Lyndon LaRouche's Webcast Address:'In What We Have to Do, We Are in a New Period in All of Humanity'

Feb. 23, 2006

Lyndon LaRouche addressed an international webcast on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) on Feb. 23, 2006. He was introduced by his spokeswoman Debra Hanania Freeman, who chaired the event. Anof the webcast is also available.

Debra Freeman: Good afternoon to all of you. On behalf of LaRouche PAC, I'd like to welcome you to today's event. These events in Washington, have become something of a regular occurrence, and I think that the progression of the strategic situation makes clear that these events are not only a regular occurrence, but an extremely necessary one.

Some of you here, and those of you who are listening via the Worldwide Web, are aware of the fact that in early February, Mr. LaRouche issued a warning that we were facing a potential confrontation that would be even more hideous than World War I. And at that time, of course, he was referring to the potential for a military operation against the nation of Iran. What Mr. LaRouche made clear, is that, aside from the fact that such a military adventure would be a strategic catastrophe, that that catastrophe was intensified by the fact that anything along those lines, would detonate a complete blowout of the financial and monetary system, which is already teetering on the brink of vaporization.

The fact of the matter is that the danger that Mr. LaRouche referred to in early February, both the strategic danger and the danger of an uncontrolled, chaotic financial blowout, has not only not diminished, but it has increased. Fools in our nation's capital, probably best typified by First Shooter, Vice President Dick Cheney, clearly have very little idea of what they're detonating. They simply follow the orders of their controllers, of people like George Shultz, and the international layers that Mr. Shultz represents.

But the fact of the matter, is that, despite this continued drive forward, we are a sovereign republic, and we do, in fact, have options. But for those options to be exercised, as Mr. LaRouche has demanded repeatedly, responsible members of the United States Senate, in particular, have to assert their Constitutionally sworn duty. Certainly, in the recent weeks, some doubts have been raised, about whether or not they are, as a group, prepared to do that.

But it remains the case, that the potential is there. There has been no other point, since George Bush and Dick Cheney came to Washington, and occupied the White House—there has been no other point, where they have been more vulnerable than they are, at this very moment. Cheney has become the butt of jokes across the nation. And, as we've said many times over the course of the last week or two, perhaps the favorite parlor game in Washington these days, is guessing and betting on who will replace him.

But, for all of that talk, he's still in there. And for all of that talk, the strategic situation continues to deteriorate. Outside of Mr. LaRouche's voice, we hear very little clarity, as to how to respond. For Democrats, the issue is a critical one. Because they have to decide not only how they'll respond to this crisis, but also how to shape a positive alternative that can rescue the vast majority of the American population from the depths of despair.

I think that the recent deterioration of the strategic situation on the ground in Iraq, makes clear, that we're running out of time. And for that reason, I think that today's address is one which will prove to be perhaps, one of the most critical interventions in the direction of this nation, and the direction of the world, in the course of this year.

So, without any further introduction, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you, Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you. Thank you.

Over the past three weeks, my wife has been checking with people in France and in Germany on the so-called bird flu problem. Now, recently, there were a number of dead swans, who turned up on the island of Ruegen, which is off the North Sea coast of Germany. And this typifies a pattern, in which Europeans, European leaders, in France and in Germany, have put the issue of bird flu, as one of the three great strategic problems which Europe faces at this time.

The problem is, that this particular strain, which is this H5N1, if this becomes cross-related with an influenza epidemic, we would have, globally, something comparable to the 1918 flu epidemic: in which, with a much lower population than then, and a much less vulnerable world than then because of transportation and things of that sort, 20 million people died then. Much more, or a larger part of the population, perhaps as high as 100 million, would die, as a result, today. And there are very few precautions taken, on a scale and with a seriousness, which would deal with this kind of problem. That's typical.

Today, overnight, there was a crisis in Iceland. That's really hitting the flank! The northern flank of Europe—not quite Greenland, but Iceland. Because Iceland was being used as a place for some fast-money operations of a very large dimension. The Iceland market collapsed, today. It could mean something like, what happened in August-September of 1998.

That does not mean that the world financial crisis has happened, as of today. It simply signifies that we're in a situation, where you've got gasoline all over the floor in a heated room, and people are smoking cigarettes.

It can happen at any time.

Now, then turn your attention, with this kind of event—and there are many such events, like the threatened war with Iran; other Middle East, so-called, problems: The world is ready to blow up. The President of the United States is an insane dry drunk. And it sounds like the Vice President is a not-so-dry drunk. We have a deficit beyond belief, growing beyond belief. The country is falling apart. The industry and agricultural are falling apart. They can't fix what happened with Katrina—they won't even try. And we have 100 days, now, to the next hurricane season. And the Gulf Coast, of course, and Florida, and so forth, these areas will be hit. Nothing has been done, to improve the response over Katrina. Nothing—less than nothing!

So, we have an utterly incompetent and terrible government—and mean-spirited, and stupid, and psychotic, all those wonderful qualities.

And we have other institutions of government, particularly the Senate, and the House of Representatives; we have also people who are institutional in service, or former service, in the Executive branch of government, or something related to that, who are out there as a very important constituency, a knowledgeable constituency, which can influence government very strongly, because they have the expertise. You find, those of you who have dealt with Capitol Hill, know that some of the people on the staffs on Capital Hill, the various Senate and House Committees, have much more experience with government, than the elected officials. And the elected official is worried about where the money is coming from for the next election, whereas the permanent staff person, who's going to be in there time-come, time-go, is concerned about the country. So, you find, often, more intelligent response, from the staff members, than from the members of Congress, because the members of Congress have other things on their mind, other than reality. The reality of re-election, the reality of party politics and things of that sort.

The point is this: That, in Europe, and in the United States, in particular, there is no sane response to the situation which now exists, and the conditions which threaten to break out. This is an unusual part of our history. And you have to think back, as to how this came about, and what we do about it.

First of all, most of the people my age are dead, in this country. Those who are not dead, most of them, are in terrible condition. And, much to my enemies dissatisfaction, I'm not. People in service, today, at the highest positions, senior positions, are generally in their seventies: which means they have no adult experience of the postwar period. None!

During the postwar period, a generation was born, which has no sense of reality: The Baby-Boomer generation. Because, from the time they were born, during the late 1940s, early '50s, they were subjected to a mass-brainwashing by an institution called the Congress for Cultural Freedom—hmm? I call it "the Congress for Sodomy." And they went to work, with a program on young children, especially children in families who were likely to have some influence in the future, in suburbia—the white-collar syndrome of the 1950s is an example of that. The so-called "Organization Man" syndrome of the 1950s was typical of that.

Now, these young children, born usually after 1945, before 1955, constitute what's called the Baby-Boomer generation. How old are they, today? The people who were born in the 1930s, were children during the '30s, the Roosevelt period, the wartime period. They're now mostly in retirement, they're in their seventies. And they have their problems. And they've been pushed out positions of influence they once occupied.

You have a generation in, between the ages of 55 and 65, which is generally running the leading institutions of the country, which has no comprehension, no emotional experience, no intellectual experience of reality! Because they were brainwashed, in schools, from the time they were little toddlers, even before they got to school with TV programs, which were already brainwashing, stupid little kids sitting before the television set watching the Big Boob! Where these monsters would come out and eat you, you know: This was their experience of reality.

So, what we have, with all that's said and done, and with the paradigm shift which occurred in the adult population, beginning 1968, in the United States and Europe, in the culture of post-industrial society, you have a generation which is running the country, usually between the ages of 55 and 65, which has, in general, no group stratum comprehension of reality ! So then, when they're faced with crises, of the type we have now, when they see poverty around them, when they look at the unemployment figures, when they go to whole sections of the country that used to be prosperous which are now dying : like the area of Michigan, western New York State, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana! Or the farm belt, formerly. In these areas, they're dying! The economy is dying!

People who once had jobs they could support a family on, no longer have those kinds of jobs. They have so-called "service employment"—which is make-work employment! Instead of cooking at home, you cook in a restaurant. You make hamburgers. You don't make people healthy, you make them fat—because this stuff, this junk food that's given to them, look at the obesity problem! Look at the people walking down the street! This is a disease! It's a political disease, caused by a change in culture, which is associated with the post-industrial society, which began to be introduced in 1968. And the poorer people are, the fatter they are! Because, they're more poorly fed, their conditions of life are worse. And it reflects by terrible food, and terrible eating habits. And terrible conditions of life.

Family life doesn't exist: People run around with a load of rage , shapeless rage. Because life is enraging. There's no sense of a purpose in life. There's a sense of existing from moment to moment. There's no sense of destiny, there's no sense of posterity. Ancestors? What are they? I don't talk to any ancestors.

So, you have a demoralized population with no sense of reality, faced with the worst crisis in modern history—and it is the worst. And people are sitting, "Well, maybe it won't happen. Maybe we can postpone the decision until next year."

So, therefore, you saw a Congress, where, in the Senate in particular, during the course of the year 2005, generally acted as an increasingly effective force, political force, defending the nation. Since the beginning of this year, it would seem that the Senate in the United States has died! And the passing the hat on the Alito question, was typical of it.

Here you had—take the case: What you have in the United States, the Federalist Society, for example. The Federalist Society is what? It's a group of people, based around Chicago University, where Leo Strauss used to hang out, who follow the ideas brought into the United States, by Carl Schmitt: Carl Schmitt was the legal architect of the Hitler regime! It was his statements on law that gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in February of 1933. It was he, that certified, in the summer of 1934, the assassination of people en masse , by the Hitler regime!

Now, the exact philosophy of this Nazi, directly created the Federalist Society, which gave us people like Justice Antonin Scalia, which produced Alito; which produced a version of the Nazi doctrine—it is a Nazi legal doctrine, hmm?—which is represented heavily on the Supreme Court! And Alito is the latest addition to the repertoire.

So, we have a Nazi coup-type mentality in law, sitting as a near-majority, or potential majority of the Supreme Court! And the Senate of the United States says, "Oh, he's a nice guy." He sits there, like a kabuki dancer—like Roberts before him, a bunch of [strikes a "kabuki" pose]—kabuki dancers! The Senate questions him [strikes similar pose, looking upward quizzically], both cases. "Nice guys!" They didn't answer the question! Hmm?

And people say, "But you can't raise the question of Nazism, when it comes to American politics." What do you mean?

Well, let me tell you about the number of families, who contributed to Adolf Hitler's being brought into power from New York City, from New York banking circles. The crèmeam of the New York City banking circles financed, on behalf of Britain— financed Hitler's party , being refinanced to be able to take over Germany. They changed their mind, in the late part of the 1930s, when they discovered that Hitler, who they thought they were sending eastward to attack the Soviet Union first, was going to attack the west first.

Then, they changed their mind.

Not all of them! Some of them, they still liked Hitler. They just object to the fact that he was German, or maybe Austrian. And they were afraid, also, that Hitler would take the British Empire away from them. And that , they really objected to, especially Churchill.

