Subscribe to EIR Online
This transcript appears in the April 29, 2011 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Dialogue with LaRouche

This is a transcript of the discussion which followed Lyndon LaRouche's opening address at his April 19, 2011 webcast.

[PDF version of the full webcast]

Freeman: Lyn, the first question comes from a member of the Italian Parliament, and the person is not only a member of Parliament, but is a leader of the Lega Nord delegation. And the question is:

"Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to take this opportunity of today's videoconference to bring to your attention a few questions. The investigation report on the U.S. financial crisis, known as the Angelides Report, notes that the causes of the crisis, namely the lack of ethics in the financial markets, the lack of effective controls, and the reckless power of financial institutions, have still not been corrected. Do you agree with these conclusions? And do you expect that there will be corrections?

"Also, in light of this scandalous decision yesterday in Italy, in which four major banks, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citibank, and Deutsche Bank, all involved in the sale of Parmalat bonds, were acquitted of the crime of rigging the market, do you believe that a return to the Glass-Steagall [law] in the United States, and with it, a division between financial assets and savings, will give us some progress in resolving these sorts of problems?"

LaRouche: Well, as you probably know by now: Yes.

But there's more to it, in the sense that—I had report from Helga yesterday, which she gave as part of her weekly report function to the organization in Germany, and to Europe generally; and it's quite a shocking list of facts of what's going on there now. The obvious thing, which I conclude from that sort of thing, is that, without an initiative from the United States, nothing can be done effectively in Europe.

Let me just sum this up briefly, because our questioner from Italy knows this also, but it has to be emphasized as a policy question, not just an answer to a question; which is, what's the policy here? Europe had reached the point of recovery, at the end of 1989, beginning of 1990, with the collapse of the East German Democratic Republic, a chain-reaction collapse. This opened the way, immediately, obviously, for the reunification of Germany, because the fall of the D.D.R. government had been caused by—well, Gorbachov, for example; Mikhail Gorbachov was a key factor in this, and his policies. But also other policies, the policies of one of his predecessors, Andropov, who had this British orientation—and Gorbachov still has it today; Andropov and Gorbachov were both closely tied, and I would say, controlled by, British imperial influences.

Their mismanagement of the situation in Eastern Europe, not only in the D.D.R., East Germany, but more broadly, created a crisis situation which I had foreseen, in my studies, in my proposal for the SDI. The purpose of my pushing the SDI, which was started actually by me, entirely: It was started in 1977, Summer and Fall of 1977, and I resolved that this was a crucial thing. Remember, I had run for President before; I understood what was being done by certain circles in the United States and Britain, and I said, "We've got to avoid these horror-shows. We can not worry about trying to settle accounts with the Soviet Union, as a so-called adversary. This is a losing game."

What we had to do, is take a step-by-step approach, instead, turning conflict into cooperation. If we could get cooperation with the Soviet system on this, with the United States and some European nations, we could solve this problem. That is, by a change in direction, of economic cooperation, we could eliminate the whole damned threat. And by doing that, taking that step, we would open the doors for further adjustments, which would bring the relations of the trans-Atlantic relations, and others, back into some kind of sensible—the kind of thing that Roosevelt would have approved of.

Because sometimes, you can not make a perfect design for Paradise. Paradise may be popular, but it's slow in arriving, and sometimes, waiting for it to be delivered, you fail to do the job of delivering it yourself, which may take a couple of generations. So that was my purpose.

I was able to enlist leading circles in Europe and the United States in support of this idea, and this was advanced rapidly, once we had the then-current President [Jimmy Carter] out of office. So we had leading circles in France, leading generals—they were officially mostly retired generals, the top-ranking retired generals; top-ranking retired Italian generals; a whole group of top-ranking German military officials, and others. Not just military alone, but the military was crucial, because, in order to deal with a reform of a military conflict, you have to engage a representation of military interests among the relevant nations.

So, we had among the U.S. intelligence services, a part of it; U.S. military, part of it, particularly older people like me, and people who were older than I was at the time. And we had this agreement. Italian generals, among others, were part of this, Italian officials were part of it: We had a solid design, a workable design, for a new negotiation, with, among others, the Soviet Union. It had to be, essentially, a Western European, European-wide basis for agreement, and with the Soviet system, in general, prior to Andropov's entry. The Soviets were among the key elements which I was negotiating with, diplomatic channels and related channels. So we had a package.

But, this was killed, by the British interests. Then, as a result of the Andropov administration, but especially the Gorbachov administration, which was a terrible mess and largely tied to British interests—you have a whole section, a part of the old Soviet system, which were more British than they were Russian—and Gorbachov was typical of that. IIASA, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, is another one of these crummy organizations of that type. So you had rotten elements in the Soviet system, morally rotten elements, as you had in the United States and other countries.

But the point was, we hoped to bypass some of these rotten elements by a fait accompli, that is, by actually getting an agreement, which leading people in these countries would simultaneously agree to. We had reached that point, where that was possible, by 1983.

The 'Euro System': Europe Becomes a 'Bad Bank'

So, what happened then of course, is the failure, which we saw—I saw, firsthand—that if we did not get this kind of agreement early in the 1980s, we were going to face a terrible outcome worldwide, by the end of the decade. And that's what happened.

But in any case, we have a remnant of that, which is the youthful remnant: That was a lesson to be learned! "We goofed!" We had in our hands, leading circles, military, intelligence, and so forth, among leading nations across the Atlantic, and other parts—Japan, etc. We had an agreement in principle, which would have avoided most of the terrible crap that's gone on since that time.

It was turned down, under British influence, and what was done instead, in 1989 and 1990, was that a dictatorship was imposed upon Europe, instead of, as Chancellor Kohl at that time had intended, having the reunification of Germany, where the whole citizenry of former East Germany was coming over to unite with a united Germany! And you had the chance of doing that! Instead of that, you had the assassination in a leading nation of Europe, of the key economic figure in Kohl's entourage [Alfred Herrhausen], and the assassination of this person demoralized Kohl into submitting to a dictatorship imposed by George H.W. Bush, by François Mitterrand of France, and by, of course, the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

This set into motion a scheme, called the "euro system." The euro system was an intention, of turning all of continental Europe into a "bad bank." Now, the bad bank is the basis for the present euro system. That is, that agreement, which was imposed in the period of '89-'90, by Mitterrand, Thatcher, and Bush, and others, but these were the principals—that system created a breakdown of the entire economic system, and set into motion policies that did that, as we knew were coming, over the period up to the present time. What they did, in instituting the euro during the past decade, was to turn all of the economy of Europe, especially central and western Europe, continental Europe, into a bad bank.

A similar thing was done with other parts of the world, in Asia, through what's called the BRIC. The same thing was done from inside the United States with the Federal Reserve System. So what they did, is, you've got three categories, and others, of bad banks: the BRIC, the euro, and the Federal Reserve System. These are banks which were intended to go bankrupt. They're intended to bring down the nations which are directed to go bankrupt: The United States, China, Russia, Brazil, and so forth, and continental Europe, are all intended to go down.

How do you do it? You're now on the verge, right now, at this moment, of this becoming realized: You have now, a hyperinflationary explosion has taken off like a rocket in Europe and in the United States. You're going to find a surge in devaluation of the currency systems of those nations. There's going to be a question of rewriting the financial systems and banking systems of those nations.

And it's going to go down like Germany 1923: Germany, October-November 1923.

What happened then, in 1923, is what is planned now. That each of these systems, which are scheduled for bad bank treatment—what do you do with a bad bank? You close it down. In other words, you try to save part of your system, that you want to control by bankrupting and shutting down the other part of the system. So you take all the unpayable debts in the world, or most of them, and you wipe them out. How? By eliminating their nations. Or eliminating their financial systems, with a bad bank treatment.

