Fight Fascism, the Wayby Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Franklin Roosevelt Did
Here are Mr. LaRouche's opening remarks to a LaRouche in 2004 campaign event, in Queens, New York on June 29, 2003.
I am going to address you today, on the subject—before you start addressing me, which will happen afterward—on the subject of World War II, Roosevelt's World War, and ours today. The similarity is twofold: First of all, Roosevelt was fighting a war against fascism, and I'll explain that to you. We are fighting a war, today, against fascism. In fact, it's exactly the same fascism, that Roosevelt fought against during World War II and before. I'll explain that to you. It is also a period like that of World War II, in which the danger of dictatorship, and world empires of that type, was threatened by the reaction of certain international financier circles, which I shall identify, to the fact of a general breakdown in the Versailles monetary-financial system. Today's danger of fascism, comes from the same people behind Hitler, some of whom are in the United States—not as living individuals, but as their descendants and heirs of the same nasty persuasion, gathered around people, in a sense, like Dick Cheney; the man whom I am proposing to have impeached promptly.
Now, this involves the question of what is the crucial role of the United States, today, as then? The role in the respect to preventing Hitler, or his equivalent from coming to power today, and for solving the international systemic monetary-financial crisis, which threatens the world as a whole, imminently, today. And believe me: Yes, Mayor Bloomberg is part of the problem, but he is only typical of the problem; he is not the extent of the problem, of this international monetary-financial crisis. (You can be fined for breathing deeply in Manhattan, let alone smoking.)
All right, let's go back to a little bit of history. Now, I knew a great deal about these matters, both of economy, and so forth, and the nature of the enemies of mankind in modern history, going back to Greek times, or so. I knew that. But, there was some deficiency, in the precision of my knowledge, as to who exactly was who. Now, in about 1983-84, some government documents, from secret intelligence, were released to the National Archive, with the specific intention, that by declassifying and releasing them, I would have access to them. And, I was then told, "Go to the National Archive. There are some documents you want, waiting for you." They covered the period from the 1920s through 1945. The documents are primarily, first of all, U.S. military intelligence. They are secondly, OSS documents from World War II. And thirdly, there are French intelligence documents, investigating the same matter. The subject or the title of these documents, as a collection, was "Synarchism/Nazi-Communist."
Now, what this involved at the time, was a group of financial interests, which are called in Italian "fondi." These are equivalent to the fondi or the financial interests, which are behind the Lombard bankers who orchestrated the great New Dark Age of the 14th-Century Europe crisis. The same people, or the same families; same type of families. These people, faced with the danger of a financial collapse, and faced with the fear that, in Germany, as in the United States, that the response to the financial collapse would be actions, such as those which Roosevelt did take, in 1933 on, inside the United States.
In order to prevent (they hoped), to prevent that from occurring, they proposed to establish a fascist dictatorship, in Europe, which would then be used to create a world empire. These were the people called the "Synarchists/Nazi-Communists." I'll explain why they were called that: These are the same people behind what happened to New York City in 1975, under a Felix Rohatyn, who was then, and is today, a representative of this group, which is called, in U.S. classification from the 1920s through 1945, "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist." That's what happened.
Today, as then, there are a group of financier interests, who, as we speak, using their agent Alan Greenspan, have a certain plan, for your financial future. What they've now done, is they've dropped the Federal discount rate toward as close to zero as they can get; and they're about to drop it further. The reason for this dropping of the discount rate, is to try to pump sucker-money into financial markets, by saying "the markets are going up, therefore, please, suckers, come invest your money in this wonderful future, which is being created by Alan Greenspan."
What will happen? In a short period ahead, this financial bubble will collapse. Bankruptcy will spread. Alan Greenspan will run the discount rate up to, maybe, between 7% and 10%, and all the suckers will be wiped out. Mortgage owners will be wiped out; businesses will be wiped out; pensions will be wiped out; insurance plans will be wiped out, and so forth.
This is the kind of people we are dealing with. These are the kinds of people who want world war. And these are the people who own and are using, a group of people, who are Synarchists, who are called in this country, "neo-conservatives," or something else.
"Neo-conservatives" means a group of people, who often were of Jewish and Trotskyist backgrounds, who are now running our government, under Cheney, who went over to Nazism. This includes the Social Democrats of America, which some of you know of. This includes a dead Senator, Moynihan, who some of you know about, who was part of this. Moynihan was the guy who gave you the replacement of the Bretton Woods health-care system, which worked, by the present health maintenance organization system, in 1973. He is the man, who, from his grave, is reaching out to kill you, too.
These are the kinds of people you are dealing with. Cheney is part of it. I think Cheney actually is a dummy; his wife is the ventriloquist, because she's the one who's on the inside, hmm. And, you see this scowl on his face, and you think, "Is that the third Edgar Bergen dummy, to go along with Charley McCarthy and Mortimer Snerd? Is Cheney the third one? What is really behind him?"
