterance of credit. And we invite other nations to do the same thing. Get rid of the monetary system—take the IMF and everything resembling it, and bury 'em! Take the City of London, and bury it! Get rid of it!

Then what you do, is, you now have a system of currencies. Nations of currencies, their legal currencies. Well, you have to create a fixed-exchange-rate system. Do you have to figure out how you calculate that? No, you don't. You take the existing relationships in terms of currencies among nation-states, with whatever adjustments people think are necessary and equitable, and you simply say, "these are credit systems." That is, the currency of that nation belongs to that nation, as its authority. The only legal currency is what that nation itself creates, as its credit, which then can be capitalized for production.

We now have to have a system of credit systems, as what Roosevelt had intended in 1944, contrary to what happened under Truman. Eliminate the monetary system, entirely. Wipe it out! We now recognize, as money and credit, only national credit. And by creating a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, among cooperating nations, you're now ready to go.

Now, once you've created a credit system under a fixed-exchange rate, now you go to treaty-agreements on long-term credit agreements across nation borders, where nations contract, among themselves, terms of cooperation over the long term, under a fixed-exchange-rate system. Because the important thing is not what the relative value, nominal value, of a currency is. What's important is maintaining a baseline of improvement. And the baseline improvement—you have to get credit. You have to satisfy the physical needs of national development of various nations. And you create a system of credit, denominated in terms of like 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, in certain long-term projects. And that way we can achieve what has to be achieved.

- Mobilizing the Imagination -

But we have to do something else. We have to mobilize the population and its imagination. Because only the desire for a better future, only goals for a better future, can mobilize a population to be motivated, to do what has to be done. When you put this Mars question: We have to industrialize the Moon, which is already a project that's understood: Ten nations are actually concerned, with the idea of industrializing the Moon; ten nations that are Moon-landing oriented. We have to take the Moon, and make the Moon a baseline, for going into space.

In other words, you don't want to build up tremendous weight in apparatus on Earth, and have to pump that stuff up to the Moon! What you do is, you take your technology to the Moon, and then you find the raw materials on the Moon, which you use to build the craft. Now you build the craft which will actually take you, or take whatever you want to send, to Mars, in that direction. So you have to build an industrialization of the Moon.

Remember, this is not a new idea! The space pioneers, as early as the immediate post-war period, in the 1950s in the United States, were already talking about that, as they were in the Soviet Union, and in other places. The Mars objective was the objective, the planet Mars. Getting there is going to be complicated; it's going to take a lot of science, a lot of development, but that's our mission. We're thinking ahead: We're not thinking about what we're going to get tomorrow; we're thinking about what our people are going to have, two or three generations ahead.

And we're thinking about the purpose in life, which we're giving to young people today, who are coming out of adolescence—the purpose in life, for them! When they ask themselves, "To what purpose am I living? Am I living to my satisfaction? Am I an animal? Or am I living for the sake of my coming generations? Am I living for the joy of my old age? Am I living to do the things that will give me joy in my old age?" It will take a grandfather, who will tell his grandson, "I helped build that! And here's what you're going to do, in your time."

It's that force of imagination, when that becomes the policy of nations, to develop the imagination in this way, the scientific imagination, the cultural imagination, where do we want to go? What do we want to promise to our grandchildren, and their grandchildren? What do we expect as goals that we think we can realize in this term of life? How do we have to educate our people, what do we have to do now, to give a meaning to life? I mean, are we animals? That we just eat, and have pleasure, from one moment to the other? Or, are we people, who are thinking about humanity, about future generations, are thinking about what we owe to past generations, and what we owe to future generations? Do our lives have meaning? Do they have purpose? Or are we just silly pleasure-seekers, or something? Entertainment-seekers?

And the problem we have today, is a cultural problem, which is a moral problem: Is that under a zero-growth society, a zero technological growth society, a greenie society, mankind becomes less than an animal in moral value. That's why we have this health-care program! What's the health-care policy, that we're getting in Europe? What's the health-care policy now in the United States, under the Obama Administration? Kill people! Reduce the number of people! By cutting down the means of life! They're too young, too many babies—they should die! They're too old, we don't want them—they should die! We don't want jobs which require skills—which means we'll be able to produce less, more people should die!

The goal that Prince Philip has described is to reduce the population from 6.7 billion, to 2! Or less! A maximum of 2: The official policy of the British monarchy, is to reduce the world's population from a 6.7 level, today, of billions, to less than 2. That's his policy. That's what the Greenies are all about. That's what the Copenhagen thing is all about: Mass murder!

When we're on the road, where the population requires that we must anticipate right now, a world level of population of 7 billion. We have to anticipate that now, in this coming generation. And we have to prepare to be able to meet that challenge. And we can! The point is, as you make people creative, you inspire them to be creative. Inspire them to see objectives beyond what their habits are today, and they will be creative, and they will create the ability to satisfy these goals. And mankind is not going to stick around as being just in the nook of this Earth, just some corner of the Solar System: Mankind is going out into the universe. If we can have a constantly accelerated flight within our galaxy, men, in their own lifetime, can explore some distant parts of this galaxy. We can do it.

- 'We Are the Fire-Bringers' -

We're not going to do this tomorrow, but our perspective has to be in that direction. It's what we have to tell to our children, and our grandchildren: "This is what we must do." And when you capture the imagination of people, in a realistic way, this way, then they become moral, because they become inspired to do good.

And you see around us, people want to be entertained. What kind of entertainment do they want? They want to dull their sense with marijuana or some other drugs, or some crazy habit, all night, with some crazy dancing going on. Crazy, invented new sexes, or whatever other kinds of entertainment they want. They don't have a human purpose in life, they don't have a meaning. They would stand ashamed in front of a court of humanity. You ask them, "What was your purpose in life?" "What's that?" They don't have a sense of a purpose in life!

And we, as human beings all die: No one has invented a non-dying science. Human beings die. Well, what is important about human beings? Is it the fact that they die? Or the fact that they're living? No, not that. It's what human beings contribute in the course of their lifetime. And by capturing the imagination of young people in schools, for example, and inspiring them to realize that they can make discoveries, or they can begin by reenacting discoveries which people have made before them; and realize that this human power of creativity, of discovery, is what makes them human, and is what gives meaning to their life. That's where you get morality. There's no other way to get it. Otherwise, you're just an animal. If you're not oriented to the future, and the development of mankind, what are you? You're just an animal!

And how does mankind do that? With fire. You know, as I've emphasized repeatedly, contrary to the Greenies, the key evidence in ancient archaeology, between a monkey or an ape, and a human being, is a fireplace. Human beings are the only creatures that use fire. And we not only have fire, the burning of wood, and coal, and so forth; we now have big fire: We have nuclear fire. We have thermonuclear-power fire. We have hadron collider fire. All this kind of fire, ever-increasing higher order of energy-flux density.

And through this, we're able to transform the planet, we're able to use poorer natural resources, with the same effect as we once did with richer natural resources. We're going to find that we're able to master more and more of the vicinity of Earth and the Solar System, through the increase of fire: higher fire, nuclear fire, thermonuclear fire, antimatter/matter-reaction fire, always more dense. And with that, mankind can do almost anything.

So, we are that: We are the fire-bringers. And by doing that, we increase man's power to exist.

- A Pacific Orientation -

So, that has to be our mission. Now, what I've proposed, so far, of course, practically, is two areas I want to focus on: First of all, at present, as I said, Western and Central Europe is dead. It, by itself, presently has no ability to meet the challenge of its own future, because of this euro system, this British-imposed euro system, which was imposed beginning 1989-1990. However, there are other parts of the planet, which, as they've shown, are more open to development. The United States, because of our legacy, we have deeply embedded in us, a commitment to this kind of thing, and we just have to reawaken it, based on our own culture.

We have Russia, which is a similar case. It's the largest land-area nation in the world, with immense resources, and also, with a culture which has adapted it to operate effectively in an arctic or subarctic area, such as that of northern Siberia. And you've got a little, one place, in Moscow, the Vernadsky Institute, which has the knowledge of how to develop that. I've talked with our friends in the Vernadsky Institute repeatedly; we've talked about this. They know how to do it! How to get a population—and a Russian population would like to do that—how to do that, how to take these areas which are considered uninhabitable, make them habitable! And by making them habitable, and developing industries and transportation systems there, we can extract the raw materials which Asia as a whole requires. And by cooperation with other places, we can do the same thing. By bringing these continents together, into a super-continent, through mass transportation systems, we can do that! We can solve this problem.

And in the process, at the same time, space. Space is important, because we should do it. We should adopt it as a mission. But space is important in order to force people to see a future for mankind, beyond the limits of Earth itself. And that inspiration of the imagination of children, to that effect, is the most important thing we can do. Because, as we see, from degeneration of Europe, culturally and morally, in the United States, culturally and morally, recently, it's the lack of inspiration to think in that direction, which is the source of our acceptance of degradation of our culture in recent times.

So, this means that the United States is crucial, because we have an ingredient in us, if we awaken it, which is essential to the other cooperating nations. The other cooperating nations generally have a Pacific orientation, rather than an Atlantic orientation. The development of European civilization was to get away from Europe, toward the Americas; and once they filled up the Americas, then the direction was to get across the Pacific, to Asia, to get at that part of the world. And we have a Pacific orientation today. It happened with the recent developments in China and elsewhere. We have a Pacific orientation: We're going across from the United States, from Europe to the United States, and from South America, to Asia. So the center of development now, the focal point of development now, is the relationship of the motion, from the United States, since western Europe doesn't function right now, to Asia, and beyond, across the Pacific.

So, we mobilize in that direction: the United States, China, Russia, India. That's the center, that's your baseline. That is sufficient to do this. Because if you have those nations united, we can push it through; we can push it through, now! Not two years from now, not after the next election next year, but now! Because we're now in a breakdown crisis of the entire international financial-monetary system! Which happened last weekend.

As I said, back in July, the 25th of July of 2007, I said this system is crashing. It's now crashed. It's finished. Its collapse will be a process ongoing, but it's collapsing. And therefore, we need an immediate treaty-agreement, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries which are relevant in that area, first. We have to do what was done, in a limited way, in the agreement between China and Russia, most recently, in October. Because that's the beginning, that's the pattern. India must be included; Southwest Asia must be included; Southeast Asia, particularly, must be included.

So, now, we start a development program. The United States must subscribe to this and become a partner in its operation. Then we have enough power, to change the direction of the planet. And that is the way we'll solve the problem of the United States.

- A New CCC -

Now, inside the United States, what do we have to do? As I mentioned, we have a labor force of young people which is not qualified to do much more than pick their nose—and that's better than drugs. So therefore, we're going to have to create in the United States, a peculiar kind of revival of what Roosevelt created as the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps. We're going to have to take these young people, who have very little chance of developing modern skills, and we're going to have to open an academic type of alternative to military service, or it may include people in military service; but like a Corps of Engineers, in an extended sense. And taking young people into this, and giving them an orientation to begin to develop themselves as becoming a productive force in society, a meaningful force.

