LaRouche in Berlin Webcast: Bring Back The Axioms of FDR

This is a transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's international webcast Sept. 6, 2006 from Berlin and Washington, D.C., sponsored by LaRouche's Political Action Committee. The meeting was chaired in Berlin by Jessica Tremblay and Jonathan Tennenbaum, and by Debra Freeman in Washington.are also available.

Jessica Tremblay : Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Tremblay, a representative of the LaRouche Youth Movement here—and good morning, of course, in Washington, D.C. This is an international webcast, and the first time that a webcast of this sort has taken place simultaneously in Berlin and in Washington, D.C., so, it's quite an historical event, and a great honor also to be able to introduce Mr. LaRouche at this point.

Mr. LaRouche wrote a discussion paper about three weeks ago, called "Dynamics & Economy," which was sent to many relevant international institutions and dignitaries throughout the world for discussion, a question of the discussion of a solution for this international financial crisis. Many of the questions that we will hear, will be a part of this discussion process on the question of a solution to this international financial crisis, and they will reflect the ongoing dialogue with Mr. LaRouche.

I think the most important thing to say is that Mr. LaRouche has said that these proceedings today, and his keynote address, will be historically even more significant than in October of 1988, when he predicted the collapse of the entire Soviet system of the Comecon. And if I think of how important that was, and what it meant for history, I think that this will be quite a special day. ...

So, Lyn, are you ready?

Lyndon LaRouche : Thank you very much.

The cycle of world history which is coming to a close during the current months, began with the April 1945 death of President Franklin Roosevelt. My first prescience of the fact that this was the beginning of a new cycle of history, a break with the old cycle of history, struck me on the evening that our military unit, which was then passing through India on the way to service in northern Burma, received the news of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. Now, during the course of that day, a number of the soldiers came to me, and asked if they would have an opportunity to discuss something with me that evening. So, after the Sun set, we went out and we met, and the question was very simple: What does the death of President Roosevelt mean for us now? Now the question came. I wasn't really surprised by the question, but I was surprised. And I heard the words coming out of my mouth, and I can still remember my reply, because it astonished me—my own reply, to the present day—and I said: "I'm really not certain. But I know that we entered this war under the leadership of a great man. And now, the country is being led by a very little man. I'm afraid for our country."

That was the beginning of a new, current cycle of world history.

More than a year later, as I was back from service in northern Burma, and I was stationed for a while in Calcutta before returning to the United States. I made the acquaintance of a large number of people, because I was simply that kind of person. I simply got the telephone directories out, looked up all the political parties in Calcutta, and made appointments to meet with leaders of these parties, in each case, to find out what really is going on in this country. And in the course of that, having met a large number of the leaders in the Bengal area, there was a case in which one morning, some people assembled in a trolley area on the north side of the Maidan, between Darma Hata and Chowringhee juncture, and some of these fellows I knew. And they were going out for a routine demonstration to the Governor General's Palace, which was down this long street, which extends from Darma Hata, and this was usually a routine demonstration, protesting for Indian independence, and so forth.

But on this particular day, the guards, who were armed with large bamboo sticks with brass tips on them—it was called a lathee—made a lathee charge against the people, and killed and injured a number of people with these particular weapons. This resulted in a large protest, because the country was explosive in its temper at the time. And so, on the following day, there was an influx, a great influx of people, to protest this.

Now, the Maidan—it's still there—is a central area, a park area, in Calcutta. And the main street, Chowringhee—what was then the most prosperous, the shopping street, and so forth—Chowringhee ran up toward an intersection with Darma Hata Street, which cut across and ran you out to the direction of the Governor General's Palace. So, the crowd got off the trains, and several of them were coming down Darma Hata in the direction of the junction of Chowringhee and Darma Hata. At that point, there were British police, with heavy machine guns, stationed at the street at this junction. And as the protest mob came down the street, they opened full fire with machine gun fire into the mob.

On the following day, when I happened to get out there to see what had happened on the previous day, the streets were still covered with the accumulation of dried or semi-dried blood, of these people.

As the result, at that point, the whole population of Bengal virtually swarmed into Calcutta, and the police shut down the trains so more people couldn't come in. But millions of people began marching—around and around the city, day and night. And I would get out in the Maidan area, as a soldier; the British had left town; only Americans were left there, apart from the Indians themselves. And I watched this great surging mob, marching abreast, just marching, marching, marching: And one cry would be " Jai Hind !" from the Hindus. And then there'd be a responsive cry, by people in the same ranks, " Pakistan Zindabad! " And they were marching together, for their freedom, and against this monstrosity which typified the British role throughout the British Empire, especially in countries which didn't look white enough to satisfy the British monarchy.

'We're Going to Have American Methods'

So, because Roosevelt was dead, and Roosevelt had intended, as he warned Churchill, repeatedly, at the end of the war: "We are not going to use British methods; the world is going to be ruled by American methods. We're going to free the colonies! We're going to assist them to develop, including Sub-Saharan Africa." And he had plans for Africa, for its development. "We're not going to have your methods any more, Winston! We're going to have American methods."

But the moment that Roosevelt died, that policy died. And Churchill and the new President of the United States, Truman, did a number of things, to prevent that from happening.

Recolonization occurred. The Dutch army, the wonderful Dutch, moved into Indonesia to suppress the free people there. The British government, with support from the Americans, took the Japanese prisoners of war out of the prisoners-of-war camp in Indo-China, and freed them! Whereas the United States, with Ho Chi Minh, had freed Indo-China from Japanese occupation—Ho Chi Minh, an American ally. And this was the policy in Africa and elsewhere. The repression of the aspiration of peoples, whereas Roosevelt had meant the freedom of peoples who had been oppressed, and assistance from the American war machine now producing materiel required to assist these countries in developing their infrastructure, and developing their economies, and achieving the full purposes of freedom, this had changed.

Now, some decades after these events, a friend of mine who had served as the chief for the OSS operations on the ground in Italy, recounted his visit to the anteroom of the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, where he had accompanied the head of OSS, General Donovan, for Donovan's meeting with Roosevelt. Then, as he described this to me, Donovan came out, gray-faced, saddened. And he said to Max [Corvo], "It's over." And my friend said of that moment: "A bad time for the U.S. and the world at large, became the decades-long story of world history since the day that Franklin Roosevelt died."

In the meantime, some other developments by August of 1945 had confirmed my prescience of April that same year, 1945, of the nation's fate under Truman. The same OSS veteran who had accompanied Donovan into that anteroom of the President's office, had also been a witness on the ground in Italy (because he was doing all the spying against the fascists and so forth), of negotiations which were being conducted on behalf of the Emperor Hirohito of Japan. This was in the Spring of 1945. Hirohito, the Emperor of Japan, had used diplomatic channels, through the Vatican Secretary of State, and specifically through Office of Extraordinary Affairs of the Secretariat of State, which at that time was headed by a Monsignor Montini, later known to the world as Pope Paul VI. And during these negotiations, to which my friend had been privy at that time, the Emperor and other countries (that is, Allied countries), had negotiated what were eventually adopted as the terms of surrender which occurred in 1945, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But then, Roosevelt had died.

Now, Truman, who had not known of nuclear weapons until the time he became President, adopted a policy of the most evil man of the last century: Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell prescribed that nuclear weapons—because he was involved in the scientific side on the British side—should be used to attack the Soviet Union with a nuclear attack, for which there were no weapons available after Hiroshima and Nagasaki (for reasons I'll explain). And that the purpose of doing this, as Russell published his policy, that he had earlier established, which was British policy and Truman policy, was the policy of preventive warfare against the Soviet Union by a nuclear attack, at a time that they believed that the Soviet Union would not have nuclear weapons. And this attack was to do one thing: Not to defeat the Soviet Union, but to have the Soviet Union submit to world government , a world empire, the elimination of the sovereign nation-state by use of nuclear weapons.

And it was near the end of the war, that the United States, after the German surrender, about that period of time, had three nuclear devices, explosive nuclear devices of weapons quality. One was simply an experimental product of a laboratory job, which is the famous Los Alamos test bomb. There were two others: One was a uranium bomb, a laboratory prototype, not a mass-production weapon. The second was a plutonium bomb, again, a laboratory product, not a mass-production thing. So the United States, having a Japan which had to surrender, because the main island of Japan was totally isolated, both by the Soviet forces coming down into Manchuria, and by the U.S. Navy, and U.S. Army, Air Force, submarine, etc. blockade: Not a single Japanese ship could get in or out of the main island of Japan. And the main island was collapsing economically, because it depended upon imported raw materials, which it could not get access to, from the continent any more.

So, this was done. Totally unnecessary bombing of Japan! There was no military justification— it was a crime against humanity! To postpone a surrender of a defeated adversary, and bomb the population with a new kind of mass destructive weapon, not for the sake of peace, not for the sake of winning a war, but for the sake of launching a policy of nuclear imperialism, to eliminate the institution of the sovereign nation-state on this planet! And that was what the policy was, and that was what Truman's policy was.

So, in April, when I had a bad feeling about the death of Franklin Roosevelt, I was more than right.

No sooner had the death of Franklin Roosevelt occurred, than the strategic policies of the Truman Administration followed entirely the policies of Winston Churchill, who was on the way out as Prime Minister at that time. Churchill, Truman, and their accomplices agreed to do exactly what I described, Bertrand Russell's policy: Bertrand Russell, the most evil man of the 20th Century. Hitler was mild compared to Bertrand Russell; he just didn't get the opportunity to do it.

And the policy, then, as today, of the same faction, is a policy of imperialism, called "globalization." Maastricht is an instrument, for example, of globalization. Maastricht is an implement of imperialism. The policy was to establish world government.

Now, Ben Bernanke, who is the head of the Federal Reserve system, is not particularly intelligent, at least on performance. He said he's going to establish an American world empire, a new Roman Empire all over the world, which, in a sense, is his own muddled understanding (as he has a muddled understanding of about everything else he talks about), of what his purpose is. The model of empire, which the British adopted under Lord Shelburne, after the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the policy of empire was not the Roman Empire policy, but the Venetian empire policy. And you see the policy today, very clearly—but then, Bernanke is too stupid to know what that policy is. He's also stupid about some other things as well, especially economics.

But the policy was a Venetian policy, a policy which was established about 1000 A.D., when Byzantium began to collapse and the Venetian financier-oligarchy took over control of a group which became known as the Norman chivalry, which had earlier been used by Byzantium against Charlemagne and his legacy.... Charlemagne had been in close collaboration with the Baghdad Caliphate of Haroun al-Rashid, had been a collaborator of Jews from the Middle East with Charlemagne's system, as a policy with Jewry, which had a policy of cooperation with Haroun al-Rashid and Charlemagne.