All right, but the same thing is true today.
Fascist Drive for World Empire
Now, what I got was this: Go back to Roosevelt's time. During the late 1930s/early 1940s, Winston Churchill, who then became the wartime leader in the United Kingdom, communicated to Franklin Roosevelt, then President of the United States, his fear that a certain organization, including key people like Lord Halifax in Britain and other traitors inside Britain, had a deal with Adolf Hitler's circles, especially Goering and others, and certain people in France, including a Lazard Brothers-related organization, called Banque Worms. These people were planning to set up a fascist dictatorship in Europe, to become a world empire. And Churchill said to Roosevelt, after laying out these facts, of what he was dealing with in the United Kingdom and on the continent: "You must help me. You must help us." And, that's what World War II was about. It was that Roosevelt was leading, and organizing the power of the United States which he was building up, at least under his leadership, to prepare to eliminate the danger of Synarchists, of this kind of dictatorship, this fascist world dictatorship, led by the Nazis.
This dictatorship involved Mussolini, in Italy. The word "fascism" came when Synarchism was introduced to Italy, they called it Fascism, in order to "Italianize" a French disease, called "Synarchism." That is, they referred to the Roman fasces, which had been the symbol of the Roman legions, marching out to war, and called this "Fascism"; but it was actually Synarchism from France.
Exactly the same people, created Adolf Hitler in Germany. These are the same people who created Francisco Franco, in Spain. And that wasn't the limit of it. The German Nazi organization set up a Spanish division, based in Spain. This Spanish division operated in the Western Hemisphere, largely through an organization in Mexico, which later became known as the PAN, the political party called the PAN. From this base in Mexico, these Nazis operated throughout the Western Hemisphere.
An example of the connections: You had a woman in Texas, one of the Schlumberger sisters, who is associated with the Schlumberger oil tool interests; who is also associated with the Synarchists in France. She had a husband of Russian extraction, from France, Jean de Menil. They had an ally in Mexico—a Frenchman—Jacques Soustelle. They had a man in Peru, called Paul Rivet. These people were deployed from the United States, together with ... guess who? The family of Buckley: William F. Buckley, Sr., William F. Buckley, Jr. and so forth. And this involved, things like in the 1920s, the Cristero War, which was organized and started, essentially, by the Buckley family and its friends, in order to grab Mexico's oil interests. And, that was the basis for this war.
And this spread, as a form of Nazism, as a Nazi network, Spanish-speaking, throughout the Americas.
Jean de Menil, for example, later bought the boat, the Granma, to send Castro into Cuba. He funded Castro. This fascist, this Nazi, funded Castro.
Jacques Soustelle went to France, was appointed by a section of British intelligence, to head the de Gaulle intelligence service, together with Paul Rivet and de Menil. They were later exposed by the French as being fascists. But, nonetheless, Jacques Soustelle got to be the head of de Gaulle's political party, and then, was the man who was organizing the attempted assassination of President Charles de Gaulle, at a later point. And a dear friend of mine (now deceased), who was the leading general for de Gaulle at the time, Jean-Gabriel Revault d'Allonnes, was out to kill him [Soustelle]. He said to me one day, "You don't know what I was going to do to him, if I ever caught him—and I had orders from de Gaulle."
All right, this is the kind of thing we're dealing with. The same people behind this, this operation, are the people in the United States, who are known as those behind the chicken-hawks. In other words, there's no difference between the neo-conservatives and the Nazis—none. They're simply a different variety of the same thing. They do not control the situation: They are instruments of control, as the Nazis were instruments of control, for the bankers behind Hitler, internationally.
So, we fought the war, from the United States, to free Europe and the world, from a Nazi empire, taking over the world. A Nazi empire, created and run by these kinds of banking interests, typified by Banque Worms, an associate of Lazard Brothers.
Lazard, of course, as you know, is a firm in New York, which is associated with Felix Rohatyn, who gave you Big MAC. And, in a sense, has given you Bloomberg.
The same kind of thing! Why would somebody do what Bloomberg is doing? This is not a program for building a city; this is not a program for solving the city's problems. This is a program for destroying the city! This is chaos! This is what Rohatyn did! Try to rent an apartment in New York City. Compare the cost of renting an apartment, in terms of the equivalent of incomes of 1974-75 with today. You can't get it; you can't even touch it. The services are collapsing. Everything is collapsing. The city is being destroyed. What you're seeing is a force of destruction. It's turned loose. Why? I'll get to that, when we make the comparison.
So, that's the situation we have.
Now, you say, "Why would they do that in the United States?" If you wish to set up a world empire, today, what country would you take over, to set up a world empire? If you were a bunch of financiers, like those behind the Synarchists then, and today, what country would you try to capture, as your instrument for world empire? The United States.