We are actually going to move people, as we did with the CCCs before, we're going to have to move many of these young people out of the cities, into special encampments, as their residence, as they're qualifying. We're going to have to have a special educational program. We're going to try to turn as many as possible, into qualified engineers and things of that sort. We did that before—we can do it. But it has to take patience, and you have to have some art. We have some experience in this from the past. We'll do it again.

Create a civilian corps, which is dedicated to this general purpose of taking the labor force of young people, coming out of high school age, in their 20s, and moving them in a direction where they begin to develop—with some self-discipline as well as discipline—to learn how to be productive people. That will be a source of strength. We did that: Remember, we had a famous division from Michigan, which fought in World War II, and it came from this kind of source; a lot of it came right out of the CCC camps, and they marched into war.

Then, from that, you have the branching opportunities, in kinds of employment, or kinds of employment careers—aerospace, building railway systems, other kinds of things—so you actually are developing people, while they're being educated in this way, into a productive force. And we know enough in our own culture in the United States how to do that. What's needed is the will to do it, if the will to do it is there. What we need is, people in productive jobs.

Then we have to have productive programs. Well, we've lost most of our industrial potential. It's there latently, but we shut down the auto industry, essentially; we've been shutting down the aircraft industry now. We're shutting down almost everything of any importance, now. We'll stop that. So, let's build an international, modern, rail, magnetic-levitation system, among these continents, as a mission-orientation.

Now, you put the pieces in, one by one, as you choose, but that's your orientation. You're going to take people off the highway. Instead of commuting two hours or more a day, each way, from one place to another just to do work, and destroying family life, you're going to decentralize the relationship of place or location of residence, to work. People should not have to travel an hour to two hours a day, each way, to and from their work. It destroys family life.

How do we do that? Well, there are two ways of doing this: Regrouping the habitation; or, you can regroup the orientation of habitation. The other way is high-speed transport. People on the highways in great numbers, in flocks, in automobiles, travelling an hour to two hours each way, each day, to and from work, is not good for family life! Not good for any kind of life, not good for social life; it disorients people, corrupts them. Therefore, you need high-speed transportation, which can get people safely to and from the place between where they work and where they live. And you restore family life, which almost does not exist in the United States, these days. So we need this kind of motion.

- Greening the Deserts -

We need a space program! We need water-management programs. We need to turn whole areas of desert areas into rich areas of growth. And we're not going to have solar reflectors, we're going to have chlorophyll! You take an area—I've described this before—you have these giant arrays of solar reflectors—what idiocy! What insanity dreamed this one up!

You have a certain density of sunlight radiation that hits the surface of the Earth, like a desert area—no green. Or you clear an area of shrubbery and growth, to put solar collectors out there! Now, the solar collector collects power at the incident level of energy-flux density, of sunlight hitting the surface of the Earth. But, if you didn't use a solar collector, or the silly idea of windmills to generate electricity (which is even worse than a solar collector)—as a matter of fact, windmills, if you take them down and liquidate them when they wear out, the net contribution of the existence of a windmill as a source of power, is zero, or less! Because the cost of building the damned thing, operating it, handling, and then taking it down, combined, is greater than all the benefit you get in terms of electrical power! Windmills are for nuts.

All right, now, solar collectors: What's the best solar collector? Well, you have solar collectors in the sea, and you have them elsewhere, but the most familiar solar collector, which most people know, is called "chlorophyll."

Now chlorophyll is a molecule which looks like a pollywog; it has a tail. But that tail is actually an antenna. And it has a head, with a big atom in the middle of it. And what the tail does—the tail collects power from the Sun, and the power is accumulated, as in a capacitance effect, in the head. And you have several of these molecules, or a number of them, working together. So one of the molecules gets pregnant, and is ready to give a spurt of power. Now the spurt of power is actually amplified, in what we call energy-flux density, over the incident energy-flux density of sunlight hitting the soil.

So what happens then, is, you get several effects from the chlorophyll: First of all, you get a higher level of power; it's much more efficient and it's not wasted. Secondly, chlorophyll develops the land area, by turning a desert area, or a barren area, and getting growth, trees. It creates rainfall patterns, where rain is recycled from one part of an area to another. Incident rainfall!

How do you get rainfall? Well, the rainfall starts from the ocean, largely, it comes across the land, it falls on the ground. It then is evaporated again, because of the respiration of plants, and moves on, to start another rainstorm down the road! So the same water in this rainfall is being used time and time again, between the time it originates in the ocean, and the time it gets back into the ocean again, by flowing downstream.

Now, this creates, what? This has the effect of cooling the environment. Grasses do a fairly decent job; trees are much better. Trees will take up to 10% of the incident solar radiation, and absorb it and convert it into biomass—and will cool the environment! The way you get rid of a desert, is you grow a forest. And you have to go through these cycles to do it.

So therefore, we don't want this nonsense any more. What we need is high energy-flux density power, and high energy-flux density is the measurement of effectiveness of production. The higher the energy-flux density—and this means you go from incident sunlight, you go up the scale toward nuclear power, and then to thermonuclear power, and beyond that.

- A Filling Station on the Moon -

Well, for example: If you wanted to take a ship, and you wanted the ship to take you from Earth-orbit, as in, from the Moon to Mars orbit, with people in it—if you wanted to have that ship travel at a speed which gives a gravitational effect for the inhabitants of the capsule, you will have a tank attached to it, as big as the Moon, just to contain the fuel. It's not a very good idea.

So therefore, what you need, is you need a much higher energy-flux density thing; you need fusion thrust. And where do you get the fusion thrust? Well, you go to the Moon. That's your filling station. You'll find at the filling station on the Moon, there's helium-3, an isotope of helium. Helium-3 is the best fuel for thermonuclear fusion, it's the most efficient. So if you wanted to have a ship go, so the one-gravity effect on the passengers and the crew, between Earth orbit and Mars orbit, you would want to have thermonuclear fusion as your propellant. And it would come from helium-3, picked up from the gas station on the Moon. And most of the equipment you would fly in, would also be built on the Moon, from raw materials which are present on the Moon. And once we get into that racket, we find that we're not limited to the Moon. Once we become gatherers of raw materials and so forth, in various parts of the Solar System, then, we find that we have many more kinds of resources to deal with.

So, in general, the point is, we have to go to this kind of development. Therefore, we want a space orientation. We want a power/space orientation combined, to complement the development of a railway system. Now, in this process, when you start to build the railway system, of the type we're talking about, you're going to have to recreate the machine-tool production, and so forth, that you need.

So essentially, in my view, in the United States, what we would do by tradition: We would take a large-scale project, like the Tennessee Valley program, or our developing a railway system, the transcontinental railway system—you would take that project, and you would assign Federal responsibility for creating the credit, and authorizing this, to build this system. You would then go to private contractors, along the way, who would pick up on filling out subcontractors on these projects, which is the way things always work in the United States, when they worked. And thus, you take a driver, some scientific project, like a space program, or a railway program, a water program, building power plants—these things now become the stimulus, which spin off the subcontracts and opportunities for expanding industry again.

So now we want to increase the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. We take the large projects as drivers. We take the offshoots of the large projects, which are largely national projects, as stimulants for the smaller level, for people who do the things that are necessary to support the major projects out there. Now, you can expand, raise the level, with aid of education, which is stimulated by this, to increase the productive powers of labor per capita in physical terms.

And that's what we used to do, in our best time! That's what we did under Roosevelt, with a lot of improvisation. Do it again! That's the solution for Asia, as well! You have to have the process of self-development of a population, through the kinds of goals and stimulants which will enable that to occur in a lawful way. And you have to have a people-carry orientation—that's to say, when you've got little kids out there, young people, who have no future, who are extremely poor, with no significant prospect of getting a better life—this is the way you approach that problem. You transform people who have no future, and you give them a future, by creating this process, where they're assimilated to the process of the general growth of the society.

- A Credit System Now! -

Now, so therefore, what we need right now—immediately—is, we need this program: We need to eliminate the present world monetary system, by a credit system. We create such a credit system by—because the United States is crucial, we have to have the United States cooperate as a part of this, as an initiating part.

The United States, Russia, China, and India are the base of doing that. If the United States, Russia, China, and India begin to cooperate, in the way we see signalled by the recent, past months' development of cooperation between Russian and China on certain projects, we see the pathway which can be extended to a larger part of the globe. And by making people conscious of what this means, in these countries and other countries, which will admire this, we're going to change the moral point of view, among nations generally. If your neighbor is beneficial to your existence, then you like your neighbor, and you will not have war. You will solve the problem without having war.

We will not have this terrible thing.

The problem we have now, is, the Americans have this generation that's dominant in the United States, which has lost that perspective. I represent one of the old fossils, who are still running around functioning, who represents this tradition which was once known as the Franklin Roosevelt tradition, and even earlier generations. But my view is this: Right now, right now: the entire world financial-monetary system is collapsing! Right now! It's not going to collapse, it is now collapsing! It has a date where it collapsed: It collapsed on the day that the Little Queen of England, in her capacity as Emperor of the World—which she described herself as being, virtually!—she said: "We represent one-third of world, you know. And we're going to reach out further! We are going to run the world!" From places such as Dubai, no doubt!

Now Dubai is what? When China assimilated Hong Kong, the tradition of Hong Kong under the British Raj went by! And what did the British do? They picked Dubai! "Goodbye, Hong Kong. Dubai, we come!"

Dubai is the worst, filthiest center of corruption on this planet. For example, in places like nearby countries, if you want to have a crooked transaction, you go to Dubai. They talk about a certain amount of money. Well, what was Dubai, essentially? What was Hong Kong? How did Hong Kong exist? How did it come into existence? Drugs! What's Dubai represent? Drugs! Where are the drugs? Well, all over the place, if you want to ask for them, in the right way.

But the drugs come from—Afghanistan! They come from the southern part of Afghanistan—Oh! Aren't we fighting a war over there, or something?—from the southern part of Afghanistan, which is occupied by the British military, which is in there supervising the drug business. And the drug business is done by natives of the country, who are told, if they don't want to get shot, they will grow opium, and hashish, and other things. And produce heroin. And the heroin market of the world is now centered on this part of Afghanistan. And the British, by occupying it with their troops, are managing it!

So, all the drug trafficking in the world is now centered, as in Hong Kong, the same way, now, in Dubai! It's a center of intellectual filth and other kinds of filth of the planet! And the other Arab states around there are very embarrassed, when you start talking about Dubai these days, because it's a very dirty place—evil.

So this is the problem: The British Empire, which is Prince Philip, this crazy thing, the Copenhagen Conference, all these things are part of the intended destruction of humanity. This is worse than Adolf Hitler, what this amounts to in its effect. It has to be destroyed.

And the present world monetary-financial system is now disintegrating. Under present conditions, the present monetary system can not be saved! You can't save it—don't try. You have to shut it down. You shut it down, by putting it through a bankruptcy reorganization. You already have a step in that direction, in the agreement between Russia and China.

That agreement is a step in that direction: To take an asset—China using an asset, which is the debt of the United States to China. Instead of sitting there as an asset, waiting for it to be repaid, they now use it, as an investment capital, and use it to develop the economy of Asia, and other places. If this thing goes further, Japan will jump on it immediately, because Japan has no future, except as a partner of that region of the world. Korea, essentially, immediately. Other parts of South Asia, immediately; they will orient immediately in that direction. If India enters this, and India has to, because it has no rational choice but to do that, and a lot of people in India are inclined to go in that direction, then you'll have this whole section of Asia, which can now be involved in a development perspective.