The Venetian Policy: Clash of Civilizations

What happened is, the Venetians and Norman chivalry declared a policy of anti-Islam, just like today's policy from Washington—the Clash of Civilizations policy. The Clash of Civilizations, which a British intelligence agency, the so-called Arab Bureau, had established as a Clash of Civilizations policy, is the anti-Islamic policy of today, the same policy which had been instituted by the Venetians and their Crusader allies a little over a 1,000 years ago. And with that came, at the same time, massive persecution of the Jews, and denial of their rights throughout Europe. The same policy as Hitler. And Hitler got the policy from the chivalry, who passed the policy to the great Grand Inquisitor Torquemada of Spain, who passed the policy on to the rest of Europe.

So the policy against Islam, the policy against Jewry in various countries, is the same policy, the policy of the Venetian Crusader organization, to this day. That's the enemy. To rule the world by divide and rule, by methods of terror. And so that was the policy at that time.

Now, after that, circumstances and times changed rapidly. In the course of events, Truman was forced to back down, and not run for another term, after '48. Because the Korean War was a mess, the Soviet Union had developed nuclear weapons, and it had developed the nuclear weapons actually on its own, independently from anything they stole from the United States. The Soviet Union did get the model for the American nuclear weapon—they got it from the British by way of Canada. Stalin had a choice. He said, "If we're going to use nuclear weapons, or display them, we're going to test them as the American model and if they fail, we'll blame the Americans,"—whereas they had a Russian model which worked perfectly fine. And the fact that the Soviets had developed this kind of technology ahead of the United States, was demonstrated by the tests of the first hydrogen thermonuclear explosion, which was of military grade in terms of high quality.

So, these events shifted things. Truman was told, "Git, you boy, git!" And a part of the former Roosevelt machine, President and General Dwight Eisenhower, took over the leadership of the Presidency, and probably prevented us from actually going to a nuclear war during the 1950s.

But then, the policy continued!—which is what we have to understand today. The policy continued, despite Eisenhower. Eisenhower warned against this at the time he was going out of office, with his famous good-bye speech, of a privately controlled military-industrial complex. This is the policy of the Bush Administration today! Private armies to replace regular armies. Ruin and destroy the regular armies of the military of countries, and replace this by private armies, like some kind of privately owned SS system. That's the policy of the Rumsfeld Defense Department. That's the policy being carried out in Iraq. That's the policy which is intended against Iran. That's the policy which is intended throughout Southwest Asia and beyond. So, the policy goes on, despite the resistance to that, by forces gathered around Eisenhower.

Then you had other developments. You had Macmillan, Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. A scandal was rigged, to get him out. And after getting him out, after an indecent interval, they brought in Harold Wilson, who destroyed the British economy, and set the pace to help destroy the Roosevelt world system at that time.

We had a picture: Macmillan's out. They went after de Gaulle, with repeated attempts at assassination, by the Nazis. The Secret Army Organization was the Nazis—the section of France which was for Hitler, in the French Army. The Synarchists of France, which conducted the attempted assassination of de Gaulle. They got de Gaulle out in another way, broke him in another way. But that was what happened.

Adenauer, under British pressure, was pushed to take early retirement to get him out of the way. And then, in the middle of the 1960s, they got rid of [Ludwig] Erhard, and ran a junk coalition government, in order to have the United States, through John J. McCloy, appoint John J. McCloy's "pet" as the Chancellor of Germany: Willy Brandt. Willy Brandt would not have gotten a job of even dumping ashes, but for John J. McCloy.

So, you had a process of the destruction of the relics of the institutions upon which European civilization was based, in its better state of affairs, better state of organization, in its process of recovery from the wartime period—the destruction of civilization, destruction of the institutions.

The Committee on the Present Danger and the NPT

In this process, there are some people who have deluded themselves to believe that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is the efficient instrument to prevent thermonuclear war. It is not. The thing to understand, is the policy of Bernard Russell, as nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union. That policy has not gone away. It's still very much alive. It never stopped. When the preventive warfare attack by Russell had failed, they went to a new approach, which is the acceleration of long-range missile devices for delivery of thermonuclear weapons. They used that to provoke the NPT treaty! in response to this thing in Cuba. But the policy never went away!

Now, there's an organization in the United States, which keeps coming back to the surface, which represents that policy: It's called the Committee on the Present Danger. The first formation of the Committee on the Present Danger was in the 1940s under Truman. Then the thing was hidden, in the sense that Eisenhower said, "Get rid of it." It was brought back again, in this context.

Then in 1976, when the Presidential candidacies were up, and I was a candidate at that time for President. The Committee on the Present Danger was reorganized around a group around the Trilateral Commission, which included also Scoop Jackson, a nominal Democrat (who's sort of a Stone Age Democrat, now dead, probably more stoned than ever). It was revived again. I had gained private correspondence among these characters, of what they planned to do: They planned to stage a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, once Brzezinski was in charge of the government in the Carter Administration. So, I blew it on national television, particularly in a famous October half-hour address, in which I exposed the thing, and it killed it—and they wanted to kill me!

All right. Now, again, under the guy who really controlled the Bush Administration, which is George P. Shultz—the guy who put Pinochet into power in Chile, the world's worst totalitarian. You want to find a guy who doesn't believe in democracy? Take George P. Shultz: He was the one who created the current Bush Administration. He was the one who convinced poor George Bush to run for President. He was the guy who crafted and created the Bush Administration. He was the sponsor of Condoleezza Rice. He is the one who built up Cheney, sponsored him, and put him in power.

He's behind and controlling the Committee on the Present Danger, today, which is the war committee.

The danger that he will succeed, with his accomplices, in getting Cheney to Offutt Air Force Base, to launch a pre-emptive, unannounced attack, aerial attack—full-scale—on Iran, is still one of the great dangers at this moment today. This danger leads to a nuclear confrontation.

If you do what they plan to do, and what they are doing, you are working toward a nuclear confrontation, but of a new kind, where the world is torn apart by asymmetric warfare of the type you see now in Southwest Asia, which is spreading all over the world, and will continue to spread, unless we stop it.

This will continue, and there's an intention of using nuclear weapons. The Committee on the Present Danger means nuclear war —if it's allowed to run its full course.

So, people today have to realize you can not say, that we can hide behind a Non-Proliferation Treaty agreement. And as a matter of fact, the point is, that the U.S. government doesn't care whether Iran develops nuclear weapons or not. They don't care. They would just as soon have them do it: Because the intention of the U.S. government, that is the Bush Administration, on Iran is not that they're upset about the nuclear program in Iran. They're not in the least bit upset! They're lying! They're upset about the existence of the Iranian government! The program is not one of non-proliferation: Their program is one of regime change. And regime change means what Bernanke said: world empire.

But it's not a Roman Empire he's talking about, because he's too stupid to know what he's talking about. It's a Venetian-style empire, which is today, if we understand our history, actually the model, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model.

The Anglo-Dutch Liberal model means sophistry. It means governments which have no principles, they have only sophistry. They do as they damned please. The basis for this, is, "Let money rule the world." This is the policy of John Locke, the policy of Bernard Mandeville, the policy of the British generally, the policy of the Dutch. Just look at the Dutch population: Try to find somebody over 70 years of age, alive in Holland today. That's Liberalism.

So this is the kind of policy we're dealing with, the idea that the bankers shall rule the world. Or financier groups shall rule the world, and governments will simply be playthings of that. You have that in Europe, for example, in the form of the so-called independent central banking system. And an independent central banking system, is not a governmental institution. It is a private institution, which, because the governments submit to the bankers, the governments don't do anything that the independent central banking system doesn't allow. If they do, they may overthrow the government. And parliamentary governments are easily overthrown. So, if you have a parliamentary government, and you have submission to an independent central banking system, your government can be overthrown almost instantly, any time you displease the independent central banking system—which is the financiers behind it.

That's the condition in Europe, today. That's the meaning of Maastricht. It's a step toward imperialism, to destroying the sovereignty of every country in Europe. And they want to do the same thing to the United States and the rest of the world as well.

So that's our policy.

A General Breakdown Crisis of the System

Now, to understand this: What this means, is the policies which were introduced under Truman, under pressure from the Anglo-Dutch Liberals, against the Roosevelt policies, opened up a change in world history, and opened up a cycle in history, which has played out from April of 1945, from the point of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, to the present day. What we are now dealing with, in the world as a whole, is a general breakdown crisis of that system . Because the system is breaking down, the bankers at the top level, who understand this, are moving to make fundamental changes in the forms of government and other things immediately. Because the old system is finished . It can be a matter of days or weeks, that the entire financial system presently existing in the world collapses , and there will be no part of the world which will be exempt from that collapse—a collapse of the United States and Europe.

Let's take just the sequence: Right now, the likely trigger of collapse is the combined British and American real estate investment bubble, with reflections in Europe, which you're seeing in Germany now, especially in recent periods with hedge fund raids, the Heuschrecken . If that collapses, this inflation—organized by London, by the Bank of England, their circles, and the Federal Reserve System under Alan Greenspan—depends entirely on hyperinflated investment in real estate. This bubble is about to come down. When the real-estate bubble comes down, the entire system will come down. We're at the point where we can say the month of September is a probable time for a general chain-reaction collapse of the system. This means, immediately, the trans-Atlantic system, but it also means Asia: It means India, it means China. Because these countries, in Asia, now depend upon the market which is represented by the flood of easy overnight money from Japan, into the smart-money operations in Europe and in the Americas.

Therefore, if that system collapses, then the exports of China collapse accordingly. The exports of India collapse accordingly. There are no Asian solutions! Some people say if Europe collapses and the United States collapses, that means Eurasia will prosper: No! How many poor people are there in Asia? What percentile of the population of India and every other Asian country is poor? Extremely poor? How many poor are there in China? You may have billionaires and millionaires in these countries, but you also have a tremendous number of poor people. And these poor people are much more important than the rich, because they are the population. If you have a chain-reaction, a social crisis in these countries, they will go down into the pit, too, with Europe and the United States.

Therefore, that's the issue we face. The issue we face, is, unless we take measures which are feasible, rationally feasible, to prevent this crash by a fundamental, immediate change in the international economic and financial-monetary system, there is not much hope for life on this planet for some time to come.

So, that much, as I said, is a manner of introduction.

Let me turn your attention to something which happened, midstream, so to speak in the course of this development from the death of Roosevelt, to the present moment of crisis, the full cycle. So, let's look back, first of all, to February-March of 1983, and then to October of 1988, and look at that period, and go, for example to understand that, go to the Kempinski Bristol Hotel in Berlin on Oct. 12, 1988. You'll see that on the screen now. [A transcript of excerpt from 1988 speech follows.]

