MARCH 7 WEBCAST
Dialogue With LaRouche
This question-and-answer dialogue followed Lyndon LaRouche's presentation, "The Implications of Gore's Hoax for International Policy," to an international Webcast in Washington, D.C. March 7. The dialogue was moderated by LaRouche's East Coast spokeswomen, Debra Freeman.
[Video and audio archive of the webcast]
Debra Freeman: Thank you, Lyn. Well, we have a series of questions that were submitted while Lyn was speaking. As you might guess, some of the questions actually, while they address important issues, chose to avoid the central question that Lyn addressed, and that was particularly the case from the questions that were submitted from people here in Washington. However, a few brave souls decided to address the question directly, and I think we can start with those questions.
Why 'Scientists' Lie
The first question comes from a Democratic Senate Committee: "Mr. LaRouche, your staff knows that this office is no particular friend of Al Gore, nor do we think that global warming is the greatest priority to be addressed, given all the immediate dangers and crises that we face as a nation. However, I still don't see how you can take the position that it's a complete hoax. If you separate the issue itself from Al Gore, and how he might wish to use it, the fact is, that over at least the last decade, I have seen and heard one reputable scientist after another, express views ranging from concern to alarm about this very question. They also have provided a mountain of evidence. Now, are you asking us to accept that they are all wrong? These are scientists, they are not people with a political agenda. Presuming that they aren't completely incompetent, and perhaps you think they are incompetent, but if we presume that they're not incompetent—and if you do think so, say so—but if not, what could possibly motivate them to lie?"
And the reason why I'm starting with this question, Lyn, is—as you can imagine—variations of it have come from at least a dozen offices on Capitol Hill, and I think that the LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) members who have been doing this work can attest to that.
LaRouche: We've had a chance to look at some of these arguments from so-called scientists. Some of them have scientific credentials, but their moral credentials are in question. This is a time—if you look at what's going on at the campuses, for example, you get an insight into this thing. Take the case of the wife of Cheney—or maybe he's the wife, I don't know—with her organization, "ACT-UP," which is functioning as a gestapo on the campuses. And if you look at the phenomenon of this gestapo on the campuses, run by Lynne Cheney, which has been in place in the United States since about 1987, when she's been active in this area, you see the degree to which the scientists on campuses are victims of terror. Now, these scientists on campuses tend not to be the strongest types in the world. Also, they happen to be of a generation called the Baby Boomer generation, by and large. And most of the scientists who speak up against this openly, are of an older generation—mine or slightly younger. We look at the facts of the matter, and study what the arguments and the premises are that these guys make, and from a scientific standpoint, it is immediately obvious that what they are saying is a fake. They may be accredited as this or that, but you also have another factor which you've got to take into account. The ones who are marched up to tell you this, and support this, are lying. They don't give a damn what the truth is; they're in there to lie. Their careers, their bonuses, their book publication, their speaking engagements here and there, their positions on faculties, whether they're fired or not. And if you look at the terror that is being run on the campuses right now by Lynne Cheney's organization, which is also Joe Lieberman's organization, and what they're doing, you have a Nazi-like operation running under Lynne Cheney on these campuses today. And it affects the professors as well as it does the students, probably more the professors, who in a sense are more vulnerable than the students. And careers are based on kissing the butt of what Lynne Cheney's crowd demands.
So, you do not have honesty. I have been through this myself with a lot of experience; that's probably because I'm better experienced than most of you are in the Congress, that I understand this. I know what fakery is in the United States justice; what fakery is in the leadership of political parties, including the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The corruption from the top is beyond belief. And every one of us who is involved in this process, in or outside of the Congress and the committees, knows it.
But the question they ask is, "How can we stand up to this, with all this prestige behind these lies? How can we deny the lies? Don't you realize how prestigious the lies are?" How can you protest against that? Sophistry! Sophistry! Sophistry! And it's those of us who can stand up to this sophistry and say, "We demand the truth. Now, let's ask you some questions, Mr. So-Called Scientist. Let's ask you the following question: What do you think of the ice bores? You say the ice bores are valuable? What kind of a faker are you, Mr. Expert?" They're not; the test proof is, they're not reliable. Anybody who uses these things is a liar, or an incompetent. CO2 is not a determinant of global warming. Water will tend to have more effect on global warming; CO2 is fractional.
So, the simple scientific evidence, if you look at it from the standpoint of scientific evidence, rather than the sophistry of hearing what people—so and so comes in, decorated with such and such credentials. Well, who sent him? Whose butt is he kissing? You have to take a hard view of these matters. This is a fraud; I stand by it's a fraud, and if you don't like it, you can go to Hell!
A Concern About Nuclear Power
Freeman: In light of that answer, I'd like to give the questioner from San Francisco, who said that LaRouche's representatives on the San Francisco University campus were giving him a bad name, the opportunity to change his question.
Lyn, the next question also is from the Senate Democratic leadership. And the question is a brief one. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, I've long been an advocate of nuclear power, although I'm a stronger advocate of nuclear power inside the United States than outside the United States, just because of security concerns. However, in the recent period, while I still support the development of nuclear power, I have more reservations about it than I have had in the past; largely because I have concerns about the manner in which public utilities in the U.S. are maintained and operated. I can't ignore this question when it comes before me, and I'm just wondering what your view is of this, since it's an immediate question that we have to deal with, particularly in light of the overall crisis of energy in the U.S. right now."
LaRouche: Oh, yes, I shall deal with that. The first thing is, that the concern is legitimate, in the sense that public utilities should be federally controlled, or federally and state controlled, as appropriate controls are required. The privatization of public utilities sometimes creates a crisis, a security crisis, because they are marching to a different drummer. Our proper concern, in public utilities like health care, or the military and so forth—in matters which are of general public interest—is that the security and well-being of the nation is the foremost concern, not profitability of the company. And if the company's not too profitable and we need it, we'll help it. But therefore, in this area, as we know from experience, that nuclear power is very powerful stuff, and therefore, it has to be administered and controlled in a responsible way.
Sometimes, private interests cut corners, so therefore, you have to have a very efficient Federal oversight. There was a determination in an earlier period, prior to the developments of the 1970s, to do just exactly that. There were also conflicting interests. We need the nuclear power absolutely. There is no chance of getting humanity safely through the challenges ahead without nuclear power.
Now, nuclear power today means specifically, high-temperature gas-cooled reactor equivalent; the most efficient and the safest. We also have the type which was used by the Jülich model, which was developed in Germany, which is the ball form of that, the carbonized ball form, which is largely, in the 200-MW range, self-regulating; that is, when the temperature rises, it shuts down the level of activity of the reactor, and therefore, it becomes self-regulating in terms of its level of activity. It's also much more convenient in terms of reprocessing, that sort of thing.
