New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts Greet Democrat for President, Lyndon LaRouche

'We Have To Tell The Truth,' Says LaRouche, On The Role of the U.S. President

The Generation Gap

Government for Human Beings

Who Supports LaRouche?

The Nature of Man

The Real Estate Bubble

Democrats Have Gone to Pot!

Improving Life in Africa

The Problem With the Supreme Court

From Volume 2, Issue Number 46 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Nov. 18, 2003

Latest From LaRouche

New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts Greet Democrat for President, Lyndon LaRouche

Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche addressed a packed State Library in Concord, and 75 students at Plymouth State University, during his two-day trip to his home state of New Hampshire, last week. The impact of his Nov. 12-13 tour was amplified by significant media coverage in the major newspapers of the state.

In Concord, the state capital, on Nov. 12, LaRouche was introduced by State Representative Barbara Richardson, who spoke of his credentials. LaRouche then elaborated on three major topics: the global war danger, the economy, and the role of his Youth Movement in resolving the current "generation gap."

At Plymouth State, LaRouche gave a 40-minute speech, which was followed by 20 minutes of questions.

LaRouche is certified for the ballot in New Hampshire, and also filed his presidential candidacy in the State of Vermont.

Continuing the tour, LaRouche, who will be on the ballot on all the states of New England, except Maine, which is not holding a primary election, spoke at the Middlebury College in Vermont, before an audience of about 100 people, sponsored by the college Democratic organization. On Saturday, Nov. 15, LaRouche was in Boston, Massachusetts for a town meeting with campaign volunteer, citizens, and a large contingent of the LaRouche Youth Movement.

'We Have To Tell The Truth,' Says LaRouche, On The Role of the U.S. President

Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche held a press conference in Concord, N.H. on Nov. 12, kicking off a major campaign swing through the Northeast and Midwest. Campaign spokeman Stuart Rosenblatt began by introducing State Rep. Barbara Richardson, a 12-year veteran of the Legislature. This is an edited transcript of their remarks, followed by excerpts from the question-and-answer period that followed.

Rep. Barbara Richardson: ...Lyndon LaRouche is a native of this state. He was born and raised in Rochester, New Hampshire. He's a Democratic Presidential candidate, but he has been denied access to the candidates' debates. Nationally, he is second in individual contributions to his campaign; sixth in the total money raised, nationally and in New Hampshire, and fourth in individual contributions raised in New Hampshire.

LaRouche has some excellent information and ideas. I believe it is important to listen to him, and consider his views for solutions to our faltering economy, and to the disaster we face in Iraq. He fought hard to keep the Washington, D.C. public hospital [D.C. General] open; he also worked in California, to defeat the Recall of Governor Davis.

Nearly half a century ago, I attended the Bretton Woods Conference as a college student reporter. LaRouche is promoting a similar conference, to deal with the many problems facing our country. I believe we will benefit from hearing his information and ideas.

Lyndon LaRouche: Essentially three topics, which I will just summarize here, at this time: First of all, the first issue facing the nation, prominent in the minds of most people, is the spreading war, now peaking in Iraq. We face not only that war, but we face the threatened spread of that, and similar wars, around the world. Were this process to continue, under the Cheney doctrine of preventive nuclear warfare, we could be assured that, in the coming Presidency, we would probably face a spread of wars, of nuclear-armed warfare among nations—major nations; of asymmetric warfare, of a type which the present ongoing Iraq War, like the Indo-China War earlier, represents.

At the same time, we have a second issue: the economy. The present world financial-monetary system is in the process of disintegration. We're enduring the last phases of a disintegration. Now, in such matters, you can not predict the exact time something will happen, because governments may print money, even at risk of hyperinflation, in order to try to postpone a financial collapse, for political reasons. We're already in that. The present Administration has given a new meaning, in its financial expectations, to what is called "a Snow job"—John Snow, our Secretary of the Treasury.

In the meantime, 47, at least, of the Federal states of the United States, are, in effect, bankrupt. That is, they could not raise tax revenues, sufficient to maintain the essential functions of government, without causing a negative effect on the population and the economy of the state itself.