LaRouche's 1988 Forecast

"My purpose of being here in Berlin, as Volker has indicated, is to read into the record in this geographical and political location, a formal statement, a short statement but a formal one, on the subject of U.S. policy, a change in U.S. policy on the prospects of reunification of Germany. Now, this statement among its other effects, will be an included feature of a nationwide half-hour television broadcast which will appear in the United States, before the coming election, and will have some impact on the election.

"I should also qualify, before delivering the statement, that I'm an economist in the tradition of people like Leibniz, Alexander Hamilton in the United States, and Friedrich List, of course, in Germany. My political principles are the same, those of Leibniz, List, Hamilton, and of course, are consistent, therefore, with the politics of Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt. And like the founders of my republic, I should say, I have an uncompromising belief in the principle of absolutely sovereign nation-state republics. And therefore, I am opposed, and will attempt to prevent, by every means within my power, the attempt to destroy the sovereignties of independent nation-states, by such means as Europe 1992, and anything else which might undermine the sovereignty of any nation.

"However, like Schiller, I believe that every person who aspires to become a beautiful soul must be, at the same time, a true patriot of his own nation but also a world-citizen. For these reasons, during the past 15 years, I've become a specialist in my country's foreign affairs. As a result of this work, I've gained increasing and significant influence among some circles around my own government, on the subjects of U.S. foreign policy and strategy. My role during 1982 and 1983 working with the National Security Council to shape the adoption of the policy later known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, is an example of this.

"Although the details are confidential, I can assure you that I speak today at a time that my influence on the policy-shaping in part of the U.S. establishment, is greater than ever before, at this time. Therefore, I can assure you, that the statement I'm about to make, on the subject of proposals and prospects for the reunification of Germany, is a proposal which will studied most seriously among the relevant establishment circles in my own country.

"Now to the statement itself.

"Under the proper conditions, many today will agree, that the time has come for early steps toward the reunification of Germany, with the obvious prospect that Berlin might resume its role as the nation's capital."

The SDI vs. Economic Collapse

Now the background is the following. As I indicated to you earlier, there was this paper we picked up in 1976 from the Committee on the Present Danger, outlining a threat, a nuclear threat to the then-Soviet Union, as a gimmick, a stunt, a political maneuver. That, on the basis of my reaction to that, which did change some of the politics of the Carter Administration: Because we blew the whistle, they couldn't do it. They wanted to get rid of me. But I went to work with an organization which we had founded in that period, the Fusion Energy Foundation, which represented some leading scientists in the United States, and some other countries. Therefore, we had a scientific capability, which enabled us to define the alternatives to the use of ballistic missile barrages as a method of controlling world affairs.

This became a part of my Presidential campaign for the 1980 Democratic Party nomination. And in the process of this, I met personally with Ronald Reagan, who was then a candidate, and then, I had an approach later, after he was President. And I had a certain kind of relationship with the Reagan people at that time. We had a walk-in from a UN-based Soviet official, who said that his government was concerned to try to find, aren't there new options for discussion with the new President. So I sent a message to the relevant people in the institutions of the Presidency, and said that this approach had been made by a Soviet official to us, and I recommended that the U.S. government take up the option of discussion; it would be in the interests of both parties to have such a discussion.

So, the U.S. government, through the U.S. National Security Council, accepted the idea that I should be the interlocutor for a back-channel discussion with the Soviet government, which I conducted between February of 1982 and February of 1983. Now, in this discussion, I outlined the situation and proposed that the Soviet government and the U.S. government, together with others, have the capability of developing a new type of system, which, with their agreement, could prevent the use of a nuclear attack as a successful tactic for changing world politics. We had leading flag-officers in Germany, in France, in Italy, and in the United States, and other relevant people who were associated with me in that period in this project. It seemed to be going well, until Andropov was confirmed as the new Secretary of the Soviet Union. And, we had our last discussion with the Soviet representative in Washington, and he said that his government under Andropov would reject the offer. I outlined to him exactly what the offer would be, that I thought it would be, and said the following. I said, "If"—and I indicated what the offer would be in my view—"If the President of the United States accepts my proposal, and if he presents it to the Soviet government; and if the Soviet government were then to persist in rejecting the offer, the Soviet government would collapse in about five years."

And it did collapse, in about five years.

So, I'm rather good at that sort of thing, in forecasting, and that's a very relevant thing for the situation we're discussing here today: This was a part of the cycle. This was a point which demonstrated that you can change the cycle. You can change the cycle by the agreement of governments, particularly powerful concerts of governments, who, if they agree to change the policy, can change the cycle. The problem is, that ever since the policies were brought in by the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1945, the world has been running under that policy!

There've been changes in many things. But the policy has remained the same, the strategic policy. That has led us to the point that the entire world system, at this moment, is on the edge of a total chain-reaction collapse . Not a financial crash, not a depression, but a disintegration of the world economy. Because, the problem today is, as the result of several things—and I'll indicate what the problems are—that between the late 1980s and today, people who are more than ten years older than I, have generally either died out or become inactive. They've been replaced in leading positions, in Europe and in the United States, by people from the upper 20% of income brackets or social status of the respective populations.

That is, people who were born between 1946 and 1957—the 1957 U.S. recession for example—who were brainwashed, extensively, as a policy by what was called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The brainwashing of an entire generation, from their infancy into this period, resulted in the same kind of effect that happened in ancient Greece, in ancient Athens, when the Cult of Delphi introduced a conditioning through teaching of the education of the youth population of Athens and related Greek cultures, so that Athens went into a crime against humanity against the island of Melos, genocide against the island of Melos. And the entire Greek culture collapsed, as a result of continuance of that policy, which resulted in what was called the Peloponnesian War. And Greece never recovered, to the present day from that policy of Athens.

The Brainwashed Baby Boomers

Similarly, the same policy was introduced by the same social forces behind the Truman Administration, called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was very operative in France in particular, in Germany through some of the leftovers of the existentialist movement, and in the United States. So you have a brainwashing in sophistry, a modern version of Classical Greek sophistry, in these countries, and you have the problem itself: You have people who are viciously, today, just as bad as the Nazis. But the Nazis had access to a group of resources, of managements who were technically competent. The Nazis were a danger because they were the most technologically competent; Germans were the most technologically competent people in Europe. When you take the most technologically competent part of a population, an economy, you have a machine, which, if it turns to do evil, is very powerful, very effective at doing evil. As a matter of fact, without the United States alliance with Joe Stalin, we would not have defeated the Nazis!

Look at it today: Today , in Germany, and other countries in Europe, as in the United States, the generation which retired or died out about 10 to 15 years ago, which had competence, is replaced by a leading generation typified by Ben Bernanke, a generation of dangerously incompetent people! They're perfectly capable, under certain circumstances, of using weapons to control the world—but they couldn't feed it. They couldn't maintain it, economically.

And that's our problem: That we have this sophistry. They say, "Well, public opinion is what's important to people." You have an alienation of the lower 80% of population strata, by the upper 20%. Politics in the United States is made largely by the upper 20%, and it's already headed toward the approval of the upper 3% in income brackets! What we're trying to break in the Democratic Party, is to break exactly that, to get the Democratic Party to go back to the Roosevelt orientation and go back to the people, the ordinary people: To inspire them, and uplift them. To go into the poor areas in the world, where people are poor, and to win them over, to a way of life which should be accessible to them, for a better way of life. To base politics, not on public opinion, but to base politics on doing good for the majority of the population, doing good for the coming generations of entire peoples.

And this is where problem lies.

So you have incompetence: Incompetence says, "If I've got money, I don't care." You have parents, who are now between 50 and 65 years of age, and so forth. They had children sometimes. One wonders sometimes how they did that. But they don't seem to care much about them. They consider them more of a nuisance, a problem that has to be controlled. That problem pervades society.

The other aspect of this, which is a correlative, is that economy is not based on money. This is the great illusion. Money is a necessary instrument of organizing circulation in society. But as we demonstrated under Roosevelt with a system of regulation, there is no intrinsic value in money. The essence of British Liberalism, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism in Europe, is that money has an intrinsic value. The basis of this value is something like gambling, as described by Mandeville, and others of that persuasion. And we have systems which say you have to bend economic policy, to meet the requirements of the circulation of money. Whereas what Roosevelt did was exactly the opposite: We set up a system of regulation, in terms of priorities, in terms of systems of taxation, and so forth, which kept the economy in balance.

Large-Scale Infrastructure Investments

See, the key thing we have to do right now: We have a world which is in a state collapse, economic collapse, physical collapse; the infrastructure of Europe is collapsing, the infrastructure of the United States is collapsing. We can no longer continue to support the existing populations in the existing way under these systems. We have to change. We have to have large-scale investments in water management. We have to have large-scale investments in mass transportation, instead of all these automobiles jamming things. We have to have investment in health care; investment in developing the territory, more trees planted and so forth, things of that sort.

You have about 50% of any economy which is soundly organized, modern economy, 50% goes into areas which are neither white-collar work in a sense, nor non-skilled work, but into things which are investments in basic economic infrastructure, which are investments which have a 25- to 50-year life, physical life. And these investments are made possible by government sponsorship of the creation of the capital to be loaned, to be invested in these investments, and also in private investments which are contributions to society. And then by regulating and protecting these by price protection, by fair-price levels rather than free-trade levels. If you're going to invest in a firm, you're not going to bankrupt it by driving the price down to the point that it can't carry its own capital. You're going to regulate! You're going to regulate taxation. You're going to regulate prices, as we did under Roosevelt.

We produced, between the time that Roosevelt entered office, and the end of the war, we produced the greatest economic machine the world had ever seen! We defeated the Nazis not because we were better soldiers. We weren't. We defeated the Nazis because we had tons , where they had hundreds of pounds of raw materials. We contributed to the Soviet ability to defeat the Wehrmacht, by matèriel. Tanks, yes! Lots of other things—planes; the ability to make planes, the ability to build tanks: Logistics.

And therefore, you say, 50% of the total national revenue must be considered as going into investment in, and maintenance, of basic economic infrastructure. No free market.

In private initiatives, you're looking for ingenuity. You want to product the ingenious, creative, and useful producer. You want to give opportunities. You don't want too many big industries. You have a lot of what we call closely-held industries, where the purpose of the investment is not to make profit for a stockholder. The purpose of the investment is to allow an entrepreneur to build up a firm which is useful to society, and whose motive in existence is not just to make a lot of money, but to be a success, a success in the coming generations of an industry which is useful to society.

An ugly thing that is missing in this, is that people don't understand what value is. Value is not monetary. Monetary value belongs to a slave system, or a degenerate form of society. The source of wealth is not speculation, is not price competition. The source of wealth is science, primarily. The source of wealth is the individual mind's mastery of principles of nature, that no animal could discover; is applying these discoveries of principle to increase man's power per capita, and per square kilometer, in the territory of society.