One of the big problems we had in the United States, with nuclear power, is the lack of reprocessing, and this is the result of the anti-nuclear lobby, which prevented the reprocessing from occurring. And you have people running around like little kids, saying, "What about the waste? What about the nuclear waste?" Well, go talk to your Congressman about that. Why wasn't the reprocessing done? Why were the impediments put in the way of the reprocessing? The intention on the part of the industry and the scientists involved, in dealing with nuclear energy and its application to public use, was always a very strong concern for everything that should be a matter of concern, every area. And as long as you had dedicated public servants, who were in this area of supervising the security of this operation, there was no significant danger. Because they generally would tend to look at the dark side of every problem, which is what you do with all security questions. You look for the worst possible case, and you try to prevent the worst possible case. And if you are able to work to prevent that, you figure you've done the job. And generally, that's been the case. But there's been sabotage, however, politically motivated sabotage of nuclear reactors, as occurred in the case of Three Mile Island, which had a significant effect on U.S. policy. But that was a sabotage job, done by powerful agencies who preferred to remain unknown.
So, I agree totally with it: that we must have an efficient system of Federal and state regulation of the operation of nuclear power facilities. We must have it. The standards have been established in earlier times, they can be improved and enhanced, but we need the power desperately, and therefore the point is to establish the Federal authority—again—needed to deal with the thing, and to work it out with other authorities, the programs that are needed to deal with this very legitimate concern.
Anglo-Dutch Liberalism: A Slime Mold
Freeman: The next question was submitted by Sue Daniels, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Texas Central Labor Council, and former vice president. She is currently an officer of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and she submitted this question after reading the latest issue of Executive Intelligence Review. She said, "Lyn, I have two questions after reviewing this issue. One is, who actually makes up this Anglo-Dutch group that you refer to? And secondly, how does this group intend to control the means of human existence?"
LaRouche: Well, first of all, this is an old story, and this is one of those cases, where to really understand the problem, you have to look at European history in general. Now, European history, as we know it, as history, really is after Homer; it comes essentially about the 7th Century B.C., when the Egyptians, who were coming out of a dark age themselves, sponsored two groups in the Mediterranean, as naval forces to assist them in protecting them against the evil forces in the Mediterranean at the time. One was the Ionian seamen, coming out of Ionia, as Greek seamen, and they were functioning largely as traders and pirates. And so, they became an effective naval force which was to combat the forces of Tyre in the eastern Mediterranean. In the western Mediterranean, the Egyptians reached out in about 700 B.C., to their friends in Italy, who were the Etruscans. And the Etruscans were a branch of the Hittite culture, which had been established on the island of Elba, and established a center of iron traffic. From about 1600 B.C. on, the Hittites had been the only users of iron as a weapon and as a material of use.
So, this was the basis for the development of an independent culture typified by Solon of Athens and typified by the Pythagoreans, and by Plato and so forth and so on. And again, the enemy was the cult of Apollo at Delphi. Now, to get the picture, you look at the cult of Apollo, the temple area, which is the cult of Gaea, and this is in an area which is next to a seaport area. The seaport area was the center of maritime trade throughout the Mediterranean for this population. You look at the temple, the temple was surrounded by little temples, which represent the treasuries of the various city-states participating in this arrangement with the cult of Apollo. What they were doing was, they were running a loan-sharking operation throughout the Mediterranean. And this became the model in that culture for the development of what later became the Roman Empire system, what became the Byzantine system, what became the Venetian system of the Venetian oligarchs and their Norman chivalry crusaders, who were conducting slaughter at that time.
Now, with the collapse, in the 14th Century, of the Venetian system of that time, the so-called ultramontane system, you had the rise of European civilization, European form, with the Council of Florence in the 15th Century. You had a reaction against this by the Venetians, who, in a sense, organized the overthrow of Byzantium over Constantinople, to break up the organization which had been created around the Council of Florence. This was again done by the Venetians. So the Venetians came back.
In 1492, for example, you had the launching of slaughter of Jews and others, especially the expulsion of Jews, the slaughter and so forth, in 1492, by the Grand Inquisitor, Tomás de Torquemada, and an attempt to bring back the old feudal system, which had been run under the direction of the Venetian bankers. This didn't work; it caused all kinds of hell, but it didn't work as a system for reasons given by Machiavelli, for example, in his writings on these questions. So, you had a new system that was set up in the 16th Century, under the leadership of one called Paolo Sarpi, who was the leader of a different faction of Venice, which made a Venetian reform. What they introduced is called liberalism today, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, which is the idea that you are allowed to practice innovation, as long as you don't discover any scientific reason for it. The point was to prevent the development of a society based on knowledge of this type, scientific knowledge and practice, but to allow a certain amount of innovation, so that your country, your force, would not fall behind in technology, with your rival force on the other side.
Now, this system went through various evolutions in the course of the 17th Century, and became known, with William of Orange's seizure, coup d'état, in London, as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal system is the Anglo-Dutch Liberal version of the old Venetian oligarchical system. So, what you have today, particularly since 1763, with the Treaty of Paris of 1763, you have the British East India Company, and its successor as an empire, the British monarchy, later on. This system was established as a system of bankers, of loan sharks, which is operating above the level of governments, financing governments and controlling governments.
So this is like a slime mold; you've probably seen slime molds, they exist all over the place. And a slime mold goes through a phase where it seems to be a uniform slime, and then at another point, it takes the form of individualities standing up in the middle of the slime, as individualities. That's what that does, and that's what the system is. So you have a system throughout the world now, which is centered nominally in Anglo-Dutch liberalism, the Dutch and the British financial system. Nominally, it's under of the King or Queen of England, but in point of fact, it controls the King and Queen of England, or whatever. What it is, it's a concert of private banking interests like a slime mold, which, in concert—while they're cutting each other's throats in competition, and so forth—work to try to impose their system on the world.
And what happened in the 1960s into the 1970s, as a result of the weakening of the United States through the protracted war in Indo-China, from London, there was an operation set into motion, beginning 1964 under Harold Wilson. This operation brought down the U.S. dollar in several phases, and resulted in the '68er operation, which caused chaos in the political system. So that operation in 1971-72: You have a change to a floating-exchange-rate monetary system. Which meant at that point, that the fixed-exchange-rate system, which had been set up under Roosevelt, was now effectively nullified. And you now had a floating-exchange-rate system which was established between 1971 and '72, between the action of Nixon in August of 1971, and the action of Shultz at the Azores Conference of 1972—a floating-exchange-rate system.
So, what you have, therefore, is a system of private financier interests, who are organized in the form of a slime mold, very much like the old Venetian system of the medieval period, but with some differences. This slime mold uses political institutions that it controls, as an instrument of its policy. For example, you have two characters in the United States who are controlling the Democratic Party, to some degree—George Soros and Felix Rohatyn. Felix Rohatyn would be called in European terminology a fascist, or a Nazi. That is, he is a product of the same interests in France, which were slime mold-type interests, which in effect helped to put Hitler into power in France in the period of World War II. They came to the United States—he is a product of this—and he functions in the United States exactly like those people who brought the Nazis into power in France before. And Soros functions from a different base, over a similar thing, and is characterized by his drug operations.
Rohatyn and Soros are powerful interests inside the Democratic Party, and tend to shape Democratic Party policies. Because they say, they become the exemplars: "We control the money. You want funding for your campaign? You want this? You want good favors from us? You have to kiss our butt!" And that's the way it works, and that's the way the system works. There is a sense of a process, like a slime mold, creeping across this planet, suffocating humanity, destroying the sovereignty of nations, destroying the welfare of nations; a pestilence, like a plague, which has to be uprooted. And the way to uproot it is to put the system into bankruptcy. It is now bankrupt; reform it under control of a system of governments.