So therefore, they changed sides. Before, they had intended to keep the United States out of the Second World War, for fear that if the United States was involved in the war they were organizing, that the United States would come out more powerful relative to the rest of the world than before. So, the United States was intentionally excluded, and the British organized the America First movement inside the United States, as an anti-war movement. To keep the United States out of war.

Some of our military agreed. For example, remember, you had a guy, who was court-martialed, Billy Mitchell, in the 1920s. Now, to understand what's happened in the United States, you have to take a case like Billy Mitchell's—and just see, what patriotism really is!

At the end of World War I, the British, in particular, were concerned, that the United States power, military power and economy power, in the world were so great, that the United States had to be chopped down to size. The issue was, the U.S. Navy: The British and the Japanese, among others, demanded that the U.S. Navy be reduced to a point that it was inferior to the British Navy, and so forth. And it sought to build up a coalition of Italian, British, Japanese and so forth, naval forces, to out-power the United States. During this period, a plan for a war attack on the United States naval forces, was organized, in which the two principal figures were England and Japan. Among the plans made at that time, by the British and the Japanese, was called the attack on Pearl Harbor. The original attack was intended to come as a purely fleet attack, by the naval fleet of Japan, to be organized to take out Pearl Harbor, while the British would take out some of the Atlantic capabilities of the U.S. Navy. Not to make an attack on the mainland of the United States, but to sink a good deal of the Navy and cut us down to size.

That's the 1920s.

Now, this fact was taken into account by the U.S. military, in what was called War Plans Red and Orange, among the war plans of the United States. Billy Mitchell, who, as a general officer, was knowledgeable in these matters, recommended that the United States use large ships as aircraft carriers: that military aircraft, bombing aircraft, would be carried on ships, and these ships would then be used to sink Japanese and British naval vessels, if they approached the United States territory, threatening Naval forces.

For this, a faction of the U.S. Navy, and of the New York bankers, who were friendly to the British cause, had Billy Mitchell court-martialed. Despite the court-martial, the Japanese developed air-borne capability, naval air-borne capability from carriers. Despite the court-martial of Billy Mitchell, the U.S. Navy developed aircraft carriers: So that, when the actual attack came on Pearl Harbor—and at Midway—the crucial thing was the use of aircraft carriers, as the auxiliary, or the new dimension of warfare, the vertical dimension of warfare, added to naval warfare. The Battle of Midway, where the United States prevailed over a larger Japanese force, was the turning point in the Pacific War. It shifted the correlation of forces, where Japan's possibility of winning the war over the long term had become hopeless, after Midway.

Now, this was what was done. This was the kind of the problem we had inside the United States.

Japan, of course, had been an ally of Britain against the United States, since before 1894. The British Royal Family, represented by the Prince of Wales, had organized the Japanese Royal Family—which had been pro-American—into an anti-American position. And it was the British, who organized the Japanese attack on China in 1894-95, which was the first Japan-Chinese war. It was the British, who organized the occupation of Korea by Japan. It was the British who organized the 1905 war against Russia. What was it done for? To destroy the U.S. strategic position in the Pacific. Because the British considered the U.S. expansion beyond California, to be a threat to British interests in Asia.

So, don't have any illusions about the "great alliance" in World War II. Eisenhower referred to it as a "difficult alliance." We were enemies, but we were fighting on the same side. That doesn't mean all the British people, because they were only the cannon fodder. But at top, it was the same.

In the postwar period, when Roosevelt had died, the same logic continued. Roosevelt's intention was, that at the end of the war, the United States would use its power, to ensure that all colonial nations were freed from colonialism. And would be developed, by the assistance of the United States, and others, who were willing. The purpose of Roosevelt was to end the system of colonialism and imperialism forever , by building up formerly colonial nations to status as truly independent nations, and thus to form a community of sovereign nation-states on this planet, which would manage the planet, and would ensure that imperialism went away.

When Roosevelt died, remember Churchill had already tried to start a war with the Soviet Union, while we were fighting the Nazis in Germany; Eisenhower and others stopped that. But as soon as Roosevelt was safely dead , Harry Truman, who is in my book no patriot, went the other way: went with Churchill.

And under Truman, we did several things: First of all, Japan was hopelessly defeated in the end of June of 1945. We were then at a point of a waiting game. Japan was totally isolated, U.S. air forces and naval forces had totally isolated Japan, which depended for its imports, on which Japan's economy and military economy depended, on having access to the continent of Asia. They couldn't get it. We virtually controlled, totally, the air space and the seas around Japan. We had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Emperor of Japan, through the Vatican Office of Extraordinary Affairs, which was then headed by a fellow called Monsigner Montini, later Pope Paul VI. The U.S. government had that. Only one thing: A declaration by the U.S. government to accept the treaty with the Emperor was waiting, in order to negotiate peace. The Truman Administration, under British pressure did two things: They held up the peace agreement, which had been negotiated during the term of Roosevelt's Presidency. And secondly, they took the two proto-type, laboratory prototype bombs we had in our arsenal—and that's all we had left—and dropped one on Hiroshima, the other on Nagasaki, largely civilian cities, of an already-defeated nation—why? We could have peace, the same peace we got, when MacArthur stood on the deck of the ship and the Japanese signed the papers. We could have had the same thing , months earlier—if Roosevelt had not died; and if Truman, who had just found out about the nuclear weapons, agreed with Churchill on a British policy, to do an exemplary nuclear bombing of Japan, before declaring peace, in order to set into motion a prepared war against the Soviet Union.

This is the kind of world we've lived in. This is the kind of world, the kind of treason—in fact—morally treason, to which we've been subjected, since the day Franklin Roosevelt died.

We went through various phases: During the immediate postwar period, we were the only nation on the planet, which had an economy. The war, and other conditions, had virtually destroyed every other economy. The U.S. dollar was the only currency in the world that was worth anything. Roosevelt had set up, with Bretton Woods, an agreement, under which the U.S. dollar, which was the only valid currency in the world, would be used to back an new international monetary system, otherwise known as the Bretton Woods system. This system upheld the world, allowed many parts of the world to develop and improve, including the United States, during the first 20 years of the postwar period. And it happened that way, because nothing could be done about it. The United States was the only base for maintaining a world economy—we did that with the Bretton Woods system. Nobody had an alternative, until about the end of the 1950s, the beginning of the 1960s, when President Eisenhower (who was no fool), warned against the "military-industrial complex," which just means people like those associated with Cheney, the people behind Cheney today.

This is a treasonous operation inside our government, financed by certain financial interests, and with a military component. We experienced what Eisenhower had said, in 1961: We experienced that with the Bay of Pigs; we experienced that with the Missile Crisis of 1962; we experienced that with the assassination of Presidenct Kennedy; we experienced that with the attempted assassinations, repeated assassinations, against Charles de Gaulle in France; we experienced that with the pushing of Adenauer out of the Chancellorship in Germany, prematurely—done through Britain. We experienced that in many other ways.

Then, when President Kennedy had been killed, we jumped into the Vietnam War, an Indo-China War, for which there was no excuse. It was an attempt to do something that couldn't work. But it was done anyway. We began to destroy the nation, effectively, through our involvement in this worthless, useless, Indo-China War.

Remember, the dynamic: Despite all the problems when Kennedy came in, on the basis of steps takes by Eisenhower before, the so-called post-Sputnik operations, to build up the economy, to build up industry, to build up science, we had started the economy on an upward path, under Kennedy. The most signal of these efforts, was the launching of the commitment to a manned landing on the Moon within the decade. That was an upward turn: The program of NASA, under this impetus, contributed technologies which returned, in terms of technology, 10 cents for every cent we spent on the space program. It was the most effective science-driver program economically, we had ever experienced—under non-wartime conditions.

Shut down!

By the time that the Moon landing occurred, we had begun to destroy the technologies which had been indispensable in being able to get to the Moon! By the end of the 1970s, not much of it was left. We're now scrapping bottom. And it gets worse and worse, and that's been going on since the 1980s.

So, these are the kinds of problems. But the most crucial problem was the cultural paradigm shift of 1968, in which the Indo-China War was crucial. But the most crucial thing about the Indo-China War, was the day that they began to start to draft college students, who didn't have enough qualifications to get exemption, deferment. You had one guy who didn't qualify by virtue of academic qualification for deferment—but he got his wife pregnant by some miraculous means. His name was Dick Cheney: And he got his fifth deferment on the basis of impregnating his wife ... which was one of the great accomplishments of his existence! Particularly if you know what the wife is!

So, in this period, with the 68ers, once the college students realized that they were also potential cannon fodder—and these were especially students from universities of the more privileged families of the United States—when they discovered that they, too, could be sent to Vietnam, not just poor black guys, or poor guys from Pittsburgh, or someplace like that.... But college students! We! The elite! The Baby-Boomers, of suburbia! The Golden Children! We were going to be sent there, too! NO!! We revolt!! Tear it all down! Shut down the economy! Shut down everything.

This was called the "Golden Generation." (Actually, it wasn't golden, it was a much cheaper metal, but that's all right.)

And so, we had, in 1968, as a result of the brainwashing of young people, who had been born chiefly between 1945 and 1950, their brainwashing by the Congress for Cultural Freedom produced a—what? A proposal to tear down society.

Look back: Look back to 1967-68-69, and into 1970. What was the proposal? Shut down society. Shut down technology. Go on the street, take your clothes off, and fornicate with anything you find in the street. (Check its sex later.) You don't like it all? We've got some stuff you can swallow, or you can smoke. It will induce a state in you, where you won't know the difference. And you won't even have to remember what you did the night before—or who. Or which.

So, this generation became the counterculture generation, which is not new. We had countercultural phenomena in the 1920s, in Germany, for example, which was the key basis for building up the Nazis.

And don't kid yourself: When they said "left," "left" is sometimes a name for "right." Because, the key movements of this type, historically, since the middle of the 19th Century, are anarcho-syndicalists, that they go either way. Their idea is they hope to overthrow the existing society.

This was the policy of a fellow called Parvus. Actual name: Alexander Helphand. Actually a British agent, but who ran sometimes under Greek cover, sometimes under German cover, sometimes under Russian cover. He was the so-called architect of the Russian Revolution. He was the guy, who told Trotsky to adopt this policy called "permanent war/permanent revolution" in 1905. Trotsky went ahead with it. Parvus left town—Trotsky went to prison. And then came out as an advocate of what Parvus had taught him. Parvus ended up as an open fascist, with Coudenhove-Kalergi's crowd in Germany, when he died. He was also an instrument, as a key arms dealer, operating from outside what we now call Turkey. And he was part of the Young Turk government movement at that time. He was also a war organizer. He was a top spy of the British, working out of Denmark and so forth, other places, in his operation.

But, he represented what was called "Synarchism," which is an organization, which was modeled on the case of Tomas de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor who expelled the Jews from Spain. And he was also a butcher, a murderer! Because this was the Inquisition, and that was mass murder , Cheney-style. This started religious war, against Islamic populations, as well as Jewish populations, throughout the world, in the period of 1492 to 1648, till the Treaty of Westphalia.