That is what has happened to us.
Then, back in the times of Roosevelt's concern, the idea was that if the Nazis could take over a combination, of all of Western Europe, including the United Kingdom—and they came close to it. They came close to it, through the backing of people, who are descendants of those Nazis then from England, such as the Australian Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black, two spawn of Beaverbrook, who went over from the pro-Hitler side to Churchill, because his butt was caught in the wringer. Same thing.
So then, these people represented the potential from Europe of having a preponderance of world power, under depression conditions, to set up a world empire. And World War II was fought, essentially, because it had to be fought, on the one hand—there was no way of getting out of it; and secondly, because the objective of the war, was to destroy world empire, to destroy the possibility of a Nazi world empire, which was being set up in the Americas, in Mexico, and in South America, as in Europe.
Roosevelt stopped them.
Roosevelt surprised them, in a sense, because the recovery in the United States was a model for economic recovery, then and now. And I'll get to that.
High Crimes and Treason
Today, the purpose of the policy of the people behind Cheney—and he's only a dummy, but he's a talking dummy (or else his wife is a very good ventriloquist); but, this guy, the purpose behind this, is to destroy the United States!
What is the military policy of Donald Rumsfeld? Ask leading generals, other flag officers, in the Army and Marine Corps, retired and serving. What is the function, that we are seeing exhibited, as what is being done to the U.S. military, as we see in Afghanistan, as we see in Iraq, and elsewhere? We're seeing the U.S. military being destroyed. Is this patriotic, this kind of war? Of course not! It's virtually treason against the United States. And, what Cheney has done, in lying, and being caught red-handed lying, to force the United States government into a war, or to induce the Congress to allow it to happen, is under U.S. law a crime tantamount to treason: which not only requires impeachment, but implies subsequent prosecution, five years for each count, for every act he perpetrated in support of those lies. What was committed was a treasonable type of offense—it's not called treason under our law; it's called "high crimes"; a high crime, which screams for the impeachment of the Vice President of the United States, who is the chief perpetrator in running another dummy, called the President of the United States.
That's the situation we're in.
So therefore, what we're trying to do today, again, is similar. Today, the United States is the leading power—mostly with air power. And the theory of these guys, is to use nuclear weapons preventively! You don't wait for the war; don't wait for the attack; don't wait for the threat. You say, "Well, they might in the future, become an opponent. Therefore, today, we're going to hit them with nuclear weapons!" That is the policy of Cheney and Company. That's the stated policy, and has been since 1991. And this policy of Cheney and Company was put into effect since Sept. 11, 2001: This policy: nuclear weapons against the world. Nuclear war, nuclear attack against Iran threatened. Nuclear attacks against other countries. With nuclear weapons—countries which have no nuclear weapons.
And, this is the way they're trying to start a world empire: by creating chaos, economic collapse worldwide, and destroying the world by dissension, wars, so forth.
That's what we have to stop.
But, we have to stop this kind of thing, not by simply protesting against it. Roosevelt didn't stop it by protesting. Yes, Roosevelt allied with Churchill, in order to prevent, first of all, the takeover of the United Kingdom, which was then threatened, by the Nazis—led by Lord Halifax, and supported by the circles of Beaverbrook, the press lord, who was sort of the den mother of Conrad Black and Rubert Murdoch today—Fox TV, the New York Post, today.
The True Mission of the United States
But he had to do something else. He had to organize the world around a U.S. economic recovery, and build up our industrial might, which surprised everybody in the world, except a few of us here, in the United States. We had a policy—had Roosevelt lived, and not been replaced by that fool Truman—under which the nations of the so-called "developing world," today, would have been decolonized immediately at the end of the war, under U.S. power. They would have been given independent status, and the United States would cooperate, under the new Bretton Woods system at that time, to build up these countries as nations.
Because the long-term objective of the United States, as a nation, is not world power: Our objective, historically, from the beginning, was to become, first of all, a sovereign nation-state ourselves. And to hope that we could find a world, where our success as a nation-state would inspire other countries to set up sovereign nation-states like our own. Our aspiration has been a community of sovereign nation-states, in the world, with which we cooperate, but in which each are sovereign themselves. That is our long-term U.S. interest, and has been our policy, under all informed Presidents.
We have never been an imperial nation. We are not a racist nation. We have a lot of racists among us; but we are not a racist nation. We are a melting pot nation. We've been a melting pot nation from the beginning. Yes, we've been based largely upon the acceptance of an English-language culture, which has been trying to distance itself from British culture for a long time. But, the idea of having a common language as a lingua franca among our people, is simply a way of creating a republic. It has no racist implication, whatsoever. We are a melting pot nation.
