From Volume 4, Issue Number 24 of EIR Online, Published June 14, 2005

Latest From LaRouche


June 10, 2005

BUTCH VALDES: Tonight, we have the distinct privilege of having a great statesman, physical economist, leader of a worldwide movement, and the LaRouche Youth Movement. And we want not to waste too much time—we'd like from the United States of America: Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Hello there. We are in a very interesting situation. I'm in the middle of producing an article for this week's EIR, which will be of some international relevance. It deals with the crisis we have here, which is actually an international crisis. For example, we have the GM crisis: General Motors and Ford are going down. The United States is in the process, unless we stop it, of losing not only our automobile industry, essentially—except for the Japanese companies operating inside the United States; and also, losing more: losing our machine-tool capacity, which is largely concentrated in the automobile industry. So therefore, if we lose the auto industry, we become essentially, maybe not a Third World country, but sort of a Second World country at best, or a One-And-A-Half World country.

We also have a collapse of the pension system. The only stable pension system in the United States for people in the lower 80% of family-income brackets certainly, is in the Social Security system, which the President of the United States is determined to destroy, if he can, by various subterfuges. But, of course, he's insane. He says, that the U.S. bonds which are the security for the Social Security system are just IOUs which are worthless. So, when the President of the United States is insane enough to say that U.S. government bonds are essentially worthless IOUs, I mean, we're really in trouble here.

But worse than that, we have a financial collapse internationally, which is tied into this question of pensions and whatnot, tied into the General Motors case—the hedge-fund crisis. Now, most of the leading banks of the United States, and of Europe, particularly like Deutsche Bank in Germany, are heavily tied into these hedge funds. The hedge funds are in danger of blowing out. There are estimates that between 20% and 40% of the value of the hedge funds may have been wiped out so far. No one in the area is admitting much of anything. But the experts who are watching, are giving us estimates of close to minimum of 20% of loss of the funds, to up to as high as 40%.

So, this is coming down.

We have, also, the collapse of the housing bubble threatened in the United States, as in Britain. Many other things of a similar type. We are now at the edge of the greatest financial collapse, international financial collapse, in modern history. Because, obviously, if the U.S. Treasuries go down, the U.S. Treasury values go down, this will bring down the world monetary system, by a comparable amount. And there's no part of the world, including China, which could withstand, without serious damage, without actually panic-style damage, the collapse of the U.S. monetary system.

So, that's essentially where we stand.

Now, the positive side, we've had recently, as maybe many of you probably know, we've had some positive developments in the U.S. Senate, which, under our Constitution—which of course people in the Philippines are somewhat acquainted with—under the "advice and consent" provision of the Senate, the Senate has certain authority which acts as a check on the Presidency, to ensure that the powers of the Presidency are not used in a way to cause permanent damage to our institutions. Recently, the Senate did act that way, and saved us from what could have been the creation of a dictatorship under George W. Bush Jr.,—nominally under him, anyway—but the people who control him would control it. And that was stopped.

But, that's a temporary victory, though it sets a precedent which we would hope we could repeat, if necessary, in the future. But, right now, apart from the fact that I'm in discussion with many people in the Senate and related circles, on a number of these problems, and my voice is heard on these things—I don't know how much my voice will be obeyed on these things, but it's heard, anyway. And we are in discussion, but we're not getting enough action, yet, to say that we're on the road to averting it.

Now, in the meantime, you have a crisis in Europe, and the crisis in Europe is very dangerous, because of the cowardliness of present European governments. For example, you have the new Prime Minister of France, de Villepin, who capitulated to the bankers, in the speech he gave recently announcing what his policy would be as Prime Minister during the coming period. You have the Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, who essentially has made a similar kind of statement, of concession to what are the Synarchist bankers. These are the same guys, the same set of people, who organized World War II—and even World War I, but World War II, especially. And they're in the saddle, and saying: No government better dare do anything that upsets them and their plans.

So, you have a situation which is comparable to the onrush into World War II, coming out of these kinds of circles, of the intimidation of governments, by the pressure of a syndicate of international financier interests. And this could lead into the greatest depression in modern history, and even into a spread of wars, as we have this case in North Korea, where Cheney, under this plan, this CONPLAN 8022, would actually—might drop nuclear missiles on North Korea, that is, the so-called "mini-nukes."

This would have incalculable effects. But the most important effect, would be the shock effect internationally, which would send the world into a pose for a new range of wars, while the war that's still being fought in Iraq is not being satisfactorily settled by any means.