So, when there was a threat of a pro-American revolution in France, that is, a legal revolution under which the French King would accept a constitution drafted by a group associated with the Marquis de Lafayette. At that point, the British had an operation in place, which they set in there in 1770s, an anti-American operation set up by British intelligence. This operation created a Freemasonic association in France and Switzerland, called the Martinist Freemasonic cult, which absorbed a number of Freemasonic cults from around Europe, into one operation. They had people like Casanova, Cagliostro, others were involved in this.

But, the key, this was a movement that was used to bring to Philippe Egalite and Jacques Necker—both British agents—to organize the July 14, 1789 events in Paris, against the Bastille. It was the same organization that organized the Jacobin Terror, later; this was a British which ran people in there, like Danton and Marat. It was the same group that organized and trained and directed Napoleon Bonapart: to unleash dictatorship on Europe, and to set up wars which resulted in the depletion of Continental Europe, to the greater glory of Britain.

So, this group, which became known in the 19th Century as the Synarchist group, is a group which organizes revolutions per se, and organizes wars: The idea is, overthrow existing government, in favor of dictatorship. And you do it from the left, or you do it from the right. And this is what you had in the case of what happened with the 68ers. The 68ers were, as I observed at the time, in '68, watching this operation—I said, "This is a right-wing operation just the way the Nazis were organized in Germany." And it was.

The 68ers were actually Nazis.

That is, they didn't know it, but they were. Because they were the same kind of social formation, directed in the same way, by the same kind of people who gave us the Nazi operation in Europe, in the first place.

Now, the point of this is, that the people who are now running the United States, from the top, the most influential people of the leading generation, between 55 and 65 years of age—the Baby-Boomer generation—and the same is true in Europe, this generation in a sense is the "Lost Generation." The Lost Mind Generation, the Lost Morals Generation: the Lost Generation. Therefore, they have been inoculated, to the point that that they have no sense, innate sense—they may be intelligent people; they may intellectually recognize the validity, or the importance or the significance of what you say: But when it comes emotionally , to reacting appropriately to a threat, like a threat of war, or threat of something of that sort, they don't react that way. They don't react as normal people would have in earlier generations. They've "Lost" it.

Now, these are not necessarily bad people. Many of them, whom I know, are actually good people. Many idiots I know are good people. Many politicians I know, are good.

But the problem is, that there's a lack, in that generation of a quality of leadership. A lack of the power of decision, a lack of the competence for command. You see this, the way they conduct some wars: they don't know how to command in war, they don't understand command in warfare. The command of warfare, is to win it and get out! These guys get in there, and they can't get out—they don't want to get out, they don't know where the exit is!

So therefore, I have a generation of good people, in the Senate, and many Republicans, who are good people. They're intelligent people. They are, by other standards, capable people. They are, in most senses, people of conscience. But, when it comes to acting as a group, their tendency is to in action.

Now, look back in history, at a terrible example in the early phases of European civilization, like this: From the middle of the century preceding the so-called Peloponnesian War, that Greece which had been unconquerable, especially Athens, the Athens alliance had been unconquerable against all Persian Empire attacks, was corrupted systematically by what were called Sophists. The Sophists were people associated with the Cult of Delphi, the Apollo Cult, who concentrated upon the young boys of the leading or most influential families, in terms of educational programs. And they educated them, in Sophistry.

Now, Sophistry is what you have in the United States, among that generation today.

You don't believe in truth, you have an idea of moral relativism. You don't react on the basis of truth, you react on the basis of power. What you have the power to do. What you don't have the power to do. You say, "You may be right, but you don't have the power to do it."

"But we're talking about the destruction of civilization."

"That's all right! If you don't have the power to change it, you've gotta go along with it"

Sophistry! It's called "spin-doctoring" today, in the United States. You come up with a phrase, a term, an argument of Sophistry, as a reason not to be moral, not to react. "Don't be a conspiracy-theorist" for example. When a fellow tells you, "I don't believe in conspiracies," you say, you've got a genuine idiot on your hands. Because, I don't know anything in society, that ever happened, of any importance that wasn't the result of conspiracy! "You mean people don't talk to each other? People don't act in concert, on the basis of shared views, or perception of shared interests? They don't operate on the basis of influences upon them?"

How do you think revolutions are run? You should take the word "terrorism" out of the vocabulary. Let's put the word "asymmetric warfare" back in.

How many kinds of asymmetric warfare are there? You mean, asymmetric warfare isn't organized? Ah! But how is it organized? Is it organized by uniforms? Is it organized by a command structure, which is publicly advertised? No! It's organized by a secret command—usually by a government, which is not so secret. But you have a secret command, working, really, for a government, which can deny the existence of the secret command. The secret command operates without uniforms, and operates like an army; it operates like a government. And it deploys people who are enlisted to the cause, or bought into the cause, or paid for it —hmm? And they deploy effects on society! They get a number of people heated up, and they're able to get some action: They can harass a government into complete impotence. It's all secret government.

You have the President of the United States saying "Terr'rists! Terr'rists! Terr'rists!" (Whatever that is. I don't know what that is—probably, some kind of turtle soup, from the middle of the Texas desert!) He doesn't say "conspiracy." He says, there's a "terrorist conspiracy," but there's no conspiracy.

He doesn't assume that there's a case of asymmetric warfare, that due to people like the head of the Arab Bureau of England, would organize a hatred against Islam, just the way that the Crusaders did! And for hundreds of years, dominated Europe, by Crusades. And the name of it was "Kill Islam." And they killed and robbed everybody in sight along the way. And they maintained a system of government—Norman chivalry and Venetian bankers—which controlled Europe for centuries, until the whole system collapsed in a new Dark Age in the 14th Century. That's typical of this operation!

Then people who fight against these things: They fight by conspiracy! How do you fight against tyranny? By conspiracy! Any other way, is stupid! And doing it that way, is also very bloody and dangerous, too. But that is what's going on in the world, today: You're in a period where you can no longer fight with nuclear warfare. You can't fight general warfare, because general warfare is nuclear warfare. And if you can't fight nuclear warfare and win it, then you have to resort to other forms of warfare: What do you resort to? You resort to some dog-and-pony warfare, which looks like regular warfare: But the real war you're going to fight, is not a uniformed soldier warfare! It's going to be an irregular warfare; it's going to be an asymmetric warfare.

Now, the Soviets used to be specialists in this, because that's the only kind of warfare they had available to them, and so, they specialized in asymmetric warfare. You will find that all Soviet strategy was based on a central doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Other forms of warfare were subordinate to the asymmetric warfare of the doctrine of the Soviet system.

What we're dealing with today, because the United States also ran asymmetric warfare, because the British have run asymmetric warfare ever since the early 18th Century, that you're in a world which is dominated by governments running asymmetric warfare, sometimes under secret codes.

For example, 9/11: Go back in history—they wanted to make Hitler a dictator. They'd made Hitler a Chancellor of Germany, but that didn't mean he was anything more than a Chancellor. They wanted to make him a dictator. How did they make him a dictator? Goering did it: Goering set fire to the Reichstag! Goering did it! They blamed it on some poor Dutch fool, called van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe, who was an idiot. And they used him as a name, to cover for the fact that Goering had the Reichstag burned down —why? In order to make Hitler a dictator! Just like 9/11.

Who did 9/11? Muslims? You can always get a few dead bodies to carry around, or people who will die, as fools, as part of an operation. Who was it done for? For terrorism? No. It wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war: It was an act of asymmetric warfare against the government of the United States, and against civilization.

Just like the case of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution: You had a crowd in Washington, that wanted a war in Indo-China. The military and others said, "Don't do it. This is crazy. There's no reason to get into that war—don't start it. We want to get out. The CIA's in too deep already—let's get outta there!"

So: Kennedy was killed. And the Secretary of Defense and others moved ahead, quashed the investigation of the Kennedy assassination—and created the Gulf of Tonkin fraud. They got all but two Senators to vote for it. We got ourselves into a war we couldn't win, and didn't win. Just made a mess of a lot of territory. And ruined the United States, by the effects on the United States' population, of going through a hopeless war, which was like an Armageddon war.

It was done by the United States—and others. But done chiefly by the United States government, by institutions: To orchestrate something against the world, but against the United States' population itself. The objective was, as Eisenhower had warned, in his warning against the "military-industrial complex": There are fascists in the United States, who are very powerful, who represent very powerful financial interests, which are willing to go to any length, and use to their financial power, and their influence in certain military institutions, and armed institutions otherwise, to create dictatorship.

And that's what we've been subjected to. They wanted to get us, to give up what made us a power, the world's leading economic power. The greatest economic power the planet had ever seen: They wanted us to destroy ourselves. How did they induce us to destroy ourselves? By making us fools, and doing things to ourselves, and refusing to see what it was.

So therefore, I have this problem: The problem of a potential leadership of the United States, not only within the Democratic Party, but with an obvious, potential alliance with Republicans. So, we're not talking merely about a "party" policy: We're talking about a policy of the sane people of the United States, the leading, sane people of the United States , many of whom are located in the Senate and House of Representatives. They may not be perfect, but they're sane, and that's the best you're going to get. So, don't complain if the merchandise is not perfect—it's what you got!

So now, we have the job of taking these people, who, by themselves, in their present state of organization, are not capable of saving their own butts! Let alone that of the rest of the people of the United States. How are we going to get them to have the capability, the intellectual capability, to mobilize themselves to do what they can do, or could do, to save this nation , and even to save themselves?

How can we get them to do that? They don't want to do it. Something inside them says, "Fail!" It's like the Greeks, under the influence of Sophistry: Here's Athens, the most powerful nation, a great maritime power, a naval power, which had repeatedly defeated the Persian Empire—which is Babylon. The Babylonians actually ran the Persian Empire; they set up a whole series of empires. And this was the evil of that period. And they defeated them!

How did the Babylonian faction, the Babylonian priesthood which actually ran the Persian Empire, how did they get Athens to destroy itself? Through the Cult of Apollo. Through the influence of the Cult of Apollo, with what we would call today Sophistry—what was called Sophistry then. And so, by educating, and mis -educating, the sons of the leading families of Greece, or many parts of Greece, they induced Greece under Pericles, or Athens under Pericles, to go into impressive, brutal imperial wars, without cessation for nearly 30 years, at the end of which Athens was destroyed, virtually destroyed—never came back, again.

That's what they've done to the United States. And what you're seeing in the Congress, and other positions of leadership in the generation between 55 and 65 years of age, what you're seeing is the effect of Sophistry on this layer in our government, which is comparable to the role of Sophistry under Pericles and his successors in ancient Athens. What we're headed for, is a modern, nuclear-armed, etc. equivalent of the Peloponnesian War! We are going down the same path, toward destruction!