Look around at us! Look at the composition of the population of the United States today. We're not an Anglo-Saxon people! We're a melting pot nation. And the melting goes on. As time passes, you can't tell whose ancestors are whose. They're all mixed up, everybody, from all over the world. People from the Orient; people from the Middle East. I was just in Turkey; I was just in India. Guess how many Indians there are in the United States, especially those who migrated recently? How many Turks are there in the United States? How many Arabs are there in the United States? What proportion of the population do they represent, cumulatively? How many Hispanic Americans are in the United States? How many people called African-Americans, are in the United States?
We are a melting pot nation, who come from all parts of the world. We need our sovereignty! Because that's the only way you can have a nation-state, which is capable of offering participation, to its citizens, to participate in their own national affairs. It's the only kind of nation that works, is a sovereign nation-state.
But, our objective is to have a community of nation-states, around the world, with which we cooperate, on the basis of common interests for common ends.
Great Projects for All the World
For example, today: Look what's going on in the Far East. We have the emergence, recently, from Iran, to Pakistan, through India, China, Southeast Asia, South Korea, to Russia, to Kazakstan, to Turkey, to large factions of Japan, who are committed, now, to the greatest mass of infrastructure projects the world has ever seen. China has presently in progress, and about to be added, the greatest water projects in all history. The Three Gorges Dam, which is now functional as a transport system, and otherwise, in a preliminary way, is one of these. The movement of large masses of water into Xinjiang, into the Yellow River area, and elsewhere, to open up the interior of China for actual development of its people, as opposed to being semi-desert.
This, plus the greatest railroad-building in any nation in the world, is now in progress under way, in China.
In addition, on the borders of India, the Brahmaputra River, which comes down with a great crashing descent, near the border of India, near Assam, the greatest hydroelectric project in the world is now under discussion between India and China. This project would benefit the whole area, open it up for development, would solve many of the problems in a downstream nation, Bangladesh, and would sort of prevent the mountains of Tibet from running off into the Bay of Bengal—where they've been going for a long time.
Great projects: India has great project needs, in water management. Southeast Asia. China and the nations of Southeast Asia have agreed on a great Mekong water-development project, which includes large parts of southern China, and all of Southeast Asia. To transform this area into a rich area of development. Cooperation with this project is coming from Europe—it's slow, but it's moving. France and Germany, together with Russia, are moving in the direction of this kind of long-term cooperation, with Asia.
A transformation of the world. We should be doing the same thing with South and Central America. We should have an orientation, as I've indicated, in that direction.
We, each, together, Eurasia and the Americas, should collaborate, to end the genocide in Africa, and bring about the development, which has been long awaited there, by helping them to develop large-scale infrastructure projects, which they need in order to have the ability to develop and control their own countries.
So, before us, is the greatest opportunity in humanity: This requires 25-year to 50-year long-term agreements—contract agreements, trade agreements, regulation, requires a new financial and monetary system. All of the things we can do. And therefore, we looking not at an abstract conception of a partnership among sovereign nations, we're looking at nations whose peoples are struggling for decency, in their conditions of life. The solutions to these problems, are in large degree, common solutions, which involve several or more nations together. These are projects of 25 to 50 years' duration, in terms of agreement. That is, for example: To build a major water system, as in Asia, we're talking about a 50-year agreement on development, of a large area of the world. The minimal, for a transportation system, like rail systems or the equivalent, we're talking about a minimum of about 25 years. The development of the interior of China: One generation to develop the interior for its infrastructure, and the second generation to harvest the benefits of that development of infrastructure.
So, we have the idea of a community of sovereign nation-states; it's not an abstract conception, not a formal conception, it's a living conception: of how we, on this planet, as a group of sovereign nation-states, can cooperate around common projects of common interest, as partners, while preserving the sovereignty of each of us.
This was the direction, in which Roosevelt was thinking, explicitly, as he approached the end of the war, and the end of his life. This is the solution today.
What is happening, essentially, is the Synarchists—the same group of fondi and banking interests, who are behind the Vichy/Franco/Mussolini/Hitler/Lord Halifax scheme, of Hitler's time, and Roosevelt's time—the same group of people, their grandchildren, today, are at the same game. This time, however, they have planned to move to take over the leading power of the world, the United States, to become the instrument of their policy, rather than Western Europe, as they did in Hitler's time. That's the difference.
We Need To Act, Now!
So, we're at an end point. We're already in the process of going into this kind of war. We're already at the edge of the greatest financial collapse in all history, right now. We don't know what day it's going to happen, or even what week. But, we know the conditions that now exist mean that that collapse is inevitable, unless we stop it.
So, we're not about the election of November of 2004, we're not talking about the inauguration of 2005: We're talking about now! We're talking about action, now. As Roosevelt and Churchill agreed—they didn't like each other, at all, but they both recognized that they had a common problem, and they had to find a common solution. And that saved the world, from hell.