So, that's where we are. We're at that kind of situation. I'm in a peculiar situation, because I'm sort of an insider in some of the leading circles of the Democratic Party, in the way I described it. And, we've got some good people; they're going in good directions. But I'm not sure that so far that we are either going fast enough, or far enough, or that we will continue to go fast and far enough. And we certainly see no signs of much help from Europe in trying to prevent this planet from plunging into Hell.

So, it's a dangerous situation, but one would say, in Chinese terms, "an interesting world."

A Common World Crisis

VALDES: Mr. LaRouche, all of this visage you're presenting to us as the situation, worldwide especially; also the economic situation in the United States, is of course, to say the least, worrisome. And, most especially all of the events that are happening around the world, are getting many people rather tense, not excluding, of course, the Philippines, which is now presently experiencing both a political and an economic crisis. I just wanted to bring this out, because of our listeners right now, especially.

A few months ago, the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. John Howard, described the Philippines as nest-bed of Asian terrorism. And the chargé of the U.S. Embassy here, Mr. Mussomelli more recently announced in a speech in Australia, saying, the Philippines is going to be the next Afghanistan.

Now, what you're saying here about the neo-cons and Synarchists planning some sort of an attack in North Korea, is of course getting all parts here, in this part of the world, getting very apprehensive. Over and above this, is the present political crisis that we're now facing, where the leadership is now being questioned.

Are all of these events related? Or, are they exclusive of each other?

LAROUCHE: No, they're all interrelated. You have a world system, which is united by the fact it has a common crisis. The common crisis is the international monetary-financial crisis, and the economic crises that go with that. This crisis is also, therefore, a social crisis.

One of the key problems on the political-social-crisis side, is the fact that over the past period, especially since the Nixon Administration period, that the lower 80% of family-income brackets in the United States and Europe, and other parts of the world correspondingly—Australia, too—have been collapsed into the point that they no longer think of themselves as really citizens. They think of themselves as citizens, only to the extent that they may nag or beg of the leading circles. But, that the leading circles, those who actually make the decisions in government, and for government, among the constituency are a shrinking part of the total population.

So you have a divorcing of the great majority of the people from any actual control over their self-interest as people; that is, their rights. They're losing their pension rights; they're losing employment; they're losing their economy in general, as well as the employment; they're losing their infrastructure; they're losing their health-care systems. Everything. The agriculture systems are being destroyed. Globalization is a disaster for every nation on this planet, without exception.

So, these conditions of life are such, that we are in a very dangerous situation which is all very closely connected to an international financier cartel, which is, while it's cutting throats among each other, is at the same time, dominating the rest of the world. And this financier cartel is the factor which is a unifying consideration, in terms of the politics and the struggles in all parts of the world. For example, crises like those being imposed on the Philippines, are imposed as part of a pattern of attempted control and manipulation of international affairs. Otherwise they wouldn't occur as they do, when you start to trace, from a security investigation standpoint, where some of these problems are coming from. They're either planned by, or provoked by, interests which are essentially international.

What is 'Synarchism'?

VALDES: Okay, we have a question from a [member of the] LaRouche Youth Movement.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche: My question is: With a lot of talk about nuclear strikes and Synarchist threats of Cheney and Bush, which started since 9/11, can you please tell us what Synarchism means? And how will we be able to [protect] ourselves from this evil?

LAROUCHE: Well, Synarchism is an old phenomenon. To understand it adequately, you have to look at—I'll try to make it as short as possible, because it is a somewhat complicated question, especially for people who don't know the history; but, remember, that modern European history begins with the 15th-Century Renaissance, which was centered of course on Italy, at that time. This was the birth of the idea of a society—not the birth of the idea—but the birth of the establishment of a society based on the common interest. Such as in France, of Louis XI, which was a commonwealth society. The second society which was a commonwealth society was England, under Henry VII. So, the idea of a commonwealth society.

But, in the meantime, the old feudal interests, which were centered on the Venetian financier-oligarchy, set up a counter-operation, which plunged Europe, from 1492 through 1648, into a period of intensive religious warfare, where various nations and religious groups were played against one another, to try to destroy the kind of system that was coming out of the 15th-Century Renaissance.

Now, in 1648, with the Treaty of Westphalia, we did establish the formal end of religious warfare—at least in a formal sense, we no longer had generalized religious warfare. We've had religious warfare since, but not generalized. Until recently, until the Bush Administration began to raise it again, in the United States.