And the way to make it work: The United States must join it.

And the present direction of policy of the U.S. Presidency must cease! And the United States must go away from the British-oriented policy, toward this policy, toward a Pacific policy. That is, the United States, as across the Pacific, to China, Russia, and these countries. And we have to push it through. And we have to use a weapon, and the weapon is a true weapon, it's not a fiction: The entire, present world system is going into the form of a collapse, which mimics what happened in Europe in the 14th Century, which was called a Dark Age, or a new Dark Age. Mankind has no choice: It must do this, or mankind, as a whole, goes into a Dark Age.

And there's no reason not to do it. There are impediments to doing it, and that means that serious people in the United States, have to use the potential for bringing key forces in the United States, into cooperation with what is going on, as a process between Russia and China, and what should be, also, India. Once we do that—and I know it's possible—we're talking to people in the United States, with whom we're discussing this. It is possible to do this, and it's possible to do this, very soon. I'm thinking in terms of months, or weeks, that something like this could be done. It's our chance.

- Purify the Presidency -

That means that this President—look, the Congress is not worth much; the President is worth less. We have some people in the government, in the United States, who are good people, intelligent people, who are capable of understanding this, and would tend to go with it. With a very slight adjustment in the composition of the present Presidency of the United States, eliminating the fruitcakes, like Rahm Emanuel, whose tutu is getting too tight for him! He screams a lot—it's that tutu squeezing in on him, you know. It's shrinking—he's getting fat, and his tutu is getting tighter and tighter; he's angrier and angrier! And what he has to do, is have this tutu removed. He probably should be sent to a health-care center where the tutu is removed—he's getting fat! You know, and the tutu doesn't fit any more. He doesn't dance well.

Anyway, but by eliminating this factor, the so-called behaviorist factor, in the present Administration, the part that's hated the most and increasingly hated, out, you have a U.S. Federal system, with people who are loyal to the system. You know, our system is of that character, as some people know. Our system is a Presidential system; it's not a parliamentary system. You have people who are—like me! I'm not part of the government. But I've been associated with the government for a long time. As a matter of fact, ever since I was in service, in military service in India, where I became sort of self-involved in the cause of Indians, at that point, against the British Raj, back in 1946.

So, and over that period, many of us are loyal to our sense of our government, our nation, our republic. And we tend to gather around the idea of our republic, as a republic; and we gather around the idea of the Presidency, as the key to our republic. The Congress has a very definite function. Our state representative system has a very important function. But the thing that holds the country together, that gives it a direction, is the Federal Executive; and the Federal Executive is a very large organization of people who are members of government, and people who are not members of government. Some were formerly members of government; they're not members of government anymore. But we all have our attachment, our emotional attachment, patriotic attachment, to the idea that this is our government, and this belongs to a government according to our Constitution. And our primary concern is our nation as a republic, and the role of the Presidency of this republic and the Executive branch in steering the policies of the nation as a whole, diplomatically and otherwise.

And therefore, if you purify this government of ours—which can be done—you can have very rapidly a very serious change in policy from a very bad policy, which we have now, to a very good policy, with some of the same members of government who are in position right now. And that's what I'm talking about. There are people in government or around government, associated with government right now, who understand some of the things I'm talking about, and who can very quickly learn to come to an accommodation around what I'm talking about. There are people in government, in this government, even the Obama government, who understand something of what I'm talking about, about this U.S.-Russia-China-India cooperation. They understand it; not perfectly, but they understand it. It's an idea that's there! And if you get the Obama situation under control, with the weight of this crisis now coming down, which is going to be more and more obvious as the days pass—we're in a breakdown crisis in the entire planet.

Under these conditions, under this condition of shock, you can make sudden changes. But you have to have clear, correct ideas, or you make a mess, not a change. And the time has come for the action to occur, to purify and strengthen our Federal Executive, in terms of its historic, Constitutional mission orientation, and tell Mr. Obama he has to be re-educated, one way or the other—in the White House or out—but he will be re-educated in either case. He will have a different orientation, and this clown, Rahm Emanuel, this silly fellow, will have to find another place; take his tutu someplace else. And that is a very feasible thing, right now. It's real, and it's necessary.

You're in a period of revolution, and history says, if you don't make the right revolution, you get the wrong one. We're in one of those times, and that's what this is all about.

- A Real Change -

The time has come for a real change! And the real change, the ingredients of a real change, as far as the United States are concerned, are really here. What are the changes?

The changes are: We're going back to a productive economy. We're going to a high-technology economy again. We're going to repair what we destroyed, in terms of the auto industry's potential, other industries' potential. We're going to repair, we're going to end this slavery to foreign control of food supply. We're going to insure food sovereignty for every nation.

Nations don't have national security now, because they don't have food sovereignty. The food on which they depend, is grown in another country, and it's international forces, not any of the countries, that control the food supply. And the food supply is being destroyed, deliberately, by the international cartels, the financial interests. Those cartels must be broken, their rights taken away, because every nation has a right to food security.

So anyway, this is the kind of thing we must do; we're at the point we must do it. And I say, from my knowledge, the potential ingredients to be put together inside the United States, for cooperation with Russia, China, India, and other countries, around a Pacific orientation, exist. It's just going to take the guts from a few people to make it happen.

And Obama can sit in the White House, or he can sit outside. He can do what we tell him, inside, or he can do something else, outside. And he will be nicely protected, he won't be hurt—his feelings may be hurt, but he'll have a good life. We take care of our Presidents, even when they're bums. We have respect for our Presidents; not because of them, but because of the institution they represent.

So, that's what our situation is. Anyway, I think we'll clarify some of this material in discussion, which is now, I presume, proceeding. And I would like to have Harley introduce our three candidates.

- The Three Candidates -

Schlanger: Well, as Lyn mentioned at the beginning, we're launching a new phase in American political life, with the announcement today of three campaigns in three very different parts of the country, but which will provide a national focus for the ideas that you've just heard presented by Mr. LaRouche. So we have our three candidates here, and I'd like to introduce them to you. These are members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, who have played an active role in recruiting young people into politics, and who represent individuals who have developed both intellectual capabilities and emotional capacity to inspire the desire in others to act for the future. And that's what these campaigns will be. So, the three candidates we have:

First of all, someone who became a little bit famous earlier this year, during the town meeting brawls that were taking place—Rachel Brown, who will be running against "Bailout Barney" Frank. And Rachel will be telling anyone who will listen, that if you've lost your job, you've lost your house, if your grandmother is being carted off to be killed, blame "Bailout Barney"! And this is a national campaign, because Barney Frank is at the center of this corrupt and immoral policy of bailing out the banks, while ignoring the welfare of the American people.

Now, secondly, we would be remiss if we didn't take on the poor woman who sometimes appears like a jack-in-the-box when she's sitting behind the President at his speeches, namely the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. So, we have a candidate who will be running in her district in San Francisco, who will be bringing this Pacific orientation, and I assure you that once his campaign starts, we probably will see some sign of emotion on her face. So, Summer Justice Shields will be running against Nancy Pelosi.

And then, there's a part of the country which I have inhabited for the last 30-something years. It's a tough part of the country; it's one of Lyn's favorite parts, because it has so much potential and needs so much work. Namely, Texas. Now, in Texas, we had a character a few years back, who some of you may remember, Tom DeLay. And we ran a campaign to save Texas and save America "without DeLay," and it finally worked. Only, the person who came in last time, is another bum who worked with DeLay, and he worked with Phil Gramm, in pushing through the elimination of the Glass-Steagall standard.

And so, we have a candidate who's going to be running in that district, to once again restore dignity to that district. But there's another very important aspect to that district. That's the district where NASA is located. And as you've heard Lyn, in his discussion today, a central part of changing this country is going to be inspiring youth to drop their computers and their cell phones and their XBoxes, and to actually take on the challenge of going into space. And so we're going to running a campaign in the district of NASA, which will have, as one of its ideas, to take the troops out of Afghanistan and put them in space. And the candidate there will be Kesha Rogers.

So this will be a national campaign to make sure the Presidential system functions in the United States. And we're going to need your support for these campaigns. We're going to run, not campaigns on a shoestring, but serious campaigns, with websites, and the websites will be launched within the next days. You will be able to go onto the websites, and see the latest developments in these campaigns, and also crossfired on LaRouche PAC. But we're going to need your support for them, so as soon as you can, go on these websites for Rachel Brown, Summer Shields, and Kesha Rogers, and write checks for them. You can write checks for all three of them, or one big check for one of them, however you want to do it. But this will be one of the ways that you can participate in this fight that Lyndon LaRouche identified today. Thank you.

Dialogue with LaRouche

Freeman: Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Debra Freeman.

We have a number of questions for Lyn, some of which have come in from some institutions around the world, and I'm going to give priority to those questions, particularly, because they come from institutions that are the parties to the Four-Power Agreement that Lyn has authored.

The first question comes from Russia. Actually, it's two questions. This comes from an editor at a leading Russian weekly newspaper, which, in the recent period, has drawn tremendous attention to the Four-Power perspective that Mr. LaRouche has put forward. His first question is about the Lisbon Treaty, on the ceremony that just took place, as well as the meaning of the nomination and confirmation of the new European Union leadership. He asks: "What are the consequences of this, especially for Russia?"

"My second question concerns the second phase of the financial crisis. Some people are saying that it has ended, and that a recovery is going on. What are the near-term prospects?"

- The Four Powers and the End of Monetarism -

LaRouche: Well, on the second question, I would say that the reports of the undeath of the dead is not yet well established. This system is dead; there is no possibility of recovery of this system. The only recovery possible, first of all, is, you take the dirty laundry to the laundry. And you wash all the monetarism out of it. And you come up with a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, which, in point of fact, was actually what Franklin Roosevelt had intended in 1944, when he rejected and denounced John Keynes' swindle.

The problem was, that in the entire postwar period, with the death of Roosevelt, the first thing Truman did—and Truman was a fascist: That's not an exaggeration. He was a Wall Street-promoted fascist from Missouri, and thus, he was a Churchill supporter. The reason he got in there was because Roosevelt had trouble getting re-elected for his fourth term, because of a right-wing turn in the United States at the time. And therefore, Truman, who was acceptable, because he was a pig, let Roosevelt be re-elected. And then Roosevelt died.

And you had the experience of the head of the OSS at that time, who went in to see Roosevelt, after he had been re-elected, re-installed in office, re-sworn in. And he came out of the meeting with Roosevelt, and he had gone into the anteroom. He was the head of OSS, and there was a friend of his, who was the head of the OSS operating in Italy, who was my friend, who was sitting in the hallway. And so, he came out, his face was ashen. "It's over; it's over." The right wing had taken over, because Roosevelt's death was the last bastion for what we were committed to. And so therefore, we got into this process under Truman, which was dictated, really, by Churchill and company.