Now, again immediately before us, as then, we must find that common solution. We must enter into cooperation with groups of nations around the world.
Now, for example, some people who criticize me for travelling all over the world, as a Presidential candidate. And I say, "I have to educate you people in the ABCs of the U.S. Constitution, the functions of the President, and what makes a good President." The crucial function of the President of the United States, as the world's leading power, is foreign policy! Not the Secretary of State—the President of the United States.
What does that mean? The President of the United States is not trying to engage in diplomatic discussions with other nations, as mere diplomacy. The President of United States must be committed to forming long-term agreements, of a Constitutional character, among states. The function of the President of the United States, especially under these conditions, is to bring nations together, with us, to make long-term agreements, which rebuild this planet. And most nations are willing to do that, they're for it. I saw that in Turkey. I know that in India. I see that in China. I see that in other countries: They are waiting for the United States to make the offer.
And I propose to deliver the offer: That we will enter into long-term agreements, to rebuild this planet, in order to realize the kind of world that Franklin Roosevelt foresaw, had he lived, for the post-war period. Let us eliminate from this planet, the conditions among peoples and nations which lend themselves to the recurrence of things like this Synarchist phenomenon, which we're facing for a second time, today.
Historical Roots of Synarchism
Now, let me just go back a bit, and say, what is this Synarchist phenomenon? It has a great deal to do with the history of the United States. As a result of the religious wars which were organized by Venetian interests, between 1511 and 1648, religious wars culminating in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, the possibility of developing true nation-states in Europe, was aborted. There had been a great effort in the 15th Century, with the founding of France under Louis XI, and Henry VII of England, to develop modern nation-states, true nation-states, in which the principle of the general welfare, the common good, was the fundamental law of government. That was the first time, in all known history, that the principle of the common good, was actually an obligation of the head of state and government, and of the nation. That's constitutional government.
The enemies of this process, in the 16th and 17th Century, plunged Europe into a great series of religious and related wars, from 1511 to 1648, culminating in the Thirty Years' War, based in Germany. The ending of that war, by the Treaty of Westphalia, in 1648, became, then, the moral standard for modern European civilization: We do not kill each other over religious differences. We do not conduct religious wars, or similar kinds of wars among ourselves; nor do we allow them on this planet; we do not allow religious persecution, on this planet. That's the principle of the thing.
Because, if we don't prevent that, and we start to cut each other's throat again, then the predators will take us over. We must, for positive reasons as well as negative ones, ensure that that never happens.
But, unfortunately, because of things like Louis XIV, and other things in Europe, it became impossible to revive a modern nation-state in Europe, in the 18th Century. As a result of that, you had circles gathered around the tradition and legacy of Gottfried Leibniz, who picked as "their man" in the United States, Benjamin Franklin. And Benjamin Franklin organized a group of younger people—sort of like a youth movement—around him. And these people he organized around him, became the core of the struggle to found the first modern sovereign nation-state republic in the United States. And, that's the United States.
At this point, in 1789, at the same time that we had agreed upon our Federal Constitution, with its famous Preamble, forces in Britain and on the continent of Europe, moved to prevent the spread of the idea of a true republic, into Europe—in this case, France. That Bailly and Lafayette had, together, drafted a constitution for the French monarchy, which would have put French society on the basis of the kind of nation-state—although under a monarch, otherwise a copy of the United States Constitution. At that point, the British agents, directed by Jeremy Bentham from London, organized two British agents in France, the Duke of Orléans, called "Philippe Égalité," and Jacques Necker, a Swiss banker and a pig, who was also a British agent, to organize the storming of the Bastille, as part of an election campaign for Necker, for his appointment as Prime Minister of France. The whole thing was staged.
From that point on, France became torn apart by an increasing internal violence, and slaughter of people who had been of republican persuasion, inside France. The result of this process of destruction, the Jacobin Terror and so forth, became Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte was the first modern fascist. There were certain resemblances between Napoleon Bonaparte and Louis XIV, the earlier French King—the so-called "Sun King," or "Son-of-a-Bitch King."
But, Napoleon was new. Napoleon was the first Nietzschean head of state. The first man, who was the image of destruction, for destruction's sake. Synarchism is nothing but a continuation of the tradition of Napoleon Bonaparte. The idea is, which is the idea which came out of Hegel, who was sort of an admirer of Napoleon, who made a theory around this idea: the theory of the state, the philosophy of history. It's the idea which Napoleon III represented. Napoleon III, who kept trying to conquer South America; Napoleon III who played a key part in various troubles we had here, in this hemisphere. He was actually the image of the man, behind what developed as the PAN, in Mexico: The basis for Nazism in Mexico, the PAN organization, was Napoleon III.