Schwarzenegger's New Environmentalism
Freeman: The next question is a composite of several questions that have come in from the West Coast. And it's a question that's emerged out there with the passage of something called the "Global Warming Solutions Act," but I'm raising it at this point in the agenda, because it gets at a question which is being asked by many people, including state legislators and Members of Congress. And the question is: "Mr. LaRouche, California has passed a bill, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, called the 'Global Warming Solutions Act,' whose intent is to cut statewide gas emissions by 25% by the year 2020. The problem is that it also includes the cutting out of the burning of fossil fuels because of the carbon dioxide question. And my concern is that this move will impinge on industrial development. However, it's also impossible to argue with the overall problem of air quality, of smog, etc., in the state of California. So my question is, how do we actually address this question without stopping growth and development?"
LaRouche: The problem is, that Schwarzenegger and Al Gore are part of the same package; that's the problem. There is no real difference between them. I think probably Schwarzenegger is better at weightlifting, and Gore is more good at throwing a certain substance. So essentially, it's a fake; it's a fake of the same type as Al Gore. Schwarzenegger is a hard-Gore man.
All right, well, here, the issue is very simple: Why do we have to burn things, combustion? What we burn is most often something that is produced by living processes, as a residue of living processes. We went from wood, to charcoal, to coal, to coke, and so forth and so on, in the history of modern Europe; actually, from the 15th Century on, this was the general tendency in power.
We are now in the age of nuclear power, and anyone with brains wants nuclear power. First of all, because it means you eliminate a lot of the transportation problem, and transportation of fuel is a tremendous cost. Therefore, what do you do? Well, with nuclear power, you say, we're going to have an integrated program. And you take the entire United States map to begin with; take that map. We have several problems—we have transportation, water, and power. And power comes in various forms: We have nuclear power, but we also then, with high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, we can make synthetic hydrogen-based fuels. Now, if you can make synthetic hydrogen-based fuels in a region of the country, you don't have to import gasoline, etc., oil from far distant places. You will have produced your fuel, and you know what? Guess what happens when you have a hydrogen-based fuel? When it burns, you get water, which is not exactly a pollutant.
In the meantime, we have a major problem in the United States, as in California, of subsidence, as a result of drawing down fossil reserves of water. The southern part of California, the same thing, a terrible problem. Therefore, we say, we are now in a time, where a sane society will rely heavily on nuclear fission as a power source. We will try to get it integrated. We will build mass transportation to replace highway transportation. We can make very efficient mass transportation, very quiet, very efficient, by these means. So we will do everything possible to make a society which is a livable society, by using a high energy-flux-density source of power to do that. And we are going to look at the totality.
You see, we've gone through a period where the philosophy of life was, that you lived off the land, and in net effect, to one degree or another, you lived by depleting the land. You depleted the minerals in the soil by crop growing; you wore things down; you made things stink. All these kinds of things. So now, we have to realize we can not exploit natural resources; we have to replenish the resources that we are destroying, or we are using up, and that replenishing resources becomes now a part of the cost of production. With a sufficiently efficient, high-density-power system, you can do that. And our objective should be doing that.
The problem in California is, California was destroyed, in part by Enron. Enron did more to destroy California than anything else—and the effects of that. And Schwarzenegger made a fortune out of that. So therefore, the point is, we have to repair the damage that Schwarzenegger and his predecessors have done to California, and start with a rational approach to a national requirement. And say, this country is going nuclear. We're going to do it right; we're going to have an integrated process, and we're going to recognize that the world's population and living standard is such, that to maintain that living standard for that population, we must think about replenishing the resources that we otherwise are using up in the land. And we can do that, but we have to think about that. In other words, maintaining the resources we're using up is a part of the cost of production. And that's the only to approach this thing.
Who's Doing the Senate's Business?
Freeman: We have a number of very good questions continuing on this topic that have been submitted by students and others who are listening via the Internet. I will entertain those questions, but what I would like to do first is, because we do also have a number of institutional questions on some pressing issues that I know people want to hear Lyn address, I'm going to move away from this topic briefly, but I just want to assure everyone that I will come back to it.
Lyn, the next question has been submitted jointly by two freshman Democrats in the House of Representatives. And the question is as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, as we understand it, the tradition is that we in the House of Representatives have followed the lead of the U.S. Senate in policy issues of a certain type, especially in policy questions that have long-term implications. The problem is, that right now, a number of leading Democratic Senators are also announced candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination. From my admittedly limited experience, their Presidential ambitions are being put before their responsibilities here on Capitol Hill. Now, we do have some excellent Democratic members of the Senate—leader Reid, John Kerry, Jim Webb, and others have certainly stepped up to the plate. But I still sense a problem in terms of overall collaboration. We are very new here, and we are really not sure, number one, if this is a problem, or if it just looks this way. And if it is a problem, how we should address it. We'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter."
LaRouche: I tend to curse when I hear about Presidential candidacies at present, for precisely the reason indicated—probably a little more emphasis than the questioners intended. It is a fake!
Look at reality: We are now at the point of general collapse of the world financial system and economy. This is happening now! What you're seeing in the subprime mortgage collapse in the United States, is a part of a symptom. Remember, what was built on the subprime mortgage area was built on to extend what was done under Greenspan earlier. They began to run out of energy in terms of normal mortgages, standard mortgages. So, what they did was, they created a new market, a speculative market in subprime mortgages. Now, a subprime mortgage meant that the person who was responsible for paying the mortgage, virtually had no equity in the holding—none. And with a slight collapse in the market value, the resale value of the property, that person, who was the debtor, was going into negative equity. So, this became the most vulnerable part, this became the high-gain area. In order to get this mortgage expanded, the greatest amount of encouragement was given to dealers in mortgages to give them incentives to get rich quick—you know, you can get rich doing this! And they did get rich in the short term, but that only increased the squeeze.
So now, this whole area, which is a highly speculative area, sitting on top of the regular mortgage area, is now blowing out. Now, however, what this is, is simply a reflection of the fact that the entire mortgage structure of the United States is blowing out. If you think about the percentile of bank liabilities based on these mortgages, directly or indirectly, the whole U.S. banking system is on the verge of blowing out! You look at the situation in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Eastern Europe, a similar situation. The whole thing is bankrupt! Transatlantic society is bankrupt; hopelessly bankrupt! And the subprime mortgage explosion is only a reflection of that.
The other side, of course, of this thing is sitting, centered on the Cayman Islands, where the entire financial system is controlled, essentially, by the House of Windsor's control over the Cayman Islands and similar kinds of locations around the world, and a few other partners in this thing.
