From Volume 4, Issue Number 18 of EIR Online, Published May 3, 2005

Latest From LaRouche

LaRouche on the Jack Stockwell Show:


Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Salt Lake City DJ Jack Stockwell on April 22. He was first scheduled for an interview with Stockwell on Sept. 11, 2001—an exchange which became a two-hour, historic analysis of that day's events as they were occurring. Today's interview, originally scheduled for one-hour, consumed the entire final two hours of Stockwell's broadcast.

JACK STOCKWELL: We're still working on getting my surprise guest on the air... Let me see if my guest on here. Lyn, you there?


STOCKWELL: Ah!! All right! We were able to make the hookup.

Ladies and gentlemen, Lyndon LaRouche—live on my radio program this morning. As he has been a number of times in the past, but this is something that Don Phau and I discussed earlier last week. We haven't done this in a long time.

And, especially where we're at a situation now, where this feeding frenzy among the Republicans is beginning to show up. And they're all desperately standing there on the edge of the abyss, wondering which way the wind is blowing, I thought it would be a perfect time to bring you on, especially in the sense of, here we are sitting on the almost daily-anticipated crash of the world economic system. And the feeding frenzy that's starting in the Republican Party.

So, if we could start with that. I got a bunch of things I want to talk to you about. I don't know how much time we have—

LAROUCHE: We'll work it out.

STOCKWELL: All right, we'll work it out.

So, anyway: "Weak sister Republicans," I've never heard a term like that until this week.

LAROUCHE: That's not the problem. You know, what's happened is, is people are trying to win a football game, and they're playing golf! [laughing]

STOCKWELL: All right, that's a good analogy.

LAROUCHE: Because, what's happening, is, we've come to the end of a system. Now, what happens is, of course, at this point, people try to find ways of being clever about working within the name of the game that they think they're playing. But what is happening, is the game is being switched on them! And therefore, what they're doing is not relevant to any future. So, that's the problem.

Now, not all of them are stupid. We have, in the Democratic Party, an unstable situation, but interesting, which has been going on since I intervened in Nov. 9 of last year, where we got some Democrats to start coming up off the floor, and organizing, and they've done a pretty good job, especially since the time of the inauguration of the President, where Barbara Boxer and others did their job.

So, we've got a pretty good show there going. We've got some problems.

On the Republican side, you're finding more and more, with Cheney and Co. under George Shultz, has actually taken over, and is running the White House like a dictatorship, because the Republican Party is not willing to behave, unless they're really seriously beaten by these guys. I mean, where they take them out and beat them, they may agree for a day or two, but then, something happens and the Republicans think about changing it. You know, you've got this thing with Voinovich from Ohio, who walked in, and found out, from the proceedings of the committee that they'd been lying to him, about what they'd said. And he wasn't too happy about that. So, you had this tie jam-up, which is now on the Bolton nomination, which is the center.

Now, you have Cheney is pushing for the option, the "nuclear option," in the Senate—and the Senate, right now, is where the action is; it's the one place where the action is clear. DeLay—the DeLay crisis on the House side is significant, but the primary action—and Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate [Democratic] faction, is doing a fairly good job, an impressive job in my view so far. He's got a firm hand, and firm view of where he's going. And he does manage to move, when some Democrats tend to vacillate.

So, we're in an interesting situation.

Now, what makes the game change, is this General Motors problem: What people have not caught onto yet—some people have in the unions and some parts of the industry, but not the management; and not in the economy generally, not among the parties generally: They have not caught onto the fact that the collapse of General Motors, is not just one more corporation biting the dust, or going into bankruptcy. What's going on with Ford, and General Motors, and others, is, you're having an international collapse of the system, in terms of the industrial section.

What happens is this, and the average guy in the Baby-Boomer generation really doesn't understand that. He's white collar. He comes from the 1960s, '50s; he comes from the time that he was raised as white collar—you know, the Soccer Moms and the SUV Dads. They don't really understand reality. The fact that they bought an SUV shows they didn't understand reality! It was an overpriced vehicle, which they thought was muscular and made them look good, made them look like a rival for a Soccer Mom.

But, this thing is coming down. Now, what happens if it comes down, is the gut of the U.S. economy, that is, the physical gut of the U.S. economy—now that we've virtually shut down our independent farmers—lies in the automobile industry, in a very particular section of it, the driver: which is the machine-tool sector. We have a similar situation in Germany, the machine-tool sector. Without the machine-tool sector functioning, we lose.

If you bankrupt General Motors, the way that the management of General Motors, the way Wall Street is now moving to do that, you'll be shutting down the machine-tool sector. If you shut down the machine-tool sector, which is largely lodged within the automobile industry, you shut down the U.S. economy. And you shoot it in the head: Because, that's where the head is.

As long as we have the machine-tool sector functioning, as long as those people are in place, they can do many things: They can build nuclear power plants, or they're a key part of it; they can build railroad systems, the locomotives, the other parts of the system; they can build the units which go into repairing our water-management system, such as dams and river projects. They can do a lot of things which are long-overdue for repair.

We can put them to work. And when they go to work, other people go to work. The machine-tool sector is a small part of the industrial labor force, but it's the machine-tool sector and its technology, its adaptability, which is key to the employment of the entire industrial labor force. And when these guys go to work, in putting new technologies into the system, and getting people employed again, then you can manage this economy. But, if you shut these guys down, you shut down the whole labor force, effectively, associated with the industry and other industries; you shut down the options for new projects, such as infrastructure projects, to get the economy moving again. And you've just shot the U.S. economy in the head.

STOCKWELL: Okay, we're going to go to a break here, in just a moment. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche, live from back in Leesburg.

Lyn, when you talk about shutting down the machine-tool industry, it almost sounds like there's some kind of intent going on here. And what I want to do when we get back, is: Are we losing our machine-tool die industry, because no one's paying attention to what's—that these things need constant maintenance, just like you were running a piece of machinery? Or, is there some intentional aspect on the part of the administration, to force General Motors into the position that they're into right now? Although a lot of it is their own management. And, the ridiculous answer, that General Motors has, is "Well, we'll just sell more Cadillacs and more Hummers, to get the money to come back in." When I took that, it took me a half-hour to get back off the floor from laughter.