During the middle of the 19th Century, this group of people, mainly a group of bankers, fondi so-called, formed what they called the "Synarchist movement," or "anarcho-syndicalist movement," the idea that in any crisis, to create chaos, and then to have a man so terrifying as the leader against the chaos, that the people would submit to this terrifying man, who would commit any kind of crime imaginable. This idea, of this kind of leader, became the doctrine of Friedrich Nietzsche: the idea of the doctrine of the Superman, the Beast-man. The pure beast, who would commit acts so horrible, that people would fear him, simply because of his willingness to commit horrible deeds, that no human being would think of doing, even a bad one.
That was Hitler. What Hitler did with the Jews in Germany, was simply Nietzsche, the Nietzsche, who was followed, by whom? In philosophy? Followed by Martin Heidegger; followed by Leo Strauss, who is the teacher of most of these people, who are working with Cheney—including Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, who is a Straussian! His doctrine is the Hitler doctrine! His doctrine is that of terror; or what Goebbels called Schrecklichkeit. That's the policy.
It came along at the end of World War I. This group of people, who were already calling themselves Synarchists. That is, the bankers and the types of people who worked with them as agents, formed the Synarchist International. This became the basis for launching, in Italy, Mussolini, through a Frenchman named Sorel, in France. Through the organization of Germany, under Hitler: Hitler was a product of this. Francisco Franco was a product of this. The Carlists, the right-wing Catholics of Central and South America, are part of this! The right-wing Protestants in the United States, are part of this! The anti-Semitic Zionists of the United States, are part of this. Same thing: Synarchists. Nazi-Communists. Right-Left. Destroy society. Create a man on horseback, a man of terror; intimidate the population into submission to a man who is so terrifying, they'll do anything to get out of his way, not to be killed—even obey him, or commit crimes, on his order! So, that was Hitler.
That was Vichy France. Vichy France was organized. Also, the French opposition to Vichy, was also organized by the same people! That's why de Gaulle had problems in France, after the war.
Synarchists and Project Democracy
So, we have this, in the United States, in the form of the kind of people, who are behind this process. What we did, is, we brought Nazi thinkers—I mean, Leo Strauss was a Jew. But, he was a Nazi Jew! And since he was a Jew, he was not qualified for Nazi Party membership! So, he got the head of the Nazi law doctrine, of Nazi Germany, Carl Schmitt, funded him, and sent him to study Hobbes, in London! After being infected with the disease called Hobbes, he went to New York, and taught at the New School for Social Research. He then was appointed, personally, by the collaborator of Bertrand Russell, who himself was a Synarchist in thinking, Hutchins of Chicago University, and made a super-professor out there. And he was used to create a kind of cult, of students of his, whom he divided into two groups. One group was the inner group. The inner group of the followers of Leo Strauss, recruited largely from Social Democratic organizations in the United States, gathered around the followers of Moynihan, who was an interchangeable part himself.
And this group of Synarchists succeeded in doing something else: They succeeded in setting up in the United States, from 1975 on, a new kind of organization, called "Project Democracy." Typical of Nazi ideology, it's called "democracy." It's fascism. What they did, they had a meeting in Kyoto, Japan. It was a meeting called for the Trilateral Commission. It was called by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the creator of the Trilateral Comission. And Brzezinski's man, Samuel Huntington, the man of the "Clash of Civilizations," the war against Islam, wrote a paper for that called The Crisis of Democracy. This doctrine was then introduced, by Brzezinski, as National Security Advisor, into the Congress as a proposed new law, and then was implemented shortly after the inauguration of Reagan.
Under this arrangement, Synarchists control both political parties, from the top down, under the name of Project Democracy. That is, both parties are controlled top down, and coordinated from the top down, in organization, by Project Democracy—which was made a law. And thus, by that law, you have no rights in any political party in the United States.
Except the rights you're capable of taking by appropriate means: such as the ones I'm taking.
Running the Democratic Party, from the top—and the top is the Democratic Leadership Council; it's organized crime, it's every kind of filth you can imagine. Donna Brazile, for example, the one who elected George Bush: Donna Brazile was a campaign manager for Gore and Lieberman. She rigged it, so that damned fool Gore, who didn't understand anything, instead of taking a clear victory in Arkansas, which would have given him a clear electoral vote majority, went to Florida and wasted his time, trying to get support from Joe Lieberman's Cuban fascist supporters.
And guess what happened? Who did it? Donna Brazile! Typical of these types.
So, that's the problem.
