Subscribe to EIR Online
This interview appears in the August 4, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

`We Want a Nation; We Want a Future'

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Jack Stockwell, morning radio host on K-TALK radio in Salt Lake City, Utah, on July 27, 2006.

Stockwell: In introducing my guest, I just want to say this: He's been on my show many times in the past, and interestingly enough, I get more criticism about this particular gentleman who's going to be on the show here in a moment, than anybody else I have as a guest. But, by the same token, when he hasn't been on for months, he's the one who is the most requested by many of my listeners to get back on again, to get his viewpoint of the world. So, without further ado, I have Lyndon LaRouche, live on the show this morning from Leesburg, Virginia. Lyn, you there?

LaRouche: Yep, I'm fine.

The Beginning of World War III

Stockwell: There's just a myriad of directions we can go here, which we probably will during the time of this discussion. And I want to know some of the latest publications that my listeners can get their hands on. But the thing I want to start with, obviously, is Israel. And all of the different themes and dynamics that are coming together here, which I think it's kind of typified by some recent comments by Bill Kristol, and also Newt Gingrich, and Sen. John McCain—a couple of weeks ago on "Meet the Press," when Newt Gingrich said without any reservation, or any real tonal changes in his inflection, when he said it, "This is the beginning of World War III."

Can we start with that?

LaRouche: Sure. Actually Gingrich, of course, you know has been connected to certain military circles for a long period of time, military intelligence. Now, what he's saying is not unique. That, as a matter of fact, most of the voices in the professional military, and many of our senior intelligence people, are saying the same thing, and I've been saying the same thing.

But the reality behind this is, that this war is a faker. This is a suicide mission for Israel, which it was set up to do. Partly with the help of Gingrich, but that's not the bottom of the story. The bottom of the story is something else. They really are moving for World War III, and you see in today's dispatches, and yesterday's dispatches from the front there in Lebanon, and in Rome, the negotiations there, that Israel has walked into something which is a piece of stupidity and a piece of willful suicide. The Israelis actually created the Hezbollah, by invading Lebanon some time ago, and as a part of the reaction against the Israeli invasion and actions, a defense force against the Israelis developed around a group called Hezbollah, the "Party of God," an Islamic, Shi'ite-leaning orientation.

So, this group, which was in combat and resistance against the Israeli occupation, for a period of time—this is almost 20 years—that they have developed a resistance capability, what you might call "asymmetric warfare" capability, of the first order! So, Israel has gone into an area, on a fraudulent basis, because the Israelis sent two soldiers across the border, into this territory, not just across the border but into some depth. And therefore, the Hezbollah apprehended them. The apprehension of them by the Hezbollah was then treated as the casus belli by Israel, which then launched an attack and invasion, and has committed atrocities, such as bombing, with foreknowledge, bombing the UN site. After repeated calls by the UN, "Please don't bomb our site," they kept bombing it!

So this has created a point at which Israel is losing a lot of things. It's losing people, it's bound itself into a war, as stupid as the way the United States went into Iraq, and this is a loser! And it's a potential suicide mission for Israel, which fools in Israel did, but under pressure from other sources. And the sources were not just our dear Vice President, who was a key part of this thing, but also much higher international forces, international banking forces allied to our dear friend here, Felix Rohatyn. So, it's the international banking group which is playing for a globalization game, which was actually the orchestrator.

The complication, of course, is France. Now, France was the partner of the Anglo-Dutch in the Sykes-Picot Treaty, which was a division of the entire area of Southwest Asia, including Iran, which was set up in the beginning of the last century between the British and French, called Sykes-Picot. As a part of the Sykes-Picot arrangement, France got a slice of the action in the Middle East, especially Syria, Lebanon, and so forth. Now this is the last position of France outside of France, virtually.

So, this is an attack on France, and we're getting a reaction from the French President, who otherwise is rather a sleepy fellow, whom I didn't recommend to become the leader of France many years ago when I had the chance of putting my word in. But he's squawking now.

And so, now you're in a situation in which we are escalating toward potential World War IV, or something. The bombing of Mumbai, the attacks on Mumbai, a terrorist action, are part of this picture. This is not a Middle East problem any more: This is a global problem.

Israel Is the Cat's Paw

Stockwell: Well, is the breakaway scenario trying to be forced here, then? If Israel is moving into what you describe as potentially a suicide situation, and when I read editorials in Ha'aretz, I read editorials in the Jerusalem Post, a significant portion of the Israeli population is not in favor of what the IDF is doing—is this something that, even though its origins and genesis extend way beyond the borders of Israel, as you're describing—is this the breakaway ally kind of thing they're trying to do, to suck American forces into that area?

LaRouche: Well, the breakaway ally thing itself was already a fake. Israel was never really an independent factor in playing the spread of warfare in the region. It was often used as a factor by various other forces, which were, you know: "Israel, you want to survive? Do you want our help—you do this"—this kind of thing.

So, this is a global event. It is not just a breakaway ally; that itself was a fake, as I say, in the beginning. Israel was being used as a cat's paw for other people who didn't want to take the blame.

Stockwell: All right. There are those who claim that this was the original intent of the creation of Israel over 50 years ago, was to be able to bring enough division into that area by inserting an Israeli homeland into the picture, so that potentially down the road it could serve the purpose it may just well be doing now.

LaRouche: That would be an exaggeration of the role of—the Israelis, of course, were captives when they went in there. They depended upon backing from European allies and the U.S. That was the way the thing began. And the growth of Israel as a nation, was actually a guilt trip by the United States during the period of Truman. So the idea that Israel is playing the world, is a mistake; Israel is being played as a cat's paw, with price tags attached to it, for what have always been, since [Frankliln] Roosevelt, the attempt to destroy the kind of world that Roosevelt had intended to build, had he lived beyond the end of World War II.

Oligarchs' Hatred of the United States

Stockwell: And the intention you speak of, is the end of colonialism, and the beginning of state sovereignty throughout the planet.

LaRouche: Exactly. But what they wanted, also they wanted—never forget, that the people behind this operation are determined to destroy the United States!

Stockwell: Yeah, that's the real target.

LaRouche: The hatred of the United States is the major motivation, because we are a different kind of republic, a different kind of nation than you find in Europe. And it is this conception, where we run our own banking system, where we, as a nation, control our own financial system, where we don't have oligarchies. We have a little fake oligarchy in the United States, but we don't have a traditional, cultural oligarchy in the United States. We call them puffed-up jerks, and so forth.