So, that was the system.

But, what's happened is, at that time, what you had replace the Venetian system as such, was a new copy of the Venetian system which was set up by the Dutch and by the British, which became known as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system. From 1763, that liberal system has increasingly dominated the world. The present international financial system, monetary system, is part of the Venetian system, for example.

Now, the United States, under Roosevelt and the immediate post-Roosevelt [era], dominated the world monetary system, because of the strength of the dollar. But with the events which occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, with the end of the Roosevelt fixed-exchange-rate system, the old Venetian crowd—that is the Anglo-Dutch Liberal crowd—have dominated the world.

Now, the Synarchists are essentially something which was born out of the developments of the 18th Century, as the emergence of the British Empire, which had certain deals with other forces. And they set up a group of people, it's a kind of freemasonic cult, which ran the French Revolution, created Napoleon Bonaparte, and became known in the 19th Century as the Synarchists. At the Treaty of Versailles, the group of financiers who were known as the Synarchist International, centered around private banks such as Lazard Freres in Paris, these bankers created the fascist movement in Continental Europe. They created Mussolini in Italy, they created Hitler in Germany, and so forth and so on.

So, World War II, so-called, was actually a result of the orchestration, and complications in the orchestration of the Synarchist International. At the end of the war, at the point that Roosevelt died, the forces in the United States which had subordinated their impulses to the desire to defeat Hitler—because Hitler was moving against western countries—took advantage of Roosevelt's death, and moved the United States itself into a right-wing turn, which was essentially a pro-Synarchist turn.

There was resistance within the United States to that. Typical of the resistance was that President Dwight Eisenhower, who was an opponent of what he described, in going out of office, as the "military-industrial complex." But the military-industrial complex, as he described it, is simply an aspect of the Synarchist International.

Nixon's attempt to set up a dictatorship—or the Nixon Administration's attempt to set up a dictatorship, which failed at that time—was the launching of a destruction of the international financial economic system, which was done by Synarchist influences. And later, over a period of time, the changes were made in U.S. Constitutional practices—not the Constitution, but the practices, and in Europe—which have led into, over the past nearly 40 years in total, have led into a degeneration of the international system, which is now coming to an end.

What they've intended to do all along—and this was since 1763, not recently—the Anglo-Dutch Liberals had intended to set up what is called today "globalization": to eliminate the nation-state, and to set up a system, in which no nation-state would rise again, to challenge the international imperial power of this financier crowd. And Lazard Freres is still part of it, along with the others, today.

So, that's what we're up against; it's that. And the defense we have against that, is to strengthen the system of the Renaissance, the system of the sovereign nation-state committed to principle of the General Welfare. That is, the government is obliged primarily to defend the General Welfare of its own people, and under the Treaty of Westphalia model, that each nation must work for the benefit of the others. And that, by that system of working to the benefit of the others, among nation-states, and each nation-state committed to the general welfare of its own people and humanity, this is the system which we have to defend. This is the system which is now in danger. It's corrupted from what it should be, but it's now in danger of going out of existence.

The New Bretton Woods

VALDES: Okay, we have another question from LYM.

Q: The New Bretton Woods that you have proposed, would this be a perfect system for the benefit of all?

LAROUCHE: Well, remember, you've got two things to deal with at this point: You need a system that works, and you need a system in which people can have confidence. Now, the record of Franklin Roosevelt's reforms, and the relative success we had for about 20 years, despite Truman and despite other things, the relative success of that system in rebuilding a war-torn [world] up until the middle of the 1960s, that system has proven itself. And moreover, the system that replaced it has disproven itself. So therefore, the most obvious thing in which people could have confidence, on the basis of historical experience, is the old idea of the Bretton Woods system.

There are certain changes: That is, now the United States does not have the relative power that it represented at the end of the World War II, so therefore, it has to be a system more dependent upon cooperation among some leading nation-states, than the dependency on one nation-state, which was more characteristic of the immediate post-war period.

So, the reason we would use it, is because it is sound, on the one hand. But, someone might come along and say, "Well, maybe we could do a better job than that." You say, "Yes. But maybe not right away. Maybe what we have to do, is start with something which historical experience will give the most people confidence in trying. And so I think that's the significance we should attribute to that now. Yes, perhaps we can develop a better system in the future. But right now, if we want acceptance by the people of the world, for immediate action, then we better stick with the system, if it works, which has been proven by past recent experience."

