|This transcript appears in the January 14, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Replies to Malaysian Journalists
LaRouche: What Foreigners Should
Understand About the United States
On Dec. 22, Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
conducted an international press conference via Internet webcast with
journalists from around the world. Three journalists and commentators from
Malaysia submitted written questions for that webcast, only two of which could
be answered at the time. LaRouche subsequently answered three sets of questions
submitted by Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam, author, commentator, and prominent
retired civil servant and corporate figure; Hardev Kaur, Editor-at-Large for
Malaysia's leading English-language press conglomerate, New Straits Times
Publications, Inc.; and Long Shih Rome, correspondent for Smart Investor, which
has a circulation of 20,000 in Malaysia and Singapore. Long Shih Rome explained
LaRouche's "typical collapse function" in the Aug. 23-Sept. 6, 1999 issue of
Smart Investor. Here is LaRouche's written response to these journalists'
questions, which he submitted on Dec. 31, 1999.
Ramon Navaratnam: Why do the American people allow
top U.S. officials to give such a bad image of Americans as being heartless and
arrogant, when in fact, the American people are mostly decent human
LaRouche: There are three interconnected reasons for
the sundry real and merely apparent difficulties of this sort. These matters are
contrary to what are the currently popular official and related popular
mythologies world-wide. Nonetheless, no competent assessment of the U.S.A. and
its role in world affairs can be reached without a wrenching break with those
popular mythologies. Indeed, most of the self-destructive blunders which nations
of Europe, the Americas, and Asia commit, in reacting to the U.S.A.'s role, are
the result of mistaking false, but internationally popular mythologies about the
U.S.A. for the facts of the matter.
In making this reply to the first of the series of questions,
I have included essential elements of historical background required to situate
my replies to the subsequent questions of this series.
First, from the beginning of its existence, the
political-philosophical composition of the U.S. population was divided between
patriots and what were then termed "American Tories." The latter have been
typified, to the present day, by a powerful combination of pro-British monarchy
Wall Street interests, and the fanatically pro-British slave-holder faction
associated with the treasonous Confederacy and its continuing tradition of
today. These rabidly pro-British monarchy, Wall Street-centered elements, aided
by British Commonwealth press syndicates (such as those of the Hollinger
Corporation and Rupert Murdoch), control directly the leading mass media of
today's U.S.A., and dominate the thinking of that upper 20% of U.S. family
households which share half of the personal income of the U.S.A. as a
The remaining 80% of family households, typified by
African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, labor generally, most
senior citizens, and science and related types of professionals, have a
different perception of national interests than most among the current upper 20%
of the family-income brackets. Unfortunately, since the middle to late 1980s,
until now, U.S. politics is dominated by 30% of the eligible voters, most of
these dominated by the upper 20% of family-income brackets. This is referred by
some as the "suburban" vote, on which the so-called "Third Way" dogma is
premised. The fact that the man who is, after me, most hated by the Wall Street
crowd, President Bill Clinton, should have massive popular support from the
general population, but be the victim of a Wall Street-dominated Congress,
reflects the impact of the current division of power between the upper 20% and
lower 80% of U.S. family-income brackets.
From its late 1820s founding, by Wall Street banker Martin
Van Buren, until the first inauguration of President Franklin Roosevelt, in
March 1933, the national Democratic Party was predominantly Wall
Street-controlled, pro-slavery, and often outrightly treasonous, as under
Presidents Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. That legacy was continued by Democratic
Presidents Grover Cleveland and the pro-Ku Klux Klan scoundrel Woodrow Wilson.
From the election of President Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, the patriotic tradition
of U.S. leaders such as Benjamin Franklin, and Presidents such as George
Washington, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams, was continued by those elements
of the Republican Party which were opposed to the Wall Street cabal of later
Republican Party Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.
With the assassination of President William McKinley, in
1901, the Republican Party was virtually taken over by its Wall Street faction,
then headed by President Theodore Roosevelt, the nephew and intellectual
creation of his political mentor, the leading Confederate traitor and spy, James
Bulloch. Excepting the case of President Warren Harding, whose "mysterious
death" brought the scoundrel Calvin Coolidge into the U.S. Presidency, the Wall
Street-dominated Republican Party became the controlled asset of a rabidly
pro-British cabal of Wall Street financial institutions and law firms. The
Democratic Party's 1912 and 1916 candidate, President Woodrow Wilson, the backer
of the relaunching of the racist Ku Klux Klan, was brought into the Presidency
by Republican Theodore Roosevelt.
