May 1 Webcast:
Dialogue With LaRouche
This dialogue followed Lyndon LaRouche's main address to a May 1, 2007 webcast. Subheadings have been added.
Freeman: Earlier today, someone who actually clearly understands something about Lyn and about the way that Lyn functions, made a comment describing the actions of the LaRouche movement, and of Lyn in particular. And it's a very apt metaphor: What he said, is, "Some people who are involved in the game of politics, spend their entire lives trying to move mountains." He said, "Your boss is a little bit different." He said, "He's a realist. He looks at a mountain, and he says, 'I can't move that damned mountain.' " He said, "And he turns around, and instead, he moves the Earth under the mountain."
Why the Hostility Against Russia?
The first question, Lyn, is on the question of recent events in Russia, and it comes from someone who was recently over there. He says: "Lyn, many people in policy-making positions have, I think, misunderstood recent developments in Russia, as being explicitly anti-American, when in fact, my experience is that they are anything but that. It is true that Mr. Putin, in his address to his nation, delivered a clear message to those who have taken hostile action against the interests of Russia. But it seems to me that he also left the door wide open for collaboration between our two nations on many common interests, some of which you addressed in your remarks. Even in his declaration, that Russia would no longer abide by the CSCE [Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe] agreement, when the U.S. chooses not to. He also said that Russia was willing to consider a new approach to disarmament that both countries might find more relevant to the current world situation. I'm concerned about the perception of what Mr. Putin is doing. And I'm also concerned, because clearly there are individuals and institutions in the United States, who are taking actions, which by any measurement, can be deemed to be hostile to the Russian nation.
"I'd like you to comment on this, and also to comment on who it is who is taking those hostile actions, and why."
LaRouche: The United States achieved its freedom in a struggle which began in 1763, when a new policy of government emerged in England. This change occurred in February of 1763, in what was called the Peace of Paris. Now, the Peace of Paris was the result of an effort, orchestrated by a group centered in the British East India Company, of what was known as the Seven Years War. And the Seven Years War was a consequence of an earlier war, which was organized out of England, largely, and the Netherlands, against the French monarchy, through the complicity of a pig who was called Louis XIV. Who qualified as a pig: the way his bowel habits in the palace were an example of this, in the Versailles Palace, where he had no place to defecate, so he would do it in public, in front of his admiring subjects. This shows very bad taste.
Anyway: So, what happened is, the British had played a game—or the Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction, which is associated with the Anglo-Dutch East India Company, had played a game—of winning wars the way Persia won a war against Athens, by getting Athens to destroy itself in the Peloponnesian War. The way Britain has repeatedly won wars against Europe, and to some degree the United States, by getting the Europeans to fight wars against themselves. The Seven Years War, for example, was set up by Britain, to get everybody in Europe, on the Continent, conducting a war against Prussia, Frederick the Great's Prussia. So, the British helped finance Prussia, in defending itself against wars against it by France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and so forth. And since Frederick of Prussia was not exactly incompetent, he came out fairly well in the process.
But the Seven Years War was this type: That the powers of Europe destroyed themselves by mutual warfare, orchestrated by the British, in which the British participated to some degree. They took over India, they took over Canada, and some other places, and established their superiority in naval power. So therefore, they won the war! The minute the British had won the war, which they had won partly with support from the Americans in North America, they turned against the people of what became the United States, with repressive measures to shut down technology, shut down industry, shut down large sections of agriculture and so forth. So, they established an empire: not the empire of the British monarchy, but the empire of the Anglo-Dutch East India Company.
The same thing happened later, in the Napoleonic Wars. France had been an ally of the United States in the American Revolution. A number of other countries in Europe had been sympathizers and partners of the United States, in launching the American Revolution and its successes. How'd the British play that? Well, first of all, the British controlled a Freemasonic faction in France and elsewhere, called the Martinist Freemasonry. And so, they orchestrated, from London, out of what had been created in 1782 as the British Foreign Office, they had set up a secret committee, which is like the dirty-tricks department of the British Foreign Office, headed by our dear friend [Jeremy Bentham]; who then directed the French Revolution! The Duke of Orleans was a British agent. Jacques Necker, his banker friend, was a British agent. The Siege of the Bastille was orchestrated by Philippe Égalité, on behalf of the candidacy for Prime Minister of France of Necker! The French Revolution was orchestrated by people like Danton and Marat, who were agents run out of London! Trained in London, and run out of London, and deployed into France as terrorist agents! The Robespierre faction was largely controlled by the same Freemasonic operation.
Napoleon Bonaparte, who had been an agent of Maximilien Robespierre, was picked by the Martinist Freemasonry, and given a new personality, modeled upon the Grand Inquisitor of Spain. And Napoleon, then, with a new personality, became the warfare agent, who despoiled all of Continental Europe in the Napoleonic Wars, which were not wars, in the sense of ordinary wars: They were looting wars! Napoleon and his forces were out stealing! They tried to steal every place. The British played this! As typified by the Spanish war, which was a British trap for Napoleon.
So, what happened is, the character of Europe was changed by the British orchestration of wars in Europe, a model of which is the Persian Model, used to induce Athens, through the Cult of Delphi, through Sophistry, to destroy itself in the Peloponnesian War—and Athens never came back, as a result of that war.
What has been done to the United States in the Indo-China War of the 1960s, what is being done in Southwest Asia today, is the same thing: The British—because it was the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, who led in defining the lies, used by Cheney and others, and Cheney's practically an agent of Tony Blair, or the people who own Tony Blair—to get the United States into the Southwest Asia War. Which we had no business having! And keeping us there!—orchestrated from London.
The intent has been, at the same time, to destroy the United States economy! And we have been destroyed! We've been destroyed at the greatest rate under Bush. Our industries are gone! We lost our automobile industry, which is the heart of our industry! We are losing our agriculture, to ethanol! We're losing everything. We're an impoverished nation: all for the greater glory of Britain. And along comes this creep from the Council on Foreign Relations [Benn Steil] and proposes this new thing to destroy the United States. To uproot from this planet, anything that smells like Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
So, when you're looking at this problem, that's what you have to understand. And we, as Americans, have to become patriotic again, not butt-kissers for the British. We got too many of those guys. When you're kissing a British butt, it's hard to see the world around you!
And that's what the problem is: The British are determined to induce us to destroy ourselves! That's not every Brit, but the relevant circles, the financier circles. And therefore, what do they intend us to do? They intend to create a state of war with the United States on one side, and Russia, China, and India on the other. And also at the same time, playing China, India, and Russia against each other.
So, Russia, which is aware of this—but some people in Iran are not, and they played some mistaken games as a result of that—says, "All right, we have no issue with the United States, no existential issue with the United States, as such. Why don't we cooperate with them?" Putin, since the beginning of when he was President of Russia, has said that repeatedly: It is Russia's policy to enter into cooperation with the United States, for the purpose of dealing with this world situation.
To end the danger of general warfare, by establishing agreement on common interests of respectively sovereign nation-states: no globalization; common interests among respectively sovereign nation-states; no shoving anything down somebody's throat. And to find those issues on which our interests coincide, or are complementary; and thus, to establish long-term agreements, which means 25- to 50-year agreements, largely centered on economic programs, investment in common economic programs or mutual economic programs, to help the other nations, through cooperation, in developing; equitable agreements. And therefore, to tie the economic and other interests of the respective nations so much into one another, that they will not lightly start picking fights with each other, because they have a strong common interest in not having the fight, and therefore, they will resort to other methods to solve their differences, rather than warfare.
That's what every intelligent person who understands history in the world, understands today. We have passed the time, where we have to consider warfare as a desirable instrument of policy, for creating power over other nations, or other peoples. That idea has to go, permanently! Wars to defend yourself against an attack, to defend yourself against some predator, that's one thing. But no wars for the purpose of an extension of an interest in gaining power! Or maintaining power.