Now this is what's happening, this is the issue: You have a system of bad banks, including the Federal Reserve System—look at its debt! It's a bad bank! And the financial chief of the Obama Administration is part of the same operation. What's the intention? The intention is by the British Empire, by the Queen of England et al., to sink the United States, Europe, and the areas of the BRIC: Wipe them out financially, the way Germany was crushed with the inflation in 1923. And Italy, of course, is on that list.

That's the answer you've got to get.

Therefore, the only solution is to do what I prescribe: We take care of that. We decide who the bad bank is! How do we make the decision by the nations that agree to this kind of agreement, to reorganization of the system? Simply, Glass-Steagall and re-enactment of President Roosevelt's fixed-exchange-rate system. Those two measures will define the participating nations as the surviving nations. It will define those who are behind the bad bank scheme, conspiracy, which are largely London, Manhattan, and so forth, those systems will face a certain degree of embarrassment of lack of riches! And that's the way it has to be done.

So that is the answer I think you really would like to have.

The Empire: Into the Swamps of Venice

Freeman: Lyn, the next question comes from Col. Alexander Ignatenko, who is the scientific director of the Regional Museum in Kremenchuk, Ukraine, which is where V.I. Vernadsky did his early soil studies. And he says:

"Mr. LaRouche, I would like to ask you the following: Why do world leaders today, ignore, number one, the principles of synergy, as applicable for regulating rates of development, and also regulating the configuration, or symmetry of a multipolar world? Two, why do they ignore physical economy generally? Three, why do they ignore the possibility of organizing society, based on the principles of the Noösphere, developed by Vernadsky, [Pobisk] Kuznetzov, and Lyndon LaRouche?

"Where is their scientific outlook? To what extent are politicians knowledgeable at all about these issues? And where are the people, who not so long ago were carrying on about 'sustainable development' as the policy for the Third Millennium?"

LaRouche: Oh, now you're talking about the enemy of humanity. Well, he doesn't like to be talked about much, especially when I do it. I seem to put a certain special finesse on it.

Since the beginning of a Mediterranean maritime domination of the region of Europe, that relevant part of Asia, and North Africa, which developed in the Greek circumstances, and so forth—it became known as the attack on Prometheus, which Aeschylus reports on, in his piece.

Now, this shift, with the collapse of the Persian Empire, which was predominantly an inland empire with some maritime complications added, you had a shift of the culture of Europe to a maritime culture, a domination by a maritime culture, which became eventually the Roman Empire. From that point, the Persian representation in this was the Cult of Mithra, and the Cult of Mithra met with Octavian, the later Augustus Caesar, Caesar Augustus. They met on the Isle of Capri, where goats are raised—horny goats—and that was one of the properties of the Roman Empire in subsequent times. And here, Octavian and the priests of the Cult of Mithra cut a deal, and the deal became what is known as the Roman Empire.

In the course of time, the Roman Empire, the original version, became distressed. So the Roman families, the wealthy Roman families, who had survived the various experiences there, moved up to the northern Adriatic, into a swampy area; they took their treasures with them, and they lived in this swampy area for a long period of time, protecting their treasures. Because a swamp is a very convenient place in which to stay militarily—it's hard for large armies to move in on you. So if you have a competent small army, you can generally take care of the large army who tries to come in.

So they remained there, and during this period, you had a new Roman Empire, which was an automatic transformation; they just simply moved the capital from Italy to Greece, and beyond, and it became known as the Byzantine Empire. And that reigned until about 1000 A.D., and when it went through a crisis, then you had the rise of what was called Feudalism in Europe. And this was the Crusader Europe.

Now, the Crusader Europe was controlled by Venice. The Venetian interests that controlled Venice were the descendants of the families of the Roman oligarchy, the aristocracy, which had moved into the swampy areas of the northern Adriatic. And they controlled the Crusades. They controlled the Crusades very simply by getting the Crusaders to kill each other. They took the leading families, the younger members of the leading families of the European and other nobilities; they got them, with this religious passion, to go recapture the temples and so forth in Palestine. And they killed each other, and competed with each other, and decimated each other during this period. It was a merry old time! It went on for some time. It was called the Crusader period—Feudalism, it was called. But it was all run financially by the Venetian bankers of that time.

Now, then, the Venetian bankers were not doing so well. This happened in the collapse of the New Dark Age of the 14th Century. So we had, at that point, a Renaissance, which defeated the Crusader element of the time, and with the great ecumenical Council of Florence, established a new system under what became the leadership of Nicholas of Cusa. The Venetians were still there; they had taken a blow with the defeat of the Crusader system, but they came crawling back with their dirty schemes again. And so, by using a monetary concept which was the Venetian system and the Roman system—they used this Roman monetarist system, which is based on a maritime culture controlling the landed areas. And they did that. And so, this led to an attempt to exterminate the Renaissance.

In 1492, at the same time Columbus was coming to visit us here, this took the form of religious warfare. It started with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, but went on with the accession of Henry VIII, who was really a pig. He was a psychotic, among other things. He was controlled by the Venetians, because everyone who ran him was Venetian. The head of the Venetian intelligence service moved up there and became the marriage counselor to Henry VIII. And that's how some things happened.

So now, suddenly, the Catholic Britain, the so-called Catholic faction of Britain—because they divided all Christianity into two warring parts—one, the Protestant one; one, the so-called Catholic one. So now, Henry left the Catholic camp, and went to the Protestant camp allied with Germany. This opened up a period of religious warfare which continued until 1648—the Peace of Westphalia. And that was the corruption of Europe.

So, this then led to, what? Well, you had this religious warfare, then you had more of a continuation of that, and then they brought in something which had been established by the Venetians again, there had been a change in the character of the Venetian leadership, to the leadership of Paolo Sarpi, which became modern European Liberalism. Modern European Liberalism organized wars, and under the flag of William of Orange, who was a representative of the banking system of the new Venetian party, and came in with the flag of the new Venetian party into England and Ireland, and committed all kinds of atrocities and so forth. This led, with the organization of a war in Europe, the Seven Years War, into the collapse of the nations of continental Europe by killing each other, and doing nasty things to one another otherwise, and became the basis for the formation of the official British Empire, which then was the empire of the British East India Company.

Now, the British East India Company, being established as an empire, became the Fourth Rome. All of these different formations had the same characteristics: They were oligarchical, based on the oligarchical conception of the masses of people as being trash. The Roman Empire was the first one. The second one was the Byzantine Empire; that is, the first Roman Empire had gone bankrupt, so now they reorganized in bankruptcy, and now they had the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire went bankrupt to the Venetians, which was established in about 1100 A.D. So then, the new Venetians took over, and ran the Crusader operation, Medieval Europe. That went bankrupt in the New Dark Ages, the great collapse in the 14th Century, and then they got a new one. But they got it by starting a war. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain was the first step. This was used to start a pivot of religious warfare. This religious warfare was then extended by the Venetian manipulation of a crazy Henry VIII. Henry VIII turned the religious war already in place, into a war between the Protestants and the House of Habsburg. So this became, until 1648, a permanent state of religious warfare throughout Europe, which became the basis for modern Liberalism. That is British Liberalism.

Empires Are for Suckers!

So, what you are dealing with in Ukraine, for example today, is a reflection of this aspect of history, in which people have attachments to what they think are certain events in history where they take sides. "Oh, this was the good guy; that was the bad guy." But the way imperialism works is, it takes credulous people and convinces them that one guy is their real enemy, and the other guy agrees, so they have a war, or they have conflict among various groups, as war. And so therefore, a monetarist power takes over and plays one against the other.

