Subscribe to EIR Online
This transcript appears in the February 1, 2002 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

LaRouche's First 2002 Webcast:
`And Now, A Year Later'

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[PDF version of this article]

On Jan. 24, Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche's first Washington webcast in six months was attended live by 200 people—including embassy representatives of 15 nations—and by missions of a dozen other nations at a satellite meeting in New York City. LaRouche's presentation, and the international question-and-answer dialogue which followed it, were broadcast live on his campaign website,, as well as on, and are archived for access on those sites.

LaRouche began by reference to his extraordinary series of four international webcasts during the post-Presidential election crisis in the United States, between Nov. 12, 2000 and Jan. 27, 2001, wherein he forecast the economic crisis which has hit the Bush Administration and the targetting of Washington by international terrorism, and declared war on Enron and the "Southern Strategy" it represented.

It's important in what we're doing here today, to recognize that we have to say what we think is going to happen, or could happen, sometime ahead, and we have to ask ourselves: How do we know we're right? Therefore, my record in forecasting is on the table, as an integral part of any discussion of this question.

For example, between the middle of November and the end of January of the previous year, between the process of the breakdown in the election itself, and the inauguration of President Bush, I made a number of statements and forecasts and characterizations on economic and related questions, and also on strategic issues of crises which we could expect. A year later, it would appear that what I said, what I forecast, is correct. And I think it's fair to say that my forecasts on all of these points were somewhat unique, and in totality, were uniquely accurate. And therefore, I ask you to consider that, in considering what I warn you about, and propose, now.

We can understand the future. We can not understand always, or predict, what events will occur, but we can foresee the conditions into which we're heading. And we can discuss the conditions, what they mean, how we should deal with them, and what the likely response is to these various proposed actions. And that's what I shall do today.

No Way to Save the Present System

Now, there are two major categories—actually three, but two on the table for forecasting. One is the economic issue. As I forecast, and had forecast earlier, but forecast in particular for this year—this past year—the world's present monetary-financial system is in the process of disintegration. Despite all efforts at denial, there is no way that any present mode of IMF policy can prevent a disintegration of Argentina. Only a repudiation of the policies of the IMF—of Freddie Krueger's sister Annie Krueger—could save Argentina.

We're now in the middle of a crisis in Japan, in which a virtual default is in progress, at the same time the government is denying the existence of a default—that is, the present Prime Minister's government. But it is a default. Poland is on the edge. The zloty's about to go. The enactment and implementation of the euro in Europe, a united currency, and the spread of that into countries in Eastern Europe, ensures a major crisis. Inflation and tax rises are already on the way in Europe, as a result of the euro. It can not work, and will not work. I can safely forecast that the euro, in its present form, will be a great disaster for all of Europe. Because under the present Stability Pact, and under the Maastricht agreements, it is impossible for the governments of Europe—or unlawful under the present conditions—to attempt to generate the state-backed credit necessary, in any case, to revive a collapsed economy from a collapse.

The remedy for a collapse is not to cut, cut, cut. The remedy is not to cut credit. It is rather to increase credit, especially state credit, but to channel it, under strict regulation, and strict conditionalities, to ensure that the credit goes into no place but increase of production, and other useful things—such as more employment in infrastructure, reactivating idle capacity of industry, meeting obligations in health care, meeting pension obligations, meeting other obligations which are essential for the political and social stability of society, as well as the basis of the recovery.

Under the present Maastricht agreements, this is impossible.

The Sept. 11 Coup d'État

The rest of the world is in a crisis of another type, typified by the Sept. 11 events.

Now, let me say flatly: There are some people, even at a high level, whom I respect, who are desperately trying to say there's some alternative to my assessment of what happened on Sept. 11. But nonetheless, they will be frustrated, and they'll find out—and they're serious people—as they conduct their investigation, they'll find out I was absolutely correct. There is no other possible explanation than what I gave. The facts are all there.

