Dialogue with LaRouche
This is a transcript of the extensive dialogue which took place following Lyndon LaRouche's opening remarks at his June 27, 2009 webcast.
Freeman: The first question comes from a leading Democrat in the Senate, whose committee is charged with dealing with international affairs.
"Mr. LaRouche, prior to the elections in Iran, I was very hopeful that the current administration was pursuing a far more sane course than the previous administration had. And this was characterized not only by a desire to engage the Iranians in discussion, to sit at the table with them, and figure some things out, but I think it was also characterized by something extremely important, which was the administration's recognition that the government of Iran had the right to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. And I share that view.
"However, since the election, it appears that all Hell has broken loose, and although the administration and the President, personally, had, for some time, refrained from commenting on the situation, that has changed, I believe, under pressure that has come both internationally, and from inside the United States. While, certainly, the violence in Iran is extremely disturbing, and very difficult to watch, I really fear that this will be used to dismantle what had been a very important step toward progress in the region.
"Could you please comment on your overall view of what's happening there, and what you would recommend in terms of U.S. policy?"
LaRouche: Well, the Iran problem is really not that significant. Iran, like most nations, is undergoing a crisis now, as all nations are, to one degree or another. Whole regions of the world are in a crisis. Remember, you've got to look at the thing in context: Don't work from a particular problem outward. Work from the global situation toward the particular question. Don't be an amateur. Don't work yourself out from one problem at a time, and think that you're going to make policy.
This is, of course, the character of the Obama Administration. Notice this: The good side of U.S. foreign policy is that President Obama has paid very little attention to foreign policy. But, rather, the State Department has been running its own foreign policy, especially including certain Presidential advisors, who are involved in international negotiations of that related type. Like the Middle East-Sykes-Picot area, and so forth. So, in that area, Obama has not interfered, but has allowed the Secretary of State and her people she coordinates with, in policy, to go pretty much in their own direction, with some influence by him.
But, therefore, in these areas, you find the old United States, and a semblance of sanity, somewhat improved over that of the George Bush era.
But then, in other things, it's not so good. Why? Because Obama is—he's a Nero. He's now on certain "kicks": He's on the kick of cap and trade, he's on the kick of killing people, through health-care policies, to kill people. To reduce the population—to kill people! So therefore, you can not separate Obama's wish to kill people, and do other insane things in particular, from the fact that he is not necessarily paying much attention to other areas, except as he's forced to make some mumbling, confused statement about them.
It's Not an Iranian Problem
Now, to understand the Iran problem, it is not an Iranian problem. There's nothing new there, in terms of an Iranian problem. Iran went through a revolution, some years back—and this was quite a revolting revolution! It shook things up, and produced very much a dictatorial system, because of the attempt to enforce a new cultural matrix upon the country, by the revolutionaries. So it's a complicated situation, which is stabilized by the use of authority, and the use of force. To say it's a dictatorship is meaningless, because it doesn't mean anything to say that. It's very much of a tough regime, from the top down, and people are very nervous in that country, because the regime is a tough one; it smells like a dictatorship. But it was in the nature of revolutions of that type to create those kinds of regimes. Of one flavor or another—lemon, lime, whatever.
So there is no real problem, for the United States in Iran: None! There are things we should do with Iran, but every indication is, that whatever happened in the election, that the result was probably pretty close to accurate. But then, somebody else put a finger in that place: the good ol', ever-loving British Empire. The entire operation, the entire scandal, all the heat about the crisis around the election in Iran, is all coming from London. The British Empire! Our dear, loving enemy!
So the British have created this orchestration. And it's all over the press, which is largely British-controlled—most of the U.S. press is British-controlled: Who controls the New York Times? Go through the newspapers today, who controls them? They're all controlled by the British Empire! The Beaverbrook apparatus has moved in, from World War II, has moved in and taken over the major U.S. news media! So you have a State Department that is actually having a problem with a foreign imperial power, that is trying to tell them what to do. It's British!
Now, what is involved here? The British run what area? The British control the so-called Sykes-Picot area, since World War I; they control the area from Turkey down, in the East. They control Israel, they control the various Arab factions; they control the area of Iran; they are now breaking up Pakistan; they control Afghanistan. This process is a threat to India, because if Pakistan blows up at the same time that the stabilizing factor of Iran is unsettled, then you lose the whole area! The whole under-continent of Asia! You want that? The British are doing it!
Why Don't We Have an Anti-British Foreign Policy?
Well, why don't we have a foreign policy that says, the British are our enemy? What is our interest in that area? Our interest is to end this nonsense! We're tired of this damned warfare, in Palestine and adjoining areas! We're more than fed up with it! We're tired of the Iraq War, which was given to us by the British, because Bush always kissed the butt of the British on wars like that. We're tired of the destabilization of Iran by the British.
You know, the United States had a policy in Iran. We had a hero in Iran, who was trying to rebuild his country, and the British destabilized him, and we let it happen, under Truman. Pakistan was always a question of stability, the subcontinent's stability; Afghanistan has always been a problem, a drug problem! So these are areas in which we have concern. So, why don't we, instead of looking at, and taking British propaganda, and saying, "Well, British propaganda is telling our people such and such is true," when we know it's not true! We know the British are doing it. So why don't we bomb London and get it over with? Or, maybe do something else, similar, something to the same effect.
So, there's the kind of problem here. First of all, it's the attempt to be focused into looking at single issues, or single territorial issues, when we have a global complex! Everything is global today. The British call it "globalization." It's global. And the question is, there are centers of power which are struggling either to enforce globalization, to make new arrangements under globalization, or to suppress it. My concern is to stop it—suppress globalization. Go back to sovereign nation-states.
And so, we don't have a problem with Iran. We have a problem with the United States.
We should not be in Afghanistan—we should never have put troops back into Afghanistan! It was insane! It was done by Obama. It should never have been done. We don't want to go in there to shoot farmers. We want to stop the drug traffic coming out of Afghanistan. Not shoot farmers in Afghanistan. The British are running the area of Afghanistan where the drugs are being produced. The drugs are being produced by farmers, who are working under a gun at their neck, being forced to produce opium, for the benefit of what? For the benefit of the British Empire. What does the farmer get? The farmer in Afghanistan, in that southern region, may get $500 a year for his opium crop; he's virtually slave labor—he's got a gun at his neck; he's going to do that or get shot. This opium, when it gets transported out of Afghanistan, gets into Europe, it's $1.2 to $1.5 million. That's where the issue is.
So shutting down the drug traffic is the issue, the drug traffic which is largely run in the Americas by George Soros—same problem: Shut down the drug traffickers! Drug traffickers, not farmers! Don't shoot farmers! So silly U.S. troops are sent in there, to shoot farmers! Effectively. Or to go in there to intrude in the area where these thugs are controlling the farmers, in raising the opium crops. So we go in there, and get effectively into a war, with the people, in Afghanistan, who otherwise have no reason to hate us, but we're in there, causing us to be hated! And we're getting our soldiers killed in a worse situation than Iraq! In an unnecessary war.
These are the kinds of things we ought to be concerned about! But every time you come up against this, in a U.S. foreign policy issue, you will find, invariably, that the vital interests of the United States are threatened by one common source: the British Empire. And therefore, a U.S. government that can not say "Git!" to the British Empire, is not sovereign. And that's where the whole problem lies.
We have to look at things in this way: If you're not willing to say, the British are the enemy—the British Empire's the enemy—if you can't say that, I don't think you can make competent foreign policy.
I think that the State Department has done a remarkably good job, under these circumstances. I don't know how much longer Obama's going to allow Hillary Clinton to stay alive.
The U.S.A. Is a Puppet of the British Empire
Freeman: This question also comes from the United States Senate.
"Mr. LaRouche, you have long been an advocate of a global financial reorganization along the lines of Bretton Woods. More recently, you've called for a Four-Power agreement, that would including the United States, Russia, China, and India, as the spark for such a global reorganization. I understand now, which I did not understand earlier, why it is your view that the Europeans are in a diminished position to enter into, or at least to initiate such a reorganization, largely as a result of their participation in Maastricht. However, it seems to me, that over the course of the last year, the likelihood of Russia and China participating in such a reorganization has diminished, and that in fact, they are leaning far more toward some of the proposals that have come out of Europe, which I know you disagree with, and which I also disagree with. But I'd like you to comment on why this is happening in Russia and China, and how you think we can remedy this, and begin to make some progress on reorganization?"
LaRouche: Well, you've got to go back to 2007, go back to September 2007. What happened, was, people in Russia are well aware of me, that is, relevant people. Relevant people in the Chinese government are well aware of me, of my policies. So the problem is, if the people in Russia and China, one group of people, believe that I am right, and they see me as being pushed down in United States, what's their reaction?
The point is, the policy that I presented was not an abstract policy, like an algebraic formula. It's a policy which was defined by me, by my policy, by my thinking. And was defined in terms of people in China and Chinese institutions, and Russian institutions, who knew what my thinking is. And were curious to know whether my thinking would be accepted, respecting them, in the United States.
That is, to the degree people abroad see my thinking as expressed by me, as being a factor in U.S. policy, they will tend to go in the direction of the United States. To the extent people abroad, think I'm not a factor in the United States, they will go in the opposite direction. Because they know the only force, apart from the United States, who's as relevant on this planet today, is the British Empire. Now, if you have got a U.S. government whose policies are pro-British Empire, then what happens, you'll get, as you get in Russia or you get in China—much less in China, but nonetheless there—in China it's very reluctant. They're reluctant on this policy! Some people in Russia are reluctant on that change in policy. There are people in China and Russia, who prefer my policy to that policy, and to the policy of the Obama Administration.