Now therefore, for us, what does this mean? We have certain Constitutional rights in our system of government. We have the rights to form and control political parties, as political parties—otherwise, we have no freedom. We have some clowns, who are working for these fascists, such as Joe Lieberman and John McCain. McCain is certifiably psychotic, and Lieberman is certifiably immoral. They're run by the same group, the Hudson Institute; both of them: the same people. They're both fascists. They're the ones who launched, if you remember in Germany, at a Wehrkunde meeting, they're the ones who launched the attack for World War III—nuclear World War III, at a Wehrkunde meeting. The pair of them, along with Richard Perle, and others! These guys are Synarchists, out for war.
Who Has the Guts To Take Leadership?
So therefore, we've come to the point, that we say, what? Are we going to sit back and "see how the election turns out"? Or, are we going to show guts, and take over the Democratic Party? And find among Republicans, those allies, who don't want fascism in America? And others, who don't want fascism in America? Are we going to do what is necessary, to get these guys, like Cheney and Company, who are agents of these fascists—get them out of government, now! Don't wait for the next election! You must get them out of government, now!
Now, either Cheney is impeached, which he should be; or he resigns, complaining of heart fibrillations, or something; and, the desperate need to grow potatoes in Wyoming. But, if we get him out, either way—either by impeaching him, or by causing him to resign, the whole pack of chicken-hawks, of neo-conservatives in government, will be out! Because the anger that has been building up against them, as a crew, among all respectable people in the United States, including political parties as such, that they will push them out—if we get them out, now!
Then, we have a "new deal" as they say. Not Roosevelt's New Deal, but a short-term new deal, we desperately need. And, that is to make the political process of the United States real. What does that mean? That means that the President of the United States, who, admittedly, is a dummy—hmm?—the man doesn't understand anything. I mean, it's a pitiful case. But, we've had pitiful cases as heads of state before. We have a pitiful mental case, here in New York City as Mayor. If we catch him smoking, we're going to fine him to death!
In any case, so we've got to get these guys out. We've got to mobilize people in both sides of the parties, work together; we've got to call back, into the political process, that large proportion of the people in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, who have been out of politics, and pushed out of politics, since the Brzezinski Administration of 1977-1981. Most Americans are out of politics. They may vote a little bit. They say, "Which dummy am I supposed to vote for?" They say, "Well, I'll vote for this guy, because he promises me this deal. He promises me a sewer in my neighbor's backyard. Okay, I'll vote for that." But, they are not involved in politics in a pro-active way. They're not concerned with what the policy of the nation is. We're in a depression! They're losing their employment! They're losing their cities! They're losing their basic economic infrastructure. They're dying! They've lost their health care! Their children are idiots, with no education; but it's called "education." These are the kinds of things, which citizens can readily understand, and will fight to say, "I want a government that takes care of this, the way it used to be done!" We've got to bring them back into politics. Don't let them be excluded from the parties. They've got to be brought back into the parties.
We've got to organize a force, with its influence, which with its very existence—as I've been doing with the youth movement—its very existence, has got to send a message to government in Washington, which tells government, that it must make changes. "We must have immediate Middle East peace, and we expect George Bush to deliver it. We expect him to deliver it! Period."
We wish to stop this nightmare. We wish an admission of what happened in Iraq, which the U.S. military, ground forces and Marine Corps, are perfectly willing to admit; as a matter of fact, they're already complaining about it.
We wish to have an admission that Afghanistan was a farce. Afghanistan was done to set the stage for the attack on Iraq. That was the only reason it was done! They had to activate NATO and related agreements in Europe, to use U.S. basing rights, through Europe, to get the U.S. forces in place, and supported in the Middle East, for launching a war against Iraq.
The only reason for attacking, at the beginning, was the purpose of going after Iraq. The purpose of going after Iraq, is to go after Iran, and Syria, next! The purpose is to go against North Korea—next! The ultimate purpose, is to destroy China. And to crush every country in between. That's their purpose. They must be stopped. We must stop them first in the Middle East. We must stop them in the case of Israel and Palestine.
That must be stopped. The President said he's committed to it; if the American people are mobilized, with enough pressure on him, he will do it, particularly if we get the chicken-hawks out, the neo-cons out, and Cheney out. He'll do it!
Because he's interested in one thing: What his Mummy tells him, and that is: "Get re-elected!" When in doubt, "get re-elected."
Somebody says to him, "Yes, I may be a failure. But my Mummy's behind me! She says, 'Get re-elected.' I'm gonna get re-elected!"
So, under those conditions, with the normal institutions of government, with the Senate and the House of Representatives, scared into some kind of decency—and there are some decent people there, but they're cowardly; they have no guts, the problem with my man Kerry. Kerry's the only Democratic rival I have, who's worth mentioning. All of the others, are either people who are losers to begin with, they have no chance, they would never have any chance— not because they don't have popularity, but because they have no reason to get popularity. Dennis Kucinich has a nice constituency, but he has no guts. So, you're not going to vote for a man with no guts, for President, under these kinds of conditions, where guts are needed. You're not going to vote for another Hamlet: We had one of those, and Shakespeare gave us one of those before. We don't need another one!