Therefore, we must face this threat of financial crisis, using the precedent of what Franklin Roosevelt did, in facing the effects of the Coolidge and Hoover legacy, to bring the nation out of this financial crisis.

On the issue of the war and the crisis itself: My personal experience and involvement overseas, permits me to say, that we are at the verge where a President of the United States, approaching the problems today, as Roosevelt did in 1932-33, could bring about a general agreement on monetary and financial reorganization among major nations and others of the world. Therefore, the problem is intrinsically manageable. If we are willing to launch the kind of building program, and rebuilding program, which Roosevelt undertook—maybe not the same way, the same details—but, for example, in dealing with the shortage of generation and distribution of energy supplies, power supplies; the management of water systems; the collapse of our general transportation system, our public transportation system; rebuilding our health-care system, especially hospitals and clinics, which we're in short supply of; rebuilding our educational institutions, to adapt our population, coming out of the schools, to be qualified for the kinds of employment we should be creating. These measures will succeed, and could stimulate the economy in general.

The Generation Gap

There's another problem, the problem of a generation gap. Some of you recall, that we went through the Eisenhower years with a certain sense of security. The horror of nuclear war had been put behind us, with Eisenhower's election. Eisenhower was opposed to these kinds of mad adventures; but then, he retired. And, a young President Kennedy, very bright, but not with enough of the right connections, was not able to do what Eisenhower had done: Eisenhower had the authority, as a commanding general in the previous war; he had other authorities and other influences, especially in the military; and could hold some of those things that he called, once, the "military-industrial complex," in check.

Once Eisenhower left office, what he called the military-industrial complex went rampant.

The first effect was international: The Missile Crisis of 1962, when people throughout this country sweated for days, in anticipation that they might be extinguished, by a general thermonuclear warfare, any day, at that point. This went on for a period of days. People almost lost their souls in terror. Other bad things happened in this period. And then, Kennedy was shot, and the mystery of his assassination was never properly addressed.

Then came the Indo-China War. And, with that, the country was terrified, especially people who had been born at the end of World War II, or about that time or later; they were terrified. And we had, in the middle of the 1960s, a cultural paradigm-shift emerging around campus youth, university campus youth. This gave us a shift, toward what was called a "post-industrial society," which meant, in effect, that in the course of the 1970s, we ceased to be the world's leading producer-nation, and we became a consumer-society, increasingly depending upon the cheap labor of other parts of the world, to provide the things that we used to produce for ourselves.

So, we have degenerated, into a pleasure-seeking society. In the meantime, the lower 80% of the family-income brackets of the United States, since 1977, have been in an accelerating decline, in their physical standard of living, not only in household income as such, but also in public services, basic economic infrastructure.

We are now a bankrupt society, living on virtual slave-labor rates of work in China and other parts of the world. We have destroyed Mexico as an independent nation, but we use its cheap labor: We use it up, both inside the United States and outside the United States.

So, we've changed our character. We're in a period where, as many of you know, the generation that I deal with now, most actively, between 18-25-year age-group, is faced with a horrible situation: Ritalin, Prozac, a general drug culture, and the things that go with it. These young people, they come from all kinds of backgrounds, but of that age-group, share common problems. And, when they're mobilized—they don't trust the older generation; they don't trust their parents' generation—but, they will trust a good discussion, a frank discussion, of the issues. And they will respond to it.

The best chance for this nation, is that people of that age-group, 18-25 age-group, be organized in the proper way, as the way I've been trying to organize it, for the past several years: to give a kick in the pants to their parents' generation, to get some morality back in this country, and some confidence. We can face the crisis of war. We can stop the wars. We can deal with the financial crisis, there are measures. The older generation, those who entered universities, for example, in the middle of the 1960s, haven't got the gumption to do it by themselves. But their children's generation, faced with the prospect of no future for this society, and thinking about their future, thinking about the problems of drug culture, thinking about the problems of poverty, insecurity, are capable of inspiring their parents' generation to come back to life, and to mobilize and join them, in changing the character of politics in the United States today.

And that's what has to change.