Stockwell: Well, we've got something we refer to as the Eastern Establishment, that would like to see themselves as an oligarchy.

LaRouche: But that's an extension of the British, particularly the British, French, and Dutch oligarchies, who, from the time of 1763, from the time of the Treaty of Paris which established the British East India Company as an empire, from that time on, you had traitorous elements inside the United States, typified by the Essex Junto in Boston, in Essex County, and people like Aaron Burr in New York City. And these clowns were actually agents of foreign powers inside the United States.

Because we were a weak nation at our founding, at the time of the French Revolution, we were isolated. And therefore, these forces inside the United States, which were implicitly treasonous, were used as agents of foreign interests. Now, therefore, you have international financier interests, which have a great deal of control over the United States.

Now, for example, take the case of the Hamilton Project, which was set up actually under the impetus of some friends of mine: And this thing is being isolated and is feared, because it is trying to find a way to express the U.S. interest—Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury—trying to find a way of expressing a U.S. national interest, in a sane relationship with other nations; and the other side, you have Felix Rohatyn, who is nominally an American citizen, but actually he's a French Synarchist agent, who is the key leader in trying to destroy us and destroy our industrial capability within! And you find our Congress is acting like a bunch of sheep, seeing us being destroyed by Felix Rohatyn, on the basis of setting up a world empire under which we become nothing, and they sit back there, and they tolerate him, and they take money from him!

Stockwell: And surely, when they see what he's been doing, say, with GMAC and Ford, and they see what he's doing in other areas, surely they have enough sense, especially the Senators like Hatch, and Kennedy, and Kerry, who've been around there for a while, surely they know what's taking place here.

LaRouche: Yes, but they don't have guts. You see, the country's being run by a generation which is characterized by the upper 20% of family-income brackets in the so-called 68ers. And if you look at the mentality of the 68er, and the way in which people like Sidney Hook had created the 68er, that is, through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, this kind of Synarchist or this corruption, this has taken over and has virtually destroyed the nerve of the United States' leadership, that is, the leadership which generally comes from the upper 20% of the family-income brackets, in the same way that Greece destroyed itself, or Athens destroyed itself, with Sophistry under Pericles and beyond. So, we have a bunch of sophists, who don't believe in morals....

Corruption of This Generation

Stockwell: ... Currently, we're just kind of setting the stage for some expanded subjects here, that in the news seem to center around Israel's incursion into Lebanon, the constant flow of missiles from Lebanon into northern Israel, and all of the death and destruction that has already resulted from this. And Lyn, if I understand, you are saying that the motivation behind this is, of course, a much greater influence than just some kind of racial divide that occurs in that part of the world, but extends into the international financier areas, pretty well with a polarized feeling among these people aimed at the destruction of our own country.

Now, I want to talk a little bit more about that. Because when you look at the history of our trade agreements with NAFTA, GATT, and AFTA, and CAFTA, and whatever else is AFTA that, and everything is opening up the world into a complete, supposedly free market system—what is there left in this country that is still uniquely American? We can't make a hammer; even our own cars, we don't make; we just put 'em together. The auto industry is almost gone; the airline industry is next, the railroad industry is about shot, the highways are gone. We haven't had a real advancement in technology, in the sense of energy or power, in three decades or so, when you look at what Russia is doing, what India is doing, what China is doing—it's not that we better hurry up and get on board; the train left the station three decades ago. Can you comment on that?

LaRouche: Yeah, well you've got one thing in this country. You've got, first of all, people who are too much materialist don't understand this, because they don't understand, that man is intrinsically immortal. That is, we have an animal body which is rather frail, as you and I know, and that passes. But the point is, that what we represent, which is not found in the animal kingdom, is something special. And this is associated with ideas, and ideas reach back far in human history, and are transmitted from one generation to another, and carry the personal touch, the personal identity, of people who have died, in creating and generating and promoting these ideas.

In the United States, we have a population which has embedded in it, without sufficient realization of that fact, a certain American principle which is reflected in our Constitution, and which many of our people carry.

Now, what you have is, you have the upper 20% of the population, and some others, from that generation [the 68ers], who no longer believe in the United States. The hatred of Franklin Roosevelt, the hostility to Franklin Roosevelt, typifies that. Because, that generation, which was created by people like Sidney Hook's crowd of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, produced a corrupted generation, which we saw on the streets in 1968. And this generation were just poor people, didn't know what they were, but they were sophists in the same way that a corresponding generation in Athens in the time of the onset of the Peloponnesian War, were corrupted. So this corrupted generation, which lies within the upper 20% of family-income brackets between the ages of about 50 and 65, this is the 68er generation: These people have no firm morality. They are opportunists. They don't have any sense of immortality. They don't have a sense of a commitment to the past and future.

But if you go into the lower 80% of the population, you find two phenomena: You find fanatics among the Tweener generation. And the fanaticism is largely a reflection of the corruption which was shown by the 68er generation. In other words, the Tweeners are generally fairly ignorant of reality; they're very poorly educated, but they know their parents are hopelessly immoral. And therefore they have a moral reaction, without adequate knowledge, and they become a phenomenon which becomes the basis for the neo-con phenomenon, support for the neo-con phenomenon. But then, you still have the lower 80% who remember that their fathers and grandfathers were farmers or worked in industry, were scientists, were entrepreneurs, and have some sense of the American tradition.

What is happening now, is the upper 20% of the population, this Baby-Boomer section, controls the population's politics, as in the Senate. That's what the problem is there. Many of these guys in the Senate are good people. But! They are corrupted by being Baby Boomers, and therefore, their moral strength—they capitulate! They collapse, easily, as we've seen since mid-February of this year.

We have to get the lower 80% of the population, especially among the youth between 18 and 30 years of age, back into the act: Because it's these youth who know that both the Tweeners are "screwed up," as they put it, and that the Baby Boomers are worse, these youth recognize that they have nothing, that the nation has almost nothing, as you've just described it. They say, "We want a nation. We want a future. We want a future for this nation." And therefore, they respond, as my direct experience attests to this, they respond by saying, "What is our tradition? Where does our soul lie?" And they're a good force, and the hope of our nation lies with that generation, not only the United States, but especially in the United States, and also in Europe and elsewhere.

Our Constitutional System vs. Oligarchism

Stockwell: Now, can you connect that to what you said earlier about how the governments of Europe are so different than the government that we have? I mean, they have youth. They have Baby Boomers. They have Tweeners. They have their neo-con elements, as clearly represented in Britain right now. But because their tradition, the European tradition, can you counter-distinguish that from the American tradition?