The typification was what? First of all, the Seven Years War. In the Seven Years War, the Dutch and the British stayed out of the war; they didn't put troops into it. But, they ran the war; they ran the war as wars among the nations of Europe. And so, by the end of the Seven Years War, Europe was so destroyed by the wars among the nations of Europe, that the British walked in, in 1763, and established the empire of the British East India Company, of Shelburne. And then Shelburne and company took the process on, and it became the modern British Empire, which was, as Shelburne understood, the new Roman Empire. The British Empire was established, literally, explicitly, as the new Roman Empire.

So, mankind, in the trans-Atlantic region, has been subjugated to the tyranny of Roman empires from the time of that dirty pig, later called Caesar Augustus, and the Cult of Mithra on the Isle of Capri, to the present day.

So that, when you understand this, rather than trying to get explanations in who-hit-who terms, and understand that the whole thing was organized by a priesthood called the Cult of Delphi, the cult of Aristotle, the cult of Apollo Dionysius, the cult of Nietzsche, and so forth. This kind of playing, of someone sitting like a priesthood and playing the elements of society in murderous conflict with one another, or among one another, is able to, by this kind of method, exert a tyranny over the suckers who don't understand what the game is all about. And that's our problem: that we're living in a situation where this is the British Empire.

Therefore, if you want to say, "Save Ukraine," for example, you say, "Destroy the British Empire!" Which is not something that Gorbachov would like to do. Gorbachov likes the British; he's a tool of the British Empire. He was a tool of the British Empire when he was in charge of Russia, or the Soviet Union.

That's the way history works. And one has to understand this, that I've just summarized. Once you understand the implications of this, then you understand what it's all about. It's about what is called the oligarchical system: that some people behind the scenes, under the guise of religion, like the Cult of Delphi, set other people into killing each other in murderous feuds with one another. And by playing people against one another, and getting them to say, "The issue was this. This guy was wrong; that guy was good"—in war, both were stupid.

Take our own more recent case of the assassination of President Kennedy, and then of his brother, who was about to be nominated as a Presidential candidate: Why was Kennedy killed? Because Kennedy, together with Douglas MacArthur, had led a policy which said that the United States was not going to become involved in a land war in Asia. And Gen. Douglas MacArthur was the one who laid out the policy which was the Kennedy policy: There will be no U.S. engagement in a land war in Asia—referring specifically to the Vietnam War. There will be no such war! And he was stubborn. What were the British going to do about this? Well, obviously, they'd kill him. He's stubborn. And Johnson knew that, so Johnson was scared, and he saw three rifles that had killed Kennedy aimed at his head, implicitly. So he capitulated and let the war begin.

And what happened to the United States in that wonderful war that went on for a decade, that terrible war? Then the Soviet Union, which had observed this thing, was so damned stupid that they did the same thing. They got into a similar war in Afghanistan, and we still have a war in Afghanistan today, ongoing. A drug war, as usual. Nations have been stupid! People have been stupid! They think of who is hitting whom; they don't think of who is organizing the match. They don't understand who their enemy is. Their enemy is the people who organized this.

Empires are what? Empires are not colonial systems. They may have aspects of colonial systems. Empires are for suckers! Empires are financial-monetarist systems. The idea of controlling the conditions of life, the physical conditions of life, of populations, by economic means. They do this, manage this process, and maintain power by being the middleman in terms of financing, so-called, between two opposing, or among more opposing forces. That's what the Seven Years War was that created the British Empire.

That was what the British did in firing Bismarck in 1890; the British monarchy did it. What did they do? Well, what they did, they fired Bismarck because Bismarck understood that the British monarchy was determined to have a war between Russia and Germany. And to get this war going by starting a Balkan war, and playing upon the religious issues in the Balkans among different Christian religious beliefs—the Catholic as opposed to the Orthodox. Bismarck understood this, and assured the Czar of Russia that as long as he remained premier of Germany, monarchy or no monarchy in the German government, that he would not allow Germany to take the side of Austria in a Balkan war. So, the British did the obvious thing: They had him expelled from the Chancellory and started a war.

What they started was a new war, with an alliance with Japan, against, first China, as an alliance, Korea, Russia, and then, in 1922-23, a Japan-Britain alliance for the destruction of the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor.

Now, things got changed, because the war that the British were organizing in Europe—another Seven Years War—wasn't working out too well. So, the British found themselves with France toppled as a German puppet, because of the stupidity and corruption of the French, actually, which was their real enemy; the internal enemy was greater than the outside one. They started this process, so therefore, Churchill screamed for the United States, the guy he was virtually determined to destroy above all, to come to the rescue of the British in terms of Europe. So, Roosevelt did that, and this was very unpleasant to the Japanese, who were counting on doing something against the United States with British support.

Now, the British stopped the support of Japan in the planned war against Pearl Harbor, the attack on Pearl Harbor, because the British now had to depend on the United States to save the British ass. You've hit them in their home base, so they changed their behavior. However, the minute that the war was ending, and Roosevelt was dead, Churchill, with his sucker Truman, started the whole mess all over again, and that's how the nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan, as part of this process.

So, this is what we have to understand. We have to understand these problems are not the kind of problems that most people describe as being the problem. You have to understand that there's a force on this planet, which acts like a religious force in the tradition of the Cult of Delphi, the Apollo-Dionysius cult; the cult of Nietzsche, Friedrich Nietzsche. Now this cult is based on being a financial power, by creating the idea of money, controlling the use of money, defining money, and getting the suckers to kill each other, so that the bankers can prevail. And that's our problem.

Therefore, there's only one remedy for this, which Roosevelt understood with his idea of a fixed-exchange-rate system: You have to eliminate this factor of manufactured war under the control of a new Roman Empire—which is what the British are today. You have to eliminate the new Roman Empire factor. There's only one way you can do it: by the avoidance of wrong wars. Don't start a war for the benefit of your enemy. Don't use the Roman gladiator system of exhibitions of mass murder in the arena as your form of entertainment and pleasure and government. Because what the Romans did, and every empire since then—all are continuations of the Roman Empire—is to play one people in killing another. And the passions aroused of people against people become the tool of the orchestration of empire under the British Empire's control.

Once you understand what I've just said, you know the answer.

Economic Platforms: Advancing Life on Earth

Freeman: Lyn, this question is titled, "Farming Under an Extended NAWAPA System." And the writer says,

"Greetings, Mr. LaRouche. I'm writing this to you on behalf of the entire Engineering Working Group of the College of Technology and Management of Portalegre, Portugal. We have been following and debating with enthusiasm your proposals for new physical economic platforms, and we have a series that touches on this, but also may be somewhat different.

"Several times you have criticized the imperial reductionist model of agriculture. We here are working with a group that is a rival to that, and we are looking at some of the work on sustainable agriculture. Now, what happens is that we've been debating that, and discussing the fact that when you take out the mystical nonsense and let the few scientific principles that exist in sustainable agricultural practices prevail, it does get somewhat interesting. And one of the things that we are looking at is the pioneering work that was done by the CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps] in the United States. Also, we think that there may actually be some link between what really amounts to astrological nonsense of biodynamics and the real science of fields of magnetobiology and cosmic rays, and we feel that's worth investigating.

"But, boiling it all down, the real question that we have for you is, how would a LaRouche-principles-based farm and farming system work? If you could point us in this direction, it would help very much, as we continue our studies."

LaRouche: Well, you've opened up again a very large subject. Essentially, what I've done as of late, I took my nerves in my hand, so to speak, and decided to cancel the whole use of the term infrastructure: There's nothing wrong with the term itself—I mean, words really don't have guilt; but the use of the term sometimes is a very guilty business.