It was the consolidation of Wall Street's power, under the
U.S. Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Wilson (1913-1921),
which consolidated Wall Street's power in and over the permanent bureaucracy of
the U.S. government. The establishment of the Federal Reserve System, at the
direction of King Edward VII's personal agent, Jacob Schiff, and the
establishment of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (as the National Bureau of
Investigation) by Theodore Roosevelt's Attorney General Charles Bonaparte (of
the Bonaparte family), typify this. Notably, the assassination of McKinley
resulted in an immediate reversal of not only the domestic, but also the foreign
policies of the U.S.A. The Wall Street-dominated U.S.A. of Theodore Roosevelt
Republicans and racist Democrats behind Woodrow Wilson, made the U.S.A. a de
facto ally of British King Edward VII's formation of the Anglo-French Entente
Cordiale, for a war intended to destroy both Germany and Russia, the war
which would have never occurred in 1914, but for the U.S. support for the
British monarchy supplied by Wall Street's sons of the treasonous Confederacy,
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. U.S. policy against Asia, and the worst
U.S. practices against the nations of South and Central America, date from the
introduction of such policies by the Wall Street bankers and lawyers behind
Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
This special arrangement between Wall Street and the British
monarchy became known, during the periods of World War I and II, and the period
following, as the "BAC" (the British-American-Canadian) cabal. It was this cabal
which, typified by Britain's Montagu Norman and Norman's business associate
Prescott Bush, the chief executive officer of the Brown-Brothers-Harriman firm,
who, in January 1933, joined forces in bringing Adolf Hitler into power in
Germany. (Prescott Bush was the father of later U.S. President George Bush and
grandfather of current Republican Party pre-candidate George W. Bush.) Recently,
"BAC" signifies the supranational, "globalizing" power of the
"British-American-Commonwealth" cabal. This is to be recognized currently, as
the combination of Anglo-American financiers and lawyers behind the current
drive for de facto "world government" through "globalization."
Typically, U.S. foreign policy today is associated with
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she a Zbigniew Brzezinski associate and
the daughter of the Joseph Korbel who shaped the career of George W. Bush
foreign-policy advisor Condaleeza Rice. Notably, Joseph Korbel was formerly an
official of the Eduard Benes government of Czechoslovakia, that Benes the father
of the wife of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the latter from the lower end of the Polish
nobility, and a long-standing asset of the same Averell Harriman whose firm
co-funded the bringing of Hitler into power in Germany. Such is the nature of
life among the princes and lackeys of the Wall Street-centered cabals of the
BAC; among such cabals, pedigree is considered very important; often, these are
family trees which have few, if any branches.
Franklin Roosevelt's (FDR's) 1932 election established his
reformed Democratic Party as the bearer of the patriotic tradition of Franklin,
Washington, and Lincoln.
This brings us to the second key fact to be understand about
the United States and its foreign and domestic policies of today.
To appreciate this more adequately, one should focus
attention on the key issue marking all of FDR's continuing battles against both
Wall Street and the then-incumbent majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue
was FDR's defense of a fundamental principle of law embedded in the Preamble of
the U.S. Federal Constitution: the fundamental constitutional law of the U.S.A.
premises the definitions and authorities of government upon the unique
competence and inalienable responsibility of the sovereign nation-state
republic, to promote the general welfare, that for both all of the living
and of their posterity. That has always been the crucial issue of the conflict
between the British monarchy and the North American patriots, from the accession
of that bloody tyrant William of Orange, in 1689, and of Orange's ally, King
George I, to the present day.
This feature of U.S. natural and constitutional law overlaps
that definition of U.S. strategic interest which the-U.S. Secretary of State
John Quincy Adams set forth in advising President James Monroe to reject British
Foreign Minister Canning's proposal of a U.S. alliance with the British
monarchy. Adams stressed that the United States shared no "community of
principle" with the British monarchy.
