|This webcast transcript appears in the November 28, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
GREATEST CRISIS IN MODERN HISTORY
The Last Chance For Civilization?
Here is Lyndon LaRouche's Nov. 18, 2008 international webcast from Washington, sponsored by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee; it was simultaneously carried on the Internet at www.larouchepac.com, the website of the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC), where the webcast and discussion are on file. LaRouche's opening remarks were followed by more than two hours of discussion, moderated by LaRouche's West Coast spokesman, Harley Schlanger. A PDF version of this webcast and discussion can be found here.
Schlanger: ... As the present global financial disintegration has been unfolding, and accelerating, we've been hearing, constantly, the refrain: "No one could have known it was coming." That refrain, no matter how often it's repeated, is dead wrong. We're also hearing another refrain, as trillions of dollars are being pumped into dead banks, in a futile effort to save the bankrupt system: "No one knows what to do." Again, those repeating that refrain, are dead wrong.
It's my great honor and privilege today to introduce to you the one man who not only forecast this crisis, who knew it was coming, but has offered a solution, and is organizing globally to implement that solution:
Ladies and Gentlemen, join me in welcoming economist and statesman, Lyndon LaRouche.
LaRouche: Thank you.
This past week, this past Tuesday, I gave an advance presentation to an audience, here in this city, and also in New York, on a discussion of what I was going to say today. What I said then was recordednot in full, but the remarks I made in opening, were recordedand have been reproduced and are in circulation now.
What I said, essentially is, what we're involved in today, is a general breakdown crisis of the world financial-monetary system. There is no possible rescue of this system, as such: that is, the present, international monetary system can not be rescued. If you try to rescue it, you will lose the planet. You have to choose: Replace the system, or get a new planet. Those are your choices, essentially. I think that any sane person would say, "Keep the planet." Mars is not particularly hospitable these years; I understand it's rather cold there, at present.
So what that means, essentially, is, the world is now operating under an imperialist system, which is actually part of the British Empire. Now, the British Empire, is not the British Empire: It's an international monetary-financial system, which has a base in England, but which operates globally. And since the breakdown of the U.S. dollar, in 1971, and the subsequent launching of the highly speculative market in petroleum, the short-term speculative market in petroleum, the U.S. no longer controlled its own dollar. The dollar has been controlled increasingly, as the U.S. economy has deteriorated, by a London-centered crowd, centered in those financial interests.
The result of that, plus the fact of what was done, beginning in 1987, under a now departedhappilyformer head of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan, is that a new addition was added to this process of this speculative kind of currency. It was based on a system which had been pioneered by a Michael Milken, who went to prison in the 1980s for what he did; but Alan Greenspan made it international.
So that, what happened last July, a year ago July, was not a crash of a short-term market, at all, a real estate market. The real estate market was collapsing, or did collapse, as I said it would collapse, exactly at that time. But there was no real estate market collapse of the type talked about. What was collapsing was the system.
Now, the system is in the order of magnitude of more than a quadrillion dollars, many quadrillion dollars, of speculative currency, out there. More wealth nominally, than the world contains. Everything had been done to prop up this crazy dollar, as an international currency, controlled, not by the United States, but by a syndicate of international financier interests: the floating-exchange-rate system. And what happened is, they had gone into the area of U.S. real estate, as in London and elsewhere, in trying to create debt, synthetically, to cover this vast accumulation of unregulated dollar claims in the international market: quadrillions of dollars claims. Maybe more than $1 quadrillion. Maybe $10 quadrillion, or more than that.
And so, there is not enough money, real value in the world, to cover the demands against currency. And therefore, the system has gotten to the point, that under the present system, you've got to sacrifice the currency claims, or you've got to sacrifice the real economy. Which means, there's no way, that you can reorganize under the present world monetary-financial system. You have to put the whole system into bankruptcy reorganization.
Now, how can you do that? Well, what you can do, is end the existence of monetary systems: You put them into bankruptcy and close them out. Well, what do you do for money? We go back to the U.S. dollar.
The American Constitutional System
Our Constitution is unique among nations, in many respects: that we're a true nation-state, where European nations are not true nation-states. They may aspire to be nation-statesCharles de Gaulle tried to do that in Francebut they're not really nation-states. Because they are under a parliamentary style of system, and a parliamentary style of system is inherently not a fully sovereign system of sovereign nation-states: It's controlled by something else; it's controlled by international monetary interests.
So, what we can do, is, very simply, is we can go back to the U.S. Federal Constitution, and create what's called a "credit-based dollar," as opposed to a "monetary dollar." A credit-based dollar is consistent with our Constitution: that no money, as legal currency, as legal tender, can be uttered under the U.S. Constitution, without a vote by the U.S. Congress on behalf of action by the U.S. Presidency.