The essential facts I presented in that radio broadcast on the 11th of September, in the morning, are the essential facts. Other facts have been disclosed since then, but the facts I stated, are sufficient to prove the case, if you take into account the circumstances under which these events occurred.

What happened was this: Three things happened simultaneously on the 11th.

First, there was a military coup attempt against the Bush Administration, Bush government, by a faction in the U.S. military. And I'll talk some more about that, and I've addressed that in other locations.

Secondly, this attack, which was not fully successful—a couple of things went wrong from the standpoint of the coup plotters, so it was not as deadly as it should have been. The President is not dead; Vice President Cheney is not dead; Donald Rumsfeld did not die in the Pentagon. And these were obvious indicated targets of the military coup plotters, who ran the operation.

Also, there was an escalation, a thermonuclear security alert, which went up automatically on the basis of these attacks, especially the attack on the Pentagon. When somebody attacks the Pentagon in that fashion, which threatens to wipe out the military command in Washington, that is the alarm signal which automatically guarantees that the United States goes on a full-scale thermonuclear alert. That's the only thing that happens.

Now, that did happen. It was referred to by President Bush on several occasions later, including his address in Crawford, Texas, where Putin was standing beside him: stating that while he was on the phone to a thermonuclear second-strike base, Offutt, in Nebraska, that he had a conversation with President Putin of Russia, and that President Putin in effect said to him, "I know you're in trouble. I know the United States has put up its thermonuclear alert system. I'm taking down ours"—that is, the Russians', which was doing a practice alert—"in order to help you get out of this mess."

So the President, of course, in that circumstance, under these kinds of conditions, was the only person who had the authority to shut down, or order the shutdown, of the alert. And he was alive and able to do it. That prevented the crisis from going totally out of control. The fact that Cheney wasn't killed, the fact that Rumsfeld wasn't killed, were factors which also helped in keeping the situation from going totally out of control.

The `Clash of Civilizations' War

But that was only one part. That is not the coup. Trying to find out what Sept. 11 was about, as such, will not tell you why it was done. What's the motive? What's the outcome?

Well, the outcome became immediately obvious. The obvious thing was to implement, immediately, a state of global warfare, which is described many times by Huntington, by Brzezinski, and their associates, as a "Clash of Civilizations" war. This had the central feature of a plan of a religious war against Islam, which was intended to throw the entire world into chaos, and bring about certain utopian goals, which are the goals of the crowd with which Brzezinski and Huntington are merely puppets and lackeys.

The third element of the coup, was in Israel. You have an IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] crowd, under military control, which has a favorite puppet, who's called the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon: a known killer, but he's not really a fanatic, he's just a killer. He's just a thug. He's got a record as a thug. He's a thief, and a thug, and a political animal. He's not an ideologue. But some of the people in the IDF, and behind them, are fanatics, they're ideologues. They're determined to set off a religious war. How? By conducting a war against Islamic peoples, beginning with the Palestinian population and beyond; attacking Iraq, attacking Iran, and other countries, to set forth the basis for a religious war throughout Eurasia.

The other thing they intended to do, and they've intended to do that, is to go to the top of a hill in Jerusalem, on which is located the [third]-holiest place in Islam, and to tear it down, to put up what's called the Third Temple. That is the sufficient pretext for launching a religious war, on a global scale, comparable to what happened in Europe generally in religious wars between 1511 and 1648, and specifically, the Thirty Years' War of 1618-1648. Religious war, and wars like religious wars, once started, can not be stopped. They are self-inflammatory. They lead humanity into Dark Ages.

So, the implication of the three events—the attack on the government of President George W. Bush; the launching of the continuing escalation of demands for extended war, Clash of Civilizations war, by the friends of Brzezinski, Huntington, Richard Perle, etc., etc., etc., and Democrats such as Lieberman and Gore's friends, and so forth; this kind of thing is part of the operation. The third part is the role of the present Israeli dictatorship—and it is a dictatorship—over the objections and warnings of sane Israelis, such as the martyr Rabin, who understood that Israel can not survive unless it reaches peace agreements with its Arab neighbors, especially the Palestinians.