So therefore, you're now in the year 2007; the system is about to blow out this year! Now!! What the hell are you running for? What've you got to say about this little problem? You want to talk about this, you want to talk about that, you want to talk about whose hairstyle is better, whatever, huh? What's happened is that candidacies—some of these candidates are serious people. I mean Hillary, for example, is a serious proposition in the Senate. Well, how she would be as a President, that's another matter. But in the Senate, she's a very useful person, because she's spunky and she does tend to fight. And she makes mistakes; others can correct her mistakes, but in the meantime, it's good to have a spunky person in there, making this kind of fuss. But the problem is, that the candidates, some of them are serious people, but the candidacies are not serious. They don't say anything serious. You're demoralizing the people of the United States by this. Here we are, the system is collapsing. Look at the price of lettuce. Look at the rate of change of the increase of the price of gasoline. Look at the things that are hitting the American people day after day in this direction. What the hell is their response on this question?
So therefore, they're not engaging the American people and interests. It's a diversion; it's a clown show! Bozo! The Bozos of the Year award! So, it's a clown show, and this is bad. What is needed more than anything else, is what I'm doing, which more people should be doing, too.
What we need is to get people who are serious about politics, not serious about the competition of politics—but serious about the content of politics to—move; and just move. We have to move together. We don't have to agree on everything, but we have to move. We have to move on taking the issues which are the real issues of life, and taking reality as it's going to hit the world in 2007. I mean, the problem with Hillary is she's talking about what she's going to do in January of 2009! And she may never get to 2009, the way things are going now. And that's the problem: You have a beauty contest; a competition. A hog-calling contest, or whatever. And it's not serious. And what's happened is that this is a clown show, with the complicity of the mass media, which is diverting the attention from the real issues which should be fought out before the public. Because in order to do something with the nation—unless you want to have a dictatorship—you've got to engage the citizenry in a discussion and a dialogue about what these issues are. You've got to get the implicit consent of the nation, by getting people to pay attention to what you're saying, and to discuss with them what you're talking about, so they know what they're being asked to support and why. And I don't see in any of the campaigns, that I've seen from the newspaper and other mass media coverage, I see nothing from any of the candidates, nothing worth voting for. Well, why are they wasting their time running? What have they got—gonorrhea or something?
The Libby Conviction—and Cheney
Freeman: Okay, the next question is from a Democratic consultant who is involved in shaping policy for a number of people on Capitol Hill. His question is: "Lyn, with the conviction now of Scooter Libby, I think that everybody would agree, that Libby was probably found guilty of the most minor of his crimes. But even with the limited evidence that was available, both to the jury and to the American people, it was apparent that the real criminal in all this was Vice President Cheney. Senator Reid moved very quickly to warn President Bush against granting Libby a pardon, and I think that the recognition is that granting Libby a pardon would be directed to shutting Libby's mouth. But although Senator Reid named Cheney repeatedly in his remarks, he stopped short of calling for Cheney's resignation, or forcible removal from office. The special prosecutor in the case has also indicated that his investigation has now moved into the inactive phase. What do you see as the next step, given these simple facts?"
LaRouche: Well, it's a mistake of omission in this characterization, saying Cheney is the problem. Cheney is not the problem. Cheney is the manifestation of the problem. The problem is named principally George Shultz. And George Shultz controls, and has controlled, collaborated with Felix Rohatyn. Now, what's the position of Felix Rohatyn in terms of members of the Senate and parts of the U.S. Congress? What is the role of Soros, with his drug connections, in this game? People are looking at this as if it were an intercollegiate sports event, rather than real-life politics. Real-life politics today is deadly politics, it's deadly like it could never imagine before. The issue today is the fate of humanity on the planet. It is not who wins the next election, or who goes to jail, or who doesn't go to jail. Anything of significance is significant only as it is significant with respect to these larger, longer-term historical consequences.
What does George Shultz represent? He's a bad guy, a very bad guy, so bad that the word "bad" has to be taken out of the dictionary. Find another one. He's a pig. But the issue here is not personality, as such. Personality is important, but personality is only an instrument in the course of human events. The issue is policy. The issue is, where the human race is going. What you have is, you have two groups of people on this planet who are powerful, who run, dominate the planet. One faction is our faction, those in European civilization, especially in the United States, who represent something approximating the Franklin Roosevelt tradition. We are one thing. We are the thing we can unite about, because we are committed to the sovereign nation-state and to the welfare of nations.
The other side is the oligarchical side. It goes back to the empires of the past, and to globalization, the Tower of Babel of today. And therefore, you're dealing with these kinds of forces. You know, what the Bible refers to as "principalities and powers." You're dealing with forces of this type, in which individuals may influence the principalities and powers, but they're only able to operate by dealing with that problem. So, you have to organize against the enemy, and the enemy is not a competitor, an individual competitor. It's not a sports event. The enemy is a power, in this case, the power of Venetian-style banking, Venetian-style finance. This is the enemy, and George Shultz is the embodiment of that enemy. Cheney is a thug who works for that enemy, like a hit-man. Other people are just hit-men, and Congressmen are often merchandise, bought and sold. Sometimes, if you're nice to them, they don't know they're bought and sold.
So that's what the problem is. The problem is that, without a positive alternative to the crap that's going on now—if you try to reduce it to a choice between personalities, you're going no place. The question is one of policy. The entire international financial monetary system is in the process of disintegrating, now. What's happening in the subprime mortgage area is only an expression of an explosive charge in the whole system. The explosion may occur at any time. It may occur in refraction, as a new breakout of war, as an Iran war. In any other number of ways. Free will is operating here. There are choices! People can choose to do one thing or another. You can't predict simply, mechanically, on the basis that you know the situation is such, the tension is such, that you're going to have to act in some way or the other, suddenly and dramatically.
And without a conception of policy, without a conception of: What are you going to do to replace this bankrupt international monetary financial system? What are you going to do about that? Do you have an alternative to this system? As long as you work within this system, you haven't got a chance. What are you prepared to do to replace this system, and how, and under what rules? And that's what the problem of the question is. It goes to a superficial question, which decides nothing. It's a legitimate question in itself, but when you think about a thing backwards, you think, if I try to get the answer to that question, what am I going to answer? I have to come back with a question: What is the policy we must have for reorganizing the bankrupt international financial system now? Because it's going bankrupt now. And the problem is, we don't have the guts to ask those questions. We try to reduce it to, oh, get a better guy in there, maybe he'll do a good job for us, maybe make things a little bit better. You know, the usual kind of nonsense. It doesn't work. The system is finished, now! Civilization as you know it is finished, now! And civilization will be continued only if we come in with the answer to this question, the question of the system, not the question of an individual.
Regulation of the Hedge Funds
Freeman: Lyn, the next question comes from a fellow of the Hamilton Project over at Brookings, and it's on the question of this new transparency legislation. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, as you know, there is transparency legislation that has been proposed in the Senate, that would subject hedge funds to the same rules and regulations as those of other financial and trading outlets. Although we're all aware that it will not solve all of our problems, it would certainly produce a very sizable sum of tax revenues, which is obviously critical in light of the current Federal deficit. I have, for a long time, been under the impression that you had advocated precisely these types of measures. Yet now, your representative has argued with me that while that's all fine and good, that it would not appreciably affect anything. I do understand that your position is that we need to move to reorganization of the financial system as a whole, but it would still seem to me that taking such action and producing some liquidity in the midst of the crisis that we face right now, would be beneficial to everyone. Could you please comment on this?"