So, in our system, the official currency of the United States, insofar as we follow our own Constitution, is limited to dollars, or dollar-equivalent negotiables, which are uttered only by previous authorization of the U.S. Congress, especially the House of Representatives, and uttered by the U.S. Federal government! There is no such thing as an international monetary source, which gives us our currencynot legally. It is uttered by the U.S. government; it is sovereign. We are a sovereign state, and our currency is uttered by us, under our Constitution: by approval of the House of Representatives, and by the Presidency. No other currency exists.
In Europe, that is not the case: In Europe, the monetary systems are not controlled by the government. They are created by central banking systems, which may negotiate with governments, and have agreements with governments, but the governments do not control the monetary system, as such. In point of fact, that is the essence of a free-trade system: that the governments have no essential control, as issuing authorities, over debt and credit outstanding.
And it's because of the utilization of that provision, that artificial money was created, by people making a capital promise, in capital amount, to go into debt, to get a lesser amount of money uttered in their behalf, now. That's how the world incurred a presently outstanding debt, through such means as derivatives, in the order of quadrillions of dollars! Far in advance of anything that could ever be paid. So, we are never, never going to pay those debts! We couldn't pay those debts. So, we're never going to pay them.
What do you do in a case like that? What does the United States do in a case like that, under our Constitution? You declare those debts in bankruptcy. And what do you do with them in bankruptcy? You sort them out! Those things that should be supported, will be supported, and the rest of it will just wait, or die away. The great majority, the vast majority of the obligations outstanding today, as nominal claims against countries, will be cancelled. Those things which should be paid, will be paid. Those otherwise, will never be paid. And they will never be paid, in any case!
A Four-Power Alliance
Now, you have two ways to go: Either you collapse the world, with starvation and mass death, and those effects. Or, you put the thing through bankruptcy reorganization. And how do you do that? Well, what I specified is very elementary: I have four nations in mind that can take the lead on this thing. And the four nations, which together, represent the greatest consolidation of power on this planet: These nations are the United States, Russia, China, and India, as joined by other nations, which join in the same deal. We put the world through bankruptcy reorganization. How do we do it? We use the U.S. Constitution to do that.
The U.S. Constitution is unique in the fact we have a kind of Federal Constitution we have: that our dollar is not a monetary dollar; it's a credit dollar. In other words, the United States has uttered an obligation, on behalf of the U.S. government, which can be monetized. That is our obligation; that's our only obligation, and any other kind of obligation is not fungible.
Other countries have a different kind of system.
Now, if the United States says, that we are going to back up our dollar, and enters into an agreement with Russia, China, and India, to join us, with other countries, in doing the same thing, to put the world through bankruptcy reorganization, in which we will cancel most of the outstanding financial obligations: It has to happen. Otherwise, no planet! If you try to collect on quadrillions of dollars of outstanding claims, from whom are you going to collect, by what means, and what's the effect? It is against natural law, to collect on that debt! How many people are you going to kill, to collect that debt? How many countries are you going to destroy, to collect that debt?
So, we have this monetary authority outside, which has treaty agreements with governments, but which has no real obligation to governments otherwise, except the treaty agreement. This agreement has resulted in the creation of a vast world debt, a monetary debt, which can never be paid. Well, obviously, the system is bankrupt! You shut down the system, and put it into bankruptcy reorganizationit's the only remedy.
A Credit System
How does it work for us? Under our Constitution, any credit we utter, in a monetizable form, is an obligation under the authority of the U.S. government, in each process, by the approval of the Congress, the uttering of it, and by the action of the Federal government, with that approval. Now, also, not only do we utter our currency, properly, under those terms, but if we, as a nation, as a sovereign republic, enter into an agreement, a treaty agreement with other countries, for the same system, then under the treaty agreement, other countries enjoy the advantage of the same system we have for reorganization of our debts.
And that's the only way we can get out of this mess.
So, we create a group of nations, who are operating under treaty relationship with the United States, which gives Constitutional protection to this, so that we now have created a new systema credit systemto replace the existing monetary system. And everything that is put under the protection of the credit system, is now solid. Everything else is thrown onto the floor, to see what you can pick up: It's in bankruptcy.
So therefore, we can create a new credit system, among nations, which I thinkif the United States, Russia, China, and India agree, most nations of the world will happily join us, especially considering the alternative. And therefore, we can create a new world system, a new money system, a credit system as opposed to a monetary system. And under those conditions, we can proceed to advance credit on a large scale, for physical reconstruction of the world's physical economy. We can organize a recovery of the same type, which we undertook with President Franklin Roosevelt, back in the 1930s and 1940s. And we won't change from that, I should think, once we've done it.
That's the only alternative.
Now, what that means is, politically, the end of the British Empire; or what's called the British Empire. The British Empire is the present world empire. There is no other empire on this planet today, except the British Empire. The use of the "empire" to describe any other system, is incompetent. The British are the only empire, and the British Empire is that which controls the dollar, the floating dollar today, the monetary dollar.
