An Extraordinary International Dialogue
With Lyndon LaRouche
Aug. 30, 2010—Several months ago, we posted an edited transcript of an extraordinary dialogue that Lyndon LaRouche had engaged in on April 29, 2010 with a group that had gathered in New York to discuss various elements of LaRouche's proposed Four Power Agreement and related issues. That group was comprised of policy makers as well as a distinguished group of academics from leading American universities that included Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, MIT, Princeton, and Columbia University. Representatives from Russia, China, and India also participated. A number of journalists were also invited to audit the proceedings. On August 5, that group convened once again for what proved to be an equally extraordinary dialogue. The proceedings were moderated by LaRouche's national spokeswoman Debra Freeman. What follows is an edited transcript.
Debra Freeman: Good afternoon. Although the last time we got together like this was not so long ago (at least in calendar terms), it really does seem as if it were a lifetime ago, in terms of global events, and in terms of the global mandate and necessity, for people like those gathered here, to act. Certainly Mr. LaRouche has been hard at work, and I'm sure he will touch on some things that represent what I consider to be startling breakthroughs in our work, not only to rebuild the nation, but to restore the appropriate activity of humankind on this planet and beyond.
So, since everyone is settled in, I think that I can stop talking, and without any further delay, I can introduce Lyndon LaRouche. So, Lyn, why don't you go ahead.
Lyndon LaRouche: I would say, without making reference to specific persons, as such, I would say that, sometimes, when I, as in a situation like we face today, where I'm approaching my 88th birthday, within about a month, and still active, that I can look back on my own experience, in politics, which began about the time I came back out of Burma at the close of World War II, as it was called, and became involved in politics, in U.S. politics in particular, and British politics, in the matter of India. And I was in the center, for very peculiar reasons, the center of some scenes of great action, which characterized the entire post-war period. That is, the way in which the British dealt with, by stirring up race riots, in fact, they were religious riots, in India, how they altered the course of history in a manner which had conjunction with the foul ball, who succeeded Franklin Roosevelt as President of the United States.
And so, I was, in that period, I had been in India just before going into Burma, for service there, and I had been asked by some of my fellow soldiers, to meet with me privately, and I agreed, and I had a sense of what was on their mind, because events had flown. And they said, "We want to know from you, what do you think is going to happen to us, now that President Franklin Roosevelt is dead?" And my reply was rather simple, and I think appropriate, but it's a reply which is relevant to the circumstances we face today. I said, "We have served under a very great President. Now, he's been replaced by a very little man. And I'm afraid for us, and for our nation." And they looked at me, and they were satisfied that I'd answered the question, which was on their mind.
Today, I think, sometimes you may have an ex-President or two around, who can look back after a decade or two of his service in high office, and find, from that perspective, a better insight into what the problems of the U.S. Presidency is, and, what they are, and how this compares with the problems of heads of government and state, or people with similar inclinations and commitments in other countries.
Because we are at one of the most momentous periods in history. It's a period which is comparable, in its implications, to the change from the Black Death wave of the 14th Century, and the ensuing developments, controversial developments, which are crucial in defining modern European civilization, as distinct from medieval European civilization and ancient civilization. And we're at that point now.
We are now, at this moment, in a point of decision, of crucial decisions. And even people who may think they're willing to make kinds of changes in response to this thing, they have the wrong calendar in front of them, the wrong clock in front of them. Because, if we do not have certain changes, within an undetermined, not precisely determinable, interval, of the present two-month period of August and September, if certain decisions are not made, I can guarantee you, the United States is doomed.
And therefore, those who are thinking, and I know there's great controversy among people who I would consider patriots, and well-informed patriots, whose division was, "Can we find some other way, than actually moving to dump this incumbent President, to keep the United States alive, to solve its problems at some later date?" And I happen to know that that's not possible. It could be possible in certain kinds of developments, but they would be crucial changes. But, as long as we are going under the present configuration of policymaking, at the top level—the very fact of the matter is—
The very fact of the matter is, let me be very plain: Because you have to put this on the table, because it's a fact which you can not ignore. If you wish to solve the problem, you have to define what the problem is. Our present problem, is a Presidency which is worse than that of the predecessor, of George W. Bush, the current President Obama. Obama is, as I've said, before, a failed personality. It's a very specific type, which has some celebrities in it, earlier, such as the Emperor Nero, who committed suicide, and governed pretty much, Rome, in his time, pretty much the way President Obama does. And we had Adolf Hitler, an obvious failed personality, failed as a painter and failed as a politician, and failed in every other way. Both of these two characters, killed themselves, because their psychological makeup meant that they would kill themselves, once their ego, their highly-charged ego, had been defeated. "Hitler in the Bunker" is the more remote study which most people may be acquainted with. But the Emperor Nero is a very similar case.
There are numerous cases of failed personalities, who are used by some political forces, to place them in power, in a period of a crisis. And under conditions of crisis, these people have sometimes caused the greatest catastrophes, by the failure of whatever is the form of chief executive, or similar power, in their part. And we have such a time now.
There are two ways that people will tend to look at this. Some of the people on the line will look at it more in my direction, in terms of physical economy, and look at the time is running out in terms of physical economy, and the rate of process of developments. Others will look at it from the standpoint of the Presidency as a political institution, and they will not be quite as capable. They'll be more inclined to try to look for options, on the platform of political position. Those of us who are going to be competent, are those who are looking at it from both standpoints, who understand the contradiction, the paradoxical function of political power to the economic power. And I don't mean by economic power, who runs a business. I mean by economic power, how the economy, the policies that run the economy—.
See, one thing that has to be understood, is, politics is not a science. That is, there is no political system, which inherently can be called scientific. That is, politics, economics in politics, are not based on physical principles. They're based on aberrations, often, of the nature of the human mind. There's no such thing as a true value of money per se. Our republic was founded implicitly, under the Massachusetts Bay Company, prior to the time that the charter was cancelled, back in the 17th Century. At that point, we had a credit system. It was the first credit system, which is of relevance today: It's the first case in which a credit system was established, which was highly successful, economically. The reason the British crushed it, is because it was too successful, for their taste. So, but they introduced the actual foundations of the political system of the United States, at that time.
Now, this was crushed. It was crushed by two British monarchs, or their activities. But then, you had the emergence of Benjamin Franklin, as a follower of people like George Washington, and so forth, who were of the same background. Who, from various parts of what became the United States, formed the United States, or formed the principles.
And then we came to a time, where the great interests in Europe, which had experienced the effects of the so-called Seven Years' War, realized that what the Americans were doing, in resisting the British Empire, which had been established by the victory, in February 1763, of the British Empire, that this was the greatest danger, a view they adopted, because they recognized the implications of the sucker game, called the Seven Years' War. By which the British, or the Anglo-Dutch interests of that time, used the British East India Company, as a vehicle of imperial power. And they became an imperial power, at that point, and through that method.
Therefore, you had reactions in Europe. For example, you had the French reaction, which was very strong, support of the cause of the young United States, the young republic, because they recognized, that this was the kind of thing they preferred to live with, rather than the British Empire. The British Empire which had plunged them, and had been created by plunging them, into a Seven Years' War.
Which we had a repetition of, of course, in many forms since that time! The British did it all the time! "You and he, war," kinds of things. The same thing was done to start World War I, which was started in the same way! The reaction to the success of the United States, with the Lincoln victory over the British puppet. Success of the United States under Lincoln, and following his death, in the 1876 celebration, of the Centennial. The spread of the influence of that Centennial in inspiring Bismarck of Germany, to create the German reform, which made Germany a major economic power. A similar thing happened in Russia, again, with the influence of 1876, by a great Russian, who influenced his political leadership, of his country. And this harked back to the fact, that it had been before the French Revolution, before the Napoleonic Wars, that the freedom of the United States had been established by support from the League of Armed Neutrality, led by Russia, from support by the King of France, and from the King of Spain, and from sympathies of those people with them.
But they had lost it. They had lost their power in a process of corruption and ruin, which led into the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, which was another Seven Years' War, where the great powers of Europe were destroyed, and the power of the British Empire rose! Not as an empire of a nation, but as the empire of an international monetary system, an imperial monetary system.
Then, again, 1876, after the victory of the United States over the British Empire, and over slavery. Then, again, we had a great movement, after World War I, leading into World War II: We had a great President. We had had a good President, McKinley, who was shot! If McKinley had not been shot, then the United States would never have been an ally with the British Empire against the nations of Europe. But it was assassination, a prepared assassination, of the President of the United States, that brought a bum, Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. And Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were scoundrels. And those who followed them, in the 1920s, were largely scoundrels.
Then, we had a victory, a great victory, with the election of Franklin Roosevelt, a hard-fought victory. And then we became a great power. The British had planned for World War II, as the successor to World War I, but Roosevelt was on the other side. No longer was the United States supporting the British against the nations of Asia and Europe.
So the United States' intervention, especially when the British got a surprise, and the Wehrmacht, which was a weaker force than the combined British and French forces, because of a French fascist government, they'd come to a deal. And the deal was, France fell to a weaker force, that of the Wehrmacht.
Then, Churchill, who was an imperialist who hated our guts, came screaming to Roosevelt, for succor! And we were not a sucker at that time. So, we fought a war, beside England, and with the alliance of the Soviet Union at that time. And with that combination of forces, as in our victory in 1782, we won a great victory against the British Empire. But then, in the process, Franklin Roosevelt died, and we got a Wall Street puppet, Harry Truman, as a President, who could do nothing, that would not help Churchill. And since then, we've had the bumps and grinds of this kind of process, which has destroyed us.
I'll give you an example of what the problem is, which you looked at, if some of you had been Presidents, or might imagine that you had been Presidents. There's a story that broke in today's Washington Post, coincidentally—I didn't plant it. I didn't plan to speak on it, today, but it came up, and it's worth mentioning. It's quite significant. But, to go back 38 years: That President Nixon, at that time, who proved himself to be a puppet, under this circumstance, had sent a general, an Air Force general, four-star, John D. Lavelle to make an attack on the North Vietnam forces. He carried out the attack, and at that point, in 1972, there was a little bit of quarrel about this thing.
But then, Nixon advised—or Nixon was advised, by Henry Kissinger—that he could not tell the truth, that he, Nixon, had given the order for the attack on the North Vietnamese territory. So, he [Lavelle] took it. He was thrown out of his office. He was not criminally charged, but thrown out of office, 38 years ago. The man is now dead. But recently, because of the intervention of certain military forces, who enlisted a Senator Webb, in promoting justice for this case, finally, in the pages of the Washington Post—I didn't see it in the New York Times, but in the Washington Post—an exoneration of General Lavelle was made.
You have to think about what this means, in terms of the Presidency: What was this Nixon, a creation of a combination of the FBI chief at the time, who was, hmm?—and his friend Roy Cohn, and Cardinal Spellman, who actually were running a reign of terror in the United States, and they involved a young man called Nixon, in these funny businesses. Nixon got, as a matter of compromise, was appointed Vice President, to Eisenhower. And Eisenhower was not too pleased with that attachment, and he showed it repeatedly throughout his Presidency—and with good reason. Eisenhower sacrificed what he would have done, had he received the Democratic nomination, or been offered it, properly, at the time that I wrote to Eisenhower, when he was president at Columbia University, urging him to do so, and gave reasons for it, which he agreed with. But he said it was not opportune at that time, and looking back, I'd say he was right. But if he had been President, to replace Truman, we would have had a different history of the United States.
And you think of, then, going to what we have now, we have the worst failed President, the worst kind of failed President, I think that we've had in our history, who is now incumbent. And it's my estimation, that if this man remains President, the United States will go down, within the weeks or months ahead, if this man remains President.
And if the United States goes down, I also know, there'll be a chain-reaction collapse of every part of the world, into a dark age, comparable, in impact, to that of the 14th Century in Europe.
So therefore, these things come together. We are in a time, right now, where unless certain decisions can be made in a timely fashion, we're not going to survive. Civilization is not going to survive. If the United States goes down, now, every part of the world will go down, in a chain-reaction effect.
Now, there are two ways you look at it: When you look at it from people who believe in money, the thing is not so understandable. If you look at it terms of physical economy, and you look at the loss of basic economic infrastructure, the loss of vital high-technology industries, the failure to proceed with nuclear power, as the only power worth pushing; the failure to develop thermonuclear power, as what was already needed, as the successor to nuclear power. Without thermonuclear power, such as a fusion, involving helium-3 isotope, we could not transport human beings, from the vicinity of Earth to Mars, safely. We can transmit things, and things that move and are controlled electronically, through the cosmic radiation in between Earth and Mars orbit. But you can't put human beings there.
So therefore, we've come to a point, where it's on our horizon, for what part of this century I don't know, but it's on our horizon that we are headed for a technology within the Solar System, where man will become a creature of the Solar System, not merely bound by the surface of the Earth. That time is coming. To meet the requirements, to meet the raw materials requirements, the development of the technology which is needed, to continue to sustain life on this planet, we have to move in that positive direction.