Every intelligent statesman in the world understands that. What we have, is we have the British interest that understands that: And they understand that—and I'll explain what the British interest is, because that has to be understood, too—because the British interest is in maintaining an empire! And you can not maintain an empire, and their empire is not an old type of empire, it's a financial empire! It's a financier empire, not a flag empire. It's to control the world monetary-financial system, to have systems of bankers who are like suckers, predators, who are out sucking the blood of nations; and to maintain the right of the bloodsuckers to suck blood: That's the British Empire!
And if you have sovereign nation-states, which are powerful as groups of states, and they can say, "You can't suck our blood," the British Empire is dead! If you say, "We have to have a financial-monetary system which is equitable in terms of the interests of nations," the British Empire is dead. So therefore, it's the British Empire, which is actually the Anglo-Dutch Liberal empire—which includes Felix Rohatyn, which includes George Shultz, and so forth, as agents of this treasonous creature—that is the enemy.
The world, insofar as nation-states are aware of the importance of sovereignty, and the importance of peaceful cooperation among the nations, is in opposition to this. But by playing nations against each other, as the British played in the Seven Years War, or the Napoleonic Wars, or otherwise: They play one nation against the other, and thereby undermine and destroy national sovereignty, and the perception of national sovereignty, by this mutual warfare.
Therefore, warfare of that form, is the enemy of civilization. And those of us who understand that, understand that we must force the issue of intelligent cooperation, of the type among sovereign nation-states.
So therefore, if you don't understand the British are the enemy, you have a great deal of difficulty in understanding what the problem is. And if you think the British are our allies against some other country, you're a damned fool! Sometimes the British will come up with an idea which is a good idea, and it's worth supporting. Okay, on that basis, we'll deal with it. But on the idea of preserving a financier type of Venetian-style empire, like that of the period of the Crusades, which is what the British Empire is—that we don't tolerate. And therefore, there's where the problem lies.
The problem is the Anglophiles: Do you realize how much Anglophile sentimentality there is in the United States? Especially among the upper 20% of family-income brackets? What soft-headed suckers for a British lie they are? They like everything British—or Brutish, as the case may be.
So that's where the problem lies. And the answer to that, is simply to proceed to make clear, as I'm attempting to make clear today, and by other means, what the interest of the United States is now. And let's fight for our interest as a nation, and find partners who desire to cooperate with us, in fulfilling that interest. Which is also their interest. And I tell you, if you have 1.4 billion Chinese, over a billion Indians, a lot of other Asian countries' populations, sane people in Europe, the forces in South and Central America which are tied to us, and the people of the United States agreed on this, I think we can win that. And I think we can rally people to support one another against this British plot.
But if you don't do that, if you're soft on the British, you don't have a single chance of doing that.
I have British relatives, you know, I have lots of them. But the best of them came over here.
Youth Campaigning for Office
Freeman: Okay, the next question is on a slightly different topic. It says: "Lyn, your movement really put itself on the map in the 1980s, when thousands of ordinary citizens sought office as LaRouche Democrats. This past weekend, as I learned from the website, two members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, who I'd like to say represent a layer of young people who are anything but ordinary, sought and won positions in the California State Democratic Party, which is by far, the largest Democratic organization in the U.S.
"I'm wondering if this means that you are about to revisit the tactic of the '80s, but this time with a bit of a twist. My own political instincts, which are still worth a few bucks in this town, tell me that running a large number of qualified young people for public office might be the single most effective intervention that anybody can make in the upcoming Democratic Presidential campaign. That's my two cents, and I'd like to know what you think about it."
LaRouche: Well, the key to this, is, we have campaigns which depend too much on money, that money buys campaigns, rather than campaigns financing people who are working at them.
We're running a show type of campaigning, which is very expensive—you know, you raise money from whoever you raise money from, to buy advertising, mass advertising, which stinks, usually; where you're advised to shape your advertising by experts, so that it really won't address any issues.
For example: Look at each of the Presidential campaigns. Look at them now. Not one of them has said anything important. That is, they've said things that touch upon issues, so-called, or perception issues. But, they don't say, how're you going to get it. For example, Hillary said, "Well, when I go into office in 2009, I'll deal with the war in Iraq! I'll pull our troops out."
What's that? That's not dealing with the issue. How do you get them out, now? And as some people said: How many dead do you want between now and then? And we just had the highest rate of death of U.S. troops in any month in the recent period reported. How long do you want that to go on, in a war which you can not win? Because you're looking to defeat the enemy: And sometimes, somebody will turn around and say, "We have met the enemy, and he is ourselves." That's what this is.
So therefore, we go to the financial angels, who usually are not angels but quite the contrary, and we ask them to contribute large sums of money as donations for campaigns. The money then goes to professionals and into advertising agencies, which specialize in this, and they run the politics. They brainwash the candidate. "Here's what you have to do. Look at this constituent, look at this one—you gotta do this, you gotta do this." Well, wait a minute, buddy! How about a new idea?! How about a new idea that is responsive to reality? Why do you want a slogan, instead of an idea? Why don't you address something? Because the campaigns are not addressed to the issues of the people. Now if the people are involved in a campaign, as we used to have clubhouse methods of campaigning in the United States, which is what we were doing in the 1980s essentially—that was really clubhouse politics, it wasn't big advertising campaigns. It was clubhouse politics. Ordinary citizens of this or that talent or background, were participating in running, and they were doing the campaigning. They were doing the policy work. They were relating themselves to the realities of life of the people they were addressing. And we had a great effect, relatively; we had more result, per dollar, than any other campaign! So we were getting more for less—why? Because we were doing the right thing.
So, yes, you're right, the issue is mass campaigning. Here's what we've got: We've got the Democratic Party base. The great part of the traditional Democratic Party base, which is farmers, working people, so forth, and some professionals—that part is easily accessed by us. We don't have any problem with that. We also have Republicans, who are nominal Republicans now, who share more of that view. As a matter of fact, many Republicans were once Reagan Democrats. And there's a reason for that. So, we really don't have a problem there. We have people who are not in political parties, but who are politically conscious, but just withdrawn from trust in any political party, or turned away from these parties because of corruption.
So therefore, if you organize on the mass base and show some action on issues, relevant, yes, you can build a mass movement. For example, the Cheney issue, the impeaching of Cheney is a mass issue. You probably have one of the biggest bases of support in politics right now, for the impeachment of Cheney. If you look at the impeachment of Cheney—look at the military question: How many families have been affected, in what degree, by the frictional effects of not only the war in Iraq on them, but the fact is, that this chintzy government we have, which spends money for all kinds of things, does not take care of its soldiers. It doesn't provide them with what they need. It doesn't take care of them when they're injured. It tries to chisel them out of their rights, as veterans, to cure the things they've suffered from being soldiers; brutalizing their families. Is that good policy?
Therefore, people who understand that, will think about: Hey, these guys, they thought they were working for the country! You send them over there—you lied to get them in that war! They died! You liar! You killed them with your damned lies! You sent them over there without protection, you wanted to save money, because you wanted to give it to Cheney, Cheney's friends, for Halliburton. You looted the United States to pay off Halliburton and other similar firms! We got sick, we were injured, we came back; we went to the hospital, we couldn't get care! We're veterans, we're injured, we can't get health care to deal with the problems.
Our families are suffering. You sent us over there—we lose money, because we can't get enough to support our families when we are over there fighting these wars!
We weren't trained for this kind of war! We're state guard, we're National Guardsmen, we're Reservists, we're not trained for this! You sent us over there, without being trained for the job! And we got killed, and our families suffered, and we lost our house, we lost this, we lost that... because of YOU!
And you say, we've got to be patriotic, and suffer for the continuation of this war?
Think of how many parts of the country are affected, directly or indirectly by this kind of pattern: of a war, fought too long, that should not have begun.
Then think of all the other issues: the health-care issue, the pensions issue; think about what happened to the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio, the state of Indiana, alone, as a result of the failure of the Congress to support me!—on the issue of the emergency action on the auto industry: To convert part of the auto industry that isn't being used, and convert it to save it! For what we do need, which is infrastructure development: rivers, all kinds of things, that need the kind of high-technology engineering capability, that was buried in the auto industry. Which is now thrown into waste or the garbage dump.