The same thing is true in culture: Classical culture, which is the mode of developing people's relations with other people, which enables them to cooperate and be more productive; which enables them to think, as people used to do (even in the more poor cultures, people used to think). Before the Baby Boomer was invented, they used to think that what I'm doing with my life, is going to be realized in my children and my grandchildren. What is beautiful to me, is the fact that my life could make things better for the coming generation, and I can live in such a way, I have a sense of a participation in immortality. Which is done with Classical art, done in similar ways.

Developing a Beautiful Culture

So the development of a beautiful culture, a beautiful people, who are not beautiful because they've got tattooed or because they wear junk in their faces, or this sort of thing, but beautiful because they sweat and work and scheme, to make sure that the coming generation is better, more capable than their generation. And they will see grandchildren, who are better, in terms of opportunities and skill, than anybody else that they know. They say, "My life is not for nothing. My life means something."

But we live in a culture, which is corrupt, in what way? Corrupt as the Zeus, the Olympian Zeus, as Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound describes. We live in a culture which says: "Be practical. Don't tell me about theory, don't tell me about culture! I want to get my thing off. I want to get sexual satisfaction. I want to get amusement. I want to get some drugs to fix my head, so it doesn't bother me, it doesn't interfere with my pleasure." Hmm?

What we've come into is a society where we treat people like animals. Don't think. Don't discover. Don't create. Don't think about immortality. Don't think about coming generations. "Just think about gettin' by an' enjoyin' y'self. Heh-heh-heh!" Hmm? This is what we've done to people! This is our culture!

But if we don't progress, if we don't make scientific and technological progress, then the coming generations will be worse off than we are! Which is the trend today. If we don't develop culture, the next generation will be more brutish than we are. And that's no immortality.

And therefore, economic value comes, first of all, from physical economic value. The ability to provide a better physical standard of life, for members of society, per capita and per square kilometer, that's one value. This is done chiefly by scientific and technological progress. But scientific and technological progress does not work, unless you have cultural progress. And therefore, society depends upon these considerations: That the way ideas are passed around society is based on the culture. And the way you develop, is you improve the culture. The cultures are associated with the languages. Culture, because it involves communication, means that you have to use the medium of language, as all Classical periods of language did. You just don't use words with literal meanings, like they were game parts you throw around to play with. But words are full of irony, full of contradictions, full of insights to how silly what you just said was; how irrelevant it is to reality.

And by great Classical drama, by musical work. You realize that, you don't sing a note. There is no such thing as a fixed note. It's an ironical function of the Pythagorean comma, in counterpoint. And what you see on the score is not what you should hear. You should hear something better, which comes from the interaction and the dynamics of it.

The other part is this: that this kind of mechanistic way of thinking about man, which dominates society today, and allows a lot of evil to occur, is called the mechanistic view of Descartes: We think of people as little pebbles. We think of objects as pebbles. We do statistical checks on details, pebbles, which doesn't mean anything.

Real systems are what are called dynamic: For example, living systems, are different in what way from non-living systems? Dynamics. The same elements react in living systems that exist in non-living ones, but they react differently. But why? Because, as Vernadsky pointed out, dynamics. Society is not a collection of individuals "doing this," all the time interacting and trading. Society is the interaction of the people, the interaction of processes. Therefore, you have to think dynamically.

Think Dynamically; Reductionism Doesn't Work

Look at all your statisticians' economics, what do they do? They follow statistical methods. Statistical methods are Cartesian, reductionist methods. They don't work. Every economist, in the sense of forecasting-economist, every economist I know is incompetent, because they think in statistical terms. They're taught to think in statistical terms. They're incompetent.

You have to think in terms of dynamics. How can you improve the whole process of society, the process of cooperation in society? In production? In the work? So, that's what the issues are. And that's what I specialize in, is this question of dynamics. And what we're doing now, for example, just to get this around, because I know we want to get into more discussion, and I have a lot more to say. But, it can't all be crammed into one occasion.

We are taking young people, 18, up to 30: We're taking them, we're putting them through an educational program, which is based on dynamics. In physical science, they start with the ancient study of Sphaerics , which is actually another name for astrophysics, which was passed on as a method from the Egyptians to the Greeks. This is the work of the Pythagoreans, the work of Plato, and similar kinds of things. The tradition of the Platonic Academy through people like Eratosthenes in Egypt, and so forth. We started them with that. Then we have taken them actually into a Riemannian physics. And the entirety of modern physical science, is located essentially in the methods of Kepler, as this process started by Kepler, in systematic science, moved up through Riemann, through Riemannian dynamics.

So, today, we know that we've lost the scientific generation, of mostly my generation and older; they've died out. The generation which is trained in schools and colleges today, is generally incompetent in science. It's not their fault. It's because they've been educated incompetently, they've been educated, downgraded, into a Baby-Boomer mode, a post-industrial culture which no longer understands physical science.

So, we're got to look at the people who are now—if we're thinking of the future, if we're thinking about policy—18 to 30. We've got to make sure that they're educated, and they're developed, to think in terms of dynamics, to think in these terms. You've got to create a generation which has a leading component within it, of people who are the foundation for the future development of science. Science, not as something to contemplate, science as a way of thinking about what you're going to do, what you're going to accomplish.

We've come to the point that the statistical mechanical systems which are popular and taught today, like that poor idiot Bernanke who knows no better—those systems don't work. If you adapt to them, you're a fool; you're committing cultural suicide. So you've got to create, like this case here in Berlin: Berlin is typical of this problem—largely because of Maastricht—but Berlin is not capable of generating sufficient income to maintain it's existing population because it has no industry. It's losing its industry. Without industry it can't grow. It can't even continue to exist! The issue is not debatable! The issue is debatable only from the standpoint of either the people who hate Germany, who want to take away the industry; or people who are foolish, who don't want to work; they don't want to produce anything. But it's the fact that the leverage you have when you do creative work, as in modern technologically progressive industrial work, creates more wealth than is required to employ the people who produce it! You create a higher standard of living in the employment of people who produce, than you do in anything else.

The worst economy is one which is a services economy, an unskilled services economy , an economy that is doomed, by its own will.

But this is not the characteristic of Germany, of Berlin, or anything else! It's the characteristic of Europe and the United States which were brainwashed by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the 68ers who were brainwashed into believing "take your clothes off, throw your brains away, and go out and have fun!" And they don't believe in producing! There's no satisfaction about achievement, there's no intellectual satisfaction. They want to be entertained! Because everything they're doing is intrinsically boring. It's only exciting if they didn't do it yesterday. They no longer have pleasure, satisfaction of the ability to understand what a real idea is! The joy of doing work, because you like to do the work. You don't do the work because you want the money—yes, you need money to live on. But you do the work, because you like it! You have a sense that this is important, that you're doing something important for mankind. You can walk proudly down the street, as a person who's doing something for mankind, who doesn't have to be ashamed of life, of living.

And we've done that to a whole generation, the generation born between 1945 and 1957: We generally have destroyed them, especially those that were told they were going to be the upper class. By going to universities, they were going to be very smart (they weren't going to know anything, but they were going to be very smart). They were going to get ahead, they were going to be important, they were going to get larger incomes than the rest of the people. And they would look down on the rest of the people as failures, the lower 80%, which is the situation in Europe, and the situation in the United States today.

'Stop Being Monkeys'

What we need to do is simply, recognize these kinds of facts, that we're in a culture which has dynamic characteristics. And there're some people, in society, who have organized to start this society around certain ideas , certain systems of organization which have caused this cycle from the death of Roosevelt to the present, this general collapse of civilization worldwide. And we will never free ourselves of this disaster, unless we can get up off our hind legs, and say, "Stop being monkeys," hmm—get up on our hind legs and say, "We're going to change the world system now." We can do it. Because when people realize, as they've done before—all great revolutions have done this—when they realize that they can not go on the way they're going , there is no possibility for living under this system for the next ten years. Or even five years, or even two! Then they know they have to change! And that's the time that revolutions occur.

Now, good revolutions are based not on getting bloody. Good revolutions are based on ideas, and the value of ideas. And the problem we have today, the biggest problem I see, is that we have people who are not unintelligent, but they're cowards. They will not stick their necks out to exert the kind of leadership that's required, to "damn the torpedoes" so to speak, and to go against the authority, that is holding society back. And say to the authority that is holding back, "You are in the way!" "Change or get out of the way!"

This is the time you make industrial revolutions, cultural revolutions, great leaps forward. This is what happened in Germany with Moses Mendelssohn and Gotthold Lessing, who inspired a Germany which was going into the pit, like the rest of Europe, under Liberalism, and caused an eruption in Germany, which is the German Classic, which rejuvenated other parts of the world—including the United States, including France, and so forth.

So, a revolution in ideas, as typified by the work of Gauss, the work of Leibniz, the work of others; the work of Beethoven, the work of Mozart. These kinds of revolutions have to come along, and break through, and change society, to stop doing what is considered conventional. To find leaders who are courageous, who will speak, because what they say is the truth, and they know it, not because they want to be approved of for what they say.

And that's where we stand today.

We'll get into the discussion. I could say a lot more, but this I think is enough.

Conference Dialogue With LaRouche

This transcript has been edited to group questions by topic, and to abridge the moderators' remarks and descriptions of some longer written presentations that were submitted to Mr. LaRouche for his comment. Future issues of will have more coverage of these contributions. Jessica Tremblay and Jonathan Tennenbaum were the moderators in Berlin; Debra Freeman was the moderator in Washington.

Tremblay: Thanks a lot Lyn. It was very, very exciting, and also gives some incredible perspectives for the work that we're doing here in Europe on this whole question of the Eurasian development.

I just want to explain shortly the way the proceedings will happen. We will be going back and forth between Washington and here in Berlin. We'll take a couple questions here from Berlin, then go back to Washington, and then come back here....

1. United States

Tennenbaum: We have a question here from Dr. Philipp Jenninger, who was the president of the German parliament, Bundestagspräsident, between 1984 and 1988. He was for over 30 years in the German parliament.

He asks, "Will a deepening cooperation between Europe, Russia, China, and India change the relationship between Europe and the U.S.A.? What consequences will this have?"

LaRouche: The problem here is simple; it's an historic problem. What is the United States, and what is Europe? Why did people leave Europe and go to create nations in North America and South America—Europeans? Because what we have in the United States is the European culture. What's the difference? The difference is, is Europe has the legacy, an unresolved legacy of an oligarchical tradition. We [in the United States] have no nobility. We have prostitutes—Hollywood stars, for example—but we don't have a nobility. But in Germany, in France, in Italy, look at the problem if you, as an American, come into these countries, you're confronted with something that shocks you; it disgusts you. The flatulence of a useless, parasitical bureaucracy, of a so-called aristocracy which is of no use. It can't even entertain itself any more.