For example, Roosevelt was concerned immediately with the elimination of all colonialism, all imperialism. And to create a system of free nation-states; so the idea of the United Nations was to have a repository, and take all the parts of the world which were colonies—especially British colonies, but other colonies, or semi-colonies, and to free them from colonial status. And to have a vehicle, which was the United Nations, which was supposed to be an entry-point for each of these countries to have national sovereign status provided to them as a vehicle by the United Nations.

Well, that didn't happen. The first thing that happened, is, in the case of Indo-China, the British went in there, with the backing of Truman, and the Japanese prisoners of war were released from the camps, and told by the British to resume their arms and occupy Indo-China until the British could get the French in there to resume the government. And this policy of Truman and of Churchill and company, was the policy of the United States, which was reflected, say, in the 1970s, by Henry Kissinger and company, who proposed that Africa's population should be kept poor—not grow, not increase—and should be prevented from consuming the raw materials which Britain and the United States reserved for their own future.

So, this Anglo-American tradition, which it became under Truman, was prevalent. And the basis was this, the key basis: Roosevelt had understood—as his ancestor [Isaac Roosevelt] had understood, who founded the Bank of New York and was an ally of Hamilton—that we are a credit system, not a monetary system. And what happened was, we were turned into a monetary system, which meant we became a part, in effect, of the Empire, the British Empire. The real British Empire, which is a monetary system, not a physical system; it's a monetary system. Where we, by Constitution, by commitment, are a credit system. And our policy, as Roosevelt defined it, was a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, which was actually the intention at the beginning, at the founding of our republic. Hamilton's role in establishing this policy of national banking, and then it was embedded in the Constitution, and still remains in the Constitution, as a principle. Under our Constitution, financial systems, monetary systems are illegal for the United States. And therefore, that has to be the change.

It is the free-trade system, and this globalization process, which have created the vulnerability, where the nations of Europe, central Europe, have no sovereignty anymore. No nation on the continent of Europe, western and central Europe, has any sovereignty today. They're colonies of the British Empire. That's what the Queen was referring to the other day, last week, when talking about, that the British Empire, what's called the Commonwealth, controls one-third of the world, and is out to control more, which is what she said. The Queen, the Little Queen, said that.

So, the point is, we have to eliminate globalization. To eliminate globalization, we have to eliminate monetarism. It's easy to do now, legally, because, as you see, after Friday and Saturday of this week, and yesterday, too, every part of the world is on the verge of bankruptcy, except Russia and China. Because the Russia and China agreement made just last month, that treaty agreement, establishes the relationship between them as that of credit system to credit system. The Chinese took their credit which they had, which was money owed by the United States to China, and said we're going to invest it. We're not going to sit there just with a bank account; we're going to invest it. We're going to get something good out of it. And the Russians said, we'll get something good out of it; we'll work together. And other nations in Asia, through Chinese negotiation and Russian negotiation, are pushing this with other countries. "We must cooperate." At least the present Putin-Yakunin-Medvedev government—they're pushing this.

And we want India in on it. We want the countries of South Asia to be involved in this, because with that combination, and the resources we have, we know that great good can be done there. If the United States is a partner in this, we know that we can secure the planet. And that's my goal. Other things may be beneficial, but that's my goal.

We must do that! We must secure the planet for that kind of alliance, that kind of cooperation. For a credit system, which is a fixed-exchange-rate credit system; that is, each of these nations must establish fixed-exchange-rate agreements among themselves. That way, with between 1.5% to 2% interest rates, we can create credit for long-term physical investments, which is what's needed. And we're talking about 25 years, 50 years, 100 years. We're talking about stirring up the imagination of the people of the world for what we can do, so that every child, when they become conscious of what they are, can say, "There is a better world waiting for me 50 years from now, or 60 years from now." And that's the bond that must tie people together, and peoples together, in that kind of thing.

So, the financial system is dead; it's hopelessly bankrupt. It could not be saved; no one can save it. Because the explanation is simple: It's my Triple Curve. Actually, back in the 1950s, when I was an executive with a consulting firm, one of my specialties was to take a number of industries, including the auto industry in general, and I was on top of this, in consulting activity. And I knew that the entire system of Detroit was one big fraud. And some of you are probably old enough to have remembered something about this, but it really was a fraud.

You had a system of automobile manufacturers and dealerships, and that's where the fraud was. The contract of the automobile dealer, who was an independent operative, but under the control, contract control, of automobile manufacturing firms, and by Wall Street, agreed that when they sold a new car, they would show on their books, the price of the new car at list price. Then, if a trade-in occurred, where a used car was used as part of the payment for a new car, you would take the shortfall, and you would charge that to the value of the used car taken in trade, in inventory. That was the contract, and all of these auto companies had this contract.

This not only happened in the automobile industry; under the Eisenhower period, from '52 on, '53 on, it had spread throughout all kinds of industries. So, the economy was based on a very large margin of these kinds of franchise arrangements, where products were sold, and the contract was that the list price, a manufacturer's list price, would always be shown as the income. And on a trade-in, the trade-in would be priced at what was needed to cover the full-cash-plus-trade-in value. So, in the Summer of that year, 1956, I said to my associates, colleagues, and so forth, "We're going to have a very serious recession. The most serious recession of the postwar period is going to occur about February or March of this coming year." Because that's the way the structure of the financial system of the United States was at the time. And it happened.

Now, since that success of my experience in that time, I've always done forecasting, not based on so-called market statistical forecasting, which is bunk! No person who engages market-based statistical forecasting is any good at forecasting. They may be good at something else, but they're no good at forecasting. They've never hit the button on this one; none of them! And there've been some big arguments. But the method I used then, back later in 1996, I codified it. I codified it because I was involved in a Vatican event on health care, and one of my contributions was to try to make clear what the principle was here; and it became known as the "Triple Curve," which I put out prominently in January of 1996. And the Triple Curve breaks down the most essential feature of an economic process into three elements, commercial elements. One, is the utterance of money—monetarism. The second, is the use of money as a financial instrument for trade and manufacturing. Thirdly, is the physical activity required to produce the product on which a nation depends. Three curves.

The model we referred to, was the model defined by the one 1923 hyperinflation in Germany, which was, then, occupied Germany. And the occupation, which was determined by the British and French principally, with American collaboration—what they did was, they took Germany and put it under reparations conditions. The Germans had to pay the reparations in a timely fashion. When the French occupied the Ruhr, the pressure of this operation became unbearable.

So, from the Spring of that year on, a hyperinflationary process began in Germany, in occupied Germany, postwar Germany. And so, they began to print money by the state in order to pay the debt to their Versailles creditors, the nations. The result was a three-fold effect: You had the hyperinflationary growth in the emission of money. You had a decline, as a result of this, of actual trade, as denominated in financial terms. Thirdly, you had a sharp decline in actual production, physical production. So, by November of that year, the German economy blew out in the famous hyperinflation of 1923.

What we're now experiencing, is what I warned of during the entire period of the 1960s to the 1990s and the present decade, is that we were going in that direction. My first indication or communication with the new Administration of Bill Clinton, was that the danger was, under present policies, as I indicated to the Clinton Administration, that we were going to go in that direction. In 1996, I made this explicit by presenting this so-called Triple Curve function, which illustrates exactly how this kind of economy works. We are now experiencing, since September 2007, we're experiencing what I said was going to happen then: that the Weimar syndrome, the Weimar hyperinflationary syndrome, was now going to begin to hit the United States. And that's what happened with the breakout of the so-called mortgage crisis, which broke out a few days after my July 25 webcast, where I announced this.

Since that time, everything done by the U.S. government and by international agencies has been to feed that process. In Germany, in 1923, you had a country which was encased by its own borders, because the process was imposed on Germany by the Versailles powers. Now you have it where the entire world is under the same kind of process, which is not so legally precisely controlled, but the process is the same. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, it's not a depression. We're experiencing a global breakdown crisis with the characteristics of Weimar Germany in 1923. The utterance of so-called money, as monetary emission, is skyrocketing, relative to the physical output of the economy. In the meantime, the physical output and the so-called financial turnover of goods is collapsing, but there's inflation in that sector. So these three factors are working. There's no other way you can describe, actually competently describe, what is happening to the U.S. and world economy today, except that. That's what's operating.

So I know this. I'm the only scientific authority on this, and I know this. There are other people in the United States who have studied this, and know what I'm saying, and agree with what I'm saying, scientifically and professionally. But what I've proposed is the only way you can understand what's happening to the world now. And if you want to cure the problems of the world, you've got to start here. That's what you've got to fix. The Triple Curve is the only competent representation of what the crisis is we're dealing with. And by that standard, this system is now bankrupt, and is about to go into a steep Weimar-style collapse, unless we intervene to stop it. The only thing that has happened of any significance to tend to stop that, is what happened in the agreement between Russia and China, both on the Presidency, and the government levels, in setting up the recent agreement. That's the only thing that will work!

You can't do it in Europe, because Europe's a slave state, western and central Europe. They have no sovereignty anymore. They're part of the euro system. They're slaves! We would like to free those slaves, and then they'd behave better. But right now they're slaves. And we want to free them.

But the only way you can free them is an alliance of Russia, China, India, and the United States. If Russia, China, India, and the United States agree on this, we can save the planet. If we can not agree on this, we're not going to save the planet. And that's what the issue is. And I'm the authority on this, because no one else has ever understood this thing this way, except there are people in the United States now, who in their present study, have made the comparison of what I did before, and realize that I've been right all along. And that's the only way you can understand this crisis. And what I'm proposing is the only possible way, because you can not get Western Europe into this right now. They don't have the sovereignty to do it. They can't vote on it! Therefore, we have to free them. We free them by the Russia-China-India-United States policy.

- The 'G-2' Concept -

Freeman: The next question comes from the American Studies division of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He says, "Dear Mr. LaRouche, I would be very pleased to hear your views on the so-called Group of Two. This is the idea being promoted by Fred Bergsten, which says that the Chinese and the U.S. economies are so closely interdependent, that they are one economy. And this G-2 is the dominant economy in the world. The G-2 idea is also being used to put pressure on China to take more so-called "responsibility" in the current financial system. However, Chinese Prime Minister Wen [Jiabao] has said several times, including to President Obama, that there is no such G-2, that China has a long way to go to become a developed nation, and wants to keep its independent policy for international cooperation with many other nations. What is your view?"

LaRouche: China, in my view, is a civilized nation, at a time that Europe is not, especially the British. I don't know who's going to teach who the lesson! And what China and Russia did—I was in the area of this discussion as this approached and was very much for it. At the time when I was in Rhodes [World Public Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations, Oct. 8-12, 2009], and we had much discussion of this, with some relevant people there, and we had people from India and other parts of the world who were also there who were also involved in this discussion. And I was very optimistic about China's coming up with a treaty agreement of this type. I thought from my discussions with people who represent China here, and so forth, that my conclusion was that they understood their problem very well, and it was a matter of a production problem.

China has been used as a cheap labor market, and allowed to have certain industries, generously, but not allowed to have the technology it needed. China was cut off for various reasons from access to certain technologies which China should have, and that was a problem. And that is one of the things we're trying to fix now.