LaRouche: Yeah, yeah. Look at our Constitution. Our Constitution is a reflection of our national character. Our Constitution is a reflection of our revolt against the disgusting thing that happened with the February 1763 Treaty of Paris, which established the Anglo-Dutch Liberal bankers as an international imperial force. We reacted against that, in defense of our own freedom and in defense of our right to technology, and we actually went to war in 1776 to defend this freedom.

Now, we created a Constitution, under which the Federal government has a monopoly of control over the utterance and management of our currency—

Stockwell: Now, very clearly, in Article I, Section 8, very clearly described.

LaRouche: All right. Now, this is controlled democratically by the consent of the Congress, especially the House of Representatives. Now therefore, we can create Federal credit, but we are also morally responsible to manage it, so that it doesn't go inflationary, haywire. Whereas, in Europe, there is today in Western and Central Europe no government, which is actually a government: It is actually a lackey. Because, each one of these governments is controlled by a central banking system, which in turn is owned by private financier interests. So the action of the government, especially in the management of its economic and social affairs, is constricted by a superior power, which is not accountable to government, called a central banking system.

That is a relic of the old imperialist system of Europe, when you had Habsburgs and so forth running the place. Therefore we, in a sense, are the one nation on this planet which had very clearly, a Constitutional understanding of how to run a government and how to deal with economic affairs. Admittedly, especially since 1971, our system of government has been undermined and destroyed, under Nixon, as a benefit to the forces behind Nixon, of the 68ers: That is, the 68ers, by dividing the population, by turning their generation, the college generation, especially the leading university generation, by turning them against blue-collar workers, and against farmers, and so forth, they created a division in the basic voting constituency of our country, which enabled the Nixon corruption, and the Carter corruption, the Brzezinski corruption, the failures in the Reagan Administration, the Bush I Administration, and the errors of the Clinton Administration, and the folly of this present Administration of a virtual lunatic. We divided the constituents, we estranged the mass of the population away from their Constitutional tradition and their moral tradition, and that's the difference.

In Europe, the Europeans generally like European values. These European values include the same values on which our nation was founded. But! They have an oligarchical tradition, where they have never freed themselves of the tradition of Venetian bankers. We, in a sense, have a Constitution, which is designed to protect us from the follies of Europe. So therefore, our function on this planet, should be a function of leadership, to bring the whole world together around the idea of sovereign nation-states, which have the same objectives, in terms of national sovereignty as the United States itself did at its founding.

Stockwell: Well, ever since 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act, we've kind of become Europeanized in our credit management, haven't we?

LaRouche: Yeah, well, that was the purpose. That's why they killed McKinley. McKinley was killed by friends of Teddy Roosevelt. And McKinley was in a sense, for that period of time, the last patriotic President! And then you had Teddy Roosevelt. Well, Taft was not entirely bad. But then you had Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were explicitly carriers of the Confederacy tradition, and they tried to change the country into the ideals of the Confederacy! For example, it was Wilson who, from the White House, organized the Ku Klux Klan as a mass organization, revived it.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: So, then you had Coolidge, who was no damned good. Hoover was a decent, competent guy, but he was under the management of Andrew Mellon. So, Roosevelt came in, almost as a miracle in 1933, knowing what was going—Hitler, remember, had just been confirmed as a tyrant in Germany by the Reichstag Fire. And knowing that we were headed for World War II, not knowing exactly what that war was going to look like, but knowing what the issues were, and knowing that we had a 50% collapse of the U.S. economy, from the time that the crash occurred in 1929, until 1933. So Roosevelt had two missions, both of which had meant saving us. First of all, to build up our economy, to rebuild this economy, systematically, and also to prepare for the inevitability of some form of World War II.

And then, we forgot that lesson. We went in a different direction. We had people like Eisenhower, who had great talent; he was limited, of course, in what he could do as President, but he was a guy—I supported him for nomination for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1947, hoping to get rid of Truman. But then, other men who were good. Kennedy came around to some good ideas. But this was, again, destroyed. And the 68ers, the Indo-China War, which was a piece of folly, helped destroy us. Long, useless wars are good ways of destroying a nation's confidence in itself. And that happened to us.

Stockwell: Now, you mentioned there briefly that Kennedy had some good ideas. What are you referring to?

LaRouche: Well, Kennedy was his father's son, but he wasn't just his father's son. His father, you know, of course was one of the—

Stockwell: His father supported Hitler!

LaRouche: Absolutely, that's why Roosevelt fired him. But anyway, Jack made a deal with Eleanor Roosevelt and company, to bear the flag of the Franklin Roosevelt tradition. Now, Jack came in, with making a lot of mistakes—.

Stockwell: ... Before the break, Lyn, you were talking about this dynamic behind Kennedy. I asked what it was that he did that was right, and why it was so important for these people to take him out? I mean, what direction was he going, that was disrupting the international affairs?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, he was opposed to the Vietnam War, which really got him killed. But there were two people who advised Kennedy. One was Eisenhower. And, Eisenhower was extremely important in that period, because he was the first representative of a permanent Presidential system, in our system. Other people like Roosevelt had died, other people disappeared. But Eisenhower set up an operation of a Presidential library, etc., system, which was a very important part of our national life until the point he died. Similarly, but less obviously, Douglas MacArthur, again, was another figure in this.

So the MacArthur-Eisenhower influence in advising President Kennedy, or informing him, which was also to advise him, played an important part, and it was typical of the influences, where Kennedy tried to represent the tradition of those who had fought World War II: Americans who were patriots, who had fought World War II, trying to find their own way, independent of their parents. Not without respect for their parents, but independent of their parents.

And so, Kennedy was out to rebuild the U.S. economy. The space program was the most typical, particularly the Moon-landing program, was the leading thing. The fight against the steel bosses was the other thing. But in all of this, if you look at the MacArthur-Eisenhower influence on the Kennedy Administration, and the evolution of the Kennedy Administration, during its short life, you see something very interesting. And you see, very clearly, from my eyes, why they killed him, and why the cover-up was done. That simple.