So, the problem here, is that the United States' function always was to be the European alternative for Europe. Because there are no ideas, there are no categories of ideas or culture in the United States which did not essentially come from Europe. Now, it's coming from other parts of the world, from Asia more particularly. But, traditionally, the United States was a product of European culture, of people who left Europe to get away from the damn oligarchs! As the United States developed, for example in the late 18th Century, people looked at the United States as a beacon of hope for Europeans. And you had the oligarchs of Europe, who were fighting like the devil, to prevent these ideas from the United States from infecting the population, because that would mean that the oligarchy would have to go out and do some work for a change. So, this is the problem. Therefore, what has happened is, powerful influences from Europe have, from the beginning—especially the Anglo-Dutch Liberals—have concentrated on trying to corrupt and destroy the United States.

Now, this went on in one way for a while, and then after Lincoln's victory against the British agents called the Confederates, the United States became a power. And you have in the case of Germany, the case of Bismarck. Now, Bismarck was most strongly influenced directly by ideas from the United States. Most specifically, from Henry C. Carey. And if anyone knows the full work of Henry C. Carey, and knows what his relationship was to Germany, you will know that Bismarck, who was also a follower of Friedrich Schiller in his outlook, was not really an oligarch; he was essentially a farmer, but he was well educated, and he had a sense of trying to make something of Germany. He was a German patriot, working within the framework of an oligarchical-ridden society, and if he had not been fired by the Kaiser, there wouldn't have been any World War I. Because it was his being fired in 1890, that opened the door for what became World War I. You had a stupid Tsar, Nicholas, you had a stupid German Kaiser, and an even more stupid and cretinous Austrian Kaiser, and completely corrupt French, particularly after 1898.

Corruption by Anglo-Dutch Liberalism

So, you have these ideas, which are reflected in Europe from the United States, for example, German industry. The revolution in German industry of the major industries of the late 19th Century, all came from the United States, directly. The electrical industry was an import from the United States. The steel industry; the changes were from the United States. So, the effort has always been for the United States to provide, to return to Europe, in the sense of what the intention had been of the Europeans who created the United States.

Therefore, the enemies have recognized, that only by corrupting the United States, which was too powerful after Lincoln's victory to be destroyed by military invasion, the only way they could destroy the United States was by corruption. And they've done a fine job of it. But the corruption lies—and the Europeans don't like to see it—the corruption is the Anglo-Dutch Liberalism! There are other forms, but that's the worst; the other forms are more obvious. When people say, "Well, the British are better than the Americans." You guys are stupid; you don't know what you're dealing with.

That's the problem, and therefore, the interests of the United States, particularly now, what's our interest? I'm pretty well integrated, despite all my quarrels with various people, I'm pretty much integrated, and have been historically, since the late 1970s with the leading institutions of the United States. I've been under attack, because I was considered potent and dangerous. But nonetheless, on the other side, I've had a good relationship with various institutions of the United States—the military, the intelligence, and so forth, and so on and so on, the political classes. And we are not Bushites; we are not what you see in the Bush government. We're not what you see. I'm talking about the people who take care of the United States, not the poor guy who's out there just trying to make a living, just trying to survive. But those of us who are "men of affairs," public affairs, we care. And this government that we have, is one we don't want.

The problem is, that some of my friends, who agree with me, in these layers, don't have the guts to do what I do; which is how I get into trouble. But if I didn't get into trouble, we wouldn't have survived, I mean, I saved the United States in 2005, after that problem with the election in November 2004. I was brought in on the situation in a big way—I moved in. And we defended Social Security and some other things, and during 2005, I was running a lot of things in the United States. And I still do. And then, they moved to get me out of the way. It didn't work, but they tried hard, and they're running a heavy operation against me, from London, from France, and from the United States. We know who they are; we know what they're doing. We don't know the full scope of it, but we'll find out pretty soon, and we're going to clean the mess up. We're going to get them.

So, that's our role. Our job is to get rid of this succubus we have on our government. Get back in control in dynamic of the U.S. governmental situation, as I was in a position of some influence last year—I still have influence this year—get that moving again. In the time of a crisis, the best chance the world has, is if the United States comes over to the side that I've tried to represent here, for example, today.

Freeman: Before I read the first question from here in Washington, I just wanted to mention, that among the international audiences that are gathered to listen and participate in this webcast, we have a number of audiences gathered at various universities in Ibero-America, that I would just like to recognize. In Honduras, at the National Pedagogical University in San Pedro Sula. In Bolivia, there are two gatherings—one at San Simon University in Cochabama, and at Aquino University in the capital, La Paz. In Peru, there is a gathering at the Technological University of Peru in Lima, this is actually part of their Engineering School's anniversary celebrations, and we'd like to welcome them. Also, in Lima, there is a gathering at the Inca Garcilaso de la Vega University, and I believe that actually for both of these schools, this is the first time they've participated. I know that there are gatherings in Argentina and Mexico. I can tell by the questions that are coming in, and also a gathering in Bogota, Colombia, so we'd like to welcome all of you, and hopefully, we will be able to get to your questions.

We have a number of questions, both from Washington, and also from labor leaders and elected officials from across the United States. We also do have a certain number of questions that have come in from those who are participating internationally, but I will start with the questions from the D.C. institutions.

Globalization Has Failed

The first question comes from an economic policy taskforce at one of the Washington, D.C. think-tanks, actually at Brookings.

It begins by saying, "Mr. LaRouche, I'd like first to offer greetings to those on the other side of the Atlantic, from what might be considered friendlier and certainly more civilized quarters here in Washington, D.C." They are definitely more civilized! "Over the course of the next two weeks, a series of critical economic conferences will be occurring both here in the United States and abroad. Our expectation is that those gatherings will either publicly or privately acknowledge the danger of systemic perturbations resulting in seismic changes in global finance and economy. It is also our expectation that U.S. delegates to these gatherings will insist that the remedy lies in the intensification of the policies that brought us to this point in the first place.

"At the same time, there is a growing recognition in the United States that globalization, simply to use a catch-phrase, has not only failed to serve the benefit of the developing sector and of emerging economies, but that it has not worked for us, either. As such, there is increasingly an unwillingness on the part of many to impose measures that this failed policy would otherwise mandate. I wanted to mention that I see Robert Rubin's resignation from the board of directors of Ford Motor Company, as well as the more recent resignation of Ford's CEO, Bill Ford, in this light. But obviously, the mere refusal to participate in a destructive policy doesn't stop that policy, and unfortunately, there are plenty of people across the United States, who are more than willing to carry out those policies.

"So, for those of us who are part of the Washington policy framework, but who are not in government, the question is, how do we best shape, and most efficiently shape our activity to address this situation, especially in light of your recent paper?"

A Malicious Evil

LaRouche: Well, I'm trying to do it, exactly. What we have to do is, we have to think in terms of a world system. We have two problems, first of all. We have to recognize in the first instance, that what is happening to us is not natural. It is not spontaneous. It is not democratic, as some people try to say. It is malicious evil. It was created with the intention of destroying us. Now, Ben Bernanke has said so. Now, Ben Bernanke is a pretty stupid guy, at least on everything he's said. He's either stupid, or he's acting very convincingly, in a very convincing imitation. But, this represents him. That is, he's saying, "Build an empire!" He's saying, "Destroy the United States!" He's the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and he's saying, in effect, "Destroy the United States!" They're part of our enemy! The people who want to destroy the United States, who want to build an empire. The people who want to globalize are the enemy.

If you have a globalized society, you have stupid people. If you globalize, you destroy the function of culture, of national language culture, in maintaining the intellectual development and the emotional development of the people. So, therefore, you need national cultures, not as ego trips, but national cultures, so you have a dynamic system, in which the entire population can be uplifted through a social process of dynamic character.

And the best example is music, Classical music, and Classical poetry, which are forms of irony through which the literal meaning of the language no longer imprisons the person, because irony is able to break through in the form of discovery of the ideas, which are merely hinted, and the hint becomes the reality, and becomes the new power, becomes the beauty. To take people, uplift them out of their limited conditions.

The problem is, we have to understand we have an enemy, and we have to understand who the enemy is. It's not just some sneak thief coming around: It's a peer review committee in certain parts of industries, which have destroyed the industry. It's the policymakers. It's often the lawyers. Maybe we should get rid of the lawyers, maybe we'd have a better chance in the United States. But we're corrupted. And what you have, we're fragmented, so the people are becoming individualized. They're trying to get their pleasure at the expense of somebody else. They're trying to get ahead of somebody else. It's an Ellenbogengesellschaft ["elbow society," the Hobbesian opposite to the "benefit of the other"].

And that's the problem. When we are in crisis, when our people realize that they're are a bunch of fools, and that what they're doing doesn't work , then maybe they will come to their senses. My view is, our job is, don't worry about the fact that people are not responding. Yes, it's an important factor. But what you have to do is realize reality. Either we're going to change, or we're not going to survive.

It's often been the case, that a sudden shock, which demonstrates to more and more people that the system doesn't work, is the problem.

Orient Toward the Lower 80% of the Population

The specific problem which is the greatest in the United States today, is the orientation you see in the Democratic Party. Take the number of Democrats, who are oriented to the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council]—that's a disease, that's not a relationship. Because that's an orientation toward the upper 3% of family-income brackets. And a wealth of disregard of the lower 80% of family-income brackets.

The future of the United States lies, in getting the politicians to stop this crap and go back to start looking at the conditions of life of the great majority, which is the lower 80% of the family-income brackets. We have to do something for the people. The political leader must do something for the people. The 3% can get by quite nicely, they don't need any help. The upper 20% don't need much help. The lower 80% needs a lot of help. And the lower 80% is the number of voters, it's 80% of the voters, it's 80% of the constituency.

The problem is, because we —not me, but others, who are in a position of leadership and influence, because we , instead of going out and appealing to the people to uplift themselves, to join us in great projects which will uplift the conditions of life, we are going to the 3%, and kissing the butt of the 3%—and we call that democracy. I don't know how many people can kiss that butt at the same time, but that's all right.

That's the problem, and we have to recognize, that's the two problems. First of all, we are corrupt. The Baby Boomers are corrupt, especially—the upper 20%, because they kiss the butt of the upper 3%, and they consider that politics. Because they count on getting large contributions from the upper 3% to fund their politics. They don't give a damn about the lower 80%! They say they do, but they don't. If you go to the lower 80%, the fact that you convince them that you really care about them, and you're coming with some ideas that will work for them, with cooperation, you now have the overwhelming majority . And if you have the overwhelming majority, you can transform the government of the United States.

