Subscribe to EIR Online
This dialogue appears in the March 21, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Dialogue with LaRouche

This is a transcript of the question-and-answer session which followed Lyndon LaRouche's keynote address at his March 12, 2008 webcast. Mr. LaRouche's address was followed by a question-and-answer session. A video archive of the webcast is available. The full transcript is also available in a PDF version.

Debra Freeman: Thank you, Lyn.... The first question actually comes from somebody who is associated with writing policy for one of the Presidential campaigns. And the question is as follows:

"Mr. LaRouche, as you may be aware, Senator Clinton has refined her housing proposal to adopt policies that forcibly reduce the amounts of money owed by homeowners in the following ways:

  1. She wants to change the treatment of primary residences in bankruptcy proceedings.

  2. She has called for a blocking of any interest-rate resets.

  3. The blocking of foreclosures for a specified period of time: Initially she had said 90 days; she's extended that to 120 days.

  4. She is calling for legislation of mortgage write-downs, and finally, to allow current homeowners to stay on as renters.

"My question to you is this: Can this be done without the establishment of a separate and new Federal institution? It would seem very difficult for us to implement this within the framework of the current banking system."

Hillary Clinton and the HBPA

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, what she has proposed on these accounts, is all friendly to what is needed, that's clear; but, it won't work by itself. And therefore, what it omits is where the problem lies. You've got to realize—what is not mentioned in this thing is banks. You've got to realize, with the Carlyle Group collapse, and what that's going to mean for other institutions: We're going through a new ratchet, an expanded ratchet of a hyperinflationary collapse of the U.S. economy, and whole sectors and whole chunks of its institutions. I don't think the loss of the Carlyle Group is a great loss, in and of itself. It is not an essential institution of government. But, nonetheless, the losses of these institutions in a disorderly way is a threat. And therefore, postponing certain questions for the sake of compromise, is foolish. That's what politicians tend to do: They compromise. And they become compromised in the process of compromising altogether too much.

Without my measure, it won't work. Otherwise, the obvious intent, the specific intent of her other proposals, is a friendly one. I have no difference with those objectives, but it's not enough. And not enough is failure. We must, on the one hand, have blanket protection of the householder from being evicted. We must keep people in their homes. There may be exceptions here and there, but let's forget the exceptions for the moment. Let's look at the main job that we have to do. Because, if you collapse the industry, you collapse whole communities.

Now, on the other side, if you don't protect the banks, it's all worthless! You shut down the communities! Without the banking institutions in the communities, you're going to shut down entire communities. They can't produce. You have to protect the banks, as long as they're engaged in legitimate banking business, pre-Volcker and pre-Greenspan especially. So. therefore, you have to have bankruptcy protection for the banker at the same time, and in the same way, that you have bankruptcy protection for the householder. Therefore, now you have stabilized the community.

You don't put a time limit on it. What she says is fine in a sense, "Well, let's see if we can do it in 120 days." Well, it won't be enough, I can tell you. You'll never make it. You're talking about years. Look back at some of the experiences we had with Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Look, when I was in consulting, back in the 1950s and 1960s, I was running into cases of banks that were just then cleaning out some of their banking problems from the 1930s. That was long term. So therefore, you have to have a flexible view which is based on keeping the economy functioning, keeping it functioning structurally in all essential features. And whatever it takes, however long it takes, you're going to do it. That is, you don't like to fight long wars, but sometimes you have to fight one, sometimes on certain fronts, and this may be one of them.

Put the Federal Reserve into Bankruptcy

So, that's that. The Federal Reserve System is bankrupt. They don't like to say that, but it is. The Greenspan Federal Reserve System is hopelessly bankrupt. Now, what do we do about that? Well, the Federal Reserve System is a corporation created by the government. It is not a part of government; it is a corporation created by government. It's not a Constitutional institution—and it shouldn't be. It's simply a vehicle, a private interest, a private organization, created by the Federal government, by various acts called the Federal Reserve Acts—which are sometimes sexual acts—and this thing is bankrupt. What do we do? We put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy! And the government runs it, so there is no conflict. When the slave is working for the master, there's no conflict. The Federal Reserve System has to become the slave of the Federal government.

It is implicit law of our Constitution. The Federal currency is the property of the government. It is created by the consent of the House of Representatives, and created by the Federal government. The President of the United States is the President of the banking system, but the Secretary of the Treasury actually carries out the function. The House Banking Committee—not with the present incumbent leader in it—is responsible for sponsoring legislation to assist in defining the programs and purposes of utterance of currency. That's all we have to do.

But you have to have the guts. The problem here is, trying to make a reform of the kind that is required can not be done sneakily. Don't try to do some little sneaky thing which you think will do something good. You have to tell the American people what you're doing, what the reform is, why it is, how it's going to work, what their role is, and where they go and what they do about this thing. You have to get the participation of the population with consent in this policy. Therefore, putting the Federal Reserve System where it belongs, into bankruptcy receiver control of the Federal government, under the Treasury Department, is what's required, along with the other measures. But, you can not take halfway measures in a case like this. The whole system is coming down. You can not reform part of a broken-down car. You have to reform the whole thing.

LaRouche's Role in the SDI—vs. Cheney

Freeman: The next question comes from a Democratic member of the Senate, who has close ties—historic ties—to the military. His question is:

"Mr. LaRouche, I don't know if you are aware of it, but today Vice President Cheney has taken the occasion of the 25-year anniversary of the SDI to call for an anti-missile defense system. You are repeatedly identified as the intellectual author of the SDI. Is it the case that Cheney has finally come around to your point of view? Or, has your advocacy of an SDI changed?"

LaRouche: Brother Cheney has come around to the point of my spear! What he proposes has nothing to do with SDI. He's a liar! He lies all the time. Don't be surprised if he does it once again. He's also a degenerate, and he gets most of his degeneracy from his wife, who is the expert. She's the boss; he's the ugly dog out there, tethered on the front lawn. She owns him! She's a British intelligence asset; he's actually a British agent. In a sense, you could call him, in principle, a traitor to the United States. And he's a agent of Blair, has been most of the time.

Anyway, the SDI was a proposal concocted by me, devised between 1977 and 1979. It was a key feature of my Presidential nomination campaign, at that time.

Before Reagan was elected, I had met him briefly at one event in New Hampshire, and we had some fun together, by remote control and otherwise on certain things. See, he belongs to my generation, and when we got into people like George Bush, Sr., we'd say "Well, this clown." And I think, President Reagan always knew that George H.W. Bush was a clown. He's not as psychotic as his son is, but he was a clown nonetheless. He's not a very serious thinker.

So, what happened was, at that time—and it was stated later, in a famous trial testimony of a member of the National Security Council of an earlier time—that what I did is, I ran an operation: Something came through the intelligence community to me, certain questions on how to try to deal with Soviet relations. So, I responded to this on the assumption that I was simply delivering a recommendation to those people in the intelligence community, as to what I thought they should do with the Soviet Union. They came back to me and said, "Well, will you undertake doing this probe?" And I said, "yes," so I was sort of sworn in, and became somebody doing that. Then, when Reagan became President, my function in doing this was taken over, under the supervision of the head of the National Security Council. So, I ran an operation from that period, especially 1982 through 1983, on behalf of the Reagan Administration. And what the President proposed on March 23, 1983, was exactly what I had proposed. What he was doing, and the reason he did it that way, was confirming to the Soviet government publicly, what I had told the Soviet government through the back-channel organization that I was doing for the U.S. government, at that time. And that was the SDI.

The purpose was—as in my address of Oct. 12, 1988, in Berlin, when I forecast the immediate collapse of the Comecon sector, beginning with Poland—for the immediate future, and what I recommended for the U.S. dealing with the Soviet Union under a chain-reaction collapse of the type I had anticipated (which happened). So, the purpose of this, was never a system for fighting war. It was a system for preventing war. And what you do is: Sometimes, you get in a situation where you have an adversarial relationship between states in history, and you don't want a war. Well, you can't settle the peace questions all at once. You sometimes have to take concrete steps toward coming to a cooperation on certain secondary things, which will lead toward cooperation on more fundamental things, by experience. Sometimes it's called building trust; sometimes I would call it building new habits.