And this affects the communities! It affects the people of the United States! Where they live, in gut issues of their personal lives. What you have to do, is connect the gut issues, that they feel and experience in their personal life, and show them the connection to policy-making on a national or world level. Then they can respond.
They don't respond, because they don't know how to respond: They say, "What the hell are we going to do? Is there anything we can do about this? Is this just going to keep going, on and on and on, when we'll never be able to do anything about it?" You've got to show them a connection. Where's the hot button, where do you go? What's the button you push? How do you understand this stuff? What do you do to fix it? And that's the problem.
So therefore, yes, you have to engage the people for two reasons: First of all, you need a popular base, otherwise, you can't really win elections in an honest way. Secondly, if you don't bring people in the population in depth into fighting out these issues, they will never understand these issues. Most of our people out there don't understand what the issues are. They don't understand what the cause of these problems is. They don't know where the handle is, that you can pull to fix it.
When you get them involved in political campaigns on the base level, and you bring grand politics, on the national and international level, down to the base level, then, the people who are participating in the campaigns, become the vehicle by which you educate the population around them.
And that, to me, is real politics.
Video Games and the Blacksburg Shooting
Freeman: ... Lyn, we have a number of questions that were submitted on the mass shooting at Blacksburg that took place a couple of weeks ago. This question is actually from the staff director of the Congressional Women's Caucus, but I'm taking some liberties with it, because we've gotten a number of questions on this. She says: "Mr. LaRouche, many people have responded to the tragedy at Blacksburg with calls for stronger gun laws. While I think we can all agree that individuals with a history of mental health problems should not have access to weapons, I have trouble seeing how strengthening such laws would have prevented the Blacksburg tragedy. I've seen members of your organization around town, sporting signs blaming Dick Cheney," she said, "which I don't quite understand. I also have looked at your remarks, although I admit that I have not looked at them in depth, regarding that tragedy, and video games. I noticed that you have now called to make those video games illegal."
She said, "I have some thoughts on that, and I'd like your view." She said, "Baby Boomers were the lab rats in a social experiment to examine the effects of hallucinogenic drugs when used on a broad scale. I personally believe that the entire nation is still suffering the damage of those experiments. I think that if you're actually serious about making these games illegal, you are probably in for the political fight of your life."
She says, "On the one hand, the sums of money involved are enormous. Second, if what you're saying is correct, there is also an explicit political agenda involved in the promotion of these games. And finally, many young people are, if not addicted to these games, passionately committed to their right to play them. It seems to me that the only way such a campaign could succeed, and the only way to wean our young people from these games is, if you reach out and convince young people that, in fact, they are—once again—being used as lab rats by people who they would otherwise perceive as their enemies. I'm not addressing this to you as a neat trick or spin, I happen to think that it is the actual character of this, but I was wondering if you would discuss the entire question a little bit more."
LaRouche: You have two issues here, which converge; two crucial issues of strategic policy. This is not a local social issue; this is a strategic issue. Going back into the 1970s, as a byproduct of the rush of euphoria around some of the Nixon Administration, you had the presentation as by Huntington, in a book called The Soldier and the State, of a policy which was not original to him, but which was something he made a book about, which was already in the works. The intention was at that point, a military policy which became associated with Cheney as of 1989, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, of this reform in military affairs, which was actually the idea which has been in progress ever since, and Felix Rohatyn is one of the promoters of this, along with George Shultz, to give you some idea of who's behind it, and why some Democrats don't like to talk about it. Because they get money from George Shultz, or from Felix Rohatyn.
So, the policy was to eliminate the military of governments, and to take the logistical aspect of support of military affairs, and turn it over to private interests, such as Halliburton, as in Iraq. The greatest expense is not for the military as such; it's for Halliburton and similar companies, who get bonanzas, and high rates and so forth, for doing military jobs.
But the idea was to eliminate the military as a governmental function, a traditional form of military as a governmental function, and to replace it with something like the worst phase of the Roman legions. And the Roman legions, once the Roman Empire was established, were nothing but assassination squads, and extermination squads, like the Nazi SS, later. The SS-type troops.
Now, there was a scientific question that came in this, already in this period: How do you condition a human being to become a stone killer? Who can kill and kill and kill, and not see the face of the human being as human when they shoot, as this guy down there in Blacksburg. Well, they developed it, and the technique was originally developed for the U.S. military, for a special military training program, for special infantry, and then was spilled out for private entertainment by youth. It was also used to train police officers—
For example, you had a guy in the Bronx, came out of his house, a perfectly respectable citizen of African-American designation [Amadou Diallo]. He came out of his house, and was surrounded by cops, and they asked for some identification. He reached for his hip pocket to get his wallet, and they put 41 bullets into him. He had no weapon, and he was not guilty of anything. Now, this was the result of the kind of training given to police officers, of a special type, so that they shoot that way; they empty their gun. One of the key weapons for this, of course, is the Glock, which has a high magazine capacity. So, you come in, and it was used down here by this Cho [Seung Hui]. Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! And about a 50% kill ratio. Systematically, a brainwashed zombie.
Now, the technique that's used, was developed especially from 2000 on. In 2000, you had a crisis in the so-called tech industry, of Microsoft and so forth. They were in danger, because the flood of money, the wall of money which was being poured into the Y2K project stopped, and so all these computer companies were in trouble on their growth perspectives, because the flood of money that had gone in earlier to the Y2K project was stopped. Now, they suddenly discovered that these games, these killer games, were a good alternative source of profit. And the shape of the development of the computer industry technology since that time, has depended increasingly, on development of computer technologies for killer games. Killer games are one of the biggest sources of income of the computer industry, the growth income of the computer industry. Which is why a Democratic supporter and funder, like Microsoft, is one of the biggest backers of one of the most dangerous and deadly of these games. This is where the computer industry gets its money!
So now you have a combination of your trained masses of the population, as ready to go into the military to become a new kind of killer, as specified in The Soldier and the State by Huntington, from the 1970s, and you've got them on the street. You've got millions of young men who are trained killers, some of whom never touched a weapon. You have cases of—a boy in one case, for example, a young boy, not yet in his teens, who picked up a pistol for the first time, and shot with deadly precision, and killed. He had never pulled a trigger before, but he had pulled the trigger on a video game. And that's the way this thing works.
Yes, this guy Cho, he did some training on a target range, but his basic training and personality was destroyed, as it was, by a video game! And it was a Microsoft video game, chiefly.
So, therefore, the two things converge. On the one side you had the initial thrust which was simply The Soldier and the State, to eliminate the regular military of soldiers with a conscience, who are the instrument of society, to produce SS-type killers of soldiers without conscience, like the SS who killed the Jews and others in the concentration camps—same mentality. How do you mass produce this? It's not so easy; human beings do not like to kill human beings. Snipers do not like to be a sniper after the first time they do it. The revulsion, the reaction is strong. How do you brainwash them so they become a zombie who can kill and kill and kill and kill without feeling? A so-called Mafia killer. How do you produce a Mafia-killer type, who kills on order, and never has any compunction, and likes to add a fillip to it, as you do with these games. Like the cop-killing game—behead the cops after you kill them. You had a case like this just recently; three cops were killed as a result of a guy playing that game.
So, on the one hand, it's the idea of the reform of military affairs—eliminate the military, privatize the military—like the SS, the Nazi SS—and then recruit to this new kind of military, by reaching out in this police training, and into the civilian population generally, to get young people of military-recruitment age, and train them in the killer techniques, which mean that they can march from the game into the legions out there killing people in various parts of the world, without really shifting gears.
Now, do we think this is a crime? The promotion of this kind of operation with these intentions is itself a crime against humanity; it's a Nuremberg crime! And people should be given their Nuremberg indictment notices now, who participate in doing this.