So, it was obvious to me that this kind of change should be made, and I was optimistic because of my estimation of what China had manifested as its own understanding of its problem, that if the Russians would make a certain kind of approach, that China would probably accept it. And so, when I talked to the Russians and others there in Rhodes, I assured them that my belief was that China would make such an agreement. And it did make such an agreement. And therefore, I'm rather enthusiastic about the fact that it worked out.

But the problem is, that China needs protection, of a fixed-exchange-system type of protection, and now that we have the agreement between China and Russia, what is really needed is the United States to quickly embrace that treaty agreement, that kind of treaty agreement, and join it. And to make it work, you must bring India in. However, I know that if Russia, China and the United States agree on this, India will be in, because India's problem is the British problem, on this. So, if the three countries—and the important thing is not the order in which these things occur, although that's significant—the point is, a commitment from leading circles inside the United States to bring about a Four-Power agreement of that type, comparable to what was struck between Russia and China, in this recent agreement between the Presidents and the state, the government, will force—the Indians will come along.

We also have all other kinds of problems, including this idiocy in Afghanistan. We have to break that! The Afghanistan problem is a British problem. The British are running a drug operation in Afghanistan. Everything is being run—the military operation is a drug operation. And this Dubai thing was a key to it. We have to break the British Empire.

And you know, England will survive nicely. A lot of people in England will be happy to get rid of the Empire, because of their sexual proclivities, among other things.

But, we need this kind of agreement, because in that strategic area alone, we've got an idiot who wants to put troops in there. I thought McChrystal was bad enough, but this thing from Obama is beyond belief. It's insane! We've got to break it. We've got to get it out of there. Because we know what the problems are.

For example, let me suggest something to you: Did you ever hear of Osama bin Laden? Do you know what part of Pakistan he's living in now? Do you know why he's never been caught? Certain British and Saudis and Americans are protecting him, that's why!

But he's not the guilty party. The guilty party was the British BAE, together with the Saudi influences which financed that operation called 9/11. And all of our people would like to have certain forces go in there and take them out, and bring them back to expose what they really are, and clear up this mess of what really happened in 9/11. Not the usual nonsense. But this is still there. It's a British-Saudi operation: 9/11. An orchestration of an operation against the United States, with complicity of certain elements associated with government, political elements, international elements, associated with government.

That's the kind of thing we have to deal with. So why not?

So therefore, what you have to understand is, the Afghanistan operation, like many organized wars which engage the United States—especially since the Kennedy assassination—were operations against us, the United States, by the British! The British have wanted to destroy us, and they've done a damned good job of doing it, by getting us involved in silly wars.

What about Indochina? Why did we get into that thing? MacArthur said no, and he was right. Kennedy said no, and he was right. You don't need to have these kinds of wars, so-called "revenge wars" or "special operations wars." You don't need them. We destroyed our military. We had a case of our friends in Germany when I was working on this SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative] project, and we had a lot of German military, senior ones, who were working with us, as well as others, on the idea of trying to avoid, to deal with, the disintegration of the Soviet Union at that time. To deal with it in a way, by simply going to this SDI proposal, as an alternative. Because the Russians were disintegrating. We knew it! And therefore, why not make this kind of agreement to develop a system which eliminates this nuclear warfare system, and use that as a way of getting some economic cooperation and development?

And, of course, we had some of the people in the CIA leadership, and national security operations generally, and in the Presidency itself at that time, who accepted my proposal as a project, and tested it out, and the President agreed to it in January of that year [1983]. So, we know this kind of area, and we know who's against it. We had Brits who were for it, also, but the British monarchy, the British Foreign Office was against it. You should take the names of the people who were living then, general officers, the outstanding veterans of the German military establishment of that time, the leaders of the French military establishment, the Italians. There was serious consideration of cooperation from the government of India, because Indira Gandhi was still alive then. We had the ability to create the kind of arrangement which Roosevelt had intended. The cards were in our hands. I gave an address on the 12th of October in 1988, in which I laid out exactly this situation. It was in our hands. But, you had skunks inside the Soviet system, like Gorbachov and people like that, who were a complication. Andropov was also a big problem in this matter, a major problem.

What we're dealing with, is when you think of war as some kind of an institution all by itself. When you look at the history of warfare in Western Civilization, since the Peloponnesian war, you realize that warfare is often not an act of courage but of desperation and folly, because people use wars as the Roman Empire did: To control the Empire, they would use wars between peoples within the Empire, and play them against one another in order to win. You should read this in Machiavelli, for example, which is supposed to be the basic military education for a lot of people: Read it. The use of war as an enterprise in folly. You don't start from trying to win wars, you don't start from trying to run the world. You try to orchestrate events which lead to an event which should be desired by all parties. Peace is the objective. Peace, by the definition of history, since the Peloponnesian War.

Greece was a leading culture of that period, together with the Egyptian culture, the leading culture. Greece was about to, in a sense, defeat the Persian Empire, which was the greatest empire of that period, and the most repressive. They did, but then what they did is, they turned around, and Athens made war on Corinth, Corinth made war on Athens, and then they both made war against Syracuse. And out of this, the culture of Greece was still around, but it has never been the same since. So, war is more often a case of folly than of courage. And that's the way we have to look at this thing.

We have to understand that our objective is to bring the relations among the sovereign peoples of the planet into a cooperative order. Sometimes, military force is necessary to check something that needs to be checked. But the idea of a long war, unless you're forced to fight it, is the greatest folly I can imagine, at least from my knowledge of history.

And what really happened to us—you see it in the 9/11 thing. You see that! What happened? When did I say we were going to have a 9/11? I didn't call it 9/11. I said, in the beginning of January, that year, I said we had to expect a major terrorist operation inside the United States, used for the purpose of installing the authority of the George W. Bush Administration. We were looking all over the place. We had an operation in Northern Virginia, around Washington, very serious. We had this little event in Italy. Suddenly, we had this event in New York. I knew immediately what it was. It was what I knew was going to happen! Somebody on the British side, with complicity inside the United States, was going to pull a stunt like this, because you had a totally incompetent, intolerable President, George W. Bush, Jr. A piece of crap! How did this thing ever slide into the Presidency?

So, how do the British do things like that? And it's the British that do it, along with the Wall Street crowd and so forth. Why do they do that? Because the crisis was on. The situation was, by current standards of the time, uncontrollable. The Clinton Administration, with all its weaknesses, especially after the impeachment indictment, was weak. But nonetheless, we had made certain progress under Clinton. He was a two-term President. Now that's a very significant institutional fact. A two-term President tends to have a great influence on what follows his two terms. And we had a great crisis: The great financial swindle that was pulled under Bush and company, was now dead; we had a collapse of the great bundle. And I knew that they were going to pull a crisis, and that it had to be an act of terrorism. Either war or terrorism. We got the terrorism. And I know that the evidence exists that the BAE and certain high-level Saudi influences, ran part of the operation, and, therefore, probably all of it. It was run to ensure and install a relative dictatorship on behalf of the George W. Bush Administration.

To some people, that's a shocking thing to say. To me, it's not. Because that's the way I read history. That's what happened to us. And then we got this President as the result of the George W. Bush Administration.

What we have also in the Presidency and in the institutions, we have people with an understanding of this, though most people don't have the temperament to bring it out publicly, as I do. But, as is known to other people, my job is to say the "unsayable," especially when it's necessary. And they're afraid to shoot me, because I might get credit for it. It's my best protection.

But anyway, it's the case. It's a fact. And that's what we have to understand in this particular case: that we're dealing with that kind of problem.

- China and the Dubai Crisis -

Freeman: The next question is from somebody who operates in high-level diplomatic and academic circles in China, and he says, "Mr. LaRouche, this is on the question of the Dubai crisis. There are currently many warnings in China that we should take heed of the Dubai crisis for China's own economy, and that it is a much more dangerous speculative bubble than some Western analysts are admitting, certainly as you referred to in your remarks. My question is: Since it does appear that the Dubai crisis does mark a new stage in the current global financial crisis, how do you think that China should react?"

LaRouche: Well, the first thing we need—and China needs it as well as the rest of us—is a clear plan of what we're going to do, because the plan will define what our circumstances are. The first thing we have to do is get enough power together where we can actually define some policy which will stick. My view is that the agreement of Russia, China, India, and the United States is enough power to make policy.

Then we have to just simply be practical, scientifically practical. We have to work and have a discussion, because we know that one of the key problems here is that the openness to China, of shipping U.S. production to China, for example, without all the technology needed, was a device in which China never was paid enough for the development of China as a whole. So you suddenly have a collapse of the China external market for these goods, but you have left China with less—probably two-thirds of China has not really been developed.

Now, a country functions on the basis of the development of its entire people. You have to have a development process which is moving the entire population. And you have a lot of China which is not developed. The approach to the development of the railway system, which has become a China characteristic, is essentially an example of trying to deal with that problem. But obviously, we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system, where China has some protection on the prices of its exports.

At the same time, the credit is being generated among nations, in which the amount of credit required will be generated. In other words, you've got 1.4 billion people, and they have to develop. Therefore, you start from a discussion with China's representatives, and with others: China has 1.4 billion people, and they're going to have more people. How do we generate a rate of net growth of the productivity of China itself, so that China is an integrated nation, in the sense that we understand an integrated nation?

Therefore, this has to be an agreement among nations, as parties to an agreement, which come to the effect of a contract among nations, to say we're going to have price regulation and technology rights regulation, under which China will be able to solve its own problems, within its own borders. And we have to do the same thing with the other countries.

We've got a problem in India: India's got a different kind of problem, but it's also got the same Asian problem of a vast percentage of the population which is terribly poor. Whole parts of India don't even know what electricity is, in the sense of having it available. You have the Asian problem, which is largely that. The African problem is another case of this. Africa's been treated as a slave, all of Africa. And China's behavior in Africa is one of the great embarrassments to London—because China honors its agreements. London never does. So, we need to have enough power, concentrated in enough hands, a few hands, so that these conditions can be reduced to contract agreements among nations, medium- to long-term contracts.

In other words, we have to sit back with the Chinese and others and say, what do we want to do? Let's figure out what we should do. It can be flexible and adjustable, but we have to have a working agreement on policy, on tariff and trade agreements. And we have to have enough power sitting at the table to make it stick.

My view is, if we have this power, the United States, China, Russia, and India, and other countries which would readily join them, as in Asia.

You know, the conflict with Japan is well known. But Japan and Korea will operate in the area of Russia and China. Therefore, their existence depends now, not on the British anymore, but on Russia and China, and on their relations with Russia and China. And we're in a period where Japan has a certain nuclear building capability, and we need all the nuclear power we can get in Asia. The development of northern Asia, in terms of the Russian part, is extremely important. We need all the technology we can get, to solve that problem. We can get it, if we have an agreement among these nations, because we have enough power to write a contract, a diplomatic contract, long-term.

And that's what China needs. It's got a big problem of its population, its poverty. All of Asia has this problem. Terrible poverty throughout nearly all of Asia, and we need a contract among nations which says we have a plan as to how we adjust things so we can solve this problem. I don't think we can do it on an individual nation basis, because it involves cooperation.