So, every sane Israeli knows, you must have a peace agreement with the Palestinian people, and the Arab neighbors in general. Otherwise, the future of Israel is non-existent. But these are madmen who are determined to do it anyway. Religious fanatics, or worse.

So, those are our essential problems. The three problems go together. This is our problem.

The Nazi Precedent

Now, this comes at a time which reminds me, as I've said before, of the events of January through March of 1933 in Germany—and also, then, of course, a year later, in the Summer of 1934.

The Nazis had been defeated in their aspirations for power, in the Autumn of 1932. A new government had come into place, a ministerial government, headed by Kurt von Schleicher. Behind the Kurt von Schleicher government were policies which were like those which were actually implemented by Franklin Roosevelt, once he was inaugurated President. Remember, Franklin Roosevelt was elected President, in November of 1932. In the same period, the forces behind Adolf Hitler, from the United States and Britain (more than Germany), were defeated in support of their Nazi puppet.

What happened was, that British interests, headed by the former head of the Bank of England, supported by the Harriman interests of New York—that these interests planned to put Hitler in power. They pulled a coup d'état, which, on the 28th of January of 1933, resulted in the retirement of the Chancellor of Germany, Kurt von Schleicher. On the 30th of January, a good-for-nothing tyrant, a Nazi, Adolf Hitler, was appointed Chancellor of Germany by the President of Germany.

This was not the end of it. People said, "This is a bad joke, because Hitler does not have the base to hold power." But then they fixed it: Less than a month later, the Reichstag [fire] occurred. The Nazi regime declared emergency rule, and established a dictatorship, and started the concentration camp system. The following month, in March, [Hjalmar] Schacht, who was one of the key plotters behind putting Hitler into power, for Anglo-American interests, became the president of the Reichsbank of Germany. And U.S. and British bankers, and others, poured the credit into the hands of Schacht, for the purpose of Germany's being rearmed to start a war with the Soviet Union.

A year later, in 1934, von Schleicher had been murdered by the Nazis. Hindenburg, the President, was dead. Hitler declared himself the eternal dictator of Germany, and World War II was inevitable. Maybe it turned out differently than it might have turned out, but the war itself was then inevitable.

And the danger is, we're getting to a point like that. It's not exactly identical. But here we come to a point that the international financial system in its present form is doomed; the IMF system as we know it, is doomed. Nobody could save it in its present form, except a lunatic—and they couldn't succeed. But the danger is, when people who have obsessions, and who have great power, see that power threatened, they are likely to go, as they say, "ape." They are likely to make coups, coups d'état, to establish dictatorships, to commit mass murder, all kinds of crimes, in a desperate attempt to hold on to their power, hell come or not. And that's the situation that we face.

The Political Parties Are Worthless

Now, there are solutions to the economic and related problems we face. The problem is, that we don't have, in Western Europe or in the Americas, anywhere today, a government which is worth a hill of beans. The political parties, the political parliamentary parties of Europe, and of the Americas, are worthless, just like our own Democratic and Republican parties. They both, right now, are absolutely worthless. There are people in these parties, who are perfectly capable of doing useful things, as individuals. Combinations of such persons, from each of the parties, or a combination of both, could represent a competent, intelligent leadership for this nation, on the parliamentary side, or the Congressional side, and as public figures.

But the parties in their present organization, particularly the Democratic Party under the influence of the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council], can not possibly play any useful function.

We've seen, since March-April of this past year, we've seen the Democratic Party, once it had a grip on the majority in the Senate, has been incapable of doing anything useful. And if you look at what's being said from those quarters today, and the performance of leading Democrats, who represent that Democratic Party, on both the House and Senate side, they just are not capable of doing anything useful in response to this kind of situation we face today.