So, under these conditions, we then proceed to world reconstruction. And what we do, instead of the present free-trade system, is we go back to a protectionist system, a fixed-rate system; in other words, currencies will have a fixed rate of exchange with respect to each other, or adjustable by treaty arrangements, but they do not float. And we then proceed to utter the credit, for large-scale infrastructure investment, which will be the driver of the physical reconstruction of the planet. That's the only remedy. Any suggestion but that, is insane. Any failure to do exactly what I've prescribed, is insane. All sane people will, therefore, immediately agreeor we will have to draw the obvious conclusion.
So, that's what I outlined, in essence, as to how this would workthat's the core of it. This is the U.S. Constitution. It's a system which worked, every time we've used it. If we go back to it once again, as we did under Franklin Roosevelt, we'll come out of this nicely.
Globalization: A Crime Against Humanity
What are we going to do, however? We have, then, a physical economy, which is a mess. We have a situation in which the people are in jeopardy, life is in jeopardy; the conditions of life, the physical conditions of life are deteriorating throughout the United States and elsewhere. We have a problem of starvation in many parts of the world. Much of the human population is now in desperate jeopardy, because of current food prices and current organization of food production. Globalization has become a mass murderer, and globalization is virtually a crime against humanity, in its present implications.
We set up a system, as you may have noticed, with the case of Monsanto and other ones, where we grow food in one country to be eaten in another country. And we don't grow food for that country, much in your own country. You grow food for other countries, under the present kinds of agreements, WTO type agreements, to produce food for people in other countries. For the food you eat yourself, you have to go to a completely different country than your own, and get them to produce food for you. In the middle stands someone who's a dealer in food, the international financial community, which determines the prices which are paid for the country which exports the food, and also determines the prices paid for the country that buys the food to consume it. And what we've done recently, is we have destroyed the independent food-producing capabilities of nations, so they no longer have self-sufficiency. They are at the mercy of something like the WTO, which is a form of mass crime against humanity! The WTO should be repealed, immediately; cancelled immediately! It's a crime against humanity, its very existence. People should grow food primarily in their own country, and get supplementary foods of special types they may require from other countries, where they're better produced. But the sovereignty of a nation, in respect to its own production and consumption of food, is primary. So therefore, that part of the system has to end.
Most of the other features of globalization have to end. They will end, if we're human, if we're decent. And that means a complete change of course from what the present trend in policies is. Most treaty agreements that now exist will have to be cancelled, relevant to this. And practices of this type will be outlawed. Food prices will be under international supervision, to make sure there's no more of this fraud.
You have to realize, that billions of people's lives are presently in danger, as a result of these WTO and related policies, the effect of them. That's our problem. And our remedy is to use great power on this planet, to force through a system, a fixed-exchange-rate system, to establish a credit system in place of a monetary system, and to launch large-scale projects through joint credit structures which finance these projects, which enable nations to build their way out of the present physical mess we have today.
It's a tough one. And people say, "Why do you want to do that? Couldn't you take slo-o-w-er steps? Slo-o-wer steps?" "Well, you know that train's coming down the track, and you're walking across itdo you think you should take slo-o-w steps?"
No. So therefore, what you need, is you need these four countries. And they are different countries, as you may have noticed, not only different as nations, but they have different characteristics. We have one characteristic, as the United States, when we're functioning properly. Russia has certain characteristics which are unique to Russia. China has characteristics, including social characteristics, which are unique to China. India has characteristics which are different than any of the other countries. But this is a great part of the human race, the population, totally. And you have countries that are associated with them, like Japan. Japan's market is principally Asia. Its best market, for its high-tech production, are neighboring countries of Asia, which include Siberia, include the mainland of China, and so forththat region of the world. Japan has a high-technology capability, which is extremely valuable. Koreaespecially South Korea, but really Korea as a wholehas also a very significant potential. Also Korea is different than Japan and China, and Russia, and therefore Korea is a very valuable country, in the sense that it's not the same as China, Japan, Russia, and so forth. And therefore, the cooperation among these countries of different characteristics is a very important stabilizing factor in the world situation. It also is a key part in production.
The Problem of Power-Generation
India has completely different characteristics in this respect, but it also has, in effect, similar problems. The most common problem, is power. Now, we have nuclear power, developed today. It's the only decent power, that we have for dealing with these kinds of problems. Because, you can not measure power in calories. Only an idiot, or someone who is ignorant would measure power in calories. That is, a kilowatt of sunlight, and a kilowatt of nuclear power, are not the same thing. You can not replace a kilowatt of nuclear power by a kilowatt of sunlight.