Democratic Leaders: What Do We Do Now?

Freeman: This question comes from the Senate Democratic Caucus. "Mr. LaRouche, there is a heated debate among those of us who represent the Democratic leadership in Congress, as to what our priorities should be in the immediate aftermath of the November elections, should we gain control of either or both Houses. Some among us are arguing that we should move immediately to roll back the most damaging legislation enacted by Bush-Cheney and replace it with a positive, innovative agenda designed to begin the necessary process of reconstructing what we've allowed to decay, and indeed to proceed to build anew. Others argue that our first priority must be to begin an in-depth investigation of the violations of law by Bush-Cheney, with an eye toward impeachment. Members who advocate this approach argue that it is the only way to keep Bush-Cheney in check, while the business of reconstruction proceeds. However, I'm not at all certain that the American people are psychologically prepared for either. However, I do see their point. Could you please give us some idea of your thoughts on this, because we believe that it is going to be an immediate question."

Cut Out the Sophistry!

LaRouche: Well, you know, it reminds me, these guys who want to find out ways to make legal reforms or something against bad government: they remind me of a eunuch who's engaged in a 20-year-long courtship, without getting married! It shows they have the quality of an emotional political eunuch in them, when they come up with these kinds of policies. And I tell them, my dear Democrats, who think that way, "No, be a eunuch! Become a eunuch!"

Look, we have enough on this case, to bounce these two clowns out of there now ! The problem is that people who don't have the guts to do it, are saying, "Well, we don't have enough evidence." I mean, you catch a guy committing rape! You say, "Well, I've got to go out and get more evidence before I can stop this thing," eh? That's what's going on now.

They're cowards! The problem is sophistry, sophistry, sophistry. And you know, members of the Congress who would like to have a juicy contribution from circles such as the DLC or other parts of the upper 3%, or even the upper 1%, of family-income brackets—that's the problem. They don't want to offend these guys, because they want their contributions. They don't want to earn their election, they want to get somebody to buy it for them! And to do that, they will sell themselves !

And what it's going to take is, when people who have the guts to do so, will stand up as I do, and tell the plain truth, about what needs to be done, and say it in a timely fashion. And you'll find that the people out there will go for it. The people are ready to lynch the entire Congress, membership of the Congress. Don't kid yourself! They've had it.

Look, let's take a case: Let's take health care. How many people in the United States want to hit, kill, whoever is responsible for current health-care policies? Look at the housing crisis. Do you realize that when the housing bubble blows out, do you know what that's going to mean, throughout the country? Do you realize the potential mass evictions of 40-50% of the so-called homeowners, in a very short period of time? The shutting down of whole industries, whole sections of the banking community will collapse, and you'll have a chain reaction below that?

Do you think the people aren't out there? They're not waiting for somebody to provide credible leadership? And then you look at what these guys are offering, these candidates, including Democratic candidates! What are they offering those people? Look at what they're offering. Do you think if you were a people, you would vote for those candidates, really? The Democrats are being disgusting! If they would stop being disgusting, and have the guts to do what's obvious and face the truth, you would find that you would have a revolution inside the United States in popular support. The people know that they're turned down. Every time that they see a Democratic candidate go to the upper 3% or the DLC for a contribution to finance their campaign, they vomit—if their stomachs aren't dry for lack of food.

This is the problem. These are not legitimate questions! The question is to have a policy, which goes to the lower 80% and its problems. If you have a policy that goes to solve the problems of the lower 80%, you're going to find out you're hitting on the right track.

2.1 Eurasia: Germany

Tremblay: I have two questions here from Germany. The first is from Dr. Friedhelm Krueger-Sprengel from the Ministerialdirigent, in Germany; a consultant of law, and honorary president of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War, Brussels.

"Mr. LaRouche, how do you evaluate the new Eurasian movement in Russia? The new Eurasians advocate a close political cooperation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The center, and thereby central leadership role, would be given to Russia.

"Would such a development weaken the traditional Atlantic Cooperation? Must one assume that the Asian nations, in particular, China, Japan, and India, would form a special center which is politically and economically independent from the U.S.A. and Russia?"

And the second question is "Model for the Westphalian Peace." "Can the Westphalian Peace still serve as a model today, given that Central Europe was then largely depopulated, and weakened by the war, as well as cut into 300 parts, due to the interests of the marginal powers?"

And then I have a question here from a German economist. His question is in German and I've translated it:

"I see the corset of the Maastricht agreements as dangerous for the further development of Germany. Public investment is being stopped for a policy of budget cuts, basically until everybody dies. Do you agreed? Is this true? And how can we elegantly get out of this treaty?

"Currently, I am reading the book of Ludwig Erhard called Prosperity for Everyone, and if you take a look at this book, and look at the current neo-liberal doctrine, it seems almost as if this were a Bolshevist manifesto! Erhard correctly sees that you have to increase the buying power of the many, and basically that's exactly the opposite of what is going on today." And he asks, "Specifically for Germany, should we take a fresh look at Erhard?"

Erhard's Role

LaRouche: Well, first of all, let's take the last one first, because it's the easiest one.

Yes. Erhard was thrown out of government, as part of the same process which involved bringing Willy Brandt into government, by the same people, such as John J. McCloy. Because Erhard was maybe not the best expression of what Adenauer represented, but certainly he represented a policy which was in the best interest of German society. And what happened with him, which coincided with the Wilson government coming into power, consolidating power, in Britain, and with what happened in the assassination of Kennedy, and the effects of that, and the opening of the Vietnam War—this was the destruction of civilization!

What I spoke about the cycle, long cycle today, from the death of Roosevelt to the present time, it was divided into two parts. In the first part, in the first 20 years approximately, in the postwar period, despite the rotten policies of the United States, and other countries, there was a growth in physical economic growth, an improvement in the general standard of living, and various kinds of technological improvements. Undeniable.

Then, suddenly, with the assassination of Kennedy, and the launching of the Vietnman War, you get a downshift. And some people say, this is a phenomenon of the war. Well, the war did contribute to the degeneration. But! That was not the cause of the degeneration. Rather the degeneration was the cause of the war, not the war the cause of the degeneration.

So, this thing is crucial. Getting Erhard out goes in the same category with the killing of Kennedy. It's the echo of the killing of Kennedy. It's the pushing by the British to push Adenauer out prematurely, to destroy the de Gaulle-Adenauer agreement, the attempt to kill, repeated effort to kill [de Gaulle], which goes to the other question about the Eurasian policy.

Now, de Gaulle's a fine fellow. But he was not a stupid one, and he was a patriot, and he did fight the fascists. He hated the Synarchists. He would have hated Felix Rohatyn. It was one of his virtues, that he would have hated him. Right? Because he was looking for, he said, "the Atlantic to the Urals," the same thing we did with the SDI. The Atlantic to the Urals was the idea of going all the way to the Pacific, with an idea of development. De Gaulle simply had this list that he adopted, of projects of France. (And they ran out of the projects now. They got the nuclear energy, but they're using that as a weapon now, not as a productive force.)

So, yes, this was a part of the process of destroying Germany. And therefore Erhard is important, in the sense that he was the last expression of a politician in a position of government, who was initiating policies which were constructive. The policies in Germany, the trend in policies by government, have been downhill all the way , ever since. And that's because, first of all, it was the policies of Wilson, the influence of Britain, which was the model for this. The coalition government, which was a travesty. Then Brandt came in, with destructive culture. The destruction of the educational system. The destruction of the mind in Germany! The Humboldt [educational] program was the essence of Germany! You want to turn the Germans into animals, which they tried to do, and they succeeded to a large degree. So, yes, this is important.

The Westphalian Approach

Now, on the Westphalia thing: There is no alternative to a Westphalian peace. The Westphalian Peace—guess who did it? This was done by Cardinal Mazarin, who convened the session, and changed exactly the opposite policies, those of Richelieu. Now, what happened?

You had in France, under Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the highest rate of technological progress in all European history, in rate . The Colbert administration was astonishing. It was the leading driver of European civilization! He launched the science academy. Just look at what happened in science and technology under Colbert, and even the influence of Colbert on those who followed, in terms of fortifications and other things which were expressions—the Monge, Carnot development was an expression of this.

The French Revolution, which was a British operation, run by British Freemasons, and a model for Hitler, shifted the thing so Germany emerged on the back of a destroyed France, which was destroyed by the British, by the imposition of the government, by who? The Duke of Wellington. And the shutting down of the Ecole Polytechnique, or destruction of it in the process.

So, the problem here, is the nature of man . Man is not an animal. Therefore the fundamental interest of man lies in that kind of behavior which is not that of an animal: the behavior of creating something. The search for immortality. The search for the rising above bestiality. The search for progress and benefit. So, therefore, what you give people is, you give them the benefit to improve themselves. You promote their improvement, their self-improvement, and that's the basis for your agreement.

The alternative to a Westphalian approach is a Hobbesian approach, which leads to eternal conflict. So, the idea that there's an alternative to Westphalia, or the idea that there are technical reasons why Westphalia worked—no! Westphalia worked for one reason: because of a leadership, an initiative, to end a war that nobody could end. Otherwise, there would have been no Germans left alive at all. And it was not the ruin that made it possible. All these theories—forget them, they're wrong.

Security vs. Assymetric Warfare

Now, on the question of law and security. Again, the same thing. We've come to a period in world history—look, we're at the end of war! You can no longer conduct war on this planet! You may have to defend yourself in a war-like manner, but you don't use war as an instrument of policy! Which is what is being done by the British and by the United States—the use of war as a policy matter! The killing power of modern technology, and the alternative of the killing power of security technology, is asymmetric warfare!

What does asymmetric warfare do? It's a caustic force, it destroys society. It's denial of ground, by destruction. And no force can resist the denial of ground, the process of pure destruction. Can pure destruction, which is the only mode of warfare which is possible now, can that be a source of victory, a source of a victorious interest? You can never do it. So therefore the only policy, is the policy of mutual interest, the Westphalian policy.

The Westphalian policy is a matter of the natural moral law , and moral law has taken vengeance on the stupid, by bringing mankind to a level where the power of man is so great, that to use advanced power, for destruction, brings on the caustic force which is otherwise typified by asymmetric warfare. So, mankind is the power who is going to destroy himself in war.

Therefore, the military policy, of a military force is essentially a scientific, engineering policy. It's the thought of using the power which is implicit to cause people to accept conditions which are to their benefit . You compel people, in a sense, to accept the advantage, to accept the benefit of scientific and technological and cultural progress. That should be the law . Natural law, not Hobbesian law, not Liberal law. What you want to do is take all the Liberals and put them together with the lawyers, and stick them all in the bottom of the ocean.