The government—that is, the government of George Bush—is not much better. Bush responded in a wrong way, but also, in a sense, in a responsible way, to the attack on him, on the attack on his government. The bombing of Afghanistan was a mistake. Anybody who's studied military science, and has studied the history of the wars in Afghanistan, knows that's absurd. Bombing mountains in mountain warfare is the most idiotic thing that anybody ever dreamed up. The Soviets got wind of doing that sort of thing when they got desperate, and it didn't do any good, it just made everything worse. We're not doing anything in Afghanistan that is going to do us any good.

The significance of Afghanistan, was that as long as the United States was attacking Afghanistan, and tied up in Afghanistan, then the pressure on the White House to go for an attack on Iraq, and Iran, and so forth, could be held back. So, what Afghanistan has been, is a sacrifice, a human sacrifice, a throwaway, in order to tie up the resources of the United States—and I understand we're running out of bombs—to tie up the resources of the United States, in fighting a phony war in Afghanistan—it's a nasty one, but a phony one—as a way of not going to an attack on Iraq, and Iran, as people in the Democratic Party, and in the Republican Party, and in the Bush Administration itself, are demanding.

Powell is to be given credit for what he's done on this thing. We have not yet gone to that war—the Clash of Civilizations war they want. But the problem is, if you look at the subcontinent of Asia and elsewhere, what the United States government is doing in Afghanistan, is actually contributing to the environment in which a war of that type becomes more likely.

The Monetary-Financial Problem

You look at Europe, as I say, the parties in Europe. There's not a parliamentary party in Europe in government, which is capable of addressing any of these problems. The problems are soluble. But we now have a crisis of government, a crisis of leadership, in which solutions exist, but in which there's no one in charge to deliver the solutions. We would hope, with the peculiarities of the American System—that is, our Constitutional system—that even a President that may not be much, but under our system, because he represents an institution, may do his job for the institution, in carrying the ball to get us through this crisis.

I'll indicate some of the things that are involved here.

First, what are the solutions, which these parties are in the way of? The DLC crowd, the Democratic DLC crowd of Al From and company, is having a session right now, at this time. They're a pure waste of time. There's nothing they're going to do, there's nothing Al Gore could have done, or would do, to help this country, or help the world. These people are a problem, they are not part of the solution.

The problem is, we don't have—. We have people in this country who could be part of the solution, including seasoned political figures, if they were brought together as a force. But we don't have them together at this time, and one of the things I'm trying to do today, is to shame them into moving in that direction. Step forward, and begin to show the kind of leadership this country needs for this crisis. Bypass the two parties. Just give some leadership outside the two-party framework, and then come back and reorganize the party system on the basis of a show of leadership, by showing a leadership which can rally the American people in support for this kind of alternative.

What are the matters?

What we have are two crises, apart from this military crisis.

First of all, we have a monetary-financial crisis. Now, this is an old crisis. When Nixon, in 1971, took a system that had worked—the post-war system, the old Bretton Woods system, based on fixed exchange rates—a system which had worked very well, with imperfections and so forth, but you get that; it worked well: We destroyed it. We destroyed it partly with racism, with President Nixon's racist campaign for the Presidency, when he met with the Ku Klux Klan down in Mississippi, in 1966, to get his Presidential campaign going. And that taint of racism has stuck with Nixon throughout, and other policies as well.

Nineteen-seventy-one destroyed the system.

Carter came in. Carter was worse than Nixon for the economy. Nixon was bad, but Carter was worse. Or maybe it wasn't Carter; maybe it was the guy who controlled him, Brzezinski, who's a real certifiable madman.

Carter did more to destroy the U.S. economy than anybody in the 20th Century, in just four years in office. This death of Cyrus Vance recently, the former Secretary of State, speaking of his quarrels with his—people referring in his obituary to his quarrels with Brzezinski—typifies that situation.