In the process of power, the low end of power is generally sunlight, as it impinges upon the Earth. That is a very poor quality of power. Now the best thing you can do with sunlight, is what we tend to do with Earth naturally. That is, sunlight has a very low cross density in terms of intensity, as it hits the Earth. The most useful thing that sunlight does, is it helps to grow plants. Now, how's it grow plants? Well, one case is, of course, the green plants. Take power in terms of being applied to green plants. Now, the green plant has something in it called chlorophyll. Now, chlorophyll has a wonderful quality: Is that the individual chlorophyll molecule, which looks like a pollywog under a microscopeit has a long tail which is sort of an antenna; and it has a head with a magnesium molecule in the head. And the sunlight impinging on this antenna is now captured by some of these molecules. The power which is obtained by this antenna-like section of the molecule, now powers the magnesium head complex of that molecule. These molecules interact together, and what it does, these collections of molecules in chlorophyll, is increase the energy-flux density of the power which it has absorbed by means of these tails, from sunlight. This high-intensity power then converts carbon dioxide and so forth, into oxygen, and carbon products, and living things. So this, in turnthe increase in chlorophyllcools the atmosphere, gives you a more uniform temperature, it turns a desert into something else, and that sort of thing; and therefore, all life on Earth depends, to a great degree, on this action of chlorophyll: of converting sunlight, through the action of chlorophyll, into a higher order, which then feeds all kinds of living processes, grows trees, cools the atmosphere. It does all sorts of good things. And this process is now essential to the system of life on Earth, and developing the entire planetary climate.
If you go to solar energy as a source of something else, and take the sunlight and now put it into trying to heat something, directly, what're you going to do to the climate? You're going to increase the temperature of the climate? Because you're not cooling it; plants cool the climate, green plants. You're going to have a higher temperature. You're going to come to creating an artificial desert! Where you want a green planet, you are creating a desert. And you say, "That's better for nature." This is only from the mind of denatured idiots, who think of these kinds of things. That's why they're called denatured.
So, in any case, therefore, the key thing here, is to increase the energy-flux density of power. Now, how do we do that? Or how have we done it so far? Well, you can burn brushthat's not too efficient. Again, you're burning something that was once alive. Another way is to burn wood, as sucha little bit higher order of fuel. Or you have charcoal; now, charcoal is a little higher order in combustion, in terms of energy-flux density, than just wood. Or you can go to coal, which is more efficient than wood. You can go to a more efficiently condensed form of coal, called coke. You can go to petroleum, a still higher order. You can go to various kinds of natural gas, that's a little bit better.
You can go to nuclear power: Boy! A factor of a thousand times or more better! You can go to a high-temperature gas-cooled reactorsoh, you're getting up there, buddy! A high-temperature gas-cooled reactor of a pebble-bed variety, you can start to desalinate, in a great way! You can take and provide large masses of water, and create the conditions of life. Don't use petroleum the way you do it now: hauling cheap petroleum all over the planet at high prices, to burn it! You generate, from water, you generate high-temperature gases, which are much more efficient for airplanes and automobiles and so forth; and other kinds of synthetic fuels. Then we will go, at some point, to thermonuclear fusion, which is still tens and thousands of times more efficient than that.
So, in this process, we go to higher and higher degrees of man's power to shape nature, per capita and per square kilometer. So, by going to these greater energy-flux densities of power, we're advancing the condition of life on the planet, for mankind as a whole.
Now, what we obviously wish to do, is just exactly that. For example, in the case of India: India has a large supply, a natural supply of thorium. Now, thorium is a material which is related to uranium in its function, but it's generally not useful for making nuclear weapons; it's useful for producing power systems. India has the capability, with thorium, and with a large stock of thorium, and with thorium reactors, to increase the energy-flux density of its area. Now what that means is, you have in India, take a case, about 70% of the population is not too well trained, not too technologically qualified. But that's not going to stop you, because if you can increase the power available, locally, per capita and per square kilometer, in a country, you can take the same quality of laborwhich is not too efficient, because it's not skilled, it's not trainedbut you can increase its productivity without yet changing the way it behaves. By power supply, you can provide water, through desalination; or other kinds of things. So you create an environment, an infrastructure environment, in which the same quality of effort, the same level of skill by an Indian worker in a village, can be increased by several times, several-fold; conditions of life can be improved.
So therefore, the general method we've used in humanity, in our successive ventures, is to improve the environment, the environment of production, which as a lever, increases the productivity of production, in human terms, in terms of human effect. Therefore, you upgrade the conditions of life, by concentrating efforts on improving what we call "basic economic infrastructure," that of art, agriculture, and industry, and city life, and things of that sort. And that's the way we have to go.
Save the U.S. Auto Industry?
For example, the question will come up; it comes up all over the place: Shouldn't we go back to making automobiles again? No! I fought for that back in 2005, and early 2006. The Congress of the United States killed the idea of saving the automobile industry, when I was about to save it. They killed it in February of 2006: Now, the same idiots, who killed the automobile industry and destroyed it in February 2006, are now saying they're going to come back and start producing automobiles again, having destroyed the market for, and the ability to produce automobiles! Simply because people want to manufacture automobiles, there's a form of fantasy life now! There's no sense for the United States to go back into the automobile industry, not at this time. It's insane! But it's attractive to people who don't think.