That argument by Adams points to the nature of the
fundamental and uncompromisable difference in species-nature between the U.S.A.
as a sovereign republic, and the anti-republican, oligarchical composition of
the British monarchy's ruling financier aristocracy, the latter as typified by
the interests expressed by the Bank of England. The post-1714 British monarchy,
contrary to the English monarchy of Henry VII, for example, is a form of state,
in which the mass of the population are merely subjects of those who own the
authority of the permanent state apparatus. Under the U.S. Constitution, as
under the notion of natural law adopted by France's King Louis XI and England's
Henry VII, the authority and responsibility of the state are defined by the
obligation of the government to promote the general welfare of all the people
and of their posterity, in perpetuity. With any people which governs itself
according to that notion of sovereignty, the U.S.A. of Adams shared, and shares,
a "true community of principle."
There is a single axiomatic principle underlying all of those
conflicts which define those among today's more or less global political and
related issues affecting relations among states generally. These conflicts are
to be seen as expressions of the same continuing historical conflict which has
placed the forces of oligarchy against the Creator himself, for as far back as
history informs us. The political form of that issue is the lack of any possible
honorable compromise between those who deny the fact that, since all men and
women are set apart from and above the beasts, because they are made equally in
the image of the Creator of the universe, there can be no legitimate government
but one which derives the entirety of its duties and authority from an efficient
commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons, and their posterity,
in a manner consistent with mankind's nature as a being made in the image of the
Creator. This commitment is otherwise known as the notion of a state
self-governed by what is known in English-language usage as the principle of
"the general welfare," or the notion of a "commonwealth." This absolute division
of rule by emperors and oligarchies from the principles of natural law on which
the sovereign republic is based, defines both the meaning of "community of
principle," and of its adversaries.
The global issue facing policy-making today, is just that.
Every other issue is, relatively speaking, only a form of petty foolishness by
My third point is, that one should look at all among the
leading issues of the domestic and foreign policy of the U.S.A. today in terms
of that definition of republican "community of principle."
From such an historical perspective, we must say, that the
U.S.A. today is temporarily dominated by a political class, the BAC oligarchy
and its lackeys. Those lackeys are drawn, chiefly, from among the upper 20% of
family-income brackets. The latter class of lackeys is, currently, generally
speaking, as clinically insane as the devotees of the Netherlands'
Seventeenth-Century "tulip craze" and those early Eighteenth-Century John
Law-style bubbles which bankrupted a similar social stratum in England and
France. One should also be reminded of those middle-class speculators of Weimar
Germany whose shirts turned from white to brown, when the Weimar
hyper-inflationary bubble of 1923 wiped out their financial holdings.
It is important to remember, that these lackeys, these "mad
cows" of present U.S. suburban life, are the principal constituency for such
lunatic causes as "globalization." These madmen are the social base for the
spread of the so-called "Third Way" of current British Prime Minister Tony Blair
in the U.S.A. as in Europe. These are the wild-eyed fanatics behind such causes
as "free trade," and "shareholder value." These are the wide-eyed madmen of the
twenty-four-hour-a-day "financial derivatives" trade. They are to be understood
by considering them as "virtual fascists." That is to signify by "virtual
fascists," that when the inevitable global debacle of the present world
financial system occurs, there will be but a relatively short period of time
between the occurrence of either a general deflationary or hyper-inflationary
collapse, during which effective, Franklin Roosevelt-like measures of
reconstruction must be introduced, and the point at which failure to take such
measures will unleash these present white-collar madmen as desperate, outrightly
fascist fanatics on their march to national and world power.
Once Germany's then-Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher had been
replaced by Hitler, in January 1933, through the negligence of the top
Reichswehr strata, and when, in the Summer of 1934, the same Reichswehr leaders
stood by complicitly in allowing Hitler to assassinate von Schleicher, World War
II became inevitable. And, ten years later, Hitler slaughtered the same military
leadership whose negligence had allowed Hitler's accession to, and consolidation
of power during 1933-34. Now, as then, in times of systemic crises, the
consequence of delay in taking timely and appropriate actions for change will
usually result in the worst result, as Shakespeare foretells the doom of the
character Hamlet in the famous Third Act soliloquy of that tragedy. That is the
type of danger the world has most to fear from the situation in the U.S.A.
today. Failure to make the needed radical and sudden replacement of the present
IMF system, would be the most likely cause for a rapid disintegration of
civilization world-wide during the relatively short- to medium-term period
This means that the future of the U.S.A., and therefore of
the world, depends upon a radical shift back toward pro-FDR policies forced upon
government by a reactivated majority of the citizenry of the U.S.A. Thus, the
appearance and success of the corresponding quality of political leadership is
crucial for the survival of the U.S.A. and also the general well-being of
humanity globally. Thus, there is no sane politics within the U.S.A., or
concerning its relationship to other nations, which does not proceed from
considering the power of the U.S.A. in light of the historic role it must now
play in bringing into being the kind of community of principle among sovereign
republics to which I have referred summarily here.