The problem, as I see it, finally, is that, I saw these so-called debates, among the so-called candidates: I was disgusted. Because they're not discussing anything. When you consider the problems that are faced by the people in this country, especially the lower 80% of family-income brackets, when you look at the bankruptcy of 47 or so of the Federal states of the United States, and no solutions for this in sight, under present terms, somebody ought to be talking about it. Candidates ought to be speaking among themselves before the public, on these questions. Not with the shibboleths, with these simple slogans, and fads. The question of war: The war danger is serious; it's real. You can't say, "Be nice to Cheney." You can't say, "Let's be careful what we say in the presence of the President." We have to tell the truth.

And these young people will not believe any politician, who does not tell the truth. Any politician who tries to give out the guff, that I've seen from these candidates, in these public debates, will not gain the confidence of the American people.

The question, as I see it—looking at my Republican and Democratic competition—is not, who is going to win the next election, but which of these guys is going to lose it? Because one is as bad as the other, in terms of their present performance.

And, I think, perhaps, that by my kicking things—I think I should be the next President. I don't think anybody else is qualified, at this time, for the particular kind of job that has to be done. But certainly, I can't run the country alone. I would have to run it, with a government, which is capable of doing the job. As Roosevelt did, I would need teams. I would need good Democrats, with experience. I would need specialists. I would need some good Republicans, too. In order to put together, in the Executive Branch of government, the kind of team, that, when the President makes a decision, with their advice taken into account, that that decision will be carried out effectively. And that the major problems that we have to deal with, will be dealt with, as Roosevelt dealt with problems then, in the first hundred days of his Administration.

That's what we face.

And therefore, even though I think I should be President—I don't think anybody else is qualified, at this time, for the job, as it's defined now—nonetheless, we do need the kind of discussion, among candidates and people, which says, "Cut off the guff. Talk straight. No more slogans. No more party lines. We have well-defined problems. The American people want to hear politicians running for office, discussing what they really think, about solutions to these problems in front of them."

And, I hope that we do some of that, today, here.

Thank you.

Government for Human Beings

Question: I'm Kate, with the Associated Press. The Democratic Party says you're ineligible to run, because you're not a registered voter.... So you couldn't become President, technically, as a Democrat. Why not switch parties?

LaRouche: Well, they're not thinking clearly. First of all, none of them are going to make it, the way it's going now. They're all going to lose to even George Bush, who's a born loser.

And, first of all, they're wrong. The Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear: The United States was founded by a bunch of felons. Every leader of the United States was a felon. George III would have strung us all up! Right? So, when our Constitution was formed, with our experience, under British occupation, the British colonies and so forth—and looking at Europe—we decided to leave it to the people of the United States and their electors, to decide who is qualified to be President or not. And, who is qualified to stand as a Presidential candidate.

Now, a bunch of wise-guys, who have connections I know, such as former Democratic Party leader Don Fowler, who is one of the instigators of this whole thing—a South Carolina racist; I mean, he is not exactly qualified to speak to the state of New Hampshire about their choice of candidates.

We're going to run.

Now, what do you think—in terms of popular financial support—what do you think of a political party, which is in desperate straits, and does not recognize the existence of the number-two candidate of a pack of nine? And having debates that don't mean anything, and nobody's discussing anything of importance? Is that kind of side-show, supposed to be the election process?

That's why the polls indicated, that all of the above-mentioned candidates—not including me—would lose to Bush. But, an unknown candidate would win! And, the advantage of being unknown to these guys—they're going to have to sort it out, before it's over.

Look, the DLC, which is my main enemy, the Democratic Leadership Council, has disintegrated. The Democratic National Committee leadership, after what they did in California, on the Recall vote, which gave only bad advice and the worst possible advice to Gray Davis. And Gray Davis lost for only one reason: Because he was under Democratic Party leadership pressure, including many of the candidates who were out there, visiting, and told him, "Take it soft! Take it soft! Don't fight." Well, we fought! And, we fought the fight for California in Los Angeles County: We turned a 60-to-40 losing position, to a 51-to-49 winning position. We did a better job in the Bay Area. In the other areas, we weren't there—and they lost!