Why are the people who shut down the auto industry, in February 2006 when I was working to save it, or save part of it, and save the industry, as well as the automobile productionwhy do they want to start it up now? They shut it down! The present Speaker of the House was one of those who shut it down! She says she's now promoting it! Did she change her mind? Did she change some other things? It's all fakery.
What we need now, is not U.S.-produced automobilesthe Japanese are doing a fine job of more than filling all our requirements. There is an excess of automobile production, en masse, throughout the world! Why are we going back into the automobile manufacturing business? To produce vehicles we can't sell? Just to look at them?
Well, let's try something else: Let's take the highways around here. What's the congestion: How much time do you lose every day in commuting to work in the Washington, D.C. area? What is it, two hours commuting for you? Two and a half hours each way? What are the tolls you pay on these routes? How much of your personal life is lost by this commutingas opposed to what you would have, if you had a high-speed rapid-transit system network to transport you, without having to drive the car, without having to smell the other guy's gas, ahead of you. You're getting sick.
How much would you like to have more time for family life? If you're spending five hours a day commuting, what kind of family, if you have two adults, both working, and some children: What kind of a family life are you creating, for Americans with that kind of arrangement? Shouldn't we have, instead of all these automobiles on the highway, with all these tolls, and all these fumes to smell from the automobile in front youwouldn't it be better to get a shorter, and faster transportation system? And to have a better family life? Maybe a few hours a day saved, for some kind of normal family life, not wondering what your children are doing all these crazy hours?
Don't we have a shortage of clean power sources? Don't we have a shortage of investment in manufacturing things that we need, which we're wasting on this sort of stuff?
And, do you have clean water? Do any of you remember the time, you could get safe, fresh water, out of a city water system, from a tap? Do you remember when that was? How many bottles of bottled water do you drink a day? How much does it cost you? How much did it used to cost you, the same amount of water, safely out of a tap?
Build Vital Infrastructure, Worldwide
So, what you needthe conditions of life and the conditions of production; we have a shortage of infrastructure in this country, of basic economic infrastructure. Not infrastructure like sidewalks, to pay taxes on! You have people in New York, like this crazy Mayor of New York: He wants to take over the infrastructure. He'll buy your sidewalk, and he'll put a tollgate at each block! This is not what I mean by infrastructure!
So, in many parts of the world where you have poor people, as in Africa, with no infrastructure, and other parts of the world like that, you're not going to get a significant increase in productivity by applying the effort to the local point of production. You're going to increase the productive powers of labor, by providing the infrastructure, which enables the existing level of personal skills to be much more efficient in terms of their effect.
Kill the bugs, in Africa! Maybe some food will survive. Africa is one of the largest food-producing areas in the world, but most of the food doesn't survive to get to somebody's mouth. The diseases are not controlled; you don't have the transportation systems in order to connect communities, to provide the services which are needed for agriculture.
What we need in the United States, and other parts of the world, is the basic development of improved infrastructure, as it affects human life and production, in order to increase the productive powers of labor per capita. That's what we need in the United States. We need to increase the productive powers of labor. At the same time, we have a population, which, over the past period, over the past 40 years!40 years! Forty years!the United States has been losing productivity per capita over 40 years. It started back in 1967-1968, we began to lose, shrink, net infrastructure development: Over the course of time, we lost our industry, we lost our productivity, we lost science, we have people doing kinds of work that is not work any more, just make-work to keep them busy; and services, to service services, to service services. We destroyed that! We have a people that no longer have the skills to produce what they used to be able to produce with the same population then, today. We've lost that.
We have been insane for 40 years! Since 1967-68, Fiscal Year '67-68. We have been losing infrastructure. Under Carter, we had a disaster! We wrecked the U.S. economy under Carter! That was Carter's great achievement! Under the guidance of David Rockefeller, with the Trilateral Commission. We've been destroying the United States! We've been destroying Europe! Look at Germany, since 1990: The economy of Germany was destroyed, on orders from Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of England; supported by George H.W. Bush, the father of present idiot; and the support of Mitterrand. Germany, which was a powerhouse of productivity, has been virtually destroyed by this order. Similar things have happened in the rest of Europe: Poland is much worse off, today, in terms of productivity, than it was under the Warsaw Pact. Other countries of the former Comecon states, are similarly situated. We destroyed Russia, in terms of economic productivity. We destroyed essential parts of the productivity of the entire planet; we destroyed technology, with these measures.
And therefore, we have great needs for breakthroughs in technology, which are within our reach; but we also have to be able to assimilate technology, by what? By improving infrastructure: the infrastructure which is necessary to enable labor of a certain skill to improve its productivity, because we have unskilled people! We don't have the skilled labor population we had 40 years ago! We've lost it! We have a very small fraction of that. We're about to lose much more of that, right now.