Now, the way this thing started, was: the advent of the Carter Administration, whose policies I denounced before Carter was elected, as leading toward a threatened thermonuclear confrontation, accelerating the threat. My view was, let's get this under control. Because thermonuclear weapons are not the infallible weapons of all future. They have a certain power, now, as long as you give them that power. But we have technologies we could develop, or which we have the technologies to develop, by which we could outclass significantly any ballistic missile attack. We were not at that time, and we're not now, able to eliminate all attacking missiles. But, we could insure the survival of a nation under an attack, which would mean that this would be just another big problem nobody would want.

So, the idea that you can not have a complete victory by a preventive or preemptive thermonuclear attack, was the objective we were working against. And the idea was, we would work for two purposes: One, to take these technologies which we knew from a scientific standpoint existed, and to develop them. Number two, to use this vehicle as a way of promoting technologies which would increase the productive powers of labor in each of these countries. And I was involved in a number of technologies to be developed for this purpose. And the idea was, the Soviet Union would cooperate with us, in giving us what they knew, or were doing, on certain technologies. We would share that with them. We would jointly develop things that neither of us could develop alone. And by this, we would create a system to outflank the threat. Because once we enter into cooperation, and get away from this ultimatistic confrontation, we had a chance of negotiating something out of this.

See, the point is: The idea of war being fought permanently, for the annihilation of some designated enemy, is the greatest piece of stupidity you can imagine. You have to live on this planet with other people. You can never declare a war of annihilation, or virtual annihilation against another people or a nation. That is not moral, and it will not work; it will backfire. You must find a way of bringing about cooperation among nations, and making it more attractive than killing each other. You have to do that sometimes with the willingness to defend yourself in the process of trying to effect that result. But you're looking for peace, not for war! If you fight war, it's to try to preserve the possibility of peace; it is not to perpetuate war.

Now Reagan, in a sense, with all his fluctuations, up to the time of 1986, agreed with that, and probably agreed with that beyond that time. Gorbachov hated my guts on this question, and I had a lot of problems with Gorbachov, and still do—he still hates my guts on this issue. But, that was the issue.

So, there's nothing in Cheney, for whom I have absolute contempt. He's just an evil thug; he's not really a human being in any functional sense. And he's trying to get us into another war, again: an Iran war right now. That's what the Admiral Fallon resignation imports. So, therefore, there is no connection, no similarity whatsoever between me and Cheney. Cheney—I would like to lock him up with his wife, and let the two make each other suffer.

Defend the Dollar with Real Infrastructure

Freeman: I think the good Senator knew that, but he wanted you to go on record. Before I ask the next question, someone has submitted a quote that they thought might be fitting for today's situation. It's a quote by John Milton. And since before I became the world's leading expert on bed-wetting, I actually did my thesis on John Milton, I thought I'd read it. The quote is: "You, therefore, who wish to remain free, either instantly be wise or as soon as possible, cease to be fools. If you think slavery an intolerable evil, then learn obedience to right reason, and the rule of yourselves." So, whoever dug that up, I think did a good job.

The next question comes from a group over at the Hamilton Group, which is apparently listening to the webcast. And they say, "Mr. LaRouche, as you speak, we are grappling with the issue of economic stimulus versus fiscal stimulus. In this context, could you please address the question of a strong dollar? How would you defend the dollar in this framework?"

LaRouche: Well, I would defend it by the means I've already indicated, but there are some other specific things we'd do. For example, we do need some real infrastructure. You won't get it from that traitor; you'll get it from me, and you'll get it from other people who agree with me. We do need to replace the automobile—our dependency on it, and our dependency on heavy trucks, on highways they destroy—by mass transit, which is largely, improved forms of rail or magnetic levitation. We do need large-scale operations of fresh water. We do need an operation to rebuild the Ogallala Aquifer, which I've been pushing for for some years Figure 1. We do need a massive program of high-energy-flux density production of power and its application through nuclear power. We need that now.

We need other things. For example, we do need a new health-care system. The present one is a mass-murderous, evil system, and most people know it, who deal with health care. This means institutions have to be rebuilt; it means other things of that sort. We have to have a Federal system of guaranteed health care production, not this collection of thieving, which is called private health-care programs. We can have private health care, but it has to be protected by the Federal government, so that everybody is guaranteed access to health care. And keep it simple: Don't make it complicated! Keep it simple, with good administrators working within institutions, which are constantly improved to make the thing work. Flexible. No more of these long-term contracts, which are largely fraudulent because they got reinterpreted anyway.

The main thing is these kinds of things.

I could also talk about education. Our education system stinks! We never have had such a bad educational system probably in U.S. history. We have teaching at people, not actually the development of the mental powers. We're running with the youth group, an expanding program of fundamental science research. And I'm telling you, our people are doing it. They're doing work on a graduate level, which is superior to what's being taught in universities today.

We have some cases of that, in a case of a scandal involving NASA. Our work on Kepler was good, sound. As a matter of fact, it contained work that had never been done before in that way; the best educational program in that, that ever existed. And some guys up at Harvard produced an attempt to fraudulently copy that, and failed. They produced a piece of crap. They could not do the calculations. And therefore what they did was, they took our work, and by pencil drawing, tried to copy our findings on how this worked. And in the end, they had no understanding of what Kepler discovered. They don't know what gravitation is. They wrote a whole book about this thing, apparently, which is fraudulent, about the principle of gravitation, and how it works. They laid everything out there, about as well as anybody could, and they don't even know what gravitation is.

So, that's typical of what goes on in educational institutions today. We do have to think about educating, not on performance—we're not training seals to perform and bark in a certain way. We're trying to develop human beings who will have independent capability of creative thinking. We want to stimulate that creativity; you don't want to program them. You want to eliminate programmed learning, and anything like that. You want to eliminate achievement scores and education based on that.

So, there are plenty of things that are needed: Mass transportation, health care, water management, power development. These are the primary drivers of an economy. These are areas which you can generate rapidly.

For example, we want to recapture as soon as possible, the lost engineering potential of the automobile industry. We want to get these guys back to work. We want to use these cadres as a way of assembling people for large-scale construction types of work, like building railway systems, building canal systems, building water management systems in general, building power systems. And these guys could do it. We could have done it in 2006. Take this whole chunk of the auto industry we've shut down, and instead of throwing it away, employ the same people in the same places to do contracts on this kind of work. And they could have done it. They did it in World War II! That's how we won World War II. Just put these guys back to doing that kind of work. We have to recapture the skills we have as rapidly as possible, for high-technology, capital-intensive results in infrastructure. And that will be a driver, and it will work just the way Franklin Roosevelt's program worked. It will be a different program—the same thing, same purpose.

Is Obama Being Used?

Freeman: A number of people who are supporters of Barack Obama have submitted very upset questions, and in some cases, not questions but comments, which I will not read. But just to let you know, I got the message.

There was a question that was submitted by a member of the Black Congressional Caucus, who says, "Mr. LaRouche, do you actually believe that Barack Obama is a fascist, or is he just being used? Isn't it possible that he's smarter than those who think they're using him, and that he's really using them?"

LaRouche: Unfortunately, he's not smarter. I don't think he's a fascist, I think he's a bit of a dummy. He's a guy who has his own particular slick way of getting around in life, but he has not made one single, substantive proposal on program, in a nation which is breaking down, not a single, substantive proposal that's a workable proposal. Now, Hillary has. I don't think she's done enough. I don't think anybody's done enough. But the point was, Obama is being used. He was being built up, by people I know who built him up. They deployed him, and they plan to destroy him. They're using him like a piece of toilet paper, attractive to the man sitting there, who's in desperation and in need of some service. Then they plan to flush him after that.