At the point that leading patriots of sundry nations look at
the U.S.A., its history, and its proper function in the world, in those terms of
reference, all important misunderstandings concerning the U.S.A. must tend to
Ramon Navaratnam: What can be done by Americans to
reduce the powerful influence of oligarchists who shape U.S. foreign policy for
their own selfish interests, at the expense of the poor? The American press is
"controlled" by the rich and the powerful who distort information to suit the
interests of their rich owners.
LaRouche: One should look at such miserable states
of affairs through the eyes of the greatest Classical tragedians of European
civilization, such as the Greeks Aeschylus and Sophocles, Shakespeare, and
Friedrich Schiller. The tragic doom of nations and their people, which we see
unfolding on the Classical stage, reflects two closely interrelated classes of
problems: the role of leadership of peoples, and the kinds of immorality of
those peoples themselves which tend to doom them. The function of the true
political and other leader in society, including the greatest of the Classical
artists, is to uplift the people, to cause the people to recognize the
potentially fatal immorality which has guided most peoples, in most periods of
history, to bring doom upon themselves. It is when the available leaders succumb
to such popular traditions, rather than inducing the people to change themselves
for the better, that great empires, entire cultures doom themselves as cultures
which are self-doomed, because they have lost the moral fitness to
President Franklin Roosevelt, whatever we might otherwise
view his faults to have been, typifies the kind of leader who, in real-life
history, were likely to be found available to address the ominous situation now
menacing world civilization in its entirety. There is a principle to be
recognized from study of Roosevelt's special role in the history of this passing
century. It is a principle which should be familiar to us from comprehension of
the greatest works of Classical tragedy, a principle which is also demonstrated
in real-life history. Indeed, all great Classical tragedy is the product of the
artist's insight into those principles of real-life history which politicians
had overlooked, the proverbial "usually electable politicians" cast in the mold
of the general run of leading, and predominantly foolish political figures
The point is, that the possibility of inducing a morally
corrupt popular opinion to recognize its folly, is presented to us only in those
times when the people are faced with the kinds of menacing situations in which
they, belatedly, recognize that they are fools, and their most popular opinions
are worse than foolish ones. Only in such circumstances, are populations prone
to hear the voice of the leader who might lead them to save themselves from
their own habituated follies. So, the rise of FDR to the U.S. Presidency must be
viewed; so, in contrast, the 1933-1934 failures of Germany's military leadership
must be viewed. Such are my chances today, perhaps the only chance the U.S.
population will be offered, to save itself.
Look at the U.S. election campaign now. We have two nominally
leading candidates for the U.S. Presidency, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and
U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, both of which are incurably disqualified,
intellectually and morally, to assume the position of U.S. President, especially
under presently developed national and global circumstances. Of my two
Democratic rivals, Gore and former Senator Bill Bradley, Bradley, unlike Gore,
is intelligent and compassionate, but has so far failed to grasp the crucial
issue facing the U.S. Presidency at this time. Generally, by that standard,
taking all putative candidates, from all parties, I am running against a mixed
bag of both leading dummies, Bush and Gore, and, otherwise, persons totally
unqualified for occupying the Presidency under the kinds of crisis conditions
existing as of January 2001. The common difference between their campaigns and
mine, is that while others are appealing to those very prejudices in the
population, by means of which the nation and more might be self-destroyed, my
mission is to induce the people to abandon those prejudices, to seek the truth
By his God-given nature, man is essentially good. The
goodness lies within; but it must often be redeemed, and often yet again. Too
often, there is no redemption. All in all, that innate goodness, if it can be
called forth, presents us now a chance to succeed in overcoming the global
crisis before us. It is a poor chance in a narrow interval of time, but it is
the only chance we have. We must find a just optimism in the historical fact,
that it is only under conditions of systemic crises, that a nation's people and
institutions are likely to be induced to abandon those customs by means of which
they have reached the state of a culture which has lost the moral fitness to
Such are the prospects before us. I am optimistic, but I
bring no illusions to that optimism.