We have a big study going on, which is being reflected on our website, which is ongoing, and it's crucial. We're examining systematically this whole question, and it goes with our treatment of looking at life on Earth—especially human life, ultimately human life—from the standpoint of the galaxy of which the Solar System is a part. And you will find on our website a lot of material, more of it forthcoming, on the basic issues, the basic concepts, which are expressed in looking at Earth, and the existence on Earth, from the standpoint of the galaxy. Because our Solar System is a part of this galaxy. We're a fringe element on this galaxy; we came late. We got late to the party, and we're a fringe element. But we're very much still a part of it, and thus, the way in which life has developed on planet Earth has been really under conditions which are controlled by long-term cycles, in particular, of the galaxy, within the galaxy.

And the development of life—you know, contrary to most of this crazy theory, British theory, there is no such thing as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The history of life on Earth, under the influence of this galaxy, with all the unpleasant things, as well as the pleasant things that have happened that way, is always anti-entropic. The universe is inherently creative. It is not finite. It's finite in the way that Einstein spoke of Kepler—finite but not bounded. That is, it's a fixed universe at any one moment, by definition, but it's in process of becoming something unfixed, something new, something more developed.

And that's the history of life on Earth, which we do have some knowledge of, over some millions of years or more. So that life on Earth, and human life in particular, shows us that the nature of life and the lawful nature of the existence of man is directly contrary to any stupid notion, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The universe is creative throughout. Mankind is intrinsically creative, in a creative Earth, as defined by—these things are touched upon by the great Vernadsky, who deals with these kinds of questions of how life is organized within the planet Earth.

So therefore, what we need to understand is, if we look at the history—well, you will see on the website, a whole series of things are being prepared for production—there are certain layers of development which have occurred within life on Earth, and which occur in the transformation of life on Earth from relatively lower to relatively higher conditions of productivity and life, of human life. These principles, as examined, demonstrate that the universe itself is anti-entropic. There is no Second Law of Thermodynamics in the universe; the universe itself is inherently creative! As Einstein said of Kepler's work, finite, yes, but bounded, no. It expands constantly; it breaks all bounds. It goes from apparent boundedness at any moment, to unboundedness in the next. And that's the way life should be organized.

Now therefore, in this process, when we look at the history of living processes on this planet—and my associates have done a lot of work on this thing, and it's good work. And then they will do better, and more. It's the important thing that we have to understand: We have to understand life on Earth, and the conditions which have controlled the course of life on Earth within this Solar System, within this galaxy, in order to understand lawfully what it is we have to do next. You have to adduce, what are the principles, what are the ground rules in the universe? What are the ground rules in this galaxy? The ground rules within this Solar System, on this planet? What are the ground rules for life as a developing process? Human life as a developing process? Let's think in those terms.

And then you say, "Well, wait a minute. The way life is developed on Earth, it developed on a series of platforms." And you will read on the website, and see on the website, our reports on this, which go through the successive layers of development which have led from the most primitive expression of life that we know of on the planet Earth, through various steps, to the emergence of a system of water, an aqua system, to systems of coming out of the water onto land; the evolution of species that come onto the land, and so forth and so on.

So therefore, we have to say, in order to understand the history of life in general, and the history of the Solar System and of the galaxy, as far as we know it, you have to think of these various layers or systems of development, from lower to higher orders.

And the same thing is true of mankind. For example, let's take the development of Europe, European civilization, which started with the Mediterranean, as what we call European civilization today. It started with antecedents of the Roman Empire, and this went through various levels.

First, a maritime system was the controlling factor. Then, with Charlemagne, we had an opening which presaged what would become the United States. What Charlemagne did, was to move inland, first of all, with a system of economy which was anti-Roman, but moved in to take the rivers of inland Europe, and connect these rivers by a system of canals. And thus, in creating what he did actually create, was an economic system. He used this economic system, and this system of rivers and canals—a riparian system—to make the production and the power of human life inside Europe potentially greater than the advantage of a maritime culture.

In other words, instead of depending upon going across the Mediterranean Sea from one point to the other in trading and so forth, and economy, now you can move inland, up rivers, and into the interior of Europe, with greater economy and precision than you could by depending on a maritime culture.

Now, notably, the same thing happened in the United States, as what Charlemagne had done earlier. We too, as France and Germany had done under Charlesmagne and following, when we went from the Atlantic Coast of North America, we too went to rivers. We built canal systems. When we finished the canals, we developed the canal systems, then we, beginning with the Reading Railroad, we built railroads.

The first railroads we built would move along the banks of the rivers, the canals. Then, for example, the Baltimore and Ohio Railway system was the product of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal system. So, initially, the railroads ran along the lines of the Charlemagne style of internal system.

Then we branched out. We shot across America! And we created the United States, as a functional United States, with a transcontinental railway system. And then, the smart Europeans looked at this and said, "Voilà!" Then Bismarck, who studied carefully and followed precisely the advice of the United States on economy, made a revolution in Germany, which included the provision for a transcontinental development of railway systems.

And they did the same thing in Russia, with the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

Britain went ape. Because the development of this system, with transcontinental systems of railway, meant that the maritime cultures were losers, economically, compared to a transcontinental development of economy.

And therefore, we have understood, and I have understood and emphasized: The way to approach economy is in terms of what are called platforms. That the development of the basic economic infrastructure of an economy, such as the progress to a maritime culture, from chaos—because a maritime culture was more powerful than a rim culture, a continental rim culture. So therefore we go to the Charlemagne development, which is a step upward. a giant step upward, relative to the time, for mankind's existence. The development of the canal system was a giant step upward. The development of a system of organization of production, based on this riparian system, was a step upward. The addition of a railway system to this was a step upward. The development of a transcontinental railway system was a step upward.

So, each of these steps upward in that and related features of technology, defines a platform within which the entirety of the economy exists. The economy is not composed of little elements added one to the other, across space. A true economy is an integrated economy, because it expresses the mind of mankind, the mind behind the skills of mankind.

And therefore, we should always think of the development of a nation, and of a supranational territory, as such, as in the case of Portugal—we have to think of this in terms of developing: What is the platform that this nation requires in order to find the foundations for a higher level of productivity, per capita and per square kilometer? And when we think in those terms, we're thinking in the right direction.

And the problem is, we think in terms of some guy with a little shop here, there, who does this, in some strange place—maybe in the desert or something, and somehow he's making an invention, and that's called progress. Bunk! As Hamilton understood the process and laid it out when he was Secretary of the Treasury. He developed the whole concept.

The American System is based on this concept, implicitly, of platforms. And Hamilton's treatment of the U.S. economy, its design and development, was exactly that. You develop a platform, a level of systems, in which the economy is contained. And this containment gives you a level of potential; that level of potential you use for the individual case of production, an aspect of economy. You built cities, you build towns, you do all these things on the basis of this understanding of how to develop a platform at a higher level than you had before. That development of the platform to a higher level, includes the increase of the energy-flux density of the power sources you use.

And that's the most crucial thing.

For example, power: You go from wood burning, trash burning; you go to various fuels, including coal, coke, petroleum, and so forth. Then you find you've reached a limit. Oh yeah? Well, we just got nuclear power.

Well, that's the limit. No, we've got thermonuclear power—we're fixing that up.

That will be the limit. No, we have matter/anti-matter reaction, and that will be the next level.

And this is all laid out as a system, an idea, implicitly in the work of Riemann, Bernhard Riemann, in his habilitation dissertation, the third section. We build by layer, layer, layer, layer, layer. Higher layers. Higher platforms of potential. And we locate production and other functions in terms of reaching—first of all, higher levels of development, and then finding the technologies on which these higher levels of development, which I call platforms, function.

And therefore what we need, say, in Portugal, we need just simply the idea of an institution, which is like an academic institution, or like a laboratory kind of institution, which takes these kinds of considerations into account. And then acts as an advisor to the national government of Portugal, which can then do this research, and indicate what the options are, the opportunities are, which Portugal can use, given the climate and the territory and the market it has.