That's the fact. And these guys have got to realize that. Obama is a fake, not because he's a concocter of evil, but because he's being used. And he hasn't got a damned idea at all about what's happening to him! Every sign is he's completely confused. He knows something is going wrong. He has no idea what it is, because he refuses to realize that what he's running is a nothing campaign. He could not qualify as President of the United States in performance. He's done nothing to establish any indication that he has competence in that. He has not mentioned one single step of program, which would actually work, which is relevant to what the people of the United States need! That's lousy: He's saying "Wait for me! I'm the miracle man. Superman! I'll come flying in! And I'll do miracles. I'm the man of Krypton!"

This is a great sucker game. And if you look at the history of the United States, the political history of the United States, this is typical of the butter-and-eggs campaign, in the time of the Depression. This is a Ponzi scheme. Similar kinds of schemes. The guy has not got a single conception of how the U.S. economy works. He has a sophist conception of what law is, by using law in a way, in which everybody can interpret the words, but nobody agrees on the meaning.

On Governor Spitzer: 'Check Everybody's Closet'

Freeman: This particular question comes from someone who holds statewide office in New York, but it's similar to a number of questions that have come in: "Mr. LaRouche, can you please comment on the targetting of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer?"

LaRouche: I think, as I know politics, and I know people, and I know business: I don't think that there are many politicians in this country, who have achieved relatively high office, who aren't keeping herds of pigs in their closets. I don't think that organized-crime allows anybody to become their boy, without getting them to commit something they can use against them when they want to in the future. That's the way it works. I think that some people don't trust anybody, to promote them, unless they've got something on them, beforehand, to control them, to threaten them. I would say, "check everybody's closet."

Now, when you look at it that way, as I look at it because I have some experience in these matters—I've experienced some very nasty frauds and know how they're struck, when the Federal Department of Justice and others create them, in the name of justice. When you look at that, you say, "Why would they come up with something out of the Hell-box, at this time, and to what end?" Well, he had just confirmed an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which he had made in a sense earlier, but he'd been pressured to withdraw that and change it. And when he refused to, a couple of days later—Boom!—what happened? Gee whiz! They had something on him, in the Hell-box, and they brought it forward, and said, "Git, git! And the next guy who refuses to take our orders better learn the lesson."

You should ask, who's the next target?

I don't think Spitzer has any particular claim on anything of that sort. I think the number of sex freaks in the Congress probably vastly outnumbers—I mean, this is not real! When people fall for this thing, say, "Okay, when did these guys know about this? They got this woman in the closet, huh? They got a number for her, Number something or other. How long did they have that number? Was it somebody in the Department of Justice, of the Bush Department of Justice? Was it somebody else? Why would they have this? Why did they rush to get this into the press now? Why didn't they report it when they had the information? Why did they wait?" So therefore, maybe the people you ought to convict, are the people who sprang this scandal.

Not that I recommend doing that kind of thing. It's not a nice thing to do, particularly if you're on the public till, because it impinges on your reputation. But! I know politics. I don't know how many other politicians in this country could escape some similar kind of problem. Why? Because that's the system. Not only organized crime, but intelligence services and others, as I know first hand: Before they promote somebody, they make them "trustworthy," by compiling evidence which could hang them any time they get out of line. That's the way politics works. So, I would say, let's open all the closets! Say: "If you've got something you think you ought to confess, confess now! Let's all get out there and have this confessional. A good old-time revival meeting, let's everybody confess! Let's have an official agency to register confessions!"

Therefore, when you get a scandal like this, you can assess the situation based on what's going on in society. Well, what I know, this society is immensely corrupt, and people in power are the most likely targets to be entrapped into something which can be interpreted as corruption. We don't have the kind of system that's an honest system, and we have to think about things that way.

The first thing I would say is, I want an inquiry. Okay, Spitzer was called forward. I want to know, on what date did you have this information? Who did you get it from, and on what date? Then ask him: Okay, you passed this information on? Yes. When did you have it? Or, why did you all come forward now, at this particular moment, when he had just confirmed an endorsement of Hillary Clinton? You got the New York Times, and all of these people are out there saying, "Ooohh! He's a terrible man, a terrible man." I don't think he's a terrible man. I think he's a typical politician. There are very few exceptions to that, I tell you.

Corporatism: A Self-Destructive Policy Sold to Sophists

Freeman: Another question from someone associated with a Presidential campaign: "Mr. LaRouche, on the threat of fascism, you've identified corporativism as the framework by which modern fascism was first introduced to Europe by Mussolini. In its early stages, it seems that this was a seductive idea, so much so that history books report that even FDR flirted with it. And, on the face of it, for many today, the policies that are being proposed seem reasonable. I know you addressed this in the main body of your remarks, but could you please talk a little bit more about what specifically corporativism is, and how it differs from what we know as the American System. Because I am well aware of the fact that many of my well-meaning colleagues are being sucked into what are essentially corporativist models."

LaRouche: Well, first of all, let's take the case of Ed Rendell in Pennsylvania, the Governor. I don't think Ed Rendell has the brains to know what's happening to him, frankly. I don't think he's a stupid person, but I think on economics and politics, this guy is really not very much there. I don't think Schwarzenegger—or "Schwezenezzer," or whatever—really has any intelligence. He knows he's "coming," but that's all.

But, Mayor Bloomberg: Now, Mayor Bloomberg, on his own performance and record, is one of the most massive pieces of corruption I know of today, as any individual. A guy asked, challenged him, "Well, you have $11 billion." "No, I have $40 billion!" Nobody in this country or this world has earned $40 billion in their lifetime! It's impossible. And I want to know what this great achievement is? What did he do? Did he invent God, or something?

So, the point is, a lot of these guys are dummies, and they wish to be dummies. The American people—especially the age-group between about 50-65, active age-group, of the white-collar variety—have become sophists in the sense of Ancient Greece under Pericles that went down to Hell, in the Peloponnesian War. They're stupid! Why are they stupid? Because they're opportunist. They don't think about the truth: They think about their appearance. They're Baby Boomers, they think about getting ahead. They're the people who spit upon, who rejected the blue-collar worker, rejected the farmer, rejected science, physical science. They rejected nuclear power.

They rejected technologies which are necessary. And they said, "Well, you've got to be practical. You got to be practical! Look, people need jobs, right? Well, this will give people some jobs." "Doing what? Collecting?" Collecting fees on property which was created by the government—Federal, state, or local—which is now leased to some corporate shark, who is given the power to set any rate they wish to on the tariff, on the price of walking down that street, that the government created.

Now, anyone who doesn't understand that, is not qualified to govern! Of if they're going to be qualified, you've got to take them back to a school quickly, and teach them how to govern. They don't know what they're doing.

See, we've gone from science to sociology, and very bad sociology at that. You're looking for consent. You are a nation of sophists. Our politicians are elected for their powers of sophistry, or to perceive what the current sophistry is. They don't really think about reality. They don't think about this. I mean, they don't think about what it is to take a highway, which was built by public funds, which people have to travel on to get to and from work, to do their job. Now you put a tariff on there. You put a toll gate on either end of this section of highway, and you collect the toll. What the Hell have you done? What have you invested in? You've invested in creating a toll-gate! And maybe you will make a few repairs, from time to time along the way. But the basic thing is, you're in to make a profit! And a profit is what you didn't earn, in these cases. So you say, "Yes, but that gives jobs!" But it robs jobs! It robs the lives of people!

And the problem is, as long as people get the idea of this fragmented, Cartesian way of thinking, and don't think of the consequences, don't look for the global consequences of the decision they're supporting, and don't see the real consequences—just say, "Well, this would be good, wouldn't it? How can you argue against that? It'd do some good, wouldn't it?"

But the policy will destroy the country. "I'm just a practical man. Don't ask me about that! I don't know about the good of the country. I do know this will do some good." Idiot! And if you elect such people, you deserve what you get.