We went into Philadelphia, where Mayor Street wanted our help. And we had what was considered a tough election—we had a landslide victory!

So, how can someone, given this bunch of losers, exclude somebody who has the quality of a winner? Would you put a cripple on the football field, as a quarterback? They're crippled.

So, obviously, it's a bunch of foolishness. I know you get the stories that have been put out—but it's just foolishness. It doesn't make any sense, from the history of the United States.

Who Supports LaRouche?

Question: Can you paint us a picture of the average person who's giving money to the LaRouche campaign?

LaRouche: There is no real average. What I tap into, is what you'd expect, if you think about the voting pattern. My support comes largely from people who have deserted the Democratic Party at the polls, because they're disgusted with it.

The Democratic Party, under the DLC leadership, especially over the last ten years approximately, shifted from a party of the people, to a party of the so-called suburbanites. That left about 80% of the family-income brackets of the United States in neglect.

Look at the situation with health care. Let's take Dean. Now, Howard Dean will say—for comparison purposes; he's not the only culprit in this—Howard Dean would say, he was part of a Vermont thing that raised some health care for children. But, children above infancy, have the lowest risk factor of any part of the population. You get to people over 50—now you're talking serious health problems: 45 to 50, they begin to onset, and they become more expensive.

So, what the problem is, he supports HMO! Now, HMO, which was enacted by the Republicans in 1973—it was a disaster.

We had, under the Hill-Burton Act, enacted in the immediate post-war period, we had a system of cooperation among state, Federal, local, and private institutions—hospitals, clinics, and so forth—which worked as a team in each county of the United States, to plan the capabilities of the county, for dealing with the anticipated health-care challenges of the coming year. They would look at the money that was coming in, from various funds, including private contributions, so forth—that is, paid-in contributions—and also would have these fundraising drives for the health program, which would try to fill up the gap. In some cases, in poor states, the Federal government would step in. In many areas, the state government would step in, at the county level, to assist the county in meeting these standards. When somebody fell on the street, under the Hill-Burton system, in any of these counties, somebody said, "Call a cop!" The police came, the person was taken to the emergency room, the so-called trauma unit. They were treated. If they required further treatment beyond the emergency treatment, they were bedded and put under observation. And, maybe a day or two later, somebody would come around and talk to the patient about money. But, whether they had money or not, they would be treated, and they would be treated with indifference to the amount of money they had.

It worked. It was a lot cheaper than the HMO system. Because, under that system, we didn't pay off stockholders who bought stock yesterday, in a financial company, to squeeze the victims—the patients—of their health care, in order to ensure profits for the stockholder, who bought in yesterday.

We're doing a similar thing with Social Security: We are looting the Social Security Fund, and then saying, there's not enough money to meet the pension requirements.

The philosophy is wrong. And Dean, who, of course, leads me, actually, in the number of contributors; but, Dean, who's a doctor by profession, supports the HMO system. And we will never have a decent health-care system for this country, again, until we repeal the HMO system, and everything that goes with it. That's why it's one of the first acts I intend to implement as a message to the Congress, on becoming President.

So, these are the kinds of problems.

The Real Estate Bubble

Or, take another one, a shocker—not as vicious in New Hampshire, as it in some other parts of the country: This country is based largely on a big swindle called a real-estate bubble. The real-estate bubble means that you get a shack, which is set up with shrink-wrap. You stick some plastic exterior on it, call it "housing." It looks like brick (one-sixteenth-of-an-inch-thick brick), pasted on the outside. These shacks are going in various parts of the country, at mortgages of $400,000 to $600,000 and higher. What are they worth?

Now, this thing is based on a bubble: It's called a mortgage-based securities bubble, which is funded largely by the Federal Reserve System, through Alan Greenspan—that great genius. We're on the edge, in which the crisis in the so-called financial derivatives, of the insurance and related categories—a crisis in that area, triggered by a rise in interest rates in international markets—could readily trigger a chain-reaction collapse of the real-estate bubble. Which would mean that some of these shacks that were listed at $400,000 or $600,000, will be down to a value of $200,000 or less very quickly.