And essentially, we're going to have to create a fixed-exchange-rate international credit system, among nations. Get rid of this monetary system, and we'll create the credit to do the job. I'm convinced we can, but we need that contract.

- The Next 100 Days -

Freeman: Okay, moving to the United States: The next couple of questions came during the course of the discussion you conducted yesterday, in a dialogue with some institutional layers at a gathering in New York.

"Lyn, it's become increasingly apparent that Obama's policies are authored in London, and although the general assessment of those of us who have functioned institutionally as part of the Executive branch for quite some time, is that much will be decided over the next 100 days, and that those days will be decisive for this Presidency and for the nation. As of now, Obama has shown himself to be largely incapable—no matter how willing he may be—of delivering these policies into practice. And we have to assume that London is acutely aware of this. How, in your view, will they respond to this reality?"

LaRouche: Well, I think it lies with the American people. What we've had recently: We've had a mass strike phenomenon inside the United States, which came to the surface at the time in August when the Congressmen had fled back to their home districts, and wished they hadn't, because of the reception they got. The assumption has been, in Washington, that that mood in the population has waned since that time. Not true. What happened was—it's an understandable phenomenon if you understand dynamics in history, that this should happen. What the people did, the Members of Congress were going back to their constituencies, to do a routine re-election campaign kind of operation. And what they found were two things: the turnout for these meetings that they called was unprecedented, was enormous by their standards. And the people in these meetings, the constituents, would turn upon their representative, and say, "You shut up! We want to tell you something about you, right now." And that's what they did.

But these are citizens; this is a mass-strike phenomenon in the technical terms of the thing. Strategically, it's a mass-strike phenomenon. It's not a strike of masses; it's a mass-strike. That is, a popular uprising of emotion and ideas among the people, who feel that they have rights, and they've been subjected to a great injustice. And they go to their representatives: "Hey, you bum! We want to tell you that we think you're a bum, and we want you to do something about this."

But that's not the way you get the job done. That's the first step of getting the job done. What you've done, now you've said "Do it!" And they're not going to do it. They're going to go back to their masters in Washington and Wall Street, and they're going to do what they're told to do. Go along to get along! The usual song and dance. So, they got back there, and they gave them the treatment.

Now, the people were getting more and more angry! Now, in a case like this, you get to a very dangerous point, where the people who despair of a lack of competent response by their elected representatives and other officials, no longer say, "You do it for us." They begin to say, "We'll do it to you!" And you're getting into that kind of a period. And when you get into that kind of period, you get a very dangerous development, in which those in power will tend to resort to dictatorial methods to resist those who they represent. That's where you're at now! About that point; about Christmas time; right now.

So, it never went away. Every reading I have is that that is intensified. The hatred against the Congress has increased. Because, you see, the people, the citizens, don't really hate Obama so much, because they never thought he was worth much anyway. He was just a sort of Hollywood character who came on stage. They had no deep emotional attachment to him. But they did have a deep emotional attachment to the people they voted for. These were not strangers; Obama was a stranger who came in, a Hollywood figure. So, like a Hollywood figure, they had no feeling about him. How can you feel anything about Obama? I mean, that's sort of a masturbation toy, that's what that is, there's no involvement.

But they do have a great feeling about the people whom they thought they elected; because you're saying to them, not that this stranger Obama has come in to haunt you. They're saying, "You have betrayed us! We trusted you, and you betrayed us! You sold us out. You're sending us to be killed by this health-care policy. You're sending us to be killed by losing all our jobs, or losing our things, we're being junked, like junk on the horizon."

And the people come to a point in a mass-strike phenomenon, at which there is a turning point. At which they say, "No! You do what we tell you. No." It gets dangerous. And when you get a stupid and arrogant government, which is what Obama represents with his crazy behaviorist types, and when he's strutting with a Hitler-style health policy—and it is Hitler style. That mustache belongs on his upper lip. He may not have put it there, but it grew there anyway. It knew where to land. It's dangerous. And such times as this, with the breakdown of the system, is a time that you get chaos, you get riots, you get repressive regimes, dictatorships, and so forth.

And therefore, those who are not showing courage, to give proper representation to the people, when the people can no longer tolerate the government they're getting—it's a more dangerous point than any point in history. And a government, government forces, who refuse to recognize the lesson before them, are the cause of that.

This is what happened in the French Revolution. Take the case of Lafayette, as an example of this problem. Lafayette was a hero of the United States, but he was never quite the same as a hero in France. And even when he went back to France, in the company, with one of our great naval fellows, a great author—James Fenimore Cooper—and with the great man from New York and elsewhere [Washington Irving]. So, again, in dealing with the question of the French government in the 1820s, Lafayette goofed again, as he had goofed again, earlier in June, prior to the famous July 14th [1789]. And so, therefore, this is typical: when you face a change in government, or a change in government policy, which has reached a critical point, and you don't respond with good government, you create a vacuum in which all hell can bust loose.

And of course, this thing started in 1782, when the British dictatorship under Lord Shelburne made a separate peace negotiation process with the three allies—the United States, Spain, and France. And by making a separate agreement through the newly founded British Foreign Office, which was founded by Shelburne, they played France, Spain, and the United States against each other, in this process. And this led to a great crisis, where you had this great alliance, the League of Armed Neutrality, which had made possible the freedom of the United States—that condition was destroyed systematically by the British East India Company, by the same intellectual method that was used by the same people to organize the Seven Years War. And the Seven Years War just destroyed it.

And similarly, later, you had Napoleon. Well, Napoleon was the greatest hero that Britain ever had, because without Napoleon's warfare, modelled on the Seven Years War, Europe would never have been crushed and submitted at Vienna to the conditions that ensued. And so forth.

So, this is the kind of process we're looking at right now. And only what I'm proposing we do, will prevent this.

We must deliver, in the United States. We must deliver to the American people, the Great Majority, and the Great Majority is out there. The Great Majority is typified by what we saw in August in the streets, and so forth in these meetings. We must deliver a result—now! Not bargain about it; we must deliver! Obama is destroying the United States with his current policies. He didn't start this thing, but he's continuing it. We have to reverse those trends. We have to eliminate, entirely, his health-care policy—Obama's.

What we do instead, is, we go to a lesson, a health-care lesson. The health-care lesson is, that under Nixon, we destroyed our health-care system. We introduced the HMO [Health Maintenance Organization] system. Private insurance companies got control over medical care. Then later, we had a new thing which occurred in the courts: malpractice insurance cases. Tremendous fees, grants for malpractice injuries, by the courts, by the court system. The result was the insurance, which had to be paid by medical institutions, and by physicians for the practice of medicine, drove them essentially out of the business, and drove up the cost of medical care.

You look at it from, say, the drug policies, for example: what it costs to get a certain prescription drug in the United States, as opposed to Canada or places in Europe. Why? It's a swindle of what? Of the insurance companies. Shall we say, A-I-G? We bailed it out, and the bailout is now part of it.

Then we get the bright idea on top of that with Obama, to cut the right to medical care. We've got to kill you in order to save money to balance the budget. I would say, cancel the HMOs; go back to Hill-Burton, cancel the HMO system. It's a swindle from the beginning. We bailed these guys out; they shouldn't have been bailed out; they should have been bankrupted! We've got a Social Security system. Build up the Social Security system as an insurance system for the population. You don't have to rely upon these swindling insurance companies. But we didn't do that.

Now they say, "We are agreed. We're not going to allow modern technology. We're going green. We're going to have solar panels. We're going to have windmills. We're going to make gas, ourselves, and we're going to burn it." We'll feed ourselves beans, or something.

So, what has happened is that we're at a point where we have an existential conflict between the vital interests of the people of the United States and the nation of the United States, and the interests which Obama is serving. This is happening with an oppressive action, this insult to the American people, of putting 40,000 troops of war into Afghanistan. Absolutely criminally insane! Well, the President is insane in my view; or he's so stupid it amounts to the same thing.

But the point is, when we take our government, and put our government and even our own members of the legislature, you put them as threats to the very lives of our citizens! While you're destroying their homes, evictions are rising up; destroying the price of food, creating a food scarcity; everything imaginable! Everything that Louis XVI did in France, as economic policy, from 1782, 1789, that led to the great conflict between the French people and its monarchy, its government, and led to this horror show, is being done now inside the United States, under British direction.

And therefore, what you have to understand is that. We have to get this President under control! We have to get those policies out of the Congress! Otherwise, we're going to Hell! We've got our choice.

Now, how do you deal with that? People who are politically active and influential have to pull together, and make sure the changes are made; and the changes are forcibly put upon the relevant institutions of government, so we don't have the kind of thing that happened in France under Louis XVI. We're very close to that now.

The American people are instinctively a proud people. They're confident of themselves, and they've been degraded. There's a limit to what the American people can tolerate in degradation. I think the American people will tolerate all kinds of suffering if they believe that is necessary and warranted. It's happened before. But when the suffering is incurred, imposed upon them by either their own government, or when their own government is complicit with a foreign one in doing that to them, you are creating a very dangerous situation. And no patriot will encourage or tolerate what the Obama Administration is doing to the people of the United States right now. This guy has to be put under control; and he can be put under control, with people who have the intelligence and guts to know how to do it.

Copenhagen: The End of the Commonwealth?

Freeman: This is another question from yesterday's gathering. "Mr. LaRouche, one of the lead climate negotiators for India told us yesterday, after your remarks, that India would never accept any legally binding emissions cuts, that they said as much at the recent Commonwealth meetings in Trinidad. This led to an extensive discussion of India's role in a Four Power agreement, and it suddenly dawned on us, that India is, indeed, a Commonwealth country. Since you were undoubtedly aware of that when you included India in the Four Power arrangement, I was wondering if you would say a little bit about what this implies for the Commonwealth overall. Would India be forced to withdraw from the Commonwealth in order to participate? And what would that do to the prospects of the continued existence of the Commonwealth?"

LaRouche: This is precisely why I have talked about the Four Power agreement. You have to get India involved in it, and you can't do it unless Russia and China first agree, and the United States supports it. Under those conditions, yes. And you're talking about breaking up the Commonwealth? Of course, you're talking about breaking up the Commonwealth. I don't like to make wars, but I do like to break up commonwealths, particularly of that sort. And if the United States supports Russia and China on the policy I have outlined, the Indians will come along, because it's in their interest.

Now, let's take another case. It's not just India. How about Canada? How about Australia? The key thing is to look at the Copenhagen program. Who's for the Copenhagen program, and who's against it? India's against it; India can not tolerate it. It is Commonwealth policy; India can not tolerate Commonwealth policy. Australia can not tolerate this policy of the Commonwealth. Canada can not tolerate it.

Let's look at Canada. What is Canada? Canada has an Arctic region which is comparable, in some respects, to Alaska and Siberia. It has large resources. I mean, look at the map of the world. Where is the landed area of the planet located? It concentrates, gathers around the North Pole, where it looks out to the universe. And down in the southern part, you've got all this watery area, which trickles down to this little thing in Argentina, Tierra del Fuego. And except for the fine mineral deposits in the southern part of Argentina, there's not too much down there, not much population and so forth; maybe some Indians and a few other people. So, we have a common syndrome in terms of potential.