Keynes's British Empire vs. FDR

Freeman: I'm going to start grouping questions together, because we're getting a lot of questions, especially from institutions, that are very similar. We've gotten several questions on the subject of Rohatyn, FDR, and John Maynard Keynes. Let's put it this way: "Felix Rohatyn openly refers to himself as a follower of John Maynard Keynes. He recently tried to reverse his previous public hostility to FDR, by saying that he supported the New Deal. However, there are obviously issues at hand here. One can not have it both ways. But there are many ill-informed or, in some cases, lying authorities, who would insist that FDR and his Bretton Woods system were essentially Keynesian. Could you please address this?"

LaRouche: That's because people don't know their history. And there are some people in Europe who, of course, came into adult life after World War II, who don't know their history on this thing, even people I respect as economists, otherwise.

What happened is, Roosevelt convened the Bretton Woods session under his authority in 1944. In the course of the proceedings, John Maynard Keynes made a proposal. Keynes—and leading British economists—had also endorsed fascism in 1938—in a book he wrote, part of the first edition of his General Theory. And so, Keynes made a proposal. Now, Roosevelt had not intended what Keynes meant. Roosevelt himself had not supported Keynes. Roosevelt was explicit during the war that, "When the war is over, Winston"—speaking to Churchill—"the British Empire is going to end."

Now, Keynes's system is based upon the British Empire, in terms of system. Keynes was a fascist. That's his background, as he said in the German edition, which is the first edition of his General Theory, published in 1938 in Berlin. He said he preferred to have his book published in Germany, at that time, because it would have a better reception and be more applicable in Nazi Germany, than it would be in a democratic country. And he was right.

Well, what happened is this: When Roosevelt died, Truman came in and Truman was a pig. Now the crucial issue was this: Roosevelt's policy was: "Winston, when this war ends, we're not going to have a British Empire. We're going to free these people, and we're going to help them develop and have their own independent governments." And Roosevelt had some very specific proposals he made, as at Morocco, on this particular question, and all through the war.

Now, I come out of this tradition, by various channels of the pro-Roosevelt period, who, like General Donovan, the head of OSS, and others, were devoted to this intention of a post-war period, as Roosevelt defined it. And when Roosevelt was dying, while in office, shortly after his Fourth Inauguration, Donovan went into the office to meet with the President, and came out gray-faced, saying to a friend of mine, who was with him at the time: "It's over. It's over." Which meant that Roosevelt's program for the post-war period, which had been the central driving force of all the real patriots of the United States, who understood this at that time, was ended, and the British were taking over.

Truman Re-established Colonialism

What happened is that Truman adopted the British policy of not encouraging liberation of the colonies, but of re-establishing colonialism. And that's exactly what Truman did. Now, under these conditions, the intention of the formation of the United Nations and the intention of the Bretton Woods System, were subverted, because the intention had been to free colonial nations, by large-scale infrastructure projects and other things of development of these nations, and to protect them while they emerged from colonial status into sovereign nation-state status. Once that was done—remember the policy was, at the end of the war, Roosevelt's intention was to convert the greatest economic machine ever developed for war, and convert that into a large-scale infrastructure and development program for the included purpose of freeing colonized nations and peoples, for independent nation-state status. Under these conditions, therefore, the purpose of the Bretton Woods System was subverted under Truman. No longer was it freedom, but if you recall from the period—at least from studying the period, since most of you are younger—you'll remember all the pro-colonial wars which the United States supported, as in Indo-China, as in Indonesia, and elsewhere, as in Africa, where they ran a dirty policy which is still running today. U.S. policy toward Africa stinks! It's murderous, deliberately so! Under Nixon, it got worse. It's colonialist. So therefore, Roosevelt's purpose for the Bretton Woods System was not carried out.

Under these conditions, where the British were taking more and more of a controlling role over the Anglo-American policy in the post-war period, the policies tended to go in the direction of Keynes's speech in 1944. So Roosevelt's intention was not Keynesian. But the British intention and Truman's intention, was. And that's what we've inherited.

Have we done anything, really done anything, to eliminate colonialism, except to found neo-colonialism? What's our policy toward Africa? What's our alignment, when we come up against the British on the question of Africa? What's the policy of the United States, respecting British policy toward Zimbabwe, for example? Or other nations? What is the policy of the United States with respect to what happened at the Lisbon Conference on the question of Africa? The United States is the enemy of black Africa. The United States is the enemy of anti-colonialism, because we believe in the free-trade, free market system, free to steal and free to trade in people. Free to trade in governments. So what's the standard for government? "We don't approve of you because the British don't like you. We don't approve of your government because it doesn't support our policies." This is our problem.

That's what's really involved with the Keynes issue. Keynes's policy was based on a feature of central banking, which he explained generally in all his works on this. It's no mystery. He's a central banker, in a central banking system which is opposite in purpose and effect to what even the Federal Reserve System was conceived to be, and certainly what the U.S. Constitution conceived to be as an economic policy. So that's the issue.

Africa Needs Technology and Infrastructure

Freeman: After this question, I'm going to start mixing up some of the institutional questions with some questions of people, who are here in our live audience, so if you have questions, this is the time to identify yourself.

The next question comes from someone from Zimbabwe. Before I ask this question, though, I'd like to extend greetings to groups that are gathered on the continent, in both South Africa and Tanzania, who are listening to this webcast. This question, as I said, is from someone in Zimbabwe, who's not in Zimbabwe at this time. The question is: "Dear sir, I write to you as a Zimbabwean living abroad, who due to circumstances beyond my control, will be unable to take part in the upcoming Presidential elections in my country, which I would otherwise do. I would greatly appreciate your view on the current situation in Zimbabwe, and the upcoming elections, within the international political and economic sphere. I would also appreciate your views with regard to Africa as a whole, and how the current perilous state of the world political and economic system will impact my already extremely vulnerable continent."

LaRouche: Well, first of all, you've got to get a change in the world system, because otherwise, nothing you propose will work; nothing you'd want to propose would work. The problem with Africa—take sub-Saharan Africa as a specific, but it's not limited to there. Take sub-Saharan Africa as such: What's the problem? Well, on the best side, the indigenous African population has a very large component of relatively skilled agricultural workers, farmers, and so forth. The problem is that because we're working in a country which is largely a tropical or semi-tropical region, if you grow crops, you have to protect them, because the things that could destroy those crops are running very wildly around these areas. Therefore, first of all, you have to develop the crop, protect the seeds, protect the conditions under which the crop is grown. You also have to protect the crop, when it's growing. You have to protect the crop when it's harvested, because the bugs and other things will get it. You have to transport the thing so it doesn't rot in the course of transportation.

So what happens is: Africa has the largest single agricultural area—it's a garden, virtually—but a very small portion of its growth potential, product potential, actually is delivered to be consumed by Africans, or others. And then when you take what it is shipped out of Africa: You know, British-run Zimbabwe is run still as "northern Rhodesia," in which English and related farmers are given all kinds of protection, to grow crops which are shipped to feed the people in London. The useless parasites in London, why do they feed them? And the African farmer in Zimbabwe is prevented from access to those measures, which are necessary to make the African farmer in Zimbabwe comparable, in terms of what he can do—because he can do it too, there.

So, then the basic problem comes down to technology—technology and infrastructure. Well, first of all, you need communities in the agricultural areas which are going to supply the technology to the farmers, like what we used to do with the agricultural extension programs in the United States. You're going to have to do things about developing special treatment for the specific conditions of Africa to protect the growing crops. You have to protect the harvested crops. You have to have stations in which you can package, let's say, grains—package it in such a way that you use radioactivity as a way of neutralizing the diseases which get into a crop. Now, by that measure, you can increase the amount of food, net produced for consumption in Africa. To do this, means you've got to develop a high-speed railway system, a network that works. You've got to improve water works. You've got to control the pollution of various kinds in the streams. They've got streams that are full of very active and aggressive forms of life, and therefore you have to protect it.