They killed him, and look what happened: The Vietnam War, the Indo-China War, destroyed us essentially as a nation. It crystallized the formation of the Baby-Boomer formation, as manifest in the 68ers. And the 68ers have been the key to the self-destruction of the United States ever since. They have been the unwitting, secret agents of the enemies of the United States. They don't know it, but their culture, just like the culture in Athens under Pericles and beyond: This is what has happened to us. And it is very important that we understand, that Kennedy, whatever imperfections he may have had, whatever the problems in his background, that at a certain point, entering the Presidency, was taken by the Oval Office, and taken by a tradition. And the best example of that tradition, among many examples though, is actually the Eisenhower who established the idea of the Presidency: That is, that there's an institution of the Presidency, of people who have been Presidents, who are part of the Presidential system, which, whether in office or out of office, tries to provide a continuous leadership, the kind of spiritual-intellectual leadership for our nation and its leadership, even after they're out of office.

And that's what I've attached myself to: In 1947, I wrote a letter to Eisenhower, asking him to accept the nomination for the Democratic candidacy for President. And he said, it wasn't timely for him to do it at that time. I later understood he was probably right on that, in his reply.

But from that point on, the World War II generation, as typified by Eisenhower who was the Galionsfigur of this, and also MacArthur: We, the World War II generation, returned from that war. We represented a core, a tradition, and the best of us stuck to that tradition, and have served it up to this day. And what I've tried to do, is to represent the continuation of that same tradition as I understand it.

Leaders Today Without Guts

Stockwell: I know that in your organization you have contacts, obviously throughout the world. But you also have intelligence contacts inside the American intelligence community, especially in the area of defense and active-duty flag-level officers. How do they see that tradition, as opposed to those who got while the gettin' was good, and jumped behind Rumsfeld, and did what Rumsfeld wanted to get their quick promotions? As opposed to those who've stood back on the edge, very leery of the direction the Pentagon has moved in the last five years?

Let me simplify that question: Of those who are still active-duty, or not even active, recently inactive, flag-officer level—with the contacts you have, how do they see the same Eisenhower-MacArthur tradition you're talking about?

LaRouche: I would say that what I just said, they would tend to be sympathetic to. They each have their own views, and they're independent. We're in contact, of course, but we don't form an organization, they don't have any particularly attachment to me as such, except their own choice of saying, "Well, this guy is smart, this time he's right," and that sort of thing. And we do exchange views along those channel lines. And we're like a forum. The forum is not homogeneous; it does not have a "line" as such. But we often come to an agreement based on principles that drive us to agreement.

And on this issue, on the great issues of this period, especially since the Bush Administration came in, this Bush Administration, we've been driven together by the insanity of this Administration. I mean, we have a President who is not mentally competent. And we have a Cheney who is not morally competent. It's not a good combination. And you have a Congress, in which there are many good people, but they—

Stockwell: No backbone.

LaRouche: Well, they're Baby Boomers, in large part! They do not—take Murtha, for example, in the Congress. Murtha is an example of a toughie who represents a different generational view than the typical senior member of the Congress. There are people in the Congress who do represent that. They are, unfortunately, a minority. There're many other people in the Congress, who under favorable conditions would tend to agree with them. And the problem is, the only way you can get the Congress to behave, is what the people out there should do: Now that the Congress has gone out of session, has gone back to the base, the people at the base, the lower 80% of the people in the United States, should burn their tails! Because, only that kind of fearful sense, "Mr. Democrat, you're running for office in November? Ha-ha! You think you're going to get elected ... by me!? After what you've done to this country? You better get yourself straightened out!"

And that's the only thing that'll save this nation right now.

Stockwell: Well, I'm kind of wondering, when you look at this hard core—you know the President is languishing there somewhere in the 30th percentile, which I think represents a certain mind-set in this country, that even if the worst possible revelations regarding something in the President's past or current behavior were to be revealed to the public, he'd still have that same support group behind him, because they can't see, think or feel anything else.

LaRouche: They can't see, think or feel, actually, in many cases! They're living in fantasy land!

Requirements of Leadership

Stockwell: What is it going to take, short of the breakdown of our society, to bring people to their senses, that's always taking place?

LaRouche: It's always the positive factor, it's always leadership. Now we're providing some leadership, and we do a fairly good job. I've been fairly successful at this, which is why I have so much trouble. People hate me because I'm effective. They wouldn't hate me if I weren't effective!

Stockwell: Well, that's exactly the point. The people I find the most fascinating are the people you either love or hate.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure.

Stockwell: The people out there, who are never drawing any flak, are usually people who will put you to sleep if you listen to them for a couple of minutes. [LaRouche laughs] I always judge the effectiveness of my show and the agenda I'm trying to bring to pass, by how much flak I pick up....

The dynamic that was behind Kennedy, what he tried to do: They took him out because he was going to scale down the Vietnam War. The "they," probably the same group that Eisenhower had in mind when he was warning about the "military-industrial complex," and the necessity to keep them separated from the political process of this country, and the inevitability of that marriage, which is very strong and in place today, obviously; when you look at the amount of money that we have sent to help Israel, the amount of money we have sent to help Iraq, how much of that money has actually been diverted back to the same complex that Eisenhower was warning about, through various American corporations—I know, sometimes, Lyn, it just seems overwhelming.

And the thing I try to deal with, with my listenership, here on this radio station at this time of the morning, is the concept of ideas, and the concept of leadership. And what I try to do, is to instill ideas to get people to change, maybe, to some degree, how they think. And in the process of changing, or at least beginning the process of learning to think, they can conceive of a new idea, that things don't need to be the way they are, and that there is a better answer, and that better answer rests itself in a forgotten aspect of the American principle, the American tradition.

And as we become more Europeanized here, and more internationalized, and this Administration is leading us to that direction, both sides of Congress are leading us into an international direction, it's like the last few swirls of water down the bathtub! I just want to be able to keep us in line, and keep us moving in a direction that we can continue to awaken that lower 80% that realize they're being treated by cattle. Comment?

LaRouche: Yeah, they are. Yes, well, the point is, this requires leadership. And as I said, the key here, and we see it experimentally, empirically in the field. I've created in the past four or five years, I've created a Youth Movement which is based on people 18 to 25, and now some of them are getting toward 30. We're doing this also internationally.

And I find that the Baby-Boomer generation is virtually hopeless. I mean, there are people in it, particularly the lower income brackets, who are patriotic and who will fight for things. But the ones in power are very weak, and it's very difficult to get them to do the right thing. And if you get them to do right thing once, it's difficult to get them to keep doing it. As you see later, we got them to do some right things, in a sense, during the past year. And then, from early on in February this year, they went in another direction, and they went quite literally to Hell! So, we're trying to get 'em back to that.