We'll be right back with my guest, live, Lyndon LaRouche. [commercial break]

Lyn, you were talking about, maybe the awful weight of what has been taking place in the auto industry isn't necessarily the end of the feeding chain, that it might actually be coming all the way down to the machine-tool industry. How did this happen? And what does this mean? I know that you said, you could kiss your infrastructure goodbye; you can kiss the American economy goodbye if General Motors goes under. I mean, as goes General Motors, so goes the nation. Is that still true?

LAROUCHE: Well, in a sense it's true. You know, you got two aspects of General Motors. You have a bunch of lunatics, who are the upper executives. They're financial sharks. They don't know anything about industry and the decisions they make are pretty stupid. As a matter of fact, the same tendency I saw in the auto industry back in the '50s, when the auto industry at that time, led—Ford and General Motors, in particular—led in causing the 1957 recession. And they did it, by a credit binge, a credit swindle, actually. And, you had all these cars out there which had a usable life of about 20 to 24 months, and they were out on 36-month credit. And the last note of the 36 notes, was a balloon note, which might have been about one-third of the total value of the piece! And then, you had used cars, sitting in the used-car lots, bearing the discounts which they'd given on the new cars, and put them on a charge on the inventory value of the used cars. So the whole thing collapsed!

Now today, you have in GMAC, with not only automobile sales, but other things they've gone into in real estate, which are rather speculative. And you have a situation there, in the industry—internationally as well as in the United States—where the amount of debt outstanding, relative to the fungible value of assets against the debt, is such that the system is bankrupt.

So, the way this happened was, back in the 1950s, some people began to think in the direction of going into a post-industrial economy. The first sign of that, you may recall, was the tendency toward the "white-collar syndrome," as it was called then, or the bureaucratic "organization man" thing.

So, we raised young people in suburbia where their families were not so poor. and these young fellas went to college in the 1960s. By that time, they had been conditioned to a white-collar syndrome ideology. They no longer believed in blue-collar production, agriculture, industry and infrastructure. They wanted a nice, clean, white-collar job, to get rich, without actually having to do too much work for it! Except competing and cutting each other's throats, in rivalry.

STOCKWELL: So, these guys are sitting around in their frat meetings, back at the Ivy League college, saying, "Listen, we can go out there, and sling cement with the best of them. Or, boys, I've got another idea: Why don't we play with the value of money itself, and we can sit at our desks on Wall Street in New York, or at home up in Kennebunkport, and play games with currency once we unpin it from gold, rather than going out there and actually having to work up a sweat." I mean, was it that simple?

LAROUCHE: Not quite. At the top—it was actually at the top. They were people who, really, they were like the Nazis, or the people behind the Nazis, not the Nazis themselves who were all kinds of things. But,what they did, is, they didn't like the United States. The United States with its great industrial power, was the great threat to the Europe-centered, especially London-centered, financier interests. And we had a pack in this country who had the same mentality.

So, the idea was, they wanted to destroy, in the name of eliminating Franklin Roosevelt and what he represented in terms of the recovery and the power we developed in the war, they wanted to destroy that: In order to have a kind of society, a post-industrial society they liked. It was purely ideological.

It didn't come from just the white-collar crowd. The white-collar people who went into this, who are now running the world, essentially, running the United States—.

STOCKWELL: All right, let's pick it up with that just on the other side of the break, this white-collar crowd. Don't go away. [commercial break]

We're back 30 minutes after the hour of 7 o'clock here in the Inter-Mountain West, on 22nd day of April 2005....

Right now, live from back in Leesburg, Va., Lyndon LaRouche is my guest.

And we were talking about the white-collar crowd. We were talking about this anti-Roosevelt sentiment that was growing in Europe. You ask a lot of people out here in the West about Roosevelt, and they'll shrug back and say, "Oh, Social Security. Social Security." They don't want to talk about how he put America back to work. They don't want to talk about how he saved America from falling into Nazism itself, because of the synarchistic effects that were taking place in this country. They refuse to look at what three administrations of this man did, in order to make us the most productive nation on the face of the planet! They don't ever want to look at that stuff.

But, as you were saying there, Lyn: This became a threat to the financier power that was centered in Europe?

LAROUCHE: Yep. And also, of course, extension in New York.

For example: Take the people who, in the early 1930s, were involved in supporting Hitler. Averell Harriman, who is the patron of the Bush family, got the Bush family into politics. The Morgan crowd, du Pont—these guys were, actually, together with the British monarchy, were in on the "Hitler project." They created it. For example, Harriman funded, organized the funding, actually—with Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the present President of the United States—organized the movement of funds into the Nazi accounts to save the Nazi Party in time to make Hitler a dictator!

So, these guys, at a later point, when Hitler began to move west first, instead of east first, then they got frightened, and they wanted to get rid of Hitler. Not because they were opposed to Nazism as such—as a matter of fact, they helped to create it. They were opposed to the idea of Hitler moving west first. Because what they intended to do, is have him go destroy the Soviet Union first, and then they'd fall on the rear end of the German forces and deal with them then.

So, this is the crowd, an international crowd. And they recognized, while they wanted Roosevelt to defeat Hitler in the second phase—and what Roosevelt did was a miracle in the organization, that we had the ability to fight a two-front war, as typified by what we did in the Pacific at Midway, and also in making the Soviet Union capable of resisting Hitler, and organizing the forces from the west against Hitler. So, we created a two-front war, with our tonnage per capita of logistical capability, which came out of the recovery process that Roosevelt organized.

Now, what these guys did, at the end of the war, they said, "Okay, Hitler's gone. But, we liked Nazism. But we wanted our Nazism, not German Nazism. We don't want Germany running an empire. We backed Roosevelt, because he saved us from Hitler becoming a world emperor. But, once he's dead, we don't want him coming back, or something like him coming back."

STOCKWELL: You mean Roosevelt: Once Roosevelt's dead, we don't want to take a chance of people continuing to think like Roosevelt, of making the U.S. a strong, productive nation.

LAROUCHE: For example, the amendment which outlawed, or attempted to outlaw more than two terms for President. This was part of the process, is to prevent our Presidential system from doing what our Presidential system does very well, from the beginning, once we have the chance to do it, and have the leadership to do it.

So, the point was, is they wanted to create a one-world system, without real nation-states. There was a longer-term objective. It was not, "We're going to do it today." It's a longer-term objective. The first thing was to have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Well, that thing blew up when the Soviets developed the first thermonuclear weapon. And so, they went to a thing called "Mutual and Assured Destruction"—MAD. But, it was the idea. When the Soviet system collapsed, they said, "Ah! Now we can set up a one-world system, a globalized system, eliminate the nation-state; no more danger that the United States or some other country will reestablish the authority of national patriotic power."