The basic thing is, Africa needs the infrastructure to enable it to produce enough food for its own people. The policy of the United States, since the 1970s—the middle of the 1970s—has been, don't let it happen. Because, they say, the natural materials of Africa belong to us! The present population of Africa is already consuming too much of those raw materials, which we want to save for the future, for us. Besides, the population is already too large. We have to reduce it! How? By "natural methods." Natural methods: disruption, wars, other means.

It needs power. The ideal power for Africa is basically nuclear power. South Africa, if supported, has some nuclear reactors and nuclear reactor programs which are quite adequate for much of Africa. This is needed for Africa. It gives you the cheap power and the capability, flexibility, for doing many things. So therefore, if we wished to help the African, we could do it; the programs exist. But it is specifically those measures which will be needed to meet the needs of the African, which are prohibited under present U.S. policy. The U.S. taking its orders from the British Empire, better called the Brutish Empire.

Bankruptcy: To Protect the Human Being

Freeman: I said I was going to start mixing things up, and I am, because I need time to organize all these questions. From the audience here, John Ascher had a question.

John Ascher: Lyn, your discussion of the petrodollar and the Eurodollar reminded me, brought up the question to me, of the transition in the period of getting a New Bretton Woods: which is that, when Roosevelt first came to power, he had to deal with the collapse of the gold standard, the fact that the dollar was under massive attack. He took steps, actually went really to war against the speculators. And I'm just wondering, what's going to have to be the transition here, out away from this Eurodollar/petrodollar system, in terms of bringing in the HBPA and New Bretton Woods. What are we going to do about this monstrosity that exists around the planet in terms of these dollars sloshing around? I remember what you said years ago about all the drug money out there, and what would be done to kind of force people to account for a lot of those dollars. So, I'm curious if there's anything beyond the two-tier proposal and the other things you've outlined that are going to have to be done in the kind of transitional period?

LaRouche: Well, see, John, I used to be a consultant, and I lived in an environment of consultants, and was involved not only in the things I was involved in directly, but involved in looking at what other people in consulting were up against. And naturally, if you're a consultant, you tend to be called in when you're dealing with a potential bankruptcy, or an actual bankruptcy. So, a lot of my best experiences, or most enlightening experiences—outside of technology—have been how to deal with bankruptcies. And very few people have the trained guts to deal with an actual bankruptcy. It doesn't bother me. It confuses other people.

What you do is, exactly as I have proposed. You look at the situation, as you would look at a company that has gone into bankruptcy, and you say, "Well, this thing has got to survive; we've got to keep this thing alive. It's needed for the community, it's useful, it has a lot of potential. Mistakes were made, oversights occurred. We've got to rebuild this thing." So, you're going to negotiate, hardball, with the creditors and others, and I'm used to that. I used to enjoy that. So, what you do then, is you simply get the creditors hardball, say: "Well, if you guys try to move in on this, you're going to get nothing on the dollar." That's my first point. They growl and snarl a bit, and so forth. And I say, "I don't care how much you snarl and growl, that's the situation. You're not going to get anything out of this, unless you go along with this. This thing can be rebuilt; you can salvage something out of the whole mess. Isn't that better than nothing?" And you start from there.

Now, we're in that kind of situation for the U.S. economy. And, for example, you've got these golden parachutes. Ha-ha-ha! There's no honor in that piece of thievery, and so forth. So therefore, what you start with, what you should start with, is the people. And you start with ordinary people, human beings, because the individual human being is the most important thing. Because the human being is sovereign: That is, the human being has creative powers which exist only in the sovereign human being. It's what makes him a human being, as opposed to being an animal.

So, the first thing you're out to do, is to defend the human being as a human being. You know, he's in a community, or he's in a firm in a community. You want to defend that, if you can. So you protect that, number one. In order to make that work, you've got to think about the community in which this is going to happen. Then, you've got to think about the enterprise you're dealing with, and what is actually required. What are the elements that are actually required to make this thing successful again? And that's what you do. What about the things that don't fit those categories? Well, let me tell you—we've got to talk about this. And that's exactly the way you do it. Most of the claims against the dollar will never be honored. If they try to get them honored now, they will get nothing in the end. If they're willing to go along with a settlement, which lets everybody live, they can do quite nicely. They may not like it, but it's the only real option they have.

Now this is why government comes in. Who's the best arguer on these things? Who's the best litigant on these kinds of things? Government! The power of sovereign government is the only instrument that can sort out a mess like this. So therefore, we're going to put these guys through bankruptcy. And most of these guys—like Mayor Bloomberg! Never earned a nickel in his life, and he's got $40 billion! And he wants to steal more. He's got no case with me. He's going to give; he's not going to take, as far as I'm concerned.

So that's the point. It is harsh, a national bankruptcy, when you know you've got out there, implicitly, claims in the order of magnitude of hundreds of trillions of dollars, and you look at the actual national product of each and all combined nations of the world today, in terms of physical product. How are you going to pay off those quadrillions? You're not going to pay those quadrillions off. How did you pay off the reichsmarks, or the marks in 1923? You're never going to pay them off! We are now in a hyperinflationary explosion. The U.S. dollar, if you have it on a free market, is implicitly worth almost nothing. It's essentially wiped out. You're just waiting for the executioner to come along, and do the job of taking the head off.

So therefore, before that happens, you have to organize the thing and say, "Okay, nobody's going to take an average cut on this thing. We're going to decide what will survive, and what will not." First of all, people must survive; that's your first standard. Secondly, the most productive features of society, which are essential to society, must survive. Everything else is up for grabs.

Hillary Is Not a Fascist

Freeman: We got a note from one of the writers from over at Truthout, which is a website, saying that they just posted a piece on the fact that Governor Spitzer was in the process of launching a significant initiative against predatory lending. And the author suggests that this may, in fact, also be involved in the targetting of him. So, we will in fact take a look at that, and we thank you for calling that to our attention.

The next question is from a Democratic staffer on a House Committee. And he says: "Mr. LaRouche, do you think that if Hillary Clinton were elected, that this would mean that fascism could not be imposed?"

LaRouche: Well, in a case like that, if she were elected, she would have my full support and assistance in dealing with just that problem. She's not a fascist. Hillary's not that. She doesn't fit the profile. Other people do, they fit the profile of people who would go along with it, like many Germans did. They weren't fascists, they just went along with it. They pretended they couldn't see the smokestacks, that's all. So, you have people who don't want to see the smokestacks of fascism.

But Hillary is not a fascist. I, at this stage, can read her from a distance very well—not in every respect, but I have clear sense of what her character is, including the things that I have found are not the best or most useful in her, and things that are the most useful. She is essentially an honest person. She also is an honest person who is trying to adapt to a society, which puts a premium on opportunism. And that is a problem these days. I think there are very few people in society, especially in politics, who are not victims of a large dose of opportunism, which they think is the only way to get ahead in this operation. She has shown that in a sense; her whole campaign at one point, on the emphasis on feminism, was opportunism. She was not thinking about the country as such, even though she was, in one sense. She was thinking about the cause of having a woman President, and the changes in society that implied. But that's running away from the real issue. If you want women to have a better status in life, why not think of them as human beings? And there are still a lot of people who are not capable of doing that, even women, in terms of practice.

So then you start to think about what is needed. What is the action by government, which is going to set a standard which raises the level of the condition of people, including women? What's your mission for the future of humanity? We live in a society, that pretends it's very religious, and I think sometimes stupidity is mistaken for a religion. But, they don't believe in the immortality of man, not in any meaningful sense. You go to some kind of a magic place, you go to some other department and get treated nicely, or you get cured of your old age, or something. But the human being, as I keep emphasizing to people, is essentially immortal, as no animal is. And a human being who is qualified to lead human beings, is one who has a sense of immortality, in that sense.