And, the people in them, will be turned from homeowners, into squatters, because nobody will want to kick them out of the houses. It'll be worse kicking them out, than letting them stay there.

That's the kind of situation we face. That's the kind of reality which hits the poor of this country. And the poor of the United States, are now actually, the lower 80% of family-income brackets. You have 20% are really in destitution. And the others are hit hard.

Look what people are doing, commuting—and, what kind of jobs are they getting? How many hours do they work? How many hours do they commute? What kind of family life do they have? What kind of situation do we have for the children, that are being raised by these families? These are the issues of the general welfare. Our system of republic is based on a dedication of government to efficiently serve the interests and promotion of the general welfare, as well as the sovereignty and posterity of our people. And that is neglected.

The Democratic Party, in the Roosevelt tradition—whatever criticism you might want to make of Franklin Roosevelt—Franklin Roosevelt, like Lincoln, was a person truly in the tradition of the general welfare principle. And defended the people, and took the side of the people. And, he was loved because of that.

And he was missed, as soon as he was gone, because of that.

But, in the recent period, since the beginning of the Indo-China war, and especially since the Nixon Administration, we've been going down a dark road. It's a vicious road. We've cared less and less for people: This is supposed to be a government for the people, of the people, by the people. The responsibility of government is to do what the people can not do for themselves. To organize them and their resources, so they can defend themselves; to create infrastructure; to make sure that power systems, generation and distribution are built; to make sure that water systems are maintained; to make sure that sanitation is maintained; to make sure that everybody gets an education; to ensure that health care is available, by making it possible for those who provide health care to do so.

That should be our commitment. A commitment to the people. And therefore, as a result of the fact that the people have been turned against, by their government and by the leadership of the Democratic Party—and the people know it! The people sense they have no power, so they sit and cherry-pick on issues, or don't vote at all. They no longer have any sense of the party's loyalty to them, or of themselves to the party. They cherry-pick, when they vote; they don't vote out of passion, commitment for their party.

So, the party is sitting there, as a minority—a minority of the potential Democratic voters. They actually represent almost no one! They depend upon sharks like Murdoch and his Fox TV, to subsidize Democratic Presidential candidates! Controlled by one of the worst right-wingers in the world! And, that's called Democratic.

They have trouble: The Democratic National Committee's bankrupt. They go to George Soros! One of the centers of the international drug traffic! A major security threat to the United States. And they get their funding from him. Who's loyal to whom?

The American people, especially the youth, know the Democratic Party leadership, at present, is not loyal to them; nor is the Republican Party leadership. And therefore, that's why they vote for me the way they do. Because they know where I stand—they can smell it! And they know it! They've a lot of funny ideas; they need a lot of discussion, to clarify a lot of questions. But, they are the American people. And, they are the people that any candidate has to deal with.

A big change is coming. It's coming on fast. You should see the way our youth movement functions, the way it functioned in California, in Los Angeles County, in the Bay Area, in Philadelphia: We make the difference. And everybody who's smart in the Democratic Party knows it. We make the difference. My candidacy makes the difference. We're going to change the party's character.

The Nature of Man

Question: Can you write a fourth edition to the "Children of Satan"?

LaRouche: The essential nature of government, or what government should be, is to liberate mankind from a long tradition of humanity in society, in which a few people treated most people as human cattle. They either hunted them down, for sport, as the Spartans did, and the Romans often did; or, they herded them, and culled them, as cattle. They treated them nice—they put 'em the barn, they put 'em in the field, and then when they didn't produce, they culled them, to save on medical expenses, because they weren't productive.

The system of government, of modern government, in modern European history, is based on the assumption that the government is responsible to the people: What's the difference between a man and an animal? How many people know the difference? The difference lies in the human mind, the difference between the quality of man and the beast. And when you have ideas like those of Hobbes, or Locke, which do not distinguish between man and the beast, what do you get? Men treat men as beasts. And become beasts, themselves.