But I think this idea of platforms is essential for getting that job done.

Africa Needs Freedom from the British Empire

Freeman: Before I ask this question, apparently the national leadership of the AFL-CIO is monitoring the webcast, and they've extended an invitation to the people who are listening, which I will extend to everyone on their behalf.

Their invitation says: "Those people listening to Mr. LaRouche's webcast may be interested in a little contest we're running. That contest asks for the answer: How many firefighters, teachers, or police officers does it take to pay one American CEO? We ask this in light of the fact that, you may have read in the press, that the average salary of an American CEO falls between $11 and 12 million. That's a 23% increase over what their salary was the year before the bailout. And if you'd like to record your answer, we invite you to visit or Executive Paywatch on Facebook apps."

Lyn, the next question: We have a pile of questions from Africa, but we can't ask them all. This is one question, though, that seems to be repeated, because of the ongoing events in the Ivory Coast. And the questioner is asking on behalf of a university group, and he says:

"Mr. LaRouche, I wish you would somehow help us to understand how French military intervention in the Ivory Coast at this point is lawful. Why, in fact, is it being tolerated, regardless of whether people agree with him or not? Why are [President] Laurent Gbagbo and his family being handed over to their enemies? Why is it that the French, who pounded his compound, deny him the Geneva Conventions of protection of war prisoners? He seems to be completely unprotected by the Geneva war prisoner convention. Obviously, this is not a question which solely applies to the Ivory Coast, or to this gentleman, but the reason why we ask it, is because it does in fact seem that when it comes to Africa, no international law is respected, either by the UN, or by any member nation. Please respond."

LaRouche: One has to understand that Africa is a colony of the British Empire, and the idea that some other nations, like France, think they have some influence in that empire, is nonsense. And the French Empire in Africa was developed largely by a British agent who was an antecedent of Mitterrand, Napoleon III. This system developed that system. That was where the French Empire really developed, and continues to the present day.

Remember that the submission of France, which was organized by the Duke of Wellington, as the occupying power—France was supposed to be liberated from Napoleon with the appointment of Lazard Carnot as President of France. Lazard Carnot's position was eliminated by British orders—the Duke of Wellington's in particular. And pretty much the Ecole Polytechnique, while it still functioned, no longer had the central patriotic authority—it had the mission, but not the authority of a scientific institution.

So, the Ecole Polytechnique continued to be a very valuable institution in the world history of science, though somewhat diminished in power, relative to what it had been earlier, whereas the great leaders, the political leaders of this thing, especially Lazard Carnot, were booted out of France and tossed around to a number of places; Carnot died in Germany under the protection of the friends of, shall we say, our friends in Germany, friends of Schiller. And he functioned there as a teacher, as a researcher, as an educator, and he was buried with great honors, with his rank of major-general of the French forces, and honored so by the government of Germany. And when he died, his nephew became the President of France, and you had a German military force organized to escort the coffin to the borders of France, and then a French military force assumed responsibility and carried him to his interment in Paris.

So, that France was put aside.

In recent times, in my experience—despite my disagreement with some of the things that Charles de Gaulle did earlier—as the President of the Fifth Republic, his work was essentially one of constant improvement and achievement. And it was only the assassination of President Kennedy which enabled him to be, in a sense, degraded in influence.

My experience with de Gaulle personally came after his death, in my enterprises in France where I had a great number of friends among the French veterans of the de Gaulle party, de Gaulle faction, and also acquaintance with Mitterrand, who was a British agent, as the British told me in London, informed me, and we had a little discussion about this matter. A representative of the British Foreign Office told me that they were for Mitterrand, not de Gaulle, and I suggested that de Gaulle was the proper reference point.

And since that time, since the death of de Gaulle, there has been a paucity of ability in France to select a President or leading institution which was capable of efficiently governing the joint, generally, to the present day. France, while it likes to pretend that it's very independent, an understandable emotional thought—but it's not independent. It is actually a puppet, largely, of the British Empire.

And so, therefore, when you take this into account, when you take the account of Belgium and so forth, these other nominal colonial powers in Africa, the sum total is that Africa is entirely a British colony. And nobody moves in Africa, generally, without the British.

Take the case of Sudan, the targeting of Sudan by the British, by the same man who, as a young fellow, shipped Jews off to the concentration camps: George Soros, who is a power in Britain. A criminal by intention, a criminal by character. And he's one of the leaders of the attack on Sudan today. Sudan was too damned independent for British taste. They always hated it because they had their little fellow that the Sudanese killed, Chinese Gordon. And he was killed—I saw the place where he died—in a very shameful way. And they've never forgiven Sudan for Chinese Gordon, who was a nasty fellow.

So, in Africa, the problem is, that the British Empire treats Africa, with U.S. consent, as a British colony. And they treat Africans as if they were slaves, or cattle, or worse. They are concerned to manage the population of Africa, murderously. Every British leader is potentially ready for a Nuremburg trial, on the basis of what they've done in Africa, and are continuing to do. Soros, particularly. Soros is the man who, as a youth, got a job hiding his Jewish identity, and giving people their travel notices to the death camps. And he is now a leading British official, involved in the affairs of the United States, involved in the affairs of Europe. And he has not improved, by any means, what he was when he was passing out travel notices to Jews being sent to destruction.

And that's the kind of problem we have to understand. We have to get rid of the British Empire. The problem of saving Africa, is just exactly of that nature. We know that if we do what we can do, with the reorganization of the United States and Eurasia—what we can do with Africa, by putting in high-speed rail systems, and power systems, nuclear power systems and so forth, into Africa, we can create a system of infrastructure, in Africa, which has many rich resources, under which Africa can tap its own rich resources, and begin to introduce industries which are based on a platform—agriculture and industry.

Africa is one of the great food-growing areas of the world, today. With this kind of development, Africa can become the source of food for much of humanity. It needs a transportation system, it needs sanitation, it needs a power system. It needs freedom. Because without freedom, people cannot develop freely, cannot develop the technologies.

But, if we act to crush the British Empire, and its puppets and fellow-travelers, and act to provide Africa with the development of the essential infrastructure it requires, like this idea of rebuilding the water system in Africa: That thing, in itself, will make Africa a jewel of future generations.

But you have to get rid of the British Empire first, or it won't happen.

From Khrushchov to Gorbachov: The British Role

Freeman: I'm now going to come back to a couple questions from Russia. These are actually from Russian officials here in the United States. The first question says:

"Mr. LaRouche, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a major and very unfortunate effort in Russia to attempt to provoke Mr. Medvedev to take decisive anti-Putin action. This campaign is being run largely through the British press. The basis for this is a so-called anti-corruption campaign in Russia, and I must say that this is incredibly ironic. Because, the fact of the matter is that the line that is being pushed is that Russia would in fact enjoy an unlimited stream of money from abroad, if only the Kremlin could clean up corruption. The argument is absurd on many fronts.

"First of all, money is already streaming into Russia, because of the very high price of oil. But what is very notable about this, is that our Finance Minister, Mr. Kudrin, has in fact sequestered all of these funds, and has insisted that they not be invested in the economy. His reason for this? Corruption. Interestingly, this is something of a repeat of money that flowed into Russia in the past, when money that came in was sequestered in what was called a stabilization fund. And I would like to point out that that stabilization fund was never invested in the Russian economy, but instead, it was used to bail out Russian banks and corporations.

"You might think that that in itself would help the Russian economy, but it did not. Because the bailout of those banks and corporations had one goal only, and that was to enable them to meet their debt obligations to financiers that were centered largely in London and on Wall Street.

"Unfortunately, right now, it does appear that President Medvedev has bought into the corruption argument, or the anti-corruption argument. Our question to you, is the following: Since these people are clearly the corrupt ones, would it not be to our advantage to say, yes, we too support a campaign of anti-corruption in the Kremlin. And then identify exactly who those corrupt elements are, and essentially launch internal war against them?"