VALDES: Okay, another question from LYM.

Q: Good morning Mr. LaRouche. Nowadays, we are more focussed with the short-term and service-oriented businesses, which don't contribute much to the physical aspect of the economy. How should we address this problem, Mr. LaRouche?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all we should think in terms of physical economy. But we have to deal, at the same time, with the use of a financial-monetary system as a way of conducting the details of operation within a physical economy. The best model of reference for this, of course, was the description by the Treasury Secretary of the United States, Alexander Hamilton, in his Report to the U.S. Congress on the Subject of Manufactures, in which he lays out the idea of this, which is correct: that we think about a physical system, a physical system of industry, of agriculture, and of basic economic infrastructure. We must balance these things in such a way, as to promote the conditions of progress of humanity. To do that, we have to have a financial system, which is managed under directives, in which you say, the financial system must serve that purpose.

Now, the difference, of course, is with the so-called "free-trade system," which says that the whole system is run for the benefit of the bankers, as a monetary system, a monetary-financial system. Whereas, under the American System, as defined by the founders of the U.S. system, the monetary-financial system, must be designed to fit the requirements of performance of the physical economy.

That's what we have to do, today.

Now, this means, essentially, in effect, returning to regulation of the type which the United States destroyed in its own operations over the period of the 1970s. So therefore, we have to go back to a well-regulated system, in which prices, tariffs, and so forth, are regulated, to make sure that payment for goods is at fair prices, and that the flow of investment in the economy as a whole is such as to promote the general welfare of the economy as a whole, and the advantage of the nation.

So, the point is, is that what we have to do is clear our heads—and throw away the popular textbooks today on monetary theory. And go back to conceptions, which were the traditional conceptions of the American System, as we associate with Franklin, or Hamilton, or Friedrich List, or the Careys, Mathew Carey and Henry C. Carey; and those conceptions as Roosevelt adopted those as the basis for what he did—Franklin Roosevelt—is what should guide us, today, in designing and maintaining the kind of government we require.

The 'No' Vote on the EU Constitution

VALDES: Mr. LaRouche, the recent events in Europe, on the Netherlands, the Dutch people rejecting the proposed Constitution of the European Union and the same thing they adopted in France; and of course the defeat of the party of Schroeder in Germany: These are all indications of how people are starting to reject globalization. How is this so? And should this affect, let's say, the future of the European Union as a concept, let's say, as an objective?

LAROUCHE: Well, how it should affect it is fairly obvious. The reason people reject this thing, is because they realize that this One Europe thing, the European Union is a gigantic swindle which is contrary to the vital interests of the majority of the people. Of course, it's essentially a Synarchist operation, is what it amounts to. But people may not understand that, but they do understand they don't like what's happened to them since the establishment of the euro as a currency under the European Central Bank and the European Union. So they revolted against it, because it stinks!

The question is what do you replace it with? The answer is, that they say—as some people in Italy are saying, even right-wingers—let's go back to the national currencies: the franc, the lira, the deutschemark, for example, and for an international currency, you can have an international currency of account, such as the ECU, the "European Currency Unit." That could work. These are the directions which people are somewhat thinking.

What they want, is they want their industries and agriculture back; they want some control over the prices of things; they want some security; they want an end to this nightmare which they've been living through in the recent years. And that's the point. They should get that. They have a right to that.

But, on the part of the leaders, you've got a problem which I'm addressing in this article, which will be in the next week's issue of EIR [See "Remember Walther Rathenau" in this week's InDepth].

The problem is, a lack of courage. Now, what I deal with there is, if you go back to the history from Versailles through Hitler and defeat of Hitler, you have a pattern in which the Synarchists dominate, in which assassinations, beginning with, for example, a lot of assassinations in Germany, but especially assassinations around the so-called Rappallo Treaty group, starting with people like the industrialist Walther Rathenau. All the way, through, which in my time for example, the case in Germany—the head of the Dresdner Bank Juergen Ponto, Hans Martin Schleyer who was part of the industrial sector; then the later thing of Herrhausen's assassination in 1989, and Rohwedder's in East Germany's operations after that. These assassinations typify the way in which politics has been run. This is really—

And today, you have coming from the banking circles, the financial circles, you have threats against any politicians, such as, say, de Villepin, the new Prime Minister of France, or Schroeder, in running for re-election (potentially, at least) as Chancellor of Germany: the threats against these figures are obviously, either by our knowledge of them, or by the implication of certain things, they are really direct. The threat to assassinate, en masse, whole legions of political and other leaders who are considered a threat to the more immediate selfish interests of a group of Synarchist bankers and financier circles of that type, that's where the danger lies; that's where the problem lies.