And of course, the real worst characters in the Congress hate the youth. That's the flag, when they say they "hate these youth," or call them "brats," you know you're dealing with the very worst element in our Congressional system.

But the key thing, is without young people, the same generation of young people which, in each time we have a world war, goes to war, that generation which is called upon to go to war when we have wars to fight, is always the leading edge of the future of any nation. For example, take the Marquis de Lafayette, who was a major general of the United States at the time he played a key role in the defeat of Cornwallis in the American Revolution!

So therefore, it's this generation, which is building a future for itself as an adult generation for approximately two generations to come, 50 years to come; this generation is always the future. This is the organic leadership of the nation.

Now, this leadership, the organic leadership, as in the case of the Roosevelt generation, this leadership then becomes recognized as the vehicle for the leading ideas to which the nation rallies itself. And it is that generation around which you must build. And I'm concentrating on educating that generation. And they're doing an excellent job, that is, the people themselves. That's our future.

I think we can win. I know we must win. And I will not give up until we have won.

Who's Going to Issue the Credit?

Stockwell:... My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, live from Leesburg, this morning. We have been talking about a kind of a foundation to begin to understand what the American tradition, the American experience, the American System is. As opposed to the European system. And one thing, Lyn, that I've tried to get my listeners to understand, is that what happened in the American experiment, as represented in the thinking of the Founding Fathers, wasn't something that just—they all had a dream one night. These were people educated in the European experience, and had read the European writers, and had studied some of the great thinkers, and had seen the experience of Louis XI and Henry VII, and other people in Europe, in their understanding and desires to create something unique, uniquely human in the sense of recognizing the divine origin of man, and man's ability to think, and his ability to create tremendous hydroelectric power dams, as opposed to wandering around in a pasture with the thought that "Well, I think I'll go stand over there for a couple hours." The belief systems behind those who would want to free man, see man as the creation of God.

There are those who see themselves, perhaps more so, as the creation of God, and it's their responsibility to husband the rest of humankind, even to their own death and destruction, in the sense of creating a better world from their aspect. And that's kind of the battle that goes on.

And underlying all of that, is a subject of as great an importance as anything else: Is that, who's going to issue the credit? Who's going to issue the system upon which all of our economics depend? The independent private banking system? Or, a well-managed moral government, that is supervised, since government, of the people, by the people is an extension of the people anyway. We can criticize Congress as much as we want. When you look at the incumbency rate that's involved, we know where the real blame lies.

And so, with that in mind, I still have—you know, I consider myself an eternal optimist. No matter how bad things get, I know there are ways to pull ourselves up by the boot-straps and get moving and get forward, and start changing these things. There are efforts here in Utah to do that, regardless of the level and degree of corruption that exists in our own political system in this state! Which is a virtual theocracy anyway. There are efforts that are afloat all the time, to try to bring people to the sense of the awfulness of the situation in which we find ourselves, which is the final dissolution of this republic, in the viewpoint of a larger economic community, that will reduce this once-great nation to a Third World status, never again to emerge as a part of the big, global community.

You know, it's really simple, when you boil it to the lowest common denominator, what we're dealing with here. It's a fight over essentially who is going to issue the credit. Can it be that simple?

LaRouche: Yeah, it is that simple. It's that simple, if you know how to manage the credit that you issue, that's the other side of the coin.

Stockwell: And these families, these European families, who for 1,000 years or more, held onto this tremendous power, they will drive, in my estimation, they will drive this planet to back before the European dark ages, before they'll ever let go of an ounce of power!

LaRouche: Well, Jack, I don't think it's even families. It's a system. We form systems, and you have institutions which are systems. For example: Let's take the greatest force of evil today, which is essentially this Anglo-Dutch-French Liberal/Synarchist alliance, which is really the Synarchist alliance. This is a product, ultimately, of the Venetian financier-oligarchy, which moved from being the rulers of the Middle Ages, with their ultramontane system, and moved into the north into England and the Netherlands, where the Venetian bankers took Dutch and English names, or spread their influence otherwise. Then you had, in France, a corrupt element, which was consolidated around Napoleon Bonaparte. And when Bonaparte surrendered, had to surrender to the British and Dutch, then you had the Banque de France, which had been created by Bonaparte, and also became a cluster of private financier interests, which, together with the Anglo-Dutch interests, became essentially a world empire. And what people think of as economics today, is largely a product of this system.

Now, what happens is, the system functions like a club, in which some mysterious force, as far as the individual is concerned, controls the club, and the member who wants to stay in the club, will obey the rules of the club. One club is the "Eat People Club," which is what Rohatyn represents. Remember that Rohatyn is a product of the people who created Hitler. Hitler did not create the club, Hitler was a throwaway instrument of the club. And when Hitler was used up, they threw him away, but they kept in business!

Stockwell: Well, this club got Franco going before they got Hitler going!

LaRouche: And they got Mussolini going, but that's not the issue. These are the instruments.

Stockwell: Right.

LaRouche: I mean, you have organized crime. Organized crime has a man who is an enforcer in a neighborhood. The enforcer in the neighborhood is the one that everyone fears. But he's not the controller, because he can be killed, too, and eliminated. Just the way that Hitler was eliminated, Mussolini was eliminated.

For example, Mussolini was a favorite charge of people like Winston Churchill. A friend of mine, who was then the head of the OSS in Italy, was chasing Mussolini at the end of Mussolini's life and career, when Mussolini was fleeing to the Swiss border to try to cut a deal and blackmail Winston Churchill, who had been his controller! And they killed him! And then they took him and Carla Petacci, his mistress, and they hung 'em up at a gas station outside of Milan, and said it was the Resistance that did it—it was actually the British that did it. And my friend, who was out there with his .45 on his hip, chasing Mussolini, really had an insight into what really was going on.

So, they got rid of the rubbish, and they started new rubbish: And the new rubbish is the same people that created the old. It's the syndicate behind it.

And the force here, is this Venetian tradition of financier-oligarchy, of the system of usury controlling the world. And this is what the empires are based on. This was the empire of the Persian Empire; the empire of the Babylonian Empire; the empire of the Roman Empire; the Byzantine Empire; the Crusader system; and the modern empires are all the same thing: They're all based on a financier principle, finance principle, of usury.

But! The system controls the members, the leading members, that is, the club. And the club members now respond to promote themselves within the system, the club. And that's where you have Felix Rohatyn. Here's a man who essentially qualifies as a virtual Nazi. His policies are no different than those of the sponsors of Adolf Hitler. He may be not anti-Semitic, but in every other respect, he's the same thing.