So, what they did, is, they conditioned the people, my generation, who had returned from the war—a lot of them—and especially those that went into suburbia, to take the nice white-collar jobs, the engineering jobs, and so forth; to train their children, who were born in the post-war period and so forth, went to schools in the 1950s, went into secondary and higher education in the 1960s. So, then we had the 1964-68 generation, the so-called "68er generation," typified by the rock-drug-sex counterculture.

This group which began to reshape the cultural policy of the United States, away from agriculture, industry, and infrastructure, into post-industrial ideologies, this group took over. They took over the Democratic Party. They took over, to a large degree, the Republican Party, during the 1970s and 1980s. They consolidated during the process of the 1990s. And this process sort of ended, when the IT revolution collapsed in 1999-2000.

So, what you have, is you have, on the lower level, you have the dummies—the dummies are the white-collar ideologues, who believe in a post-industrial society, believe in globalization, believe in being a "Soccer Mom," believe in being a "SUV Dad," whose SUV is now sitting on the lot trying to be sold because it uses too much gas. But, at the top, the people who really want this, the real ideologues, who are merely reflected by the neo-cons—the neo-cons are not the boss—but people like George Pratt Shultz, for example, who created the Bush Administration, from the top; George Pratt Shultz, who was used to sink the international monetary system, the fixed-exchange-rate system, the Bretton Woods system; George Pratt Shultz and his crowd, who wrecked our agriculture, who wrecked our industry; who are out there with a bunch of thieves stealing everything that's in sight, now trying to speculate and take over the world's raw materials: That crowd. So, these are the guys who are the problem.

Now, what happens is: These guys are stupid—they're clever, but stupid. That is, the long-term prospect, there's no prospect that these guys will ever set up their empire.

STOCKWELL: Yeah, for the simple reason that it can not sustain itself, without production from the inside out.

LAROUCHE: Exactly.

STOCKWELL: But, we'll talk more about that. We're going to go to another break here, in a moment. You can get, for free, the latest edition of what Lyn LaRouche is talking about, 1-888-347-3258. Just tell 'em, you heard it on this show. You want greater clarification of what Lyn's talking about. We'll be right back after the break. [commercial]

Twenty minutes to the top of the hour: Happy Earth Day to all of you; Happy Lenin's Birthday to all of you [LaRouche chuckling in the background]. Well, there are those—here in America, we call it Earth Day; everywhere else, I think it's Lenin's birthday. I just had to mention that—there were some off-air calls that wanted your opinion on Earth Day. Maybe we can get around to that in a bit.

But one of the things that I really wanted to develop here, is this—because, you know, they'll say, "the Federal Reserve," and how "the Federal Reserve is our problem," or they're going to say, Bill Clinton's dallying in the Oval Office is our problem, or what he did before—in my opinion, missing a much greater problem. The greater problem is this, before any day, we're not even going to be able to make a hammer inside this country, let alone an SUV.

And to me, this is like—you see, I'm a clinician. As a doctor, with my patients in my clinic, I spend an awful lot of my time trying to help them to understand the proper role of nutrition because the metabolic processes inside your body are not going to develop and produce the energy you want, unless you give it the raw materials. And you can draw an analogy from that to what we're doing inside this country, is that we have been "fed" processed food, to the point where we're hooked on what China produces, what the Philippines produce, what Taiwan produces, what Mexico produces—that our bodies are no longer able to assimilate proper nutrition in the sense of a whole national economy. That we've been spoon-fed the concepts of Alan Greenspan that we shouldn't fall back to the "nostalgic days" when we could actually produce something, but live off the benefits of being a consumer society and just sit there on the edge of your pool, sipping your mint julep and your banana daiquiris, while we enjoy the benefits of worldwide slave labor.

This is, to me, this is where it's really the greatest manifestation as to how sick the body is. Now, hold in just a second, I think this should be traffic. - [break] -

So, back to my analogy there for just a moment: When the body can no longer produce the enzymes that are necessary for basic metabolism to take place, when a nation can no longer produce what's necessary just to maintain its own infrastructure (if nothing else), what you have, is a—I don't know what else to call it, but a pre-corpse! It's about to be declared dead on arrival!

Your comments?

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, that's one of the effects.

STOCKWELL: Yeah, that's the effect of this thinking that we shouldn't be producers.

LAROUCHE: Well, here's the point: Is, people think about, as individuals, can you think of practical solutions and so forth? But most people in society, so far, live in what I call "fishbowl ideologies." They run around on the basis of a set of assumptions, which they treat like the axioms, postulates and so forth of an a priori geometry; and they behave on the basis of those assumptions—"what I believe; what I feel"—this sort of thing.

Now, what's happened is, we used to be an agro-industrial nation, of a certain quality. We actually, despite all our shortcomings, we had superior quality to most other nations on this planet, which is part of the legacy of the way we developed. So, somebody develops ideologies which go contrary to that. Now, we begin to behave on the basis of our ideology, not on the basis of physical reality, of cause and effect.

So, now, we begin to destroy ourselves.

People then think that maintaining their way of life, their way of thinking, is what's important. They reinforce that, neighbor to neighbor, and family to family. And they destroy the economy, as we have been destroying the U.S. economy, since the middle of the 1960s. We actually had, despite all the mistakes we made, we had a net growth of some significance into the middle of the 1960s.

It was with Nixon, we really began to go down. It was over the course of the 1970s, that we destroyed the basic structure of the way we think, and therefore the way we behave. And since the beginning of the 1980s, we spent most of the time, nearly a quarter-century, destroying ourselves after having decided to do so!

Now, we come to the point that people are looking for a solution, to the problem we have created, without changing the way they think. That's the problem.

What you have, then, you have the lower 80% of the family-income brackets of the United States, they've been cast outside reality. They're out there begging for favors, negotiating for favors. The upper 20% is becoming weaker and weaker. It's collapsing internally. The poorer layers of the upper 20% are now in real trouble. Credit—we don't save money any more. We're not a saving society, we now spend what we don't have to spend. We call it "debt"—we say, "Well, that's fine. We'll get by, that's our system." It won't work.