LaRouche: You're out of time! Time has been exhausted for that. Of course I supported such measures in times past. But now it's too late! The train has left the station! This system is coming down now! The only thing that you can do which makes any sense is to outlaw this kind of practice. The only action that means anything. It should be outlawed immediately! Now, that would have catastrophic effects, too, because the entire financial system today depends upon that swindle. You have to look at my Triple Curve, the phase two Triple Curve [Figure 1]. Look at where we are on that map. You're now in an out-of-control, hyperinflationary skyrocket. The only thing you can do is bring it down. When you bring it down, where do you land? How do you land? What's your parachute?
What you have to deal with now: Declare this stuff illegal. You don't have to tax them. You confiscate everything in sight! Best taxation we can get. Confiscate it! It's unheard of! Look what it's doing, look at the damage this stuff is doing to the world. It takes perfectly legitimate firms, which were established by responsible people, moves in on them, grabs them on leverage without actually paying for them, loots them of all the cash and assets it has to pay for what they got free, in net effect, and then moves onto the next place, leaving a stinking hulk behind. You want to find a way to tax these guys? You want to exterminate them! Shut the things down! These should never have been allowed to happen. There is no concept of real equity in a system that allows this to occur.
A guy sits out there with a bunch of borrowed money, borrowed from fictitious sources, he puts it up as a showing of his money; he says, "We're buying that stock! We're going to get control of this company!" He gets control of the company, he loots the treasury to cover the debt he had in buying the place up, skims the fragments off, and runs off to the next place. These are locusts, as described by Müntefering of the Social Democratic Party in Germany. They're locusts. A guy comes in, robs your house, and says, "Now you owe me for the repairs to this house!" What people get sucked into is the idea, "Well, we have to do it in a business-like way." Well, give them the business!
The Saudi-Iranian Initiative
Freeman: Before we get back to the question of global warming, there are a couple of questions that have come from friends in the Middle East, who are obviously grappling with a very difficult situation. Two questions: What Muriel [Mirak-Weissbach] says in submitting these questions, is that these are questions that come from several political figures in Lebanon, and pertain to the Saudi/Iranian initiative. The questions are phrased differently by each person, but they both come down to the following, which it would be helpful if you commented on:
"If the United States is interested, as it claims, in regional security in this area, what would be the problem, what are the actual objections that the Administration is making in the endorsement of this initiative, and is it an initiative that you see as workable?"
LaRouche: The United States has to play a role in this thing. I don't see any way in which the Bush-Cheney Administration can play a useful role. So therefore, those who are concerned about this have to say, now is the time to get rid of the Bush-Cheney Administration. It's highly impeachable. One, on the basis of lying beyond belief. I mean, Cheney's lying is obvious beyond belief. He's impeachable for lying.
First of all, he got himself in a position where the change that was made in the character of the Presidency, under Carter, where the Vice President was made a functioning part, has been carried to an extreme under Cheney. And Cheney, therefore, is impeachable for the offenses he committed on his part, as part of the Administration, because tantamountly, he's a controller of the Administration, to all intents and purposes.
So, the United States has to play a role, but you have to look at this thing globally. You can't break it into segments: one question here, one question here, one question here. It's a global question. As I said before, there are four powers on this planet that must be brought together, not necessarily to agree on everything, but to form a bloc of agreement around which other nations can find an umbrella under which to work. These are the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other nations who will become associated with that group. They have to say, the time has come to put the world back into order.
In that context, then, the United States has a specific responsibility, which it must execute in respect to the area of Southwest Asia. You have a whole bloc, which includes Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, Baluchistan, which is part of Pakistan, more or less, Iran, and the Arab states. You have to say, the United States has a very specific responsibility. Why? Because the British have made, through the Arab Bureau operations, all the things the British have done since they took over India, have made this cockpit their area, and only if the United States steps in and steps on the face of the British, can anything you attempt among these countries work.
So therefore, the United States has to say to the Israelis, "The British are being kicked out. We have been drawn in here, therefore we're going to do the job we have to do as a responsible nation. And we're going to cooperate with Russia, with China, with India, and other countries, on a consensus of what the policy is." The absolute condition, as was stated by the Baker-Hamilton report, is you must have a forced solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Now! And no nonsense. And it can be made to stick, but you have to have the guts to do it.
In that case, then, all kinds of things are possible, because what you don't need is a fixed solution. You don't need a road map which has all the dots and t's dealt with. What you have to do is have a commitment to a direction of solution, a direction of accommodation, guaranteed by major powers who say, "We're going to protect this. You go ahead and do your negotiating, do what you have to do, but we're going to protect the right of you to do it, and support you doing it." This must be done. Therefore, what the United States must do—in this case, Baker-Hamilton really hit the nail on the head. It's what has to happen. Without conditions. No pre-conditions! We want this to work.
What the Saudis have done is a step in that direction. It should be allowed to work, as best it can. But the thing we have to do, which the Saudi proposal is leading toward, it's the direction it's pointing toward: You must tell the Israelis, look, you are going to now settle this question. Whether you decide on a one-state solution or two-state solution is up to you, but you're going to do it, whatever it is. And you're going to do it now! And don't start screaming about this and don't start screaming about that. We're not going to listen. And that's what's required. You can not have the United States as an outsider in this situation, non-committed, and expect a solution. It won't work.
As Baker-Hamilton points out, there is no future for the United States in that region of the world, from their standpoint, unless the United States takes a responsible view on this issue. I agree. And therefore, the problem here is the Cheney-Bush Administration will never let that happen! Therefore, if you don't want to get rid of Bush and Cheney, you're not serious.
Iran Crisis? Impeach Cheney and Bush!
Freeman: The next question was submitted by Prof. Pirouz Moitahed-Zadeh, who is a well-known Iranian scholar and the author of many books on political geography. He says, "Dear Mr. LaRouche, while I appreciate your very valuable efforts in disclosing the clandestine strategies of Bush and Cheney's warmongering in the Middle East, I ask you to try to find or explain, from the Bush Administration, an answer to the question that would logically, legally, and humanely be acceptable to public opinion, both in the United States and abroad, because obviously he can't figure it out."
He says, "The Bush Administration has claimed that it will not attempt to create propaganda for war against Iran, but all informed sources know that it has launched a series of provocative measures in neighboring Iraq, to lead to an uncalculated response from Iran that would start war, and then blame Iran for its start. In this context, U.S. agents in Iraq have kidnapped a number of Iranian diplomats and have detained hundreds of Iranian citizens there, without any charge. They have harmed and humiliated hundreds more. We're also faced with a situation in which approximately 1 million Iranian citizens are permanent residents in Iraq, over whose lives and activities the Iranian government has no authority at all. Can this kidnapping, illegal detention, torture, etc., of innocent citizens and other atrocities not named here, all for the sake of provoking a war, be justified under any law, or any form of human rights? It doesn't seem to uphold any sense of decency, especially not one normally attributed to a democratic state, even in times of war. So, how does the Bush Administration justify its actions to its own population?"