Now, what can we do that for? Well, I've defined the issue, as being one of basic economic infrastructure. And I've picked on something which was planned, as a result of the success of the United States in the Tennessee Valley Authority. And at the close of the war, of World War II, a certain corporation, that specialized in engineering, spearheaded a plan, which is called the North American Water and Power Alliance. And this was a plan to take the area, which is now pretty much barren land, in a sense, partly desert, from the 20-inch rainfall line, westward, in the United States, to the mountain coasts, of the Pacific, and going from Alaska, through the relevant parts of Canada, down through that entire area of the United States, and into northern Mexico. This operation will work. The Parsons plan operation will work. It's not the most up-to-date version of what will work, but it still remains, to this day, in terms of plans and details and so forth, a very useful—maybe some corrections and improvements can be added, but it's a useful plan, which we can put shovels into the ground for, the minute we adopt it!
We have tens of thousands, and more, of skilled scientists, or scientifically trained people, in places like California, and in places like the state of Washington, where we have people, who have valuable skills who have no prospect of continued employment, especially with shutdown of NASA, under this crazy President. We have hundreds of thousands of people, in these areas of the Western United States, who are skilled construction workers, who have no employment, and no prospect of employment, over times to come. With this project, we can put shovels in the ground, right now, if the credit were available to do so. And the people who have the skills are there, or nearby! And they have no present employment. The construction workers, who live within the same territory inside the United States, in which this project must go forward, are there, with no prospect of employment. We have the immediate prospect of millions of people, of scientific and related construction skills, and other skills, who are ready, now, to put shovels into the earth, to get this project going.
This would mean a complete turnaround from an economy which is now headed toward doom, and we are headed toward doom! Under this President, and his policies, and out of commitment, the United States is now doomed, at some early time! If we eliminate that, if we pass the Glass-Steagall Act, again, which was introduced by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, if we cancel, therefore, the wasteful gambling and bailing out on gambling debts, we have the capital. Under the American System, under our Constitutional system, we can then launch the credit—not the money, the credit!—under our credit system, which is our Constitutional system, we could put shovels into the ground, as early as October, if this guy is dumped now, when 80% of the American population hates his guts, for what he's done! We could turn the thing around. Kick his crew out! We've got a Federal government there, with people in it, who are perfectly capable of doing this job. All they need is the right policy, and the right leadership, and they can carry it out.
If we do that, then we're looking at a new world. Because, it doesn't stop there, in North America. We have the Darién Gap down there, and if we put a transportation link through that, we go all the down to the tip of South America. And all these nations will begin to benefit from a new kind of opportunity, that presently does not exist.
The Bering Strait railway tunnel, leading from Alaska into Russia, opens up the entirety of the major parts of the planet! The Americas, Eurasia, and Africa, are opened through the extension of infrastructure projects, great infrastructure projects: Transportation, power production, water management!
And these have special scientific implications, because, for example: Let's take the case of NAWAPA, because it's typical of the problems of the world. It's typical of a problem of China, which has very specific problems of this similar type. It's true for India, which has a very large population, which is very poor, and faces the consequences of a lack of nuclear power, to correct their problems. And the fact that whole areas are not developed in terms of the poor population. And this can only be accomplished with thorium nuclear reactions, as a supplement, to create the infrastructure, where Indians can be brought up to the level, they would wish to be brought up to; that China can; that other nations can.
We go into Africa! Why don't we have railroads into Africa? Modern railroads, magnetic levitation systems, into Africa? You can't do anything for Africa, without this infrastructure! You need mass transportation and power! Without that infrastructure, based on mass transportation and power, you can not do anything for Africa. You will still see, from the sky, from the satellites, looking down, you will still see a barren area, in most of Africa, no lights at night! And looking down from the skies, to the territory, and seeing how much light there is, at night, with those territories, an indication of the possibility of economic development. And that's where we stand today.
So, that's our crisis.
I am now, presently, pushing heavily, this understanding of the implications of NAWAPA, not only as something for the United States, Canada, and Mexico, but as a declaration of principle, that: Reform the international monetary-financial system! Eliminate this parasitism, which is centered on the Inter-Alpha Group, a group of banks, which with their affiliations, controls 70% of the world's financial capital—most of it fake, by the way, but it's the power! The Inter-Alpha Group, founded in 1971. Founded, coincidentally with the shutting down of the fixed-exchange-rate system of Franklin Roosevelt.
And since that time, we're going downhill.
We were downhill when Kennedy was killed, because Kennedy was opposing going into the Indo-China War. Gen. Douglas MacArthur was his advocate, in this case: And they laid down a principle: "No extended land war for U.S. forces in Asia!" You saw what happened to the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan, as a result of the same kind of error: Going into long land wars in Asia, rather than solving the problems of Asia.
So, today, the question is, we need nuclear power. Without emphasis on nuclear power, thermonuclear fusion, and related technologies, we can not overcome the fact that we are depleting, currently, the richest concentration of resources needed on the planet. With going to higher energy-flux-density power, we are able to transform the power to produce, such that we can more than achieve, what we had achieved previously, because we have a higher degree of power.
We have, also, a scientific potential in this NAWAPA project, itself, which we're working on now, and we'll be publicizing on this in the coming period, in detail.
If you take the water, which is flowing from Alaska and Canada, into the northern Pacific, freshwater, now the Pacific does not need that freshwater. We take that same freshwater, and we run it down through the NAWAPA project as a channel: We run it down, from Alaska, through Canada, through the United States, into Mexico, along this channel, which is the the Parsons project design, the North American Water and Power Alliance. On that basis, what happens? When you put green, in the form of trees, chlorophyll, remember, when you put leafy vegetables in, to supplement that; grasses, 1-2% of the solar radiation is absorbed by the plants; with trees, up to 10% is absorbed by the trees. Leafy vegetables are more efficient in terms of the economy of energy and power, than our grasses, such as wheat.
So therefore, under these conditions, you assimilate this water, which you've now brought down through this NAWAPA chain, this water evaporates from plant-life! It causes, right to the east of that area, eastern part, the Central Plains area, it creates rainfall. And rainfall, if it goes into plants, especially efficient plants—leafy vegetables, or similar kinds of things, trees—then you have a secondary rainfall, coming out of the first byproduct. And another.
So you get, the same water is now, not only supplying water to be delivered to a point of consumption, you are now creating a system, a living system, which gives you a multiple use of the same water, as if it had been the original water.
What you do, is, you destroy all the solar collectors! The solar collectors have a negative energy effect. They're a crime against humanity. You destroy a territory that could become fruitful under the influence of chlorophyll. And you want chlorophyll, because chlorophyll is the key. There are other things in the oceans that have a similar function, but chlorophyll is key, for turning a desert, into a real land!
The ability of mankind to get over these ages of periodic deserts, where whole civilizations were destroyed by desertification, the time has come, that man must take responsibility, for assisting nature and guiding it, to effects which nature can provide. And it is life that we promote.
Windmills—get rid of them! Solar collectors, get rid of them! They are negative! They're a waste of money, they're a waste in every other way. Get on to high technology. Get on to new kinds of high-speed transportation systems. Get away from the dependency on long-distance use of automobiles every day, which takes hours out of the life of each person who's working every day, unnecessary losses. And we have a future.
And so therefore, you look, then, again, finally, on the question of this Nixon example: What kind of a President was President Nixon? That Henry Kissinger could intimidate him into shutting up, on a matter which was of great pain, to that President's conscience? Who was President? Was the President actually Nixon? Or was the President, Henry Kissinger? Or a bunch of people, a committee, that ran Henry Kissinger? Maybe the British Queen, who had a great influence and control over Henry Kissinger? She made him an honorary this and an honorary that.
The question is, who was running the country? What did the American people have? They believed that Nixon was their President. Who was the President, then? Was it a committee? Was it Henry Kissinger, or a committee that ran Henry Kissinger? Who was the President, of Carter? Hmm?
What was our subsequent President doing? He had good sides, and he also had a program, imposed upon him by virtue of a committee. What happened under George H.W. Bush, a complete catastrophe, a failure? He's exceeded in the capacity for failure by his son, who had served two terms, of failure.
And thus, we've come to a time when the American people, will no longer tolerate this. They're already angry. Eighty percent of the population hates what this present administration represents. And probably you could get 90%, on a good day, of objections.
So the time has come, where the function of leadership, political leadership, both in nations and among nations, is now crucial. My view is, only if you can create a unity, of a sense of common interest, and common purpose, among some leading nations, which in the eyes of other nations are a power in this planet, with that cooperation, that honest cooperation among these nations, can give us, now, with the aid of science, the aid of scientific technologies we already have, and those we're on the verge of developing, can give us a general solution. And I know, that if we put together an operation such as NAWAPA, and supplement it with other means, which are obvious, that we can turn around the net rate of productivity in the United States, overnight.
Through Glass-Steagall, we can eliminate the waste which is crushing us, in international financial markets. With adequate energy programs, and international cooperation, we can transform the planet to a rate of growth. If we have established, then, a rate of growth, then in that case, we could win the confidence of a people which sees growth is coming back. We can hold the system politically, and they will give us credit, they will give us the promise of credit, credit uttered by governments, uttered under a fixed-exchange-rate system, to enable international investments in these kinds of credit systems, we can save humanity.
But the time is running out. These are not things for the distant future. The benefits are for the distant future, and even for the immediate future. But we're at a breaking point, now, and in the coming weeks.
What I am doing now, we're pushing this NAWAPA project, which not only is an essential, indispensable part, because it's one that's designed already! It's one for which the skilled labor exists, in the relevant places! It's one where the scientific knowledge that's needed, exists, but presently unemployed, in the right places, places like NASA, which this President is trying to kill! And we can succeed!
There are similar capabilities in Europe. There are pregnant abilities, still left, in Germany! Despite what happened under Mitterrand, Thatcher, and Bush. There's still potential there, despite the way the country's been ruined. There's still potential, inherent in Russia. There's still great potential, despite the recent setbacks, in China. There's still potential in India. There's still the potential for developing Africa, through large-scale infrastructure projects, by integrating the major territories of the planet, among respectively sovereign nations, into a system of cooperation, where we think about what the future is going to bring us, as the fruits of our current policy.
That will be a big change, won't it? Many of us share the hope that this could be realized. People who are serious, generally think in that direction.
Freeman: We have representatives here from the same group as we had last time, from the relevant nations of the Four Power agreement, along with some others. It is, though, a much larger group than we had back in April.
So, with that introduction, the first set of questions, regard, what you have identified as a "breaking point" in the situation, a breaking point in the economic and financial situation, particularly in this interval through September. And while a number of people here have said that they, by utilizing the Triple Curve Function, that they understand very clearly, that we've run out of options, as the monetary curve has now overtaken any last remnant of the physical curve. What is being asked, and rather than entertaining each question individually, I'll just pose it in the most general terms: Mr. LaRouche, why, specifically, have you escalated your forecast of the breaking point, as being this crucial interval? What is it that has changed? Specifically, is it related to recent developments around the Euro crisis, and the situation in Europe, or if it's a more generic issue?
LaRouche: Well, first of all, on that kind of question, I haven't changed my estimate, as such, as to the issues of what forecasting requires. What's happened is, the problem has become worse, simply because the remedy has not been advanced. You know, you've got a patient, and the doctor comes in and says, "You're sick," and leaves. And the doctor has given them valuable information, "You are sick." Then the doctor comes back, being called in, a month or so later, "Oh, you're much sicker than the last time I saw you," and then leaves, having given them this valuable information.
And the third time, "Well, you're going to have to change your habits," the doctor says, "otherwise you're not going to make it." And I've said that a number of times, on a number of occasions.
Then you come to the point, and say, "Okay, look, buddy, I've got to give you some bad news: Unless you change your ways, suddenly, right now, you're doomed. You're as good as dead. Unless you want to immediately change your ways, right now." Radical measures are now come, and that's where we are now.
Because, you have to look at the political situation, and two sides to it: First of all, the hatred of the Obama Administration, among the American people has increased. Now, the American people are funny. Because most of them are not habituated to asking the opinion of the experts, you know, questioning the experts. And they say, "Please give us some hope. Can't you do something for us?" And so forth. Then, they've got to the point, they realize, "wait a minute. This is the wrong question: How do I replace you?" they say to the physician, or the would-be physician. And that's where we are!
Look at the roster, the passage of legislation and the non-passage of legislation, inside the proceedings: You look at what the Obama Administration has done, with dictatorial measures! These are not lawful measures! Obama has committed a crime many times over, which would justify his impeachment! And would demand his impeachment, in point of fact! When you consider the impact, of what Obama has done, of this kind of thing, and the railroading which is done, the terroristic methods which are used. For example, take now, you've got to look seriously: We have a systemic attack, from an FBI-related institution, which took over a function in the House of Representatives, with the consent of Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. This institution is conducting racist operations against the black population, those parts which do not roll over, when demanded!
Leading figures, who are part of the history of the best part of the Democratic Party, for example, are being lynched, by the Democratic Party! And the lynching is fraudulent! The lynching is directed, and supported, by the leadership of the Democratic Party. So the people in the Democratic Party who had the guts to stand up, and still represent what the Democratic Party had represented, say, three or four years ago, still, or 2004-2005, they're discouraged.
But the people have become more and more angry. Not angry because it's an arbitrary anger. They're more and more angry, because the grievance is greater. Their anger is driven by the worsening of the grievance. Their anger is driven by the insults thrown at them, by the administration. The anger is increased by the fact that the people they themselves had voted, and elected, are now their worst enemies! They're starving them! They're killing them! They're taking away their health care, they're taking away their education, they taking away their hope of the future, they're foreclosing on their homes! All because of the policy behind, and controlling, this present administration!