The sense is, what do you do for humanity? What does your life mean for humanity in times to come? What will be immortal about what you have done with your life, in terms of the future of humanity? And it's only the people who think like that who are capable of responding to a crisis of the type, now. I think Hillary's capable of that; I think Bill in a sense, is also capable of that. I think that's his underlying, bottom-line morality. I think in the short term, he's very capable of being an opportunist, as Hillary was. But I think they would reject the idea of becoming anything other than that. They would object to the idea of not looking at what your life is doing for humanity after you're dead. They would reject anything like that.

I mean, for example: Parents used to think about their daughters like that. Chelsea is probably treated that way by Hillary and by Bill. That's their future, and they will look at their daughter, and look at what their daughter's life is before her, and look at that as an expression of the future of humanity, an expression of the outgrowth of their own lives and mission in life. That's the way it has to be looked at. And I think she does have that quality. I don't think it's perfected, but so what? I can't find many people in whom it is.

The Dangerous Miseducation of Youth

Freeman: Another question that's been submitted by one of the directors of one of the Presidential campaigns: "Mr. LaRouche, you repeatedly refer to your Youth Movement, and the role that they're playing in forwarding your political agenda. And I think we are all very familiar with them here in Washington. Yet, in what would seem to be something of an anomaly, those under the age of 22 or 23, are voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Please explain this, because it would seem to me to be a contradiction in terms, and it disturbs me."

LaRouche: Well, this is like the question of education. Don't blame the young people for their own mistakes. Blame the people who are educating them, or influencing the way they think. For example, in the age-group between 25 and 35, I find the highest degree of relative achievement in morality and otherwise. In the generation, for example, 14 to 18, I find the greatest propensity for creating terrorists in the United States today, from among those who play too much on video games. They're the most susceptible. Around the world, it seems to be that 14 to 18 is the age interval which is most likely to produce the greatest number of usable terrorists, who can be deployed by the companies which run the games—which is how it works.

You're on the games, you're 14 to 18, you're an adolescent—you're not a young adult, you're an adolescent. The company who creates the game is running the game, while you're playing it. The company that runs the game is keeping a record of your play, and your identity every time you play it. The company that runs the game, is orchestrating the game to affect you, to give you frustrations and to read your reactions. The company that runs the game now has a tally, through the aid of psychologists and sociologists, to determine which kid is likely to be ready to be sent out to commit a shoot-and-die operation.

Look at the attention span of the young people between 14 and 18, and 18 and 20, and 22, 23. Look at them. What's their concentration span? How long is the sentence they can keep their attention on? Is it ten words? Is it five words? Or two: "I want"?

Therefore, we have built up a terrorist potential inside the United States, which is comparable to what people experience in the Islamic-centered and related parts of the world. There, it's done one way. Here, it's done with video games. Here and in Europe, it's done largely with video games. The video game players are the greatest source of mass terrorist action, comparable to mass terrorist action you're seeing in Southwest Asia. Their attention span is very short.

Now, you get a little older, and you think about what does this mean? What about somebody who is between 25 and 35 years of age? What's different? Well, they became adult, in the course of the period between two terms of office of George W. Bush. What happened in that period? What happened to life opportunity? Think of the economic circumstances of life. Think of the expectation; think of what happens in universities; think of what's happening in high schools.

Do you realize that while you're sitting there, thinking of the way that society is going, society is going to Hell, and you're not doing a damn thing about it? Then you want to blame the 14- to 18-year old kid who's the prospective mass killer, who will go out and kill 22 people and then shoot himself, at the sign "Game Over." You're producing him! Why? Because you're tolerating George W. Bush, and what he represents! So, you're allowing—with your mass education, with your mass entertainment, with your programs—you're taking the younger part of the youth generation, the adolescent, and the younger adults, and you're destroying them by the kind of cultural environment you're creating around them. And to some degree, you're deliberately orchestrating it.

And the other thing is, you have insulated them against any sensitivity of reality. The basic character of these kids, is they're not in the real universe! The basic character of MySpace and Facebook, is that people who are conditioned to that, are no longer in the real universe! They're in an artificial universe! They're not in real space, they're in electronic space. They're making up identities; they're telling lies, and sharing their lies. They're arguing in a way that has no cognitive content. They're acting like mice in a cage, an experimental cage; of course they are.

What we're depending upon in this organization, in the LYM: We are depending on a certain selection of young people, especially concentrated in the 25- to 35-year age bracket. Young people who have problems which they experience—social, cultural problems, psychological problems, which are produced by their society. But, within that age group, we find a scientific capability among these people, which exceeds that of the typical university graduate today. And we program it, in the sense that we have these task orientations. We have the task orientation on the fundamentals of science, from the ancient Greek Pythagoreans on, through the work of people like Riemann, Einstein, Vernadsky, and so forth. Because if you have that orientation and seriously—you really understand that, you're really able to get the concepts (as opposed to a blab response that passes the test or something, a smart answer on the test), but really know it—then you have the intellectual character and confidence and sense of identity which is needed to get some of the sophistry out of the older generation of this society.

You will find that young people in this category, this special category, have two qualifications: age group, which is an advantage, and being a part of that age group which is oriented toward science in a real sense; not how to pass a course, but how to make discoveries—the discoveries like the historic ones. Then you have a factor, which is the only factor we have, the best factor we have, of leading the society out of the garbage pail in which it is now dwelling.

An Alliance to Rebuild the World

Freeman: This next question is from the audience. It's from Alli Perebikovsky, regarding the proposed Four Power Agreement between Russia, China, India, and the United States. The question is: "What is the historic and cultural background of these nations? Specifically, what is it that allows them to be the best combination to change the current world system?"

LaRouche: Simple—it's me! What do I represent, and what do these nations see in what I represent? I found in China, that the current government of China is concerned about issues which I'm concerned about for China, and for us. I'm concerned about the long-term cooperation between China and the United States in particular. I'm a long-standing advocate of India, since I had served in military service over there for a while, at the end of the last war. And Russia I also know very well, in my way, and I have relations with leading Russians, not everyone, but a number of them, enough—and they know me, at least fairly well. And they also, combined with the United States, represent the dominant power on this planet today.

The combination of the United States, Russia, China, and India, are the major nations who, with neighbors who want to work with them, are the dominant power on the planet today. Therefore, if you can assemble an alliance of this type, among such a group of nations, the rest of the world knows that we have the power. And people being as they are, will come knocking at our door and say "Can we get in?" And we will say, "Yes, you can get in, as equals." And that's the way to rebuild the world.

Be Human: Give Up Malthusian Conceptions

Freeman: Lyn, the next question has been submitted by Carlos Cano, who is the president of the Conseno world organization: "Mr. LaRouche, why do you persist in restructuring the old neo-liberal model, when those tendencies keep us from a new world order, to be able to save the Earth from climatic changes through responsible consumption?"

LaRouche: Well, first of all, I stand for the principle, in answer to this question—which of course will come up for many people in many forms, but it will all be essentially the same question—first of all, we are human beings. There is no such thing in my work as the neo-liberal or liberal model. I don't want it. I want no part of it! I'm against liberalism, against neo-liberalism. They are afflictions of humanity. I have nothing to do with either of them, so don't worry about that.

On the other hand, I think people are unwilling to understand that the essential nature of humanity requires an emphasis on what is essentially scientific progress, revolutionary scientific progress. Which means: Increase in what is called by some former Soviet scientists, and now Russian scientists still, an increase of the energy-flux density of applied sources of power. That means nuclear power. If you're not for nuclear power, you're not in the real universe: Because the nature of humanity is: Compare the size of the population of the planet, with that of the gorilla or the orangutan, the swinging orangutan. (That's why he has so many broken bones, he swings too much—people should take a lesson from that.) Or the chimpanzee.

These beasts and man, you would think, would have a similar potential population-density on the planet. And if we were environmentalists, we would be like baboons, maybe nicer, not as violent as baboons. You have a baboon coming, with three baobab nuts under his armpits, and one in his teeth; that's a good picture of that. But we are immortal in the sense that no animal is, because we are able to increase the potential population-density of the human species, increase its life expectancy as well as individuals, in such a way that the individual who lives, who participates in this process, has the immortality of effect on coming generations. He's not just a thing that comes and dies; he's not a dead dog in the passing.

And the human being has a creative power which exists in no animal species: the ability to make fundamental discoveries of natural principle. No animal can do that. Every animal has a relatively determined and pre-determined potential population-density.

Mankind is not so limited. Mankind is capable of increasing the population of the planet from a few millions to today's 6.5 billion—and we can go further—and of living longer. Mankind can do that, and if mankind stops doing that, man turns back into an animal.

The problem with the environmentalist, or the neo-Malthusian, is that by intention, he's an animal, not a human being. Because on the one hand, he opposes doing what human beings do. On the other hand, he becomes an obstacle to other people trying to do what human beings do. So, he passes rules that say that high technology shall not be introduced into society; we shall go back to a simple-minded society, like that of a monkey, or baboon, or something. And that's the problem.

Give up this idea of this Malthusian conception. It's an enemy doctrine. It's been an enemy of humanity for as far back as we know. It's the doctrine of the Olympian Zeus, of the Prometheus Bound. Prohibit man from discovering the principle of fire, and thus reduce man to an animal. I'm all for technological progress, especially scientific progress.

To Avoid War, Get Rid of Pelosi

Freeman: This question is submitted by several EIR readers and others: "Lyn, Dick Cheney is going to five to six countries in Southwest Asia, and many people fear the Iran war, or other preventive war is being set up. This is especially the case after the resignation of Admiral Fallon. What is your assessment of this region, and how do you think the U.S. can avoid war before the Presidential elections?"

LaRouche: Well, get rid of Nancy Pelosi, then maybe you'll get rid of Cheney. Nancy Pelosi has protected Cheney. The Congress was ready to impeach Cheney, and if Bush objected, to impeach him, too—up to the most recent midterm election. If you want to stop Cheney, impeach him! But to impeach him, you've got to get rid of Nancy Pelosi. And Nancy Pelosi is the trained puppy dog of a fascist, called Felix Rohatyn.

So Cheney is not your problem. Cheney is Mrs. Cheney's dog, and it's poor specimen of a dog at that. And she's owned by the British Establishment. Maybe you should impeach the Queen of England! That's the problem. Don't try to say, "Why can't we pick a little thing and fix it?" The engine is not there. Don't try to fix the transmission.

An Education System Based on Morality and Creativity

Freeman: I'm going to take a question from the audience.

Q: Hi, Lyn. As you and those who have listened to you now, have a sign that this is Hell on Earth we live in, and there's reasons for that within our educational system, it's the nature of our educational system: It's nothing different than a living habitat policy. Therefore, what is your idea of our future educational system based on morality and creativity?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, there are two aspects of creativity. They're really the same thing, but they take a different target. One is the discovery of universal physical principles, by which man is able to change the universe, to make the universe better for man's life. The same power of creativity, which is expressed by fundamental discoveries such as those, for example, of Kepler, or Leibniz, or Riemann, and so forth—these are merely a reflection of the same kind of creativity which occurs in great classical art, and also in questions of social relations as such.

In physical science, you're looking at dynamics, because you're looking at the universe, actually. Because the universe means universal principles; and universal principles mean your point of reference is the universe, as we define it. But the principle of creativity, which is different than that of the animal, is based on the same mental powers applied to social relations. Social relations means music, and so forth. The two should combine to the effect of seeing oneself as immortal—that is, to seeing oneself as a living being, who is going to die, but doing something now, which is going to be a fruit—which the people who lived before you will respect and benefit from—and to contribute something for future generations to come.

Therefore, great Classical art is of that form. It's to communicate the idea of what it is to be a human being, from a lower state or condition of life, to a better condition of life, in which you have more ability to think about the future of humanity, and to do things for the future of humanity. So, one is love of humanity as such, the latter, art; the first, is a love of the universe, in its physical capacity. The two things are the same kind of creativity, which exists in man but not in the apes. Therefore, that's the policy.

Love of mankind, as such, and love of mankind's mastery of the universe, as such, is the basis of a healthy culture. Because, if we don't advance scientifically, then what happens is, by using up the kind of resources which are on the surface, we go to a lower state of existence, and humanity degenerates, because we have not improved our technologies. If we've improved our technologies, then the attrition caused by using up this or that resource, or depleting it, is defeated. And the sense of triumph, in saying, "We have today done something which means that our children can live, and can live a better life than we had," and to think about the ways we organize our relations to accomplish that: That's culture.

But today, we teach people to behave. To behave! By somebody's standard! My problem is, how to teach people who set the standards how to behave. I mean it: Take the big, pompous asses who want to set the standard for the rest of us to behave—I want to teach them, for a turn, how to behave!

Tell the Truth: Rohatyn Is a Fascist

Freeman: Okay, the next question is from a well-known Democratic consultant. He says, "Lyn, I like to think of myself as an optimistic guy, but frankly I'm very worried. [He's worried!] The current race for the Democratic nomination is being orchestrated in such a way as to cause bitter divisions among Democrats, and my fear is that those divisions may be too bitter and too deep to be mended. It's ironic: Barack Obama is portrayed as the candidate who brings new layers into the process, and who can unify the party. But it has been people behind the Obama candidacy that have taken actions that have been the most divisive.

"If this continues, I'm afraid that we face the possibility of a GOP victory. I think that this is partially what you're referring to when you talk about the whole Bloomberg scenario, but I'm not sure. Given the pace of current events, I do believe that the world is likely to be a very different place when the Democratic Convention takes place, and I take some heart in that fact. But, do you think that there is some efficient way to deal with this problem now?"

LaRouche: Oh, I certainly do believe there is an efficient way to deal with this problem now, and I've been trying to do it today, for example. First of all, understand that Felix Rohatyn is, implicitly, not only a fascist—which he is explicitly—but also is implicitly a fascist and a traitor to the United States. Now, I'm sure that if you get that idea across, don't worry about Obama so much. Obama is just a fool, politically. He has nothing to offer, has offered nothing. He just had a lot of people who played with an image, like people masturbating with a doll, is what it amounts to. There's no substance to the man! He hasn't said anything that has any substance! And all of these people say he's great. Why do they say he's great? Because there's nothing there to criticize. He takes no position on anything. Probably not even on sex, I don't know.

If you say that Felix Rohatyn—and you understand what that means—that Felix Rohatyn is not only a fascist, and anybody who works with him and follows his line, is also a fascist, a recruit to fascism—like Nancy Pelosi! Eh? If you say that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be a fascist, but has been recruited to a fascist movement, you've got it precisely. (Or fascist non-movement, if the threads on her face are tightened up too much, eh?)

So, if you say that Rohatyn is implicitly a traitor to the United States, and say it loud and clear, and make it clear, your problem is solved. If you say that Obama is merely a guy who's been set up and is going to be pulled down by these guys, because they want a fascist called the Mayor of New York in, you've made it very clear. If you don't say these things, then you leave the field open for the fascists.

So, the ability to tell the truth, rather than worrying about popularity of sophist explanations: That's the problem. And, as I've said today, I'm saying implicitly, that Felix Rohatyn is not only a fascist—which he is beyond doubt; he's a fascist just like Mussolini and the Hitler movement, the same, no difference whatsoever! He's not only a fascist and a British agent, which he is—Lazard Frères, British agent—but he also is a traitor to the United States. And I don't believe that we should support a traitor to the United States controlling the Democratic Party.

And I don't think we should have a Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, who's controlled by a fascist and implicit traitor to the United States. I don't think that her judgment on what should happen in the House of Representatives is trustworthy! And I think that we're idiots if we tolerate it! I condemn her. And you say, "Well, it's not nice to condemn her!" Why not condemn her? She's condemnable. She's a condemnable structure, despite the intentions that are put on to keep her face from falling off.