So, what we have is, we have a financial-monetary system, which was started, essentially, by Nixon's actions of mid-August 1971, the so-called floating-exchange-rate system, which has destroyed our neighbors in the hemisphere, has destroyed much of the world—Africa, and so forth. Since 1971, there has been no hope for black Africa—none. Why? Because of that system. Because Africa policy is dictated by that system. And until you've changed the policy, there's no hope for Africa. So, don't talk about Africa! If you don't want to change that system, there is no hope for Africa! We should have learned that lesson.

All right. So, we have an economy which we have collapsed. A perfect example of that was in 1979, toward the end of the Carter Administration, I studied the matter, and determined that we could no longer have built the space shot, the Moon landing, of 1969, by the end of the 1970s. That is, we had destroyed the potential for that kind of accomplishment. That typified a general destruction of infrastructure, of everything, in this nation, in this economy. So, the new monetary system, and the philosophy that has gone with it, has destroyed the economic potential of the United States.

For example, take the case, since 1977, since Carter became President: Look at the lower 80% of family income-brackets in the United States. They used to represent the whopping majority of the total income of the nation. Now, the lower 80% of family income-brackets are a shameful minority of the total income of the United States. We have destroyed our people. We have destroyed our industries. We have destroyed everything in our economy, all for the sake of this crazy, ideologically ridden monetary and financial system.

So, we could solve the problem. There are several things we would have to do.

Think Like FDR

We would have to think a little bit like Franklin Roosevelt, and we should look back to some of the things that he did, back in the 1930s—between 1932, when he was running for President, and 1933, as coming in as President. The actions that he took, within the framework of our Constitution, without ever violating the Constitutional system, to mobilize this nation in an emergency, to save it from pure hell—those are lessons which deserve to be learned afresh today. We could do those kinds of things.

Here's what we could do: We are still, despite all the bad things we've become—we are still the leading nation of the world. We, the United States, through our President, have the ability to call together leading nations of the world, and say, "We're going to put this crazy, bankrupt monetary, financial system into reorganization." The IMF is not an independent authority; the IMF was created by governments, chiefly the government of the United States. And if the United States government says, "You're bankrupt, we're going to shut you down and reorganize you," then they shut down, it's over. The party's over.

The United States has the authority, with the agreement of other nations, to put this stinking monetary system into emergency financial reorganization, and get this economy moving again. That must happen.

And it is a matter of the will. Are we willing to save our nation, and civilization, or are we not? Are we going to say, "No, we have to stick to the IMF system"? Are we going to sit in hell, saying, "We came to hell. Why? Because we had to go along to get along!"?

No, we're not! We're going to say, "We're going to save the nation; we're going the save the other nations of the world." And governments around the world tell me, that "if you can convince the G-8, or the G-7, to make this reform, we'll support it!"

Now, if the government of the United States will support my policy, I guarantee you this reform will occur. The nations will assemble; they will create, in a very short period of time, a new monetary system, based on the best features of our experience in the 1945-1963/64 system—and it will work.

We also have to have an economic recovery program, not only for ourselves, but for the planet in general. We also have come to the point that we recognize: This world needs a new conception of the order of affairs among nations. Well, this conception is not itself new. It was proposed by a famous man in the 15th Century, the man who was responsible for designing what became the modern nation-state. His name was Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa at a later point. He wrote a book, called Concordantia Catholica, which set forth the basis for a system of perfectly sovereign nation-states, bound together by a community of shared principle. Now, today, you would call that a "[multi]-polar world."

The same proposal was made for the Americas by U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, in 1823, to say that we didn't have the power to kick the British out of the Western Hemisphere at that time, but when we did, we should: in order to set up a community of perfectly sovereign nation-states in the Americas, as a community of common principle.

What we have to do at this time, is give up all these ideas of Anglo-American empire, and other kinds of silliness, and say we are going to launch what will become in fact, a [multi]-polar world, a community of perfectly sovereign nation-states, which will agree on certain common principles, which correspond to the idea of the General Welfare, which is the basis for our government, actually, at least Constitutionally. And we will do, for each of our nations, what is good for the common welfare of that nation. We will also work with other nations to serve what is in the general interest, the common welfare of nations as a whole. We should use a monetary reform, of the type I've indicated, as the way to do that.