Now, then, you have to go, then, to Plato. And read, and study Plato. Because, what is Plato? Plato is the young genius, of his time, who, after the death of Socrates, emerged with a group of people, including the greatest of the surviving Pythagoreans and others, and produced an Academy of young people around him, who were the great scientific thinkers of that period. Greek science began to decline rapidly after that, except for the Platonic Academy. And these people assessed what had gone wrong, and what had gone right, in Greek culture, and its relationship, especially, to Egypt. And they were going back, essentially, to about the 7th Century B.C., when Egypt had come out of a dark age, and organized the Ionians, and the Hittites, then called Etruscans, organized them as a force in two parts of the Mediterranean as allies of Egypt, which was a maritime power.

Ancient Egypt was always a maritime power. It was never a landlocked river power. It was a maritime power, which sent large fleets around the world, especially into the Indian Ocean, where they had a lot of trade with the coasts of India, for example—and further. And they were sent out with ships would be of some length, 70 feet or longer, and they would go out in flotillas, not as single ships. And they conducted trade largely, and they did exploration. And they practiced astronomy, and astronavigation and things of that sort.

So. From that point on, you had the emergence of a new culture, a European culture, which we call, today, in restrospect, "Greek," or "Hellenic" culture, of that century. And this grew to be a very powerful force. It's still a powerful force: All of European civilization depends upon the Mediterranean influence, which is associated with the emergence of Greek culture, of Classical Greek culture.

European civilization, as it revived in the 15th Century, after the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and this terrible medieval system of Crusaders and Venetian bankers, what modern European civilization is a product of the conscious revival of the lessons of Classical Greek, learned chiefly from Plato, but many others.

That's what we are today, as a European civilization. We are either a Classical Greek legacy civilization, or we are nothing.

And we have made the same kind of mistakes, and been subject to the same kind of mistakes that the ancient Greeks were, in the Peloponnesian War. The Vietnam War was a Peloponnesian War. The war in Southwest Asia, is a Peloponnesian War. The condition of our political system, of our leading families, is that of the Greeks who had been indoctrinated with Sophistry, and thus were lured into the follies of that, of war, as we are today.

So, what happened in the postwar period, with the death of Roosevelt, was the transformation of our culture, from the great renaissance of our culture, which was done by Roosevelt in the 1930s and early 1940s—you had to live there, as I did! You had to live there! To see the transformation of people, from the bums they had been in the 1920s, to the gray-faced people they had become in the early 1930s, and the people of rising optimism and morality, which emerged in the late 1930s, and emerged to carry us through the war, as the greatest power the world had ever seen! Not only a military power, but an economic power. There was no power ever like it. And we have destroyed it!

We have destroyed ourselves, by this culture, by this Sophistry, just as ancient Athens destroyed itself, with Sophistry in the Peloponnesian War. And there're some people in London who understand that, and who play that game against us.

That's my problem.

My problem, is to be a voice for that. I see clearly what the things are. I've been through this enough. I have the knowledge: Is to get these fellows who are younger than I am, who are of the age to govern, and to govern with energy and vigor, to pull them out of the mud, out of the morass of their own depression, their own Sophistry; to get up on their hind legs, and to stand up like men, and save civilization.

It's a difficult war. But there's no justice, there's no satisfaction in not fighting it. If you want to have dignity as a human being, you've got fight this war: You've got to fight for civilization. If you don't save civilization, what do you have? You're nothing! Your life is worthless! Your having lived is worthless! Unless you're willing to fight to save civilization. And, these people in the Senate, I think they're willing to save civilization. They're just not willing to give up their Sophistry, as a price of doing it.

So, that's our job. And that's my job in particular.

Now, in comes the question of the Youth Movement. So, we have the situation, where you have three generations of adults that you're really dealing with. I'm sort of an exception. I'm a—I'm an old dinosaur, I'm still around. Still frisky. But we have generations of people, who are the Baby-Boomer generation, born in the immediate postwar period. We have a few people who are in-betweeners, born a little older, they're in their seventies now; but they're reduced power. You have a middle generation, which was born later, very late 1950s, the 1960s—and they're completely confused. Because, they have no sense of a mooring in morality. They don't have one, they were never given it! Look at what they get for culture! They have no culture! They may have it between their toes, but otherwise, it's missing!

And then, you, the younger fellows come along. You're young adults, you're over 18. You have the emotions and sense of identity of a young adult. Your education stinks, but that's because your parents gave it to you. But therefore, you're faced with two generations, 50 years, of active adult life before you, in a world which is about to go to Hell. And therefore, you are the hope of the future.

Because, the Baby-Boomer generation has lost it. They have one good shot left in them: That one good shot is to be mobilized to save civilization , in a courageous act at this time. But, for the next 50 years, which we're working for, you —who are in this age-group, younger age-group—are it. The next 50 years. This is your world.

Now, what're we going to have to do? Take the programmatic issues. We're going to have to have an immediate return to nuclear energy, as a basic cornerstone of economic policy. If we don't go to nuclear energy, we're not going to have civilization. It's that simple. You want to die? Take nuclear energy: Think nuclear energy's dangerous? All right, but you'll die without it. So, you better get. And control it, of course, when you get it.

Because, in what we have to do, we are in a new period in all of humanity. There's no period of humanity like it, in this one respect: The population of this planet is well over 6 billion people. If we provide a modern standard of production and life for the typical person, in this 6 billion people, we are going to find out that we are going to be using up what are called "natural resources" more rapidly than they are replenished.

So, no longer can we come along, like Robinson Crusoe on an island, and prey upon the natural resources we find there for our use. Now, we're going to have to start to reproduce what we consider "natural resources." We're going to have to move in, on the Biosphere, of this planet, which is where few people live. We live in the crust of the Earth. The crust of the Earth, where mostly dead bodies of animals and planets are located. You don't see the core of the Earth; you don't encounter it, very rarely. And the Biosphere goes from this crust of the Earth, up to the top of the atmosphere, because the atmosphere was created by living processes. The oceans were created by living processes.

You find we have a terrible shortage of water. Many parts of the world are living on fossil water. For example, at one time, in Eurasia, for example, you had great glaciation. The glaciers melted. And in the process, you had a deposit of fossil water, some of it millions of years old , as in some parts of India, at some depth—fossil water. Now, people say, "Okay, we've got water! We'll dig for it! We'll drill for it!" What're you drilling for? You're drilling, not for replenishable water; you're drilling for fossil water.

In some parts of the world, as the Philippines pointed out recently, the drawing down fossil water to get fresh water for human consumption and similar purposes, causes land subsidence . This is not an inexhaustible resource. It's not an automatically replenishable source. And about 40% of the human population is depending upon fossil water.

Similarly, we depend upon mineral deposits which were left by dead animals and dead plants, millions of years ago. We call those "ores." But, the elements which are in that ore were not concentrated in that way, that we find them, when we mine for them, today. Animals, selectively, took certain things out of the ambient environment. Some use more iron, some use more something else. These animals or plants died: And their little dead bodies left the skeletons behind. The skeletons contained these minerals, in certain forms. We dig, where these animals died, or where they were concentrated in dying—as in seas, or things like that that dried out; we dig down there, we find this stuff, and we take it away.

Now, we find that rich ores, where the concentration of the metal is greater, are fewer, and fewer, and fewer. So, now, what're we going to have to do? We're going to have to start organizing the planet, to replenish—directly or indirectly—the kinds of things we have been content to use up and exhaust as ores, beforehand.

We're going to have to make water—not the way George Bush does in the White House. But, we're going to have to actually synthesize fresh water. How do we do that? Well, all of these processes involve, what is called, in crude terms, very high energy flux-density forms of action, by heat action, so-called. To get the levels of heat-action, the intensity you require, for managing these kinds of problems, you need at minimal, high-temperature nuclear reactors, or, thermonuclear fusion reactors. There's some other technologies, more advanced. But these are the ones that are in sight, now.

So therefore, for example: We're going to have to understand, that we can not be running on petroleum forever. Petroleum may be a non-organic substance—that is, it does not have an organic origin. It may be produced as a reducing condition within the Earth. Probably at one point, as a fellow, Gold, who was an expert in this proposed, there probably were seas of petroleum on the surface of the Earth, before the Earth, about 2 billion years ago, went into an oxidation phase. But when the Earth as a whole, and the surface was in a reducing phase, then we would have a normal production of petroleum, instead of water. When we went into an oxidation phase, we underwent a change in the planet, a change in the characteristics of living processes. As a result of this, now the planet began to be covered with water, and we had an atmosphere: And this was done by the action of living processes , not as pre-organic processes.

So, we're going to have to, at this point, go to a high energy-density economy: Which means, very capital-intensive. This means that we're going to have to have a lot of nuclear energy right now—high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, in the 120-200 MW range, for ordinary sources of power. And reactors in the 800-1,000 range, approximately, for production of synthetic hydrogen fuels, to replace petroleum: So that, throughout various areas of a country, you will have these higher, more powerful plants, which among other things, will produce your local hydrogen-based fuels. You'll no longer get petroleum from a distant country—you'll produce it locally.

You will produce vehicles, which are hydrogen-based fuel operated: aircraft, trains, and so forth. They're not just simply electric processes. We need that.

We need also, to deal with the management of the territory, in a way we've never done it before. People say, "Deserts are good." I say, "Deserts are no damned good. Ever try to live in one?" It's never good for your culture, it has lousy effects on your sex life, and so forth and so on. So therefore, you should have a well-managed, comfortable environment—and a healthy one. And we're going to have to do things in the area of making the use of land-area available to us on Earth, more efficient for a growing population.

We're going to also humanize the population, in the sense of raising the standard of living and culture of the population, not to have desperate, poor people. For example: Seventy percent of the population of India, is desperately poor. You have a similar problem in China. Throughout Asia, you have a problem. Asian culture has never accepted, yet, in general (maybe in Korea and some few other spotty places), but has never accepted, yet, the idea of the injustice of having poor people. That is, a very poor, illiterate people.

So, we don't accept the idea that we can't—they still say, you can accept a situation where 70% of the population, or approximately that, can be very poor, desperately poor: poor life-expectancy, and the whole bit that goes with that. It's no longer acceptable. It's no longer acceptable in terms of the productivity of the human race.

What we're going to have to do, is build a new system, a global system. It's really not that new: It's simply a new way of thinking more clearly about what we've already learned. We have learned, for example, in modern Europe, that a sovereign nation-state committed to the General Welfare of each and all persons, and their posterity, is the only decent way to go. You can not have globalization: Because, you must have a responsibility for both the care of the individual person, in terms of the General Welfare standards; you also have to think about the intellectual development, and productivity of that person. Which means, you have to raise the standard of living of the population, to the point that you have a cultured population, intellectually, not just a population which is kept alive like cattle in a barn.

So therefore, for that purpose, since ideas, which are the basis of culture, are produced uniquely by the development of the human mind, you have to have a system which is based on educational principles which raise the level of people to think cognitively, that is, think in terms of the discovery of ideas, of universal physical principles, artistic principles—not simply living like vegetables. And therefore, the driver of society has to be scientific discovery, and related Classical artistic work. This must be the driver. This must be the characteristic activity of the society.