LaRouche: There's nothing that can justify the Bush-Cheney Administration, and it's a futile effort to try to do so. A waste of time. The only thing to do with that Administration is get rid of it. Nothing else will be of any use whatsoever. And therefore, a bill of impeachment against Cheney, being drafted in the House of Representatives, for presentation to the joint body of the Congress, for impeachment trial, should be done right now. And I would like to know why it's not being done. Lying to get the United States into a war, and lying in the way that Cheney has done, and bullying in the way Cheney has done, is specific grounds, in fact, for impeachment. They should be impeached.
The problem is the Democrats who should be doing it, are under the influence of other Democrats who have cut a deal, and have agreed to keep impeachment off the agenda until 2008. That's the problem.
You know, look back at history: Take the history of the French Revolution, its evolution from 1783 on with the Treaty of Paris, and you see again and again and again in history, a situation like now, where the required course of action is clear, objectively clear. It's clear to anyone who wants to face reality. "But [adopts wimpy voice], don't you understand, but don't you understand, but don't you understand? ..." And again, for one reason or another, "This is not the right time, it's not the right time!"
And if we go down as a civilization, we'll go down for reasons like that, not for any other kind of reason. That's the reason why civilizations go down. Because no one will stand up who's in a position to stand up, who should stand up and take the point on the issue. That's our problem. We have a bunch of people who pride themselves in being powerful—in their own opinion—influential, in fact, but on the crucial issues which determine the fate of humanity, or just the fate of the nation, they don't act! And then they give you reasons why they didn't. But the price is, the nation goes down, again and again nations go down, or virtually go down, in some terrible problem, as the result of simply refusing to face the obvious: We must get rid of the Bush-Cheney Administration. We must do it in an artful way, but it must occur.
Treatment of Veterans—and our Future
Freeman: Mr. Richard Adams, who's the president of AFGE Local 1168, from the Bronx VA hospital is here, and he has a question—because I like the Bronx!
Adams: All right, sir. I'm very glad to be here. I'm the president of a local that's located in the Bronx VA hospital, and we've all known what they've done to the veterans. And now we see that the United States, under this Administration, really cares nothing about the veterans. But it was something you said that triggered something in my mind. You said that we must have nuclear power, we must make sure that nuclear plants work well. And in 1977-78, I was an inspector of building materials, and one of the places that I had to inspect materials at was Indian Point [nuclear plant], New York. I found that place—there was one way to go in and one way to go out, and there were wall-to-wall people. Now, we know that this Administration already has lost $5 billion cash money that they don't know where it is, or anything like that. But if we need nuclear power like you said, how are we supposed to get it? Because the Indian Point plant was a disaster, and it's still not working correctly. It's leaving a lot of people in danger, and I'd like to know, if we don't care about the veterans, what are we going to do about the nuclear power in our future? Thank you.
LaRouche: First of all, there is no capital for investment available in the private sector. It doesn't exist. All the people who claim to have it, are going to find out they have less than nothing. So, what we're faced with is creating a national credit facility, of the Federal government, because the Federal government is the only part of our system which is allowed to create money, by law. Therefore, the act of Congress creates a fund, authorizes the issue of a certain amount of U.S. currency, which is a debt to the United States government, issues at denominated prices, and takes projects which are essential to the national interest, whether they be state facilities, or Federal facilities, or whatnot. And says, "Okay, we are going to fund this."
Now, as you know, if you look around the landscape, we've got a lot of unemployed people, or people who are employed in things which are beneath their dignity. And simply by taking skilled and semi-skilled people, and taking a taskforce approach, as we used to take, to starting out with some skilled people, then you have some less skilled people in a project, you program that project so that you're going to produce a skilled labor force as part of the in-house training and so forth, that goes on with this kind of thing, like special education programs and things of that sort.
And the way we get it is by the government taking very specific things that are required. We require public transportation, especially interstate public transportation, rail. We require a rationalization of the air-rail transport system, for passengers especially. We require nuclear power plants. We require water management. For example, where can you get a safe drink of water out of a faucet these days? Go back 50 years. Where could you get safe drinking water out of a faucet then? Where can you do it today?
So, these kinds of things—the public health situation. We have people running around for health insurance, and they can't afford it. Forty-seven to fifty percent of our people who are employed don't have health insurance! They can't afford it. This is insane. Therefore, this is an area of Federal responsibility, together with the states, to come up with solutions for this kind of problem. Including facilities, like this thing with Walter Reed is a typification of the whole mess. Walter Reed—we want soldiers to go and die in Iraq, but we won't take care of them when they get hurt! They closed down Walter Reed, or they agreed to close it down, because of a real estate deal! They wanted the real estate area for a promotional area in D.C., where Walter Reed was a very essential institution, servicing a lot of people. They're running it into the ground, deliberately. But you look all over the United States—these vets coming back from Iraq, they're not being treated. So you have a demonstration of a general need for a reconstruction of the public-health system, including related hospital facilities, to fit in, as we did before, under the post-war period. We had this partnership among Federal, state, and private institutions, which would work in a region together, and plan what the requirements were for the coming year for the population of the whole area.
So, we have to go to the Federal government, in reorganizing a bankrupt system, and take projects which are of essential importance to the nation, first of all in the public welfare area, and in the private sector, to make sure funding is available, long-term credit is available, for essential private industries and for essential public endeavors. And that's the only way we're going to get it.
So, we have to have a plan, in my view, we have to take a 50-year span, look 50 years forward, and say, we're going to finance something over 50 years to come. And take the things which are of the highest category of priorities, start with some pilot projects to get the thing started, and determine that each year you're going to progress to solve this problem, another step. And I think the first chunk will be a good useful chunk. If we put some life back in some institutions that are collapsing now, we can actually keep the institutions alive.
A Sane Approach To Manage the Planet
Freeman: Almost all of the questions that are coming in now, are from groups of students from around the world, who have a variety of questions, all on this overall question of global warming. And also, along with that, there are questions that are coming in from individuals and from a couple of individual scientists who have questions about this. And I'd like to give Lyn the opportunity to answer some of them. One question comes from the University of New Hampshire, which also is a reflection of several other questions that have come in, including from a gathering of college students in Cincinnati.
The question from New Hampshire is from Andrew Langsner, and he says, "Lyn, I'm a civil engineering student who's spent some time in the Youth Movement. I've been looking into the global warming issue, and I agree with you about how Al Gore is a liar about CO2 causing global warming. My idea about global warming, is that the warming is real, at least in certain key parts of the globe, like the polar ice cap. But using clean fuel is not going to stop this warming. It seems to me that we should be finding out how to deal with certain global effects, like rising sea levels. I'd like to know if you agree, and if the threat of rising sea levels is real, couldn't this be addressed as part of your proposed infrastructure development project?" LaRouche: As far as we know now, there are no significant rising sea levels in sight. There's a lot of talk about rising sea levels, but these are within the margin of error—the maximum expected. At present, in this area, we do have something that should be done. First of all, land management stinks. We are letting whole parts of the planet run down. Now, the best thing you can do with a planet like ours, is increase the CO2 level. Increase the CO2 level, because what happens with CO2? Plants gobble it up, so you turn an inorganic mass of gas into a living process. For example, you'll find whole areas of denuded desert areas, so what you have, is a combination of developing a territory, is a distribution of water and CO2, and you develop systems. You develop grasses, for example. Grasses have an increment of mass of, say, of 1-2% of sunlight absorbed. Trees, good, healthy trees, will go up to 10% of absorbed heat. If you have enough trees and plants, the atmosphere will be cooler. If you have more trees, more plants of other kinds, you'll find your water balance is better, all this sort of thing.