So, now, you get to the point that the system is collapsing: the physical system is collapsing, agriculture, industry, infrastructure, collapsing. The financial system is about to go pop. At this point, people are trying to find a "isn't there a way we can make this work?" But the ways they come up with, are always in terms of the ideology by which we have been destroying ourselves for about 35 years.

STOCKWELL: Yeah, "We'll just sell 'em Cadillacs and SUVs."

LAROUCHE: Well, that's insanity.


LAROUCHE: But, the point is—look, our energy systems, for example, so-called energy systems, power systems, have a physical life of about 30 years. That is, from the time you build the thing, 30 years later, this thing's going to have to be replaced or refurbished in a major capital way. We have now, in our water systems, our power systems, our railway systems—which are almost dead—and other essential infrastructure; I mean, "no child left behind," that means, you should kick the President in his left behind, because that's going to destroy the ability of our young people to think! Through this kind of program.

So, we're destroying all the essential infrastructure which we used to have, which made us powerful.

So, we've come to the point, that people are saying, "We've got to find a way, our way, our way of thinking, our habits of behavior—there has to be a way where we can continue to do what we're doing." When actually, they ran out of that over the past 35 years. And we're now at a point, where we have to repair our water systems—you know, most parts of the country do not have available, safe drinking water, and that's going to become big, very soon. We're now buying bottled water, in areas where we used to be able to turn on the tap, and get potable, safe water. Can't do it any more.

Mass transportation: We're crazy. We're not creating mass transportation, we're creating mass traffic jams. Because we have destroyed the structure of the economy, which enabled us to move around within an economy for most of our functions, in fairly short distance and short period of time. We can't do that any more.

STOCKWELL: And this isn't just limited to us. Europe is experiencing the same thing, right now.

LAROUCHE: That's right. So therefore, the question is, how do we get out of this? I know how to get out of it. There are some other people in the world, who have some ideas on how to get out of it: Which means, essentially, go back to the way we used to think, in the early 1940s, and 1940s, and even in the 1950s and 1960s. Go back to that way of thinking. For example: There's going to be a big push for restoring nuclear plants. Nuclear power is essential. It's essential to the future of this nation. We had a program against this, from the beginning of the 1970s, called "Earth Day," a horrible day.

STOCKWELL: Well, Happy Earth Day, to you, Lyn.

LAROUCHE: Earth Day is the day you plan to get buried!

STOCKWELL: Yeah, well, that's kind of what's going on. Listen, we've got to go to another break here in a moment. Soon as we're back from that, I would like, as I'm sure many of my listeners, some answers to all of this. But, I wanted your opinion on Earth Day. You just said it was a terrible day, I agree with you. There's Earth Day celebrations all over the place today. They're anti-nuclear and anti-production. Let's go back to the dirt.

LAROUCHE: They call it Earth Day, because they've got dirty minds. [commercial break]

STOCKWELL: About eight minutes before the top of the hour. Lyn are you going to be able to stay over the hour?


STOCKWELL: Ah, excellent! Listen, I want to talk more about what you've been discussing, but I finally found somebody out there who's actually older than you are!

LAROUCHE: Really?!

STOCKWELL: Yeah, well, we're going to get her, we're going to get Helen on here with you, in just a moment, right after the traffic.... Lyn, while we're developing these ideas, I just wanted to bring Helen on here for a moment.

CALLER: Mr. LaRouche, I've a lot of respect for you. But I want to say, that you—to me, you are making this group of people leading our society sound like well-intentioned, honest people, with a mistaken or an impractical ideology. Actually, they're nothing but a group of gangsters, who hijacked this society. They sentenced Martha Stewart to jail in place of Dick Cheney! If you look through the whole economic system, it's nothing but a pack of gangsters, stealing this country and leaving nothing but the bones.

STOCKWELL: Ah, it's beautiful, Helen. Did you hear that, Lyn?

LAROUCHE: Yes, I think she's right. That's what's happened.

CALLER: Well, you're supposed to know it, and find out how to get rid of them. That's what our problem is.

LAROUCHE: Well, maybe we can replace them, without having to get rid of them.

STOCKWELL: Yeah, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. We need to preserve the Presidential system—we just need a President.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, we also need a zoo to put these guys in.

CALLER: —in an election, throw out all the incumbents, and give them a shock treatment. That would be a legitimate revolution.

STOCKWELL: Wouldn't that be something, if you threw out all the incumbents, and then, by the time of the 2008 election rolled around, with the 2006 people and the 2008 people, sitting there looking at each other in the houses of Congress, saying, "Well, what do we do now?"

CALLER: Well, I'm sorry. They have to know the people who are still in charge.

STOCKWELL: Helen, thanks for your call, dear.

She seemed to think you were being a little easy on the current administration and saying that there was something much worse to these people than just a bent ideology.

LAROUCHE: Well, that's probably true, but my job is to get the job done, make the changes that have to be made. I'm not out for revenge or anything of that sort. I'm too old for that kind of nonsense. I'm not—

STOCKWELL: Well, between the two of you, we just about go back to the signing of the Constitution, you know.

LAROUCHE: [laughing] I think so!

STOCKWELL: I guess you get to a point, like you said, the revenge and the punishment, let's just get the people in there, who understand what the job is that needs to be done, and let's get it done.

There was an off-air call there during the break, that was really upset about the promotion of nuclear power as an answer to part of our problems, because they buy into this Earth Day nonsense: But, without super-cheap electrical power, that is extremely safe and does not hurt the environment, like coal-burning, sulfur-content coal-burning plants do, I don't know how we're going to ever be able to turn things around. We need a massive—and you've called for this in the past—a massive TVA project coast to coast!

LAROUCHE: Yeah. We do.

There's no alternative. I mean, people just don't understand what an economy is, when they make these—

STOCKWELL: Well, they always fall into the trap, of trying to equate economy, a good economy, with cash in their pocket.

LAROUCHE: Well, that's all—they can get the cash in their pocket, but what can they buy with it? I mean, you have people running around, they've got wonderful, glorious debts, and they're spending their debts, not their income. And with this new bill on bankruptcy coming in—which is going to be very cruel toward senior citizens, this kind of legislation coming in, these guys are going to eat people! Because there's a big debt crisis coming down. For example, take real estate: Around Washington, you've got shacks that are not made with nails, they're made with staples, and they're not always put in right; and the materials are not right; and these things are going for $600,000 to a million dollars. And what's going to happen, with this congestion here, without infrastructure, jobs are going to be lost—

STOCKWELL: All right, hey—we're coming up to the news. We'll be right back with my guest, Lyndon LaRouche. Don't go away.