So therefore, this is the enemy. And the question is, the counter-enemy is what's important. The counter-enemy is the mobilization of the people as a system, around principles, as this is typified by the American Constitution and what that represents. And that's the fight.

In other countries, they have good ideas. But good ideas are not sufficient. You have to have a system, and you have to have leadership which can make these ideas effective. Because we're all mortal, and we come, and we die. And what happens after we die? What is the institution that continues what we are committed to during our lifetime? And it's that institution and its leadership which is of crucial importance to us, as is typified by the U.S. Constitution.

Immortality of Man

Stockwell: And after we die, we either leave behind us the momentum in the club that we just joined, and kept going. Or we left some new ideas.

LaRouche: I think it's more than that. Because, the point is, this thing of Genesis 1, and the question of man and woman, the definition of man and woman. I think that our sense of time confuses us. I think that we're immortal, but in a different way than people think of time. That we are a part of the system of creation, and we're either loyal to that, or we're loyal to something else.

Stockwell: Yeah.

LaRouche: And therefore, our institutions of government, or other institutions which are valuable to us, are the institutions which preserve the interest of our immortality: By taking the good that we contribute and inherit from those before us, and ensuring that that is preserved for generations to come. In that sense, we are an active, living part of the universe, even after we, in our animal side, have died.

Stockwell: So, we can say then, if you take the beauty of that last statement that you just said, that's what the Founders tried to give us, then, in the Constitution.

LaRouche: Absolutely. Why does somebody go to war and die? He's a pig? He's a beast? Or, he's a human being who thinks that putting his life as a sacrifice for the sake of humanity, is something which may be required of him, for the benefit of humanity.

Stockwell: That's why our men and women went to the Pacific, that's why our men and women went to Europe. Because they knew their life was on the line, but they knew there was something greater than that life. And that was the continuation of the American Republic.

LaRouche: And that's where their courage comes from: If you know that you have an intrinsic investment in immortality, by using your life, your mortal life, for a good purpose, then you are strong. If you don't have that, then you live as a wild animal, and you kill as a wild animal, and you fight and die as a wild animal.

Stockwell: And when that kind of thinking rises to the highest levels of our government, then they're willing to look at the cannon fodder as just so many people to be killed to achieve their monetary and political ends. Because they are thinking as beasts!

LaRouche: It's the system.

Stockwell:... This concept, Lyn, I want to expand on this a little bit more, as opposed to the "Club Med" thinking. The Genesis 1 kind of concept, that man is in the image of God, and the immortality you're talking about that that brings—metaphors that can go in a lot of different directions, as to what "created in His image," and all these other things could possibly mean. But the idea of divine parentage, and divine origins, and divine destiny, as opposed to the person who may have been raised with that kind of thinking, but now is elevated either through vanity, or by the pressure of his peers to run for office; and he gets into office, he or she, and they suddenly find themselves in a "club."

I like this metaphor, because Mary and I, we talk about things in this concept all the time. That, if you're going to be a member of the club, then you keep the rules of the club. If you're not going to keep the rules of the club, then the club's got the right to throw you out. But you may not realize, in your most patriotic, most wonderful altruistic desires to come forth and serve your fellow man in some political office, that once you get in there, you're in a club! And this club has rules that are not necessarily embodied in the Constitution. [LaRouche chuckles] And then, the power that comes with it, the prestige—the seduction, that follows: It's kind of difficult, isn't it? With what the world has to offer, as opposed to the Genesis 1 concept, for anybody of real integrity and determination, and true honest stamina to put up against this stuff?

LaRouche: Well, you see, the problem here, you've got two problems: First of all, you've got too many lawyers in the system. And our legal system is sophist, and therefore, the problem I run into in dealing with the Congress, I run into people who are well-meaning people, but their sophistry takes over! We go to war sometimes, in the same way that Athens went to war and destroyed itself in its wars, because they said, "We have to"; why? Because of popular opinion. Popular opinion says we're going to go to war. Someone says, "Yeah, but it's the wrong thing to do." They say, "Yeah, but we're going to do it anyway, because it's popular opinion."

That's the kind of thing we get here. So, I would say, we have too many lawyers in the Congress, or people who think like lawyers. Not because law is bad, but because the conception of law as practiced by our courts stinks! There is no sense of moral law in the Congress! They may have some religious denomination may say, "This is the moral law." But they don't know what the moral law is anyway, so what they're saying is the moral law doesn't cut much ice with me.

So, the problem here is, people don't know that, what the law is.

And secondly, the way that we treat people and we miseducate them, we do not bring forth their consciousness of that within them, which actually distinguishes them functionally from a beast! That is, the creative powers of reason, which no beast has, and human beings should have. But we try to reduce people, in these societies, and especially the oligarchical societies as in Europe, we reduce people to the status of human cattle. And you look at the ways in which the arguments go: There's no differentiation between the way we define cattle, and the way we often define people! "Look, you're not that important. You need a job, do your job, keep your nose clean, don't get into trouble," that kind of thing. And therefore, we turn people into submissive cattle, who become submissive, like cattle, because they say, "If I don't do as the boss tells me, I'm going to be eaten."

My Approach to the Youth Movement

Therefore, the very thing that makes us human, is the very thing that is not emphasized in the educational system, particularly in the modern Liberal educational system, which does not recognize the existence of a universal physical principle.

Now, there are two things that I do, with the youth in particular, which are relevant to exactly this problem. My question is: How do we get young people to recognize that they're actually human? Well, it's a practical question. The question involves, what's the difference between man and a beast? The innate difference is creativity. What is creativity? Well, let's take, as an example, Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation; and no one but Kepler made that discovery. Galileo did not make that discovery; he was corrupt. Newton didn't make that discovery; he was stupid and corrupt. He was used as a tool. So people don't know what even the principle of gravitation is, what its discovery was. They don't know anything about the actual principles of scientific discovery.

Then you come to music: Now, you have all this rotten music, which is called popular music. It's garbage! And it actually lowers the moral level of the population. We use in the Youth Movement the Bach Jesu, meine Freude. It's a motet; it's the best of the motets and the most important one. It was based on a Lutheran hymn, a short one, which was adopted in the wake of the Thirty Years' War, as a hymn which celebrated man's freedom from this horrible thing, the Thirty Years' War.