This also tells us something about the society in which we live. It tells us a great deal about Cheney, because Cheney has been the key instrument in this. Not only Cheney, but Felix Rohatyn. Felix Rohatyn, the Middlebury monster, from Middlebury, Vermont. A center of racism; a traditional center of racism in the United States, in Vermont. And a center of fascism in Vermont. And Felix Rohatyn, who is a graduate of that place, but also some other things more Satanic. Felix Rohatyn is the key sponsor of this program in the private sector. He's a fascist! He comes trained by the same people who were behind Hitler in Europe, from France. So, this tells you that in our country, we have a Nazi SS type in power, and Cheney is simply a symptom of that. George Shultz is a symptom of that. The United States putting Pinochet into power in Chile, and backing the Operation Condor, Nazi-like murders in the Southern Cone is an expression of that. So therefore, we have to recognize this is not a social problem, which has to be treated as a social problem, like the drug problem. This is a crime against humanity, and those who participate in the crime should be notified: "This is a crime against humanity, and we have the following information about you. Do you want to quit?"
A Moratorium on Home Foreclosures
Freeman: The next question is from a senior Democratic staff director on the House side—her committee is directly in a position to deal with some of these questions—and she says: "Lyn, given the scale of the crisis in the mortgage and mortgage-backed securities markets, and the numbers of foreclosures that we can expect, I know that you've said that no state efforts to stop foreclosures will work; I understand though, that you have called for a moratorium on foreclosures. My question is, how exactly would this work? And also, what would the response of the financial community to such a proposal be?"
LaRouche: Well, the response of the financial community is not too important, because we are at a point, as I've indicated today in my principal remarks earlier, that the financial system in its present form is finished. It has been thoroughly criminalized, in many of its respects, at least morally criminalized, and otherwise. Therefore, the opinion of the financial community, except for giving information which may be useful for our purposes, is no longer of much interest. We have to put the entire financial community in receivership. That means, that we don't shut things down; we may shut some things down—gambling casinos, of course, will be immediately shut down; immediately. The gambling industry; shut down. That will help a lot, and it will also help to give a jolt to some people to stop being prostitutes, because if you gamble, you're a prostitute. A certain guy from New York may not like that—Donald Trump may not like me for that, but I don't think he likes me anyway, so it's no loss. I would say, "You're fired, Donald. No, you're fired. I'm saying it to you now, Donald, directly, you're fired. Your time has gone."
Now, what are we going to have to do? You have to do a financial reorganization. Now, what do you want to do? You don't want any instability, any social instability; that's number one. You say, "Okay, you occupy a house, right? The foreclosure time has come. What happens? You stay there." "What about the budget?" "Well, we're going to put it all to reorganization. We'll list it as one of the houses which may have some asset value in it." We're going to look at all the cases. We're going to shut down the mortgage industry, essentially, in its present form. We're also going to put the banking system into receivership. What does that mean? If we don't put it into receivership, the banks are going to go under. The banks of the United States do not control the United States. The Cayman Islands, the British Empire's Cayman Islands, are the dominant factor in the hedge funds, and the hedge funds are the dominant factor presently, in the U.S. banking system. The hedge funds virtually own the banking system, either by debt relationships or otherwise. So, therefore, what we want to do is keep the banks alive, because that's where the normal course of industry and so forth, and people are involved, and communities. So, we're going to freeze it. What do we do?
The measure we have to take is to declare the Federal Reserve System in bankruptcy, in government receivership in bankruptcy. Now, the Constitution provides the means for this. If it's bankrupt, then the authority of the U.S. government, in respect to our currency and banking, comes into play. So, the Federal Reserve System, as a system which has been mismanaged, especially by the most recent chairman, "Greenspin," that thing is put in receivership; because it made a mess of things, and the place is bankrupt. So, therefore, if the banking system of the United States is bankrupt, then the Federal government is the only agency which has the authority to deal with that. So, the Federal government puts the banking system into receivership. How? By putting the Federal Reserve System into receivership. Now, what you do is, you tell the bankers you don't shoot, who didn't commit a crime, you say, "You stay there!" You say, "Freeze this! Everything is now under government supervision."
Our concern is that things that have to happen immediately through banking will happen. That financing of this, and financing of that, and so forth, the credit system—that will be there; that will be guaranteed by the government. But we'll manage it, we'll reorganize it; we're going to write down, eventually, a lot of this debt. We're going to cancel a lot of this debt. We're going to cancel entire categories of debt, which are nothing but gambling debts. We're going to have a banking system, which the American people and the industries and the states need, so they can continue to do the healthy business that they normally do, in a normal way. We simply say, "You may be bankrupt"—we did this in the 1930s, on a lesser scale, but it's the same principle. "You're bankrupt, but you sit there, because you're there to serve the community on behalf of the United States and its people. You stay on the job, and you do the things that you should do. And the things that you can't do, you won't do; and you won't make these disbursements, because we're going to have to investigate this thing and decide who gets paid and who doesn't, and how much." As you do in any bankruptcy proceeding, a constructive bankruptcy proceeding, you're going to decide who gets paid, and who doesn't. And there are going to be a lot of trillions of dollars that are not going to be paid, ever! Because a lot of this was fake.
So, we're going to decide what was true, and what was fake. And what is true will be honored as truthful value should be honored, and claims should be honored. And what was fake, is fake. That's it! And that's the way you approach it, because we can't have people, we can't have massive evictions. We can't have the destruction of most lives; we can't turn people into lice or rats, running across the country looking for something to eat. You can't have the destruction of local communities. You can't have it. This moral question is outstanding. You've got to say, you thought you had bought into the United States, you thought you were part of our laws, part of our way of life. You are! And that's what is going to stay.
Some other things are going to change. And what should be repaid, will be eventually repaid. So, we'll just freeze things until we can sort it out. And in the meantime, life will go on. The money you need on credit, and deserve, you will get. The house you live in, you keep. If you are an honest person, and you have not done anything wrong, you are not going to be penalized. We need you; we need you in the community. We need you to have a secure family life. We don't want your children to go crazy; get drunk, do drugs, all this stuff.
So, you have to think of human values. Don't think of so-called rules made by some people. The fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, is expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution. That is the moral law of the United States, which is the highest law of the United States, the highest law of the Constitution. Every other feature of the Constitution is subordinate to that principle. The same principle is expressed in the Declaration of Independence, although with less elaborate effectiveness. Leibniz's concept is presented against John Locke. Remember, the U.S. Constitution, from the beginning, was a refutation and rejection of John Locke. Slavery was based on John Locke; that was the law of slavery, that was the law of the Confederacy. So, we don't accept slavery, but we do accept the fact that the government is the one that is responsible to ensure the continuation of the General Welfare for ourselves and our posterity. That's the fundamental law that commands the U.S. government, constitutionally. And we find ways within the structure of the Constitution otherwise to realize that objective. We have bankruptcy? Okay. The law of the General Welfare, what was called in ancient Greek agape, takes over.
Cheney and Gore—Partners in Crime?
Sky Shields: The next question was received over the Internet. It's from a Mr. Derek, and it reads: "First of all, I'd like to extend congratulations to Quincy O'Neal, and Wynneal Inocentes for their victories here in California. I'd also like to thank you, Lyn, for your wonderful young people, who took control of this convention, and showed us all the way to impeachment. There was not a single person in attendance who could deny that it was in fact the LaRouche Youth that set the tone for the entire weekend, and directly forced those of us in the party leadership to put the removal of Dick Cheney on the table. My question is as follows: While I was at the convention, I noticed two jubilant figures frolicking about the halls and creating quite a stir. When I got close enough, I realized that these two boisterous friends were Dick Cheney and Al Gore. This was a stroke of genius on the part of your young people, and it left hundreds of onlookers at the convention completely confused and fascinated. For those who don't remember what Al Gore is, and what he stood for, would you care to enlighten us on how he and Dick Cheney might find any common ground? Thanks. Derek."
LaRouche: Well, they're both fascists. Essentially, it's true, that Al Gore—and I try to get it out of the people—did you ever hear this song, this country song from Tennessee about the company store ["Sixteen tons"]? Now, who owned the company store? Who owned the company that ran the company store, which was made notorious by this song? The company store? Al Gore, personally. Al Gore is, essentially, a fascist. And he comes from the Tennessee swamps by pedigree. He is also a confirmed racist; he's done things which he is guilty of as hell. In Africa, he's a racist; he's a killer racist in Africa. He's also listed as a Democrat; so are many leading members of the Ku Klux Klan, and he comes from that particular pedigree. I don't know if it's mint juleps or something else.