The 'Military-Industrial Complex'

Now, let's look at the enemy. No, don't look at all of it; let me just summarize some of the things that are most important for you to know.

As some of you recall, in the course of the 1950s, and spilling over into the 1960s, there were a number of voices of senior figures in the United States, who warned against what some called a "military-industrial complex." Among these were President Eisenhower, who spoke from knowledge, and he spoke correctly, though often people said silly things about what he had said. The same point was made by MacArthur, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, General of the Army MacArthur: the most efficient warrior of the 20th Century! The man who won more territory, and lost fewer lives, and killed fewer people, in a shorter period of time, over a greater area, than any other man in history. (And there was no need to drop bombs on Japan, because Japan was about ready to surrender.)

And, as anybody who understands military science, who has learned the great lessons from the Classics, [knows]: You never invade and attack an enemy who is already defeated. You may force him to fight again. Never attack a defeated enemy. Negotiate peace. The purpose of warfare, among civilized nations, is not war. It is not perpetual war. The purpose of warfare, if it is justified, is to establish peace, including a peace satisfactory to the defeated nation, thus rebuilding the foundations for future collaboration, the emergence of a community of principle. The function of war is to end war, not by perpetuating war, but by fighting for durable forms of peace, and not overlooking those things that have to be decided upon to bring about durable peace. This was our tradition. This is what Eisenhower, with all the criticism made of him, during World War II, represented. This is what MacArthur represented. This is what the best of the American military tradition represented: the tradition based on the citizen-soldier. You had great professional leaders, military-trained leaders. But the gut of our fighting capability was that of the citizen-soldier, the citizen who volunteered to fight in wartime. And the citizen-soldier fought as a citizen, not as a killer, but as a citizen, and fought for a purpose, for a justified purpose. The principle of military policy was not the kind of thing that you're hearing lately—that, Eisenhower attacked, and MacArthur attacked.

All the great commanders in modern warfare: Lazare Carnot, the greatest genius of French military science—who was the inventor of the levée en masse, one of the most brilliant commanders in history; who took the leadership of a French army that was about to be defeated—defeated by hordes of armies coming from all of Europe to cut up and dissect France. And starting with virtually nothing, he organized the force that defeated and expelled all of those enemies within a period of two years. He advocated the policy of defense, not aggression. When Napoleon was going to march on Russia, he said, "Napoleon's a fool. Don't do it. You don't fight wars, except in defense." The founder of the German military system, Gerhard Scharnhorst, a man who was educated under the influence of Moses Mendelssohn, at a school set up by a fellow called Wilhelm von Schaumberg-Lippe: the same thing. It was Scharnhorst and his friends who set up the idea of the citizen-soldier system, as opposed to the perpetual army.

So, all the great commanders in modern civilization have fought for the idea that military science should be based on these principles: We fight only justified war; we fight to establish peace; we fight to establish a durable peace, in the interests of ourselves and the defeated adversary; we fight as a nation, and for national goals.

The Opposition: A Utopian Military Policy

Now, let's look at the opposite side.

You have a group in the United States, which have gathered around large institutions, powerful financial institutions, such as the H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the Olin Institute, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, based in Philadelphia, the Mellon Scaife Institute, and so forth and so on, the Rand Corporation, up and down, which have gathered around people like Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, and others. These people, with certain military figures included, set forth a policy in the 1950s, which is what Eisenhower and MacArthur warned against. It was called, in that time, a "utopian" military policy. The idea was to set up an American-dominated, Anglo-American world empire, like the Roman Empire, based on the so-called professional soldier.