And until that issue is addressed, when people express their aspirations for improvement, those aspirations really aren't worth much in terms of results if those people are then going to turn around, and their political leaders are going to capitulate to the terror exerted by these financial interests. And that, of course, is not just a European problem, that's around the world.

VALDES: Okay. Another question from the LYM.

Q: Good morning, Mr. LaRouche. I'm a student here, at one of the universities here in Manila. I'm a philosophy major, and one of the philosophers we've been studying is Martin Heidegger. And I just found out recently from Mike Billington that he is a Nazi, and that he was part of the National Socialist Party. This was not presented to us, in any way in our [inaud] university. I was just wondering if it's a phenomenon isolated here in the Philippines? And as a student, what could I do for being able to say something about this in my university?

LAROUCHE: No, this is a very legitimate concern. Heidegger, of course, was a Nazi. He was a close associate—as a matter of fact, a bedfellow for a while—of Hannah Arendt. And also an associate, then, therefore of other people—of Adorno, but she in particular, but others of the same stripe.

Now, Heidegger was a Nazi. She was not, because, she couldn't qualify for Nazi membership, because she had a Jewish birth certificate. Hmm? And those who had a Jewish birth certificate, some of them went to the United States. Now, what happened was, is that Heidegger's case was covered up at the end of the war. He was given a little slap on the wrist; but the fact that he was a Nazi anti-Semite at Freiburg University, which is in the southern part of Germany near the Swiss border, was covered up.

The fact that he produced, also, as a protege, Jean-Paul Sartre of France, was also covered up! And Jean-Paul Sartre is really a Nazi, but of a French variety.

The crowd, Hannah Arendt and her friends, were assembled during the wartime period at Columbia University, where they, with and a lot of other so-called left-wingers, all of this existentialist persuasion, or leftist persuasion like Herbert Marcuse, for example—these guys became the core of what was known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Which is better called—I've called it, the Congress for Cultural, not so much Freedom, but Depravity.

Now, this Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was the leading anti-Communist, nominally anti-Communist, Anglo-American propaganda operation of the period from the end of the war, until the fall of the Soviet Union, actually destroyed the minds and morals of people in the countries they affected. France was very much destroyed by this influence. They had a very strong influence there. In Germany, the Frankfurt School, which is of these types, essentially destroyed much of the culture of Germany. They were responsible for the lack or the fact that you don't have any theater much in Germany which is not depraved, under the so-called Regietheater crowd. In the United States, we have a little bit left. Other places, a little bit left—but music is largely destroyed.

So, this was a systematic destruction of Classical European civilization in every possible way. The purpose was to destroy youth.

Now, what you have today, as you know, we have a revolt among a generation of youth, particularly from about 1998-1999, when it became apparent that the so-called "IT revolution," the "Y2K revolution," the electronic technology revolution, was no longer being funded and went into a deep collapse—not a total collapse, but a deep collapse, in the year 2000. And in this process, a whole section of youth, in the 18- to 25-year age-bracket, began to realize that their parents were fools. They didn't hate their parents, but they recognized that their parents, the Baby-Boomer generation, had wandered into a Never-Never Land of fantasy outside reality. And they saw themselves as young people, young adults, being thrown into a world in which there was no future implied.

And therefore, what we've had is a youth movement development, is young people realizing this is the situation, and desiring a future. And of course, things like Heidegger typify the cultural depravity, which was spread among young people in the post-war period, increasingly, where the existentialist philosophers dominate the philosophy departments and sociology departments and so forth. So we have depravity, moral depravity in that form, today.

And the only way to overcome it, is by, shall we say, missionary methods, which we're doing quite successfully, at least in an exemplary way, with the Youth Movement in the United States and elsewhere. The work we've done recently in the U.S., and spreading into Europe, is really quite successful. I'm very proud of these young people—they've done an excellent job. They've done much better than their parents' generation, so far, in their process of self-education and higher education.

The Question of 'Leadership'

VALDES: Mr. LaRouche, can we go back to the situation in the Philippines? A few years back, I remember, I had the privilege of chatting with you there in Leesburg, and you had mentioned to me that the problem with the Philippines, is that we never really had true leadership since the 1980s. And this struck me, because we did have several elections, and we've had ourselves Presidents, but there seems to have been a real, or a different meaning to what you said, "leadership." Would you like to expound on this, Mr. LaRouche?