I was involved in the training of troops in Texas during World War II for a time, and we had people from all over the country—from the swamps of Brooklyn and the slums of Tennessee—to train, and I can tell you, they were a bit of a problem. They're crooked as hell. And I got to know the type. Recently, a couple of years ago, I was travelling through an area of northern Alabama into northern Mississippi, and I ran into police officers and others, and I looked at their faces. I recognized them as the same types that I had recognized as hard-core racists from my days at Camp Barkley, Texas in 1944, where we tried to train such types. We tried to toilet-train them, among other things. It's true.
And Al Gore is perfectly of that type. He's got the record; he is that. He got it honestly from his father, and this is the problem.
Cheney is the same thing. Cheney is the lineman they wouldn't let him climb the pole. He's too incompetent to be trusted up a pole. A fat slob, a football hero of his high school, who qualified as a bum, who was picked up out of the gutter by his wife, who is known for her bad taste, and eventually crawled his way into a position of great wealth in Halliburton, as a thug. He has no brains, he's a thug; no particular intelligence, but he's a thug, he's an enforcer. And he's used as an instrument, as a part of the package together with poor George Bush, who can not be blamed for anything, because I don't know that he even knows who he is. And that's the kind of situation. This guy is no damn good. And anyone who has been in politics in the United States as a whole, as I have been, who's had the chance to meet different kinds of people in our country, our fair land, from different parts, and has gotten to know the various types that exist. You walk in and you smell this thing, and you know what you're dealing with. I can not understand how anyone can be dumb enough not to know what Al Gore is after a fairly short exposure to some samples of his behavior.
A Casino Economy
Shields: This is another question received via e-mail. This is from Sue Daniels, the financial secretary-treasurer of the Smith County Federation of Labor, and the former vice president of the Texas AFL-CIO, from Frankston, Texas. Her question is: "Lyn, I am perplexed. Why is the stock market going higher and higher each day, breaking records, while all our industry and standard of living is going to Hell at the same time? We are losing hundreds of thousands of good, high-paying jobs, foreclosures are skyrocketing, the world is going to Hell in a hand basket, and the Dow Jones is breaking records each day. What do you think about this situation?"
LaRouche: Well, you should recognize, being in labor, that employment in industries and agriculture has declined, and that casinos are on the rise. The stock market, U.S. stock market, is not a reflection of the economy; it's a casino. And it's run up, and it's run down. Right now, the casino is being controlled from London, not from New York. The way it works now, is that the dominant financial interest in the world today, is centered in London, not in necessarily the City of London itself, but in the British Empire. For example, the largest hedge-fund operation in the world today, is run out of the Cayman Islands. The Cayman Islands is the center controlled directly by the British monarchy.
You take the case of Spain. You have two banks, the Bank of Bilbao, and Santander, which are the biggest controllers, not only of the real estate bubble in Spain itself, which is now blowing up, but also are the biggest looters of South America, especially Brazil, Argentina, and so forth; those countries. It's a looter. And this is around the world. Hedge funds today and the finance associated with them, control the world. The stock market of the United States is nothing but a joke. It's an ancillary of this casino. It's a subject of the hedge funds; it is not a representative of corporate production, productive corporations or of banking inside the United States.
The banks of the United States themselves are the bodies which are being sucked dry by the hedge funds. The hedge funds are eating up the industries of the world, running away and leaving them like empty husks. And the hedge funds are going to go down. But in the meantime, the Queen of England, with these bunch of bloodsuckers called hedge funds, running out of little boxes instead of even offices in the Cayman Islands, is controlling the world, or most of it. And so therefore, what happens is, the British are now hovering on a decision, and the decision is whether or not to collapse the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar. So therefore, for the moment, in order to prop up the U.S. dollar, which is already ready to collapse totally, they prop up the stock market, not by value, but by speculation, by bids. It's not real. It's like betting in a gambling casino. That's what the hedge funds are, it's betting in a kind of gambling casino. The world has been turned from a production economy to a gambling casino economy.
What did they do? They looted the auto industry. They looted it! Did they buy it, did they put something into it, to buy it, that was corresponding to the value of the industry? No, they looted it, they stole it! They parked the money, the profit from the stealing, in this place, then that place. They leverage the apparent value of stocks, which don't have that value; if you try to close out on them and try to find out what their value is, they evaporate. So the whole thing is highly artificial.
But the key thing now is that the British have not yet decided to sink the U.S. dollar. And therefore, they prop it up, politically, temporarily, and try to manipulate the U.S. public by saying, "Oh the stock market's going up! The stock market's going up!" It's like watching a roulette wheel. "The stock market's going up!"
Can We Still Save the Auto Industry?
Freeman: Okay, the next question, Lyn, comes from Michael Balls, who is from Saginaw, Mich. He's on the executive board of UAW Local 699, from the CAP [Community Action Program] program there. He's also on the board of directors of the Wanigas Federal Credit Union, and he's also a part of Big Brothers of Saginaw and Bay counties. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, I have several related questions for you. One is, do you have a plan for the United States to do something, even now at this late date, that can salvage the auto industry? I'm in Saginaw and we are an auto town, and we're really hurting. Toyota is taking over, GM is losing market share, and we're losing jobs. For every auto worker in the United States who's put out of work, five additional jobs are lost. Now, Delphi is demanding that all auto jobs be downgraded from $26 an hour to $14 an hour, and this will further drive down living standards here. The housing market is dying, not only here, but all over the state of Michigan.
Furthermore, people who have no hope have the tendency to turn to dope and to liquor. So we've seen young people, and others as well, more involved than ever with drugs and suffering from problems of hopelessness and low self-esteem. They feel that the future has been taken away from them. I've been a long-time member of Big Brothers in the county, and I have to admit that I am at a total loss as to what to tell these young people who I mentor. What is your message for them?"
LaRouche: Well, first of all, we've got to demonstrate—as I think we tried to demonstrate in California recently—that there is a power turning loose and building up in the United States, which gives hope. This is particularly necessary after the shameless behavior of the Congress, particularly the Senate, with respect to my proposals for dealing with the auto industry crisis, from the beginning of 2005. Here we were involved in the fight to save Social Security, which was conducted successfully. But then, on the second issue, which I raised in February of that year, on this auto industry threat of shutting down, they did nothing. Less than nothing. They didn't want to interfere with the hedge funds. And this was international, not just national.
Now, what I proposed at the time, as you may recall, was that it was obvious that the auto industry was overbuilt, as an auto industry. There had been a lot of fakery to maintain the charade of growth in it, but it wasn't there, because it wasn't in the economy, and there was too much dependency on the automobiles in the United States anyway, particularly with the way we were getting congestion—
Take the whole area of Loudoun County here in Virginia. It was insane! I warned that in 1983-'84 that what they were doing was insane. You're developing a situation where you have housing, housing, housing, housing, housing speculation. How do you support the housing? You make people travel from West Virginia to the Washington, D.C. area to work every day, back and forth; you get housing congestion, you try to maintain facilities to support the housing area, you have no local industries, no places of employment locally, no development whatsoever. You're putting up shacks where they're putting tacks in that aren't even aimed properly—the whole thing may peel down and go down on you—they're going up to $700,000 average now; they will come down to maybe $200,000 or less. The bankruptcy rate is in there, it's all over the place.
So, what we've done is, we've had an insane structural approach to the United States, based on speculation as in housing, while destroying agriculture and industry. In other words, the way you run an economy is, as you see in the state of Michigan, when it was functioning, despite the auto industry dominance. You had areas where communities were self-sustaining. And you could travel a short distance of less than half an hour each day to and from work, and from your functions, or you had ways of public transportation you could get around without an automobile, and you had a self-sustaining profitable economy, locally. And you would checkerboard a state with local economies which were self-sustaining, and then you would put in there large economies which would have a relationship to these local economies. And generally, you would divide the thing into divisions, where you would move the divisions one after the other because if you got too much congestion, then you find you've got a different kind of loss of economy. So to have economy, you don't take an area and say, let's make this a housing development area for the whole county, transforming an agricultural county into this thing with no sewage system in it to speak of. That's what they did. And now expecting it to save itself.