The Youth Movement

Tennenbaum: I think this is a good occasion to have a couple of words from our heroic candidate here in Berlin, Daniel Buchmann.

Daniel Buchmann: I have nothing prepared as a statement, or comment. I would maybe simply report on the fact, since we have an international audience, that we have a campaign here in the Berlin for the reindustrialization of Berlin. We have a pamphlet here, "Jugend Will Eine Zukunft" [Youth Want a Future, Industry for our Capital"] and this is one of 500,000 pamphlets that we distribute here in Berlin, and that we are going to distribute until Election Day September 17th. And I think we are going to be the party or the movement in Berlin, having distributed the most material in Berlin. I think there's no other party which has distributed that much material all over Berlin, and it has reached so many people in Berlin, bringing them a solution.

And of course, the question to you, Lyn, maybe, would be, what do you see as a prospect, or task, for the Youth Movement here, beyond the election, and what do you think? What should the youth be doing here, what should the youth be doing internationally, to contribute to your efforts, and the efforts of many people in saving civilization?

LaRouche: The first thing you always have to do, is you have to put the emphasis on development of the people. A Youth Movement that is not developing, that is doing good work, will disintegrate. Therefore, the educational aspect of the development, but more than that, the integration of the educational aspect with the organizing process.

Now, first of all, the first problem you have is, get your minds in order, and you know this: You have to improve the singing, and do more of it. You have to. You have to master the [Pythagorean] comma, and understand the comma, because you will never really understand Bach until you understand the comma. And the role it plays in music. You have to practice for this. Because you will find that when you go into a situation, when you sing effectively, you multiply your influence. You sing first, then you reach people. Sometimes, they will scream about it. "You're reaching me, you're reaching me, you're reaching me! Don't do it! Stop it, stop it!" [laughs] "You're destroying my fungus culture."

The other thing is, you have to have a sense of the identity of the generation. And the identity of a generation is located not just in what anybody in the generation does, but what a leading layer of the generation does, which marks the entire generation. This includes, not only the restoration of Classical culture, and by active practice—and music is the one you can trust the most, because the Romantics have really moved into every other area, very effectively.

All we have to do, to do that, is what we're doing with the educational work, now on the Kepler-Riemann work. And you have to develop the core, as a cultural standard of a generation, as the scientific culture. We're going to have to have a population which is 50% involved in machine-tool design-level operation. And you will never do that without a grounding. The grounding has to be in first of all, the Classical Greeks, the Pythagoreans and Plato, and the Platonic Academy through Eratosthenes. And then you have to go to modern.

And the modern is Cusa, as the foundation. The basis of science is Kepler, and the basic work on how the universe works, the organization, the harmonic organization of the Solar System, how it works. To understand the principle of creativity, and to master the idea of dynamics, which almost no one in society today understands, even among top graduates in science.

And therefore, this development of the quality of leadership in the Youth Movement, so it typifies what the new generation, or the new citizen, must become—in music, and in science—by this development process. That's the strength , the source of strength. Anything different will not work. It will fail. It's vulnerable.

You've got a bunch of people who are acting against us now internationally—they're all bastards, I know them very well. We've never been able to find out who their parents were. They were left on the doorstep someplace. Anyway—they're out to kill us. And they'll do everything they can to disrupt us. [audio loss] ... this John Train. This is the same crowd that created fascism. They're operating, they're out to get us. We're going to get them first.

2.2 Eurasia: Russia, India, China, and the SCO

Tennenbaum: The circulation of Lyn's document, the announcement of this event, and some of his recent writings elicited an enormous response, particularly among those nations which are directly involved in the question of the Eurasian cooperation, and others who are very concerned with the world situation, and who agree that we are at a turning point in history.

We received also not simply questions, but also substantive contributions, which for time reasons, we at most can just indicate a couple of main points.

Prof. S.G. Luzyanin, of the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is a specialist on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and also an expert on security in Central Asia.

Just introducing his paper, he says:

"As for Mr. LaRouche's proposals for large-scale infrastructure projects in Eurasia, I believe that his evaluation and analysis of Eurasian matters are extremely important and timely at this time. Essentially LaRouche's concept gives new approaches to the integration of the Eurasian space. The idea of the Eurasian Land-Bridge precisely fits with traditional Russian approaches and is well suited to the current reality in the world: the formation of a new institution for organized cooperation among peoples and states. I believe that Mr. LaRouche, in developing the concept of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, has found the optimal ratios of geopolitical, physical-geographical, and geo-economic methods. The result is a very promising theory of the fusion of various sciences.... I fully support this approach that Mr. LaRouche takes, and his basic conclusions."

Along with this, Professor Luzyanin sent us a paper about the progress of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which had its fifth anniversary summit in Shanghai, July 5-17. This organization, whose importance is growing, has, in effect, institutionalized the famous Russia-India-China "triangle," in a certain way, considering that India is an observer.

Also a brief question comes from Prof. Ma Jiali, one of China's leading experts on India, who is very active in Chinese-Indian relations. He works at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, which is one of the most important official Chinese government think-tanks, which was founded by Zhou Enlai. He will be attending the November sixth round of the forum on triangular relations between Russia, China, and India. And here's the question:

"My question for Mr. LaRouche is, how to evaluate the substantive cooperation in the future among China, Russia, and India. I have ample evidence to believe that the trilateral relationship among these three countries will overcome various difficulties and develop steadily. Will the development of this cooperation play a positive role in preserving regional and global stability?" He would appreciate your comments.

Look for Global Solutions

LaRouche: Yes. Well, you have to often, in solving a problem, go outside the problem as stated and find the solution outside the problem as stated. This is typical scientific method. Always. Because, if you have a problem, and you have people who are recently expert in a certain area, you generally find they've explored a lot of things, and they have a lot of colleagues with whom they've discussed these things, they've gone through it rather thoroughly. And if they don't have a solution to a problem within the area of their expertise, go outside the area of their expertise and find the solution. Because, the problem is, is they haven't gone far enough.

It's like the idea of creation, you see. Man is creative and God is creative, is the idea that the universe is constantly changing, it's expanding. It's expanding by going outside itself.

I'll give you an example of this, because it may come up in other questions. Let's take the case of the Sun. Now, a long, long time ago, by our standards, the Sun was out there. All by itself, in its particular area. All alone. And it was spinning—it was spinning, probably because, you know, it was fidgety and youthful, didn't know what to do with itself, it was just spinning, spinning wildly. So, it began to spin off material, plasma. It would spin off in the form, naturally of a disk—you know this kind of rotation that you see, hmm? A disk. Now, this disk was being hit by radiation from the Sun. And my conjecture was—and the major laboratory that pointed this out to me said I was right—that polarized radiation would produce what we would used call the 92-element Periodic Table in the Solar System. And also, it would distill this product, just like fractional distillation, but not quite.

Then you had this work by Kepler, who went through this (and people didn't really study Kepler enough to understand him), because he had two things: Not only did he discover gravitation, but by the same method, he extended that to the dynamics of the whole system, in his idea of harmonics. So this trick, of course, as Jonathan can explain to you, about how [Gauss] discovered the orbit of Ceres and Pallas, on the basis of Keplerian harmonics, by recognizing that the characteristic of the thing in the Kepler system would have to fit a certain harmonic belt.

But look what happened: The Solar System is out there, the Sun's out there, and you get a Solar System. You get a development from the Sun, in the Sun, which is outside the Sun! Then you start looking at galaxies and so forth, and say, "Hey! This universe is not organized the way these teachers tell us!" The universe is created! It's driven by creative principles of creating higher orders of organization, than it itself represents.

And that's the way man should think about man.

People who are stagnant don't do too well.

Go Outside Existing Assumptions

Now, what do we have to go outside? Go outside the existing assumptions, and go into some things that some people know, and some of our friends in Russia know this very well, scientifically. We're bordering two limits, which I've referred to in a number of things I've written recently on this. Two limits: One, fresh water. We are now relying, largely on this planet, on freshwater supplies, or semi-freshwater supplies, which are actually drawing down fossil water or quasi-fossil water. That is, they're either drawing down water which has been stored in the planet for a million years or 2 million years, which once they use it up, it's gone. It will not be replaced. We have that problem, for example, in Northern Africa. How much of this water is fossil water? If it's fossil water, by drawing it down, you may relieve the problem in the short run, but in long term you're going to have a problem: Where are you going to get a replacement for the water you're using up? And this is worldwide: Probably 20% of the water supplies, freshwater supplies available today, are being consumed at rates faster than they can be replenished by the so-called natural means.

Now, we can, particularly on the level of high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors, we can, actually, efficiently produce water. And if we use it efficiently, we'll use it to grow trees, and other things which will create micro-weather systems so you will build up a natural system of regeneration of supplies with the help of the use of nuclear power. And high-temperature gas-cooled reactors of the thorium type, uranium type and so forth, these will do the job.

Now, next: We've got another problem. The mineral resources on which we rely for human consumption are also limited. Most of the mineral resources we use come from what's called the Biosphere, from billions of years of living processes which have left a deposit, which has been residue of life. Now, we relied upon what we call the richest of these resources, for industrial transformation of these things into finished products of various types. Hmm?

Now, how are we now, with over 6 billion people on this planet, if we begin to try to meet the life requirements of a growing population, now about 6 billion people, we find out that the resources readily accessible which are rich resources in the Biosphere, are not sufficient.

So now, one of the first frontiers of this, is isotopes. Like for example, kalium-40, which is unexplained exactly why it does what it does, but it is selected by biological processes in a certain amount. They seek to have a certain level of kalium-40 in them. So, isotope economies, that is, isotopes of chemical elements, also are a significant factor here. So we are now looking at isotope management, as one of the problems, largely in the health field. Because we're concerned with how living processes react to different isotopes differently, differentially.

So, we are now, if we get to thermonuclear fusion, as a generalized technology, not just a power source, we are now going to be able to start to manage and synthesize some of the things we need, so we can now begin to use things which are considered very low-grade raw materials. They will suddenly become, because of an economic or physical transformation, high grade.

European Machine Tools for Asia

Now, let's look at the problem. The problem is to take Asia. Take India and China as two cases, which are very clear, which help you to make a policy, because they have a similar problem but a different problem. They're the same category of problem, but they have different cultures and they have different characteristics, and different characteristic problems.

Now, India and China have populations which are about 70% extremely poor. It is no good. And the prospect of society is very poor unless we do something about this; and the prospect for them. So therefore, our concern is to accelerate the rate of technological development in India and China, and similar countries of Asia, rapidly , in order to enable India, and China, and similar countries, to be able to upgrade the opportunities for life of their existing population, to raise the standard of living. This means we require a general cooperation, in Eurasia as a whole, to manage this problem, which is a 25- to 50-year problem. That is, the investments we have to make, to solve this problem, means we have to make investments which will have a 25- to 50-year investment life.