Tremonti and Europe's Lack of Sovereignty

Freeman: If we had more housing inspectors, she would be condemned.

Lyn, I'm going to ask you this question, because, I'm not sure exactly what accounts for this, but we have six questions that have been submitted on this topic, and they're all almost identical. Five of them are from Italy, and one is from an Italian university student in Buenos Aires.

The question is, "Mr. LaRouche, as I'm sure you know, the former finance minister of Italy Giulio Tremonti, has recently written a book on the end of globalization, and the need for a new Bretton Woods. Unfortunately, Tremonti is part of a political movement, the Berlusconi movement, in which many are part of the old P-2 networks. They also support a platform which is racist, xenophobic, and generally deplorable. How do you think this contradiction is going to be resolved? Exactly, 30 years ago, Aldo Moro was kidnapped and killed by this network. Could you please comment on what is beyond Tremonti's actions?"

LaRouche: I think Tremonti is a professional, who knows what he's saying, and knows what he's proposing, and believes in it. But he's also in an Italy which has not been able to have a government which Italians have controlled, for some time, because foreign powers, chiefly London, have controlled it, from the outside, by pulling strings.

And, you take the case of the Moro case: Who is guilty in the Moro case? Well, you could ask Henry Kissinger about that, because he knows something about that. But Henry Kissinger didn't do it. London did it. And Italy has been under the control, since the British yacht Britannia harbored off the coast of Italy, and a bunch of people went out there and set up a policy.

So don't look at a particular government or a particular party, to understand things in Italy. You have to look at the fact that you have a country, which doesn't like being controlled from the outside, but which is controlled from the outside. You have a country, which is dominated by Americans and Brits, in various places such as Bellagio, which is the Rockefeller headquarters in Italy. Other cities, the same kind of thing. So, people like him are trying to operate within an immoral society.

The British actually, in the post-Soviet period, broke up the parties of Italy, so to reduce them till they have no real power to control themselves. Or, if the government of Italy tries to do something, what do the British do, sometimes with American assistance? They cause the fall of the government! They assure that no party is strong enough to be a government, eh?

My view of the matter—and I look at this as I look at it in Europe, and I look at it as Helga and I look at it: The nations of Europe have been disenfranchised. Every nation of continental Europe, from Portugal to Belarus, and the Russian border, have been ruined. They have no power, as such. They could get some catalytically, but they're all controlled.

Look, at the structure of this thing. Thatcher, the Nancy Pelosi of her time, was the vehicle for dictating what became known as a policy, the Maastricht policy, which was imposed on Germany as the same kind of policy imposed by the British and the Versailles powers back in the 1920s. Same kind of policy. Germany was told that the condition of reunification, was that it destroy its industrial and agricultural potentiality, that it destroy its scientific potentiality, and they did it! On orders! With support of the United States! A similar thing was done to Italy. A similar thing was attempted, with partial success, in France.

All of Europe has been deprived of their absolute sovereignty. Now, they might get it back, as Helga is trying to assist that process. If they reject the Lisbon strategic policy, if they reject that policy, then Europe will be in a position to get some of its freedom back under present conditions. But no nation of Western or Central Europe has any sovereignty whatsoever today. And therefore, Tremonti is operating in a domain where Italy is not allowed to actually exercise actual sovereignty.

So, the struggle is the struggle for certain ideas and trying to influence the process; it's an intellectual process of attempted defense. But without our intervention on the world scene, from the United States, with the cooperation of Russia, China, and India, Western continental Europe will not be free. It will be what it is today, simply a colony of the British.

On Evil in Individuals

Freeman: This is the last question, and this comes from somebody who was a super-delegate at the Democratic Convention in Boston. This person says, "Mr. LaRouche, four years ago, you and your organization launched an intervention into the Democratic Convention in Boston that almost saved the day. Unfortunately, while it didn't win the election, there's no doubt in my mind that it laid the basis for holding things together in the aftermath of the election, and certainly in the victory that Democrats scored in the fight to save Social Security.

"I'm very tempted to ask you, what your plans are for this year's convention in Denver? But I'm going to ask you a very different question. The question that I ask you is this: How does evil manifest itself in individuals?"

LaRouche: Well, it's a matter of degree, actually. When you actually say, you want to screw a certain part of the human population, you're on the road to evil. Because, you know, in dealing with problem cases as individuals and so forth, in society, you sometimes throw up your hands and say, "This case is impossible." But you really don't wish evil to be done to these people. You just wish they hadn't become what they're like. In general, your concern is extended to individuals case-by-case, but really it is towards the future of humanity.

I mean, here I am, I'm 85 years of age. What am I doing at 85 years of age? What am I based on? Well, what I'm based on is the outcome of the generation which is now largely between 18 and 25-35 years of age, because that generation is going to determine whether we have a future or not, for all of us. And thus, you work that way, and that's the way you avoid evil.

The other side is: It becomes a religious question, but the religious question is not a religious question in the way some foolish people like to talk about religion, because what they talk about is their own fantasy life, not reality. Reality is: As I've done often enough, take the first chapter of Genesis, which is a very interesting work, a very remarkable work. Because it says something which is said in a metaphorical way, but if you think about what I know about the universe and mankind, what it says is true. Especially the part about man and woman, and on this, I'm a real authority: That man and woman have a quality which is absent in any form of animal life. It is the power to change the universe—not all at once, or with lightning strokes or something like that, but by making discoveries and acting on those discoveries for the benefit of civilization, the benefit of the universe, in effect.

This characteristic, unlike that of any animal, is a quality which is transmitted from a living person to coming generations. What you do in the way of adding to human knowledge, creative knowledge, like the discovery of scientific principles, or realization or implementation of a discovery which needs to be implemented for the sake of future humanity, that lives on. And it lives on as an embedded part of humanity, such that the individual may die, as a biological specimen. But what they contribute to society does not die. It does not simply live as something to be remembered, but as in school, it is relived as something a discovery re-experienced, or action re-experienced by coming generations, which becomes the foundation of their further progress of humanity.

In that sense, in a very real sense, in a very practical sense, the human individual who accepts that kind of role in life, is immortal. The flesh dies, but the contribution to humanity does not. And the main business of society, is to ensure that people who make that contribution, that their contribution is not wasted, is not lost. If that is rejected, someone says, "I! Me! Us! We are going to be the boss! We are going to make it! These other guys, they're gonna go! Who cares about them? They're schnooks!" That's the beginning of evil. And when you start from that, and then you say, "Well, I enjoy killing these people, I enjoy doing this to them, they deserve it, heh, heh, heh"—then you've got evil. And there's a lot of it. That's Cheney, for example. That's his wife.

That's what Pelosi is doing. Pelosi, apart from her stupidity, and she certainly is abundantly gifted in that department, is nonetheless not so stupid that she doesn't have some awareness of what she's doing. Therefore, she's acting out of evil motives. The evil motive is to be a thing for an evil man, Felix Rohatyn. That's the problem. So therefore, there is such a thing as evil.

But the problem is that people try to simplify this thing in terms of comic-book-strip kinds of things, these cheap-shot explanations. Something like Harry Potter or something. And they make a farce out of something which is actually a discoverable universal principle, that mankind is not an animal. We have an animal body, but there's something else about us, something more important, which doesn't die, or shouldn't be allowed to die, and that is the contribution a human being can make that no other animal can make, to the future of humanity, and to the future of the universe: And it's the denial of that which is the essential evil.

Freeman: Ladies and Gentlemen, that brings today's proceedings to a close. Clearly we have a long road ahead, but a clear path today. For those of you who are listening via the internet, I would urge you, if you have not already done so, to contribute the maximum that you can contribute to the LaRouche PAC, so that we can continue our efforts. I'd like to thank those of you here, in the audience; you've been a wonderful audience. And I'd like to ask you now, finally, to join me in thanking Lyn for a remarkable presentation.

Back to top