And then Bach came along, and took this hymn and combined this with passages from Paul, in Romans, and had a dialogue between the hymn and the Apostle Paul. The thing is a real challenge. It's based on a Lydian mode principle of composition by Bach, which is one of his great contributions to how to use this thing. And you see the effect on people of those forms of musical composition, which incorporate this principle as the Lydian principle, for example, in Bach and others.

You see the effect; you see it in religious music; you see it in other music: That an audience which has participated in a competently performed work of this type, is inspired. This is why in the old churches, this kind of music was crucial, particularly that which expressed this principle, was crucial in bringing people in, an audience, assembled in a church audience, together, emotionally.

You see this on the streets: We have youth go out in the streets will sing the Jesu, meine Freude, or segments of it, especially the "Trotz" section of that. This has an effect upon the people: They suddenly stop being stupid and corrupt, and they come up and start discussing things seriously. Creativity. Science properly taught and practiced: Creativity. It's by people realizing that creativity is something which is unique to the human individual, which does not exist in any other animal. And to understand creativity, to actually understand it, not simply a word you use to apply to anything you want to apply it to as an innovation, but to understand what is creativity, the kind of creativity that increases man's power in and over the universe. And that's what's lacking.

Because we've taken the lower 80% and also many other people, and by denying, systematically, in the rotten corruption of our educational system, particularly in the post-war system, and particularly the 68ers—they have destroyed the moral fiber of the nation, with their approach to education and ideas! And therefore, you have a bunch of poor fellows out there, like people living in Purgatory on the way to Hell, as people, because they're just mulling around, not knowing where they're going in life. You can call it where they're going, spiritually, that's all right—good term. But they don't know where they're going as human beings.

I mean, we all are born and die. We're all going to die. Therefore, what is the meaning of life? Is it the meaning of life, to die? Or, is it the meaning of life, what we do as human beings, to do something specifically human, to improve the condition of humanity? Are we on a mission? And can we die with a sense that we have performed a mission? That's the issue that's lacking.

The Principle of Creativity

Stockwell: Is that the high point, then, of human existence, measured as the net result of what we have done, in the sense of making life better for our fellow man?

LaRouche: Not exactly. That's a reflection of it. But my view is, look: As I understand this, even as a scientific question—it becomes theological, but it's scientific: that you look at creativity, and you have different levels of principle. You have the level of the inanimate objects, you have the level of living processes, you have a still higher level of human processes, the human mind, but we all die.

Now, we are in the image of a Creator. And the Creator has a universe, which is, in a sense His universe. He's not a dead guy Who did it. He's someone Who's there. And it's His universe, and we are the instruments of developing that universe. What our mission is, as mankind, we do not fully understand in terms of some particular target. What we do understand, or should understand, is that we should be making some contribution to getting there, wherever it is. But that's the Creator's decision, not ours.

Stockwell: That's true. Okay, I'm following what you're saying now, that our higher calling then, is to make a contribution to the development then, with the brains that we have, and the understanding, and the ability and to create and to innovate, and to improve, is our responsibility here to conquer that very physical universe.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Stockwell: And in so doing, we have to organize among ourselves, a system that will promote that. And in organizing a system that will promote that, we have to recognize our frailties, our shortcomings, our weaknesses, and our tendencies towards control, dominion, and power over one another. Therefore: We come together and bring forth the best instrument of government that we can come up with, and this was a rather resplendent display at one time in the thinking of the Founders, of a government that would exist among moral people! Typified by our Constitution.

LaRouche: Yeah. The pleasure is getting there.

Stockwell: Yeah!

LaRouche: And the sense that you're part of the process of getting there, wherever it is.

I'll give you a very concrete example of this, Jack.

A Mission to Transform the Planet

Stockwell: Please.

LaRouche: We have two problems right now, which require nuclear energy, fission nuclear power, and also thermonuclear power. Now, fission power is required: As you know out in that neck of the woods, that we have a major freshwater problem for maintaining civilization. There's plenty of water on this planet, which is created by life. But we don't have the fresh water where we need it. The Ogallala Aquifer, for example, particularly the southern part of it, is typical of this. You have areas of the United States which could be developed, which could be rich agricultural land, and developed. We don't have that because we don't have water. On the planet as a whole, we are relying today, largely on what is called "fossil water," that is, deposited water, left from 2 million years ago or less, where glaciers melted and left a great deposit, like oil or something, inside the Biosphere.

We also have a problem, in the fact that we depend upon primary materials, what are sometimes called raw materials, minerals, and so forth, which we have begun to exhaust the richest lodes known to us. We have a world population which is growing, and we must meet the requirements of the growing needs of a growing population. But we're going more and more to marginal resources, to meet those needs. We can deal with that.

We're going into what is called, by physical chemists, an isotope economy, in which the understanding and the management of the isotopes of chemistry, and of generating higher orders of chemistry, as for example, exploring the transuranic area. Because you have two processes in physical chemistry: You have fission, which is going down; you have fusion, which is what the Sun did in creating the Solar System, going up, going up to higher orders. We know something about this, but we don't know very much. We simply know what the problems are.

But in order to deal with these problems, we have a mission: Instead of depending upon what we can take from the Biosphere, as fossil residues that we depend upon for life today, such as water, atmosphere, and minerals and so forth, we now have to begin to take responsibility for reproducing and making these, and making new kinds of materials.

The Fundamentalist Problem

Stockwell:... Now, in this line of thinking, Lyn, when you're talking about this immortality, and this mission, this responsibility to use the tools and the brain, not just to improve our life; and to build up in the fusion concept, and not to tear down in the fission concept, something I'm picking up there—but this is where—you know, when I look at things religiously, as I am wont to do at times, and I look at what I pick up from Islamic thinking, I don't see Islamic thinking—nothing against the Islamic religion, because I see the same thing in Christianity, any time you start moving in fundamentalist areas—where people are living for something "down the road," trying get to up to the highest level of the Kingdom of God, whether Islamic or Christian, or whatever; as opposed to living for the highest within us on this sphere, in this realm, where real immortality is established.

And so, here you have fundamentalist Islam wanting a certain position with God hereafter—so they might join Hezbollah; they might become part of the military aspect of Hamas or whatever else, and will go out there and will do some rather disgusting, horrible things. On the Christian side, you have these people partying around now, because the Last Days are here, Jesus's Second Coming is imminent, and they're pushing the Administration to launch so they can hurry up and get Armageddon under way [LaRouche laughs], and see this world reduced to a burned-out cinder! I mean, both sides are insane!

And so, sometimes, rather than religion helping to develop the best in us, it seems to create an environment where people run off to some crazy extremes, where we end up doing the opposite of what Genesis Chapter 1 seems to indicate.