Now, to do that, as you know, and some of you younger guys have gone through this, that, ideas of discovery are not something you can get out of a crossword puzzle. It involves actually going to through a special kind of process, which is the discovery of a universal physical principle, comparable to what Kepler did in his discovery of gravitation. It's a different dimension than most people know; it's a different dimension of mental life than exists in most institutions. It's a different dimension of art, than exists in the minds of most artists and most people, today. What you see, is called "modern art" is junk! It's garbage! It is something lower than refuse. I mean, natural garbage is natural garbage—human-made garbage, that's something else, again! That, we don't need.

So. But, the idea of artistic composition, the idea of ideas, the idea of man: the idea, what is the difference between man and an animal? Why is man not just an animal? Because of creativity. No animal has it. Therefore, what's oppression? Oppression is to deny people access to their own potential creativity. To deny people access to their own potential creativity, then you deny them their humanity, because you deny the difference between man and a beast.

So therefore, we have to have nation-states, because the ideas that people are able to develop, they develop in terms of the culture from which they come . They situate the problems, ideas, in terms of their culture. Therefore, if you want people to think together, you have to use the culture they have, as a way of bringing them together, to think together : That is, to think in terms of actual ideas. Not like an animal, trying to sniff his way to glory.

Therefore, you need the nation-state. But therefore, you need a global community of nation-states. You need a direct change from what Hobbes represents. Instead of having a system which is based on the idea of—a Kantian idea of "negating the negation" of conflict, as a way of getting peace; you have to have a positive conception of peace. Which is the idea based on cooperation, based on cooperation in developing ideas within the terms of a culture, and dealing with one another's cultures in terms of these kinds of ideas.

So therefore, we have to have a new global system, of nation-states, which would not be strange to the idea of Franklin Roosevelt's efforts at the time he died. We need to eliminate everything that is not nation-states. We must eliminate globalization, because that will destroy human beings, and their characteristics.

And we must develop, we must develop the idea of progress: You, young guys, who have been exposed to what we did with the Dec. 25th EIR "On the Principle of 'Power,'" are actually, in a sense, pioneering the way to the future. Either a limited number of you involved, but nonetheless, you are a test case, to prove what we can do, what your generation can do.

We're going to have to have an escape from what has been bad science, bad scientific thinking. We know where the bad scientific thinking comes from, when you study the history of ancient Greece. You know that about the time of the death of Plato, and later, there was a rapid degeneration in the culture of Greece—something that had already started 50 years earlier, which caused the Peloponnesian War. And therefore, when you look at ancient Greek writings, you find, in the case of Euclid, who was active, say 50 years after the death of Plato—there is nothing originally competent in Euclid! Euclid was a faker! He was a commentator, and a misinterpreter of great discoveries in mathematics, and physics, which had been made by previous people. There was no important discovery in geometry, in the fundamentals of geometry, made by Euclid. And there were very few , made after Euclid—accept among the followers of Plato, in terms of the Platonic Academy, up through Eratosthenes and Archimedes, and so forth.

So, there was a fall-off in culture, in European culture, from about that time. A fall-off in culture, Sophistry which led to the Peloponnesian War; a fall-off in culture from the level of scientific and artistic thought, say, within 50 years following the death of Plato, it became worse.

You, today, and European civilization, have two problems—today: Formerly, before the Baby-Boomer generation, we had people whom I knew, as in the Fusion Energy Foundation, who were good scientists, but they all had quirks. Some had quarks, too, but they all quirks. But, they had a problem, but they also had a virtue: They all were stuck into this Cartesian mechanistic crap, to one degree or another—some less, some more. But they were also working as experimental scientists. Not just ideologues. The mathematicians were hopeless. The pure mathematicians are hopeless ideologues, and you expect nothing from them, except idiocy! Don't pay much attention to them. But the physical scientist is working from an experimental standpoint, working with nature, working with a subject matter. He's trying to discover principles that govern the way this subject matter operates, and how to control these things.

So therefore, a good scientist, who's a working scientist, is never an idiot. Because, they are always—no matter what crazy ideas they have—they have a saving grace that they were involved in actually producing something, directly or indirectly. They're demonstrating something, as you saw, with this experiment we did, with the Dec. 25th "Principles of 'Power'": Actually working through the derivation of the ideas, in an experimental mode, on which certain crucial things in physical science have been developed.

Now, what happened is, the generation, the Baby-Boomer generation, the 68er generation, turned away from that, in their rejection of science, in their rejection of production. As a result of their influence, the influence of their movement, society went from being a producer society, to a post-industrial society. Therefore, the generation that was educated in science—and fewer and fewer of them were , in the classroom; look at the percentile of science students, physical science students' decline, over the period since the 1970s. They were no longer engaged in reality! They were engaged in mathematical commentaries on reality, which were more and more kookish. Like these crazy formulas they use now, for economic planning.

Therefore, what is needed, is, we have to return a generation to the standard of actual scientific inquiry. To do that, we have to look at modern science and its accomplishments, up through Riemann for example, to look at this sort of thing, and Einstein is very significant for this purpose. He typifies, sort of the last scientists, you know. The 1950s, the last scientist is about to die . And the people around him who are leading in science are all a little bit— oh-oh!

What we have to re-create this sense of scientific progress, as a driver of economy, which existed in previous times. The only way to do that, is to go back to the period of ancient Greece, the period of the Pythagoreans and Plato, and look at the approaches to the fundamental discoveries in physics, and science, which we now know where absolutely valid, as opposed to anything different subsequently. Go back to that, and build a base, a constituency among people in your age and younger, for the concept of a practice science. Because, the older generation, the generation preceding yours, still had experience with experimental work. And therefore, even though their mathematical ideas were often kooky, they were not kooks. They were productive, useful people, with scientific insight.

You belong to the children of a generation which has lost that ! So, the connection of science, which existed in Europe, from the 15th Century on, to recent times, was broken, with your parents' generation. Because, they belong to a culture as adults, which no longer believed in science. They believed in mathematics—information theory is an example of mass insanity! There's no science as such, in information theory. It's a trick! It's a gimmick. It's a real gimmick, but it was a gimmick.

So therefore, what we need, is a young generation which becomes the conscience of the older generation leading society, which does what you've been trying to do: Is to, go back to the fundamentals of scientific knowledge, of cultural knowledge in European civilization, to re-experience in a condensed form, the generation of that kind of knowledge, to create among your generation, a constituency for what we must do! And prepare yourselves to take over society, as you grow older.

Therefore, without you , without your doing this kind of thing, the older generation, represented by the Bill Clintons and so forth, who are the people in positions of leadership today, will not be able to have a sense of constituency to do what they have to do: Is, now intervene as recognized leaders in society, to pull together people, as we pulled together people in the Senate during 2005.

And you have to be the inspiration.

You're only a small number of the total population. But, if we do our job, and expand this operation, you'll have more, who will go through the same kind of experiences some of you have gone through. And on that foundation, of education, and educating the educators, we will build the constituency of young people of your age-group, which will be the foundation on which the people of older generations will build the future of humanity. And the United States, which is the epitome of the principle of freedom, at least Constitutionally, if not always in practice, is the place in the world, from which to launch this effort for the reform of civilization.

Thank you.

DIALOGUE

[Debra Freeman explained the protocol for the question and answer dialogue.]

Freeman: I always try to give precedence to questions that come in from the institutions here in Washington, and I'll continue that, today.

Lyn, the first question comes actually from a Democrat who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he says:

"Mr. LaRouche, in early February, you indicated that a military confrontation with Iran, no matter how limited, would detonate a bomb, that would in fact, serve to blow out the entire financial and monetary system. My question to you is really a very simple one: Are Cheney and Co. ignorant of this? Or is this, in fact, the intention of the policy?"

LaRouche: [asks for the last sentence to be repeated] Well, Cheney's intention is a very interesting question. It's like speaking of George Bush's intention—I don't know if he knows what the teleprompter means.

Cheney is a stooge. The administration we're dealing with is a creation, nominally, of George Shultz; who, with Condoleezza Rice and the whole pack of them, created this administration around a guy who's not mentally capable of any other kind of job, except President of the United States. And he doesn't have to do that job, because Cheney does it for him.

So, therefore, the question of intention , and reality, in terms of this administration, is a very tricky question. What was Cheney aiming at, for example? Hmm?

So, in the Iran case: The intention does not come from the United States. It comes from—the participation of some people in the United States, in the institutions, influential institutions, but not from the United States: It comes from London. The orchestration of this policy comes from the British foreign intelligence organization, centered in the British Arab Bureau. Now, the British Arab Bureau is an offshoot of the British East India Company office, back in the time when the Empire started. Before the King Georges got to know they were emperors, long before that, there was already a British Empire: It was the empire of the British East India Company, which was actually running the Empire. Particularly Lord Shelburne, in particular, who was running the Empire, back in the 1770s and 1780s; he was the kingmaker. And the British King was actually a flunky for these financier interests, who actually ran the place.

So, at that point, the British Intelligence Service started, formally, in this form in many ways, as a Freemasonic organization, essentially; for example, the French Revolution was run through what Shelburne created as the British Foreign Office, in 1782, and the key figure of the Foreign Office who ran the secret committee, was Jeremy Bentham. And Jeremy Bentham, in a sense "begat" Lord Shelburne—and they created the British Intelligence Service. Which was created out of the East India Company.

So, in the process, they took a guy called Al-Afghani, for example—who was a crazy-man, but the British picked him and used him—to create the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a key orchestration factor in Middle East politics. And they build up things against that, too.

The key operation that defines this whole area, is the British agreement with the Russians, with Nicholas II, on the partition of the spheres of influence in Iran, where the British took the southern part, and the Russians took the northern part: 1907.

Now, in this process, since then, the British have orchestrated the whole area, orchestrated the operations in the whole area, and controlled them. They have a fellow in the United States, who was formerly head of the administrative section of the British Arab Bureau, and he is the key advisor to Henry Kissinger and others. Now, it's his office, which has shaped this particular aspect of policy, which is running it.

So, this is a British game. And they're using all kinds of things. For example, the British are orchestrating this Iran crisis—not the United States, the British are orchestrating it. Jack Straw, the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, is a key orchestrator of this operation.

So, this is what we're dealing with. And the problem with Americans, especially in public office, is, they refuse to recognize history: the history of the U.S.-British conflict. And the complication that is not taken into account, is the fact that, you have a section in the United States which is more close to the British than they are to the Americans. You look at the entire history of U.S.-British relations, the conflict from the beginning, from after 1763 on, and it's always of this same character. Americans refuse to recognize, that the British are not intrinsically our allies. They're intrinsically our enemies.