But you've got to be realistic, you can not have illusions: You have to admit, the United States is a puppet of the British Empire! The present government! And any government abroad which has any brains, understands that! If they understand that the British Empire is controlling the United States government, what's their reaction? "We have to deal with the British. We have to deal with the boss." Who's boss? If I'm boss, no problem. Except for the problem, the British.
So, the key here, is, I'm not making policy to chop my gums, you know? I'm making policy, because we don't have peoe in the United States government who know how to make it. So therefore, I have to help my country, by giving them a little bit of understanding about how to make some policy! And the first thing in making policy, is having the guts to be a patriot! Not a kisser of the British butt. And I do not kiss British butts, or any other parts of their anatomy.
But anyway, if we find an occasional Brit who is good, we rejoice. I think there's a Biblical passage to that effect: the prodigal son. We love the prodigal Brit. But that's the nature of the problem.
What we have to realize, is this is not a matter of diplomacy. It's way beyond diplomacy: Are we going to save the United States, from the worst financial crisis in all known, recorded history? A planetary crisis? Are we going to do that? Now that means, if we're going to do that, we're going to say, as Roosevelt did, the British Empire is going down! The British Empire is to be shut down! The United Kingdom can live. That's fine. But the British Empire and what it represents is going to be shut down! The interests of the United States, among other things, demand that!
Once you say that, once you recognize that, as U.S. interest, you've got a policy. When you don't say that, and you don't think that, you don't have a policy.
Russia, China Want To Know:
Who's Running the World?
Look at this—put yourself in the position of someone from Russia or China, in government: They're looking at this mess, this Obama mess. Do you think they're totally stupid? Russia's a very large nation with a lot of experience there. China is not exactly ignorant. Don't you think they see what's going on here? And they're trying to survive? They're trying to find out who's running the world, who they have to deal with? And they're going to have to make a compromise for dealing with this thing that they think they have to deal with? And the United States is an impotent wimp, an errand boy for London? Of course they're going to kiss the butt of the British! Where'd this policy come from, that you're talking about, this China and Russia policy toward the United States? It comes from the gutlessness of the American people! Which is largely informed by lack of information, by the press. Everyone is saying, "Not me. Not me!" I would hate to have to fight a war with this American population. You can't have an army, where every soldier says, "I'm for the war, but not me." You're going to lose the war. And that's where our problem lies.
I understand the problems in the Senate, on this account. I understand we have patriots in the Senate who would really like to have the right thing done. But the problem is, we don't get enough of them together to crush the problem we have! We don't deal with our own problem! I mean—Nancy Pelosi, for example!! Why do we put up with that? What is she? She's got her mouth tied up again, with surgery, or what? What is she? We have done nothing in the House of Representatives, worth anything, since the beginning of 2006! And where's the kingpin of this thing? This stooge, Nancy Pelosi, a stooge for people like Rohatyn and George Soros—a stooge! Who prevents anything from happening!
We elected for that year, a new Congress. We got a lot of Democrats in, as new Democrats in the Congress. They came in determined to do something. What did Nancy Pelosi do? Killed everything! All for the sake of the oligarchy. On all these issues, what she's done, she's been an impediment! She should go into retirement! And spend more time on these face jobs, you know? Probably needs a lot more repair these days.
But anyway, that's the problem: We do not have—you have to realize, we do not express, from our institutions of government a credible commitment to policies which will inspire people in other countries to trust us. And when they don't trust us, or they think we're weak, or we're vacillating, they're going to try to find out who is running the world, and they're going to try to find out how to deal with whoever that bastard is, who's running the world! And they'll kiss the British bastard in the rear, if they have to, to survive.
China is concerned that its very existence, its survival, is on the line. Russia believes that its very existence, economic existence, in particular, is on the line. The United States is doing nothing about that, but we could. The power over the existence of Russia, the existence of China, is now in the hands of the British. What do you expect? You're the ally that has no guts: Don't expect to influence people much.
Creating the Conditions for Global Pandemics
Freeman: The next question comes from a former ambassador from one of the countries, which would be party to the Four-Power agreement.
"Mr. LaRouche, I must admit, that, while I've been familiar with your movement for quite some time, I have only recently had the time to study your writings in depth. And I have discovered, almost within minutes, that after Benjamin Franklin, you may be the only American President who has never officially been the President. Your analysis of the Venetian-Anglo-Dutch oligarchy and imperialism is without parallel. Your understanding of American and world history is certainly of the highest order. And your proposals for action in response to the current global crisis are the best that I have heard from any political leader or economist, anywhere. And it is in that spirit that I would like you to address two things.
"Number 1, please clarify for me and for your international audience, why and how a basket of ten currencies adopted by the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, and China] nations is actually doomed to fail?
"And second, you've been saying that because of deindustrialization and globalization, the real economy is collapsing and creating degraded conditions of life that cause pandemics. I see that you recently remarked that perhaps there is a deliberate genocidal element behind the swine flu pandemic. Do you agree with people like Dr. Len Horowitz, that the swine flu virus was created in a laboratory under Anglo-American oligarchical direction? Also do you think that Tamiflu and other flu vaccines are safe, or deadly, as so many other commentators today believe? Is it possible that mandatory vaccination is actually designed to kill, rather than to save lives, as we've witnessed in so much of Africa?"
LaRouche: Well, let's take the last aspect of the question first. The problem of disease is systemic. When you're looking at disease from a political standpoint, that is, from a standpoint of government policy, you're not looking at a disease, in and of itself, as the problem. Because you're looking at sanitation in the broadest sense, first of all, and you're looking at the fact, that under various conditions, diseases spread and take on new forms. And the conditions of spread of disease is what we should be concerned about.
There is a third factor, which is typified by Prince Philip and Bertrand Russell: That Russell, like Prince Philip, said that they desired—and Russell said this in 1953; Prince Philip said it later, as a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund—that they would like to have a disease, a Black Death, once in every generation, so that the population be reduced sufficiently, so that people could "procreate freely." Prince Philip has said that he wanted to die and become a deadly disease, to reduce the population of the planet to at least below 2 billion people.
You have the practices of the British government and the British Empire and of the thinkers and co-thinkers of Bertrand Russell, his followers, all have introduced policies which have no other significant effect than to cause depopulation, with the assistance of disease, of nurtured disease. You'll find that Bertrand Russell's followers, in particular, are often engaged in laboratories which do synthesize diseases.
But then, on the other hand, at the same time, the way in which diseases spread has a great deal to do with sanitation; it has to do with the conditions of life, conditions of family life, health and so forth. You find that mortality rates are highest where the population is the weakest, because of disease factors, and nutritional and environmental factors.
So essentially, you're looking at a combination of things: I think it's a mistake, to presume, without very precise evidence, that a particular disease is a result of being created in a laboratory. I do not exclude it! But I don't presume it, until I have the evidence that convinces me that that is what's happened.
What I do understand, which is far different, but more important, is that when you create the conditions for spread of epidemic disease, or pandemic forms, when you create those conditions, then wherever the seeds of that destruction are found, they will spread! For example, you look at the death rates from flu, which we're seeing now around the world, you see a pattern. The pattern is degraded conditions of life, a history of disease. Like the thing the stupid President did, on McAllen, Texas: You have an area, which is an area, where people have a higher rate of specific diseases, than other parts of the United States! So, this stupid jerk called a President, goes down there and says, "They're spending too much on health care"! The problem is, they have a problem there, which we don't have in other parts of the United States, and we're treating that disease, or diseases, and hope it doesn't spread to other parts of the United States.
So, the problem of sanitation, and the policies of governments and others toward matters of sanitation, is, to our knowledge, in the history of epidemic disease, particularly pandemics, largely an economic problem! Look, the highest rate of death in Europe, in any short period of time, occurred in the 14th Century, as a result of an economic breakdown, at that time, which was called the New Dark Age. And you had an economic breakdown, which caused at least one-third of the population of Europe to die out very quickly, and one-half of the places of habitation, communities of habitation in Europe, vanish from the map. That's typical of the problem.
People may invent diseases, which, in and of themselves, are vicious. I think we should not overemphasize that. We should not deny it, but we should not overemphasize it. What we have to recognize is, the key thing we're looking at is sanitation: We have to build the conditions of sanitation which themselves allow the human body to resist disease. And you find that the highest death rates from the flu are coming from areas where you would expect the highest death rates to occur: where the populations are impoverished, have poor conditions of life, bad health histories, and so forth.
Therefore, what Obama is doing, is worse than a disease: What Obama is doing with this health-care program, and what he's doing with his economic policies as well, is the best way to kill the greatest number of people on this planet. Get Obama under control. Put him in a nice little box where he's comfortable and happy, and let him make statements, as long as they're supervised. That's the best way to deal with disease.
The United States Must Be Involved
Now, on this otherwise, on the BRIC: The problem here is one of what kind of system do we need. I mean, it's different than the question of what degree of cooperation we need, what kind of system do we need. What we need is, number one, what none of these countries can do—the BRIC would be a failure. Any effort by the BRIC to operate independently of the United States' system, would be a catastrophic failure for the nations of the BRIC—a failure. Don't take a poison pill! And the idea of breaking from the United States and the dollar, by the BRIC, would be their taking a poison pill, which would ensure their destruction.