LaRouche: From the case of Nikita Khrushchov in the post-Stalin period on, the problem in Russia and the Soviet Union and Russia today, has been British. Now, this is not unusual because the penetration of Russia by British influence goes back to the early part of the 19th Century. So, it's not a new process. It was going on in Marx's time. Marx was actually part of a diplomatic support for the destruction of Russia. Because Marx, at that time, was working as a British agent. He had been employed by his master [Frederick Engels], who brought him into Britain—he'd been employed for British intelligence for the operations in Europe. Marx was appointed through the Foreign Office, of which he was a tool, for a number of operations, such as founding operations in Italy and elsewhere.

And, of course, Marx didn't know what he was doing. He had a big ego and therefore imagined that he was doing things that were quite different from what he was actually doing.

But he was brought into Britain, into the British Foreign Office service, and worked there, and was a British agent up to the time of the end of 1860s. Then he was discarded, after the failure of the Paris Commune [1871]. And they dumped him then.

However, Engels remained as a British agent, and was responsible for these funny kinds of things, up until the time of his death in the 1890s. Engels had been a British agent all the time. And that's why some of the confusion goes on.

Now, the other side of this thing, is, that's not the end of it. The key intelligence figure in coordinating British intelligence operations against the Soviet Union in particular, was Bertrand Russell. And Bertrand Russell struck a deal with Khrushchov, with four representatives of Khrushchov, at a meeting in London of Russell's World Parliamentarians for World Government. And the other key instrument of British influence in the Soviet Union and Russia today, is the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which is a British intelligence operation spawned out of the Russell's Cambridge school of systems analysis. And the policies of Russia today, of this nature, are largely run through the office in Austria of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which is a monetarist operation, which I dealt with in earlier times, back in the 1970s and later. It's a rotten institution, and it's tied to the Club of Rome. It's part of the same operation.

And it's tied to the dirtiest people in Wall Street as well.

So, what's happened is that a systematic effort has been made to bring Russia today, under the control of Anglo-American influence, with strong emphasis on the British, and the central systematic feature of this thing, apart from the British Foreign Office generally, is the operations run on economic policy through the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis based outside of Vienna. That's how the thing is run.

So, if you understand that, and you understand what British monetarism is, and you look at, going back to, say, Andropov—Andropov is typical of this. Andropov, from the time of the Hungarian Revolution, had changed his career direction in the Soviet service, and marched all the way up to his position as chief of intelligence, internal intelligence, and so forth. From about the time of the Hungarian Revolution [1956], he began to recruit young Russian scientifically trained people into becoming British agents.

What he did was, he would send them to universities in Britain, chiefly, and there they would be trained in British economic policy. And then they were shipped back into Russia—especially after the fall of the Wall—they were shipped back into Russia as being key agents, especially in economic policy, in coordination with people like George H.W. Bush.

So that's your problem there. And Gorbachov was part of the same thing: obviously British agents. It's known. In Russia, Gorbachov is despised, because he's considered by senior people as a traitor to his country. He's considered as some other things, and made foolish mistakes, but the Russian patriots do distinguish between people they consider as having been traitors, as opposed to those who have been merely fooled. But the case with Gorbachov is that. Gorbachov is constantly running to London.

One of the complicating factors here, of course, is the very fact that the Gorbachov stink is put on the campaign against Putin, is one of the biggest political advantages of Putin. If Gorbachov's name and face shows up on a campaign against Putin, it's not going to be good for that side. The Russians, remember, hate this guy, and I despise him.

NASA Is Indispensable, for the U.S. and Russia

Freeman: I'm going to take one more question from our Russian friends, and then proceed to ask some questions that came from the U.S. Our questioner says,

"Mr. LaRouche, as I'm sure you're aware, Prime Minister Putin recently took the occasion of the celebration of cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's space travel, to make some remarks that we felt were very important. Number one, is that he did directly address the recent events in Japan, and pointed out that it was his understanding that there were certain precursor signs of the earthquake, and that it was his hope that we could gain a better understanding of how this occurs.

"He went on to say that there was no question that there was a very strong connection between our ability to both interpret and collect this data, and the furtherance of the space program. He said that there was a lot that we knew, but also a lot that we have yet to know, and that it was really for this reason, that he has fought so hard for rebuilding the Russian space program. And in fact, he has done that. As I think you know, over the past five years Russia has increased its spending on the space program by almost 50%, and in this fiscal year, we will spend approximately $7 billion. We hope to increase that as we go on.

"But, it was also the case that one of the things that Mr. Putin proposed was international cooperation, both on the Space Station program, on satellite search-and-rescue, and several other critical issues, including the study of the Moon, Mars, and of the galaxy. And he had expressed at that time that he was excited that the head of your NASA program would soon arrive in Moscow, and this cooperation proposal would be put on the table.

"In fact, the NASA head did visit us and the offer was made for this level of cooperation. He was very gracious, and said that certainly the United States agreed in principle, but that he had to be candid, and report to us that the budget for long-term planning of space exploration on the part of the United States had been largely abandoned. And that because of that, he could not really make a commitment to accept the offer.

"We were very dismayed by this, and we have really two questions for you. First of all, do you think that this policy will persist? Also, our question is, do you think that Russia's pursuit of these questions by itself, without cooperation from the United States and Europe, is actually sufficient to make the kind of breakthroughs in space exploration that are necessary for our planet?"

LaRouche: All answers to such questions must have a prelude to the answer. That is, as of this week, the life expectancy of the United States as a nation is much in doubt, because, remember, what's happening to the world, especially the trans-Atlantic community. With the crisis in Europe, the crisis in continental Europe in particular, and the crisis in the United States, which are very closely related, what is happening is, we are now in a period of accelerating hyperinflationary explosion. We're now, in this trans-Atlantic region, and in Brazil, under the influence of an accelerating rate of hyperinflation comparable to what happened to Germany in 1923 during the months of September through October. The attack on Germany, the hyperinflation, was confined to Germany, because that was a British measure at that time. But! what is happening on a more complex scale in the trans-Atlantic region is the same disease, but with somewhat different predicates and preconditions added to it.

So therefore, you're not talking about a United States policy over any long term. There is no basis, right now, in terms of the existing U.S. policy trends and political leaders, for any long life-expectancy of the United States. It's about to get the 1923 treatment, but good. Not only that, the same thing is true of continental Europe. All of continental Europe is in the same mess. Brazil will go through an explosion; a different type, but the same thing. The BRIC is a bad bank by British intention.

Now, the British are in this sense, crazy, they're absolutely crazy. Because you have a species which has certain built-in appetites and behavior. The question is, can the British survive themselves? Because their behavior, their innate behavior under this monarchy and previous monarchies so far, is such that the British system is not one that is capable of surviving. But, in keeping with the tradition of the British Empire, and the Roman Empire before that, and the Byzantine Empire after that, and the Crusader system after that, this Empire is not intrinsically viable, even though it has dominated the trans-Atlantic culture for as long as it has.

So therefore, there's not much likelihood that the United States is going to be around much longer, nor the British system, at present, unless somebody changes their ways very radically, and very quickly. Because you're now in the situation where what happened in Germany in 1923 is now a trans-Atlantic phenomenon, and not in some future time. It's that this week! That doesn't mean it's going to come down this week, but it means that the conditions for its coming down have been established this week, since the weekend.

How long it will take? When is the crash? I don't know. Too many variables. But forecasting? At the present time, we're on the short fuse, a short leash. If you don't act soon—I don't know how soon—but if you don't act soon, the game is finished. The United States is gone, and after that, the British will be gone, and practically all of Europe too. You're at that point now.