Ramon Navaratnam: What can be done to ensure that
the American public gets honest and professional reports about the rest of the
world--like the EIR gives?
LaRouche: I am going my best, and the clearly
perilous nature of the present state of crisis in, and among most nations, has
lately brought more voices of sanity to the fore. Morally, the advanced state of
the present crisis is reshaping the currents of near-term history into a state
of preparation for changes that will be, for better or for worse, fundamental,
Ramon Navaratnam: Why has the U.S. government been
dragging its feet in initiating concrete action for reforming the "international
LaRouche: You may recall that, during early
September 1998, President Clinton delivered an address in New York City, in
which he spoke of restructuring the international monetary system. Then, after
the public announcement of the Long Term Capital Management crisis, Clinton
backed away from the issue of restructuring the system, and capitulated to the
arrangements made at the October 1998 Washington, D.C. monetary conference,
instead. Then, shortly after the Democratic partial victory in the November 1998
U.S. Congressional elections, the Republicans launched their impeachment drive
against the President. That, for the time being, ended all initiatives for
The President had, in effect, threatened to do something
which frightened the BAC bankers and lawyers. He then backed down from that
threat, and when he failed to secure a majority in the November 1998
Congressional elections, the BAC gang used its assets in the Congress and the
corrupt Federal Court system to threaten all kinds of horrors against the
President and also the members of his family. President Clinton had made the
mistake of backing off from what he threatened to do. His threat enraged them in
the extreme, as subsequent events showed; but, his failure to carry through on
that threat, encouraged them to attempt to destroy him. Do not tease man-eating
jungle predators; flank them preemptively, and promptly.
Now, I believe, that only the shock-effect of an actual
financial blow-out in the U.S. financial system itself, will produce the
conditions under which President Clinton might take the political risk of acting
as he should have acted in September 1998. That being the situation thus far,
the only rational strategy is to build up support for my role in this matter,
thus rallying the degree of support needed to prompt Clinton to respond
appropriately at the proverbial last moment of opportunity for addressing a U.S.
collapse which had then already broken out in more or less full
Ramon Navaratnam: Why did the United States allow
the World Trade Organization [WTO] meeting in Seattle to fail?
LaRouche: I see no sign that President Clinton was
unhappy with that result. The WTO agenda should be viewed as essentially a
project of the political factions aligned with Clinton's opponents, such as
Prime Minister Tony Blair, Vice-President Al Gore, and Secretary Albright. The
crucial development came from western continental Europe, not the developing
nations. When Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, backed by France's
Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, acted jointly against the British faction in the
Mannesmann and related developments of the days immediately preceding the
Seattle meeting, the correlation of forces within the G-7 had shifted
sufficiently to bring about the defeat of the WTO faction. One should not
overlook the fact, that Clinton, the AFL-CIO, and other relevant forces
expressed sighs of great relief once the final results of that debacle were
This was a small, but much-needed victory for the cause of
the sovereign nation-state; hopefully, the victory will not be a Pyrrhic one.
Again, never tease predatory jungle beasts, such as those "globalizers" behind
the drive to eliminate the institution of the sovereign nation-state.
Hardev Kaur: How can the United States set
conditions that its agriculture subsidy should not be questioned at the WTO, and
yet it wants to raise the European Union agriculture policy issues? Why the
LaRouche: The debate over so-called "agricultural
subsidies" was shaped by a general lack of competence on the related economic
issues, on all sides speaking publicly on that occasion. The idea, that U.S.
farmers should continue to be bankrupted, as they have been since about 1977, by
having world prices for foodstuffs set at slave-labor wage-levels associated
with the agriculture of poorer nations, is not an acceptable policy for any
person who understands the economic issues involved.
U.S. food prices should be based on what would be termed an
approximately U.S. ninety-percent of parity-price set for payments to U.S.
farmers. Prices for food on the world market should also rise, in order to
channel capital formation into agriculture in developing and other nations, thus
making possible a rise in the productivity and standard of living of the farm
sector in those parts of the world.