Now what's happened is, the housing level comes down from the $700,000 bracket per unit, is aiming down towards the $200,000 level, where it will probably bottom out, but then who's going to pay the taxes? Because the tax-revenue base is based on the real estate speculation and the habitation, it's not based on sources of income. And there will be no income to maintain the tax-revenue base, in the state or in the county. You will have a panic disintegration.
So my proposal was very simple in anticipating this nonsense going on. What do you do? Well, simply, you look at this productive capacity which is already here. You've got communities, you've got people in them who are skilled. The community is somewhat balanced. It has schools, all these kinds of facilities. You have a state which regionally is balanced. Stay where you are! Don't move! Live where you live! Work where you work!
What do you do? You take the industries which are producing automobiles or components of them, and you say, what else can you produce? If we're producing too many automobiles to sustain this industry, what else do we produce? What about some water systems? The whole Ohio/Mississippi River is not developed. The whole system is breaking down. Who can make the things that fix that industry? Well, the automobile industry, machine-tool sector, can design anything for that or a great number of other things. Who can design new mass-transit systems, and build them? The automobile industry, machine-tool capacity. All industries could be developed that way. How about some nuclear power plants? Oh, the same industry can make most of the components for that too. So therefore, we have, at present, great needs for products which are not automobiles; we have people who are employed where they are. We want to keep them employed at that skill, at that present social standard of living, at least, and give them new product to make which they can make rather quickly. A good set of design engineers, assembled in that industry, can produce almost anything, within a year. It'd take them about a year to go to the drawing boards and make a new product that works, from design.
So therefore, why do we let that thing go down? Well, because—you now have to get at the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem was not inherent in some process, some lawful process within the communities. It was inherent in what was going on in Washington! There was a decision to deindustrialize the United States. There was a decision to ship the auto industry out of the United States, into other countries, and to eliminate, even when you do produce automobiles in the United States, don't let them be produced by U.S. corporations. They have to be produced by foreign corporations, in the United States, not U.S. corporations. So, you fire U.S. people, or you downgrade them to one-third of the income they were getting, to work for a foreign corporation, because they're begging for jobs and they'll take the pay cut. That's what they did to us.
So the problem here is essentially a perception of national interests and justice, in the sense of caring about our people, in the sense of what the alternatives are that exist to deal with the problem which they wouldn't deal with, because Felix Rohatyn wouldn't allow them. I know in particular, Felix Rohatyn campaigned, in the Spring of 2004-2005, against me on this issue. His argument was, we don't want another Franklin Roosevelt ever again! These are Franklin Roosevelt methods, that's what he's proposing, and you get every now and then, some guy comes up, a crank like Franklin Roosevelt, a crisis comes that makes a mess like a stupid government, like this government, and the danger is that someone like him, who is potentially a new Franklin Roosevelt, will come in and do the same kind of thing that Franklin Roosevelt did. And that campaign against me, by him and by others, was on that basis, And he's a fascist! Well, naturally, him being a fascist and me being me—we don't get along too well!
But, that's the problem. This was not a lawful problem, which developed autonomously, synthetically, whatever, from inside the United States. It was a problem that was brought in by international interests, which were determined to destroy the United States, and they're destroying it by stripping it of our industries, of our agriculture, and our basic economic infrastructure.
It's being done deliberately! We are being murdered as a nation! And therefore, we stand up on our hind legs and say—but to stand on your hind legs, you've got to specify the alternative to what they're doing to you. My alternative is, go back to the same thing. While many of these people are still where they were, working, living, let us simply have the government step in with a credit program; let us have an infrastructure-building program. Let us take our requirement for a national transportation system, not rail but something better than rail—which we can do. Let's deal with the problem of a shortage of power. Let's deal with the problem that we can't get safe drinking water out of a faucet in most parts of the country anymore! Take care of the problem that we don't have enough fresh water anyway in most parts of the country to deal with the needs in that area. Take care of many other problems which we can take care of, by launching the industries which will pay for themselves over the cycle of their life. Put our people back to work for the missions which our people are capable of doing. Rebuild this country as what it was before these swine started to destroy it, especially from Nixon on. We have been destroyed, deliberately, by a financier, a foreign-based financier interest, beginning with the Nixon Administration itself, and what followed. And that has become our tradition. Why don't we just assert ourselves and say, screw you! We are going to have our country back again.
Why Is Sudan Under Such Attack?
Freeman: Lyn, I'm going to move away from some domestic questions, and entertain some questions that have been submitted by people here in the audience from other parts of the world.
This is a question from someone associated with a local consulting operation called Executive Research Associates, and the question is, "Mr. LaRouche, why is the Washington leadership, both Democrat and Republican, so hell-bent on destroying the nation of Sudan?"
LaRouche: There was once a fat man called Lord Kitchener. And in 1898, he took an army of Egyptians down, to get revenge for defeat of a British interest. There was a fellow called "Chinese Gordon," who had been the local honcho and general jerk in that area, and the local constituencies had assembled themselves, and they had killed Chinese Gordon, and I had the privilege one day of standing in a building, which was the entry-way of a building, with stairs going both ways; and going up one wall, on one stairwell, was a plaque, and the plaque commemorated the place where the local inhabitants of the place had shot the hell out of Chinese Gordon. That was also the building where George H.W. Bush slept one time, when he was Vice President, or President of Vice, or whatever that was.
So, I know Sudan fairly well. Sudan is geographically the largest country in Africa. It is largely arid country, but it is also an integral part of the entire Nile system, which runs officially from what is called Lake Victoria (which is like giving the name of a urinal to a large lake), and runs up—there's the White Nile, which joins the Blue Nile, and becomes the Nile generally, which goes all the way to the sea. And this is the area of an important water agreement between Egypt and Sudan and some other countries, particularly Ethiopia, in that area. It's an area which the British have managed, from below Victoria, Tanzania and so forth, all the way up on the eastern side of Africa. It's an extension of the operation of the British Africa operation from South Africa before. It is also of geopolitical significance in the sense of controlling all of Africa, and also part of the control of the whole Southwest Asia complex.
It has potential. Its main problem is water. There's a lot of water there, in the southern part of the base of the Nile area, which could be managed. Also, of course, with modern nuclear power, fission power, we can generate a marginal increment of water in areas of agriculture, and any significant increment of the water supply in Sudan in certain areas would result actually in a very large improvement in the conditions of life of the whole area. Because it has a certain potential, and when you add one element that's missing in a marginal potential, that turns the whole area which is desert, into something which is productive. And that's the case there.
We have people from Sudan, and adjoining areas, who are experts in that area and know exactly how and what to do, given the resources. All it needs is this one boost, and it will pull it over the top and it can begin to go upward rather than down.
And the problems there, are largely, since the beginning, since Kitchener's time, what Kitchener did—or the British did under Kitchener—they put one local tribe in the South, and these are not really tribes in the normal sense. What happened is you had people who were driven out of adjoining parts of Africa, would flee into a swamp area where they were fleeing from getting killed, and they formed associations, like gangs, which are called tribes. So the British, in their occupation of the area, after doing the obscenity of naming the lake of the area Victoria—I mean, what a thing to do to a lake—but they managed the area, by taking this area of these little people, so-called, in this area of southern Sudan, and they played one against the other, and against the Sudan as a whole. That's been their policy ever since 1898 under Kitchener. At one time it was the Dinka tribe that was the controller of all of Sudan. Then they overthrew the Dinka tribe, which still stayed there, and got another tribe in. Then they went with various kinds of operations which were ethnic types of operations of control and management and conflict. Managed conflict, one of the tricks of colonialism.
So, in this process, you got an agreement. George Bush, when he became President, promised Sudan that things were going to be much better in Sudan under George W. Bush than they had been under Clinton. I warned my friends in Sudan at the time—I had a meeting there in January of 2001—and I warned them when they said, no, things are going to be better with the Republicans under Bush now. We have guarantees. I said, don't be suckers! They're going to destroy your country. Guess what's happened to Sudan since January 2001? They've almost destroyed the country. U.S. operations. The reason they hated Clinton was not because of Bill Clinton, but because of—guess who? The Vice President, Gore. Remember, Gore was the guy when Clinton was in trouble during this impeachment period, who organized the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant, the only pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Gore also, in terms of Central Africa, around Lake Victoria, Uganda and so forth, together with Susan Rice and so forth, they were among the worst pigs in the kinds of operations they ran in Africa and against the adjoining countries. Horrible massacres in that area were organized by interests which included Gore, as well as George H.W. Bush, who took out a gold mine out of this operation in Zaire. That kind of thing.
So the game is that! You take an issue like this part of Africa, and you have to admit that Gore as Vice President was a criminal on Africa policy. He's a criminal today! His whole program, this thing he's pushing on Global Warming, targets Africa for genocide! But many American Democrats say they like Gore's program, which I can't find much different between Gore and Hitler, actually, except Hitler was probably smarter. That's all. Maybe that's the less dangerous thing.
But anyway, this is the problem. This is a fake, a British operation. When I was there the last time, in January 2001, I saw the British agents and I saw the operation. I was there; it was on the ground. I know these people. I saw it! This is the way it works! So, if I'm in a position of political power in this country, those problems are going to go away, because I know where the body's buried.
Can Africa Really Have Nuclear Power
Freeman: Okay, I'm going to take another question on Africa, and then we're going to come back to some questions regarding the United States. Lyn, this is a question that's submitted by a representative from Tanzania. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, I'm from the eastern part of Africa, from Tanzania, and my questions is, how would it be possible to use nuclear power, when all over Africa, there is an international effort to ban the use of nuclear power, using the argument that it can be used for weapons of mass destruction?"
LaRouche: Well, first of all, all the people lie, you know. It's not relevant. You see, Africa has been so looted, and the death rates are so high, and the death rates tend to be concentrated not in the poorest areas, but concentrated to a large degree, as in HIV, concentrated in areas of semi-urban populations of the people with the greatest skill. There are some famous cases of this thing. Therefore, the problem that you have is Africa lacks the essential infrastructure needed to begin to rebuild these countries or to build them up—they've been destroyed a number of times—and to decolonize the whole area. In fact, take the case of Tanzania, or take the case of—you could go through a whole bunch of these things, they all come up the same. The problem is, what we should do is, the basic thing where Africa needs aid, is not being taught how to knit, or how to dig a dry well. What Africa needs from other countries, from the United States and others, is largely, basic economic infrastructure.
For example, Africa has the largest agricultural producing area, but the bugs and other problems get in the way. The net food product is short. If you dealt with some of these problems, you would find the food production would be higher, the net food production, because most of the food that is grown is destroyed before it gets to market! By bugs and things like that, and rot. So therefore, if you had some degree of infrastructure to assist people in an area to deal with these problems—which we know how to deal with, we know how to put something in plastic and gas it and so forth to get the bugs out. We know how to do that. There are people who know that, but they have to have the ability, the means, the local industries, which provide this assistance to agriculture, locally.
They don't have mass transportation. Without efficient mass transportation—they don't need automobiles, they need railroads, they need water management—some places need water—but all of the areas need water management. You've got problems with these lakes. You've got things in the lakes that kill, that are dangerous, diseases and so forth. You've got to give them the means to organize a solution themselves. Because people don't organize well and develop by being developed. You don't give orders and instructions and handbooks and tell people how to develop. What you have to give people is the power to develop themselves!
So what you do is you take on the things that they can't do for themselves, like basic economic infrastructure. You assist them with that, and then you have created the basis where they, in net effect, can do something for themselves. And it's their development, especially their self-development, which guarantees their future.
You don't take an ignorant population and say, "Oh, you've got this thing. It's all yours, great fun, do this, do that, do this." You don't do that. Because you haven't given them the self-development powers to deal with the problem in the way needed. So you give them the infrastructure and let local governments struggle to educate and develop the people, and in the process of developing and educating their own people, they become able to govern themselves better. If you give them the infrastructure, which gives them the "leg up" to develop—like water systems, power systems, and things like that—that's what they need. They don't need advice on how to knit! They need facilities in getting the kind of power they need, the kind of mass transportation they need, the hospitals and medical facilities they need as institutions. That's what they need. Technological assistance centers that they need. But the essential thing in development, is self-development of the people, and you have to make the distinction between what you have to put in to make self-development work, and self-development itself. But in the long run, it will be self-development that will bring them out of the mess, not development delivered by the World Bank. And that's the way to approach it.
An Organizing Problem
Freeman: Next question is from one of the LYM leaders here in Washington, who wants to ask a question from the mike. Wes?
Wesley Irwin: Hi, Lyn. So, I have a certain question regarding the conceptual approach to take when organizing around the strategic collaboration that has to occur between the United States, and Russia, China, and India. One of the ideas that I've been trying to develop in my mind is this Riemannian-Vernadskian sort of conception, that the conceptual basis for that sort of long-term collaboration has got to be along the lines of the unique capability of man to transform the geological characteristics on this planet, and hopefully surrounding planets, for generations into the future. And that that common characteristic has got to be what situates any sort of discussion on economic policy at this point amongst these groupings. But there are a number of different ways to approach it, and there's been a discussion amongst the LYM about what is the best way to approach this organizing around this sort of cooperation that we know has to happen.
But there's another problem that comes up—it's very acute in the Congress, and I'm sure it's also in the general population—but you run into leading policy-makers, particularly Democrats, who will respond ferociously, violently—they'll grow fangs, claws, when you dare to tell them that their conception of economics is wrong, and that it's the cause of what is the downfall of our nation. Usually the way this comes up, is what they'll say is, well, you know, we can't stop globalization. And so, the best thing that we can do, since there's all this money floating around out there, they say—they don't say where, but it's floating around out there—and so the best thing that we can do is to go out and get that money! And once we get the money, then we can channel it into the social programs that are going to help the people. Then we can rebuild the Katrina disaster area, then we can get everyone health care, then we can do this and that. And of course, the emotion that they have towards the general welfare in that regard is good, but the whole basis, the whole geometry in their mind with which they're approaching this issue of economics, if continued, is going to destroy the United States.
LaRouche: You're talking about a Baby Boomer, aren't you? That gives it away, you're describing the Baby-Boomer mentality. Because the point is, the Baby Boomers as I've described them again and again, they exist, they're still around. This pestilence still exists, it is not yet the dodo. It may be becoming the dodo of the 22nd Century, but right now it's around in the 21st Century. It's a residue of the worst aspects of the 20th Century.
The point is, the Baby-Boomer generation is a dodo, it is an egocentric who can't make eggs. It's a generation with no future, in short. The problem is that we bred, as I've laid out, between 1945 at the end of the war, after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and 1956, before the February 1957 Recession, we bred a generation of little kiddies, born between 1945 and 1956, whose parents belonged to the so-called white-collar side of the population, as opposed to blue-collar, and they were largely associated with the idea of the defense or related industries. And they were considered, because of the security arrangements, and because of the educational program which was introduced, and social-conditioning program, they were especially conditioned. They were conditioned with the idea that they were an elite. The parents got the idea of being an elite. "We are now in the defense industry, we have good security clearances, we can get important jobs in defense-related industries, and we are sending our children to good schools, we're living in good communities, we have a special way of living, we know how to behave ourselves so as not to get into trouble to spoil what we're doing."
And they raised their little kiddies. And this became known as the white-collar, organization-man generation of the 1950s. A lot of books were written about it. I was there. I know all about it. Been there. I diagnosed it then. All right. So they were optimistic. "We are the kings of the planet. We are coming. We are going. Our kids are going to be something. You can see it coming down the pike, yeah!" Then, in February of 1957, as I had warned some of these jerks from my consulting practice, the bottom dropped out. The auto industry, the white-goods industry, dropped dead. People who had been in corporations getting $40,000 a year as prospective division managers were laid off and couldn't get $10,000, couldn't get $5,000. So suddenly, the parents of what we call the Baby-Boomer generation today, of the white-collar generation, not the blue collar but the white collar, suddenly went from ecstasy—"We are it! We are the power! We are going to make it!"—suddenly they got "uhhhhh," DEPRESSED!
And so the Baby-Boomer phenomenon, while the education corruption still went on, the parents' generation of the Baby Boomers, they were not so damned arrogant any more. Because they lived through a recession, which was a fairly deep recession for them, from February of 1957 into 1961. That's why you define the Baby-Boomer generation as the generation of people who were born between the death of Roosevelt and the 1957 Recession, because they were subject to a mass social effect in that compartment of the social stratum, which went through this specific experience, not only of being brainwashed in the schools by crazy methods of education, but they were also infected by their parents' radiation of the "We are wonderful, unlike these unfortunate creeps out there!" So now they became the arrogant generation, whereas the parents were not so content, were a little less euphoric, more down to Earth.
And you saw that in '68. In '68, you would see the people who represented the Baby-Boomer hard core were really arrogant bastards, whereas their younger brothers and sisters were a little more cautious about things. They weren't infected with this euphoria. You saw the same thing with the Baby Boomers themselves in the United States, between 1963 and 2000. From 1963 until 2000, the Baby Boomers, with the election of the first Baby-Boomer President, Bill Clinton, thought they had arrived. "This was now the Golden Generation, unlike any other generation. It was the wonderful generation. All other ideas and cultures were wrong. We had now come into our own." And this generation, under Alan Greenspan, put out oodles and oodles of phony money for the housing industry and new areas, and also for the Y2K bubble, the computer industry.
And this generation, they wandered around from 1993, until the late Spring of 2000, in a state of ecstasy. "We are the wonderful generation," echoing their parents between 1945 and 1956. So again, the children reflected the same piece of insanity which their parents had had over 20-30 years before. And suddenly, in 2000, it collapsed. And the Baby Boomer since that time has been vengeful, hateful, and depressed, and said, "We want our money." Everything is money. Because that's what they believed from 1993 to 1999, 2000. "We won! We are the Baby Boomers. We have a Baby-Boomer President. We are now getting a new Baby-Boomer President, George W. Bush. He's also a Baby Boomer, don't you know?" So, the Baby Boomers think they're running the country. They control the Senate. They are a very powerful factor in the House. They dominate most of the business and related institutions in the country, to the extent they still exist, and they have this sense of lost euphoria. They thought everything was wonderful. They had it made, just like their parents between 1945 into 1956, had it made! It was taken away from them! They had won the brass ring. They had been on the merry-go-round and they got the brass ring. "I got the brass ring! I'm entitled to this free ride on the next turn." And the free ride wasn't coming, and so now they were resentful against the fact that the free ride had been taken away from them, and they wanted the free ride back!
And that's what you're looking at! So therefore, how do you deal with this? Well, you say, what do you call such a generation, in history? It's called a "lost generation." Otherwise called a de-generation. What it signifies is that, in such a period as now, you have to go to a younger generation which is not infected with this type of disease, because the characteristic of the Baby-Boomer generation is, "We are the Wonderfuls! There was nothing like us before we came, and there will be nothing like us after we're gone. We are a moment, a miracle in history. Nothing like us before. Nothing like us afterwards. We are in Heaven. Why aren't we getting the respect we deserve?"
This is the problem. So, what do you do, if that's the case? What do you do with such nuts? What you do is, you go to a younger generation. See, some of us are not of that persuasion. Some people who are younger than I am, in the Baby-Boomer generation, are also not of that persuasion. They don't believe in this crap. They believe that there's a better way of living. That we should return to some values that we had before in this country, and should build on that. But they feel that they're a minority in the Baby-Boomer ranks. So what do they do? They say, okay, who do we go to, as allies, to deal with this Baby-Boomer problem? You go to the generation of young adults, between 18 and 35 years of age, principally, and you say, "You guys are going to take over, aren't you? Aren't you going to take over as you grow older, and develop your skills? Why don't you concentrate on preparing to take over, and in the meantime, why don't you practice it, while you're learning?"
Then you have a force in society where you simply have to make a shift and say, recognize that the Baby-Boomer generation, as a generation, is a lost generation. It's a failure, and therefore, say okay, we can have the Baby-Boomer generation around, as long as they're not giving the orders. You know, they're feeble-minded people, Struldbruggs, and so forth. As long as they're not giving the orders, we can tolerate them. We can find useful work for them, but we're not going to let them destroy the society in which we live, and destroy our future.
And that's what happened in California this past weekend, is the injection of young people—here you have a mass of younger people, Democratic Party, the lower 80%, so-called, they're involved and represented in the convention. They want something. They want Cheney out. The leadership of the Democratic Party says, "You can't throw Cheney out, we're not going to do it." We intervene, with a young movement which intervenes through its representatives in this situation. We blow the lid off it, and suddenly the cork is off and the forces come out. And so the will of the people—as I said earlier today—the will of the people expresses itself as the leading force. And the Baby-Boomer generation said, "Yessir!" Reluctantly, "Yessir."
And that's what has to be understood. You have to lead the younger generation, 18-35, you must let them lead as the force which is the spearhead of policy change. Pull the Baby Boomers after them. Don't sit around waiting for the Baby Boomers to lead, because they'll lead you into the ditch. You say to the Baby Boomer, "Look Mom, did you ever hear about drunken drivers? Well, what do you do when there's a drunken driver behind the wheel? You tell them to move over and let me take over. You're a Baby Boomer. That's like a drunken driver."
Freeman: Well, ladies and gentlemen, as is often the case with these events, we've kind of run out of time, although we've not run out of questions. I will say that among the questions that are remaining here, that have been submitted by people in the audience as well as by people around the country, the overwhelming, truly overwhelming number of questions that have been submitted, are questions that in one sense or another Lyn has already answered, but which do address the question of the impeachment of Dick Cheney, and they are really a clear reflection of the impatience of the American people, and of their leaders—of labor leaders, of local elected officials and others—to see that process get under way.
The other subject—there seems to be a big disagreement on among some of the questioners—is the question of Alberto Gonzales, and while many of the questioners admit that removing Gonzales from office probably won't accomplish much, they want to do it anyway—I think it is largely a question of frustration. Finally, we have an overwhelming number of messages that have come in, that don't have questions attached to them at all, but are simply notes of congratulations, not only on the events in California, but above all else, notes of congratulations on the recent transformation of the LaRouche PAC website. People have written in to indicate that the website has become just an indispensable part of their daily activity, both in terms of keeping themselves updated, and of actually their being able to brief their friends. And since many of the people who have written in are themselves constituent and political leaders, it's a sizeable task that they've taken upon themselves.
There are a few questions that I will give Lyn to take with him, that he will probably answer in writing, as time permits. Other than that, I'd just like to address our audience in saying that, in fact, I think that the effectiveness of LaRouche PAC and, very specifically, of Lyn's Youth Movement, has really been reflected in the events of the past couple of weeks, and most notably in the events of the last weekend. I think that we have entered a different geometry, and I think that really, in the immediate period ahead, not only in Washington but across the nation, anything is possible. One of the statements that Ms. Inocentes made in her address to the Filipino caucus in California, was she said, take my youth's vigor and use it to get things moving. And I think that the LYM has exhibited that they are willing to do that. And some people still have the presence of mind to respond by letting them do that. It costs money. I know that Baby Boomers have lost a lot of money recently, but they still have some, and this is definitely the time to invest it in this youth movement and in the future, by contributing to LPAC.
Other than that, I want to really thank Lyn for taking the time today. I know that he has an extraordinarily demanding schedule, and I think that today's remarks were extremely important for people here in Washington and for people all over the world who are listening. So I'd ask you to join me in thanking him, and ask him if he has anything he wants to say in closing. Do you have anything you want to say?
LaRouche: I can say one thing. Thank you. And have fun. Always, have fun!