So, the key problem here, is twofold: First of all, the task of government, the task of leadership, is to make the people aware of the nature of man as made in the likeness of the Creator. That man is not an animal. Therefore, man partakes of the divine. And secondly, is to create those conditions which are suitable, to a person of that nature. We don't want a dumb beast working in the field, like a cow! We want a human being, developing—developing ideas, transmitting those ideas to coming generations; human beings who have a sense of immortality; a sense of mission in life: not just a sense of obligation to do a job, but a sense that they are getting something from their previous generations; they're passing on something enriched to coming generations. That they come and they go. You live and you die, but in the time you're alive, you do something. You adopt a mission in life, or have one thrust upon you. And you do it for the benefit of future generations. And you can smile at death, if you can do that.

That's been taken away from us.

People who take that away from people, people who destroy young people, with drugs, with these kinds of things: They are Satanic! Why? What do I mean, by Satanic? They are taking away the sense of humanity from the individual; and they're taking away the regard for the other person, as human, as in the image of the Creator.

And, that's what's wrong with us. If we had this kind of love, of human beings for human beings, which is described by Plato in his second book of The Republic, as agape; which is the same thing as in I Corinthians 13, the same idea, this idea of love of mankind: That, if you were devoted to that, as your fundamental interest in life, that service of that, government will work. And therefore, it's important to make that distinction, it's important for politicians to finally get the guts to make that distinction: It is wrong to do things, that correspond to looking at a fellow human being, as some kind of human cattle, or worse.

And therefore, I am writing more on it. And another piece is coming out, very soon!

Democrats Have Gone to Pot!

Question: In running for President, what have you learned in your different campaigns? And, how has the Democratic Party changed, since you started?

LaRouche: Oh! The Democratic Party has gone to pot! It was much better, a long time ago. You know, Clinton was a nice guy, and that fooled a lot of people abut the Democratic Party. He didn't always perform very well, but he was capable of expressing nice intentions, and he was a very intelligent President. He had some shortcomings, but they weren't in lack of intelligence.

What's happened to the Democratic Party, is the Democratic Party accepted the change. The Democratic Party was never a party of principle. It was pretty much a piece of garbage for much of its history, until Franklin Roosevelt came along, and he changed it. And the Democratic Party rose at the time that the Republican Party was really in its deepest decline. So, it was a change in the character of the Democratic Party. So, when you talk about the "Democratic Party," when you say, "What do you like about the Democratic Party, historically?" you say, "Franklin Roosevelt." Not that he's the beginning and ending of it, but that typifies, in our history, a Democratic Party as it should be.

When the cultural change occurred, in the middle of the 1960s, corresponding to the Indo-China War, Johnson's terror at thinking of what it meant to see his President shot—and that terrified Johnson, greatly. But, from that time on, we went downhill, morally. We no longer were the same people. And, it got worse and worse.

Now, history doesn't work in four-year cycles. It works in generations. It's been 40 years, approximately, since this change took over the United States. The Democratic Party has degenerated, as most of the political institutions, and other institutions, have degenerated over those 40 years.

I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster, at least on the record, in terms of what I've forecast and what has happened, and I've seen this coming. I saw the changes. I saw how they were going to occur. And I decided I had to do something about it. And, then, when I saw what was happening, with [Zbigniew] Brzezinski coming in with his Trilateral Commission, to take over the Democratic Party in 1976, I decided I had to do something. So, I got into politics at that point, for that reason: to stop what Brzezinski represented. It would be the death of the Democratic Party, and the death of the nation, if it continued.

And, the things that I've warned against, have all happened.

Now, in the cycle of history, people develop bad habits. A cultural degeneration, such as the present one, develops as a bad habit. People pick up bad habits. And, they begin to say, "Well, these habits are the lessons of experience. Experience has taught us this. Experience has given us the following values." But, they're the wrong values! But, if the world doesn't come crashing down, because you accept the wrong values within three or four years, people say, "It's all right! It's all right! Cultural change, fine!" Then, you come along to something like a cyclical depression, as we saw back in 1928 through 1933. You should think about—remember, some people are old enough to remember, how people behaved—in New Hampshire, for example—in the 1920s. I remember. They behaved terribly! They were decadent! Terribly decadent—then, boom! 1928-29. You should see the shock, that people went through, from '28 through '33—the shock! You should see it in the state of New Hampshire—I saw in '28 to '32, in particular. The shock! People you know! They changed! They were terrified; they were frightened; they were despondent.