The so-called "developing sector" did itself no service by
arguing against price protection for U.S. farm-producers. What was needed was
the same degree of protection for the farmers of the developing sector's
nations. What is killing the world now, is too much enthusiasm for the rapacious
economic dogmas of François Quesnay and Adam Smith, and not enough
attention to the principles employed by all successful modern economies, the
principles of Alexander Hamilton, the Careys, and Friedrich List. In the end,
the choice is between "free trade" and national sovereignty; that was the issue
at Seattle's WTO conference. Happily, the WTO and U.S. Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright lost that round. Happily, at least some participants in that
conference recognized, that one can not have both "free trade" and national
sovereignty for long.
What is needed is a scrapping of all schemes of
"globalization," and a restoration of the kinds of "protectionist" measures
enjoyed under the pre-1958 phase of the post-World War II Bretton Woods
agreements. That includes: 1) End the floating-exchange-rate monetary system:
fix parities of currencies within a gold-reserve system akin to that of the
pre-1958 period, with the goal of ensuring rates on long-term development loans
of about 1% on five- to thirty-year loans for capital improvements; 2) Capital
and exchange controls, and internal financial controls, under the authority of
sovereign governments; 3) Agreements on tariffs and trade which protect
agricultural and industrial development within nations, and promote mutually
beneficial trade-cooperation among nations.
Finally, the agricultural policies of those behind the
project of WTO "globalization," are the policies of an Anglo-American food
cartel, which has consistently pursued its rapine policies against the farmers
of both the G-7 and developing nations since the middle to late 1970s period of
the U.S. Carter Administration. These same controllers of that international
food cartel, are, like U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, also backers of policies of
population-reduction, especially the populations of so-called developing-sector
nations. Never accuse them or Gore, or Madeleine Albright, of being "unfair";
rather, recognize them as intrinsically evil.
Hardev Kaur: The ministerial meeting in Singapore
had agreed that labor issues would be left to the ILO. Yet now the United States
wants to "sneak in" the labor issues into the WTO by the "back door" it seems.
How and why should any sovereign country have any confidence that their issues
will be taken into account in future negotiations?
LaRouche: The concerns you express are fully
justified. As long as the IMF and World Bank exist in their present form, under
the present policy-making trends, and as long as a powerful concert of nations
supports those institutions and their policies, there is no possibility of
justice for any nation under the thumb of such institutions. The ILO's record
over the period of its existence, has always been consistent with the
then-current dictates of the world's dominant group of central bankers. The
presently hegemonic institutions wish to spread virtual and actual slave-labor
practices, and so on. Dinner should not debate with a hungry crocodile
confronting it. Unless the institutional changes I have indicated are soon made,
that under emergency conditions, the likelihood of justice--for almost
anyone--will vanish into the mists of a planetary "new dark age." The question
is, therefore: who has the courage, wisdom, and power to force the needed
Hardev Kaur: The United States is already beginning
to say that no Asian is "qualified" to take over the helm of the IMF. The
informal agreement that a European should head the IMF and an American head the
World Bank was made in 1946. At that time there were not as many member
countries and they obviously did not have a say in this "agreement." Now with
the world that is so changed, should not views of other members be taken into
account? Why should a country like the United States continue to dictate the
policies and who should head a multilateral organization such as the
LaRouche: The policy-trends against which you
complain are to be recognized as the fruit of the untimely death of President
During the period prior to his death, Roosevelt had been in a
virtual war with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill over just these
issues. Roosevelt had scarcely been buried, when the administration of President
Harry Truman adopted the policies of Churchill over those of Roosevelt. In fact,
although the U.S. is often blamed for many things, it should be blamed for
allowing the British monarchy to use its principal U.S. asset, the Wall Street
bankers, for putting the U.S. government at the service of London's Commonwealth
financier aristocracy, at nearly every turn. The point I have just summarized
was also stated frankly, although from an opposing standpoint, by former U.S.
Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, in a keynote address delivered publicly
at London's Chatham House in May 1982.
After all, today, it is that London market which controls
over 90% of the world's financial turnover, and is the dominant force in all of
the great mega-mergers seizing control of most of the mineral and related hard
assets of most of the world including the U.S.A.--today.
As Kissinger described the Roosevelt-Churchill conflict,
Roosevelt's policy and my own, in 1945-1946, when I was a simple soldier in
Southeast Asia, and now--is to greet the end of World War II with the immediate
elimination of all relics of Portuguese, Dutch, British, and French colonialism
and imperialism. Roosevelt had intended to use the factor of his relationship to
the Soviet Union and China, and U.S. power, to bring in the former colonial
world as fully sovereign nation-states, and to share in the administration of a
new, post-free-trade, post-colonialist order.