So, therefore, if you have a sane approach to managing the planet—as I've said before, you have to realize we've come into a period where we can no longer think of exploiting natural resources. We now have to think in terms of managing natural resources, which means also replenishing them. One of the best ways to replenish natural resources, is to promote life. The obvious kind of life you wish to promote is, first of all, green on the Earth. And if you want to cool the planet, cool an area, put in some trees! Fruit trees are fine. Do you like fruit? Grow fruit trees! Things like that.
Also, management of the oceans. Eliminate pollution. Do things to increase the efficiency of the ocean. Oceans are actually the major driver of ecology on the planet, so therefore, improve that. So, yes, there are things. There is no danger of an ice melt, so far, that we know. I've seen no indication of it. The planet's been around for a long time. The largest catastrophe of this nature I've known, is what happened for about 200,000 years, prior to about 19,000 years ago, before the Great Glacial Melt began, in which the oceans were a few hundred feet below the present level, because of all this ice that was sitting on top of the continents for about 200,000 years. So, that's the largest-scale catastrophe I know of. You have catastrophes like volcanic eruptions, like Krakatoa and before that, the island of Thera, which blew apart in an explosion which was much more powerful than Krakatoa. So there are things which we know about of this nature, and they should be anticipated, as catastrophes which we could be able to mobilize to deal with, if we just get on our scientific legs and look at them.
But in this case, I don't think that there is an actual danger. It does not come up on the landscape as something within known history or probable history. But I would say that, rather than worrying about the negative problems, what we should be worrying about is the fact that our negligence, with the world population increasing, we need more green, we need more water, we need less arid land areas and so forth. Those should be our goals. And if we have that approach, we will probably find that we've developed the science and technology which helps us to deal with any catastrophe which threatens us. But that's my general answer.
Solar Activity and the Earth's Climate
Freeman: The next question on this topic, was submitted from Italy, where Mr. LaRouche, just a week or so ago, gave a public address in the building of the Italian Parliament. The question is, "Mr. LaRouche, solar activity since the 1980s has increased 0.36%. Apparently small, but the Sun has a mass accounting for 99% of the whole Solar System, and therefore, any small increase outside the activity of the Sun itself, becomes relevant for the remaining mass, this remaining 1%. Now, theoretically, the Sun is at the minimum of its solar activity, but despite that, it is irradiating much energy and causing earthquakes throughout the world. Since 1982, those earthquakes have increased by 700%. Three hypotheses have been put forward in this area: one, regarding how cosmic rays affect the atmosphere; two, regarding how the Solar System has entered a warmer area called the photonic belt; and three, theories about the so-called tenth planet mentioned in old Sumeric scripts in the Bible, with the idea being that the tenth planet is now approaching the Sun. Since the Sun itself can not be controlled, and is 99% responsible for this phenomenon that is being called global warming, how do you think we should address this problem or do you think that it's not a problem?"
LaRouche: I wouldn't say it's a problem, it's a challenge. But look at what you're saying in the question, listen to what others hear what you're saying in this question. The so-called global warming effect, the Gore effect, is the result of the Sun getting hotter during this period. It is not CO2 on the planet. The Sun is getting hotter. Well, it was getting hotter, but recently, it just began to cool down a bit, so you're now going to enter a cooling phase. I don't know if that has something to do with what's going on outside on the streets today, but essentially Gore is bunk. I mean, I don't know how people believe him. They wish to believe him. I guess why they believe him is because they wish to believe him. It's terrible.
No, we do have to think about these things. And we have people working in the cellar where I reside, on exactly things that pertain to that.
The key thing here is that, our educational system stinks, and I have recently had some first-hand happy experience with demonstrating that's the case, downstairs from where I sometimes sleep, where young people, starting out with a project on the Kepler I, did a job which became a launching pad for Kepler II. Which is now a launching pad for a Gauss project, which is based on looking at what most people don't know about Gauss, but what can be found out about what he knew about Kepler. So, when you see what young people in this age group, this so-called university-eligible age group, are capable of doing, instead of being barked at and spit at by some professor with a mandatory course, actually go through the experience that was done in the past, in the original university efforts, where the students ran the universities—not like some crazy yuppies or something like that, but they ran them in the sense that they were educating themselves, and they used the people around there who had knowledge, as a resource they tapped, in order to proceed with their self-education.
We see the same thing works here. It worked in these cases. I selected a few targets, which are the obvious targets. All of them had some grounding in Pythagorean physics, that sort of thing. But, with a grounding and starting on their own, in selected teams, mixed teams, five, six people, so forth, they were able to achieve in a limited period of months, fulfill a project above the standard which is achieved in the university today, in the same period of time. And this process has been progressive, in its effect.
So therefore, I think the key thing we have to think about, is to make the whole society a youth movement of that type, and use that approach to build up the same effect, like a Renaissance effect, coming from Italy.
Think of the 15th-Century Renaissance. Brunelleschi had a task of completing the cupola on this Cathedral of Florence, and what method does he use to solve an otherwise impossible problem? The hanging chain! A catenary! He used the catenary principle as a principle of physics—which was otherwise not known until Leibniz's development of the principle of least action—to design something. And you take the other things that were developed in that brief period in Italy, of the Renaissance, and you see in that and other similar cases, unique cases in past history, that this can be done.
I think the thing to do is to take an optimistic view, not as a fanciful optimistic view, not a Macawber view that "things will turn up," but a real view, that if we concentrate on developing the human being to develop these intellectual powers to solve problems, that we will find ourselves able to solve problems. The thing that is frightening about the situation today, and in recent decades, is the fact that the attention to developing the capability of young people coming into adulthood, to solve problems of this type themselves, to make progress, that's what's not happening. And that is frightening. I think if we can make that change, and think—as in Italy and elsewhere—the program is a new Renaissance, when we develop it here, we develop it there, then we can be optimistic about humanity.
The 'Religious' Conflict in Iraq
Freeman: ...We have a gathering of about 25 people in the annex building of Argentina's Congress. They have submitted a number of questions, among them questions from the advisor to the member of Congress who is sponsoring the event. One question that this person has asked, which has been asked in fact by several people who have sent in questions via e-mail, regards the current conflict among Muslims in the nation of Iraq. The question generally is, "Right now, it would seem that as a result of U.S. operations in Iraq, that what has been sparked is a deadly war between Sunni and Shi'a. However, there is also much evidence indicating that what is going on, is really not that simple, and that the war is not at all a conflict between Sunni and Shi'a, but is something else entirely, something of a far more political nature. Because of the control of war propaganda, it's very difficult to be able to tell what really is going on. My question to you is, do you believe that this is principally a religious conflict, is it something else, and in either case, how is it best addressed?"