The problem is, that the governments of China and Russia, do not understand economics. What's happened is, they've gone from a hybrid, where they had the problems of Marxism, which already was a problem. Then they got the worst effect of it; they got the problems of the British model as an "anti-Marxist" policy. And the present economic policies of Russia, in particular, were produced in London, by the new mafia, which came in to replace the Soviet system. In China, you have a somewhat similar problem, but a different one—the same effect. So, what happens is, the Chinese and Russians adapted, over the course of the post-1989-1992 period, they adapted to the British system! And of course to these chicken legs from George Bush in Texas, in Russia.
So, they adapted to it. So now you find that the culture is no longer a Soviet culture. There's no element of real Marxism in there, except for some other purposes; the economic policy, the economic establishment of Russia is not the old apparatus. Who I would think is the most appropriate people to cooperate with the United States, are the old Soviet apparatus, including economists and others, who are traditional parts of the economic thinking system and the scientific establishment, that is, the Academy of Sciences of Russia.
The Academy of Sciences is the most important institution, from my standpoint, in Russia. Because it represents a tradition, a current of thinking, which understands Russia more deeply than these guys who were educated in London. And it also has competence, which these guys who were trained in London or here, do not have.
So, what you have, is you have idiots, who tend to be in influential positions in Russia, which influence the policy. They have the power—because they have the money! That is the problem there.
In China, you have Chinese Communist Party members who are billionaires, or something like that. That's a rather funny kind of Marxism, isn't it? But in any case, you see an influence there, that the Chinese have become dependent upon their relationship to the United States, the trading relationship, the market relationship. Russia similarly; different case, but similar in the sense of the problem.
So now, you have nations which do not have an understanding, in terms of the institutions in power, do not have an understanding of how the world economy works. There are people in there, who do understand, but you have a lot of people who don't. So therefore, they come up with recipes which, you look at them carefully: They're British-made recipes! They're talking about a world monetary system.
The problem with the world today, is to get rid of a monetary system! It's the monetary system that's killed us! We want the model—and the world wants, if it's careful—wants the model of the American System. The American System is a credit system. The present world system is a monetarist system, not a credit system.
A monetarist system is based on what? It's an empire: It's based on a system of currencies, which are controlled by people outside government: It's called the free market! Otherwise called the "flea market." You have financial power, which is independent of governments, not controlled by any governments, but in fact, these powers, through the so-called floating-exchange-rate system, have power over governments! The British Empire is not an empire because it emanates from London. It's an empire, because it emanates into London! It controls the British destiny in imperial form. It's a Venetian-style system.
We have to solve the problem—otherwise you're going to Hell—to solve the problem, you have to shut down monetarism! But how do you do that? You say, "nobody has the right, to create currency, except a sovereign government which is accountable for that currency. These currencies and these governments must cooperate, to create a fixed-exchange-rate system among themselves." On this basis, they can now issue credit, on rates such as 1-1/2 to 2% per year. Not compound interest. Straight credit. On this basis, at the levels of less than 2%, 2% or less, you can invest government credit, government-uttered credit, in long-term capital improvement projects, which will restore or build up an economy, as the United States has done in its best times.
So, what you need is an international credit system.
Now, the other aspect of this credit system is, in order to build up the world's economy, both to fix the problems that were never fixed, and to repair that which has been destroyed—we have to have long-term investments, which run, in the mean level, of up to 50-years maturities. In other words, a great mass of new credit has to be uttered, among nations, in the order of 1-1/2 to 2% per year, over as long as a mean 50-year term, as government-to-government agreements, among credit systems.
This is necessary because we have to change the capital formation in the world. We need more capital intensity.
Cap-and-Trade Means Mass Murder of Americans
For example, we, up until recently, had been mining the Earth, for minerals. Now what we mine are not minerals in their so-called natural mineral form, but minerals which have been deposited by dead living plants and animals. Now these animals in certain habitats have left their little dead bodies behind. These little dead bodies contain minerals which were part of the biological system of these animals, or these plants. So, when you want to get a good concentration of a certain mineral, you find out where one of these deposits is: some in the ocean, some in various parts of the world. So, they're fossils. But they're products of living processes, which have concentrated minerals in a certain way.
So, the animals, or plants, have essentially extracted these minerals, from their environment, concentrated these minerals in their bodies, and when they die, they leave these minerals in the concentrations wherever they lived. That's where we usually find our minerals, under these kinds of conditions, going way back in the Earth's history.
Now, as man has improved his power, we have been able to increase the population, because we've gone to higher energy flux densities. We went from burning trash, such as the Bush family. We went up the scale, to coal, to coke, to natural gas, petroleum, and now we've reached the point that, in order to maintain the cost, that is, the physical cost, of raw materials, under conditions of shrinking of prime sources of concentrated resources, we now have to go to higher energy flux densities, to be able to have these minerals at the same cost to us, and effort, as we had earlier, when we had richer mineral resources.
Therefore, what determines the ability of the human species to maintain its population, and its conditions of life, is to increase what is called the energy flux density of power sources. We have now reached the point, as in the case of freshwater, that without large-scale reliance on high energy flux density, nuclear fission power, we cannot maintain the present population of this planet in decent conditions. Therefore, we've come to the point, that we must have long-term investments, capital investments, in transportation systems, in power production systems, improved power systems, and so forth. So the capital intensity per capita, and per square kilometer, of production, must increase. That means that we have to invest in capital-intensive investment, in processes of production, conditions of habitation, and so forth, in order to maintain the welfare of the planet, even at the present level.
So, therefore—we have now lost production capacity—we're going to have to go back to large-scale infrastructure projects, such as nuclear power plants, and similar kinds of things, which we can build; we have the resources to build these. We're going to use this as the driver for creating the conditions of production where the productivity of the human race as a whole is increasing, per capita and per square kilometer.
This means long-term capital investments. 25 to 50 years, and in some places longer, like a great railway system, a great water system is a 100-year, century-long project. Like the Three Gorges Dam is a 100-year project, at minimum.
So you have to think in these kinds of terms.
So the problem here is, only under a credit system, an international credit system, to replace an international monetary system—which is now bankrupt, by the way—only in that way can we guarantee the welfare of humanity, for generations to come.
If we do not, if we go in the direction of what is now proposed by these stupid Congressmen—this one Congressman, whoever he was, who voted for this cap-and-trade bill—he voted for mass murder of Americans. Because that's what the effect would be. Cap-and-trade means mass murder of Americans. Because if you cannot go to high energy-flux-density modes of production, with capital-intensive investment, you cannot possibly save this population from Hell, especially in the run-down condition we're in today.
We've lost the auto industry; we've lost entire other industries. We no longer have the productive capacity we had ten years ago! We've lost it. We're losing productive capability in the United States at rates higher than Hoover Depression levels. Much higher, already. So therefore, we have to reverse this. But we not only have to reverse it. We have the same problem in Europe; we have the same problem in Russia, which is Eurasia; we have the same problem in China.
China has a systemic problem, because of a lack of development of the greatest part of its population. The only way you can cure that problem, is with high energy-flux-density processes on a large scale, capital-intensive processes. So, without that, we can't function. And only with the attitude, the historic attitude, of the United States, and opposition to the historic British attitude, can that be done.
Europe can't do it otherwise. Europe's dead now. So, that's the point.
So, we need international cooperation, with a 50-year future perspective, practical, in terms of contracts. We need a 1-1/2 to 2% base rate of credit uttered over these terms, in order to build up the world economy, on a high energy flux density orientation, to maintain the preconditions of life for mankind on this planet. We have to change all this crap we've been taught, all the brainwashing that's been done by the 68ers and the people who followed them. That has to go. It's the 68ers that have killed us, and it's the 68er thinking that must go.
A Monetary System vs. a Credit System
Freeman: We've gotten five or six questions in from different professors, at different universities, who are working on certain policy questions through think tanks, but have also, as a result of that, embarked on studies of some of your work, and of certain aspects of U.S. history, as it relates to that. And what I've done, is I've mushed it all together into one question.
"Mr. LaRouche, I and various colleagues around the country, joined by various students and graduate students, have been following your analysis and proposals on the economy with increasing interest over the past couple of years, especially as your forecasts have proven to be more and more accurate. Of course, now, everything depends on what we need to do to fix the economic and financial mess that we are in. And while we're strongly drawn to your proposals, we are also hoping for clarification on some very crucial points that you've been making, which people ask us repeatedly, and which we cannot answer.
"It concerns the distinction you draw between what you call the monetary systems that European countries have, and the credit system that the U.S. has. Our questions concern better defining what the distinction is; why you think the U.S. has a different system than Europe, and where in the U.S. Constitution the idea of a credit system is provided for.
"Specifically, on the first: Our best inference is that by monetary system, you mean a system where private banks, and/or privately held central banks, like the Bank of England, can create money, lend money, that they don't have as deposits. And by a credit system, you mean where the government itself is actually tasked with creating money, can create credits, by lending money it hasn't raised, etc.
"So, if this is the distinction you're making, whether it's the government that's in charge, or the private banks, then our second question is: It appears that the U.S., whatever the intention was, now has as much of a monetary system as Europe, since only the Federal Reserve, a private bank, seems to have the power to create money as loans—that is, credit not backed by anything— and that the Congress does not have this power. So, on that basis, I don't understand how we have a credit system. It seems right now to be operating in the same way that the European system is.
"If the issue is that we are not operating according to the basic ideas of our Founding Fathers, then please clarify that. But we believe that if we can just resolve this question, we can go forward with your proposals, and make much more rapid progress than we've made to date. "
LaRouche: Well, the question does fairly describe the parameters of the issue. The difference is, I'd put it this way:
In the history of empire—take a certain segment of imperialism's history, and locate it at the point that the Persian Empire had been defeated in its attempt to take over the Mediterranean region. And, at this point, what happened is that Athens, and Corinth—otherwise known as the Spartan faction—entered into what became known as the Peloponnesian War. And the Peloponnesian League was actually run by the cult of Delphi, which was the center of the monetary system of that period.