We now are at a point where the planet depends on our better management of the raw material resources which are left behind by animal and plant life which died a long time ago, above the Lithosphere. And therefore, we have come to the point where we have to increase our energy flux-density in production, and we have to look more to the development of the raw material resources, mineral types and so forth, which are located in these areas. Areas which tend to be toward the North Pole and toward the South, like the Southern Shield of Africa.

So therefore, we now have these countries, which have this territory within them, which have a vital interest in the development of these resources. Resources which they need, and which they must develop in aid of their neighboring countries—like China needs these resources coming from northern Asia.

So therefore, the natural cooperation in development between the country which needs the raw materials, and that which is using it, is an obvious thing. And that's the way this needs to be approached. India, for example, is very scant on some resources, very scant. India can not succeed without cooperation with nations which are going to supply a certain kind of large resources for them, or development of that.

So therefore, it's the vital interest of India, as of Australia, for complementary reasons, not the same reasons, complementary reasons, and Canada, not to be put under what the Queen has proposed: this environmental nonsense. And, since it's all a lie anyway, that has to be taken into account.

So, therefore, if the United States is induced to do what it should do, and must do, in concert with China and Russia, I say it's a fairly easy run to solve the rest of the problem. I don't think any government in the world could long withstand—if I have a hand in it—what I would suggest our friends in Russia, China, India, and others should do. I don't think anybody could stand up to it. And I'm determined, if I'm still alive, to make sure that happens.

- A Keynesian Is Not an American Patriot -

Freeman: Lyn, the next question comes from someone who is a rather well-known Roosevelt historian, and who is something of an economist in his own right. I guess you'd call him really an economic historian. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, I know you've addressed this before, but it continues to come up as an issue in our discussions, and I wish you would settle it for people, once and for all. Of course, what I am referring to, is the question of John Maynard Keynes. I continue to be astounded by the number of patriotic Americans who still refer to themselves as Keynesians. And this occurs, despite the fact that, as Robert Skidelsky stressed throughout the final volume of Keynes, Keynes spent much of his energies during the war fighting for Britain, not against the Axis, but against the ascending economic power of the United States.

"It is also the case that Harry [Dexter] White was well aware of this. As a matter of fact, one of the things that was found among White's personal papers at Princeton, was a yellowing piece of paper, salvaged from the first Anglo-American discussions, that said, 'In Washington, Lord Halifax once whispered to Lord Keynes, "It's true they have the money bags, but we have all the brains." Although White's personal papers did not name the author, it is widely thought that Dennis Robertson was the most likely candidate. But the fact of the matter is that the entire British approach to the talks that resulted in the formation of Bretton Woods, were directed toward preserving and continuing the imperial system. As a matter of fact, he envisioned the Clearing Union primarily as an agreement between the two founder states—i.e., the United States and Britain, with the United States included only because we were 'the money bags.'

"I'd really like you to address specifically, because any idea that key American patriots are Keynesian, is absurd. And it is in fact the case that, although White was forced to make certain compromises with Keynes, he did in fact see Keynes as an adversary. Would you please comment?"

LaRouche: Well, there's a lot of literature on this which comes from the Roosevelt circles as such. And Roosevelt was the determiner of U.S. policy, not Dexter White. Roosevelt understood what the British were. There's no question of this, and people just mystify themselves by not doing the relevant research, which is readily available on this thing.

Remember, that Roosevelt was a descendant of the [Isaac] Roosevelt who had worked with Alexander Hamilton in the establishment of the Bank of New York, which was the enemy of the British-controlled Bank of Manhattan, who were a bunch of traitors, that bank, and they were literally traitors. Aaron Burr's bank was the Bank of Manhattan, and Aaron Burr was an agent of the British Foreign Office since its founding, as well as being an assassin, and a punk, and everything else.

So, Roosevelt's understanding, and he documented this in a Harvard paper he wrote on this subject, when he was graduating from Harvard, that he always understood this clearly. He understood the American System, and he understood it better, especially after he had polio, where in his recovery from polio, he did extensive studies, and reaffirmed and deepened his understanding of history; and he already had a family understanding of what his family background was. He also knew what his cousin [Theodore Roosevelt] was; whose uncle [James Bulloch] was a real traitor.

So, in the case of the 1944 Bretton Woods proceedings, Roosevelt, for various reasons, was not there physically, but his messages were delivered there. And Roosevelt's purpose was, as was made clear, as he told Winston Churchill: "Winston, when this war is over, there isn't going to be a British Empire. I'm going to free these people. We're going to give them their freedom. There are not going to be any more colonies. We in the United States have had this too long—you, with your ways. And that man!"—pointing to an uncle of the present Consort of the Queen.

I was in India, you know, at the end of my military service in the postwar period, and I was involved in Calcutta. And, being in Calcutta, as I have told people a number of times, having time on my hands, I went to all these offices—I took the Calcutta telephone book, looked up all the political parties. And I made appointments to meet all the political parties in their offices in Calcutta. It was in my own private interest to do so. I just had the time there; they were there; let's find out what was going on here. So, I met and became knowledgeable very quickly with all these political parties. And I was beginning to operate, because I had a sense of what we as Americans wanted to do with India.

Particularly, I had one experience on the Maidan, of a couple of people who were coolie status. At that time, their income was annas-a-day pay for doing digging and so forth for the British Raj. And they, two of these guys, came up with a student, and the student said, "Will you talk with these guys?" They spoke just Hindi; they didn't speak English, and I didn't speak their language.

So, we had a conversation, nevertheless, by courtesy of this Indian student, and they said "What I want to know is, when you go back to the United States, are you going to send us machinery so we can develop our own weaving industries, and not be slaves like this?" That was typical of the question I was getting—well, Bengalis are noted for this kind of thing—but from my Bengali friends. This is the area where Chandra Gupta Bos was involved, and so forth, and so this is the kind of mood.

So, I was there, and on a day I was not in Calcutta, some friends of mine nonetheless, had a demonstration at the governor general's palace. It was a routine demonstration; they happened all the time, usually without consequence. But there was then a lathi charge, ordered by the British, by the guards, on these people. Now, these lathis are bamboo sticks with a metal tip to the thing, and they're quite nasty weapons in dealing with crowd control. And so, a number of people were killed, in simply an ordinary demonstration.

So, two days later, there was on Dharmatala, which is a street leading across Chowringhee, to the Maidan, the big area there. And a large crowd—I wasn't there that day—came down protesting against this atrocity by the British guards, or the hired guards, against killing these people, these students. And so the British police, who patrolled the area, took two heavy machine guns, and stuck them in the middle of the street, in the intersection of Dharmatala and Chowringhee, and as the crowd approached, they opened up with full fire, and kept firing. The following day, when I was there on the scene, the residue of blood on the street was unbelievable.

Now, the result was that, the Indian population crawled on tops of trains and every other way to go into Calcutta in response to this atrocity. And I saw a situation, which I was standing there in the middle of, at the time, and seeing this vast crowd of millions of people, marching day and night, for more than three days. And they were mixed, and the crowd—one section of the crowd—would emit: "Jai Hind" ("Up With India!"). And the echo would be in the same crowd: "Pakistan Zindabad" And you'd hear this resonating, and it was going on for these days. And the power of independence was in the hands of India at that moment.

And what happened is, Lord Mountbatten went to the Indian leaders and said, "We will promise you independent status next year. Stop it now." It rose, and it died. The next year, what did they get? The next year, the British organized religious riots, vast religious riots, which resulted in the partition of India, into India and Pakistan.

This is the kind of thing you're dealing with, in dealing with the British Empire and so forth. This is what we're against. And if we don't have the sense of this, we get into this problem.

Now, Keynes was a part of this. Keynes was an evil bastard. Look, in the 1930s, he wrote the first edition of his General Theory. This is in the 1930s. The first edition of his General Theory had a German translation, had a preface written by Keynes, saying that the reason he had published his General Theory in Hitler's Germany, was he thought Germany, at that time, had economic tendencies more favorable to his book than English-language audiences would have. Keynes was a fascist.

Now Roosevelt knew this, and understood it, and Roosevelt campaigned at the Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire, to eliminate Keynes as a factor. So Keynes, essentially, was out of it, and White and company were actually following the instructions and opinion of President Franklin Roosevelt, who made clear what his postwar intentions were.

But, unfortunately, conveniently for the enemy, Roosevelt had died in the meantime. So that Spring, on April 12 [1945], when Roosevelt died, things changed. On April 13, Truman was President, and the British were running the joint under Winston Churchill. And the first sign, clear sign of this, was, Keynes was reestablished immediately. What Roosevelt had proposed distinctly was a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, not a monetary system. So what we got again was a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, which then became Keynesian. And everybody who's an economist, who likes to get fed as an economist, will generally kiss butt and praise Keynes, because that's still fashionable. But Keynes was a fascist. He was a very evil fellow, sharp but evil. And to this day, that's a problem.

Now, the reason that's a problem is because of the ignorance in our universities. We have, in our university system, a certain toleration for garbage. It's an academic disease. And therefore, if your colleagues in university feel very strongly about something, and if the people who fund the universities are inclined to the Wall Street persuasion, then, anyone who knows that Keynes is a bum, is going to hesitate to say so. They may say so in a very roundabout way—you know, the usual kind of academic gibberish—but they're not going to say it straight up. And the problem is, I find people in Europe, the same thing: the Keynesian system. They all believe in this Keynesian system, which is nothing but imperialism.

It means, it always has meant, and it's meant in European maritime culture, ever since the Peloponnesian War, that you have a power—and this was true of the Persian Empire, in the same way—an empire is based on what's called the oligarchical principle. It's what it was called by the Greeks, and that means that a financial oligarchy, or a financially powerful oligarchy, runs society. It runs society by controlling the valuation of what is called money. Governments do not control money—not governments in the sense of republics. Self-governments by people are not allowed to control money. Money is controlled by an agency which is imperial. The meaning of empire is that. It's the control of a monetary system which is tyranny over trade.

Now, what happened that was peculiar about European culture, is that the defeat of the Persian Empire, at least its defeated attempt to take over the Mediterranean, meant that the Greeks were in the position to define a maritime culture as a hegemonic culture, together with Egypt. But what happened essentially was that Darius started the Peloponnesian War, so the Greeks got into a war with each other over who's going to control the value of money, between the mercantile cities of Athens, Corinth, and of Syracuse. And they destroyed themselves. And then, gradually, you get an empire by an agreement between this cult of Mithra and the candidate for the Emperor of Rome, and the Roman system which is an empire.

What is the empire? The empire is the control over the system of money! That's what it really was, and the empire will take different peoples, which are called different national groups, and they will pit them against each other in wars, local wars and killing.

For example, the Romans killed off a German population, as it was known as the German population of that period. They conducted wars among peoples as a way of controlling society. What happened in the Seven Years War, when the British got themselves an empire; what happened in the Napoleonic Wars, is, wars among nations on the continent of Europe, were means by which an empire was created. Not just by military force, but by use of warfare and similar kinds of conflict, among people; and they would weaken themselves by fighting each other, and the Empire would rule them.