Now, on the Russian side of this thing. The Russian space program is crucial, and the revival of NASA with its former policy, its pre-Obama policy, its pre-Bush policy, must be restored, because NASA is more than just an idea. It's more than just a something-we-can-do idea. NASA is absolutely indispensable for us, in a key part, in dealing with the wave of earthquakes and similar phenomena, which are going to be the case, as far as we know now, for the coming years.

We're headed into a period of years of—look, the storms you're getting, like the increase in the number of tornadoes, which were experienced last week on this coast of the United States—this is going to increase! Just think about tornadoes. Look at what you can see on the website of the weather service, what you can see these tornadoes did. And look at the data on what is the concentration of these tornadoes and their magnitude, and what's the forecast for more, including today, in this vicinity. Or a little closer to the Alleghenies than here.

So you're now in a situation where you've got to stop the nonsense. It's not political options, it's reality options. You have to respond to the reality of the universe, Earth as it lives in the universe. The United States is part of the Earth, and part of these ongoing processes.

Obama and Geller Are Liars: Quakes Are Forecastable

You have this guy [Robert J.] Geller, one of the dirtiest liars of any influence around, who, with this crazy President, who's a stupid jerk, at his best. That's the kindest thing you can say about him. These guys lie and say these are not forecastable. They're intrinsically forecastable! The question is, how many factors have you prepared to take on in order to get the combination of cross-factors which will give you a better indication of when the damned thing's going to blow.

We can identify to the greatest degree, most of the places in which these volcanoes and similar earthquakes are going to occur—and they're the same thing. A volcano and an earthquake are part of the same thing. You can't separate them. Some do. Anybody who separates, as a scientist, a volcano from an earthquake categorically, is an idiot who should be thrown out of office. He's an incompetent; not only an incompetent but a dangerous one, because he's going to get people killed, like a pilot who doesn't know how to fly a plane. They shouldn't be trusted. And they're corrupt.

We've been putting into office, in key governmental and related offices, people who are considered experts who are controlling some of these policies of the United States, the United States government, and they are either liars, prostitutes, or worse. The kindest thing you can suspect of them is stupidity. They're evil. This guy Geller is absolutely evil! He's a known liar! He's a pervert. He's a British asset. He's the enemy of the United States and he's a key influence on U.S. policy today on this area.

This is our key problem. We are now in a position where the detonation of a worldwide chain-reaction collapse is in process. We must act soon. We cannot delay this. There's no "Well, people are not ready for this decision." Are people ready to die? Die a horrible death? See their families chopped up around them, in terms of what's going on with the age of earthquakes? They're prepared to take responsibility for doing nothing? To move people to safety? Where there's no Corps of Engineers functioning to do the function that would be required to move people?

The same kind of thing that George the Turd, George W. Bush, Jr., did in the case of the New Orleans crisis. They did nothing! And they deliberately did nothing in Haiti! This President did nothing! He condemned the people of Haiti to death, by his choice! We had the capability to do the right thing. He prevented it from being considered. He's a murderer! His only escape from the charge of murder is stupidity, of imbecility, or moral imbecility.

So this is what we have to deal with. We're now in a situation where we absolutely require NASA as a part of the arsenal, or space operations arsenal, to do things.

What about earthquakes on the Moon? What do we know about earthquakes on the Moon? What do we know about earthquakes on Mars? We're part of the Solar System, buddy! This is not a bunch of flying junk around there. This is a Solar System. And what happens in one part of the Solar System is a part of the Solar System, which means it's part of the whole Solar System. We have to do this work. We cannot do it without the facilities represented by NASA.

We have to reactivate NASA as a frontline institution. Do you want to organize all these systems that we have to do, supervisory systems? NASA is the proper place in which to locate the central pivot of a whole network of governmental and related systems which are in cooperation. And NASA is the relevant center for that. Reactivate NASA immediately! Let's get to work on this thing.

This Presidency is shutting down instruments we need for forecasting earthquakes. This President has said, in his own voice, publicly, on television, that we're not going to spend anything on trying to prevent these things. He has said, like the liar he is, or the degenerate he is, he said these things are not forecastable. He's a liar. Of course, he's an incompetent as well, so that helps, I suppose.

So therefore, this cooperation of the United States and Russia in particular, on this area of space-related investigations, extended into the question of earthquake areas and other areas which are part of the same system—you can't separate them. We're in the Solar System. The Solar System is a part of the galaxy. To understand this process, we have to explore the phenomena, the history of these parts of the universe, in order to bring to bear enough foresight to have a more precise indication, not only of what is going to happen to us, but what we could do about it. And what we could do about it is a much bigger question than what might happen to us, obviously.

So, there's that.

Now, this extends to other things. Apart from being a protective agency, this kind of space work is also very important for economy, because you may observe that China has a limited amount of resources relative to its population. If China is going to have a successful development of its population to come to true self-sufficiency, it's going to require a lot of mineral materials.

Now, the nearest source, the richest source of available new sources of materials lies in Siberia. Siberia, as you may know, is part of Russia. It's not only part of Russia politically and geographically, it's also a very special part of the whole planet, and especially the whole geography of this area. And it's close to the Arctic.

Now the Arctic is very important to us, because the Arctic is an area which is near the North Pole. Now the North Pole is the most critical area, strategically, of the planet Earth, and it is one of the less explored. Scientific exploration of the North Pole is very important. My friends in Russia, who are now rather aged, as I am, are experts in this area. So the development of the mineral resources of Siberia, the development of Siberia for this purpose, the question of the space exploration, the question of the investigation of what's going on with the North Pole, around there, all these things are a common area of issues which are of global interest.

So Russia's role, in Siberia, in particular, and in its areas around Siberia that depend on Siberia, is a crucial part of the interests of the nations of the world, especially the cooperation between the United States and Russia.

So there's a manifold issue here. This is an overriding question, an overriding issue, and therefore, it has to be approached from that standpoint. What we need is a positive policy—and Russia's role in a space program is crucial in this—we need this as a common policy of the United States and Russia, together with other adjoining countries. And that's the way it has to be approached. And we have to take the same attitude, of a platform approach, like I've indicated earlier today, for this case, as we would for those cases I referred to earlier.

So, this is really a systemic requirement, that this cooperation proceed. And that the role of NASA and related things, be involved.

What Could We Do with $15 Trillion?

Freeman: Lyn, the next question comes from the U.S. It addresses a similar issue from a slightly different standpoint. Let me just say that this question stems from a meeting that we participated in yesterday, that included representatives from both the House and the Senate—both from the West Coast, by the way—who are sponsoring a bill that would provide for a very significant increase in the funding for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, which is grossly underfunded. But the question that they submitted is the following.

"Mr. LaRouche, first, we'd like to thank you for exposing the travesty represented by the recent work of Robert Geller. Among those of us who have studied this area, he is well known as an incredible cynic and someone who has always put forward the idea that Mother Nature hates humanity.

"But further, obviously, by following your website, and by discussions that we've had here, it's obvious that you know that the whole question of precursors to earthquakes and other related activity has been the source of debate for quite some time. What is very interesting to us, and something that we would like you to comment on, is that in your remarks, you have focused very much on the potential danger of earthquakes and events following earthquakes on the West Coast of the United States. And obviously this is a source of great concern, but what you might not be aware of, are recent exercises that were conducted in the mainland of the United States, in the Tennessee Valley.