Look, take the aircraft industrywe were talking about this today. We have, most of the modern planes that we're developing, aren't flying! We're flying old planes, of lower technology. We've lost the technology that we once had, or the relative technology that we once had. So we've got to back to that, and dig up that. So, what we need is the large employment, that's feasible, for the development of the basic economic infrastructure which is needed to increase productivity per capita. And to then use that, to gradually phase in the population, back into the kinds of production levels we used to have, when we had the skills to do that.
So, putting money into automobiles that you can't sell, hmm?which you can not compete in productivity with other countries which are producing automobiles, because our capabilitywe were doing it already before we shut down the automobile industry; while Japan and Germany, especially Japan, and Korea, were increasing their productivity in the area of auto and related things, we weren't. We were using old technologies, to produce so-called "new, modern" cars. We can no longer compete with Japan or Korea. We lost itthat was a deliberate choice, a policy choice.
So what we have to do, essentially, today, is we have to think in these terms, go back to a high-energy-density policy. If you don't believe in nuclear power, you're an idiot. You're not going to succeed. You have to go back to a high energy-density system of infrastructure. Stop all this highway building! Get back to mass transit.
We also have an insane policy on development of the economy generally. We used to have the idea of taking every state of the Union and developing production in every state: In other words, you spread production and its skills throughout the United States. That was one of the functions of our developing of a national transportation system. You didn't have super-industries where the whole industry was concentrated in one corner of some state and not in others. We had a balance of agriculture, infrastructure, and industry, which we used to develop the separate states of the United States, at least to a certain degree. So we distributed the productivity over the countryside. We didn't try to get giant industries to gobble up all of these things.
So we would balance the cost of production against the economy as a whole, this whole territory.
We were doing, essentially, with many wrong things included, but relative to today, what we were doing 40 years ago, was sane, compared to what we're doing today, which is relatively insane. And our first objective is, to do what is immediately feasible, is to recapture the kinds of things we used to do, and do them once again. And measure what we assign people to do, to what the present skills are out there.
One of the first areas we have to get into, is the system of education: Our public education system stinks. So you've got to get back to an education for human beings, not for monkeys. And often emotionally disturbed monkeys, is what we're doing today: We're turning children into emotionally disturbed monkeys, which creates a market for teaching children who are emotionally disturbed. And the training program itself, increasing the disturbance. That's what we're doing.
So we have to get back to the standards we used to practice, and realize that we've been systematically destroyed by the policy-changes which have been in effect over a period of time.
Roots of Our Problem: British Fascism
This goes way back, and we have to remember how this happened: In the 1920s and the 1930s, before the election of Franklin Roosevelt, coming out of the First World War, the leading financial powers of the world, were headed toward global fascism. That was the policy. Germany did not create fascism; Britain did. Hitler was put into power in Germany by the British, with help from New York City, people, like the grandfather of the present President of the United States, Prescott Bush. Prescott Bush was the guy who personally issued the order, which refinanced the bank, and refinanced the Nazi Party in the end of 1932, to enable Hitler to become dictator of Germany in January of 1933. And these guys, including that crowd, including Prescott Bush, remained on the Nazi side, up into the time, we ourselves were going to war against Nazi Germany. And he got into trouble at that time.
Truman was also involved in that kind of stuff, back then.
The whole Wall Street crowd was just as Nazi as the British were, and the British created Hitler. It's absolutely clear. They created Mussolini. Winston Churchill was a backer of Mussolini, up until the time that Mussolini invaded France. And Winston Churchill was still his friend, even after that. Winston Churchill was still supporting Hitler, until Nazi Germany invaded France.
So Hitler was not a creation of Germany; Hitler Germany was a creation, largely, of London, with support from a lot of people in the United Statesincluding from the grandfather of the present President of the United States, Prescott Bush.
So, what happened in this process, is, Franklin Roosevelt, in becoming Presidentover the objections and the opposition of the financial crowd of J.P. Morgan and Co., which supported Hitler and had supported MussoliniRoosevelt produced a miracle of saving the world from going into a fascist dictatorship, then. And the British finally agreed to go along with him, when Hitler invaded France, and broke the agreement that Britain had with Germany in support of Nazism.
So, what we did, in my generation, in going to war against Hitler, and in setting up what Roosevelt intended should become a post-war development, changed history for the better. But the moment that Franklin Roosevelt died, we were in trouble! (I was there; there are a few, maybe one or two in this room, who were there at the time, who were adults at the time, as I was.) And they moved as fast as possible, as time would allow and public toleration would allow, to move back in a different direction: Back to exactly the policies that Franklin Roosevelt had opposed, back in 1932-33.
And that's the root of our problem.
So today, when I am proposing what I'm proposing now, which sounds to anybody looking back on those days, as exactlyI'm proposing to go back to the kind of philosophy of outlook that Franklin Roosevelt represented, back then, in '32-33 and afterward.
I'm going against them, kicking against the pricks.