And the money system works the same way: Who controls the value of trade? Look what's happened to us now! No nation on this planet, no large nation on this planet, has food sovereignty. What has happened through globalization is that every nation on this planet—if you have food, you sell it to your neighbor. If you want to eat food, you buy your neighbor's product; and the middleman, the monetarist, in the meantime, like Monsanto, controls the trade.

No longer do we have food security of any nation on this planet. We are the victims now of an international financial cartel, which controls the supply of food for every nation. You produce food, you produce it for another nation, sold through a middleman. You will find that the policies are to reduce every element of food sufficiency of every nation on this planet. And that is the Keynesian system.

And the fact that you get a fair trade, so-called, from an arbiter who says who lives and dies—well, we have an arbiter. We have a fair system. We have an arbiter who makes sure that we don't cheat on each other. But the arbiter cheats on both, like Monsanto, on food supply. And that's what the Keynesian system amounts to. It's an imperial system. We understood this when our republic was founded. Our Constitution prescribes we have a credit system. No credit can be issued except by the Federal government, by an act of Congress. The Federal government, except emergency grants which can be passed by some resolution by the Congress. We do not allow an international money system to control us.

What we do is, by treaty agreements among nations, we let each nation have its own credit system, but we make agreements among nations, among credit systems, for a fixed-exchange-rate credit system. We make treaty agreements by the sovereign power of the Federal government, by the Presidency. We make sovereign agreements with other sovereigns on trade agreements, on credit agreements. But the power over the society never passes to any agency above the rank of government, of sovereign government.

And what we have, is we have an un-sovereign system, which Keynes represents, an un-sovereign system of swindles, by which we're deprived of our sovereignty. We say we're free and independent people. We aren't. You don't even control the food you eat. Your own country doesn't control whether you live or die of starvation, because of what has happened in the recent period. That's what the problem is.

Blue-Collar Workers: The Real Intellectuals

Freeman: The next question comes from a member of Congress; you'll recognize who the question is from. He says, "Lyn, after your last webcast, I took up your proposal—which you mentioned again today—for job training for young people, and the particular way that you situated it. I thought it was a brilliant proposal, and one that directly addressed what has been in the ongoing discussion, both in the Democratic and Congressional Black Caucus, on job creation. So I happily raised it after a detailed discussion preparing for that, and I have to tell you, I was completely astounded to find that there was tremendous opposition. The argument being"—and what he says is that the opposition came especially from the Black Caucus, which said that we don't want those kinds of jobs. The Congressman says:

"I don't know what kind of jobs they want. Is the proposal to take young people and stick them in brokerage seats? But I wanted to make sure you were aware of this, and I was wondering if you would comment on it, because I'm at a loss as to what would provoke this, and of how I should address it."

LaRouche: You've got a certain kind of cultishness that goes on, and especially—it's just exactly that. Some people will say "I feel degraded, if I have to do work with my hands. I'm an intellectual." Now, a person who would say that is not much of an intellectual, because one should know that the wealth of the world depends upon production, which is largely physical production, or services such as health care. That the only thing, intellectually, which is of much value, is those ideas, the development of those professional and similar ideas, of discovery, which enable us to improve physical production.

For example, you have a hierarchy in manufacturing. You have people who come in on the lower end in manufacturing, and in a decent society, they will advance by pushing themselves to advance, through greater skill and greater authority. They will eventually become in a supervisory position, and the best supervisory position from the standpoint of productivity, is the scientist, or a skilled machine-tool-design specialist. That's the highest level.

All the things, the miracles, that we have done, in terms of building our own economy, have been based on physical science, to some degree intellectual things that pertain to physical science or health care, and to the things that go into machine-tool design. The superiority of the United States and to some degree Germany, in economy, has always been based on that consideration. On physical production, of food, improvement of food, improvement of production, increase in the productive powers of labor, breakthroughs in chemistry, in physical chemistry, these kinds of things. And that's what we need.

Therefore, the question is: What's the priority? The priority has to be people who are relevant to this process. We have a world full of hungry people. We have a nation full of desperately hungry people who don't have physical employment. They don't have it. They're thrown out of their homes. They're on the streets, the country's going to hell, we're running shortages of all kinds. We need more physicians in practice, we need more nurses in practice, and they're cutting it. They're cutting off the access to it. There is no possible way one can deprecate the importance of a scientifically trained or otherwise highly skilled blue-collar worker. The best people in the world, the most productive people in the world, are blue-collar workers, such as astronauts.

- A National Campaign for the Congress -

Freeman: The last question that I'm going to ask is a kind of composite question, that has come in from both supporters around the country, and also from many people who are full-time organizers. Everyone is extremely happy about the three Congressional candidates that Harley introduced this afternoon, but the question that comes up, is basically this: Our organizers say, Lyn, over the course of the last immediate period, especially since the last webcast, we get more and more questions from our supporters—and they're serious questions—from people who are saying, specifically, what does Lyn want us to do, what does Lyn want me to do?

Several supporters have written in saying, while I understand that LPAC's resources may be limited, there are Congressional seats all over the country, as well as Senate seats, where citizens simply have to file to run. There are no petition requirements, and there are only minimal filing fees. The question that is coming in is: Should we put out a call for citizen candidates to challenge these jokers in Washington, number one, using your program and policy as a platform; and, if not, can you please tell us specifically what it is we should do in the immediate days ahead?"

LaRouche: Mankind is distinguished from the animals by ideas. Animals do not have ideas. Men and women should. It's too bad our President doesn't have any ideas. He should.

Now, the campaign policy, our policy, as I've tried to emphasize to people who have gone into this business, the first thing is the quality of the way you organize your campaign. That's the first thing. Quality means, first of all, principle.

Now, the mistake in U.S. politics, particularly in a time of crisis, is the tendency to look at mass organizing as being something different in each area. Now, it's desirable to have something in each area, of course. But the crucial thing is, not to have everybody have their opinion, but to try to achieve—which is the goal of humanity, I presume?—is to have useful ideas and ideas that are coherent, and that are going to be effective. So you want to sort out the idea policy. That's the first thing, the first problem that comes to mind, especially, in a time of crisis like this, in having everybody run, which is good, but it's not necessarily very good.

The question is to decide on what kind of conception we're going to present, and is it going to be a national conception, or is it going to be a heterogeneous collection of various conceptions? What we did in the case of the three candidacies which were presented to you today, was to define a national campaign for the Congress. The idea is what should take over the Congress in terms of thinking about national policy and priorities, now. Therefore, what we want to have and must have, is a body of people elected, either as a majority, or a very large minority speaking, which is able to walk into the Congress and say, "Here is our faction's national policy."

Now, some people say we have that in the form of party organization, but I can tell you there's no such thing as coherence in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. The reason they make such lousy agreements is because they're intrinsically disagreements: "I'll support you on this if you'll support me on that. I'll swindle guys out of this and you'll swindle them out of that." Go along to get along. Which means no principles are involved. Just "go along to get along." We all know how one hand rubs another. That's the way it's gone.

What we need is actually a sense, a consensus sense, of what is required for this nation, as a nation, at this time. The Congress must be regarded as an institution which informs the Presidency, and sometimes informs the Presidency in very strong terms, very influential terms. And that's right. That's the way the Constitution is designed.

But both parties, the Houses of the Congress, and the Presidency otherwise, are part of the Presidential institution. And the object is to come to a conclusion on what we're going to do now, or at least a good approximation, to deal with what the national problem is.

And therefore, if we're going to deliberate on selection of candidates, shouldn't we deliberate on that? Don't deliberate on how to go along to go along, to get along! Let's say the issue is, we want to make the right choice for our Presidency in this current Congressional election period. We're concerned about the issue for the nation, and we consider the relationship between the Presidency and the Congress—and the Supreme Court hopefully is all right—which is going to converge on this question.

And the vote, whatever happens, should therefore be posed, what does this nation need? And the Congress and the Executive branch must deliberate that question. It's not sharing—"you get a bit of this and you get a bit of that"—that's the idea that's used, but that's what destroys us. Because what happens is, we get into a situation as we do often: The Congress is a mess. There's no clear idea carried into action by the Congress. The Executive branch is a mess. And the problem is there. And none of this stuff that we're discussing in these terms corresponds with the national issue.

The problem of government is essentially equivalent to a scientific problem, and solving a scientific problem. We have a challenge before us: The next step. Where are we going from here? What's the right choice?

So, we have to achieve a national consensus. We achieve it in our system, essentially, by the population gathered around people who are running for office, or in office, in the Executive branch, in the Legislative branch, in the Judicial branch, and we're trying to solve a common problem by debating it among ourselves. We're trying to define interests which will meet and raise this issue of conflict. What is the right policy for our nation? And our system will work when it's treated that way. But when you treat it as a sea of confusion—"I'm running on this issue, I'm running on that issue," and so forth. No. There has to be a principled issue.

The principled issue is: What does this nation need? And you have a lot of other issues to discuss, some of them in particular. But the particular issues should be discussed from the standpoint of first defining what the national purpose is. The national purpose first, then the subsidiary issues. Not the other way around. When you get the other way around, you get the wheeling and dealing, and you're sold out.

How many times have people voted for a candidate and looked at the result of the election, and said they were sold out? Why? Because we have to, as individuals—if you want to be a politician, a good politician, a good statesman, you have to take the concern of the world and of our nation into heart. You have to be concerned about our nation and the world first! What's good for the world? What's good for our nation? Then, what should we do about that? And reach a consensus on what's good for this nation, what's good for the world, what do we do about that? And having decided that that's what is good, how do we implement that?

Now everybody chimes in—you each get your turn. You each make your own proposal—well, I've got a problem in this area. I've got a problem in this area. Now that we're agreed that the national issue is this, or the regional issue is this, how do we handle this particular problem? And then a candidate has to deal with that particular problem, representing the people in that area.

But the primary thing is the national policy. The candidate must think about the nation, first. And then apply, once there's a policy for the nation, now, given that fact, that that's what the nation needs, how do I deal, then, with what's needed here? How do I deal with even a simple thing like the question of justice, of a Congressman intervening, to try to have an injustice corrected? That simple.

But you have to start from the top, not from the bottom up. And we're told that we have democracy as long as we stick to bottom-up approaches. You know, "The firemen in this district have a problem. The fireplug was put in the wrong place. We're running on the issue of where that fireplug belongs." That's the kind of problem I see, and I see that in our political problem. We think small. We think stupid. And the people, who aren't actually stupid, think stupid when they go into politics. They say, "We're small, we think about the individual"—this kind of thing. "We like anarchy." And they do. But they don't like the result of it! And therefore, we have to remind them, that anarchy is not a good idea.

There is such a thing as individual right, individual preference, individual opportunity. But you can not provide them those things, unless you are concerned with the mother of all good things, which is the national and global policy; of relationship among nations, how should nations relate to each other, now? That should determine how you define national policy. How you define national policy comes down the layers. How do you now deal with this problem, and that problem? And the general idea of what is justice, and the idea of what is justice, is what do you think a human being is? What do you think the difference between a human being and an animal is? Or the requirements of a human being, as opposed to an animal?

We think small. We don't think scientifically. We don't think artistically. Our art stinks, and our thinking stinks, and our science stinks! And these are things we've got to fix.

Thank you.