[off-air] Lyn? It is two minutes before the hour, on my atomic clock here [LaRouche laughs]. Then we're going to have two minutes of commercials; we have five minutes of national news and then another minute of commercials. So we have eight minutes before you're back on the air, if you need a break.

But, what I'd like to do during the next hour, is solutions. Because, people are calling in and saying, "Well, why doesn't he say something about the Federal Reserve? Why doesn't he say something about the IRS? Why doesn't he say something about this awful Earth Day that's—." And I'm saying, "Listen, these are populist concepts that are all just symptoms of the same underlying disease." And I said, "During the next hour, I'll get him to talk about the cure for all of this." So, that's the direction we need to head.

LAROUCHE: Okay. All right.

STOCKWELL: So, you about six-seven minute break—but be ready six minutes after the hour.

LAROUCHE: I shall be ready! [laughs] Okay, thank you. - [break] -

STOCKWELL: My guest is Lyndon LaRouche; been here live the last hour, live the next hour. To finish out this week's program. We've been talking about a whole host of things, not the least of which is that we're finishing off there with the need for nuclear power: Nuclear power, of course, gives you electricity, a kilowatt of electricity for about 2 cents. And we'll get into more of that in a moment....

Okay, let's go back here to my guest. Those of you calling in, hold on, and we'll get you on here with Mr. LaRouche before too long: Lyn, one of the questions I was given, off-air during the break, was from a regular listener of the program, who said he agreed with what I had to say, what I've been saying about nuclear power for a long time; what you had to say. He just had one question: How do we deal safely with the removal of the deposit, the storage of nuclear waste if we're going to move in that direction?

LAROUCHE: We already have developed the technologies needed for dealing with that quite adequately. The general answer is, reprocessing. What we were developing, before the events of Three Mile Island, we were developing systems—we had on the way, probably not fast enough, but we had on the way the capabilities of dealing with this.

Now, the current generations of nuclear power plants, generally run in the direction of what is, these pebble-bed reactors, that is, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. The best ones, for many purposes, are in the 120-200 megawatt range. At that level, they are self-regulating: that is, when the temperature rises inside the reactor, from reaction, it slows down the rate of reaction, so they're self-regulating.

Now, what we need is a completely integrated approach to a power system, which is largely based globally on nuclear power. We have various kinds of systems, which do not produce weapons-grade byproduct. For example, you have a thorium cycle, which is a thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor; you have uranium reactors of a special type which are also safe. We have the technologies. We have, in a sense, warehoused a good deal of it, but we have it.

Now, the problem is going to be, to do it fast: Not that we have an absolute shortage of petroleum, but petroleum is not a very efficient fuel. You're carrying a very low-value product around the world, at great expense, relative to the cost of extracting the stuff, and it really is not a very good idea; and the price goes up.

What we need is, hydrogen-based fuels, which will have to be made, as fuels, in local areas. For example: if you have a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor complex, which you use largely for generating power, and for industrial heat and things like that. Now, in that area, that capability can do things like desalination of water, processing of water in various ways, and it can also produce hydrogen-based fuels. So that, instead of hauling petroleum from all over the world into the United States, and drilling it all over the place and making a mess of the landscape—as we used to do, and still do—you now can produce a fuel, whose waste product is water, which is not considered generally a pollutant (except by people who like to have dirty necks).

So, in that case, we can do that, and that's what we have to do. We have to create, now—we have a breakdown of the so-called power system of the United States. We have a water crisis. We have a lot of needs for power. We have to proceed rapidly with a large-scale project, and actually the automobile industry's tool-makers can make these kinds of things that go into producing these plants on a modular basis; build up a system, and orient, you can convert very quickly to hydrogen-based fuels from gasoline and so forth today. Go ahead and do it! This means, a better economy, a cheaper economy, a safer economy.

It also means a lot of jobs. It means generating more high technology, by employing people in high technology, which means that you're upgrading the productive powers of labor. And one of our big problems in the country now, is, we have lost skilled labor. We have to upgrade a population, which is largely, essentially, unskilled, or even less than unskilled, and put them back to work in ways in which they're producing valuable product. And this kind of program, of refurbished nuclear power, on a crash program basis, with only the technology we already have. This will do it. This will start the process.

We have other things—we've got to build water systems, all these other things which we need right now, we can get above breakeven in the operation of our economy on an annual basis, very quickly.

STOCKWELL: And with the development, then, of this nuclear power, that just might spin off some other side benefits, like returning the educational processes of our youth, back to a Classical form of education, where they actually are inspired to get into science, get into engineering, get into research and development; rather than spending most of their time learning how to download pirated music and movies off of the internet.

LAROUCHE: Well, with the Youth Movement, particularly the West Coast section of it, we have demonstrated that people of the university-eligible age-group have, in the recent years, shown their ability to master branches of science which are not mastered at the same level of knowledge, of most people with advanced degrees from universities. Now, this can be done. But we have to junk all this "left behind" nonsense, and go into a Classical education mode.

We have, actually, a terrible shortage, of people at the university level and so forth, who are capable of teaching Classics! Whether in science or anything else! We're running a Wal-Mart approach to education, as opposed to the kind of education we used to think was valuable. There are a few places that are trying to do that, but if you look at the census of educational capabilities in this country: Class size is too large. Class size should not exceed 15-25 students. Teachers should not be worked to death, they should have preparation hours. They should have also sabbaticals to improve their knowledge and skill.

You have to have a different kind of educational approach: Go back to the best of what we used to have, as a standard. It's going to cost some money, but the payoff is tremendous. If you go to higher levels of education and the right kind of employment, you have higher levels of productivity. And that's the way to work our way out of the mess we've created.

STOCKWELL: In talking about working our way out of this mess that we've created, we're sitting on the abyss of abysses as far as the financial system is concerned. There were a couple of off-air questions wanting you to address the Federal Reserve. Some of Greenspan's comments, later, that we're worrying over nothing; we just need to get down and get the job done (whatever that means).

Perhaps we can turn this discussion in a direction, now: How do we do this, and not absolutely go totally back to the 14th Century?