LaRouche: Well, if you look at British methods, you get a better understanding of what's going on than if you look at American-style methods, although sometimes the Americans use British methods. The British method is to get the other guys to fight each other, and destroy each other. That's their method. Remember, the British have been at this since before 1763, when they were in the process of establishing their colony in India. And in that process, they moved up through Central Asia and through Afghanistan and so forth, and they developed operations which became a part of the British East India Company's operations, and then were continued as the Arab Bureau operations, under the British again. The same Arab Bureau which is run by Henry Kissinger's friend, here in the United States today, from London.
So, what you're looking at there, is: If you wish to destroy an area, how do you do it? Well, there are two ways. You can go in there and bomb it and so forth, but that's not very efficient. What you do is that you try to get the people in that area to kill each other and to destroy their own territory, their own farms, their own basis of subsistence, and that's what's been done in that area. This is a British-style operation, British East India Company-style operation, in which they have their agents in all factions, and they play one faction against the other. And they stir up reverberating hatreds.
You saw what was done in Lebanon. Lebanon was peaceful. Boom! Blown up! And the Israelis do the same thing. The Israelis are generally steered by the British—at least the right-wing Israelis—and they do the same thing. They destroy the Arabs. Why do you do that? Get 'em to fight each other.
For example, you had a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was set up by British Intelligence and by [Ariel] Sharon, together, to set up a rivalry to the Palestinian Authority. So this resulted in a conflict, a manifold conflict. It still goes on. This is what the Saudis intervened in, to try to correct and neutralize with their intervention, and hopefully it will work. But the problem you're looking at here, is that kind of situation, a situation in which the way you destroy an opponent is get him to destroy himself, by dividing his ranks against one another, and they will do the job nicely. And then you feed both sides, you have agents feeding both sides, inflaming both sides. Then you have provocateurs stirring up fights within the chemistry of this environment, and they kill each other off. This is the kind of colonial management policy.
It's been done in Africa. You see the same thing, the British in Africa. The French in Africa, they did the same thing. The Belgians in Africa, they did the same thing. It's the way it's done. And it's time that some of us woke up to this reality, and stopped trying to give simplistic interpretations to things of this type reported here. To understand that people who try to maintain empires, and create empires, do it by manipulating the people they're trying to conquer, so the people kill themselves. It's what the British always did—get the other guys to fight.
What Time Is It?
Freeman: I'm going to take one more question, and then I'm going to wrap things up. This is a question that was submitted by one of the national leaders of MoveOn, whom we've been in touch with for quite some time. And he says, "Mr. LaRouche, I have followed what you've had to say for a number of years, and especially during the last Presidential campaign. Our views clearly converge on many issues, and whether the collaboration has been formal or not, we often find ourselves working for the same goal. Right now, from my organization, our focus is the following: It is to continue our efforts to end the war in Iraq, to continue our efforts to keep that war from expanding into either Pakistan, Iran, or anywhere else, and to remove Bush and Cheney from office. I believe that we agree on those. We also have some other initiatives on Global Warming, which I guess I won't bring up." At least he has a sense of humor!
He says, "But, I'm interested in knowing what specifically you would define as what groups like ours should be doing in the period immediately ahead. Obviously, the people in MoveOn, which is a very broad-based coalition of grassroots groups, is not going to take up the study of Kepler. But if, in fact, you were to make a recommendation of a productive course for us to pursue, please tell us what it is, because I'm really interested in knowing."
LaRouche: The first thing to concentrate on is always ask: What time is it? What time does the calendar place you in? What moment in history are you located in? What's the territory that you're operating in? We're now at a point where the reality is that nothing is important, unless you're looking at the fact that the entire international financial, monetary, and economic system, is now in a state of collapse, of chain-reaction collapse. What are you going to do about that? Because, if you're not doing something to solve that, everything else you think of is worthless. It's irrelevant. The flood is come. The locust plague has carried everything off. How do you stop the locust plague?
The issue is that people have to wake up, and little people have to become big people, in the sense that—and don't despise the.... Why not take up Kepler? Because what's the significance of Kepler? Man, since the time of ancient Greece, especially since the time of Eratosthenes about 200 B.C.—his death, which corresponded approximately with the time of the death of his correspondent Archimedes—since that time, there was a breakdown in scientific knowledge. And, even though the question of the Solar hypothesis was established by Aristarchus of Samos, a fake theory had come in, by a Roman faker Claudius Ptolemy, and this was generally accepted nonsense. And what the difference was in which the actuality of a systemic modern science, as the foundation of systematic modern science, was found by Nicholas of Cusa, and to some degree enhanced by Leonardo da Vinci. But it was Kepler who was the founder of modern comprehensive science, and everybody else around him, who dealt with that problem, failed. All modern science is based on Kepler. All competent forms of modern science are based on Kepler and his methods.
But, in the United States, and in England, from approximately the middle of the 17th Century until the end of the 1970s, no one, virtually no one in the United States, was competent—with the exception of the people around Franklin—competent in astronomy or in physics. None! Because they didn't understand this.
And thus, you sometimes come to a point, as we come now in politics, in science, in other things, where the questions put on the table as the agenda today are the wrong questions, because the questions are not consonant with the problem that actually exists. We're in a mess today because we allowed ourselves to be pushed into a mess. We allowed ourselves by coming to believe things which governed our behavior, which are foolish things to believe. We didn't question enough. Or we allowed ourselves to be discouraged by sneering oppression, not to look into certain things we should look into.
Now, the time has come where everything that public opinion has accepted as, "Oh, this is what you learn, this is what the universities teach, this is what this is, this is what you should know." It's all bunk! It's all failed! System's coming down. And therefore, a questioning attitude, combined with something else—. As we observe the results of the most recent elections, the mid-term elections, we saw the significant turn in the behavior of young people—particularly college-oriented or similar-oriented people—in voting patterns in the group between 18 and 25, and 25 to 35. This was a qualitative change, which defined the margin of the landslide victory of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.
The time has come when the Baby-Boomer generation's failure means the Baby-Boomer generation, which dominates politics today, is going to have to step to one side, and play an also-ran role, with a rising role of leadership among young Americans in the 18-35 age group, particularly young Americans who have a dedication to the future of society. Young Americans will adopt the responsibility, as the youth associated with me have done, to take their own resources, their own minds, their own potentialities, and develop the technologies, develop the knowledge they need to provide and become qualified leadership.
What you need is a kick of the boot to the rear end of the Baby-Boomer generation, to give them an uplifting experience. And what you need is the boot of youth, of exuberant youth who are facing the challenge, youth who generally have nothing—in terms of material resources, young people who have almost nothing, they're living on almost nothing. They have nothing but the future. They have no reason to be dedicated to anything but the future. And the challenge to them is to develop the skills within themselves to meet the challenge of the future. To make the future. To build the future, and to put a spark, and a kick to the butt, to the Baby-Boomer generation.
Freeman: You've been an excellent audience, as have the audiences that have gathered in Colombia, in Argentina, in Mexico, in Italy, in Berlin, and across the United States. Obviously, we have a great deal of work to do, and I think that Lyn's unique role—not only here in the United States, but internationally, has emerged with increasing clarity as the crisis has deepened. I want to really encourage those of you who are listening, to take up the challenges that Lyn has put on the table, and to work with, or in support of, particularly the efforts of the LaRouche Youth Movement here in the United States, and to make sure that you keep abreast of what is happening, both currently and how it affects the future.