It has been my persisting proposal, since developments of
1997, that the inevitably worsening world financial crisis be the occasion for
bringing about an emergency weekend conference of the representatives of a group
of representative nations of Eurasia and the Americas. The purpose of such an
emergency conference of heads of state and governments, is to declare the
existing world financial system to be bankrupt, to launch a new world monetary
system modelled in form on the pre-1958 Bretton Woods agreements, to have the
relevant governments place the relevant financial institutions into
government-directed bankruptcy-reorganization, and to launch large-scale
emission of state credit for long-term improvements in basic economic
infrastructure and capital improvements in the technology of agriculture and
I have proposed that Russia, China, and India be the three
corners of a new system of cooperation throughout Asia, together with other
nations of East, Southeast, South, and Central Asia. This three-cornered
cooperation should be wedded with cooperation from western continental Europe
(notably including France, Germany, and Italy), and also the U.S.A. The purpose
is to establish a new world monetary system, modelled upon the successful
features of the pre-1958 Bretton Woods agreements and the Marshall Plan, but,
this time, with the Asian and other former victims of colonialism as politically
The issue is not between nations as such, but, rather,
between contending principles and philosophies, principles and philosophies
which bridge nations. The issue today is the same issue which prompted the
American Revolution against the traditional enemy of the U.S.A., the British
monarchy of George III and his successors. The issue is between the principle of
rule by financier oligarchy, such as the forces behind George Soros, and the
right and obligation of the sovereign nation-state republic to ensure the
general welfare of all persons of existing generations and their
Today, most of the upper 20% of the family-income-brackets in
the U.S.A. are either initiators or lackeys of the madness which grips the
present world financial system. The lower 80% of U.S. family-income brackets,
whose aggregate income is less than half the total for the nation as a whole,
are the victims of the policies currently supported by most among the upper 20%.
Recently, U.S. politics is dominated, more or less consistently, by not more
than 30% of the citizens as a whole. Most of that 30% represents the social and
political standpoint of the upper 20% of family-income brackets.
It is the same in England, for example. Mussolini-lookalike
Prime Minister Tony Blair, with his despicable "Third Way," represents, in
England, the same kind of constituency which "Third Way" apostle Vice-President
Al Gore, and also Texas Governor George W. Bush, represent in the U.S.A. The
issue is between the financier oligarchy, and that oligarchy's lackeys, on the
one side, and the people, on the other. It is not a matter of national
On this issue of economic relations among nations, I shall be
issuing a major policy paper soon. It will be presented under the title of the
issue of a long-standing U.S. internal policy-fight under the heading of
directly opposite definitions of the U.S.A.'s "Manifest Destiny." This will be
the subject of an international Internet video, a live broadcast scheduled to
occur on Jan. 14, 2000. I shall also issue an historical documentation of the
roots of this policy, tracing the history of the issue from Fifteenth-Century
Long Shih Rome: After one year of inception, the
euro has fallen by 16% against the U.S. dollar. What is the real reason for the
weakness? Some attribute it to weak monetary policy on the part of the European
Central Bank, others say that it is because City of London traders are selling
it down because of the slow pace of economic reforms in Germany.
LaRouche: Certainly, there are real weaknesses in a
continental Europe dominated by the so-called Maastricht agreements; but the
relative price of the euro has almost nothing to do with the reality of the
respective economies. Indeed, contrary to most of the leading British press, the
best thing which could happen to Germany's economy would be an elimination of
the Maastricht "reforms," that as soon as possible. The worst thing which could
happen to Germany's economy, would be to continue those reforms.
Review the situation in Europe briefly. Begin with the United
The U.K. is an economic rubbish-bin, but the British
financial position is propped up by what are sometimes termed the City of
London's "invisible earnings." The economies of western and central Europe
depend upon the strength of Germany's real economy. Germany's real economy
depends absolutely on its export sector, especially its high-tech
machine-tool-grade exports and construction capabilities. The rest of western
and central Europe depends upon the keystone role of the trading position of
each and all with respect to Germany.