LAROUCHE: All right. We're looking at a debt structure in the world, which is running into hundreds of quadrillions of dollars, potentially. It's in that area, because we don't know how big it is. Credit derivatives, financial derivatives, hedge funds and so forth, especially the ones that are off the balance-sheets, these things are enormous: We can never pay the debt that the world has today—never.

You have a world which is running on about a $50 trillion range of actual product, and our debts are way beyond that: We're going to have to put the world through bankruptcy reorganization. Now, what that means is this: We're going to have to go to the American tradition of national banking. Sometimes in our history, that has meant a National Bank, as under Alexander Hamilton, or in the Second National Bank. In other cases, the Federal government has worked with groups of banks, to create, in effect, a national banking system. In other words, instead of having the country owned by bankers, private bankers—including international bankers—we own our own country. We have private interests and others who work with that, but we control our own country. We create credit. We manage the credit so it's fungible, that is, so that we're not just spending credit with no ability to pay in the future.

That's the way we have to go. We're going to have to put the thing through bankruptcy.

Now, our Constitution is particularly well-adapted to this, particularly the Preamble. The Preamble of the Constitution which is based on the three principles of modern society, and there's no other nation in the world, which has a Constitution which is as efficient as ours for providing a great economy!

So, what we do, is we put the thing into bankruptcy, we take the thing into receivership. Now, the first thing, is to balance putting a bankrupt financial system into receivership—that means all our leading banks are bankrupt. We're not going to shut their doors down. We going to put them through reorganization.

Now, we have to then manage credit, such that we keep the level of employment, especially essential categories of employment, at present levels. And then raise the level of actual productive employment. Work our way out of the mess. That's the basic approach. To do that, we have to realize that you don't find "ingenious" ways of making money. What you do, is you find ways of increasing the productive powers of labor, the physical productive powers of labor: greater skills, new technologies, reliance on infrastructure. Infrastructure may not produce a product in the area, but it enables everybody who's producing, to produce more effectively.

So, these kinds of things, that we know from the past and we know from the present, we're going to do it. It's going to have to be a reconstruction/reorganization policy. It means going back to the Bretton Woods system, that is, a fixed-exchange-rate system by agreement among governments—and I think I'm in a position now, where we're talking with a lot of different people in government, we could pull it off.

Under Bush, we have to put Bush under control. But otherwise, around the world, we have people who are moving in the direction, who recognize we need a new, international financial architecture, like the original Bretton Woods system. We're going to have to create it fast. We're going to have to have programs among nations, which get production going. We can actually work our way out of this mess, without really losing a step. But the question is: Are we prepared to make the decisions which that requires?

STOCKWELL: All right, we've got to go to another break here in just a moment. When we get back, I'd like to develop this idea a little bit more, and maybe talk about what stands in the way of a New Bretton Woods kind of relationship? Just how powerful is the Fed, right now, to stand against this? And what is there about the Constitution, especially in the Executive branch, that could make such a move possible, were the President to come to his senses long enough to do it?

We'll be right back, with my guest, Lyndon LaRouche, live from Leesburg.... [commercial]

One of the answers that you might look for, ladies and gentlemen, is in his latest book Earth's Next Fifty Years. You can get a copy of that by calling 888-347-3258. That is a toll free number.... Tell 'em you heard him on my show this morning, you're interested in Earth's Next Fifty Years.... [traffic break]

Okay, my guest Lyndon LaRouche live this morning.... So, Lyn, back to this concept of how we're working our way out of this. You talk about putting the entire banking system into bankruptcy—some people hear that, run in the other direction—"He wants to close the banks! He wants to close the banks!"—but that's not what you're talking about?

LAROUCHE: No, you have to put them through bankruptcy to save them; that's what bankruptcy's supposed to do.

When you've got something that's going to collapse, and you decide that that thing is viable or can be made viable, and you need to keep it—for example, take local banks. Most people know about local banks. They depend upon them. Businessmen depend upon them. All kinds of things depend upon them, otherwise it shuts down. So, you need a facility, which is the bank, which knows the community, is part of the community, and you want to keep that thing functioning, if it's at all viable, if it can be saved at all. And you'll do that. You'll do what's necessary.

Well, the only agency of last resort that can do that, for a national system, when the whole system is going bankrupt, is, in our country, the Federal government. So, the Federal government has to use the Constitution—its authority, which is a national banking authority—to create, in effect, a national banking system by putting the major banks and others into bankruptcy reorganization. Which means a way of keeping them open, under management, but limiting them, but keeping them open.

And then, using the same banking system, by creating new credit, on long term, to get things going which will expand the economy, with the idea of working our way out of the mess. The same thing you do—I mean, a family goes bankrupt, what're you going to do with the family? You going to shoot them?

STOCKWELL: How do you propose to protect that credit?

LAROUCHE: By having some decent judgment as to what you invest in. For example: If I'm putting up, investing in what we'll have to invest in, things that are going to involve 25- to 30-year or longer-term credit. For example: A power station is essentially a 30-year physical cycle. So, now you're going to pay out the capital costs of that power station in less than 30 years, because you give yourself a margin. Therefore, you now are putting people to work on the basis of a 30-year investment, building it, which means that you're creating more work, than you're essentially consuming.

STOCKWELL: As opposed to the latest contract, that you're out there in line with 50 other people, trying to compete with, with some RDA government-appropriated money to build a new Wal-Mart, and that job's going to be over with in six months.

LAROUCHE: Exactly. See, for example, we need a national railway system. We need it, not because we need to have this "thing," like a Christmas toy under the tree. We need it, because it makes life more efficient.

STOCKWELL: Well, it's a cheap way to move produce.

LAROUCHE: And people.

STOCKWELL: Well, of course, people.

LAROUCHE: For example, we have now the developed capability of magnetic levitation suspension. We can move people, safely and at high speeds, and at much more economy. For example, a magnetic levitation system is much more efficient, or can be much more efficient for freight, than a friction rail system. Because, you can, in the process of moving the freight, you can actually do the classification process. Therefore, you can speed up the efficiency and delivery of freight around the country.

You can, also, stop the traffic jams! Do you know how much we lose every day, every week, in terms of the cost of traffic jams caused by traffic congestion? Where people are having to travel distances they shouldn't have to travel?

STOCKWELL: Yeah, an hour to get to work, an hour to go home at night, what kind of productivity time is that? We'll be right back.... [commercial]

We have a few minutes left with my guest, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. So, anyway, we were talking about how we're going to get ourselves out of this mess. The question I wanted to know, is, what continues to stand in the way of coming to, not just the realization on the part of Congressional leaders, as to what needs to be done? But what stands in the way of actually allowing it to happen?