But it's not simply shoot-em-up enemy relations. The British realized, after Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, which was a British operation—the Confederacy—the British realized they could never take the United States by force after that. So therefore, they used indirect methods, including subversion and economic operations. And a sense, they're allies, in which the people who are married are the worst enemies of each other. And they refuse to recognize that they're enemies. They're each trying to kill each other, or get each other killed, and they're pretending to be happily married in between time, when company comes. So, it's this kind of situation.

So, the problem among American politicians, is—the fact is, they refuse to face the fact, that the British oligarchy is generally the source of the enemy, the important enemy of the United States in every operation, including this Iran operation. Once you recognize that fact, then it becomes very easy to understand what's going on.

The British—. Look, Britain went into this thing in Iraq. They knew the thing was a cock-up, they set it up. But what did the British do? They took the southern part of Iraq, as their area of military operations. What they did was: This was a setup to get an Iraqi Shi'a versus Sunni operation going. Because, the British interest was to destroy this area of the world, by setting up this kind of fragmentation and chaos. It's a chaos operation.

This is also part of the operation, which Bernard Lewis, the same fellow, set into operation, which is called "the war against Islam." Now, when did the world last have a war against Islam? This was the war of the Crusades, which went on, for about three and a half centuries—the Crusades. So, Bernard Lewis says, "Start a Crusade against Islam!" And Bernard Lewis agents, such as Henry Kissinger and Samuel P. Huntington, and also Zbigniew Brzezinski, all got involved with this setting up a permanent war against Islam! A new Crusade! A religious war—akin to the religious war, which the same circles set up, before the British existed, between 1492 with the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, by Torquemada, was the beginning of a period of religious war!

Spain, prior to 1480, had been a very peaceful area of the world, relatively speaking in terms of social relations. It had Christians, Jews, and Muslims, living together, in the same country, and generally with peaceful relations. Yes, there were conflicts, feudal conflicts and so forth, but they would always orchestrate things so the country wasn't destroyed. And there was a lot of cooperation. This was destroyed in 1480, with the introduction of the conception by Torquemada of the Inquisition. And in 1492 the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain—the Moors were actually expelled later, about a century later—was the beginning of a period of religious war, which raged back and forth across Europe until 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia.

So, religious war is a tactic, is an imperial tactic , which is used by certain forces. It's used primarily by the British, who are really the last empire on this planet. It's not an empire of the British people, it's not an empire of the Kingdom of Britain. It's an empire of a certain interest, which is centered in London. It's an international financier interest, which comes into this country, it's like people like Felix Rohatyn. Felix Rohatyn, he's a fascist. He's the guy that put Pinochet into power, in Chile! Not a nice guy, a real worm. An evil character. One of my personal enemies (which is one of his virtues).

So, they run this kind of thing as an international cabal of the old Venetian style. There's no morality, there's no national patriotism involved. There's a certain sense of an interest, a financier interest . And they try to orchestrate the world to fit that.

For example, what are they trying to do, today? What's globalization? Just to get a clear sense of this. And, what do our friends in the Senate think about globalization? They think globalization is a "wave that is coming"? What? A new wave of syphilis? A resistant strain. Or, is it an operation against civilization. Isn't it obvious what it is? Instead of saying, "Well, it's a trend, and some people think this, and we gotta go along with popular opinion"—real Sophistry; "we have to go along with popular opinion." "This is the inevitable." Well, your wife is sleeping with ten other men—"but that's inevitable, what can I do about it?" [laughter] This is typical Sophistry.

So, globalization means, what? It means, simply, that you eliminate the nation-state. You eliminate culture of people. Turn most people in a population of over 6 billion—you want to eliminate the population, you want to reduce it. Your intention is to reduce the population to less than 1 billion people, in a fairly short period of time. How do you do that? By natural methods: Starve them to death! Disease! Bring down the population level—it's been done before. How do you do that? Take away the nation-state. Take production out of the areas where it's occurring, and moving into slave-trade areas, where people work under slave conditions. Take steel—take steel production out of the United States and Europe, and put it someplace else. Put it in a country where 70% of the population is starving to death.

And by that process of destroying the infrastructure and the character of a modern economy, you will create mass death.

But some people say, "it's inevitable." It means, they've given up the fight to Satan, so to speak.

So, the problem here, again, is the same thing I responded to earlier: The problem here, on the Iran issue—to me, the Iran issue is a perfectly transparent problem, with complications I may not know, but the general character of the problem I know very well! I know who is doing what to whom, and why! All the main lineaments. Some of the details are missing, but I have the main lineaments. Apparently, the people in the Senate don't know this! I know it! I know it, because I'm experienced in this stuff. They should know it. But they don't want to know it! Because, they want to know it, without having to know certain other things they don't want to be caught knowing.

And that's where I come in—often, in these things. I came in on the impossible situation, because I have nothing to fear at my age. What're they going to do me? Kill me? Hah! What d'you think my life expectancy is? C'mon, don't kid me! I'm not going to waste my life, that's the difference. Some people would rather keep their life by wasting it. I would rather keep my life, by not wasting it.

Okay, so anyway—so, this thing with Iran, it's real. It's essentially an imperial operation, part of an imperial operation. It's complicated, because the instruments being used to orchestrate the situation create a mask of uncertainty and confusion around it. Essentially, the fact of the matter is: The question you deal with, in a case like Iran is different than saying what's going to happen there. What you have to do is this: Say, we know that in Russia, and in many of the important forces in the Continent of Europe, there's a determination to avoid a conflict with Iran. Because any conflict with Iran would be insane, because of the implications of what that would lead to. And the financial system is about to blow up, anyway. All you need is an Iran war, and the whole thing blows. So therefore, the Russians, the Germans, and others in Europe, are determined to have a diplomatic approach to the Iran situation, and believe that a rational solution for the time being, is possible. If you don't try to settle everything , but concentrate on what you have to settle now , and then wait until the situation has calmed down, and get to the other matters later.

I dealt with this, in discussions the other day, here, in Washington.

So, do that. That means that, the key thing you have to do is this: In the United States, and in the thinking of people in the Senate and other institutions, you have to think, that every day that George Bush stays in the Presidency, is a deadly threat to the existence of the United States. Every day that Cheney stays in the Vice Presidency, is an even greater threat to the United States. The optimum is, get Cheney out now, and then the Bush problem will be manageable. Because Cheney is the instrument of George Shultz and his international financier group, which is running this whole operation.

My goal is: Get George Shultz's machine broken! Break his power! [applause] Cheney is something in the way. He's sick, a man with two stents behind his legs, this kind of thing, in his condition, with his alcohol history? And the dope he's on to stay alive, and the woman he's married to—his life expectancy is very poor. So, he is only a disease, he's only a menace. Get him out, with the least effort possible. You don't want to kill, you don't want to do anything else—just want to get him out of there. He's now halfway out, because—you know, he's like a still-birth or something. He's hanging out there, but he's not really going anyplace. Get him out. Once you get him out, you break the power of the machine in there, the tool that's being used, and he's not the source of the problem, he's only a tool of the problem.

Then, suddenly George W. Bush will not find a translator, who speaks his language. George speaks English: He doesn't know any English, he speaks it. The teleprompter shows him how. So, then we have to deal with that.

But we have to deal, fundamentally, with what's behind this. Why did they put a man—look, George Bush is a mental case! He's a dry drunk. He's a mental case, you saw him on television: He can't think! He says words that he uses, because he thinks he understands the words. He has no correspondence to what he's talking about! The man is an idiot! He's a mental case! Why would somebody knowingly put a mental case like George Bush, into the Presidency? That's your problem! George Bush is not the problem.

Who put the cockroaches in your kitchen? Don't blame the cockroaches. Who put them there? Somebody did it for a purpose. The purpose was to destroy the institutions of our government. And that's the way you have to look at it. If you look at it from that standpoint—of who the enemy is, then, instead of saying, "Do we fight this battle, or do we fight this battle, or do we fight that battle?" You say, "We've got to defeat the enemy! "

So, therefore, you have to have an offensive policy , a strategy for defeating the enemy , not for simply figuring out how to take out this platoon, or that platoon of his forces. And that's where we get screwed up: We don't take out the enemy. Because, we don't want to talk about the enemy! Like, the Senate didn't want to talk about Adolf Hitler! Here you're putting a guy into the Supreme Court, presumably for life: He's a follower of the Nazis! Not merely a follower of the Nazis, he represents the policy of the Nazis! The unitary executive, as a policy, comes from the Nazi regime! Orchestrated by the author of the Federalist Society: Carl Schmitt.

And people in the United States Senate, said, "You can't say, 'Nazi'"! Well, when do you fight the Nazis? When do you fight them? When they're about to take power—isn't that a good time, to say "no more"? And putting this Nazi into the Supreme Court, isn't that something to stop, if you don't want Nazism in the United States?

Don't go around hunting for Nazis: You got a live one, right in front of you. Running for Supreme Court. Why don't you say so? If you tell the American people that this is a Nazi operation, a Nazi philosophy, and tell 'em plain, in a Senate inquiry, do you think he'd get confirmed? Not at all!

They wouldn't do it! No guts! No guts. Because someone said it's bad—why? Well, because some of the big bankers on Wall Street are Nazis, and they have a long history of it! And I know the names—not all of them, but I know a few, enough.

So, that's what the problem is. A lack of guts, so therefore, the inability to face the real question, which is frightening, means that the problem is reduced to secondary or tertiary questions. And how do we deal with this tertiary or secondary effect, when my thinking is, let's flank the main enemy. Don't make a charge like an idiot, against some hill. Flank the enemy. [applause]

Freeman: This next question is a kind of composite of several questions that have come from both the Senate, and also a couple of people connected to Washington, D.C. think tanks. It relates also to the question of Iran and the situation in Israel.

The question is, more or less: "Mr. LaRouche, both immediately prior to, and several times since Ariel Sharon's stroke, Bibi Netanyahu has travelled to Washington D.C. to confer with Dick Cheney. There may also have been meetings that have taken place elsewhere, but these are the ones that we're aware of. Informed sources both here, and in the Middle East, indicate that Cheney and company are working hard for Netanyahu's election, with the presumption that if opposition to the desired military adventure against Iran continues to meet with opposition in the United States, making the political penalty too high, that one fallback would be to launch war by surrogate, with the Israelis initiating some action, and the United States then compelled to participate. It certainly seems that the Cheney crowd, or at least the crowd that controls Cheney, is committed to launch this war by whatever means necessary.

"My question to you, is not so much their intention, but your assessment of the situation inside Israel. How good do you think Netanyahu's chances actually are? And if he were to regain power in Israel, is he likely to proceed with such a suicidal scenario?"

LaRouche: Again, what we're dealing with in the conflict situation in Israel, is a case of asymmetric warfare, in which the key factor is outside forces, not forces on the ground. The situation is played like a pawn on a chessboard, by international forces. Now, what we have to do is, don't limit the question to Israel, or Israel-Palestine. That's the first mistake. It is not an Israel-Palestine problem. That is, it is not contained within the territory of Israel-Palestine. It is a situation with conflict potential, which has been exploited in various ways, by various international institutions, going back to the games that were played between the Soviet Union and the United States and Britain, on this question, back during the relevant 1950s. It's that clear.