Al Sharpton is Al Sharpton. Let him run! He has no chance of winning. All he wants is money. He wants money to continue his political influence in the United States, to do what he's working for. All right, if he wants to do that, that's allowed. But, it's not a serious proposition, when it comes to the Presidency.
The only one is Kerry. And Kerry, unfortunately, is a Hamlet. Now, you say, "Is Kerry a coward?" Well, ask yourself: Was Shakespeare's Hamlet a coward? What was Shakespeare's Hamlet? He was a swordsman! He wasn't at home, when his father was killed, because he was out killing people! He was fighting wars! There was a rustling behind the curtain: He threw his sword through the curtain and killed Polonius! Without even knowing who was there! The man is a killer! He is not what you would call a wimp. What was wrong with him? He said, as a character, in the Third Act soliloquy: The fear of immortality was so frightening, that he would rather destroy himself, and kill the pain of doubt, by destroying himself in war, than think about what the concerns of immortality might be: "Thus doth conscience make cowards of us all."
That's the kind of coward that Kerry is. Not a coward of a man who wouldn't go to war, wouldn't fight his battles, wouldn't show courage on the battlefield. But a man, who, faced with the questions of immortality, faced with putting his life on the line, for a clear purpose—not that he intends to die, but he's putting his life at risk for a clear purpose, a good purpose; a good purpose, which does not make him afraid of his immortality. He's not afraid of what'll happen after he dies. He's going to do a good thing. Therefore, if he dies in the process, he has nothing to fear, after death.
That's what he lacks. He vacillates. He vacillated on dealing with Iran-Contra. He was at the point he could go to the knife, on Iran-Contra—he didn't. He flinched.
On this issue, where he had the chance to attack Cheney, as he should have, he diverted his attention to the poor fool, Bush. What did he want to impeach Bush for? You can't impeach Bush, not an honest impeachment; for anything but incompetence. You can't. But the problem is, if you go after Bush for incompetence, and succeed, what do you get? You get Cheney as President.
That's not a very smart move.
Besides, you can't go against Bush, because you can't convict him of knowledgeable intent. He'll get off! The psychiatrist will come in, and give his speech, and the judge'll say, "Okay! Case dismissed!" You may transfer him to an asylum, but you're not going to impeach him.
So, Kerry, at the point of getting Cheney, whom he knew was the guilty party, and pushing for Cheney's impeachment, which would have saved the nation, and solved this whole problem—didn't do it.
We don't need a man as President, who has that fault, that weakness. It's like a war-time President: We don't want a war-time President, who's not up to the job. And, this is like a war-time Presidency; that's what I represent. And that's why I'm unique: I'm qualified to be a war-time President. But, you have to have that kind of war-time President, not just to make war, but also to, in this case, to prevent it.
There's no problem on this planet, which, if the United States would behave itself, and provide the right leadership, we couldn't solve. I can tell you that, from my international travels and discussions. There is no closed door to us, virtually on this planet—any major nation. I go into any major nation, or secondary major nation: There's no closed door for us, no closed door for me. They're afraid of what the United States will do to them, if they meet with me, sometimes. But, there's no closed door.
If you put the world to vote on my Presidency, most of the present governments of the world would elect me President of the United States. Because they know, they need that role from the United States, the role that I've promised, the role I've explained. And that's what we're out to do.
We're not worrying about what's going to happen in November of 2004, or January of 2005. Yes, we're concerned about that. I'm already in the process of trying to begin to build what I intend to be my government! And, looking for some good talent, of the right type, which is needed for the composition of a government—the same way Franklin Roosevelt did, when he was running for President. You have to pick the people; who you're going to work with; what their assignment is going to be; what kind of role they can play, because, on the day you're inaugurated, you're going to have to do what Roosevelt did. You're going to have to unleash a whole set of measures immediately, set them into motion within the famous "first 30 days." And the future of the United States will depend upon that decision. I'm trying to work to put together a team, or select a team, or pre-select a team, that'll play that role. So, that's serious.
But: In the meantime, what we have to do, is establish a dynamic of leadership in the United States. Focus on getting this neo-con problem out, over with; getting the Synarchists out of power in the United States: identifying them, exposing them, destroying them politically!
And, in that process, what we have to do, is we have to clean up the party system, especially the Democratic Party. We have to make the Democratic Party, once again, a real party. A party of Franklin Roosevelt, again. And, if we do that, we will have in the Democratic Party, an instrument, which is not going to be a dictatorship in the United States, but an instrument through which we can work, as a people, to force into deliberation, in the Congress and elsewhere, the kind of measures, the kind of discussions, which are essential. And to get the projects going, that have to be under way. That's the situation.
So again, history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes burps. And, we're in that situation now.