LAROUCHE: The major problem, as I indicated earlier, is ideology: That people have beliefs, which they have accumulated over the experience, and education, and propaganda, of the last 45 years or longer. And these beliefs are the ones that cause us, as a nation, to behave in a way in which we're destroying ourselves.

Now, we're not really rational: What you need is a sense of crisis. We got people to accept the fact there is a crisis, and accept something else: Accept the fact that perhaps they made the mistake, or they contributed to making the mistake. And perhaps we can do just fine. Because human beings in general are capable of doing things that can solve problems. We're a remarkable species. No other species can do that.

We just have to be rational with one another. So, what we have to do, is, essentially, use the fact of the crisis to try to get people to think. I find, right now, internationally, I find more people becoming rational, on this problem, than I've seen in decades.

STOCKWELL: For example—

LAROUCHE: For example, trade unionists. When I go to a, say, trade unionist, and I talk to the, say, the auto industry, I'm particularly interest in those who are—. Some of these guys are really top, you know, technicians, particularly in the machine-tool sector. They can, in six months or a year, they can create an entirely new product, tool the whole thing, design the tool system, get the product under production.

STOCKWELL: They just need to be told from management they can do it—

LAROUCHE: Exactly.

STOCKWELL: Or at least have management stop suppressing it.

LAROUCHE: No, actually, these guys can do better than that. See, the tool-makers, people who are in the tool-making business, who make the machines that make the machines that make machines, these guys come up with designs. They're half-scientists and they work closely with scientists. We can do things quickly—within a matter of weeks, we can start to do it—which nobody ever dreamed of before. These are the guys, in this part of industry, who are the key to doing that.

Now, these guys may represent 5% or 10% of a labor force, in say an auto industry, the people involved in this kind of thing. But, they make possible, the employment and the productive efficiency of the whole 90-95% rest. So therefore, if you are injecting high technology of this type, into things that are needed, you are going to put people to work, who otherwise would not have a chance of working useful work.

You can take this country, which is now a country of waste—we are a nation of white-collar and made-jobs waste; people are not producing. We have to shift population from non-production, wasteful, ideological fluff, into real jobs. We have to put them to work—for example: Take the case of Utah. Look at the states around there. If you look over the recent years, you will see that the United States has been moving its population out of the great northwest and northern parts of the country, into concentration—over-concentration—around useless kinds of employment around major centers, just as around Washington, D.C. for example.

So, therefore, we have destroyed the ability to produce physically, in agriculture, industry, and infrastructure, per capita and per square kilometer of the country. So we have to change that. We have to go back to being a productive country. We have to utilize land area which we've let to go fallow, for various things, like industries. We have to set up more production; decentralized production, to get more of the country involved in this; we have to develop the machine-tool capabilities—get these out there, moving out there, into these areas. And we'll do fine.

STOCKWELL: How would we—if we were to do that, go back to a system of national credit, national banking to finance this? How would we protect American labor?

LAROUCHE: Simply. I can get—I could do it personally, actually, if I have the authority to do so; I could negotiate contracts with Europe, with parts of Asia, the United States, the Americas and so forth. I could negotiate agreements which would be 30- to 50-year agreements, long-term trade agreements, based on a division of labor. So, instead of trying to cut each other's throat by undercutting each other on price, what we're doing, then is specializing, and we're cooperating. We're shifting from end-product production as the national goal, to intermediate production: That is, if one guy produces something in a certain of the world, it's good, we use that. Something else. We put these things together to get the final products we need.

For example, we have a global raw-materials management problem. We're at the end of the possibility of simply raping the land to get raw materials. We now have to reprocess, and process raw materials, in a way which ensures that the whole planet has the raw materials it needs, within a technologically progressive economy into the future.

This requires international cooperation: People know we need that. So therefore, it's not difficult to negotiate with China, with India, with Southeast Asia, with Russia, with Western Europe, with countries of South America. For example, you have the agreement—an unusual agreement—which was stimulated by the present Prime Minister of Spain, among the President of Colombia, Chávez of Venezuela, Lula of Brazil. Other countries of South and Central America would come in to such an agreement. This would mean a revival of production and trade, within the Americas themselves, which would be largely based on infrastructure investment, is what these guys have agreed to, in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and so forth. Which means, that we create a boom condition, in terms of investment and employment in these areas.

And every part of the world knows we need that. All these countries know we need that. There's no reason we can't do it, because human beings can do it! We simply have to come to that kind of agreement.

We, in the United States, if we look into our soul, will find in ourselves, in our history, a capability for organizing this kind of cooperation which does not exist in the same degree in any part of the planet. My view, is to get the United States to do that again.

STOCKWELL: Okay. We're going to go to a break. And then we'll come back with the last few minutes with our guest. Don't go away.... [commercial] My guest, Lyndon LaRouche, live from back in Virginia.

Lyn, let me ask you this: How many politically or economically influential people in America understand what you're talking about?

LAROUCHE: I think you've got a few thousand who really understand it. And we find, in outreach, when we get into—as I mentioned, for example, say these UAW guys, who are sometimes presidents of local unions, but who are also involved in the machine-tool sector. So, when you talk to them, you're not just talking about what people think trade unionists talk about; you're talking about how to run an industry.

If I were going to reorganize General Motors, I would clean out the entire management, top management, because they don't know anything about production. They only knowing about playing financial games, head-games. Where these guys, and other people like them, are the people who can actually make product. They know everything about making product. The management doesn't know anything about product, and they usually make a mess of it, the present management.

So, there are people out there, if you touch them, who have a piece of the action—that is, they have a piece of the skill needed to make a national economy work. And I find that when you take that approach, there are a limited number of people who can see the overall picture; but there are many people out there—a small percentage, perhaps, of the total population, but they're the natural leaders of the process—there're people out there, who can take a piece of the action, innovate, and make the suggestion and make the proposal which makes the whole thing work.