LaRouche: Yeah. But what you're getting there is this—first of all, you look at some contrasts. You look at Islam as it functioned with the Baghdad Caliphate, under people like Haroun al-Rashid, in its alliance with Charlemagne, and with a Jewish connection, that is, functional connection between Charlemagne and Haroun al-Rashid, in that period. Then you look at the Crusades: the Crusaders were a bunch of murderous swine. They called themselves Christians, but they were actually murderous swine. They were fanatics, they were fundamentalists of a special kind, who worked for bankers—and you have fundamentalists who work for bankers in the United States today! They think they're Christians or something ... and when the doors of Heaven open, they're not going to be opened for them! Not with the way they're acting now. Because, you see, what they talk about, they want their health problem cured, they want their rent paid without they're having to pay it—

Stockwell: They don't have to pay taxes.

LaRouche: And they want sex (they don't want to talk about it, but that's what's in their mind!). Gratifying sex. So therefore, they are not exactly Christians. They are people who are trying to worship their fantasy, their utopian fantasy of what their personal, swinish life could be!

And the problem is, that they have been demoralized, and have no vision, and no sense of what creativity is. They have no conception of what the Creator is. They have a pagan, an absolutely pagan conception!

In Islam, you have the same problems we have in Christianity. You have divisions in terms of views, and divisions which are affected by political conditions. For example, you have people living under, Christians who lived under—think of it! Christ was born under the first Roman Emperor, who called himself Octavian, the son of Caesar. And then you had the second one, that Christ was crucified on orders of Tiberius, through his son-in-law Pontius Pilate! And from that point on, with the crucifixion of Peter, the crucifixion of Paul later by the Romans, you have a nightmare, a mass-murder of Christians! And so, in this process, which goes beyond Constantine, this process and then the Crusades, a monstrous history of mankind in terms of religion. The Spanish Inquisition was absolutely Satanic! Dostoevsky was right in his image of the Grand Inquisitor. The Grand Inquisitor was a Satanic figure; the Inquisition was Satanic in character. And the fact that religions were subjected to this kind of thing, means that confused people would try to make God in their image, rather than themselves in God's image.

The Challenge to Us Today

Stockwell: Well, here we are, now, 2006, going back to the beginning of this discussion with Gingrich's comments about, here we are, this is World War III: the latest news I heard at the news break, was that Israel was stepping down just a touch—I don't know what that means. But from what you've had to say these last couple of hours, this is a situation where Israel is not acting autonomously. Zionism, the IDF, are tools of a much larger power out there, just as much as our forces in our own forces in this country are, to bring to pass this world community.

Now, we're going to take another break, and when we get back we've got about three to four minutes to wrap it up. In that light, I'd like you to sum up (which is not going to be easy) in the amount of time that's left, this underlying theme of creativity, that the Founders came together to create a form of government that would foster this creativity, that would foster this individual freedom. And how that smacks up against this international financier concept, that they should have the supreme ruling position, that they themselves should be the ones who make the last decisions in all matters, political, social, and economic—by divine right of kings or however they see themselves. They are in the controlling position.

I mean, even President Bush himself said, things would be better if this were a dictatorship, as long as he were the dictator; he's also said that God told him to invade Iraq. And there are other people, and they're just as looney as he is, who have access to the button, if not the button itself, very close to it. That we could be, right here, sitting here at the end of July, right on the verge of what Gingrich has described as World War III. If you could kind of tie all that together, as soon as we take a quick break. We'll be right back....

Lyn, just in a few minutes left, where are we, and what responsibilities incumbent upon us all to do something, even at this late date?

LaRouche: You referred to Gingrich, who is not really a nice person, but who is not entirely ill-informed: that the fact is that Israel did not invade southern Lebanon, or conduct many other things it did, simply as something of Israeli interest. In point of fact, as we see now, as many of us warned that this could be the end of Israel. Israel was sent on a suicide mission, a suicide for Israel, into southern Lebanon, and everyone who is of military and related competence, who saw the facts, have agreed—and we've shared these facts with them—have agreed, that this is a suicide mission.

Now the fact that Israel is being expended when people have tried to use it as an instrument of policy in this way, indicates that we've come to the point, that the friends of Felix Rohatyn, of the Synarchist International, the same people who created Adolf Hitler, and then dumped him, but they created him, and who also are responsible for launching the Hitler who they knew was going to conduct some kind of genocide against Jews, these people are trying to push us to a real chaos: because they know that the end of their financial system as it exists now, is doomed. That some time in the very near future, unless fundamental changes are made by the U.S. government in particular, this system is going to crash—not into a depression, but into a dark age kind of depression.

So they are rushing at this time, to get control of the planet, which is why they're pushing for a global world war! Now! Not a local war, not a regional war. The attack, the terrorist attack in Mumbai, which was largely a British creation, this attack shows you very clearly, and other things from the U.S. Administration also show you, that they're headed for a new kind of world war, World War III in a new form, from which civilization might not emerge.

And the issue now, is to find the leadership, especially in the United States, which will change the direction of behavior, of the U.S. Senate and the Congress, from what it has been doing in the recent months. And will also cause a change in the policy of the Presidency of the United States, a radical change, of the type which is consistent with the intention of the Founders of this nation.

That's where we stand: We, now, have the moral responsibility for changing ourselves, for changing the behavior of our Senate, our Congress, of our Presidency, to ensure not only that the United States survives, but survives because it plays a positive role in preventing civilization from going to Hell, under the impact of what is building up rapidly, now.

Stockwell: Lyn, thanks.

LaRouche: Okay!

Stockwell: I appreciate very much you're being here. I always find that the time you spend on this radio program, to me individually, to be very inspiring. It's just amazing to me, that, when I read your writings, and I listen to you speak—where some of these people [who attack you] get their ideas! Obviously, they don't read. But, nonetheless, I appreciate your being here. And I can understand why the Felix Rohatyn crowd does not care for you. I understand why the Cheney crowd does not care for you. And I understand what kind of a threat you represent to the concepts of internationalism, and those that would like to see the end of the American Republic. I can see what a threat your ideas and thinking represent to all of those: However, you are my friend, and I consider you a good friend, and I appreciate you very much being on my show, and your organization. And others, as well, Harley [Schlanger], for instance, who's been on the show quite bit over the last year. Anytime someone from your organization's a part of the program, it's always a thrill for me. And again, I thank you for being a part of the show, sir.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Back to top