Now, we've come to the point, what has happened through all this stuff, all those who had followed these policies, are criminal, in effects of their negligence! They have passed legislation which is criminal in its effects, inhuman, contrary to the very intention of our Constitution! They are not fit to occupy high elected office, or other high office.
And the people still don't know the solution. They say, "Doctor! Get me a new doctor! You are killing me! Get me a new doctor!"
And this is politics. The doctor has to give a political solution. The physical solution, I can give you all day, it's obvious what the physical solution is. We have to go back to an energy-flux-density dense economy! We have to go back to an infrastructure-based economy, not a so-called "project-based" economy, not a "jobs-based" economy. A work-based economy, not a job-based economy! An opportunity to do some thing useful! Or to contribute to the process of people who are useful.
So, we've come to the point, that I can tell you, at the present rate of hyperinflation, built into the present monetary system, in which you're getting from Washington, you're getting it from New York, same thing: What have we got? You had a hyperinflationary explosion, of financial derivatives, in various species. The ratio in total money in circulation, of nominal money, nominal credit, claimed by banking institutions, and the actual money, which is actually flowing through, the economy, as part of the productive process, is collapsing.
What do you do then?
If you try to interpret monetary movements, you'll come up with the wrong answer, the wrong estimation. People say, "We need money!" And they give them money. The money is worthless, because it doesn't,—in consumption or investment doesn't give anything to the society! The industries are going. The infrastructure is collapsing. The food supply is collapsing. Because, you want to allow these guys, to make money as parasites, and the parasites' appetite is growing—and the feeding of the people, is shrinking!
And we are now at a point, which is actually what's called a "breakdown point in economy": If we do not stop this, if we do not shut down the European Union, which is actually, potentially a minor factor here. The real factor is the United States, Russia, China, and India, and nations which are closely associated, like South Korea for example, is a very important nation for us, in any cooperation among the United States, Russia, China, and India. A similar thing in Japan: Japan has a very significant potential, to contribute to this process. So, if you bring this group of nations together, around leading the world in launching a recovery, other nations in the planet will follow, and join. We need a leading group of nations, as sovereign states, not some part of empire, but sovereign nations, which have a sovereign national interest, expressed and understood by their people, that they are going to do this, because they know it's right for them, and right for the world. We must have that change now.
President Obama IS the problem, but we have to understand that he's not the biggest problem in the world; the British Empire is. And the British Empire is not the people of the United Kingdom. It's what's represented by this banking group organized by Lord Rothschild in 1971, the Inter-Alpha Group: That is the greatest blood-sucking parasite on this planet, right now! It's the vehicle of all bloodsuckers. Shut it down!
How do you shut it down? Pass the Glass-Steagall Act in the United States, again. Once the Glass-Steagall Act is done, and other nations get wise to do the same thing, and join the United States in a fixed-exchange-rate system, based on this Glass-Steagall system, we are on the road to recovery! And the road to recovery means, walking the road, which is large-scale infrastructure projects, which are the drivers of the power, progress, and the drivers of employment in industry and agriculture. The infrastructure projects of the type which NAWAPA typifies, exemplify, together with the idea of fusion power, thermonuclear fusion, and continuation of nuclear power, this exemplifies the infrastructural factor, which can drive a recovery of the world economy.
And now is the time to do it.
Freeman: Lyn, just on follow-up, two questioners in particular, wanted to make sure that they're clear, and that others here are clear. Because, what they said is, if you use the Triple Curve as your framework, that, if you look at the total amount of money that is presumably in circulation, that the percentage of that money that has any correspondence to physical reality, has plummeted to the point that it's almost zero. Whereas, the other aspects of the curve, what they're referring to as "the other money",—
Freeman:—is just increasing exponentially.
But, the real question, and the follow-up question that is being put on the table for you, and which we'd like you to talk about it a little bit, is that the crisis is not—hold on a second, I'm getting to it!—that the crisis is not fluctuations in the euro or in the market, per se. That in fact, even though this situation is dramatic, that the crisis is actually defined by physical production per capita. And that it is that, that has collapsed, that we've reached a point, where the physical capital, the physical capability that we've accumulated essentially since the Roosevelt Administration, and which was enhanced during the Kennedy Administration, has not only run out, but that it's actually in some cases, been consciously destroyed and dismantled. And that that's what's bringing the crisis, that the crisis is not monetary per se, but it's defined differently.
And the reason why, I think, we need clarification on that, is that it also relates to what has been a very animated discussion that started last week, and that has continued this morning: Which is the question of what, really, is legitimately infrastructure? But we can get to that, after you address this, if you would.
LaRouche: The question is, what is legitimately money? I would say that all the money, which does not correspond to a Glass-Steagall standard of credit, is worthless. All you need to do, is enact the law, Glass-Steagall law, and couple that with a fixed-exchange-rate agreement, presently fixed, among nations which agree to that reform. Now, suddenly what you're going to do, is wipe out most of the money, that's currently purportedly in circulation. You're going to shut down most of the banking and related institutions, in New York City, and similar places around the world.
This is really a revolution. And if you don't make the revolution, no survival.
Now, if you want a revolution that works, one that doesn't require bloodshed, then you simply do a Glass-Steagall Act. And you say, that, if there's debt outstanding, which is not based on the equivalent of a Glass-Steagall standard, of mercantile banking, then, that debt is gambling money. It's Monopoly game-board money, and we don't count it in currency any more. It's not real! We cancel it!
Now: Here's where the fun comes. If you do that, what happens to the financial power of Wall Street? Or London? Huh? What happens in various parts of the world? Parasites of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains! That's the issue! That's why the British will not allow the United States government, to put through a Glass-Steagall reform. And we know, that the British Empire has given the order, the United States will not pass Glass-Steagall! And when the British Empire speaks, the current President of the United States whimpers, and then goes out and barks.
So that's the issue, that's the fighting issue. You're talking about toppling the greatest concentrations of nominal financial power, existing on this planet today! You're taking the system of Lord Rothschild's created system, of the Inter-Alpha Group, and its auxiliaries, which represent 70%, approximately, of the entire financial power of the banking system of the world, and you're wiping it out with one stroke! Santander—whppk! gone! Because it's not worth anything, anyway. You go through other members of the group, they're not worth anything! They have no real value to humanity! They don't do anything that's of value! They're bloodsuckers, they're parasites.
This is much worse than the bubbles of the 18th Century. This is a gigantic bubble!
The peculiarity of the bubble, is,—first look at it, at the way the bubble was created; it's exactly what the British did, as the typical leading power of the Versailles powers, to Germany. They created the system, together with Britain, France in particular, on Germany. Now, the attack on Germany, in that period, in the 1920s, focussed on the borders of Germany. So the full force of the weight of this worthless money, which is associated with financial World War I, the full weight of that was thrown onto Germany. And then, when the French occupied the Ruhr, which meant, a shutting down of a margin of the German industry, which the foolish and frightened German government was using to try to defend itself, then you had the summer through autumn hyperinflationary explosion. And it hit Germany. But it hit Germany alone.
Now, what we've done, for example: the looting of the former Soviet Union, for example, was done by whom? It was done by British orders. Who were the British lackeys? Well, François Mitterrand, whom I always regarded—he's called a Socialist, but I always considered him a fascist. Because he belonged to this kind of thing, with a certain government, interim government in France, under German occupation. And George H.W. Bush, is an idiot, a greedy, little idiot, whose father, personally, put Hitler into power in Germany! On behalf of the British! And Mrs. Thatcher, well, she's British. So you have these three, this group of powers, agreeing in 1989-1990, on the way they were going to destroy the nations of what had been the Soviet Union. And they were going to set up a system, called the "euro system," which would destroy all Europe, in favor of the British Empire, a "reform" so-called, which is now being carried out under the presently incumbent United Kingdom government—which is somewhat confused on what it's going to do, but its intention is malicious.
The driving force behind this, to understand it, the driving force behind this, is the World Wildlife Fund of Prince Philip and his former crony, veteran of the Nazi SS, who was Prince Bernhard. And they set up the World Wildlife Fund. What's the World Wildlife Fund? Stop technology, lower the level of productivity and intelligence of the population. Reduce the world's population to less than 2 billion people—and that's still their objective! Two billion people; we've got 6.7 to 6.8 now. They want to reduce it to 2! Why? Go back to the ancient Greek history. Go back to the story of the Olympian attack on Prometheus: The same thing. Keep the mass of the people so stupid, and brutalized, that they're not capable of resisting imperial power!
That was the Roman Empire! Look at the genocide perpetrated by the Roman Empire, systematic genocide against entire peoples. Look at the history of empire. The Byzantine Empire did the same thing! The Austrian Habsburg Empire did the same thing, and it's still doing it, with its remnants today.
So the question is, what? You know, we use up raw materials, and we don't really use them up, because they still remain in the planet Earth, generally; we haven't been exporting materials outside the planet Earth. But we go at, first, the most highly concentrated sources of materials, which are therefore, we call it the richest sources. And when we use them, we tend to dissipate them. We don't lose the mineral. It's still in the table, it's still there. But we've depleted its concentration. And therefore, in order to make up for the fact, that we are using up what is available to us, as the richest, most accessible concentrations of materials, is, we have to compensate. For what? By increasing the energy-flux density of our technology. That has been the history of the human race, in all known progress, an increase in the modes of production.
We went from systems, where the dominant systems were oceanic systems, maritime systems. We supplemented this, as under Charlemagne, by bringing in riparian systems as a supplement. We followed up riparian systems, by building up railway systems, which are much more efficient than riparian systems, in moving high-density freight. We will go, now, to the same thing on a global basis, with maglev, we'll go with international maglev, will replace much of the ocean freight, because it's more efficient.
And so therefore, in order to survive, at a constant rate, we must have a constant rate of increase, of our level of technology, and our ingenuity of using it. And what's happened is, we have been, since the end of the war, there was a complete change, in world policy, with the death of Franklin Roosevelt. Truman was a Wall Street man. He was well known as a Wall Street man. And he was a crony, and a lackey of Winston Churchill.
The United States had been committed to ending imperialism, throughout the world, as an outcome of the war, and Roosevelt had told Churchill, repeatedly, "Winston! When this war is over, there's not going to be any more imperialism! We're going to change it, we're going to free those people. We're going to help them to develop their countries. We're not going to have your system any more, your British Empire system."
But what happened, is we went back to an Americanized version of the British system under British direction. Then, the British got us to kill, in a sense, kill Kennedy, and Kennedy was fighting the British thing, under the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt, who was one of his key advisors, on policy. And Kennedy went to do what? To defend the steel industry, to prevent them from taking down our high-technology industry. He put the space program into motion. And he sought to avoid long wars in Asia, the use of models of the Seven Years' War, all over again, to destroy foolish nations, like the foolish Napoleon, who destroyed Europe for the British Empire. And then was made ridiculous, and then was enshrined in the tomb in Paris. But he was the one who created the power of the British Empire, by destroying all of Europe, in a perpetual series of wars, the Napoleonic Wars, as a stooge of the British Empire.
And the same thing goes on again, today. World War II, the same kind of thing. The wars that preceded that, where the British made the alliance with Japan to destroy China, Russia, and Korea. And it continued, in this process: Long wars.
What we need to understand is, we have to increase the energy-flux density, and the science-intensity, of production, even to stand still. Therefore, the money, that is not reflected—the increase of money, in circulation, which is not reflected by an increase in productivity by this standard, that is, a rising standard of cost, a rising standard of physical cost, as measured in energy-flux terms. If you don't meet that standard, you're headed for decay. And the United States and Europe has been in a process of decay.
And once the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, then they went hell-bent, to destroy the entire planet. And it was the agreement, pushed through by Mitterrand, Thatcher, and George H.W. Bush, that agreement, the successor to the Versailles agreement, which has been the greatest factor in destroying the world economy up to this point.
So, once we understand that, we say, okay. Then, the people who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony were right, before the Charter was cancelled, by the British. Franklin Roosevelt was right, the Americans were right! The Europeans were wrong! The Europeans would not get rid of their oligarchical system, and that's where they've been vulnerable. And the only real difference, is, most of the Americans were Europeans, who came into the United States, from Europe. We now have people from other parts of the world, but that was the pattern: We were Europeans, who rejected the European imperialism, which was dominated by the British, British imperialism.
And the difference has been, we want a credit system, not a monetary system. The idea that money represents value, intrinsically value, is the big error. Money does not represent intrinsic value. Money can never represent anything more— because it's not physical. You can't eat it, you can't cook it. You can't breathe it. It's worthless! It's only a system of credit, by which sovereign nations, or the equivalent of nations, control and moderate trade and investment. But the trade and investment is not in money. The trade and investment is in productive powers of labor, and the products of the productive powers of labor, the products of the human mind. It's all physical, it's biological.
And it's this myth, that money is value, or that money has an intrinsic value, is what the problem is. The American system, the American Constitutional system, the Hamiltonian conception of the system, does not treat money as anything more than credit. And what I'm saying, we have to establish a credit system, and eliminate the present world monetary system. It will be the credit established by the will of sovereign nation-states, a system of credit which will be organized by a fixed-exchange-rate system, to ensure stability: a stable relationship between today's investments and tomorrow's harvests. And we get that clear.