You will find, if you look at the aerial photographs, or similar photographs, of the Delphi cult site today, you'll find that, next to the temple, there's a ring of little so-called treasuries, which represent the financial interests of various cities of Greece, in particular. So this was the monetary power.
Now then, you had the two maritime powers, in Greece, one centered around Corinth, one centered on Athens, and these two go into a war, over which—now that the Persian Empire had lost its influence over the Mediterranean, the question was, which of these two Greek empires, or so-called empires, would now have maritime supremacy throughout the Mediterranean. And also deal with the thing in Syracuse, for example, the same way. That's why the extension of the war into Syracuse.
From this point on, all European systems of government and finance, from that time until the present, in Europe, have been monetary systems, in which private interests, monetarist interests—not necessarily banking, but the monetarist interests. Because you cannot say that banks and monetary systems are the same thing. They're not necessarily the same thing. It's the monetary system that you're looking at, not the banks. But the banks have been generally tools, or subordinates, of it.
For example, like the great crisis of Italy, that led into the New Dark Age: You had banks in northern Italy, which were the banks that went under, but the monetary power was in Venice, not in the banks of northern Italy. Like the case of the House of Bardi. The House of Bardi was a bank of a particular city, a very small city, Lucca, and this bank was the bank which was key in the crash of the entire financial system, monetary system, of Europe, in that time. But the power of this was in Venice, which was the monetary power.
Now, the monetary power typified by Venice then, is still the monetary conception of monetary power in Europe today. So, Europe never had a successfully consolidated system of self-government, which was not controlled by monetary power.
The U.S. Is Based on a Hamiltonian Credit System
The United States was created, beginning with a policy of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, prior to 1688, in which the Massachusetts Bay Colony had developed a scrip system, that is, a credit system, within the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was autonomous under the charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. That was shut down by the British in 1688-89. This idea persisted into the 18th Century, in this idea of a paper currency, by Benjamin Franklin, was an expression of the same thing. We'll follow the Massachusetts Bay precedent in this matter.
Then you had the Revolutionary War, where the private banks, that is, state-chartered banks of the various colonies, the 13 colonies, who participated in the Revolution, now came to the end. We'd won the war, but the banks were bankrupt as a result of the war debt. At this point, Hamilton developed a concept, which led to the formation of the U.S. Federal Constitution. And that was, to create a national bank, which would be the facility to put the state banks through reorganization, in order to save the U.S. system at that time.
Obviously, to have that kind of authority, you had to pass over from a collection or federation of separate former colonies, into a Federal government, and therefore, it was around this conception of Hamilton that the idea of the Constitution was created.
The Declaration of Independence had the same principle in it, from Leibniz. But now, we had a new problem: To take the same principle that was in the Declaration of Independence, and now express it in a form, which would deal with this question of a national credit system.
So, the United States was, from inception, based on a Hamiltonian notion of a credit system; in which no foreign banks, or no private banks, would have sovereignty over national banking. But national banking, and the control of the currency, would be entirely by the people, through the Constitutional structure, a national Constitutional structure, and with a national banking concept to deal with this.
So, my particular proposal, of course, is: eliminate the Federal Reserve System, which is a piece of poison, a British piece of poison actually, and just absorb that Federal Reserve, which is already bankrupt, in fact, under examination,—absorb it, and say, put it into reorganization, under the authority of a newly created National Bank.
In other words, it would not be the Treasury Department, but the Treasury Department would be the relevant agency supervising the National Bank, through various means.
But then, the National Bank would itself take charge of commercial types of debt, and protect the system.
Now, that was shut down by a man who was actually quite a traitor, who was called Andrew Jackson, later as President. And Andrew Jackson was the guy who shut down the bank, for the sake of the New York banking interests, which were British interests—Van Buren. And Van Buren launched the other banking system, which collapsed in the great crisis of 1837. So, we quickly went from one measure to a complete bankruptcy, again.
And then Lincoln was faced with the same problem: We had to defend the United States against the British Empire, which was behind the Confederacy. So, what Lincoln did, was went to greenbacks. Now, greenbacks are a form of credit, uttered by the U.S. government, by the Treasury Department, under law, under a credit system. And when the British wanted to defeat the United States, after Lincoln was dead—after all, it was their war, the British were the ones who set up the war—the first attack was on greenbackism. To destroy the power of the United States to create its own credit.
This was then consolidated through the aid of Teddy Roosevelt, who was a British agent. His uncle, after all, was a Confederate spy. And then became later, with Teddy Roosevelt's support, under Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve system. And then became also the Federal tax system. The Federal income tax system was a creation, was a byproduct of the Federal Reserve System.
So, there has been a devolution in U.S. economic policy. We have to go back to our founding principle. The whole system is now bankrupt. It should be obvious to everyone, that the present United States system is bankrupt.
Now, what we have to do, is take the relevant former legislation, Glass-Steagall, and go through every bank with a sieve. And every aspect of the banking system, which has Glass-Steagall conforming standard product in it, that has to be put under bankruptcy protection, and secured. Just plain secured. Those things which do not correspond to that, such as what used to be the Wall Street financing, which Larry Summers brought in to contaminate, overthrow, Glass-Steagall—that has to be just wiped out. In other words, these guys are going to take the heat, and eat the meat. And we're going to put the system back where it was, before Larry Summers destroyed Glass-Steagall.
Now, under that system, we will park, and take the U.S. assets which are classed as monetary assets on the one side—we're going to move these, as we put them through the Glass-Steagall standard sieve, and move them across to another department, which is the U.S. credit system. We will then be required, if we're wise, to create a national bank, of a Hamiltonian type, as Hamilton himself had intended, to handle this problem. On that basis, we will now have reorganized things; we will now take measures under bankruptcy reorganization, to protect those things which are essential, and to settle claims which are not necessarily essential.
And in that way, we will now put ourselves in the position to utter credit, for the Federal government, by law, which will be mandated for specific projects, typified by what happened with the Tennessee Valley Authority—that kind of operation. We're going to have to go at the infrastructure end. We're going to have to scrape from the sands, everything that looked like an auto industry's machine-tool capability. We're going to have to take the area in which these machine-tool-based plants existed. We're going to have to consider the fact that the populations which lived in that area, need a job, and they have the kind of skills which are required for the kinds of infrastructure projects we require. For river systems, mass transportation systems, and so forth.
Then we will use these projects to build up the productive power, and skills, of our population. We will be on the road to recovery. We won't be at recovery, we'll be on the road to recovery. Once we're on the road to recovery, then we can say to ourselves, that our credit is good.
And we're going to have to write the contracts, in effect, and the government will be involved, with the head of national banking, in writing the contracts which will provide for those projects, which are judged to be sound, in the interest of the nation, to get them moving. We're going to move this country of ours, and move it back to the large-scale infrastructure projects on which industrial and agricultural production depends. Move it back in that direction, and spin off a recovery of what the United States used to be, by that method. It will take a generation or two to do it. But we'll be on the road up, all the way through, not on the road down. It'll be the end of going down, to going up.
And the important thing here is, in a sense, psychological. You have an American people, citizenry, which is demoralized, in every sense of the word. Their society has failed them. They have been abandoned. They're on a sinking ship. They see no hope for the future. They have silly dreams they can get luck in a gambling deal, or something like that. They don't have any sense of the future. They don't have any sense of, I built this. They don't have the sense of the grandfather's going out to his grandson and saying, "Look, I built this." And that's the way you move the American people in the best way. When you get that idea across.
But we have to create the ingredients of credibility, by taking the measures which create the basis for people to believe in this stuff. And make sure we have the politicians and the institutions which are committed to delivering on that promise. We'll just restore the credit system. We can do it. If we look at our history, we can do it.
Look, ever since the Peloponnesian War, Europe has never had, except for brief intervals, a concept, cultural concept, of this kind of principle, of a credit system. All this period, from the Peloponnesian War, the world has been dominated by maritime-based monetary systems, which have ruled over nations, and have been called empires, and are empires. Empires are not really empires of one nation conquering another. Empires are the rule of all nations, by this kind of monetary system.
That's what we have to do.
Obama Is a Conscious Fascist
Freeman: This next question comes from one of the leading members of the Stanford group, and he says:
"Mr. LaRouche, you've defined that the unique aspect of the American Republic, is that our economy is based on a credit system, as opposed to a monetary system. As you know, we've struggled over these last three months to understand the difference between the two, and I do believe that we've made a great deal of progress. But, as we've made that progress, I have come to disagree with you. And I think that the current fight over this health-care policy, and the soon-to-come fight over Social Security, will ultimately prove my point. My position is, that unless we settle a fundamental question, I am convinced that we will never find agreement on a programmatic approach to this crisis. And that fundamental question centers on a precise understanding of the unique nature of man.
"As a college student, and later as a graduate student, I switched my field of study several times, because behaviorists were becoming increasingly hegemonic in certain disciplines. And it is that behavioral outlook that is pervasive in every nightmarish policy that has emerged from this Obama Administration. I do not believe that Barack Obama is a conscious fascist, but I do believe that, if one is governed by a behaviorist model, in the midst of a crisis of this enormity and severity, that the solutions that you come up with, will be generically fascist.
'It's taken me some time to voice this disagreement with you, but I trust that you will take it in the spirit that I raise it, and right now, I just believe that it is very important that we get this right. Please comment."
LaRouche: Well, you've got to tell the American people who's boss. And you've got to convince them that they're boss. Then you'll get it. You'll get rid of the behaviorists.
Look at the essential characteristic of the behaviorists on health care. They're saying that some people have lives that are not worthy to be lived. Now, I've said that loudly, and Obama knows that I've said that. He knows exactly why I've said it. I've described it in detail. Obama is a conscious Nazi. I've said it repeatedly. He knows it. He knows I've said it. He's very upset by the fact that I've said it. Even after I've detailed it. If he's such a smart guy, you mean he didn't understand what I told him?
I said, "Mr. President, you are doing the same thing, in the same schedule, that Adolf Hitler did, for which people were indicted, and executed in the postwar period, in trials in Germany—both by foreign trials, and by the German process itself. This is a crime! You're a lawyer, buddy! This is a crime! It's a crime against humanity. It's a crime against humanity, which, admittedly, was not invented by Hitler; it was invented by the British, but its notoriety is that of Hitler, who was a British puppet in his inception."
So, it's impossible for an intelligent person, who considers these facts, not to recognize that Obama is a conscious Nazi! Not a German Nazi, not a swastika Nazi, but a real Nazi, a British Nazi. And the Queen is a Nazi, too. And her husband is a Nazi, too. What do you expect? You can't say, "You can't use the word 'Nazi.' No, that gets people upset." But that's good for them. It purges them of evil. "You are a Nazi!" "Oh, I'm a Nazi. Shoot me!" "No, no, we're not going to shoot you, just recognize it and change."
Well, you've got to tell them. I'm not going to tell you you've got a cold when you've got syphilis. That's the way to deal with it, and don't be too much impressed by these behaviorists' power. They really have no power. I'm dedicated to destroying their power. You should join me; let's destroy their power and we won't have to worry about them any more.
What, Really, Was the Trilateral Commission?
Freeman: This is also a question that comes from the Stanford group, but from a different section of it.
"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, most people will date many of the problems that we have in terms of the deregulation of the financial system back to the notorious Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. But, financial deregulation actually started two years earlier. The fact is, that a Democratic Congress and Democratic President—that President being Jimmy Carter—enacted the Monetary Control Act of 1980, which removed all remaining controls on interest rates and repealed the Federal law prohibiting usury. It was the 1980 legislation, you will remember, that took the lid off banking, and doomed the savings-and-loan industry, which was the mainstay that used to provide housing loans and home mortgages. The thrifts were able to raise capital because they were allowed to pay a half percent more in interest to depositors. Bankers wanted them out of the way, and the Democratic Party obliged.
"Economist Albert Wojnilower warned at the time, that freeing the thrift and mortgage markets from government subsidy and guarantee, is like freeing the family pets by abandoning them in the jungle. His prediction was swiftly realized. The 1982 legislation was actually Congress's clumsy attempt to make amends by expanding the lending powers of the failing S&Ls. It made things worse, and a crisis followed a few years later, i.e., a bipartisan fiasco that politicians tried to conceal from voters.
"Getting the history right on this thing matters, and I think that may help to explain why contemporary Democrats are so reluctant to enact more serious reforms, like capping interest rates, restoring the usury law, etc. The fact is, it would require them to clean up the mess that they made 30 years ago, and finally acknowledge their costly errors. I'd like you to comment on this."
LaRouche: I don't think the Democratic Party in terms of its composition of its membership is actually the key to this problem.
What had happened was, you had two Rockefeller brothers who were rivals—Nelson and David. Nelson, the oldest guy, and David, the kid, the beetle collector. And they set up, with European institutions, British and others—David operated out of Italy—the Trilateral Commission. And the Trilateral Commission was essentially a British operation, working with a British ally, or practically an errand boy, David Rockefeller, and his institution, and with other people.
Now, Jimmy Carter is not really significant in this, intellectually, because he had no idea what the hell he was doing. David Rockefeller came in with $3 million for him, if he'd agree to run for President. So, he said, "Okay, Mr. Rockefeller, yes, okay." So he took it. And then later, as is well known, Mr. Carter, or President Carter, came to regret very much the role he'd played as President, and sort of went through—like a convert at a revival session. He's realized that there was something wrong with what he'd been doing. And the point is, he hadn't really been doing much of anything. He was a rubber stamp for people on policies he himself did not understand.
But the apparatus organized around David Rockefeller, was the Trilateral Commission, which not only ran the government under Carter, but also under Reagan. And, in this case, George H.W. Bush, who could be sincere because he didn't know anything, went along with that. That's his baby. Then he became President, and had the embarrassment of having more bank closures than anybody else, and he lost to Bill Clinton.
And so, therefore, the process is, you go back: There are two turning points which are crucial here. One is on the 13th of April, 1945. The day that Truman succeeded Roosevelt. And Truman's policies were an overthrow of the entire policy of Roosevelt, and implicitly the Constitution of the United States. Truman had no middle name; there was only an "S" sticking out there. And he was totally a puppet of Winston Churchill.
Remember the policy was, Roosevelt's policy, as he told Winston during the war, "Winston, when this war is ended, there's not going to be a British Empire. These people are going to be freed; we're going to help them develop when the war is over. They're going to be free." And Roosevelt had launched the intention for the United Nations Organization as a receptacle for taking the existing nations, many of which had to be rebuilt because of the wartime conditions, those nations which had a right to be free and independent, and to create a new organization called a United Nations Organization, which would be a vehicle for monitoring and discussion among this newly freed world of nations. No more colonies, no more dependencies.
And what Truman did, Truman went in exactly the opposite direction on the 13th of April, on the day after Roosevelt had died. He shut down large sections of the U.S. economy that Roosevelt had intended would be continued for part of this reconstruction of the planet. He went with the British on everything. The United States, which had been committed, before then, to freeing nations from slavery, went back to supporting the British and the Dutch and the French in recolonization, and quasi-recolonization, that is, nominal freedom, but under total British control, or French control. And so, this was what the change was.
Cultures and Generations
Now, remember, that you're talking about a phenomenon of generations here, you're talking about cultures and generations. I will be, in two months from now, approximately, I will be 87. I'm one of the last surviving World War II veterans; there are a very small number of us left, as a percentile of the population. And we're not given too much influence these days, particularly with this young jerk in the White House.
So, therefore, our generation came back from the experience in the 1930s and the war with certain ideas and certain commitments. Some of my associates from that generation became whores; they went with the opportunities rather than their conscience. But still in our society, as you saw that reflected in the election of Eisenhower: Eisenhower was popular because he represented, in the eyes of my generation, the leadership of the United States under wartime conditions. And he seemed to be a good man; and he was essentially a good man. But he came in in an unfortunate time; he became President, and was not in control of his own administration. So, we had that.
Then, Kennedy came in, almost by a fluke, and also, by the greed of his father. But, Kennedy got off on a Franklin Roosevelt orientation. There were several influences on him to that effect. And it came to a showdown with Wall Street on the steel bosses. Then the big showdown came, for which he was killed. I think it's no secret now, that he was killed because he—on the advice of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and the support and concurrence of Dwight Eisenhower, both five-star generals at the time, retired—that the United States should not be engaged in a land war in Asia. Kennedy supported that, and for that reason, he was killed. Johnson knew it; as he said later, he knew the three rifles that had gotten Kennedy were aimed at his neck. Rifles borrowed from Spain, by the same organization which was trying to kill General de Gaulle, President de Gaulle of France.
So, at that point, Johnson's scared, and went into a land war in Asia. This crazy Warren Commission said "hang this bastard. He's guilty, he did it. That's it." Shut down the investigation! Nobody did it. It's just like the 9/11 Commission, like what happened in New York. At a session, there was a little bit of an investigation, but, as we know now, the real culprits were never brought forward. So, we've entered a process over generations of these kinds of successive experiences.
We now come to the 68ers. The 68ers were victims of a cultural transformation, both in Europe, and in the United States, and elsewhere. The creative powers of mankind, which we recognize in achievements in scientific work, are not located in mathematics, or mathematical practice. They're located in the creative powers which are identical with Classical musical composition and Classical poetry. It is the inspiration which we find expressed in Classical poetry, and in Classical musical composition or other great Classical art, which captures the mind's powers of imagination.
And you will find that the greatest scientists, achieving scientists in history, have always been strongly influenced by their development of their character through Classical art. Thus, the scientist, who is steeped as a scientist in a Classical artistic background and motivation, is creative; whereas the one who is not involved in Classical artistic legacies, is not. He may be innovative, but he's not creative. Because the idea of the discovery of a principle flows from the discovery in the imagination, in the Classical imagination, the Classical artistic imagination.
So, if you want to make an idiot, send him to study mathematics alone. He'll be an idiot in time. If he's inspired by Classical artistic composition, you'll find there is a discipline of the mind, as Shelley refers to this in his Defence of Poetry, a discipline of the mind which has a disciplined conception of the imagination, based and rooted in the tradition of Classical composition.
This is true in all language cultures: that the greatest feature of any language culture, is its Classic artistic tradition, where the imagination, the creative powers of the mind are developed. Then, these creative powers of mind, faced with a problem expressed as mathematical physics, is able to see what the mathematical physics can never see, as Leibniz made this clear in his conflict with people who came after him: the Descartes thing; Leibniz vs. Descartes. Descartes is the mechanical man; you know, it's like a collection of dried turds; it rattles around in his mind. As opposed to Leibniz, a man with great creative powers, expressed in every dimension—in the use of language, creative language; in poetry, in every aspect of life.
What happened is, we sent people to college, in the postwar period, in greater numbers than ever before, and they became what we called engineers. And engineers became a useful idea, and also, a dirty word. It was a useful idea in the sense that you could mass produce, relatively, a number of people who could do things, who had been trained to go through certain procedures and techniques. But, with that, there had been a loss of the power of the imagination. And you will find a correlation in history—in what I knew, particularly, in the Fusion Energy Foundation—that we would find a generation thing.
The scientist who was a musician—we had leading scientists, largely, in the Fusion Energy Foundation—a Classical musician, or Classical artist, was also creative in science; whereas the scientist who was not particularly creative in science. They may have had genius, gimmickry, but not insight into principle, universal principles, which is the nature of this. You think about politics, or think about art. What is the nature of art? It is the expression of the imagination in a truthful way. The truth being, bearing on a principle of concept; a different way about thinking of things, thinking about principles.
We Live in the Simultaneity of Eternity
So what happens is, we had a postwar culture. We had the existentialist influence in the universities. We found that our people who were being trained in physical science had become less and less competent. They became mechanically fluent, they became mathematicians, not physicists. They knew how to add everything and subtract everything; they did better at subtracting than adding. But they didn't do much creative.
And then you had the effect; the real Dionysian cult which came up. The product of this came to bear in '68; because they were the victims of the cultural transformation that went with the Truman succession to Roosevelt. Think of the birth; think of those who were privileged, who went to universities, where they were conditioned in this new culture, the counterculture, the existentialists. In Europe, the Congress for Cultural Freedom—a real bunch of degenerates; their influence there. The existentialists generally, same thing.
So that, as long as my generation lived, and a slightly older generation lived, as we had them represented in the Fusion Energy Foundation back in the 1970s and 1980s, it was very clear: It was the creative artist, the person who was the creative artist in their culture, who was also a creative scientist. These were the people who really could understand things. Whereas, the fellow who was a rock artist or something like that, had no real conception of creativity. And so, the process of degeneration, which allowed this degeneration which occurred in the form of the Obama phenomenon, is a product of the moral cultural degeneration in the population.
And therefore, in order to try to build what we lost, it is necessary to have cultural movements in Classical music, Classical art, as well as in science. And the combination of this development is the only hope for creating a section of the generation which is capable of continuing the task of leading us out of past into the future.
That's the problem. Don't think of stereotypes, constant stereotypes. Think about the successive generations and their experience and their development, the downs and the ups of that process of development. And it's there that the power for reason, a power for devotion, is located. That's why I do what I do. That's why I work with the youth the way I work with them. That's the way I've always worked in politics. You have to have an emphasis on creativity in physical science, but you must also have an emphasis at the same time on the Classical artistic tradition.
In my generation, when I was young, and coming out of the war, that was still here. Back in the 1970s, and so forth—it's gone. Gone. And that's where the difference is.
We lost our cultural roots; we lost the ability to understand the cultural roots of the Founders of the American Revolution. We lost the cultural roots which characterize an Abraham Lincoln, the cultural roots of a President Franklin Roosevelt. We lost that! And only by recognizing what we've lost, and demanding that we get it back, does civilization have a chance of avoiding a New Dark Age.
We're all presently on the edge of a New Dark Age of all humanity. And it's the moral depravity in our cultural habits, as they play a dominant role in life today, which is the great threat to humanity. Otherwise. these things that have happened could not happen. Yes, we have to discuss all these other things, but always remember, the generational thing is important.
And you know, the theologians with whom I share my views, will speak of the simultaneity of eternity. That after all, we do know that time is not an independent factor. It's not something which encases society. That, actually, we experience time, and that's meaningful, it has a physical meaning. It has a physical meaning for us particularly as living beings. But it's not an independent factor. We're living, as the greatest theologians have recognized, in a simultaneity of eternity. And when we can locate ourselves in that way, we commit ourselves to what is needed for all mankind, in all time. Concern for those in the past, and concern for those in the future. And we look at our place in the past, or the place of our ancestors in our past, and look to the future. That's the connection; that's the moral connection.
And it's people who have a sense of that moral connection, or who can develop it, who are the resource upon which we depend, for bringing the future into being.
Can Obama Follow Lincoln's Economic Model?
Freeman: This question comes from a fairly well-known author and historian, who also is one of the people who is working with this auxiliary group that had been asked to develop an economic policy for President Obama.
"Mr. LaRouche, as I'm sure you know, President Obama claims to be a great admirer of Abraham Lincoln. And so, out of utter desperation, I recently wrote to him, and indicated that today, we find ourselves met on another battlefield of the same economic war that visited Lincoln and the Founding Fathers before him. And that, for President Obama to finish the work that Lincoln started, would be a poetic triumph that no American could miss.
"The fate of our economy, and the nation itself, may depend on how well our young President understands Abraham Lincoln's monetary breakthrough, which I characterized as the most far-reaching economic stimulus plan ever implemented by a U.S. President. I told him that he could solve our economic crisis quickly and permanently by implementing the same economic solution that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War, and save the Union from foreign economic masters. As I think you know, the bankers had Lincoln's government over a barrel, just as Wall Street has Congress in its vise-like grip today. The North needed money to fund a war, and the bankers were willing to lend it only under circumstances that amounted to extortion.
"Lincoln knew that if he went along with this, it would bankrupt the North, and as such, he asked a trusted colleague to research the matter and find a solution. In what may be the best piece of advice ever given to a sitting President, Col. Dick Taylor of Illinois reported back, that the Union had the power, under the Constitution, to solve its financing problem by printing its money as a sovereign government. Taylor wrote to Lincoln, 'Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead, and win your war with them also. If you make them full legal tender, they will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money, as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution.'
"Well, Lincoln took Taylor's advice, and he funded the war by printing paper notes backed by the credit of the government. These greenbacks aided the Union, not only in winning the war, but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln's government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched. A continental railroad system was created. A new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted. Free higher education was established, and government support was provided to all branches of science. The Bureau of Mines was organized. Labor productivity was increased by 50% to 75%. The greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements, but they could not have accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates that the bankers were attempting to extort from the North. It was indeed a revolutionary policy, and some argue that it got Abraham Lincoln assassinated, although I admit that I left that out of my letter to President Obama.
"But, my question to you, especially in light of comments that you've made in today's presentation: Am I spinning my wheels by trying to shift the President's attention to someone who he does indeed seem to admire, away from the idiots who have directed him toward a policy that can only spell disaster?"
LaRouche: I don't think that the prospect is good in one sense. I certainly agree with everything you said about this historical aspect of the matter. All of us who know this, know this.
But I think you've got a poor choice. You're feeding the wrong food to the wrong species. It's not going to work. What has to happen—I realize, you know, in the kind of position you're in, what the problem is. Because I'm well aware of what my position is, in what I do, and I do it in defiance of any consideration of the type that you would consider the parameters of what you are permitted to do. I know that the guy's no good. I know he's a hopeless case. Maybe somewhere there's redemption for him, but it does not lie in the White House. That's not his baptismal place. It would make the water boil too fast.
The concept, however, that you summarize, must be circulated, in various ways to various people. The concept is what's valuable. The proposed recipient of the proposal is not a likely prospect, but there are many people out there, including members of Congress and other powerful institutions, who need to get a bit of historical inspiration about what the United States is, what it represents. And I think your message is excellent for that purpose. And I don't think there's any harm in your presenting it to this guy. He won't accept it, I'm sure, but nonetheless, your presenting it to him may be a very nice idea.
The Problem Is a Lack of Guts
Freeman: The next question comes from an author, who is based in Washington, who submitted the question along with a former Cabinet member, who now is a state official.
"Mr. LaRouche, on June 17, President Obama got up before the entire nation, and he lied. He knowingly lied. He said, that our current situation was caused by a culture of irresponsibility that took root from, to quote him, 'Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.' He said that the regulatory system crafted in the wake of the Great Depression, was 'overwhelmed by the speed and sophistication of the 21st Century.'
"Well, that is not what happened, and Obama knows it.
"The simple fact is, that the regulatory system was not overwhelmed. It was systematically gutted and dismantled by Washington, at the behest of financial interests. But the bottom line, and this is a really big problem for us, is that Congress, both Representatives and Senators, are just as clueless as their constituents are as to what occurred. Now, we could certainly detail why each one of Obama's proposals are completely absurd. But the bottom line on questions of any serious financial reform, is that a deeper understanding of the dysfunctional qualities in this system are, we believe, required. How can you design any kind of serious economic reform if you do not understand, and do not explain to the American people, what led to the breakdown in the first place.
"But the fact is, that not only this President, but also the Congress, want a quick fix. Now, the fact is, that some quick fix may be a political imperative, and a way to get this really uncomfortable topic for them off the table. However, we would like to see Congress insist on a deeper investigation. As you know, Congressman Dingell and others have proposed a new Pecora Commission. You also have various proposals to audit the Federal Reserve. You have a measure which is supported by a number of members of Congress for a GAO audit, and other such things.
"Another alternative to a Pecora Commission, would be to give Elizabeth Warren and the Congressional Oversight Board that she chairs, subpoena power. But the problem, and the question that I have for you at this time is, that although I believe that this is necessary, and is necessary if we're going to have any meaningful regulatory reform, I don't know if we have the time to do it. And I do believe that, without such an investigation, you will never build up the kind of fervor among the American people that will be necessary for Congress to find the gumption to overtake the desires of the bankers on Wall Street."
LaRouche: Well, if we don't do it, the world's going to go to Hell, and everybody with it, so I wouldn't be too pessimistic. I would tend to be rather aggressive instead. That's why I am; because I know that all the nice things you might do, by the standard of nice things these days, will just be folly. They won't do any good. You have to crack this egg. You have to crack it; and that's no yolk. (Anyway, I'm permitted that, once in a while.)
So, the point is, we have to make the change. There are people out there who are perfectly willing to join you in making the change, but you have to tell them. And the members of Congress are the worst possible thing. They're afraid they won't get re-elected. I mean, they might get shot! The whole country would go to Hell. Is it that their not getting re-elected that frightens them so much that they will let the country go to Hell? For failing to do what is obviously necessary? "The enemy's invading." "Well, let's try to make friends with him." That's the situation.
The problem is, a lack of guts. And the lack of guts comes, largely, I think, from the lack of clarity among the people themselves. And they don't want to hear it. "Get out of here. Don't say that, somebody might see me talking to you when you're saying that. I don't want that to happen to me." It's your typical attitude around the Congress, and around other people. They're scared bunnies. You tell the truth. "Don't do that! Don't say that when I'm in the room!"
There's your problem. And a people that will be frightened and intimidated by that prospect, is a people who have lost the fitness to survive. They just lost the moral fitness to survive. And the best thing you can do for them is tell them that they've lost the moral fitness to survive, because somebody's got to start telling the truth, not polite lies. And I try to tell the truth. Will it work? I have no guarantees. Is it what I should do? Absolutely.
A Breakdown Crisis of the Entire Planetary System
Freeman: This question comes from a fellow economist, and a pretty good one.
"Mr. LaRouche, under globalization, the United States, and perhaps to a lesser degree Europe, moved production to cheaper labor markets, both south of our border here in America to Mexico, etc., and then also to China and other parts of Asia. In so doing, we virtually shut down what remained of industry in the United States and Europe, and those were industries that we depend on. In fact, it seems that in the short-term desire to find cheap labor, we actually shut down our own sources of income. And I think that the current growing rate of unemployment speaks to this problem.
"But, at the same time that we were willing to starve every aspect of productivity—both agricultural and industrial—it seems that we were overfeeding banking and finance, and we have a created a group of extremely overweight entities. The problem now, is this: If we take the example of California as a foretaste of what we face nationally, then it seems to me that what we are facing, is far more than a financial breakdown. What we are facing is an existential crisis. We are facing a breakdown of government.
"The government, the Federal government, just like California, has no money. It has no money to maintain what we expect as basic government-provided services. The income to cover these functions cannot be raised because we've eliminated the means by which we could raise it, or so it seems. In Europe, as a result of Maastricht, they no longer have the option of capital investment to reverse the problem. As for us, we do, and yet the situation does raise certain confusing issues.
We were able to find trillions of dollars to bail out the banks. I don't know where we found it, but we found it. Now, it would seem that this policy is inflationary. In fact, it would seem to be hyperinflationary. And it would foretell a situation that resembled the situation faced by Weimar Germany. Yet, at the same time, the collapse of production and employment in the United States threatens deflation, and it is far worse than the deflation that we faced following the Crash of 1929.
"So it seems that we have a rather unique situation. We seem to have a mix of everything that was horrible in prewar Germany, and everything that was terrible in the United States. The difference was that, in Germany we had Hitler, and in America we had Roosevelt. But, what I'd like you to address, is the fact that we do seem to have a mix of inflation and deflation, and that is different than what we faced in 1929, and therefore, probably requires a somewhat different response."
LaRouche: Well, as I've often said, in covering this thing, the problem is, we're not in a depression. We're in a general breakdown crisis of the entire planetary system. This was discussed hypothetically, in the 1890s, and the beginning of the 20th Century, that such a thing could occur. And it is occurring. We are in a general breakdown crisis, in which, in fact, yes, there is inflation and deflation at the same time. But if you look at my Triple Curve, you see exactly what that means. It's there. That's the problem.
So, the problem is, we have to define the thing as a breakdown crisis. That means, there's no solution within the terms of the parameters which are currently operating. In other words, you can not take the dimensionalities of the present situation as parameters, and by adjusting the parameters, or even throwing in a new parameter, you're not going to prevent the thing from collapsing.
Now, the problem here is emotional and psychological, more than anything else. Because this should be obvious to everyone. But you find out, if you try to tell people the truth, and emphasize what a breakdown crisis means, you frighten them, and they become very angry, or they just run away. So, you try to find some way to convince them in terms they will accept, that we face a problem of that dimensionality. And yet, that is precisely what you can not convince them of. And you can't convince them because you didn't scare them.
And you don't have to come in with a devil's mask or something to scare them. They're afraid of the truth. But you have to confront them with the truth, and it has to be done repeatedly, and you have to state what the alternative is. But they won't understand what the alternative is, unless you tell them what the truth is. And if you're afraid to tell them the truth, for fear of scaring them, they'll never get the idea. So, to argue with them otherwise, is a waste of time.
You've got to get people to understand, this is a breakdown crisis. And what they're conditioned to hoping, "No, don't tell me that. Don't tell me that. I don't want to hear that. I don't want to hear that. Tell me something that will help!"
Did you ever get that kind of response? They've got to accept the fact that this is a breakdown crisis. You know, it's like a guy's jumped out of a plane, and forgot his parachute, and the guys are falling. One of them says, "You know, you've got a problem." He says, "I know I've got a problem." "You know it's..." "Don't tell me that! Don't tell me that! I don't want to know it." And that's what the psychological situation is. Your guy has jumped out of a plane, and forgotten his parachute, and he just wants to have a few moments of silent comfort while it remains for him.
And that's the kind of attitude you get in this kind of situation. There is no other way; the truth has to be faced. The truth has to be faced. It's that simple. I keep doing it, but see if people get scared enough, they might understand that, if they don't become absolutely crazy.
You're Dealing with a Malicious, Evil Factor
Freeman: This question comes from someone who's a former labor leader, who is now an officer of the National Association of State Legislators.
"Mr. LaRouche, the June 2009 report that was prepared by the National Governors Association, documents that budget cuts in Medicaid, education running from kindergarten through grade 12, as well as higher education, state employment, state employee benefits, and other related things have occurred in 47 out of 50 states, because those states have run out of money.
"As I know that you know, on June 30, forty-six states will have to come up with new budgets for fiscal year 2010, that actually starts on July 1. That is because these states must balance their budgets, and they are facing a $121 billion shortfall, at the same time that jobless rates are rising, and the stimulus funds that covered the extension of unemployment benefits have run out.
"We're at a critical juncture now, where corrective action at the state level, may very well be our last and only hope to preserve some sense of functioning, so we can fight for our own national sovereignty, which seems to be rather rapidly coming under the purview of the City of London. Ordinarily, I would not make such a proposal, but the fact is, that right now, because we need some way to survive while we are addressing a larger problem, I'm submitting for your consideration, a proposal that's been on my desk for quite some time, which is the idea of creating a state bank. That is, a state-owned bank.
"The reason for a state-owned bank is simple enough. We've obviously lost control of our finances. Our municipalities are burdened with legacy debt and aging infrastructure, and the only current way to fix the infrastructure right now, is to bond through Wall Street. We can't take any more taxes, but indebting us to Wall Street has cost us dearly, and those costs will only increase as the credit crunch continues to squeeze us, both at home and in our neighborhoods. Businesses are also suffering. Banks are cancelling lines of credit for businesses with excellent credit. Shopping centers are empty, and it seems as though another friend loses his or her job every week. The future is bleak. Credit is all but drying up, as scarce resources increasingly are diverted to bail out Wall Street and to repay the national debt.
"A publicly owned state bank, capitalized by our own taxpayers, would allow us to fund roads, schools, and other statewide infrastructure. It would allow for commercial development, mortgages, municipal debt, and student loans. Apparently, there is a model for this in the state of North Dakota, which has had a state bank since 1919. Ordinarily, I would not take such a proposal so seriously, but it was pointed out to me that this year, the state of North Dakota has a $1 billion-plus surplus. I'm not suggesting that this is the answer to the current problems that we face. However, I'm wondering if it isn't something that we can engage in, while we are fighting the battle to get our government in Washington to take its responsibility. Would you please comment?"
LaRouche: I understand the wish, but I don't think it'll have any fruit. You have to look at the reality of the situation. Look what happened in the state of California, with the Senator Feinstein, going against Obama, as well as against the governor.
What the policy is this; you've got to deal with the reality: You're dealing with an enemy factor; you're not dealing with a stubborn resistance factor. You're dealing with an enemy factor; a malicious, evil factor. And Schwarzenegger was picked because he was capable of evil. He's owned by George Shultz, who is evil. Shultz was responsible for the fascist regime put in in Chile, for example. He's not a good man, and he knows exactly what he's doing. Shultz was the guy behind the creation of Schwarzenegger out of mud. He thought he was acting like God, or something.
But, the intention here is to wreck the U.S. The orders are coming from London. The President of the United States is a stooge of London. The only way to do it, is do it the hard way. You've got to break something; you've got to break their will.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives behaved like a bunch of asses on this thing, passing this cap-and-trade bill. You've got to break them; you've got to break the will of the enemy. Because nothing will work. I know exactly what to do; there are a number of options. But they all involve, from what I know, breaking the will of the enemy! If you don't break his will, he's not going to do anything good; he's not going to let anything good happen. Because his intention is to cause that kind of chaos. His intention is to use that bait among states, to create the kind of chaos he wants.
And you're trying to come up with an alternative? He'll destroy it. You'll never get anywhere with it. If you can force that on him, you could force him to change his administration. If you can't change his administration—don't have that power, don't take that kind of action—there's nothing you can do. Don't assume that you can win a war without fighting, especially once the enemy has declared it.
The First Step Is To Have No Illusions
Freeman: This question comes from a Washington, D.C. think tank.
"Mr. LaRouche, President Obama put on a great show on June 17. He's good at putting on shows. This one was like a staged cocktail party, to which everyone was invited. President Obama would like us to believe that he shapes policies according to an ersatz constitutional democracy, where every stakeholder gets a vote. But, the reality is that it's a shareholder democracy, and the more shares you own, the more votes you get. And right now, the banks have all the shares.
"Between 1998 and 2006, the average financial real estate and insurance company, increased their lobbying costs by 25%. Over the course of the last ten years, Wall Street has spent $5 billion in campaign contributions. It gives them an awful lot of power.
"The other thing that facilitates Wall Street's power, is the sheer complexity of the issues involved. Yes, this affects all of us, but it's the province of elite inner circles. Let the experts take care of it. But the fact is, that it's the experts that got us into this. If you watch TV, they'll tell you that the recovery is here. The market's up; bank stocks are back. But the fact is, that non-Wall Street Americans aren't faring so well. One in eight mortgages is in foreclosure, and the share of new mortgages moving into foreclosure is at an even higher rate. Credit card delinquencies, which everybody thought had reached their peak a year ago, not only continue to rise, but are up 11% from the same quarter last year.
"Now, the problem, as far as I see, for Obama, is the following: If the fortunes of American households were to rise with Wall Street, he'd be home free, even if his fixes permit a new meltdown just a short time from now. However, if the financial sector resumes living large, and American households continue to suffer, well, then he'll face anger from the voters. Right now, in what is something that I simply cannot understand, he is enjoying extremely high popularity, at the very same time that a full 70% of the American people know that the country is in crisis, desperately want help, and believe that they are not getting it from this administration.
"My question is perhaps one that doesn't really have an answer. I don't know what it is going to take, to push the American people into the recognition that they have got to take a much harsher position toward this administration. They suffered through eight years of Bush, and they want to believe in this President. But the fact is, that if we don't turn things around, and turn them around quickly, that hope will soon die, and that is really what scares me. Not only because we will be faced with a financial crisis of even greater proportions than we face today.
"But I cannot help but think about what did, in fact, happen in Germany, with a population that was far more cultured than ours was, when it was subjected to the horror of the aftermath of the First World War. I don't know whether I would prefer it, if the population continued to be hopeful, even if it's a mere illusion, or if they move, on the other hand, into cynicism and pessimism, which is what I fear is going to be the current outcome.
"Can you shed some light on how you think this is best addressed? Because I think that this crisis really overrides anything else that we face."
LaRouche: Well, you're right. It is that kind of crisis. It's been coming on for a long time. I've been aware of this; I've described it, and I also have learned something, I think, from history, which is why I do what I do. Sometimes, there's only one thing that you can do, and this is to figure out how to fight in the best way possible, with the means available. And the first step is to have no illusions, no consoling illusions. No wishful thinking. To face the reality in all that it represents, and then you may find in yourself the resources to deal with it.
The problem is, that people are just hoping that people will come in with the solution. Well, I know what the solution is, and I'm doing it. I just need to have more people doing it. And I think that the events will take charge of themselves. I'm just getting the message out. And I know that what we're doing has really got the enemy running scared. And what the pressure I'm getting, and our organization is getting, is to try to slow it down a bit; don't be so tough. That's wrong! It's a good idea to scare the enemy a little bit. Especially good if you mean it.
You're in that kind of situation. You're in a general breakdown crisis of the entire world system. There's no part of the planet that's immune from this. The whole system is coming down. Either we find that mankind has in it, some reservoirs here and there, of policy influence who will give inspiration for what is needed, or we're going to lose civilization. There are going to be a lot fewer people very soon. Somewhere probably between a half-billion, and a billion; probably closer to a half billion, very soon. All the conditions for that exist; all the preconditions. You have a population of 6.7 billion people on the planet. Look at the conditions of life of these 6.7 billion people. Look at the rate of change in the conditions of life of these people. Look nation by nation; look at the rate at which the decay is accelerating.
You look at the fact that half the states of the United States are bankrupt as states. There is, on the first hand, no arrangement for dealing with the problem; no intention of dealing with the problem, but rather to the contrary. That the ever-loving British system is determined to break the United States apart, finally! And hoping that this situation in these states will contribute to breaking the United States, and causing it to cease to exist as a nation. That's the game. Are you prepared to defend the United States from that? If you're not, stop complaining! Enjoy the suffering.
This is the point where you go to war! This is when war is justified. When this kind of existential threat faces you, and there is no other solution, except to fight. And a show of the willingness to fight, is sometimes sufficient, to cause a ferocious enemy to calm himself down a bit, and get you some room. It's the only chance we have.
Obama's 'Nero Syndrome'
Freeman: This is probably the last question that we have time for, and, this comes from a member of a former administration, who's now leading up an effort to advise this administration, and she's asking for your thoughts.
"Mr. LaRouche, on April 11, you defined that President Obama suffered from what you called the 'Nero syndrome.' I wasn't sure I agreed with you that it was the case, and I also wasn't sure that I agreed with stating it publicly. So, I went back and I studied some Roman history.
"Now, I've been watching President Obama, and the fact is, that right now, against all advice, from all quarters, he's plunging ahead with this health-care and related policies, which will only spell disaster for the country, and for him, no matter what the outcome. I'm convinced that he's doing this, not because he desires the policy of genocide, but because of his enormous ego. And as many people have pointed out, this is a man with absolutely no humility.
"You say that Obama must reform his administration, must re-form, not like in reformation, but remake his administration. I happen to agree with you. But how do you get someone in this frame of mind, to change course? I'd really like to know your advice to us, in terms of how we should proceed. A mutual friend recently reminded my group that we're wonks, not warriors. So, what do we wonks do? Do we take up military training? Do we keep working on what we're working on? Or do we make some kind of public declaration which will undoubtedly elicit a rageful response from our current President?
"I'm asking you this, because we really do believe—and we have put an enormous amount of work, under your advisement—into policies that we believe can function. But they can't function unless a change takes place. The question is, how to effect that change, without destroying things in the process.
LaRouche: Well, I had some good fun, of a sort, in dealing with this problem. The situation is potentially winnable. The problem lies in the lack of the number of people, people especially of influence, who are willing to do what's necessary to force this change.
We can change it. You saw it. For example: One vote, cap and trade. One vote. That's not finished, of course—that's in the House. One vote.
Because the President is not functioning, he does not have all power. Remember, first of all, the President is a British agent. He is not, does not have American motives. He's not really an American citizen, not in terms of his spirit, in terms of his mind. He's a very confused mind, a very confused identity. Like Nero. He's willing to do anything. The question is: Will you let him get by with it?
You can break his will, you know, if you don't let him get by with it.
You go back in Roman history, and you look at the case of Cicero. Now, Cicero was the last chance for civilization in Rome, that is, real civilization. And in the context of the assassination of Caesar, Julius Caesar, shortly after that, Cicero died. Cicero was eliminated. And the complexity of this is—because you have to look at the famous lives, Lives of Famous Men, and you'll find out that the Roman Empire, under the Caesars, was actually run by the cult of Delphi, by the last high priest of the cult of Delphi. Plutarch, for example.
So, you see then what the issues are. The issues are between the cult of Delphi, which is the author of the Peloponnesian War, the orchestration of all of these kinds of things, a center of the monetarist system of that time, which had ordered a coup d'état in Italy, and played the thing—to what purpose? And had played the thing because, at that time, the empire of the Mediterranean had three locations: the Middle East, as they call it; Egypt; and Italy. And it was getting no place in getting the empire. So they pulled the Caesar, and Caesar wars business, until they got the cult of Mithra, priests on the Isle of Capri, to make a deal with the guy who became Augustus Caesar. And this organized the three parts of the Mediterranean into one empire, the Roman Empire.
And Cicero represented the Classical Greek influence in Roman culture, Italian culture, which was working to prevent that. And the death of Cicero is key to understanding that whole history.
And what you're looking at in trying to understand the Nero problem—you have to understand it in that context. It's an historical phenomenon. Nero was not the only case. All the cases, of the whole tribe of these Caesars, were all of the same character. The system was always of this character. And what we're dealing with today, is the attempt by the British Empire, which is running this operation—never say it's an American problem. It's a problem we have with the British Empire—the real empire, not the mythical one. Not the story-tale one.
This empire is determined to have absolute supremacy over the world. It is looking for a one-world government of the British empire, under the British monetary power. It's determined to reduce the world's population from over 6 billion now, to less than one. It's determined to destroy whole nations, the populations, whole cultures. This is the enemy. If you try to fight a lesser enemy than this, you make the mistake of not understanding who your enemy is. You choose another enemy, and your real enemy will come in to kill you.
So, in this case, what we have to do is take the Obama toy away from the British. It's the British empire that is out to destroy us. It's the British empire that's operating against us, globally. If you're trying to fight a U.S. enemy, inside the United States, you're making a big mistake. Because you're not fighting the real enemy. You have to set out to destroy the real enemy. And that's why I do what I do. Why I talk to Russia, China, and so forth, the way I do. I'm out to bring about a coalition of nation states which will destroy the British Empire. And only things in that direction will do any good. Any other strategy will lose.
Destroy the British Empire: Britain delenda est.
 The cap-and-trade bill was passed with 219-212 votes, just one more than the 218 required.