What our policy is, toward this thing is not to try to solve this or that problem. Because you're dealing with a slippery situation, in which if you think you're solving one problem, you're going to neglect another one. Yes, Netanyahu is a danger, but why is Netanyahu a danger? First of all, he's run by the crowd which is behind George Shultz. For example, George Shultz is behind that cartoon run in Jyllands-Posten , which was used as a trigger to set off these Islamic protests around the world. So, your problem is not in Israel, your problem is George Shultz, who lives on the West Coast—and who controls the policy toward the Israeli right today; who controls the pro-Netanyahu policy in Israel, today. Netanyahu is an agent of Anglo-American interests. That's all. He's an agent. He's a throwaway, right? A throwaway.

Okay, how do you deal with that? You deal with that—we're dealing with what area, what subject? The subject is Sykes-Picot . 1907 to 1916: The negotiation between the British, with the French involved, and stupid Nicholas II of Russia, over the division of the spheres of influence in Asia. And this involved what is called Southwest Asia, directly, the region, the Middle East region; it involved the adjoining area of Iran, and other things. This was the key instrument in organizing World War I. Not a fight in Israel, World War I. Not confined to Israel. Not confined to the territory of Palestine.

Who organized it? Well, it was organized, first of all, by assassinating the President of France, Sadi Carnot, to change French policy. Then by the Dreyfus case, to create an anti-Semitic thing—there's terrible anti-Semitism in France. Anyone who knows France knows that it's a very anti-Semitic country. So therefore, the Dreyfus case then defined a right-wing operation.

Then you had 1898, with Kitchener. And the French became the sodomic victims of Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener was key as a part of this operation, which involved Sykes-Picot; which involved the partition of spheres of influence in Iran in 1907; which involved the 1916 Sykes-Picot treaty; which involved the organizing of the forces for World War I by Britain; which is what Allenby was part of there; what other people were part of in Southwest Asia. The partition of the Ottoman Empire was part of the story. The question of oil was part of the story, because petroleum from the Gulf, what became known as Kuwait, was a British private preserve, which was being used by the British Navy, to create an oil-fueled Navy for World War I. And the British wanted to control the petroleum at that point. This is now the area called Kuwait, which is the southern part of Iraq.

So, to look at this historically, you see what the reality is. There is not a conflict within this thing, where you have to intervene and separate the partners of the conflict and imagine you've solved something. You haven't done anything. You've got to go at the main problem. The main problem is imperial geopolitics, centered on the same combination which gave us World War I, gave us World War II, and other things. And often these things change their character in the process of their evolution.

But the mistake is always to try to respond to the way the press poses the question. The newspaper headlines pose the question: "This is the great threat! What are you going to do? Answer the question! What's your solution to this problem?" Well, the solution to this problem is to shoot you! Then I could get a discussion of the real problem! You're breaking up the discussion. You're not allowing us to discuss the real issue. What is the root of the problem? What does this express? Someone comes in with a disease. "Oh, you've got a disease. Where's the bug? We'll kill it for you." Not curing the disease. And that's the problem here.

The United States has always had people, on this question, for a long time, on the question of the water question for this region. The key issue here is, with the present water supplies in this region, you can not maintain a stable form of society. What you need for the whole area is nuclear power, to help us have enough water, and the prospect of a decent life. Then, you have to somehow manage the situation, on the basis that you're creating something positive in the area. And on the basis of doing that, you can win more and more people to your side.

For example, let's take the case of the recent election of Hamas in the Palestine government. You do not want to start a Fighting line on this. Crazy "Mrs. Booty" Rice [laughter]—the worst possible thing imaginable! You don't want to start, dictate, "We don't like you. We won't give any money if you are there"—no, that's only stupid politics! You say, "Okay, now you got the government. What do you want to do? What do you want to do ?" You don't shut off the money, you increase it! You give something to the Israelis. You increase it.

In other words, you redefine the geometry of the situation, so that you create the condition where people don't shoot. Why? Because they've got something else they also want. And the average Palestinian was upset, and Hamas won, because some of the Palestinians were taking too much of the money for themselves personally . And this charge of corruption against them opened the gate for Hamas' victory. It was largely an anti—. You know, Hamas was brought in, because they didn't like the opponent. They were tired of the corruption. Because, the basic problem is that they're hungry! They're desperate! They're hungry. They haven't got anything. So, give them better conditions of life.

Money is cheap. The way George Bush throws it away on silly things? Money is cheap! If you have to buy a peace, if you have to buy a peaceful condition, you buy it. If you have people getting something good, you can always go to Shimon Peres—you can buy him! He's not a bad guy—you can buy him though. So do it! Get peace! And once you have peace, and once you have people committed to something, they're getting something, that they actually want, you have a different situation.

So instead of looking, "how do we win this fight?" you say, "why have the fight? How do we change the situation, so we've got something better than a fight going?" "Don't come to the boxing match. We've got a solution. You want money? You want cooperation? Hamas, you've got yourself elected? Oh, good for you! You got elected. Now we have to work with you." Any sane U.S. government, State Department would do that. "Oh, you got elected? Good! Oh—we're glad to meet you! Now we have to talk. What would you like to talk about?" First thing you do! "You need some help? Oh, I'm sure we can find some way to do something."

Now you establish a basis for a relationship, for talking.

If you go to the other side—Netanyahu is not that powerful. Netanyahu is a U.S. agent. He's also partly a British agent, but he's primarily a U.S. agent. Oh, you can pull strings here. You can expose him. You can scandalize his name. Do it!

So, what we're not doing is enough diplomacy, and too much business about how we're going to rig the fight. And I think that's the general answer on this kind of problem: Is, that we've got to stop accepting the way the problem is defined in false terms. Define the problem from an historical standpoint: What is the real problem of the region? Look at the dynamics of the regional situation, and locate the particular problem in the region within the dynamics of the region, not as an isolated him-versus-him kind of thing. And go back to traditional diplomacy. It was corrupt as hell, but it worked. [laughter, applause]

Freeman: Lyn, still on the topic of Iran. This is from a Washington foreign policy analyst, who's actually here in the audience. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, what is the explanation for the German and French turn, on the question of Iran's nuclear program? The British posture is more understandable, given their role in the Iraq War, but can't the Germans and French see the consequences of this turn that they've made?"

LaRouche: Haha! Another case, redefine the question. The problem with the French problem, is that you've got two problems. You have a prospective fascist Sarkozy (I sometimes call him Narcozy), who is Minister of the Interior, and sort of the head of the Gestapo. And you have other forces in France.

And France is a very opportunistic country, but in part, it has a very specific quality in France, which is important. The banking interests of France, the private banking interests of France, are an integral part of the Synarchist International. Now, the Synarchist International is the organization which invented fascism. Napoleon actually invented it, in a sense, but the Synarchists made it a code, in the middle of the 19th Century. And the Synarchists were essentially a group of French bankers, private bankers, and they created what became known as anarcho-syndicalism, and the organization became known as Synarchism, or the Synarchist International, as it was later called.

Now, this is the organization which did all the dirties in France. It was the aftermath of Napoleon III, did all the dirties. And they are the ones who still control French politics today.

They started fascism. Remember, Italian fascism was designed in France and exported under British license to a Venetian banker, Volpi di Misurata, who introduced it to Italy in the name of Mussolini. But Volpi di Misurata ran Mussolini. But, behind it, were the Synarchists.

Now the Synarchists were unable to get a fascist government in France, until the Nazis gave it to them. What the Synarchists did, is ensured that when the Nazi attack came on France, that the French troops would not fight effectively. Therefore, the Nazis occupied France, and enlisted the French as auxiliaries in the war against the Soviet Union. And divided it in two parts: One called directly Laval, who was an outright Synarchist, a famous Socialist Synarchist; and the other's the Petain regime. These forces are still dominant as the private banking interests of France, to the present day. They are German-haters. These were the opponents of de Gaulle, actually. They're German-haters. They commit assassinations. France is the most significant police-state in the world. I sometimes think they have more policemen than citizens, because they have a department of police for this, a department of police for everything. So the problem is there, in part.

Now, what happened, the German European politics today is based on what happened in 1989-1990: Is that when the prospect of the reunification of Germany occurred, after the fall of the Wall, the Thatcher government of Britain, joined by Mitterrand, went to the point that Mitterrand virtually threatened to organize war against Germany, a military attack on Germany, if there was reunification. The United States intervened, that is, the Bush Administration of the time, intervened to prevent that kind of extreme. But submitted to the conditions which were demanded by the French and British, that Germany would be deindustrialized: That there would be no industrial development of the former East Germany, to speak of; there would be no industrial development around Berlin; and Germany would be cut down to size by creating a European currency called the euro, to destroy the power of Germany.

Now, Germany responds to this situation by saying, "Well, we have to submit to the euro, or we have to submit to the European Central Bank, for the time being. But, we have an option. We are an exporting power. We export to China, to India, to other places. We have close economic relations with Russia. We have developed a post-Yeltsin relationship with Putin. And therefore, our German economy is based on its export potential, even though its domestic economy is being crushed, and destroyed even, by the French-British alliance." On the other side, you have a French-German pact, because the French nation lives on what it sucks of the blood of the Germans. Without that, there is no French economy. France has nuclear power. Germany has almost none—and so forth and so on.

So, the thing is a mess. There is no simple German-French policy. What you have is a hegemonic policy, in which the British, who are really controlling much of the U.S. policy through Cheney's wife, who's nothing but an asset of the Blair crowd—. You have the French are being controlled largely by the British, as sort of hateful, friendly rivals, who agree on some things—on keeping the Germans down! The British and French agree on keeping the Germans down! But, they agree that they have to work with the Germans, because the Germans are supporting the French economy.

Because they're Europeans and they're powerless, relative to Europe, they have to depend upon using France's relations to Russia and France's echo of France's relations to Russia, in order to give France a position of European power which it can negotiate with. Now, once having power and having allies, now he has allies to betray. And that's the nature of the politics.

There is another France, a real France, which is not controlled by these bankers—and this is banker's mentality, bankers' deals—and we're in the same period internationally in terms of finance. International finance today is clinically insane! It's no longer productive economy-oriented. There's no sense of reality, in most of international finance today—none.

So, there is no simple answer to the question, because what you have to do is understand the complex of circumstances, which are interacting in the situation. And, of course, I'm close enough to the situation in Europe, to know this fairly well. But I think that in the United States, the tendency is not to know what's going on in Europe, and to come to conclusions which accord more with gossip around Washington, more with press gossip and that sort of thing, than it does with reality. My perception is completely different. There is a rotten government. This Chirac government has become rotten. He's approaching... looking for his destiny. Pressure's on him. He betrays people. He betrays his allies. He's controlled largely by the growing Synarchist influence in France, which is a growing Synarchist influence in the world—as here as well. They all know the system is coming down. Like, right now! I don't know what's happening later today, but right now, that thing in Iceland could be the thing that does a blowout of the entire system, comparable to what happened in August-September 1998.