And the big problem that people talk about: they say, "how can we compromise with Wall Street? How can we reform Wall Street?" I said, "I don't want to reform Wall Street. I've looked at Wall Street for a long time: I want to eliminate it. And I want to get back to a Federal system in the United States, a Federal credit system, as Hamilton had intended: A national banking system, which is separate from government, but which cooperates with government, in maintaining a credit system, for its stability. And it was always tied, as Hamilton laid out, in his On the Subject of Manufactures, it's always based on developing infrastructure. And developing infrastructure in a direction which corresponds to the great elements of production.
Today, I think, the best way to understand economy, and the only way to understand economy under the kinds of conditions we have today, both the physical technological conditions, and the present world conditions, is, you have to look at the world, and economy, from the standpoint of the great achievements of Vladimir Vernadsky. That branch, that outcome of the great movement in physical chemistry, as opposed to monetarism, and the kind of things we had in France and other countries, under the influence of people like Bertrand Russell, that real bum—get rid of monetarism. And understand, that what we're doing, is, we're using a credit system, which involves the use of money, as an expression of credit, in order to foster the kinds of cooperation among different sovereignties and individual sovereignties, individual nations of sovereignties, individual persons of sovereignties, which enable these sovereignties to cooperate to a common purpose, which is called national intention, or regional intention. And to have a fixed-exchange-rate system, which is free of speculation, which turns money into a disease.
But, see, that's the problem. If you want to do what will save the world today, as you have said, money is almost worthless. You have to eliminate that worthless margin in money. You have to eliminate the concept of money, which engenders that error.
All we have to do, in the United States, all we have to do, is go back to the intent of our Constitution. It's all there! It's there in the first administration. It's there, implicitly, in the Declaration of Independence. But, especially, when we created the Federal union, among these colonies, which became states, in the Federal system of the national states, and the influence of that success by us, on European nations and other nations, where people copied aspects of what we had achieved, as in the case of Bismarck. After looking at the results of the 1876 Centennial celebration in Philadelphia, Germany and Russia and other countries, looked at the American model, as identified by the achievements under Lincoln and what followed, and looked at that as the model. And then, the British Empire, which is a maritime power, moved in, and said: "The railroads, the transcontinental railroads are too much." Because the transcontinental railroads will eliminate the power of the British Empire, to use maritime power to control the planet.
And that's why they started World War I, and World War II. Because the continent of Europe was getting too powerful, by imitating the model of the United States' success, over the period under Lincoln and his followers in 1876. That's why the war was started!
And everything that was done, all the wars we're dealing with now, the British running of the Sykes-Picot region of the Middle East, is part of it! And these are the political issues, the hot political issues, which you have to face, when you try to make a reform in economy. Because you run up against the greatest political power in this planet today, is a monetary parasite. And you say, "How can you compromise in terms that this monetary parasite will put up with?" Hmm? And I know, from my experience, exactly what this story is. And that's the thing you have to take up.
You can not talk about "reforming" the monetary system! You have to destroy it! And how do you destroy it? You have to transform it into a credit system. How do you do that? With two measures: Glass-Steagall, as a universal principle: mercantile banking, only. And anybody who wants to do something else, they're on their own risk. The U.S. government will not take any responsibility for the risk of Wall Street gamblers! We will defend only the credit which is essential to our nation, and which is maintained as a credit system. And we recommend it to Europe, they do the same thing.
Get rid of the monetarist system! Eliminate it from this planet! Or, at least the leading nations of this planet. And then, those nations that survive, will set the pace that others will imitate.
Freeman: Before we go on to some of the questions around infrastructure and NAWAPA, and the implications of that, with regard to what you just went through, we have two questions. One is from the Russian delegation, and the other is from the Chinese delegation. And I want to give you the opportunity to address their concerns, before we move on.
First, from Russia. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, before you came on the air, we had some proceedings this morning and we spent more than an hour, going through the question of a credit system versus a monetary system. And some of your American colleagues have insisted that the American System, as they call it, is not based on money, that it's based on credit, and that money, rightfully—and if I'm misrepresenting what they said, they can say something about it—but, what they were arguing, is that, money is only relevant as an instrument of credit.
"Now, unless America has some totally different system and origin, from everyone else in the world, I don't understand this. We have been, we have always been told—and when I say 'we,' I mean, not only my nation, but many other nations, I believe including yours—that when we wish to do something, when we wish to pursue a project, whatever, what happens is, the first question that comes up, is: Well, to do that, you need money. And this certainly was something that Russia was posed with, with the fall of Communism. But then, what was said to us, well, what is said, is: 'Well, you need this money. You need money to do what you want to do, and in order to get that money, you have to lick our boots.'
"But now, our American colleagues are saying, 'oh, well, money is irrelevant; it's only relevant as an instrument of credit,' and I would argue, that quite the contrary is true: That money is an instrument of power. And we have certainly felt that very sharply in Russia, but really, we have little to complain about, when we consider how money, as an instrument of power, has been used in the developing sector, and most obviously as it's been used in Africa.
"So, what is it that we are missing here? Is it really the case, that there's some secret history of the United States, that is so different?"
LaRouche: No, it's not a secret history, it's an unfortunately unknown history, because of who owns our press. You have the hatred of Franklin Roosevelt, against Franklin Roosevelt, in the 1930s and in the 1940s, the hatred of Franklin Roosevelt by Wall Street! And the question is, who is controlling,—for example, when we founded our nation, our nation was always a credit system, by our Constitution. But was our Constitution observed? What happened? Andrew Jackson was a pig. He was a British agent; he was corrupt as hell! But some think he's an American hero. The Democratic Party has Andrew Jackson, officially, as one of its heroes! Bunk! He's a pig! He was a Wall Street owned pig! Who had been trained by,—not by Benedict Arnold, but trained by others who were traitors to the United States.
The point is, the production of wealth, is the goal. And the nation's currency must not be jeopardized by Wall Street, or London! And the problem is, that Roosevelt would have destroyed this, and that's why they were happy to get rid of him. Because, Roosevelt, had he lived, would have carried through, as he intended throughout his Presidency, would have carried out the intention of his great ancestor, Isaac Roosevelt: the Bank of New York was founded by him. He was an ally of Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln represented the same policy. Henry Carey, the great economist, represented the same policy.
But, we were always threatened, by the British Empire. The British Empire ruled the world! Now, people have an illusion about this, and the common thing that's taught by historians, is that the people of the United Kingdom are somehow the British Empire. They're not! The British members of the United Kingdom, are to a large degree stupefied, by the fact that they're under a tyranny called the British Empire, especially, ever since the Seven Years' War, when the British East India Company became a world empire! The British system is a world empire! And the only effective challenger of the British system, in recent times, has been the United States.
But the United States was weakened; it was weakened by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. And because Lafayette made a mistake, when he might have acted, except he was too soft on his King, and his King has become corrupted, because of the case of the Queen's Necklace—which had been a British intelligence operation, by the way!
And so, the problem is, the reason we have a real problem in the world, a consistent pattern, and you can demonstrate this by all kinds of economic history, is that,—What happened to the Soviet Union? It was broken up on what? It was broken up as a British plot. I happen to know that President Mitterrand of France was a British agent. How do I know that? Some of the people I knew at high levels in Britain told me that. How'd I confirm that? I knew the Gaullist system, I knew the French system; I knew what François Mitterrand really was. You know, being a veteran of the World War II period, you think back to what went on in France, when a fascist government connived with Hitler, or Hitler's power, to take a superior French force, with British support, and defeat it! Because of the corruption inside the French government! Which gave us a regime in France, which is known for its fascism. And we executed, or the French did, executed the man who represented that fascist agreement with Hitler. Not to turn France over to the Germans, totally, but to use a relationship, a consenting relationship with the Nazi system. Because he was a fascist!
And you had this kind of problem all the way through, because the empire has a tremendous ideological reach. How does it do that? It does that, because most of our citizens, who are honest citizens in their intention, and how they feel about people, but they don't really understand the world. For example, there was only one person, in the period of the beginning of the 19th Century, who knew what imperialism was. That was Rosa Luxemburg. She gave a definition of imperialism in her book, in her writings on the subject, and which all these so-called socialists, and other writers on the subject of imperialism,— they didn't know what they were talking about! She did. And we had Herbert Feis, the American historian, of the State Department, who went through the history of imperialism.
Luxemburg was right! Imperialism was never, imperialism was invented, in the—actually in the Atlantic system, the Caribbean system, the Atlantic system. It was developed, by, coming out of the fall of the Persian Empire, where the result was the development of a consolidation of power around the Cult of Delphi, not the Greeks as such, but the Cult of Delphi. And you had an imperial maritime system, in which people on islands, or otherwise fortified places which were maritime powers, were able to dominate the trade and lifestyle among the people around the Mediterranean. And that became the system, later, of empires. It became the system of the Roman Empire, of the Byzantine Empire; then of the Habsburg Empire, and the British Empire. With the help of poor Henry VIII, who didn't know what he was doing with his sex life, huh?
So that's the point: We've been dominated by imperialism, which is of two types. One was, in European experience, was the Persian Empire, and Babylon before that. It was a typification of empire. Then we had the Mediterranean empire, which emerged as a result of the fall of the Persian Empire. It took the form of a group of imperial systems, and then it was settled on Rome, as the symbol system, and Rome dominated the entire region. Then Rome collapsed, of its own intrinsic characteristics. Byzantium came up as a substitute, but not really a successful one. Then you had, about 1000 A.D., you had the emergence of the Venetian system, where the Venetian monetarist system managed to control the finances of the entire region, dominate it.
Then we had the Black Death, as a result of that. Then we had the emergence of the Renaissance, especially the Florentine Renaissance, which established the system on which all modern European achievements have been based, reflecting back to Dante Alighieri and so forth. But that was defeated. First by the Habsburg problem, but essentially by Venice, the Venetian problem.
Then that became unmanageable. Civilization began to move into the Atlantic. The Mediterranean was no longer a controlling factor in imperial power. So at that point, they moved the capital of imperialism, the political capital, away from Venice and similar places, and the Habsburgs, and they moved it up north, the Anglo-Dutch region, maritime region: the Atlantic center. And London became, together with the Netherlands, the center of international imperialism, which was a form of financial imperialism, which ruled and controlled world trade as maritime trade. And that's imperialism.
We never overcame that! British imperialism is still the world imperialism system! Look at the Inter-Alpha Group! Look at the amount of financial control of the world affairs, of finance, by either the Inter-Alpha Group, or groups which are associated with it.
What is the Empire today? The Empire is the British Empire, as expressed in Lord Rothschild's creation of a new form of the British empire, in 1971: where the United States was defeated, because it got into this war in Indo-China. That destroyed us! So, now, in the weakened condition brought about by that, the British moved in, in 1971, and forced through, corruptly, under the Nixon Administration,—forced through the cancellation of the fixed-exchange-rate system.
And then went on, to wreck everything in the United States, on which the United States' economic success, since the time of Roosevelt and earlier, was based. They set up this floating-exchange-rate system. They set up a system of corruption, beyond belief. Destroyed the infrastructural capability of the United States—we still are back in 1968, in terms of the level of infrastructure! Or, we're actually less today. We never reached above that point.
And so, we've been dominated by a world imperial system, which is what is properly called, the British imperial system. Which is not a system of rule of the world by the people of the United Kingdom, but it's the rule of the world, by an international financial power, which has a monopoly on power, to the extent that the Inter-Alpha Group today, represents, together with its auxiliaries, 70% of the control of international banking. If you want to know where the inflation is coming from, that's where it comes from!
And therefore, once you're clear on this, you understand that what we're proposing to do, as the American system,—and it is the American Constitutional system—but the United States has been operating through most of its existence, as under the thumb, but a stubborn resistance, but under the thumb of the British Empire. We were an offshoot of people who didn't like the development of a British Empire, under conditions of the war of 1492 to 1648. And we came here, my first ancestor came here, under those conditions—came here, to set up a system, which would preserve the best of European civilization, but would be free of the monetarist systems, the imperial systems of Europe, the oligarchical systems of Europe.
So the problem is, to understand what we mean by imperialism: We mean by imperialism, oligarchism, the idea of the permanent biological rule of nations, by a social class, called an oligarchy. And these are the sweet people, the beautiful people these days, called the oligarchy, and the others are considered the inferior people.
So we, in the United States, represent, by our Constitution, which is a specific accomplishment at various points in our history—but not every point in our history, but at various points in our history. And it's embedded in us, across generations. We represent,—in a sense, what is embedded in us, is what landed in Massachusetts, in the 17th Century. And we keep going back to it, because some of us remember that, or some of us adopt it, and remember it. But our interest has always been this: to eliminate imperialism. We hate it! We try to defend ourselves against it. But we have often been crushed, by British imperialism. You want to see British imperialism? Go to Boston, ask where the British East India Company are today. Go to New York City, go to Chicago, trace out the British East India Company, and its descendants, that interest: That's where the problem lies. We finally have to crush that out of existence! And we do that, by enforcing what is in our Constitution, which we often violate, as we are violating terribly since Roosevelt died, but especially since that action of 1971.