Because the trend is what? The trend has been continuously one toward world fascism. That's what's been happening in this election campaign, so far this year. A drive toward a new kind of world fascism, called "globalization."
Therefore, if you look at this, look at the process by which we have been destroyed from what we were becoming, and had become, up until the end of the last war, especially since 1968 to approximately '71. If you look at that, you see, this is not some "natural" process: This is the natural consequence of an intentional direction of policy in the wrong direction! We didn't collapse because we were worn out; we didn't collapse because the environment was strained; we didn't collapse for any of those reasons! We collapsed because somebody intended that we should be collapsed! Because they wanted their kind of society, the kind of society they were headed toward, under Wall Street influence back in the 1920s, into the early 1930s. And we had a replay of that, right in the recent election campaign! A replay of 1932. Only in that case, Roosevelt won.
So, we're in trouble today, only because we made that changeand we've made it again, back in the same direction.
We're Going Straight to Hell!
Now, the question is: Do we want to survive? If we want to survive, we have a lesson of how to survive, in what Roosevelt in particular accomplished as President, during the time he was President. We can survive. But, if we don't, we're not going to survive. As a matter of fact, with the present conditions, if those changes are not made, you must expect that there will never be a recovery of the economy: This present crisis will be a permanent one.
We now have between 6.5 and more billion people on this planet. Two generations from now, we will have less than 1 billion, something like the dark ages of the 14th Century. And if we continue in this direction, the direction we're going in now, the direction which we're going in as of the 18th of November, the direction we're going in as of the end of the weekif we continue in that direction, that's where we're going: We're going straight to Hell!
And the alternative is, to turn this around. Go back! Recognize: We're headed straight toward Hell, right now! This is not somewhere down the line: We're talking about this yearwe're talking about January, February. This joke that was passed this week [at the G-20 meeting], this joke with this President of the United States, this silly fool! And the silly fools that were participating. Many people were not silly fools there, but they said, "We're going to go along with this, because this guy's getting out of here. It's temporary." If we go in that direction, we're finished. Civilization as you've known it is finished.
It's happened before! Look at the history of mankind in total! Look at what we know about the history of mankind. This has happened before! Not exactly the same thing, but the same type of problem! Mankind had a civilization which was on the way up: The conditions of life of the average person were improving; the culture was improving; technological-scientific progress, in terms of those times, was going on! Mankind was on an upward course!
And BOOM! Something like this intervened. The civilization went into a crisis, and collapsed. It's happened repeatedly. Dark ages are a characteristic of mankind, at every part of mankind. In every case, there was the possibility of not letting that happen. In many cases, it was allowed to happen; no one resisted.
Are we now going to resist? Do we care what happens to our people, what happens to the country in the coming period, what happens to the world? Are we willing to kick against pricks? Are we willing to say, "No, no, no! You don't do this to us"? Do we have political leaders who have the guts to do what's necessary? Do we have political leaders who have even the guts to recognize that it's necessary, even if they don't have the guts to do it?!
We have people, who tell me, "Well, can't you compromise? Can you start this a little bit here? A sample, a teaser here? To see how it works?" When you're on the ship that's sinking? The Titanic is sinking, and you want to argue about stateroom accommodations?
That's our situation now.
Use the Presidential System
So therefore, that's what I laid out on Tuesday, last Tuesday. It's an outline of exactly the policy we can follow. If we can reach agreement, in the United StatesI don't care who the current President, I don't care who the President-elect is. We have a Presidential system which is more important than any President: Can the Presidential system of the United States decide to reach an agreement with Russia, China, and Indianow!to take joint action, which will turn the planet around. And that joint action would turn the planet around!
Are we willing to do that? With the understanding that we're going back to the kind of policy that Franklin Roosevelt represented in his time, that we know we must represent, relative to our circumstances in our time? If we're willing to do that, and if we can engage Russia, China, and India, which are countries completely different in culture than our own, and different than each other; if we can engage in that, with those four nations, and others, to make a commitment to say, "This is not going to happen to us: We're going to take action to transform this planet. We're going to move upward," we can survive, we can succeed. Are we willing to do that? If we are, we can survive. And if we're not, we're a bunch of fools! And richly deserve what's going to happen to us, if we're not willing to do that. That's the issue.
And people say, "Well, explain your scheme, explain your scheme." I say, "Look, it's simple: You guys are a bunch of fascists. Now, stop being fascists!" That simple, just stop being fascists. Don't pull these swindles, you're stealing, you swindled everything out of our people!
What do you think the debt is that the typical American has? Look at the quadrillions of dollars of debt out there! Don't talk about subprime mortgages! The so-called subprime mortgage is the fag-end, a little, teeny fag-end result, of the big onewhich is quadrillions of dollars! You're going to walk into some poor householder and say, "You owe a quadrillion dollars?" The guy's going to say, "Take the house!"
No, that's the point we're at: We've got a bunch of cowards, and they're not stinking cowards, because many of these people who are acting like cowards, by combat standards are cowards; by ordinary standards, no. They're just frightened people, who are afraid of taking on a tough enemy who they know is a killer. George Bush is a killer, you know. Look at how many people he killed. How many people, how many Americans did this guy kill, in wars that should never have been fought? In other effects on people, that should not have occurred; he's a killer. He'll kill youwillingly. Won't even care.
And that's the problem: People in power know that! Not just George W. Bush, but other people in power, are just as bad, or worse. George Shultz is worse! He's a more mature killer. Felix Rohatyn, who was one of the supporters of the Pinochet regime in Chile, is worse. One of the big funders of this Democratic campaignGeorge Sorosis a killer. One of the biggest drug dealers in the world. A mass murderer: Who took his experience in sendinghe's a Jew, remembersending Jews to death camps, as his job, as a teenager: And with the same mentality, unimproved, conducting similar operations, today.
So, the guy out there, the politician who looks a little bit frighteneddon't necessarily call him a coward by ordinary standards of cowardice: Take into account the fact that he's terrified. He's not combat worthy, or combat ready. And therefore, he's frightened; he's running scared. He's a deserter, in fact. And some deserters had a good excuse, didn't they? They were frightened.
So that's our partand some of us have to stand up, as I'm doing, and take leadership in this situation. Because, if we do it, we have in our hands the ability to introduce the policies that will succeed. If we bring together, cooperation among the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries follow and join that, we can turn this world situation around. We can get back to something which is going in a different directionwe can do that. And the question today, is, are we willing to do that?
Look to Future Generations
The problem today, is a question of morality of a special type: When I was youngerand some of you, who are approximately my age, or verging upon it, were youngerwhen you thought about life, you generally thought about two generations of preceding generations, grandfather and father's generation; and you thought about two generations to come, you thought about becoming a grandfather, and the two generations that would come afterward. Many people who immigrated into the United States thought that way. They came here as poor people, from poor countries, or poor conditions in other countries, and they looked forward to their children succeeding and their grandchildren succeeding. The idea of coming over to the United States, as labor, in New York City, and ending up with a grandchild as a scientist or a doctor or something. It was a sense of achievement and that was the mentality of people from that time, people coming to this country as a land of opportunity to become something, to develop into something.
That's not the standard today. The standard is much more selfish. Self-centered is, "When I stop breathing, I don't care any more." In my generation, or in older generations, that was not the standard. We said, "I'm going to stop breathing, but what I'm doing is going to go on. The process I'm part of, is going to go on." And therefore, you weren't a dog, you were a human being. And like a human being, you thought in terms of coming generations, as well as past generations; you thought of how you had come into being, you thought about your background, you tried to learn from your family's experience, and the experience around you of older generations; you tried to see where the country's going; you tried to see what role you were playing in the country; and thinking about raising a family, and seeing what comes of that family two or three generations from now. And life was organized around this kind of idea, of family and community. Of a meaning of being somebody, and who you were in a community that's growing and evolving with successive generations, about four, five, six generations, was the context of your life.
And if you did a little study of history, you would look back further, a few hundred years; or if you studied as I did, you'd look back a few thousand years. And look ahead at least a couple hundred years. And you situated your life, in what your role is now, in the time-phase you occupy in liferelative to a few thousand years before you, and maybe a hundred or more years to come.
And that's where you located your interest! Your interest in being, was not what you experienced while you were alive. But what you experienced in knowing what you were part of, in times past and times to come! What you were determined to help cause to be the case, in times to come! It's like the grandfather who would take his grandson out to a large project, like the Tennessee Valley project of the old days, and saying to the grandson, "I helped build this. See what I helped build." And that was the standard of life.
The problem today, is that standard doesn't exist. It exists in rare people; it exists to some degree in a feeling and anticipation of desire; it's the desire to be human, the desire to have a sense of immortality. But there's not much substance to it. There's not much confidence in it, because the society doesn't encourage you to think in those terms.
And so that's the situation before us. We can solve this problem, and discuss it here. We can solve these problems: But we have to understand the problem. We have to understand that we are now at the end of civilization. That the policies which are being presented to us, by high-level sources in the United States, in Europe generally, lead to an absolute disaster for humanity in the very near term.
There is no question whether this system is coming down or not! It is coming down, now! And without the kind of radical changes that I indicate, this system is coming down this year! This year and the coming year. It's coming down: It's gone! There's nowhere else to run to! You want to live in Hell? Stay where you are. No need to change, no need to travel: Just stay where you are, it'll come to you.
But, the point is: Are you willing to take the risk of changing? Are you willing to fight the war that has to be fought, rather than some war you would rather fight?
That's the situation today. That's my situation. You've got to think in those terms. I've spelled this out in writing, I've spelled it out in the past weeks' time, in several ways, in a number of pieces. The situation is clear to me, we can win, it's possible: But, it's not likely, is it? You have to make it likely. Maybe some of us have the guts to do it.