Then, Roosevelt came along, and people were willing to shuck the values of Coolidge and Hoover, the Flapper Era. They were willing to make changes—reluctantly, but they made changes. And, we survived! We developed a new paradigm.

But then, at the end of the war, we began to develop a contrary paradigm, an anti-Roosevelt paradigm. And we began to go down. We went back into the war business again! We went into thermonuclear and nuclear war. Went into these crazy adventures, that Eisenhower, in his own way, tried to stop. And, then Kennedy was killed; the Missile Crisis happened. And they were terrified again: So, people said, "Let's run from reality. Let's go into a post-industrial society. Let's get away from this technology—it frightens us! It frightens us!" We accepted new values, that we could do something else, apart from producing product. We would now make our money, or make our living, in some other way. And, we went along with it.

And so, now, 40 years later, the price has to be paid. And, history is often—if you look at the history of the Peloponnesian War, for example, which is often studied by scholars; look at the history of the religious wars, from 1511 to 1648 in Europe; look at many of these phenomena, these long cycles, cycles of more than a generation, which are characteristic of human society. And, humanity, in general, has progressed. The human species has progressed, in net effect, over time, despite all these things.

But, the reason we survive, is because, when a time of crisis comes, when bad habits have come to the end of their skein, then if people step forward, and provide the new ideas that are needed, then, maybe, the people in general will begin to accept those ideas. A person in politics, as I am, has to function that way: You function to win, because you're functioning to win a change. You're not functioning on the basis of running a popularity contest, though popularity is not irrelevant. You're running, to bring about a change. You're on a mission, to change the way things are going. And, you have to be patient. You have to wait, till the people are ready to make that change with you. And, that's what I've been doing, this past quarter-century.

Improving Life in Africa

Question: I, myself, am African. I'd like to ask you, how do you see yourself improving life for vulnerable people, such as Africa, and elsewhere?

LaRouche: Well, Africa—sub-Saharan Africa in particular—has been a target, since the 1971-72 period, of genocide. The turning point was 1976: I sponsored, with others, an effort at the Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the Non-Aligned Nations, for a just new world economic order; my chief collaborator in that was Fred Wills, who was the Foreign Minister of Guyana, who was an activist in Africa, and had been very much involved in that.

But, since that time, especially since '75-'76, there has been in Africa, deliberate genocide, promoted by policies such as Henry Kissinger's NSSM-200. Which distinctly says: The Africans have too much in terms of mineral resources, which we want for our future. Therefore, we must not allow their population to grow. We must make it shrink. And above all, we must not let them enjoy technology, because they'll use up more of these mineral resources, that we want for our future.

So, genocide has been Anglo-American policy toward Africa, since that time. And what you're seeing is the orchestration, in the usual, customary ways, of genocide against Africa.

So, how do we do it? Well, you go back to what Roosevelt proposed in 1942-43, in the context of the invasion of Africa, by the U.S. forces, where he had this meeting with Churchill on these issues. He laid out to Churchill, and the others there, a map of what U.S. policy toward Africa would be, especially North Africa, in the post-war period—that is, the northern part of Africa. He laid out grand projects, of rail development, water development, engineering developments, to give Africans the basic, large-scale infrastructure, which would enable them—in a de-colonized world—to build economies. Now, that still is what has to be done today.

The point is a question of power: Where is the power going to come—first of all, to free the African, from this genocide, which is coming down on them, every day, increasingly right now? Secondly, where do we get the means? My view is that, if we organize—if the United States will work with Europe and Eurasian countries, in the direction which Eurasia is already going, to solve the problem of the crisis in Eurasia: that Eurasia, and the United States, together, will be sufficiently strong to provide the assistance to Africa, to:

Number one, eliminate this genocide process; that is, eliminate the elements of genocide, such as Museveni, for example, in Uganda; who's an Anglo-American agent, who is committing genocide against the people of his own country, and other countries. To eliminate that factor, of support for genocide.