Freeman: [station id] Lyn, so far, I would say that half of the stack of questions that have come in, are in one way or another, touching on this current port situation. The United Arab Emirates contract with these commercial ports. One of the more interesting questions, however, on the whole port controversy, comes from someone who is a policy consultant in Washington, D.C. He's an expert on questions of U.S. infrastructure and is a former member of the Presidential cabinet of a previous Democratic administration.

He says: "Mr. LaRouche, I'm sure you're aware of the current controversy surrounding this recent White House deal to hand the operation of six commercial and two military ports to a United Arab Emirates government-run company. Bush's mishandling of this has led to perhaps the deepest fracturing among Republicans that we've seen since Bush has come to Washington, with some of Bush's most faithful lackeys breaking ranks. But, at the same time, we witness the phenomena of Democrats tripping over each other, with the belief that they have finally found the way to take a position to the right of the Bush Administration. [Lyn laughs]

"At the center of this debate seems to be everyone's heartfelt concern about security issues. However, there is another issue here, that causes me far more concern, which I find very disturbing. As far as I can tell, this issue has only been addressed so far by Senator Feinstein of California, and she has only addressed it peripherally: That is, the apparent privatization of our ports and harbors. It seems that, in fact, a dramatic shift in policy was effected by this administration, without any legislative initiative. I'm not sure what the legal basis for this was, and perhaps it was another case of unitary executive action.

"I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, and your thoughts on how, in fact, you think this should be addressed. Do you think that there is actually a security concern, because the contract will be held by the United Arab Emirates? Or do you think that the larger concern is that we may be in for another Enron-style catastrophe?"

LaRouche: All kinds of catastrophes are possible, but the issue here is somewhat different. Go to the real issue. The real issue is that there is globalization, and deindustrialization. The thing that's going to straighten out a lot of this, is when someone has the guts to raise, in the United States, the question of return to nuclear power. Because that's going to put the thing on the table. If you're going to have a U.S. economy, that's the issue—you're not going to continue under present policies—if you're going to have a U.S. economy, you're going to reverse most of the policy trends, established between 1971 and 1981. That is, from the destruction of the Bretton Woods System, through the exit of Brzezinski from office.

Kissinger, the Nixon Administration, destroyed the U.S. international position, by taking the power in the international financial-monetary system away from the United States, into an international cabal under globalization: that is, globalization in the form of the floating-exchange-rate system. That destroyed us in the Western Hemisphere. It destroyed the U.S. economy, from the outside. It destroyed the economy of Mexico. It destroyed the economies of the nations of South America, in particular. The destruction of the nations, our neighbors to the South, in Mexico and in South America in particular, was a destruction of the strength of the United States strategically. It was a terrible mistake.

What happened in '77 through '81, under Brzezinski, who had essentially the same rotten policies, was Brzezinski destroyed the internal economy of the United States, by the Trilateral Commission's deregulation, and by the nuclear policies associated with Brzezinski. Brzezinski was for nuclear war, but not for nuclear power. And, I almost got killed by Brzezinski, or by Brzezinski's friends, because I exposed the fact that he planned to stage a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. I did that in 1976, and that lost him the ability to run that operation, because I exposed it. I exposed it with letters from his correspondence, from his own people: That he had that intention, of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, once Carter had been elected. I exposed it publicly, on Election Eve of that year, in 1976, and that resulted in somebody putting out a hit operation against me, from Brzezinski, who had created a special intelligence operation for this kind of thing. So, that's that part of the history.

Now, if you understand that, you have to recognize—which is what the difficulty is, in the members of the Senate, the members of the Democratic Party particularly, and many Republicans—is that the policies, the change in policies, which was established officially from 1971 through 1981—and things that happened afterward, but that change in policies, the change in U.S. policy fundamentally, is what has ruined our country and made us weak. If we are not prepared to reverse those policies, then anything we're going to do is going to be a failure—and you've given up the fight.

So therefore, the first way to do it, you've got to confront this question of nuclear energy. This has come up clearly on the question of power: Because without nuclear power, if you're not willing to have 800 MW high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, in the territory of the United States in a number of places, you can not deal with the so-called petroleum crisis, oil crisis in the United States. You have to be able to produce an economical, efficient alternative. That requires an 800 MW high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. In other words, you've got to reach the threshold of energy flux-density, so-called, in which you can do the chemical operation necessary to use a water-based development of a hydrogen-based fuel. In that case, then you can use hybrids and so forth types of cars, and you can solve the so-called energy problem in the United States. You can also produce the kind of fuels you can use for heating homes and all that sort of thing. If you're willing to do that, then you can do something.

If you're not willing to reverse free-trade and go back to fair trade, you can't reorganize the U.S. economy. Another little thing. Were they willing to do it? Are they willing to argue for it? Is the Democratic Party willing to go back to a fair-trade policy against free trade? Is the Democratic Party prepared to oppose globalization? Are Republican allies of the Democratic Party prepared to oppose globalization in terms of defending fair-trade policies: that is, a protectionist policy for the product of the American farmer and American industry? Are they prepared to do that?

Are they prepared, at the same time, to realize that over the past period, since 1971, we have used negligence as a weapon to destroy the basic economic infrastructure of the United States? By not replacing plants that are wearing out : In terms of water systems, power systems, and so forth, we have destroyed the economic potential of the United States. Are we willing to reverse that?

We need to have a mass of employment, which will shift employment from emphasis on low-paid service employment, to higher-paid productive employment. How do you do that? Large-scale investment in infrastructure, which will create industrial employment, and similar kinds of employment. That means you have to change the ratio of infrastructure to current production, back to what was comparable to the 1970s. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to reverse the 68er formula? And go back to a high-technology economy which is able to sustain pensions, able to sustain health care and so forth, or not?

So therefore, if you try to take some particular issue, like the port issue, by itself, you're in a trap, because you have no principled position from which to fight! This means that you can't do wheeling-and-dealing politics in the Congress. This means, you've got to go out with young people, you've got to go out to the mass of the population, where they live, and you've got to start organizing the mass of the population for these kinds of policies, directly, toe-to-toe.

Then, if you've got the votes, you bring the votes back to Washington, and you get the politicians to change their policy. Are they going to continue to try to play for the big money, to pay for their campaigns, for the advertising, and thus be controlled by the big money? Or, are they willing to get the people back into the voting act again? Because most of the people in the lower 80% of the population either don't vote, because they're disgusted, or demoralized, or they don't know where they live themselves, to have an address from which to vote; and because they don't trust the parties which have turned away from them. Where are the Democratic Party meetings? Where are the people represented? The Democratic Party used to be based, the power of the party, used to be based on, particularly in the Roosevelt period, was based on going to the people, political organizations of the people. The people own this country, not the politicians. The politicians are elected and rule with the consent of the people. You want to change the country? Go back and give the people a reason to vote for you, by giving them what they need. And not just giving them what they think they need, but making it clear to them what it is they really need, technically. They'll ask and they'll challenge, and you have to answer the questions. But, if you're right, you can win. You can win them over, particularly in a time of crisis, where none of the answers they're getting, presently, are working.

And so therefore, on the port thing? Yes, we must control—we must say, and protect, "defend our national public infrastructure" . Port facilities, rail lines, similar kinds of things, power systems, are infrastructure . They're not something that belongs to some corporate investment: They're something that the whole territory needs, or the whole nation needs—that thing. Now, if the nation needs that whole thing, it's not up to some private interest to come along, and give it to us. If the nation needs infrastructure, it's up to the government to provide it, and tax to raise the money to support it. If it's a private venture, yes, it's qualified, it's competent, okay? Normal rules: Start the business. If it's a good business, help it. But if it's infrastructure, it belongs to the government, because it is the responsibility of government, because it is for all the people . Schools are for all the people, not for some people. Education is for all the people. Health care is for all the people. Therefore, whoever does it, the responsibility to make sure that it's done, is the responsibility of government.

And the way you get that done, is you go out to the people you're supposed to represent, the so-called General Welfare, and you appeal to them on behalf of not only themselves, but their descendents, their children and grandchildren. "We need this. Here's why. "And make it clear to them. If they know you're on their side, and you're willing to fight, they'll support you.

The problem with the party, is they want to play game—play games as in salon games; play debating games in salons; debate it through talking idiots on Sunday morning television. And that's our problem here.

Yes, they're right, Feinstein is right. What she said is absolutely correct. It's weak. It doesn't go much to the point, but at least it says something. The other stuff is—it's kind of loony.

My view is, what is really going on, is not the port issue. And standing away, you can see this a mile away, or 10 miles away, or 50 miles away: The issue is, the shooting event in Texas has so undermined the authority of the Vice-President, that Republicans realize they've got to get out from under that now ! And what they're going to look for, is some gimmick which gets them off the hook of the Cheney-Bush party. It has to be a gimmick which has appeal to their constituency. And the Republicans who are not clinically insane, will generally respond to—a sort of a chauvinistic kind of patriotism. "It's ours! We don't want some foreigners—'ferriners' coming in and taking it over from us!" Eh? And the Republicans will go for that, you know. They go for that. They like that. Being a little bit chauvinistic helps, you know. And they often confuse the difference between chauvinism and patriotism.

But anyway. It's a situation which is created by the growing discredit of the eminently discredited, stupid psychotic President and his Vice-President, who's in charge of the vice, who doesn't aim very well. So, therefore, that's the situation. It's a symptom of the fact that the Democrats failed at the beginning of the year. They failed to continue the initiative they had going for them in the Senate, during the year 2005. And came into the year 2006, and did a pratfall on their face. And didn't have their "thing together," as it's said.

So, therefore, over the Alito nomination, they lost their "thing," and they're still searching for it, wherever it went. Now, what this represents, is this event, the fact that you have a Democratic-Republican coalition on something , which make sense, is defensible, use it, because you've got to do this to get this momentum back again. You've got to get a majority momentum in the Congress, together, to start to move this government in a positive direction. Without that, you're not going to go anyplace.

Now, every time this administration discredits itself, that's a plus. Some things it does to discredit itself will work, politically. Others will not. The things that will work, which are the right thing to do, do it! The more important thing, is to get people to talk to each other, in a collaborative way, especially across the aisle, to get beyond party politics, to get to patriotic politics. That is, politics for the benefits of the nation. And to get people back into organizing the people out there on the streets, and the communities: To get them in the act, and use their power, the power of their vote: We can determine the results of elections. The people can do that. If they are mobilized to that. To be mobilized to do that, they have to be motivated to do that. To be motivated to do that, you've got to educate them, because they have a lot of wrong ideas—they don't know what is going on. But they will listen to you, if they think you're on the right side, because they want an alternative.

Now they know, they say, "This thing is no good. Get this guy