And we recommend that to the world. And we say, as Roosevelt said, in his intention for the postwar world: We want those nations, which have gone through the experience of these wars, to join together, as respectively sovereign nation-states, who are prepared to eliminate the last vestige of monetarist imperialism from the planet. Eliminate all colonization, and establish a system of sovereign nation-states, bound together by a fixed-exchange-rate system, and a system of credit, not money.
Freeman: The next question comes from the Chinese delegation: "Mr. LaRouche, you're probably aware of the fact, that last week, one of the things that was discussed internationally, was that China has emerged as the second largest economy in the world. And we are wondering, if by the standard that you established, do you agree with this characterization, or do you believe that this characterization is simply a product of a monetarist outlook?"
LaRouche: No, probably partly. But generally, where opinions are formed, people are afraid of money, they're afraid of the power of money, the association with the power of money. And therefore, they tend to believe in it, because they like to believe in this power. Because it's popular: "Everybody says it, okay, you're the second largest power in the world. How wonderful, yes."
But, that's not the point. We know that China has deep problems, and we understand the causes of these problems, at least the principal ones. First of all, China was invited, by Nixon and company, to enter into participation in a system under which they could make cheap things. Moreover, we would ship our industries over to China, and use their cheap labor and the cheap labor of other parts of Asia, and we shut down our factories and our industries in the United States! Hmm? And the same thing was done, in a sense, with Europe. Europe has been shut, and the industrial and agricultural potential of Europe and the United States have been destroyed, since 1971!
And some of it was very deliberate. The destruction under Nixon was limited. The destruction under Carter, was immense! The destruction since Carter, the Carter Administration, is disgusting!
All right. So, the problem is that China, therefore, was told it had a big market, that it was cheap labor, being willing to use the cheap labor, that China could get some wonderful things, and you could have Chinese billionaires, as a sort of a fruit on the tree, to admire, but not to eat. So therefore, the illusion was, that China was on the road to success. But they didn't look at their benefactors. They didn't look at the British Empire, and its Anglo-American friends.
And therefore, what happened is, the world economy obligingly crashed. The crash of the world economy was lawful. China lost markets.
Now, China has an interior area which needs development. It has labor which works very cheaply. And the progress of China for the future, is very much in jeopardy. So I'm sure that the government of China is much more concerned. What they would like to say about China as public relations statement, is one thing; but what they feel on the inside, are the facts that not everything is good! They're threatening problems in there!
So therefore, the difference is this: Let's take Russia and China, since Russia came up on this question with China. Look at the relationship between the two: Russia is a very depopulated country, but if you look at the territory, and you look at the history of Russia, and the technologies which are embedded in the institutions of Russia, you get a slightly different picture. What you have, is, Russia has, in its territory, which is very poorly populated,—it has great potential in terms of natural resources, which are urgently needed for the benefits of people in the southern part of Asia. Russia also has a scientific cadre, which is very competent, in knowing how to find those kinds of things, and the case of the development of the whole Trans-Siberian Railroad, was a part of this development! Russia has been, since the time of Leibniz's life, when the new Tsar came into power in that period,—the development of mineralogy, in Russia, has been one of the leading developments in the world. This was closely associated with the work of Alexander von Humboldt, who was also in those territories.
So, now, the point is, we have—China has to develop. It does not have sufficient development, to maintain what we would consider an acceptable standard of living, physically, for the Chinese population as a whole. And the chances for the future, if we do not improve the physical, sociological conditions of the population of China generally,—a problem is there! Particularly since the world market on which China largely depends today, is in the process of collapsing.
India is a somewhat different case. China has 1.4 billion people estimated; India, 1.1. Now, look at the number of very poor people in these countries, compared with the people who would be considered reasonably well-off, by European standards, and you see we've got a problem. We've got to overcome this mass of poverty, in the interior, especially, of Asian nations. And what's most conspicuous, is this problem of poverty as it affects the largest nations, China and India. Therefore, we know that if we can not help solve this problem, which threatens China and threatens India, that we're not going to have a happy planet.
What does this mean? This means that we're going to have to, in a sense, invest in China and in India. India's in a better situation in terms of a financial standpoint, but, that means that we're going to have to have a technological revolution, globally, based on a credit system. We will, in a sense—we're going to have to crank up our high-technology potential, which is embedded in European culture, which includes Russian culture. Russia has a wasted, or depleted, great scientific potential, left over from the Soviet Union and from before the Soviet Union, as a cultural factor.
So Russia can make an essential contribution to the development of the planet! For example, the Bering Straits railway system: if we can install this system, as such, and connect it to the NAWAPA system, then we have transformed the relationships among the principal continents of the world, because we will continue this, naturally, into Africa. With infrastructure! What we're going to build up, is infrastructure! The infrastructure is not going to produce all the things we're going to consume: But it will produce the means of producing, the things we will consume. Just as I indicated the case, for the NAWAPA case.
So therefore, we have to make an investment on a global basis, a credit system, which is prepared to mobilize itself on a global basis, for international trade and investment, based on a fixed-exchange-rate system, in which we assist nations such as China and India, in increasing the capital-intensity of their rate of growth. Because, the intention must be to bring the level of the nations of the world, up to a certain standard of living, cultural standard and so forth, of living.
And, otherwise, we are borrowing problems for the future, if we do not do that.
So my view of this, is to look at it in this way: We know, that we have to create a system of international credit on a fixed-exchange-rate system. Only on a fixed-exchange-rate system, at a very low borrowing cost for credit, can we do this, in countries such as China and India. But we have to do it! So therefore, we need an international system of investment, through a fixed-exchange-rate system, which enables us to utilize what we know as science, as a science-driver, starting basically with infrastructure, as a way of building up the productive potential of these countries. And we have to look at the inherent productive potential, of the average citizens of one of these countries, in each case. That's what we have to do.
So, the point is, China now needs, for its future, it needs a system, in Asia, especially, or in the trans-Pacific area, needs a system, which is going to say, "Okay, here is China today. We can try to ensure that it doesn't go backward. Therefore, we have to assist China, by developing high technology, and utilizing those parts of the Chinese population which are capable of assimilating very high technology. They become the driver of progress inside China. We have to assist that, by helping them with their infrastructure investments, like railway systems, high-speed railway systems; water systems, water-management systems; sanitation systems, all the things that go with this. And also the water system—water! We have to increase the management of the moisture-management, of the planet as a whole, as we are going to do for the United States and Canada; by having a motion going from east to west, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, we're going to have to do the same thing, for other parts of the world. We're going to have to conquer the arid parts of the world, by developing systems which will be self-reinforcing. So that we can develop a moisture system, in Central Asia, which is capable of supporting improvements in that area.
So, we have to have a vision, which takes three generations of 25 years each generation. And we have three generations, and more, to complete during this century: We have to have goals, which are expressed in terms of that, of the three successive generations. And we have to say: Where are we going to be, generation by generation, in the conditions of life of mankind, throughout this process. And thus, if we think in those terms, in terms of the fixed-exchange-rate system, and realize that this is going to occur, not because each nation is taking care of its own needs, but because we're going to assist each other, in crucial technological areas of investment, in ensuring that nations, such as China, such as India, and other countries—or Africa, for example, is the prime example of the whole problem— that these areas, now suddenly have a foundation for catching up, while we improve the world as a whole. And it has to be that way: We have to think in those terms.
Freeman: There are still other lingering questions on some of these matters, but I think it's time to get around to some of the questions regarding NAWAPA and its implications. The first question comes with a short introduction, and I'm going to read it: "Lyn, as you know, last week Debbie joined us, and we were all engaged in a very intense discussion over three or four days, on a variety of topics. We were reminded at that time, that what now seems like so long ago, when my working group was first pulled together, long before any of us had any direct contact with you or with any of your associates, that we were tasked with coming up with an economic recovery program for the United States, and with coming up with a design for an expansion of much-needed infrastructure, etc., etc.—without going through every detail of it.
"But that is where our roots are. Now in the discussion last week, one of the presentations was very provocative for many of us, and which I would like your comments on. The title of the presentation was "What is infrastructure?" Its premise was that we had gotten very sloppy in what we were defining as infrastructure; that because we have moved so far away from any notion of physical economy that now, whenever we embark on anything that has actually some basis in reality, some tangible physical basis, we call it infrastructure.
"I'm simplifying this, because it was a long, and what I thought a brilliant presentation, but the argument was that, when we talk about infrastructure, we have to be clear on what it is that we're discussing. And that if a bridge needs repair, that the bridge should be fixed. But we shouldn't mistake that for some great infrastructure project. If an existing road has problems that have to be dealt with, if a city's water delivery system—because no one has done anything about it for 40 years—is erupting, and you have water main breaks all over the place, (as I know that you folks on the East Coast have suffered) that, while that has to be fixed, that that is not necessarily what we should be talking about, when we talk about infrastructure projects, and great infrastructure projects.
"It is great when a project becomes a source of what are obviously desperately needed jobs, but that that in and of itself, is not sufficient. President Clinton has recently said some things about this too, that I thought were very interesting. But, what was argued, is that the basic measure for defining economic infrastructure is whether or not it leads to an increase in productivity. And I guess, in terms of productivity, I think what was really being referred to is what you have uniquely named energy-flux-density. Essentially, if the implementation of a project is to be weighed against another project, the question is the level of potential productivity that can be achieved as a result of that project, both in terms of human labor, but also in terms of the general productivity of agriculture, of industry, etc.
"And that, as we select projects, and prioritize, that we have to focus on this question of what it is that will produce the greatest advance in these core areas. And that, when we talk about infrastructure, that that's what infrastructure is. That simply fixing something that's broken, or putting some people to work, that that doesn't—while you might do it, and it's undoubtedly necessary,—that that's not the task of this group per se, and that that does not constitute economic recovery, except to the degree that it does obviously put some people to work, and increase some tax revenues, and other things. But that in terms of laying a framework for the development of the nation as a whole, and a framework for future generations, it just doesn't do that much.
"I would like you to talk about your own view of this, because it was a very provocative presentation for us, and coming at the same time as our overall investigation of the total implications of this NAWAPA project, it was a real eye-opener. I don't know if you agree with this assessment.
LaRouche: I agree totally with the assessment. And the question is, what is necessary for people to understand the grounds for her assessment. It's obviously a different concept, and the conflict is obvious.
The point is, the problem lies in the fact, that it comes back,—you want to trace this, in European civilization's history. Go back to Aeschylus' Prometheus trilogy, particularly Prometheus Bound, and if you look at that trilogy, you have to look at what was happening before, in that culture, in that trilogy. What we call European civilization is a product of developments which became planetary developments—to our knowledge, that is,—whatever happened before, we have much more limited knowledge,—but in the period of the 100,000, approximately, years of the last great glaciation of this planet, the waters of the oceans fell by about 400 feet. And when, about 17,000 B.C., the glaciers began to melt, the water came up—we're talking about 3000, or something like that, B.C.—the waters came up to a level of today, approximately today.
Now, in this process, during this long period of evolution of the planetary system under that last great glaciation (there were glaciations before then), the dominant culture of the planet in terms of efficiency, was a maritime culture. It was a maritime culture based on peoples of the sea. It was a time when regular voyages would occur between the areas of the Atlantic and Africa, down into the Caribbean and back, because even then, you could probably travel with some sail and oar, you could travel in flotillas, and you could follow the same route Columbus used, in terms of prevailing currents, to get down to the Caribbean, and get into that area. And if you wanted to return, you would come up the streams, the ocean streams, the same way we would today, to move back to Europe.
And so, there were very important cultures which are significant because they had knowledge of the nature of the stellar system. They no longer looked at the stellar system as a panoply of lights, out there, but they looked at it as an organization, which had principled characteristics, which later Albert Einstein would call a finite, but not bounded universe. That is, a universe which is finite, in the sense that it is a finite system—it is not infinite, but it's finite. But it has no bounds on what it can do in terms of increasing what it is, whether we call it size, or development.
And so, these people had a conception of the universe, as part of the system of navigation they developed for this purpose. Because, things move. Things move. Currents move. Places move. The magnetic compass, which was used by these ancient people—they used the lodestone, as a compass for navigation. This was well known. This is as far back as 100,000 years or so, well known, this cycle. It was a measure.
And so, you had [inland] people, like the Berbers, who are Berbers today and were Berbers then. And sea people came in as the waters rose, as the Mediterranean became more accessible, and they moved into parts of the Mediterranean area. We had the development of Egypt—ancient Egypt was the product of the development of sea people, at a time when the great flooding of this whole area of Africa, the great glacial melt and things like that, great weather changes occurred in Africa. But the Berbers apparently were living there at that time. And so you had sea people colonize, and actually became kind of captors of people they controlled.
And so they inhabited various parts of this area. It was based on the conception of... of a scientific conception. Based on the idea of the discovery of astronomy, whose practical expression is navigation. Transoceanic navigation.
So now you had two grades of people, people who were the inland, or land people, who didn't travel great distances, transoceanic voyages, and those who did. So, what happened is, you had cultures develop in the Mediterranean region, in which the seafarers, settled in, and they called themselves gods. They often did, as you get in Homeric legends and the greater Greek legends. They call themselves gods. And if they married people of the natives, the children were demi-gods.
So, they had this system, and the system had two characteristics. One was beneficial, like the Pythagoreans, or the people who designed the great temple of Giza. They were nation-builders; they were the builders of society. And you had the others, who preferred to be the predators of society; since they had knowledge of technology, they used it in order to suppress the people, such as the Berbers. The Berbers still exist today, as a language and language-culture.
So, out of this process, there came science. And then what happened, you had a victory of what's called the oligarchical tendency. That is, the oligarchical tendency to impose on so-called lower classes of people, a condition tantamount to that of animals. And you get in the great Aeschylus trilogy, the part of that which survives today, the Prometheus Bound, you get a detailed expression of this oligarchical principle. The ordinary people must not rise to be gods! They must not know how to use fire, for example. They must be banned from the knowledge of the use of fire! And that became the oligarchical system, whose roots then, exist in the form such as the British Empire today. A class system of that type.
And you had other people, earlier, such as the Pythagoreans and Plato, who were opposed to this. They believed that the creative powers of mankind were what's crucial.
So, the oligarchical system was a system saying, the universe is fixed. You had Aristotle, for example. Aristotle would say, yes, the universe might have been created, but the god who created it, died at a certain point, and was unable to make any more changes. So now you have a fixed system, of the universe, which will never change. It can never be allowed to be changed.
Others, great thinkers, for example Philo of Alexandria, denounced this Aristotle, on that account. He said, no, creativity lives on.
You find there are two divisions about science, in the history of science today. On the one side there are those of us who know, as Albert Einstein emphasized, that the universe is inherently creative. This idea gained particular impetus with Louis Pasteur. Louis Pasteur decided that he knew what life was, but he wasn't quite able to define it. But he opened up the gates for a new development of what we call physical chemistry, which replaced so-called physics as such. Mathematical physics is often a different belief; it believes in the primacy of an Aristotelean type, or a Sarpian type, the modern liberal type, of fixed universe. Aristotle says, we know what the universe is; it's already fixed, we can't change it. The Sarpians say, yes, you can change the universe, but you don't know why, or don't know how. And that became modern liberalism, typified by that wretched creature, Galileo. A real hoaxster, and fraud.
So, you have these two systems in modern Europe. You have the system of scientific development, which comes out of areas like the work of Cusa, or before him, Brunelleschi. So, out of the Dark Age, came science. Science was the great Council of Florence: where science itself was typified by the achievements of Brunelleschi, in discovering the physical principle of curvatures, physical curvatures. Like the catenary. The dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore—the dome's construction depends upon the catenary as a principle of construction, as opposed to an Aristotelean, or so-called Euclidean curve.
Then you have Nicholas of Cusa, who represents exactly the same point, and continues that with his De Docta Ignorantia. The same conception. Then you have the opposing view. The first opposing view was the Aristotelean view, which was the view of the Habsburgs. This was the view that started the religious wars. Then in the middle of this, it was discovered: well, the Habsburgs aren't doing too well. Aristotle is a failure. So, in comes Sarpi, and Sarpi says, all right, man does not know what the universe is. Man only knows pleasure, and pain. Therefore, mathematics, of money, will tell us the difference between pleasure, and pain. And that's the liberal system.
The worst example of the liberal system is Bertrand Russell, probably the most evil man that slithered across the surface of this planet during his lifetime. So, you have two views. You have the mathematical physics, which, as a theory of mankind, and a theory of economics, is utterly incompetent, intrinsically. Whereas Einstein, and others who belong to the category of modern physical chemistry, who say that the universe is constantly developing, and Vernadsky defines,—which is what we must use today; to understand economics today, you must understand the critical achievement of Vladimir Vernadsky, who defined the universe as composed of three known sub-spaces. One is the finite, the fixed universe, the non-living universe. But then, co-existing with the non-living form of the universe, which has none of the characteristics of life, as such, there is life, and the products of life, as such. And a great deal of the crust of the planet, all kinds of parts of the planet, are interrelated, between things which co-exist, one living and the other non-living, on principle.
And there's a third principle, which is not characteristic of animals, or other living things, except mankind. Mankind is capable of willfully creating. That is, everything creates. The universe is always creative; it's always creating new states. It creates new states of living processes, and the animals don't have anything to say about it. Plants don't have anything to say about it. They just do it. It's built into their nature. The nature of the principle of life. The principle of life interacts with non-life.
But then comes man. Man is willful. Man can discover a principle, and does discover principles. Mankind changes the behavior of mankind, and changes the behavior of the animal kingdom, and changes the behavior of the non-living universe. There is no fixed system.
Therefore, when you say something has value, tell me where the creativity is expressed. When you're fixing something, that may be useful. If you're maintaining something that has a use to it, still has a use to it, that's useful. But where does the economy as a whole go? So, we now have to distinguish an economy with two things; that is, the real economy, the physical economy. One, is you're simply maintaining the same level of productivity that existed before—either for the economy as a whole, or only for certain parts of it. Or, the alternative, you're an inventor. You're a discoverer of universal physical principles not previously known, and you are transforming mankind, by transforming the power of mankind over the universe, in the universe.
And infrastructure is essentially,—to define it as a principle of infrastructure,—she's right, absolutely correct. It's only to the degree that your system of so-called infrastructure is an essential part of the process of increasing the productive powers of labor, to compensate for using up what you're using up, that you really have infrastructure. It's the infrastructure of what? Of a fixed society? Or the infrastructure of progress? The infrastructure of man going,—
Where are we now? We have to look at this thing. What are we doing? Take the case of the NAWAPA project. And you look at the Tennessee Valley Authority, which Roosevelt started in 1933—it's actually a precedent of this process. What's the difference?
Mankind willfully creates a platform, on which the act of production is performed. The basic thing that we do in production, is not something physical, in the ordinary sense of physical. It's that we build a platform, like an increase of the energy flux density of power sources. And, we look at this kind of thing... We understand this from the standpoint, let's say, of the work of Pasteur. Pasteur did not claim to have defined life, but he opened the gates to aspects of physical chemistry which later enabled us to understand more things about living processes. And this action of Pasteur, and people like that, based on the influence of Bernhard Riemann, gave modern science, or that part which was willing to be modern science, the opportunity to discover living processes, and understand them.
So, Vernadsky represents a certain pinnacle of this, because he defined the distinction, the functional distinction, from the standpoint of physical chemistry, of the distinction between the non-living, the living and its residue, and the human mind. So, when we talk about human infrastructure, we have to bring in the nature of the creative powers of the human mind.
Now, the opposition is that of the mathematicians. There is no creativity in mathematics, except the creativity in redesigning mathematics, by some gifted people. There's no inherent truth in mathematics as such. The truth in mathematics is only to the extent that it involves discovery of methods of design, which have a mathematical shadow cast by them, and the sources of creativity lie not in mathematics. Creativity in the individual lies essentially in Classical artistic composition, of various forms of it. That's where the creative powers of the imagination, in metaphor, especially in metaphor, as the Seven Types of Ambiguity of William Empson typifies this anomaly. It's in the great literature.
It's the destruction of music, the destruction of Classical music, and the ability to know what it is, the destruction of Classical poetry, of Classical art in general, which defines the mass corruption of Europe and the United States, since the end of World War II. There was a willful destruction of art, from the noble and elegant, to the debased. And the problem we have with our population today, is that they've become debased by the influence of these new kinds of artistic conception. Where the creative powers of the mind are located precisely in that—that's their expression. As Einstein and his violin, together, typify that. Without the impact of a Classical musical composition, or a Classical composition of that form, you don't have creativity among scientists. You have mathematicians.
And mathematicians are dead. They're like machines. They're like calculating machines. They run on what's built into them. And when we use mathematics (hopefully, we'll reinvent it from time to time, otherwise we get stagnant), when we use mathematics, we are simply changing the design of the computer. And the computer's now been taught to do things it couldn't do before.
But the power to create the change in the computer, that does this, lies in Classical artistic powers.
So, therefore, what we're looking for, we're looking for the imagination. Take the case, one case, for illustration of this point. Take NAWAPA. NAWAPA is an excellent example of this.
What we'll be publishing soon, in our ongoing work, is the way in which chlorophyll, if you destroy enough of these crazy, idiotic solar collectors, and destroy these damn windmills, and get us a Don Quixote who will really eliminate those windmills, once and for all,—that's how we progress. We progress by creativity. And we progress by realizing what is creative in living processes, especially living processes. And therefore we say, if we take this radiation from the sun, sunlight, solar radiation incident upon the surface of the earth, that's very inefficient. Very inefficient as a source of power. It's the worst choice available, next to simply burning woods and trash. So, the best thing is to let the sun do something for you. Let the sun use chlorophyll. And there are some other chemicals of that type, which will perform a similar function with a different central atom, the magnesium atom, in this case.
What chlorophyll does,—it amplifies the energy flux density of a chemical process in a very specific way. The result of that growth of living processes, which all have this kind of characteristic, the same as chlorophyll does in its role, are the way in which we create a transformation of the environment, in which we convert biomass, or what becomes biomass,—we convert it into a process by which we increase the productivity of life. The power of life over the planet. The flux-density of power of growth, or living processes, over the planet. That's economy. Everything else is simply attrition.
And therefore, what we are going to do, if we get the chance to do this,—and we can do it right away, all we have to do is get rid of Obama! Get rid of him! Get through Glass-Steagall. And a political system that will do that, will be capable of adopting the NAWAPA project, putting it into effect, by putting spades in the earth virtually on the morning. It may take us til October to do it, but we can start. And that will save this planet from a lot of hell. Because it will lead to the integration of the world, with an understand of how we have to develop the surface of the planet, as an area of habitation, in such ways that it's more fruitful for us.
That's what you're looking for. Infrastructure means the power to increase the energy flux density of human existence, and to raise humanity's practice to higher levels, or the equivalent, of energy flux density. Which depends upon increasing the energy flux density. Without nuclear power, you could not maintain this planet with its present population. Without thermonuclear power, you could not solve the problems which face us down the road. People who are opposed to nuclear power, opposed to thermonuclear power, are worse than idiots: they're criminals. They may not intend to be criminals, but they're like a driver, a drunken driver. They don't know which way to go.
So, infrastructure is to build a system, which utilizes such things as the conversion of solar sunlight, and its incidence on the earth, in a useful way, by letting chlorophyll do its job. And you'll find that in trees, you get up to 10% of the incident sunlight, can be converted into biomass. With grasses, about 1%. So, therefore, you want as many trees as possible. You don't cut down trees to install solar panels! A desperate man would shoot anybody who tried to install solar panels at the expense of trees.
So, this kind of concept. We have to develop the actually appropriate science, and the appropriate science is typified, not limited to, but typified by the revolution, the very specific revolution, which was accomplished by Vladimir Vernadsky, in his conception of the biosphere and the noösphere. And this is the chemistry, this is the physics, that you must learn, if you're going to practice competent practice in terms of economy. You don't understand this? You're behind the times. You may not be able to solve the problem. Get somebody in there who does know.
Freeman: The next question is from someone who also was part of our discussions last week, and he says:
"Lyn, I trust by now you've gotten something of a report of our proceedings in California last week, where we really got to discuss some of these issues in great depth. And for us, the proposal to really zero in NAWAPA, as the great project that will put us on the road to recovery, led to some very interesting things, because the more we looked into it, what we realized is that we were dealing with a project that would do so many things; that it would provide a source of desperately needed jobs; that it would provide fresh water to areas of the United States which right now desperately need it, as we find our deserts, for the first time in a long time, starting to grow again. And it became clear to us also, that the solution to many of the problems that we were trying to deal with, in terms of saving and expanding the space program, especially from the standpoint of space colonization, could begin to be solved, by embarking upon an expanded NAWAPA project.
"We were very excited about all of this, and we began to realize that by pursuing this, we would begin to actually transform, to consciously transform, and manage, many of the processes of our universe.
"But this also raised a question, and I'm going to ask you to forgive me if the way that I'm phrasing this question is imprecise, because I'm just not sure exactly how to deal with it. And it came up in some of the discussions about how, in fact, man is capable of consciously intervening in nature. Because, on the one hand, as we discussed NAWAPA, you know the question of nuclear energy was solved. It became absolutely clear by some of the presentations that we were given, that it just was not an argument; that there was no way that we could proceed on anything, unless we utilized nuclear power.
"It also became very clear that it's not only the case that the use of solar power is not the most efficient way to produce energy, but that in fact, it's destructive. And all kinds of things like this, came to the fore, and it became very clear that problems that we were running into, were here solved.
"Now, for some of us, the fact that the results of NAWAPA's construction would be real changes in climate, and things like that, was a very exciting prospect. And certainly, it's clear to us, and it's clear by some of the presentations that were given, that these kinds of interventions by man, have taken place really over the entire history of our species, and we were discussing it just in terms of our food production. And in the difference in the way,—if we were producing food today the way food was grown in the wild, the way that corn grows in the wild, in order to produce the same nutritive value, would take about half of the total acreage of the United States, as opposed to what it takes now, which is about 4 percent.
"So, this is all very exciting. But, it also then posed questions about man's relationship to nature. And exactly how we deal with certain aspects of this. And it came up very specifically in the discussion that we did have, about food, in terms of agricultural engineering. And without going through every detail of it, my question comes up in this way: On the one hand, many of us believe that man was put on this planet for precisely this purpose; that man's action on basic foodstuffs, actually allow us not to be the ultimate consumers, but actually to increase the ratio of usable nutrients, etc.
"But then, another question comes up, and I don't know what your view is of this, but I'd like you to comment on it. The question comes up in terms of the kind of bio-engineering, for instance, that Monsanto is involved in; we've had some huge fights about it around here, because some people in our group are working on, their financing comes from grants from Monsanto; but my own view is that what Monsanto is up to, is bad, and is dangerous. And I can tell you,—and if you look at everybody in this room right now, I am probably on the lower end of the spectrum of people who you could call environmentalists, but I don't know exactly how to pose the question. I'd like to know what you think of this Monsanto business, but really, from the broader question, of man's relationship to nature. How do you judge? What are the criteria of an intervention which is a positive and good intervention, of climate change that helps, and one that doesn't?
"And I think that in terms of NAWAPA, I know that one of the follow-up questions that one of my colleagues brought up, has to do with some new changes in U.S. law, which would frankly make NAWAPA illegal, but I'd like you to first address this more generally, in terms of man's relationship to nature. And if you want to talk about this Monsanto thing, I'd like it.
LaRouche: Okay, fine. I will.
First of all, you've got to watch your semantics, because if you start from the question that it's miraculous that man should seem to have the intention of doing something like this, and you find that miraculous, you should ask yourself the question: why do you find it miraculous? Or what do you mean by miraculous?
If the universe as a whole is creative, intrinsically creative, and if, as Vernadsky and his associates, have made this clear, the universe is inherently creative. Now, are you going to say that the universe has a mission? Experimentally, yes! From an experimental physics question, the universe is dominated by a mission called anti-entropy, or development. And the development is not quantitive, but rather is essentially qualitative.
For example, take the question of living processes as we know of them on the planet. How much time was wasted in unicellular, or less than unicellular, forms of life? Why didn't we get on to the main project? Why was it so long in the history of living processes, and evidence of that, that it got around to producing multicellular forms of life? And how did you get through all these things that came out of oceans and seas, and so forth, and how did you finally get human beings able to walk around, or living beings, walking around on the surface of the planet? Not living in some fluid, someplace. But, maybe the air's a fluid.
Then you have to think about the development of the atmosphere, which was accomplished by living processes. And so therefore, there is nothing remarkable, in the sense it should be astonishing, about the fact that everything that is good, in terms of development, expresses a purpose, an intention. An intention to attempt to do something. And a fruitful example of that kind of attempt, is to give you these things.
Mankind is inherently creative, willfully so. That's the most interesting case. Plant life is also sort of creative in its own way. Even the physical forms of existence of non-living processes, have their own kind of creativity. The universe is creating itself again, and again, and again. More and more and more. It goes through destructive phases, which then turn out to be creative phases, and so forth—all this kind of thing.
So, the idea,—here's where the problem comes up. If you are a subject of brainwashing by people who admire the position of the Olympian Zeus, of the famous Promethean legend, if you accept that point of view, then you are an oligarchy, and your policy is (whatever you actually believe), is to practice the doctrine that ordinary people are nothing but animals, who will do as their father and grandfather and great-grandfather did before them. And if they try to change that, that's wrong. If they try to increase the size of the human population, that's wrong. If they try to make people more intelligent, that's wrong. "We want a fixed system! We want an Aristotelean system, which has a fixed order of things, like this clock. You wind it up, and then it wears out, and you get a new clock." The same thing.
Or, you get the other side, a Sarpian system, which is destructive, always destructive. Man eats man, always destructive. And you say, well, morally, this is stupid. And the scientific evidence is, that such an idea is something which nature abhors! Because the history of the human race, the history of the universe, insofar as we know it, is the universe is based on a principle of creativity, anti-entropy. And the doctrines of Aristotle, and the doctrines of the followers of Sarpi, such as the British system, are the enemies of progress. They hate it. Why? Because they're evil.
That's evil. What's the effect of it? What's the effect of this? The effects are evil; therefore it's evil. Zero-growth is a conception which is purely evil. And people who believe in zero growth are evil people. Not because they're supposed to be evil, but because they've chosen to be evil. And therefore, we don't encourage that form of behavior. But rather we, being human, and being sensible of what the purpose of the existence of mankind is, as expressed by all the universal evidence of known history, we decide that we're going to be creative. We're not going to be stupid. We're not going to take drugs. We're not going to rot ourselves away in some house of prostitution, with some kind of exotic entertainment with new species we discovered as a sexual object. We're not going to do that. We're going to progress.
Because we know, from everything we know, that creativity is an inherent characteristic of our universe. An inherent characteristic, and an obligation to mankind. And all the evidence available to us tells us that. Now, with the help of things like the Riemannian view of the universe, which is an extension of Leibniz, an extension of Nicholas of Cusa before him, and so forth, that is what we have to do. Pragmatically, that is what we have to accept. All the evidence shows that. And every time we deviate from that evidence, we get into trouble, as a human race.
Now, our job now is to eliminate oligarchism from this planet. And oligarchism is what tends to rule this planet. It's not the whores that rule the universe, it's the pimps. That's the issue. That's the basic answer.
This idea of progress, the limitless bounds of qualitative progress of mankind, should be the understood moral law, of all practice of nations, and peoples on this planet. Backwardness is evil, just because it is backwardness. And you want people to improve.
You have a guy, a little guy, is born. Born in a poor family. Never knows anything, never has much culture. He dies some crazy death, of some disease or something. And you think that's good? Why isn't this little guy developed? We know what human beings are capable of doing; why doesn't he become that? What are you? What kind of a scum are you, if you don't care about this little guy? Doesn't it horrify you that that's a human being, and a human being has inherently certain potentials, which you should admire in human beings. The future to which they can contribute. And you want to keep them like that? What kind of a scumbag are you?
Progress is morality. And what is not progress, is not morality.
Freeman: Lyn, there are some questions, and some of what's being brought up are really not questions. They have to do with some of the discoveries that this group made, as they began to really study what an expanded NAWAPA project could mean, including that it would actually address some problems that had come up, and that had really upset some people in this group, when it came to their attention, or really, when they began to ponder the fact that, given current levels of production globally, that as a species, we may not be producing what we actually need to sustain ourselves, because of some pretty crazy policies that have been adopted. And obviously, NAWAPA, in a variety of ways, begins to address that.
One of the things that became clear, is that even in the juvenile stages of the implementation of this project, that you could actually double the irrigable acreage west of the Mississippi River. The other thing that came up, was the irony that the biggest concentration of environmentalism in the United States, is located in California, where you also have our nation's most productive agricultural land, which has bloomed out of a desert, out of a high desert.
And we had a lot of discussion last week, about the fact that this was not always the case, but that it was made possible by FDR's Central Valley project, and then later on, by crazy Jerry Brown's father, who expanded elements of Roosevelt's Central Valley Project in what was called the State Water Project. And yet, while everybody is in enjoying that bounty, you have this zero-growth mentality.
For instance, one of our participants gave a presentation before a group of economists in France on NAWAPA and the potential that NAWAPA holds, and one of the things that was raised as an objection to the project was precisely what we are referring to as one of the benefits: this idea that NAWAPA would double the irrigable acreage west of the Mississippi. Some among these French economists, found that appalling, because what they went through, is that if you did a survey of the entire planet, where you have these agricultural areas, that what I guess they refer to as the birth cycle, which is the period of time in between people having babies, is the shortest. I.e., that these people don't just grow food, they grow people. And that this is seen as a very bad thing. Which certainly runs contrary to the view of all the people here. I think I can say, of all people here.
What most people don't realize, is that the water used by NAWAPA is not fixed amount of water that we're just going to deplete, but that actually through NAWAPA, it would be used, that this water would essentially be recycled. We had a lot of discussions about how this works, and we got some very good input from some of our friends in Russia.
There is an issue that has been raised that people here are not sure you are aware of, but which has to be addressed. A series of executive orders have been issued by the Obama Administration, under which NAWAPA would be deemed illegal. Apparently, Obama has adopted an Ocean and Water policy that would not only outlaw projects like NAWAPA, but which is also directed at undoing certain water management projects that have been established in the past. The executive order in question not only prohibits any further such improvements, but in fact, it commits the Federal government to rolling back improvements like the TVA. It repeatedly refers to things like dams as a malady that we have been cursed with.
Are you aware of this executive order, and do you know what the origins of it are, and how we should address it? Because it certainly presents itself as a very bad obstacle. And since it was not done by Act of Congress, but by an act of the Presidency, the question is, how do you go about addressing it?
LaRouche: Well, the first thing you do is, you throw the President out. Because what this represents—people who know Classical culture, European history of Classical culture—this is called the cult of Dionysus. The intention is not to solve a problem; the intention is to create one. Which is malice. It's evil per se. The President of the United States embodies evil per se, which is the same thing as saying he's a member of the cult of Dionysus, or a product of the cult of Dionysus.
Now, if you go back to the 1960s, especially the late 1960s, and you look at what prevailed among college-aged youth, university-aged youth, between the middle of the 1960s,—about the time they got threatened with being drafted, no longer had exemption from being drafted,—at that point, into the very early part of the 1970s, you will recall, around people like Mark Rudd and other people of that type, who then became celebrities... Apart from his role in spreading gonorrhea infection through his travels, that he spread some ideas that are more evil than the gonorrhea that he was passing around. That is where the cult of Dionysus became a calculated program of indoctrination of university-aged students, particularly among families who were considered to be, collectively, influential.
That is, it was the spread of, not only gonorrhea, but the spread of ideas which had a similar quality of merit, or lack of merit.
So, therefore, we have people in society who should be considered as Nazis. They are the equivalent of the Nazis today.
For example: Part of the extreme green movement in Germany is a product of a skipped generation, from the Nazis. Remember, the ideology of the Nazis was originally, as Goering and others expressed this, was a green ideology. You had a similar thing in France, and the origin of this was partly there. You had a similar thing in Italy. But more notably, with France and Germany.
Now, the reason for the green movement in Germany is largely a result of the influence of the roots of Nazism which expressed [themselves] in a skipped generation. With a little mediation in between. And the people who were the terrorists, the bombing terrorists, of the 1970s, were the expression of this. This is the enemy. These are people of criminal minds, of criminal mental disposition. And we cannot allow them to exert any authority over society. It's like saying, I worship Satan.
Freeman: The next question comes from our Russian delegation: "Mr. LaRouche, as I think you know, due to what have been abnormally high temperatures and drought conditions, today, Russia, in the person of Vladimir Putin announced that they were introducing a temporary ban on Russia's export of wheat, corn, barley, rye, and flour. And this currently is now set to run from Aug. 15, until the end of the year. Now, our Russian delegation says that this has led to a very nasty attack on Russia by a number of different sources, but one which you, Mr. LaRouche, are very familiar with, and that is the person of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who accuses—saying that this move by Putin is unprecedented, that it basically withdraws a quarter of the total world wheat export from the market, and that this is a ploy by Putin to increase Russia's power, etc., etc.
One of the things that Evans-Pritchard argues in a piece in the Telegraph, is that the price of bread can be expected to literally double overnight.
Now, we think a couple of things are important to note in all of this, and that is, that Mr. Putin acted after meeting with a group of meteorological experts, who informed him that the current situation was not likely to get better any time soon, and that the drought was expected to continue. And that it is likely that the ground will still be too hard next month, for us to seed the winter crop. Now, for us, that means the loss of two crops. And from the standpoint of our own security, we have no choice, but to withdraw from the export market, and although it's our intention that this be temporary, this could last for up to two years.
Now it is the case, and we can confirm this, that Mr. Putin has also requested that Kazakhstan and Belarus, both of whom are also major wheat exporters, also ban exports.
Now, what we wish to say, is that, while this is a desperate situation, it is certainly not something that Mr. Putin has done lightly or happily. And that it is not being done to somehow increase our power in the world, or to hold the world hostage. And the proof of this, we think, is that we were told, both last week and before we came here today, that Russia would be delighted to participate in not only the expansion of a NAWAPA project in the United States, but that also, for quite some time, this has been under study in Russia, because we have plans for a very similar project in central Asia, where essentially we have suffered a process of desertification. And obviously if our intentions were to somehow hold the world hostage, we would not offer to participate in NAWAPA, nor would we say that we would welcome U.S. assistance and participation in a similar project in Central Asia.
But the bottom line is, that we have been struggling with scorching heat and dryness for weeks! There is no relief in sight. The outlook is that this will continue. I think people know that Ukraine has also cancelled wheat exports, because of this truly catastrophic situation.
So, we just wanted to make it clear and make it known, that Russia's motives in this are not nefarious, that we would welcome participation in NAWAPA here in America, but also we would welcome your participation in such a project in Russia, because we believe it would go a very long way toward making sure that we do not face this kind of catastrophe, including the wildfires, which people in California are very familiar with, but which we have been plagued with like never before, this past season.
I would like Mr. LaRouche to comment on this. Because we see no way—obviously, we support Mr. Putin's move, and we don't see what else he could do, under the circumstances. He does not wish to starve the world, but obviously the security of our nation must come first.
LYNDON LaRouche: Well, maybe if the British had treated Russia a little differently, since Margaret Thatcher's reign, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
What happened at that point, the combination of George H.W. Bush, François Mitterrand, President of France then, and Margaret Thatcher, embodies exactly the root cause of exactly this problem! The burning of peat bogs all around the Moscow area, where people hardly find the ability to breathe, in this circumstance! And the fact that this has become epidemic, because of a weather pattern which aggravates the condition, reflects exactly what the British, in particular, led in doing to Russia, all the way since the so-called 1989 crisis!
I was dealing with this in 1989, in the beginning of that year, and into the spring of 1989, when I was concerned about a chronic problem of food supplies in the Soviet Union! And suggested that we had in the United States at that time, the technological-assistance ability to intervene and help, to come to what I called a "Food for Peace" agreement: That by cooperation on something which is of humanitarian urgency, with another nation, you tend to make friends. And if you have little quarrels going on, you tend to mitigate them, because you find that you have friends.
It's like we deal with the crisis, for example, in parts of Asia. We're not always too happy with Iran's present policy. But! We're not going to make it worse! We're going to do, as Russia has done, in the case of the nuclear discussions with Iran, we're going to try to find some way of cooperation, to solve the problem, and give Iran its right, the right to development, and to find that the means of development are not denied them! Hmm?
Now, we don't know that we're going to get the answer we want from that, but we're going to do it! Because it's the right thing to do. And before Obama came in, that was a tendency which still existed even in the United States institutions. It got really worse with Obama because Obama's a total British agent, that's his character. They got him cheap, and they put him in, because they didn't want Hillary Clinton! They were determined to do everything possible to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President. And if she hadn't gotten the rough treatment that was given in this thing, she would have been President, and we wouldn't have this problem.
So, if they don't like it, they can blame the people who forced Obama down the throats of the American people, by muscle and fraud and various kinds of dirty tricks
No, the point is, we have to actually do the same thing: We have to say: We have a policy. The whole world system is going to Hell, right now! And if we let it go the way it's going, with Obama as President, and with British control over so much of the world,—I say, I intend,—my malicious intention, my secret delight, and not so secret, is to bankrupt the whole Inter-Alpha organization! Which is the world imperialist system, which is really the cause of the lack of development which is occurring throughout the world!
Russia would be perfectly capable, with its scientific capability, of dealing with this problem! But I followed, detail by detail, blow by blow, much of the things that were done, from the time the breakup of the Soviet Union occurred.
And I also know the role of British agents in shaping Russian policy, that is certain parts of Russian policy, and making this worse! And I don't like British agents in Russian costume, for that reason, because they're bad for Russia, and I don't like them around, in any case!
But, this is a case for cooperation. Putin did not only the right thing, it would have been wrong for him not to do it. There's no good reason for him not to do it. He has no choice.
And Evans-Pritchard is a well-known British agent, of very dirty services, who's done dirty things inside the United States and elsewhere! He usually manages to get up on the wrong side of the bed, everywhere he goes. And get into bed with the wrong thing, perhaps, too, at the same time.
So, he's a menace. He's typical of the degeneracy of those who would kill a David Kelly, who had offended Blair, on Blair's policy of a fraudulent entry into an Iraq War. So, the way to deal with him, is, treat him as he deserves to be treated: you know, sort of like a Mark Rudd of England today, of Britain today. He's a menace.
No, I perfectly sympathize, I absolutely sympathize with this. And I'm concerned, not with just denouncing the opposition to this, because I've had information on this case in the past couple of days, on what the situation is around Moscow and elsewhere. I agree, totally, on the basis of my own facts. That Putin has done absolutely, the indispensable right thing.
The question is, what next? Now, what do we do? That being the case, and therefore, this should be a case for a discussion of a NAWAPA policy, as an ingredient of an international policy of cooperation among a whole group of nations. Only by international cooperation to ensure the security of food supplies of all nations, and the practical measures needed for that,—that's the only way to respond to this.
Freeman: The next question is from the group that had been, before things were redirected into a crash program on NAWAPA, after your statements of a few weeks ago, working on the space program, very specifically on the colonization of Mars. And what they've submitted here is the following: They say, "Lyn, one of the things that we were struggling with, when we were looking at what we wanted to do, to move forward with the space program, is that there is just so much work, that has yet to be done, but one of the very exciting things about the NAWAPA project, and what convinced us that it's an excellent option for initiating the economic recovery here, is that, although what we've been discussing and what you've been discussing even more, is a great expansion of the initial design, the fact is, that the fundamental design and planning, has already been done.
"And we are absolutely convinced that, once we agree to do it, we could start doing it next week. But also, there was something else that struck us, and I know that you've done a great deal of study on the question of space colonization and Mars,—in fact I think the first contact, or more appropriately the first time I really became aware of you as a political figure, was during a Presidential campaign some years back, when you did, what I thought was a remarkable half-hour infomercial, on 'The Woman on Mars.' And I will tell you, I have had it on VHS for all this time, I've watched it many times, and recently, I had my old, tattered videotape converted to DVD, so I could show it to my friends.
"But that aside, one of the things that I've come to now think, is that, really, if we are serious about any discussion on the process of space colonization, that, not only will we learn things from NAWAPA, but that, in fact, it probably is the first, and necessary, step; that the question of how we gain more control over our own atmosphere, may very well give us, precisely the knowledge and insight we need into what it is we have to do, to create a life-support system, outside of our planet. Because obviously, if we are talking about space colonization, we do have to face the fact that we can't do that unless we are prepared,— I mean, you're dealing where there's an absence of a substantial atmosphere. So we have to create one, if we're going to sustain life there. And that's a big challenge.
"But again, I've arrived at the conclusion that NAWAPA may very well be necessary not only from the standpoint of creating these systems on Mars, but in fact, necessary for getting us there! That it may be necessary to figure out how to actually build the vehicles that will get us there.
"And, you know, when I brought this up, some of my friends here think this is all science-fiction-thought, right? I don't think that way, and I think that you know more about this, probably, than any of us! And I'd like your thoughts on it."
LaRouche: All right, let's assume that as of tomorrow morning we have decided that we're going to dump Obama, number one; number two, we're going to immediately re-enact the original 1933 version of Glass-Steagall Act, with retroactive effects. That we're going to, at that point, immediately launch agreements with other countries, in the direction of indicating what we intend to do, and suggesting that they cooperate with us, in any way they would choose to participate in what we're doing.
Then, we would immediately, having dumped Obama, and having dumped what goes with him, we would then, immediately say, we're talking in the order of magnitude of hundreds of thousands of people, in such magnitudes, already living in the major areas of the United States which are NAWAPA-relevant. We have hundreds of thousands of people, in the United States, a large part of them in California, and in the state of Washington, who are "sitting on their hands," so to speak, waiting for the jobs of the type they used to do, to come back! They are scientists, they are technicians, and engineers, technicians of this quality. If we had the Presidency, we could start it, as of October!
Without the current opposition from the White House, the support is there to reform the banking system, the way Roosevelt did. And that reform takes the form of, "Well, Wall Street, good-bye, Wall Street! You should have gone long ago! We don't need you any more." We don't need the Vault in Boston, either. We don't need any of these relics of the British East India Company, which have been parasites in our country for much too long! Who've created our Presidents, who created most of our dope-using, and other kinds of things; they created slavery and all these other kinds of things for us!
All right. So therefore, at that point, once we've agreed on that, and once we've approached a number of countries, and I've targetted them before, the targetted countries are, the United States, Russia, China, and India. Not limited to those countries, but if those countries agree to enter into this kind of agreement, we have the building block for reorganizing the world. And, as I've said before, Germany is one of the ideal, crucial countries from Europe, which have to be approached to be involved in this. Because they have some—almost lost—technology, but still some, as people in China know. Which is of value to these countries.
And, we're going to have the greatest unleashing of nuclear power, in the terms of the thorium cycle, uranium cycle, and the thermonuclear cycle, that's ever been imagined. And that's going to power our ability to do this.
Now, on the space program itself: Once we assume that, then I say, the next thing is, "spades at work," in the designated areas of the NAWAPA project. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, who are presently unemployed, and who are skilled at various levels needed, and many of them come from this area of the Western United States, where they used to have jobs, and don't have any more, or are about to lose them. Start the project, right away!
The project is pretty well determined. We would have semi-autonomous regions, for management, and they can decide whether one particular location is the right place, as opposed to the other, in the case of the original Parsons project design, or not.
Now, we, immediately, doing that, our first step is to talk to, friends in Russia. Who would like to see the Bering Strait railway tunnel installed. And we had a former, now recently deceased Governor of Alaska, who was a cosponsor of this project. We're pretty much clear on the approach that has to be taken in general, to build the tunnel, under the Bering Strait. This means a sudden change in terms of Siberia. Now, when you're talking about Siberia, you're talking about one of the greatest areas of deposits of mineral resources of relevance to the nations in the southern part of Asia: China, most notably. You're talking about bringing Mongolia into a more active role, as a nation and population, in active participation in a role. You're talking about bringing Japan in, because Japan wants this like nothing before. Japan's problem is solved, immediately, if this kind of cooperation comes into place. South Korea will be enthusiastic immediately! And it'll be crucial for this! Their scientific capability is quite appreciable.
So, you've started this process, then, just by that kind of development! Of saying, "we're going ahead with NAWAPA, and we're going to take the logical extension, which is the Bering Strait Tunnel, as a commitment." It's going to take some time to get it started and so forth, and done. But that commitment will be established. So, and that's the way to think about it.
Now, beyond that, it gets even more interesting: Because there are lots of problems I knew something about, back then, in 1988, and I've learned a lot more, since. First of all, we've opened up the question of cosmic radiation: Because the distance, out in space, between Earth and Mars, is not empty space. It's loaded with cosmic radiation, cross-penetrating this traffic, from all over the world; from inside the United States, from living processes, from nonliving processes, all kinds of things—from our galaxy, from outside our galaxy, into our galaxy, etc. So, it's rather wonderful!
We also know that gravitation is a key issue, already in putting people into Mars orbit. It's a crucial one, already, dealing on the Moon. We do things to try to enable people to counter the effects of lack of gravitation, or weakened gravitation. We don't think, yet, we've managed to solve that problem. We've managed to ameliorate the problem, by various kinds of exercises and things like that. But going into space, you can't get to Mars in a short time without thermonuclear fusion. And your best source of fusion power is [helium-3], right there, sitting as a fuel, on the Moon, where the Sun has been dropping this material, over many, many years. Now, with that process of fusion we now have a kind, a conception of a propulsion system, which is simply needed, even to get through to Mars in a reasonable number of days. Because, every time you're out there, you're at hazard, for things which we do know, and things we don't know.
And settling on Mars, to stay there for any period of time, is a problem. Mars has one-third the size of Earth. There are lots of deficiencies we've detected in that planet, from the standpoint of human activity. We're going to have to build a real infrastructure on Mars, eventually. So we will buffer the deficiencies of Mars, with a protective environment, which fills in for all these things that we enjoy on Earth, which we don't find supplied there. We're going to have to change, engineer a change in the climate of Mars! And I think, if we go in this direction, by the end of the century, if we take this route that I'm proposing now, I think by the end of the century, we can, in science, begin to solve many of these problems.
And this means, that we are no longer thinking from the standpoint of the Earth outward, to the Solar System. We're now thinking from immediately outside the Earth, as if standing on a satellite, an Earth satellite, or on the Moon, and we're looking down at Earth! And we're saying, "this is our garden, this our planet. Well, what do we have to do, now?" Well, NAWAPA gives us, one part of the answer: Here's what we can do. We've got to do this globally, not just in the United States. We've got to have the equivalent kind of design installed throughout other parts of the world, where desertification is a problem, and so forth.
And so, that's the way we think about it. We have to start thinking of ourselves as being, living within—shall we call it, what section of the Solar System, between the Mars orbit and the Earth orbit, of Kepler? Call it the "Kepler Region." Because that's where we're going to be operating between. You're going to be operating within the Solar System, and we're going to be operating with an orientation, toward the region between Mars and Earth, as Kepler was the first one to explore this thing, and define it.
And we should be very happy. We should do the kinds of things, that make other people, who tend to think as I do, happy. I think, you know, life, the sense of immortality, not as a biological phenomenon, but immortality in the purpose of living, and in contribution of original discoveries, which live on, with humanity, over generations to come—that kind of motivation is what we need.
Freeman: It's ironic that you would end this way. In opening the proceedings in California, last week, one of the things that was discussed was a statement that had been made by former President Clinton in which he had expressed tremendous concern about the state of the U.S. population, and their general alienation, and rage, at what is currently going on. He had said that "providing jobs," was not sufficient. That what you had to do, was provide people with a mission.
I can say on behalf of those of us here that the desperately needed mission that he was talking about, has now been provided: That we have our mission with the launch of NAWAPA. And, it's a mission that clearly can be shared with our friends across both of the great oceans, and that's that what we should set our sights on.
There are questions that we haven't got to, but we've run over schedule and we'll have other opportunities to take them up. Everyone here is very excited and happy, and we all want to convey our thanks to you. So, Lyn, thank you so much for this. And I'm sure this is just the beginning of what's going to be a very fruitful process over the next few weeks.
LaRouche: Good! Well, thank you. Thank everybody. It's fun!