And secondly, we should go in, with large-scale projects of infrastructure-building. We should do it, by sponsoring African corporations, which will take the development, and will own the development. We will go in, on a technology-transfer method, of putting our forces, our abilities in there, to assist them in getting started, and will continue to support them. It's the only chance.

Now, we have also, in Africa, we have another problem: Disease. These conditions produce disease, and they produce diseases which are dangerous to all humanity. The HIV case is only an example of this; it's only one of many. Therefore, we have to help Africa to deal with this tropical disease factor. I mean, if you're sleeping on a mat, if children are sleeping on a mat, in a tropical region of Africa, every disease-carrying bug in the world gets through that mat, and bites them: And, they get the diseases. So therefore, we have an epidemic problem that we have to control.

We have to have, now, a policy toward Africa, which is not one we need be ashamed of.

The Problem With the Supreme Court

Question: Can you speak ... about your relationship to what kind of Supreme Court.... Could you tell us your views about jurisprudence?

LaRouche: Well, we got a problem in the Supreme Court, typified by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I do not consider fully human. And, you have five judges on the so-called conservative side—that doesn't mean that the four judges who are on the non-conservative side, are perfect. But, there has been, obviously, a deterioration in the quality of the Supreme Court, since the middle of the 1970s. Which I think we're all aware of. When Rehnquist got in there, things began to get bad. Here is a man, a racist from Arizona, an open racist—and you put in an open racist in there, then promote him to Chief Justice—that's not good. But, he's not so smart. Scalia is a real slime-ball—really nasty. I don't think he's fully human.

But, so yes, we have a system of Constitutional government, where if two branches of government—the Executive and the Congress—can come into an agreement, we can control the problem of the Supreme Court. Our Constitution provides for that kind of structure, that interrelationship. There's a fourth branch of government, of course, not just the states. The fourth branch of government is the people. And, the people, if the people form a movement, and say, "We are going to have this change," that change will occur. As long as at least two of the three Federal branches agree.

If an election, a President of the United States, a successful candidate for the Presidency, can carry the majority of the House of Representatives, and can shift the Senate—we're that close—a successful Democratic candidate, will carry the Congress and will carry the Senate. And therefore, we will have two sections of government, which can deal with the problem.

Also, the thing that has to be done, is, we have to lay before the American people, the question of the principles of our Constitution. People tend to think of a sort of a Ten Commandments, "do's" and "don'ts." And, our Constitution is not one of "do's" and "don'ts." Those Constitutions which are based on "do's" and "don't,s" don't survive. Ours is the only Constitution, which has survived, since it was created. Every other government in the world, has undergone radical changes in its Constitutions—or overthrow of its Constitution, since that time.

The durability of our Constitution lies, first of all, in the Preamble of the Constitution, and in the antecedent, the Declaration of Independence: two documents which were crafted under the direction of Benjamin Franklin, which represented the highest level of thinking from Europe. The Preamble of the Constitution is the essence. Three principles: the sovereignty of the nation, the general welfare, and posterity. And, if we read the rest of the Constitution from that standpoint, those three principles, we know what to do.

The problem is, as with the earlier question, men in this country, do not yet understand fully, the significance of the difference between man and beast, between human and human cattle. That should be the concept, which my campaign is pushing. The concept of what is human. What natural-law principles flow from consideration of the human being as human? What is right and wrong, from that standpoint? The same principles as I Corinthians 13—same principle: that, if people understand the law, as natural law, and understand our Constitution as a reflection of natural law, as a statement of intention, then, if the people are mobilized behind it, and if the Congress and the Presidency understand that's the rule of the game, and if enough people on the Supreme Court join us, we can control these problems.

The judgeship problem is, we are not getting good judges proposed. We're getting bad judges! So, you get a jam-up on bad judges. They're trying to pack the judges, the Federal court! It's bad. There's no principle involved. It's pure thuggery. So, that's our problem.

But, we have to look at it from a strategic standpoint: We must take the Presidency. We must carry the House of Representatives. We must carry a majority in the Senate. If we do that, we can deal with our problems. But, it depends on a conception of natural law, not so-called positive law.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS