Subscribe to EIR Online

LaRouches' Remarks to Rome Press Conference on Defeats to Free Trade and Lisbon Treaty

June 18, 2008 (EIRNS)—Lyndon LaRouche made the following remarks to a press conference and answered questions this morning at an event in Rome. After him, Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke, followed by Italian Senator Lidia Menapace, and then they fielded some questions. This transcript includes the LaRouches' remarks, and their joint response to the final questioner.

Lyndon LaRouche: On the 25th of July of the previous year, 2007, I delivered an international broadcast, which was picked up in other countries later, in which I warned that we were on the verge of a general breakdown crisis phase of the present international financial crisis. Three days later, the crisis began. It was called, by foolish people, it was called a "housing crisis." It was actually a collapse of the lowest quality of mortgages generally, but which was actually a blow-out of the entire financial system.

We have now been in that continuously, in a process somewhat like that which happened to Germany in 1923. We are in a global hyperinflationary crisis. In the case of Germany 1923, Germany was totally enclosed by the Versailles conditions, so that when the 1923 phase of that hyperinflation took off, then Germany was doomed in a very short order.

The present crisis, which is also a hyperinflationary crisis, globally, is under the condition of a global scale of economy involved in this. And here are many efforts to try to manage this thing to slow it down a bit. But you see it in one particular effect, the question of petroleum price rise. You go back to 1971-75; in 1971, the world financial system, the Bretton Woods system was collapsed by the U.S. Administration. Subsequently there was a fraud by the international petroleum interests, the so-called oil shortage. And this was used to set into motion what became known as the "petrodollar spiral," so the U.S. dollar was no longer the denominating currency of the world, but a petrodollar, controlled by British interests, was the controlling interest of the world. Then the break-up of the U.S. economy system, under the Trilateral Commission from 1977 to 1981, and beyond, has been the root of the doom which has struck the economies of the world now, since that time.

In other words, a British-controlled petrodollar, based on the Amsterdam spot market, determines the value of the currencies of the world. So therefore, you have a system now, where the world economy, in terms of industries and so forth, is breaking down. This is what's called in the history books, a "breakdown crisis of the economic system." And under these conditions, naturally, the people who control petroleum, the petroleum marketing, are driving up the price of petroleum. Inflation in petroleum prices, largely through the spot market, is actually looting the world. The monopoly of power by the petroleum interests, or the petroleum speculative interests, is what is controlling the crisis at the present time. But the petroleum price itself is under inflationary pressures.

In this condition, and with the way in which food has been reorganized, food production's been reorganized, we have an international food crisis, as a result—it's really a food price crisis, but also a food shortage crisis, as a result of this combination of circumstances. Now, what has happened, in general, if you look at a pattern of what's happened with food over these years, since 1971-75, there's been a process of taking production of everything out of the country where it was originally centered, and moving it to other countries. So the effect, therefore, is to create a situation, in which international financial interests control production, because what is consumed in one country is produced in another country, in general.

For example, in the case of food in general, we have a world food shortage, because the countries that could produce food are being told not to produce it, and the food is produced in other places. In this way, the international market, centered in the Anglo-Dutch interests, now controls the world market. We saw this in the attempt to introduce what may have failed, with the Lisbon Treaty organization. In other words, the effect of this, to prevent any country from taking protectionist measures to ensure the production and protection of food supplies and other things by national interests. This would be described in Biblical terms as something like the Tower of Babel, which everything goes into one big tower, and the tower is centered in Amsterdam or London or a place like that.

So, we face a food crisis as a general breakdown crisis of the system.

Now, as you see, with the result of the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty, you see something you see also in the recent U.S. primary election campaigns. You should know also, of course, to understand this, that Hillary Clinton, the Senator, won the greatest number of votes in the primary campaign, and then was declared not the winner. But the voting is much more interesting than that, and the food crisis is a typification of this connection. You can look at certain sections of the population and the way they vote, and the way they react. For example, Hillary's vote was concentrated in the lower 80% of family-income brackets. The Irish election, the vote against the treaty, was centered in the lower 80% of family-income brackets. You see the tendency on the food issue, the same thing.

In other words, the political trends now, have to take into consideration the fact that those matters of self-interest, which involve especially the lower 80% of family-income brackets, are the place where you get the resistance against this process of globalization and similar kinds of measures. You also see a process, in which the political parties which have been traditionally the controllers of politics in countries, are now disintegrating, because the nations are no longer responding to the interests of the people of the nation. So the political parties which are sensitive to the machines, which are sensitive to centralized government, are being sunk by the fact that centralized government no longer performs for the benefit of the people.

So therefore, the question is where can the people break through against the parties which are controlled by policies which are their enemies. And then you have the basic issues that people respond to, the price of petroleum—they don't control it, but they're upset by it. The most immediate thing is food. It's the place where the expression of self-interest of the greatest number of the population is expressed.

So therefore, not only is the food issue something which should be of the greatest political importance on its own merits; it is generally, from the standpoint of government, the fact is that we're producing about half as much food, in terms of quality and totality, as required for decent feeding of the entire human population over the coming generation. If you look at the history of food programs, and modern food programs, you're talking about a generation's length, in actually building up an agricultural potential to a significant level. For example, a high-quality herd of cows, as milk cows, for example, to develop from a germ beginning, takes a human generation. Even simple crops require preparation over some years.

And also, in order to do this, we have to change the world's water resources greatly, reorganize them. And we have done very little in that, in a long time. We have a shortage of high-quality power sources: to build power plants is three years to five years to six years. But what happens then, in this process, even though long-term considerations, or medium-term considerations are essential, the people react to the lack of food on the table this week.

And you see, within the ambiguities of the FAO conference here in Italy, that the food issue is the most immediate, pressing political issue to unite people for anything. Not only is it the most urgent issue for people, but it's the issue on which they feel they must react most quickly. In my terms, you must look at this, as, how do you get people to organize themselves, politically, to defend their own interests? When large political parties have failed them, when political institutions have become corrupted by the so-called existing system, how can the ordinary people efficiently mobilize themselves around ideas they understand, to fight to change the system?

So, on two counts, the food issue is the most important issue in the world today: It's the most important issue for people, but it's the issue around which they can organize most readily. And if they don't organize effectively, they're not going to win the issue of organizing for the food they need. If they can organize around food, that very organization itself will enable them to organize around the other issues which the lower 80% of the population are responsive to.

So this is the crucial political issue, in terms of popular interests and political efforts in the world today. For me, the issue has always been, how do you get the people to fight for their own interests? And for too long, governments have looked, and people have looked at government, as something organized from the top down. But from the top down, governments and parties have been decaying. We've come to a point that progress comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. And therefore, you have to provide, a smaller group of people—

What happened with Hillary's campaign is exactly that. It's an example, which, of course, is not frankly represented around the world. But from my position in the United States, I've been able to observe this thing very closely, day to day. What she's done since the New Hampshire primary campaign, she made a daring change: She tore up the usual agenda, and went to the lower 80% of the population, on concrete issues. Not simplifying things, not populist material, but going to the concrete issues, to get people to awaken that somebody is actually taking these up. And generally, she's been very successful at that.

The problem she's had, of course, in her case, is that international financial interests have been determined that she is never going to be allowed to be President. International press circles, international financial circles, international political circles have all run a virtual lynch-mob campaign against her. And you look at the other side, the Obama campaign, you get a similar phenomenon: Obama has no merit whatsoever; he has a lot of power behind him. He will never be President. They're going to throw him away. He was only being used to get rid of Hillary. Huh? But what's happened is, we've been naturally involved with many of the layers inside Obama's support.

Now, Obama is throwing away representatives in his own campaign, who are leading representatives, who were for the lower 80%! And he replaces those people with the most corrupt, old hacks. It's like putting tires that are almost worn out, on an automobile. He's doomed: Because the intention was to create a really fascist regime in the United States, around something around the Republicans.

But in the next 60 days, things will change: The Democratic nominating convention occurs at the beginning of August, at the end of August we have the Republican convention. [sic] Between now and then, between now and the beginning of August, all hell is going to be breaking loose around the world, especially in economic terms, both financial and physical economic terms. The rate of inflation is increasing: It's comparable in general terms to what happened in 1923 in Germany, slower, but the same idea. Bear Stearns was given a funeral; Lehman Brothers probably will not. They can no longer afford funerals for large corporations. They just bury them in the night.

So, it's a wide open situation, and in this, the food issue is the central issue around which you have to organize worldwide, to get the political forces in motion to make a change.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche was introduced by Liliana Gorini, of the Italian LaRouche movement, the Solidarity Civil Rights Movement, or Movisol.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think there is no subject where the bankruptcy of globalization is as visible as in the question of the food shortage, today. If you have, admittedly, 850 million people who are on the verge of starvation, and 2 billion people who are undernourished, then that is the official mark of bankruptcy of the present system. Now, the fact that this is going on, without the European Union, or the G-7, or other international institutions doing effective measures to change it, means also the moral bankruptcy of these institutions.

Now, since last June, there were warnings about hunger riots coming out of this. Since October, in 40 countries, there were hunger riots. In the case of Haiti, even the government was purged, and the rioters who were shot at by the police, said, "we don't care about being shot by the police, because if we don't fight now, we'll die of hunger anyway, so, who cares?" And that shows the level of desperation.

Now one of the big scandals in this, is the fact that despite the fact that the riots went on since October, the international media did not report it, but only at the end April there was coverage about it, and then, naturally, it was too late for sowing season for this summer. So, when the reports came in, I immediately issued a proposal to double food production, which would be eminently easy to do. The idea of doubling comes from the fact that you have 850 million going hungry every day, 2 billion people being undernourished, and an expected 3 billion people in increased population by the year 2050: So it's the only way to go, to double the food production!

Obviously, this can only be done by reversing the trend of policy, which started with GATT, which was continued in the WTO, and now the thankfully failed Doha Round of the WTO. It is because of these neo-liberal policies that the food scarcity exists in the first place, and the reason is, if you want to do speculation in anything, but also in food, you need a scarcity. This is why there was a conscious reduction of the productive capacity in agriculture over the last decades.

So therefore, my proposal is to end the power of the five mega-cartels which are controlling 80%-90% of world food production and processing today. At the FAO conference, the clash was very clear, between those people who talked about "free trade," reducing all trade barriers, and implementing the total free-trade system on the one side, and the people who were talking about protectionist measures and food security of every country on the other side.

Now, how could food production be doubled? It's very easy: 500 million people could be fed if you stop using food for biofuels, because with one tankful of biofuel, a human being can live between half a year and a year, and altogether 500 million could be fed if you stop this criminal practice. But then, naturally, you need to do a real production increase, which obviously can only happen if you develop infrastructure in the developing countries. You need a system of integrated infrastructure of ports, railways, waterways, irrigation, desalination, you need nuclear power to desalinate large quantities of seawater, and you need to do exactly what we have done in Europe in terms of infrastructure for Africa, for Latin America, and for Asia.

Now, I know that in Italy, among other countries, people are very upset about the large influx of people from Africa, fleeing from hunger and disease. The answer is, obviously, to create the conditions so that people in Africa want to stay in their home country, which they would prefer in any case, by providing the kind of development which colonialism has deprived Africa of for 500 years. The European Union and certain European politicians are very freaked out about the growing influence and business of China, Russia, India, Japan in Africa. For example, Japan, at a summit which recently took place in Japan with the participation of 50 heads of state, promised to Africa the "Green Revolution" which Asia had in the '60s, and basically make that possible. China is building beautiful dams in Sudan, railroads are being built. Naturally, the Chinese have a self-interest, but every African I have talked with is very happy about what Japan, China, Russia, and India are doing in Africa, because it also serves the African interests!

So, why is the European Union not just doing the same thing? I mean, that would be the logical answer, that Europe also invested in infrastructure and big projects in Africa. I have the suspicion that the reason why they don't do it, lies in the Lisbon Treaty: Because this is the biggest atrocity which happened in post-war history in Europe, and I want again to use the occasion to thank the Irish population for having voted "no" in their recent referendum. Because, what the Lisbon Treaty was threatening, and a little bit still is threatening to do, is to end parliamentarian democracy in Europe, and establish an oligarchical dictatorship. Fortunately, this thing is backfiring, but nevertheless, one has to note the fact that the constitution which was rejected in 2005 by France and Holland, was then re-written a little bit—but according to Giscard d'Estaing was exactly the same document, and according to Juncker, it was a stealth operation, trying to sort of smuggle it in by stealth, by not discussing it in the media, by not having a debate in the parliaments, and then have a rapid ratification process of this monstrum.

Now, fortunately, I realized, some time in February what an atrocity this was, and if you read the unreadable text, you see that it is a complete elimination of democracy, elimination of the sovereignty of the people—which according to the German Constitution, all power emanates from the people—but it would have been given away entirely, to a supranational European bureaucracy!

So, other aspects would be a complete militarization of the European Union, by linking it to NATO, incorporating NATO and European Union military structures, having out of area "humanitarian" deployments, and other pretexts, but essentially turning the European Union into a military alliance. It's a completely undemocratic structure, and it would also mean the complete manifestation of neo-liberal policies, and the total inability of governments to have a protectionist intervention, in front of this biggest financial crisis of recent history.

So therefore, I'm very happy that this thing is now essentially defeated, through the Irish vote. The Czech President Vaclav Klaus has already stated there is no point in continuing the process, because if one country does not agree, the treaty is dead. And therefore, I really think there should be a debate in Italy, where the monster is not yet ratified, to not have the ratification! Why should you ratify a dead body? I don't think you need even a referendum, because it should not be ratified! Because it's something which is dead, and should be buried forever.

I think that this also means the chance to really discuss what Europe should be: What should be the identity of Europe for the 21st century? Even if I do not agree with Vaclav Klaus on his economic policies, he has recently made an intelligent remark, namely to say that Europe should go back to the pre-Maastricht structures. I personally think we should go back to the ideas of Charles de Gaulle, and talk about a "Europe of the Fatherlands," of sovereign republics and great projects. Because Europe will be confronted with the choice: Either we submit to the ideas of the British Empire, and turn the Brussels bureaucracy into an arm of this British Empire, having a colonial-imperial policy around the world. Or, we rediscover the best traditions of European civilization and play a role in the development of those countries which urgently need it, and adopt a mission for the "common aims of mankind" as Dr. Edward Teller used to call it.

I think that the coming period will be the biggest challenge to us in Europe, on what side of mankind are we putting ourselves? And given the fact that the hyperinflationary blow-out of the system is asserting itself on the agenda, I really want that we choose the question of a new world economic order. The former President of Russia Putin has already demanded a New Deal for Russia; the former President of Argentina Kirchner demanded a New Deal for Argentina; the Economics Minister Tremonti has demanded a New Deal for Europe; and recently there was a completely suppressed open letter by 14 former heads of state and finance ministers, including Rocard, Helmut Schmidt, Rasmussen, and D'Alema, demanding an emergency summit at the heads of state level to discuss a new financial system.

Now, all of these voices reflect what the LaRouche movement has been saying since many years: That we need to have a new financial system, a New Bretton Woods, in the tradition of FDR, and a New Deal for the world economy. Now, I think that we have very little time left. We do have a window of opportunity to change the agenda, before we have a plunge into a dark age. And therefore, I think that the best way to really put this on the agenda, is by having a clear plan for the reconstruction of the world economy at the upcoming UN General Assembly in September in New York. We must not miss this opportunity to talk about the concrete measures to double food production, to have the large-scale infrastructure projects, which really would end hunger in half a year, end poverty in five years, and have a decent living standard for the whole human population in one generation.

I think there is nothing else worth fighting for! Why should the entire world serve the riches of maybe 1% of the population, and then 10% more who live off that as parasites, while 80% of the population is living in misery? It can not be the fate of mankind to keep that totally unsuitable order!

I think the moment has come where we have to put the political and economic order of this world in cohesion with the laws of the universe. And if you want to know what I mean by that, go back to the great mind of the 15th century, Nicolaus of Cusa.


Question: My name is Giovanna Romualdi. I represent Paese delle Donne online. It was said here, if Im not mistaken, that we should change the agenda of the UN General Assembly in September. We have only two months. What do you think could be the real steps to be taken to change it?

Secondly, it was said that the new world economic order should be put on the agenda. I would like to ask you, in this new world economic order, one of the problems which must also be resolved, as well as the really serious problems have been illustrated here which I do not want to repeat, is the problem of the relationship between productive labor and caregiver work [raising children, etc.—ed.], and therefore as a consequence, working hours, hours for production and hours for caregiver work. We in Italy, also thanks to the commitment of Lidia Menapace, call it reproductive work.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think there is right now already a revolt going on, which is really moving against the globalization. I think we will be able to thank the Bush-Cheney government for having caused a greater process of solidarization among many countries, than would have been possible without them. For example, recently in Yekaterinburg, there was a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, China, and India, and they decided to solidify and cement their strategic partnership, and the next day they included Brazil, and they also intend to include South Africa and Mexico. And so, there is a process where many countries of the world are moving in the direction of protecting their own people, of working together for their own sovereignty. You have a similar process going on among South-South cooperation.

And I think there is right now in the whole world, also in Africa, for example, a recognition among many countries, that if they stay with globalization, if they stay with the dictate of the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union bureaucracy, and so forth, then they have no chance! So, there are right now, many motions in the direction of going back to ideas like the Non-Aligned Movement, the idea of the Development Decades as they existed in the '50s and the '60s. And I think what we have to do is to basically, start off with very basic questions: What is required to guarantee the physical existence of continents, of countries, of nations? And therefore, for example, infrastructure is absolutely crucial, because you can not talk about food if you don't have infrastructure, if you don't have roads, if you don't have ways of transport, means of reprocessing, irradiation, desalination, all of these things, are really the absolute precondition to overcome this present impoverishment.

And there I agree with Lidia [Menapace], because I think countries which are going down, are in much worse condition than countries which have not yet reached a certain development. So, what I'm hoping we can accomplish, is to put the question of the new just world economic order, which allows the survival of every human being on this planet, on the agenda of the UN General Assembly in September. And I know that this is a thought, which, you know, you have sometimes a right idea and it does not work, because most of the people think they are well off, and they don't need to change and everything is in order. But then you have other moments, where you have a breakdown crisis, where you have a complete sense of all institutions which you thought were self-evident for the rest of your life, are crumbling! And right now that's the case.

You have a world order going completely out of whack: You have hyperinflation worldwide, approximating the condition of Weimar Germany in the summer of 1923. So there is a perception that it can not go on like that, and that is exactly the moment when you have to put an alternative on the table.

Now, I'm sure that my husband will say something about changing the United States from the inside. He's working right now on a paper which I glanced at, where he is proposing how the collaboration of a changed United States, together with Russia, India, and China, can be facilitated, so he will speak about that, I am sure.

I just want to say one sentence about your second question. I think that we need to have part of the changed conception—you can not have a service sector which is 70%-80%. You need a productive base in order to be able to finance health-care, to finance pensions, to finance nursing homes, to finance all of these things. Without a productive basis, this is completely gone haywire! The relationship should be the reverse: We need production in industry and agriculture, and then you have the financial resources to pay all of these things. We don't have a health-care problem in Europe: We have a problem of a collapse of productive production and jobs.

Lyndon LaRouche: Sometimes there are questions that require one to—like this one—to speak about one's personal role in history. And I'll just say this, because in terms of what the situation is now, I speak of something which I know very well, and which most people don't know; some people in government, in particular, or in some occupations, will have some experience with the same kind of thing. On the one hand, when I was in military service in India and then Burma, was during the period when Roosevelt died, Franklin Roosevelt died, and I was questioned by some of my fellow-soldiers to have a meeting with me that night, on the day after the announcement had come through, and I said, "yes." And I had an idea what they would talk about, because Roosevelt had just died, the announcement had just come through. And they asked me, "What is going to happen to our country, now that Franklin Roosevelt is dead? We're frightened for the country." And I said, "So am I. We replaced a great President suddenly, with a very little one, and I'm afraid for our country." And that fear was fully justified.

Then, when I remained in India, shortly after the end of the war, I became involved of my own inspiration—I simply took a telephone list of all the political parties represented in Calcutta, and I visited each of the offices. No American had ever visited these offices. I was only a soldier, but I said, "I'm an American and I want to know what's going in this country." So, here I am, alone, I'm running what I later realize is an intelligence operation; I didn't know it was an intelligence operation, then.

At that point, I was in a special category of persons in my own country, of people who saw themselves as defending what Roosevelt had represented against what Truman represented. I became an enemy of the Churchill-Truman, and for the Roosevelt tradition. So therefore, all the course of my life, a lot of things had happened to me because I always act that way. And in my position, particularly my knowledge of history, you become aware that there are some things that most people don't pay any attention to, which are very important. Some people say our societies are elitist. I can say in all governments, all people in the world are elitist. Because, since the legend of the Olympian Zeus against Prometheus, the world has been dominated by societies which always keep the lower section of the population in as much ignorance as they can impose. Only the exceptional individual from the so-called "lower classes" ever gets a sense of what creativity is. Our social systems, our customs, are oriented to suppress the creativity in the people. So the power of ideas is limited to a very few. Most people know nothing of history—they have gossip about history but no knowledge.

And this is the secret of revolutions: When a ruling class, that has the control of ideas, fails, systemically, then the opening arises for change. For example, since the beginning, since February of 2006—or actually, I have to go back to the 2004, into the beginning of January of 2006, I had very significant influence on U.S. policymaking. And then suddenly I lost the influence, because of a change in the situation. Since that time, there has been no significant formation of government in the United States: Not a single piece of significant legislation has been produced by the U.S. government since that time.

Now, in the background, there are always a minority of people, who have the kind of skills that I have, some in various obvious positions, some in secret positions. This is a dialogue going on, all the time, sometimes more active, sometimes less active. Now, we've come to a time like that now: No sovereign government of any nation of Western or Central Europe, or the United States, is capable of a competent decision of any kind. They posture! But they talk a lot, very important—but they do nothing! Nothing good! Nothing for the issue.

Then you come into a period, which is a revolutionary period, historically. We are now in such a period. We've been going into it since late July of last year. Now, take a case of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, an example of this: Bill Clinton is the only Democrat who has served two terms in service as President in the post-war period. He was a very popular President, a very popular personality. He's the most intelligent person who's been in the Presidency in the entire post-war period. He's an excellent historian. He has certain weaknesses, which are typical of his time, typical of his generation. Remember, this is the generation of the sexual revolution; I don't think there were any faithful husbands, in general, among politicians of that class in government. [laughs] But that was the culture of the time.

Sen. Lidia Menapace: [via translator] Even wives are not always faithful!

Lyndon LaRouche: I know, it was general. But the point was, that he's the only successful Democratic President in the entire period. But the country was corrupt, massively corrupt! And he was a President of a corrupt country. The institutions of party were corrupt.

Now, he has a wife, who has learned much in the time that she's been around, since she entered the White House as the wife of the President. She's very intelligent, very energetic. She does not think much in terms of principles—she really doesn't understand them. She's a person of her generation. She does think about people; she has compassion for people. And when provoked, her compassion for people will come forward. She's very intelligent without being much on principle.

So now, you have these two figures, who have been dominant figures in the Democratic Party for a period of about eight years—no, actually, 16 years now, almost 16 years. So, the point was, they wanted to get rid of her. So they picked a bum out of Chicago—[translator hesitates on word "bum"] Obama, he's a bum. Anyway, so they pick him, to do what? They take a thug called George Soros. George Soros is not worth much: He's a completely corrupt person, evil person. He's just a British agent, that's all. He operates largely out of the islands of the Caribbean, because if he didn't, he would go to jail. He's nothing but a British agent. His money's not his own. He's closely tied to BAE, which is this Saudi-British operation, which probably was involved in 9/11. He takes over the head of the Democratic Party; he doesn't make the decisions; he does what he's ordered by London.

Now, when you look behind the curtain, as I do, you talk to people behind the curtain, of what's obvious, what they saying, besides, "Under no circumstances would we ever allow Mrs. Clinton to get into the White House, or allow Bill Clinton, the former President, to get near running the White House. We won't allow her to get the Presidential nomination from the Democratic Party. If she does get it, we won't allow her to be elected. If she's elected, we'll get rid of her." And Obama was simply picked up to do that.

Now, Obama, once they've pulled this thing off, now they're moving to expel the greater part of the base of the Obama vote. Take the Afro-American vote, which he's got a big part of, and other layers of the Democratic Part, they're being eliminated from the Obama campaign. Under no circumstances would Obama be President. He probably will not secure the nomination.

In the meantime, in the coming two months, the rate of acceleration of the financial crisis is going to be grave. It's not going to be gradual, it's going to be sudden surges. And as you saw in the Irish situation, the Irish election, we are in globally, right now, a period of months, which is a worldwide revolutionary situation. Nothing is certain.

Q: Pre-revolutionary.

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, it's already revolutionary. It's happening, it's coming from the base. The Irish vote is part of it. What we saw, the increase in Hillary's vote in the past six primary elections, the rate of increase, and the response of people who are enraged at Obama who were his supporters.

The German government is on the verge of a crisis: You've got a woman who is full of herself, but has nothing else inside her! The President of France, huh?—whose high heels are not high enough for him to see what's going on inside his wife's mind!

You're in a period of crisis, where the greatest events imaginable are in the process of happening. In September of this year, by September, you're going to have a crisis beyond belief. And you already have a mass movement of the lower 80% of the population is beginning to move. You saw the FAO thing. Yes, it wasn't a big success, but it demonstrated a breaking point.

Under these conditions, the people whom I know behind the—people from all kinds of institutions, who are generally considered behind this curtain, are going to have to make a decision. Decisions on war, decisions on all kind of things of that type. So, this time, we have to say, "Don't try to get a linear extrapolation of what you think trends are in politics."

And finally: What am I doing? All right, is there any solution for the world, for this world economic situation? None of the present institutions can make it: The system is gone. The international financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. This is not a depression: This is a breakdown crisis. The rate of inflation rising at such a point, is a breakdown crisis.

Therefore, what I'm proposing, and you already have forces you have to look at: You have to look at China-Russia-India, as a bloc of countries, right now, which has a dominant position in influence in Asia.

Q: [ About Brazil].

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, Brazil is not as significant. The President's crazy—Lula.

But! Under this condition, now the people in the United States are going to have to make a decision: Are they going to save civilization, or not? Therefore, the only decision which can be made which will prevent a general disintegration of civilization, is the United States has to propose a new agreement with Russia, China, and India, and other countries, to create a new international monetary-financial system. In other words, you have to put the world in bankruptcy. There's no way of handling this existing financial system—none! Put it in bankruptcy, reorganize it. And you have to have a group of governments, a powerful group of governments, who will say, "We're going to go back to a New Bretton Woods."

Without the United States, you can't have them. The reason is, the United States' system, Constitution, allows us to create a Bretton Woods system, through treaty agreements, long-term treaty agreements, with that combination, and governments that would support them, like Japan and so forth—many governments would join immediately—with that, we can get out of this mess.

If we don't, if we've not will to do that, we can forget civilization for some time to come. But it's going to come from certain people in the background, who are going to decide they are going to unify, to support the United States going to Russia, China, and India, and say, "Let's take a bloc of four nations, bring other nations in, and change the system!"

Go back to Franklin Roosevelt: That's the only chance. It's a practical one, it's the only possible practical solution.

Back to top