We're going to have to change, therefore, we're going to Europe. Now, Europe has a culture which permits us to deal with this problem. But it's pretty much abandoning that culture. Therefore, we're going to have to say, "Cut the crap out, boys! No more yuppie society or hippie society, or whatever. No more! You guys are going back to work! And you're going to do good European work, because that's what the world needs of you. You're going to shut down this, and you're going to shut down that, you're going to get rid of these rock concerts and all this nonsense, and you're going to go back to work. And what you're going to do, is you're all going to be trained to be engineers, you're going to go into doing various kinds of work, because you're going to produce science-driven work .

"You're going to eliminate benchmarking, which is a fraud. You're going to go back into machine-tool design. The European of the future will be, the leading European, the most successful ones will generally be the machine-tool designers , again!"

Anyone in China or India will say, when they get wise to this, they're going to say, "Hey! You're European, huh? If you're not a machine-tool designer, you're no damned good. We don't need you. What good're you to us?"

So therefore, science and machine-tool design as a very large ratio of the characteristic employment of the population will be the major feature. In other words, you want to have even 50% machine-tool designers, among the total population. Because, it's only on that basis, that Europe is useful to the masses of the population of Asia.

Now, what're we going to do? Can Asians buy this stuff that we're going to be producing? Well, not on a cash basis. But European countries can make long-term agreements with countries in Asia: 25- to 50-year agreements. We can package a whole lot of credit into various packets. So, China will have agreements with Germany—that's sort of an easy one; or India. And what you'll have is nation-to-nation agreements. Which you can't do in Germany right now, but that will change. That is, the German government will make package agreements with the Chinese government or with the Indian government. These agreements will be loan agreements, so you agree that Germany and China will exchange credit with each other, over a 25-, 50-year period, and the package will have all this credit.

So now, you issue credit, from Germany, to Germans to produce for China. You will also get credit from China on the reverse. You'll plan this thing out in a way, so that over a period of a 25- or 50-year cycle, you will get a wash.

So, instead of borrowing money from a bank, you have the government that creates credit. We can do this in the United States by an Act of Congress. You can't do it under European systems presently by an act of legislation. But you can make agreements with other countries on long-term treaty agreements on terms deferred, and loans.

Now, you take the thing, something like in Germany the old Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, you take that approach, you supply the credit. Now the people in China, the people in Germany, make agreements. And they go to an official government authorizing agency for credit, like the Kreditanstalt did, something like that on a larger scale, international scale. And now, you find that the credit will be issued for the German to produce, or China to produce, and one to buy from the other.

So what you want to do, is you want to specialize European production to meet the requirements of capital improvement in Asia.

In the meantime, you have a vast area—you can't just go out into Central Asia where there're a lot of resources and throughout Central Asia and Northern Asia; you can't do that, because you have to develop the process. You have to make large investments, you have to build cities, you have to build small cities, you have to build large-scale infrastructure projects; otherwise you can not develop the raw materials which lie under the ground. You just can not go out and get the raw materials: You have to develop the process of production of these raw materials, and the markets.

So therefore, you have these kinds of agreements. Therefore! What you have, is very clearly now, since capital transformation is the basis of the future, for these countries, respectively, your policy has to be long-term policy. Long-term credit policies, state to state. In which the state credit is now used to create a fungible form of lendable credit to state and related agencies. And therefore, you can make as much investment as you want to, as much investment as is reasonable to have.

Then Europe has to change its policy, to qualify itself as a supplier of what Asia wants. And you have to figure out what Europe is going to get back in return for its investment in the development of Asian countries. But you have to change your policy.

So the basic thing, again, is to make a cycle. Instead of letting a cycle happen to you, you build a cycle. It's what any competent investor does, in industry. You make an investment plan: You're going to develop a product, you're going to develop a company. You're thinking ahead one to two generations of what you're going to do. That's the way you do it. Countries can do the same thing. Countries can say, "We're going to promote this development. We're going to provide more credit easily for this, if somebody can do the job; then, we will go for something else." And that's the way you do it.

So the natural specialization of people who need the advantages, of what was a traditional European approach in modern times, in Asia; and Europeans who need a raison d'être for nations that're about to go on the junk pile: Go back to doing what Europeans should do! in terms of the global division division of labor, and it will work out just fine. So you don't need to make some kind of ideological understanding, and ideological framework, or political framework. What you need to do, is simply think: Think about going outside the present arrangements, to build a system which fits the needs of both, with the needs of the other.

Time To Reform the Monetary System

Tennenbaum: Prof. Dai Lunzhang, former chief economist of the Central Bank of China, first vice president of the China International Economic Relations Society, speaks of a widening gap between the rich and the poor, which underscores the increasing imbalance of global development, and therefore incurs two dangers, "as Mr. LaRouche said, 1) the danger of uncontrolled conflicts and wars; 2) the danger of a general breakdown of the world financial and monetary system. These dangers are the biggest threats to human society, so I believe LaRouche's point of view is accurate and significant."

He then speaks of China's, and the Chinese government's policy of trying to secure an international environment and evolutionary process, where world peace is maintained, common development is promoted. In that context, he notes that Palestine and Israel have not reached a peace agreement through four rounds of war. Now is the time to look for a solution with diplomatic meetings.

He says that the globalization, in its present form, has increased the level of economic interdependence, but also aggravated the unevenness of development in the world. And he concludes, "It's time to reform the time-worn international economic systems, and the members of the international society should fully cooperate to correct the unreasonable parts of the current system. As Mr. LaRouche mentioned many times, a new round of the Bretton Woods meeting should be held, and a new international economic system should be established." And he quotes a Chinese saying that says, "Reducing pressure could avoid the crash."

Then he adds a couple of questions. "Is it really possible in the present situation to go to a system with fixed-currency parities?" He notes that the original Bretton Woods conference occurred in a very specific context of a shared experience of the Great Depression, of the concentration of power in the hands of a few states, and a dominant power at that time that was willing to assume a leadership role. Unfortunately, he says, these conditions are not true in today's world. So he asks, on what new political basis could this New Bretton Woods system play? And then he asks, also, what about the United States? Obviously, Eurasian cooperation should not exclude the United States, as it has a critical role to play.

I'll add another question which goes in the same direction, by Prof. Su Jinxiang, who is director of the Center for Globalization Studies at the China Institute for Contemporary International Relations.

And he says: "Hello, Mr. LaRouche. There are some economists in China like me who trust your views on the current world economic situation. We believe you have the best methodology and methods for long-term forecasts. My question is: If a sudden collapse of the dollar, and of the international financial system, is coming, what can China do?"

LaRouche: Well, these questions all converge on the same point. Forget the illusion that money has any intrinsic value. Money has no intrinsic value. Money is simply an agreement. It's a contract, that's all. It's a necessary contract, but it's a contract which has to be managed by governments, and the way the U.S. Constitution and its system is designed, is perfect for this purpose.

Now, let's take the case of, should the crash occur. Now, the question has come up, "Well, let the crash occur. Let's revalue currency. Let's devalue the dollar." Well, if you devalue the dollar, the effect is, you're going to start a chain-reaction which will collapse every economy in Asia, and Europe, at the same time. So, you can't devalue the dollar—because you're in a credit system. You're going to collapse the credit system!

What do you do? Well, you think in long-term terms! Can you resolve this problem in one year? No! Can you resolve it in five years? No! Can you resolve it in ten years? Maybe, a little bit. Can you resolve it in 15 years? Well, that's more a possibly. How about 20 years? Ahh, we can do very well then. Thirty years? Oh, we're fine.

Therefore, you have to think in terms of generations. 25 years is a modern generation. That means that the equivalent, your basic young population, is going into a university level of education in quality. That's what you need. That should be an objective. That should be your standard. So therefore, you're going to think in terms of generations.

How a Fixed-Exchange-Rate System Will Work

Now, how would I deal with it if I were President of the United States? And maybe I should be the acting President of the United States. I don't want the job permanently, but maybe I have to take care of some things, while the other boys don't know what to do.

What we have to do is this: "No, I say the dollar will not be devalued! We're going to defend the dollar at its current parity." Now, how do we do that? We do a number of things. First of all, we find that certain categories of debts—the largest amount of debt in the world system is based on gambling debts. And Chinese, of course, know about gambling debts, it's an old problem there. Gambling debts are not real. You can cancel them. There's no real value there. Cancel them. And that would eliminate some of the pressure.

Now what do you do? You have to convert your debt itself into credit. In other words, if you owe something, and you're going to be able to pay what you owe, then your debt can be fungible on the world market as credit. So therefore, what you do, is you enter into long-term agreements, of 25 to 50 years, and you premise the value on two things: first of all, a system of regulation, of the type we used to have before 1971. Or actually, before the middle of the 1960s, when you still had a system. A system of regulation. You convert unpayable debt into payable, by converting it into long-term obligations which are fungible , and therefore, if a debt can be paid eventually, it has value.

So we agree to take the debt that we have, and we convert it into a fungible asset. We then use that fungible asset, to issue credit with a guarantee of participating governments. We must not have fluctuations, however, in the value of money. So, we set up a fixed-exchange-rate system, and we go through a process of reorganization of the world's debt. We cancel debt that has no worth to it. Just cancel it! Gambling debts. Gambling debts will not be paid— ever ! Finished. I don't care what length or kind. Gone! Nobody can collect on a gambling debt. Finished. Gambling business stops. Now some people in China, or Hongkong, will [audio loss], but they'll do. I think they'll go along with that.

Then, we agree to a fixed-exchange-rate system, over a period of 50 years to come. Thus, we make all the debts which are valuable debts, which have a real basis for them, we make them fungible , as a source of credit. In other words, we take the debt, pledge it against a credit to be issued, the credit system.

Invest in the Future of Humanity

Now what do we do? We take the credit we generate, and what do we loan it for? We loan it, obviously, into long-term investments , not short-term investments. What are long-term investments? Basic economic infrastructure—water management systems; complete communities.

Let's take China, for example. If China's got to deal with a large percentile of poor people, with a large percentile of undeveloped land, the big investment is going to be in new cities, transportation systems, and so forth. To change the territory of China, so more people can live happily in China. This is going to be the basis for their ability to increase their productive powers. So therefore, we make an investment, a long-term capital investment in China, in order to make the Chinese people, who are in large degree not productive, because they're too poor, because they don't have needed conditions of life, we now make them so they will have the conditions of life. So in a 25-year generation, that generation will step up and be mo