Now, if you read the books and articles and discussions that these crumb-bums (if you want to give them the right name) have written, their policy is to eliminate the nation-state, set up a Roman-style world empire, under their rule, and create a military force, which, in point of fact, is modelled immediately on the Nazi Waffen-SS from the end of World War II: that is, troops recruited from all kinds of nations into a force, as a killer-force, to conduct perpetual war, just like the Waffen-SS. So, these guys are real Nazis. These are the utopians. These people are associated, as the H. Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Olin Institute and so forth, the American Enterprise Institute, and so on and so on—they are associated with wealthy financier institutions of the same type, from the United States, and from London, who put Hitler into power in Germany in 1933-1934, who made World War II inevitable. This is the enemy! It is the enemy within, and the enemy without is of minor significance compared to the enemy within.

Now, what I'm saying makes some people with strong nerves, who understand exactly what I'm saying, makes them shake and tremble a bit. Because the people who conducted the coup, the military agencies, the military faction of Utopians, of people who think like Brzezinski, who think like Kissinger—these people have not been arrested! These people, who organized the military coup against the United States government, have not been arrested! They're still at their posts! They're still in power! They still have international influence.

People are terrified of them, and they won't fight. They're afraid. And they're not afraid because they're scared bunnies; they're afraid because they know what this is. They know it's a killer. But I say: I have to lead the fight against it, because somebody has to lead the fight against it. And my qualification for leading the fight, is I understand it: These are the people who've been my enemies in the United States, in the courts, and in the press, and everything else, for over 30 years. So, I'm entitled to fight them.

But, these guys—if we don't defeat these guys, we don't have a nation, and we don't have a civilization. Somebody has to stand up and take the leadership, and say: We are not going to give this country to these people! We are going to restore this nation to the sense of purpose entrusted to it by people in Europe and elsewhere, in the 18th Century and later: the hope that the United States would be a republic, which was described by Lafayette as a beacon of hope and a temple of liberty; to inspire the rest of the world to reach the kind of society which we aspire to build here in our own nation. As Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address: What is at stake here, is a form of government, a form of civilization—just as he expressed in that address.

Some of us must lead the fight. I am leading the fight. I'm leading the fight for what is a continuation of the principle of the American Revolution, against a fascist gang, typified by Brzezinski, by Kissinger, by Huntington, by the H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the Olin Institute, and so forth and so on. Because if we don't fight, even though their military flunkies are still in positions of power—if we don't fight them, we're not going to have a country, and we probably will have a dark age throughout this planet. We have to fight.

The Courage to Fight

Now, the problem here is: How are we going to find the courage to fight?

Well, as you get older, you may realize that some of the ideas about your self-interest you had when you were younger, are rather foolish—shall we say, "adolescent." That you thought that your immediate family and community interests are what's important. You thought that your savings are what's important; you thought your ownership of a house was what's important, the mortgage; you thought your pension was what was important. But you're all going to die. Therefore, what is the meaning of your self-interest, if you look at yourself from outside that interval between birth and death? What does your life mean? What is your self-interest? Your self-interest is what you as a human being represent, what makes your birth and your living of importance to humanity, your purpose in existing, your purpose in having a mortal existence. That's what's important to us all—if we know it.

And therefore, we see everything which is important to humanity in jeopardy. We find in ourselves then, the strength and the courage to fight, because you can say, "You can kill me, but you can't take away my purpose in living, or the dedication I have to it." And if we can get people to understand things that way, we can win. And my hope is—and I can say much more, but let's leave that to the questions and discussion you want to raise.

But that's what I have to say. We've gone through this crisis. I can offer you the credibility of my success as a forecaster, which is—I can promise you, I can assure you—is unmatched. I can offer you my dedication to what I've told you I'm dedicated to. I can offer you my knowledge and commitment to try to attempt to use the influence of the United States, to bring about a reorganization of a worthless, bankrupt monetary system. I can promise you the use of my knowledge, and that of others I can rally to me, to bring about the economic mobilization to restore this nation, and other nations, to what they should be. I can promise you that I am committed to not an empire, but to what some people call a [multi]-polar world: a community of principle among perfectly sovereign nation-states, which I think is the only way this planet can be managed. And I can promise you that I'll fight now, and I'll fight until I die. I will not quit.

Thank you.

Back to top