LAROUCHE: Well, this was deliberate. It was a deliberate chopping down. You had people came out of the wartime and the post-war period, shall we say, the MacArthur experience, where there was a certain promise implicitly by the Gen. Douglas MacArthur about freedom for the Philippines. And experience, which of course, reflected also his own father's role in the Philippines.

So, the idea that, here's a people which had a certain potential, a certain history development, should be treated in a sense, as a protected nation—not ruled by the United States, but protected by it, so it could get on its own feet, and rule itself. And up through the early 1980s, of course, we had significant progress, which became more and more difficult during the 1970s.

And then you had the U.S.-dictated overthrow of the government, and things of that sort. And chaos in this. And we had a situation, as dealing with the so-called minorities question in the Philippines, where, as you may recall Butch, we were—and you can explain to others there better than I could—exactly what kind of discussions we had with people in Mindanao and so forth, of trying to solve some of the conflicts which outsiders were trying to stir up, within the Philippines.

So, these things were absolutely done to destroy the Philippines.

And why? Well, first of all, what the Philippines represented, was, in a sense, in Asia, a European culture in Asia, which was European in most leading respects. It also had its own character as well, from the people who had been there before the Spanish came in. So, this was considered a nuisance, to those who had a globalization intention. For example, the Philippines with the U.S. bases, which were not always the nicest thing for the Philippines to have—morally or otherwise—but the air base and the naval base, especially the naval base, represented a certain kind of machine-tool capability, a potentiality, in the Philippines, which was essential for building a modern nation. With large-scale infrastructure development of the type which Marcos and so forth was associated with, planning it at a certain point—other things—this could have happened. It would have been a longer process, maybe a generation or two, but there was a genuine prospect at that time, of an actual development of the Philippines, a continuing development, as a nation, which would play an important part in its relationship to the nations of Asia. And something of which the United States should be proud to have as a friend.

That changed. And Marcos was dumped out, of course, as we know; dumped out on orders from Washington, by certain interests. That, in a sense, broke the already-fragile capability of progress in the Philippines at that time.

I think it's important that people know that in the Philippines, and emphasize that; younger people in particular, because it's important not to be ashamed of your country. You may be ashamed of some of the things that go on. But don't be ashamed of the country as such. The country is not a failure. The country's chance of development was curtailed and taken away from it.

And therefore, you have to look at the country, as one which still has, a people that has that potential. And that to me, is the main concern. The Philippines still does have a potential role in Asia, as being its special character, which is a different character than other countries in Asia, but it's a contribution to the cultural development of Asia as a whole. That's what I think we would want to concentrate on.

VALDES: Right. And it's correlated to the previous question that I just asked you Mr. LaRouche. I have to ask you this: it is presently, many of our people are in apparent levels of desperation. And we have an economic crisis, which probably is the worst in our own history, and we are now faced with a political crisis. And since leadership is always going to be the question, how do the Filipinos look at the near future and the immediate future? There is a widespread feeling that the United States, through the State Department and certain other characters, has been influencing the changes of leadership here. And they see this, just as a constraint, and something we have to just add up into our choice of leadership. So, the near future is going to be very critical for us.

Would you like to put that in a right perspective?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, you know the history of cultures. It's very important for a people to have a sense of leaders among them. They don't have to be the top leaders, but leaders who are intellectual influences, moral influences, who represent a stepping stone toward the future of the nation. This is absolutely essential. I look, of course, as the development of people around youth movements are generally the best source of this kind of quality within a nation, among a people. You need people who can be identified as embodying a knowledgeable spirit of the future of the people. And if they have young people with them, and you see this, in every history of every country—everything that's good, you find a few people who are really outstanding intellectual figures. And around them, you have a generation of younger people, sometimes students, sometimes associates, but just working together. And that younger generation has often proven to be the basis for a larger, more influential leadership, an intellectual and moral leadership, for the coming period of that country.

The most essential thing, I think, today, in the Philippines, as in many other countries, as we're doing in the United States itself, is to develop a young future leadership, a young generation of future leaders, who are trained and developed to become qualified as the educators and leaders of the times to come, of the generation to come. This is the most important thing. This is the thing that will enable a nation to live: That it has something like that within it, a body of people who represent that.

All rights reserved © 2005 EIRNS