So, there are a lot of people of that type. There are leaders, intellectual leaders, at all levels of society—

STOCKWELL: Okay, now, you contradistinguish between the management, who just wants the money in GM to come in, so they can go invest in hedge funds or whatever else, rather than improving production or new kinds of technological development, as opposed from the workers who actually know how to put a car together. Now, let's take that same description there, and go to Congress: How many people in Congress, both the Senate and the House, how many of them understand that there's a serious ideological problem here; that there are some intellects inside of Congress today, who could actually move forward and pass legislation that would sustain what you're talking about? As opposed to those who are just waiting for the next opportunity to smart-bomb a new country?

LAROUCHE: Well, one of the ways to get that, for people themselves to get it, if they have a chance just to watch C-SPAN: There are certain things, events in Congress which will bore the devil out of you. But there are also committee meetings, or things like that, hearings. Some of them are boring. But, you get a sense of what the skill level is.

Now, obviously, you have a higher skill level in the Senate, than you do in the House, for obvious reasons. Because the House is sort of the junior part of the Congress. But, you also have in the Congress, in the House, you have standing committees; these standing committees have professionals in there, who have been in there longer than the Congressmen, in many cases. These people are experts. You have those kinds of people are there. You have a very large reservoir of people, who know how to make things work. You have also the fluff, a lot of it.

But there is a core, in our system of government, in the standing committees of the Congress, in certain of the bureaucratic divisions of the government, among the ranks of Senators, in particular: They know things. They know important things. They can make things happen. I had a lot of criticism of them—but I know that they are the kind of people, you know, like the employer hiring anybody off the street: You hire people not because they agree with you, or because you think they're perfect, but because you think they have the skill to do the job, if you can build the team which includes them.

And that's my view of our government. We do have enough people—for example, if I were President, if I had been elected President, I would have pulled in about 1500 people, whom I know directly or indirectly, who are professionals of this type. And they would be the real core of my government. Because, without such a group of people, a President of the United States is just a babbler. He can give orders, he can say things, he can have opinions, but nothing is going to happen. If you get 1500 people like this, working for me as President, as an example, you have a government that can do, and will do—and that's what we need.

STOCKWELL: In looking at the Bush Administration, in the light of what you just said, I see great weaknesses; I see imminent collapse. I don't see the ability to get anything done any more.

LAROUCHE: No, you don't. That's what you're seeing. You're seeing the fact that you have a worse than incompetent President, a virtual sociopath as the Vice President—a bully, not very intelligent, really, in the true sense of intelligence; you see his whole crowd is run, in the large degree, as a team created by George Pratt Shultz! The guy who sank the Bretton Woods system, under Nixon, and who's done a lot of other dirty things in the meantime.

So, you have a machine there, which is controlling the position of the Presidency. Which is intimidating the Congress—I mean, what they did to Bill Frist—you can see what they did to some of these key Congressmen, Republicans and others! They get them crawling around the floor, you know, beaten—maybe Condoleezza with whips, beating on them in some kind of sado-masochistic ritual.

So, you have a government, which is intrinsically incompetent. But: We've come to the point that this is perceived. It's perceived clearly in the Congress, in the Senate. It's perceived elsewhere, in the institutions. We know, we have to put this bunch of lunatics under control.

We see that there's nothing the President can do, that's right. He's not in the real world. What he says is not real. He doesn't know what the real world looks like. He's disintegrating before our eyes. You have Cheney in there, with his whips, trying to beat people into submission on this thing.

So, you have a government that doesn't work. But, we have a system! We have a Constitutional system. And the Constitutional system does not consist merely of the President; or the President of Vice, Cheney. There are other institutions, particularly in the Senate. And if the Senate decides, with the support of institutions, that this mess is going to be put in order, it can be put in order: And it might go into order about the time the Senate comes back into session, a couple of weeks from now.

STOCKWELL: Go into order, about the time, when?

LAROUCHE: The Senate goes back into session.


LAROUCHE: They're going to have to make a decision. For example: The Bolton issue—and people could look at this, maybe there's still the C-SPAN recording of that session of the committee—and any American that watches that session which was captured on C-SPAN and broadcast a couple of times on C-SPAN; see that! And, you see exactly, the temperament, the character of the situation in the Senate, and how it reflects what's going on in the Presidency.

We're at a point, when looking at the world situation—you've got GM going into bankruptcy; Ford is junk stock, now. There are similar things in the auto industry around the world. Whole countries are about to go into the bucket. We have crises beyond belief. We can not continue to go this way. This is not a matter of a crisis, where it's an unpopular situation, and popular opinion is going to demand this: We are at a point, that the survival depends upon fundamental changes of direction in policy. And what we have to use, is the institutions we have—our Constitutional institutions—to make the changes in policy which must be made. They may not be perfect, but at least a change in the right direction will get us moving in the right direction, and that will give us the ability to maneuver and solve the problems.

I think, the thing to look at right now, is look at the Senate. And what I see, in terms of Reid, the Democratic leader of the Senate, and what he's pulling around him: He's a tough guy, he's a senior guy—he's doing an excellent job.

STOCKWELL: All right. We've got to go to break. We've got to go to the Wall Street Journal, another break, and then we'll be back for a couple of minutes to wrap this up.... [commercial] We've got a little less than three minutes to wrap this up, but let me give out this number so you can get a copy of Lyn's book Earth's Next Fifty Years....

So, a couple of minutes to wrap this up, Lyn. Put the icing on the cake.

LAROUCHE: Good. Well, we're now at a point, as I said, we're going to see in the next weeks, what's going to happen. We will not know the answers in these several weeks, but we're going to see a change. And the change is going to come on fast, and people are going to start thinking differently, because—

STOCKWELL: When the Senate sits again.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, that's going to be the key thing. The Bolton issue is now a bellwether. The DeLay issue is also of some significance. These are things that people can latch onto fairly quickly.

But, there are other things which are also crucial, and they're international, like this thing that happened in South America, with Colombia, Brazil, and Venezuela, coming to the agreement among people, people never would have thought they would have come to that kind of agreement. And that's going to happen.

This is all over the world. Things are breaking loose, and it's going to be interesting. And this is going to get some people who do think, and who are people of action, moving. You're going to see the tendency toward a coalition of sane Republicans and Democrats, which will tend, we hope, to become the majority influence in the Congress. That can happen. It should happen. In the next weeks, we may see it happening.

STOCKWELL: Thank you so much for being part of the show. I've always had the greatest respect for you and your organization. And you're welcome back any time we can get you on here.

LAROUCHE: Thank you.

STOCKWELL: Thank you Lyndon. Bye-bye.


All rights reserved © 2005 EIRNS