Continental Europe's economy as a whole suffered a
catastrophe with the simultaneous, coordinated financial predators' attacks on
the economies of Russia and Southeast and East Asia, over the period 1997 into
Summer and early Autumn of 1998. This severely affected the export markets of
western continental Europe. A simultaneous increase in the savagery with which
Maastricht "reforms" and City of London financial raids looted continental
Europe, especially Germany, aggravated the economic situation.
However, the worst situations, outside the worst cases in the
world's so-called developing sector, are currently in Japan and the U.S.A.
itself. Japan is in a desperate situation. In Japan, a hyper-inflationary
explosion of the printing presses is approaching a terminal boundary condition.
The United States is propped by a current accounts deficit ranging between $300
and $400 billions annual rate, and the inflationary pressures on commodity
markets are now accelerating in the general direction of a Weimar-style crisis.
The expansion of U.S. monetary emission is moving in that direction and with
those characteristics now.
Otherwise, the key factor in the run against the deutschemark
and France, is a willfully political action, rather than a market-determined
Long Shih Rome: Now the euro is hovering close to
parity. What is the prospect for the euro in 2000?
LaRouche: No one knows; no one could possibly know.
The entire world system is in a terminal boundary layer of self-accelerating,
leveraged turbulence. We have reached the point, that political decisions,
rather than so-called market trends, will determine everything even during the
Long Shih Rome: If the euro does crash next year,
what are the implications for exporters in Malaysia who sell to Europe? For
importers here who buy from Europe?
LaRouche: We are not dealing with a marketing
problem, but a purely political one. The market trends are for a total collapse
of the world financial system during even the short term. Unless continental
Europe accelerates the defiance of London already shown recently by both France
and Germany, and turns to the kinds of measures which Prime Minister Dr.
Mahathir has chosen so successfully for Malaysia, we are faced with highly
probable trade-collapse in these market relations.
It is encouraging that the continental Europeans are
increasingly sensitive to developments in their Russia and East and South Asia
long-term trading relations. Politically, their instinct will be to fight to
defend the continuation and improvement of those trade relations, even against
increasingly intense Anglo-American pressures to the contrary.
Long Shih Rome: Does the current weakness or future
weakness of the euro suggest that it is undervalued, given that some European
economies are recovering?
LaRouche: No. Every economy in Europe, except the
City of London's financial traffic, is currently operating below real-economic
break-even, and collapsing at a currently accelerating rate. Without a radical
shift back to the kinds of "dirigist" and "statist" measures remembered from the
1950s and early 1960s Europe, there is no possibility that the present trend of
deepening economic collapse could be reversed, or even halted. The collapse is
not cyclical, but systemic. Only systemic measures, overturning present
political arrangements, could halt the presently ongoing collapse.
Long Shih Rome: What is your assessment of the
outlook of the European economies? Are prospects better in 2000 than in 1999
and, if so, why?
LaRouche: Without the kinds of radical changes I
have prescribed, the worst results are inevitable.
Long Shih Rome: What is your answer to the growing
view that the euro is set to fail because of the stringent conditions of the
Maastricht Treaty? Weaker EU members will find it hard to grow as they privatize
and denationalize their economies.
LaRouche: Maastricht dooms continental Europe.
Without its repeal, the situation is a hopeless one. Renationalization of the
economies, and a reversal of the swindle called "privatization," are among the
leading, indispensable preconditions for a recovery.
Long Shih Rome: Will there be a weaker case for
other regions to adopt a common currency bloc?
LaRouche: No. Common currency blocs should be viewed
as likely included features of any workable economic recovery
There is no sane politics within the U.S.A., or concerning
its relationship to other nations, which does not proceed from considering the
power of the U.S.A. in light of the historic role it must now play in bringing
into being the kind of community of principle among sovereign republics to which
I have referred summarily here.The common difference between their campaigns and
mine, is that while others are appealing to those very prejudices in the
population, by means of which the nation and more might be self-destroyed, my
mission is to induce the people to abandon those prejudices, to seek the truth
instead.In the end, the choice is between "free trade" and national sovereignty;
that was the issue at Seattle's WTO conference. Happily, the WTO and U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lost that round. Happily, at least some
participants in that conference recognized, that one can not have both "free
trade" and national sovereignty for long.As long as the IMF and World Bank exist
in their present form, under the present policy-making trends, and as long as a
powerful concert of nations supports those institutions and their policies,
there is no possibility of justice for any nation under the thumb of such