"We raise this for very specific reasons. These reasons also prevail on the West Coast, but the fact is that the Tennessee Valley, just during the course of the 20th Century, was the scene of major earthquake activity. In measuring our preparedness"—and they say that they were involved in this, and also FEMA was involved in this—"the results that we came to, that our studies came to, were in fact alarming, because the fact of the matter is that, with or without the ability to predict this sort of disaster, what we were faced with is that, if in fact there was a recurrence of, for instance, an earthquake in the Tennessee Valley, our ability to do something as simple as evacuating people, would be virtually impossible. The roads are in complete disrepair. The bridges, as I think you are well aware, under current conditions, are not safe. In fact, there is only one bridge in the entire area that met the criteria of a safe bridge, and that is without the occurrence of an earthquake.

"The irony is that, when we were faced with the Haitian earthquake, we had very concrete proposals, and we had a specific plan—which, unfortunately, was rejected—to evacuate people from that island and to move them to safe ground. The problem that we face, in looking at many areas of the United States, is that even if we put aside for a moment the precursor debate, the fact of the matter is that we do not have the means in our United States to address this. And we raise it for two reasons: We raise the question specifically on the obvious issue of preparedness for earthquakes and other natural disasters, but we also raise it because it brings to light the question of the complete disintegration of our most fundamental infrastructure.

"And therefore, it is our argument that what we are dealing with when we talk about preparedness for earthquakes, etc., is the most basic questions of economics. And unfortunately, in the city of Washington, when people talk about economics, they tend to look at it in very mundane terms: How can you save this job, how can you save that job, what will be my cost-of-living increase, etc. And while we are not dismissing those questions as being irrelevant to economy, it seems to us that these larger questions really are what need to be addressed, and we would like your comment on it."

LaRouche: Of course, I think that some of us who are old geezers like me, were acquainted in their youth with the fact that the Allegheny system also has earthquake potentials, and we've experienced some of those, sometimes in milder form, but we've been promised that we could get something much more spectacular if we waited long enough. Maybe that time is coming.

The key issue here is to get at the thing from the back end to the front end—the back end being: What's the bottom line on this thing? The point is, let's talk about $20 trillion. Let's talk about the high inflation in our system, inflation of debt represented by bailout! Now, with Glass-Steagall, what happens to bailout? Therefore, a great part of that fund of debt comes back to the United States government, for a good Presidency to do something about it.

Now, what can I do, say with $15 trillion of assets to expend for employment of Americans who may be unemployed at this time, in projects which are necessary for precisely these various reasons, such as building NAWAPA, such as reconstructing the TVA area, which is known historically, that the TVA is exactly what to do in this area; we've got the map for what to do there. You've got the tradition there of what to do.

So therefore, we have the ability, if we take the burden of this present Obama debt—let's call it "Obama debt," to indicate that it's something fake; people will recognize it. If you call it Obama debt, they'll know this is the phony stuff, hmm? All right, get rid of the Obama debt, and we give it to Wall Street. How? By Glass-Steagall. If it doesn't qualify for a Glass-Steagall standard, it belongs to Wall Street.

Now Wall Street becomes—Ha, ha, ha! Tell our British friends, Wall Street becomes the dirt, the bad bank, and that's the thing we close down. Or, we don't close it down actually, we say "See if you can survive. It's up to you, buddy. We wash our hands of it. If you are so damned smart as you claim to be, you'll figure it out for yourself." They'll probably set up a mafia system or something like that.

All right, if we then free the United States Federal government from this swindle, and take about $15 trillion of it. Put this back into the system, now not as money to look at, like this crazy Russian idea that we talked about here earlier—storing the money away, as if money is an intrinsic asset. Money is not an intrinsic asset; it never was, except for fools. What we do with the money is, we say this is credit. We don't call it money anymore, we call it credit. And we say of this credit, that it's long-term? Fine.

What defines its long-term life? Well, its usefulness. Highways, water systems, industries. In other words, we'll put people to work, producing wealth. Money is not wealth! Money should be used as credit for the creation of wealth. Can you eat money? Well, some people can. We should ask the President to do that. This is electronic money; not even paper money, it's electronic money. I'm not even sure it's electronic money. Maybe the shadow of nonexistent electronic money.

But anyway, we're freed of this damn debt. And the Federal Reserve system has to be reorganized by a bad bank treatment, because of what's been done to it by Geithner and so forth.

But, therefore, we now restore the states—it's very simple—Glass-Steagall. We restore the states as self-sufficient, functioning as states. As states, they are then able, with the aid and cooperation with the Federal government in taking care of the communities, the hospitals, the schools, and so forth. Opening up lines of employment for people who are presently unemployed. Then using that for works which are essential for the United States, and for the states themselves.

So now we, by increasing employment by some—we were aiming at something like 10 million people in productive employment in this area; the things I've got in mind. By increasing employment by that much, suddenly, the United States, which was going bankrupt, now freed of this phony debt, which it's given to its friends on Wall Street as a souvenir, we now have restored the United States to a viable functioning as an economy, and we have encouraged Europe to join us in the celebration, by doing the same thing through a fixed-exchange-rate system of this type.

A Credit System: The Foundation of Our Constitution

What's happened to all our problems? "Gee, how'd that happen?" Well, we just decided not to recognize play money, not Monopoly game play money. We give that to our people on Wall Street to play with. They like to play with things, let them go play with themselves. So therefore, we simply eliminate that factor, and as you know, you have to look back at what Hamilton did; Alexander Hamilton. What he did is the key foundation on which the U.S. Constitution was based, so this is serious stuff. This is the U.S. Constitution, this is not something from it. And forget all those funny interpretations; this is the U.S. Constitution. It was based on this.

We had a bunch of states, at the point of victory over the British; they were all bankrupt because of the war debt. So, what did Franklin do? And others do? They came up with this idea, which is the project of our dear Alexander Hamilton. They said "Ah! This is a debt of the United States. It is not a debt of the individual states as such."

So now, instead of having a bunch of states, like a British collection of slaves, now you had the United States assuming the war debt of the separate states, as a United States debt. This debt, whose payment is now guaranteed by all of the states in the form of the Federal government, now becomes a system of national banking. It's done by the U.S. Federal Constitution. The intent of this action is expressed in the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution, which these crazy Republican queers don't like. The U.S. Federal Constitution's Preamble is the Constitution. The intention of the existence and functions of the United States, and any member of the Congress who doesn't understand that, should leave the Congress for sanitary reasons.

So now what happens is, we are in the same situation. We've got a bunch of crap on our hands. We are established under our Constitutional law. That law is still there. And any error overlooking it was a mistake. And you find out you get wonderful results when the people of the United States are united around an issue like this. And the function of politics is to unite the people of the United States around this issue, and most of them will go for it right now, because they don't like this system. They want to get back to the good stuff. So therefore, that's our solution.

So, we have to now proceed with the Glass-Steagall reform, back in immediately, without question, without doubt, without modification, without ifs, ands, and buts. Just stick it back in there, boy, in the original form, and don't fool with it. Because once the United States makes a distinction between what the merchant banking system—so-called—has as debt, and what is a legitimate debt of the banks, of the commercial banks of the United States and related kinds of banking, you've solved the problem. The United States Federal government assumes the responsibility for the support of the commercial banking system and its auxiliaries, just the way the United States, under Hamilton's scheme, crafted the foundation of the U.S. Federal Constitution.

Now, we're going to go back to work. We're taking our credit system with us, and taking the paper claims of the merchant banking system, and donating them to Wall Street and to London. And let them try to digest that paper. That's their business, not ours. They just cannot commit any crimes in the process of doing so.

So that is our essential approach to this whole thing. That's why I said, start from the back end of this thing. All you have to do is, do this properly and understand its implications. By this kind of reform, you have immediately created at least $15 trillion net, of fungible lending power.

The United States government is now responsible, as it was under the formation of the U.S. Federal Constitution, for doing this. This now becomes the credit of the U.S. Federal Government. It's debt. In a credit system, we put that debt to work, as Hamilton and company did with the U.S. Federal Constitution. If we translate this debt into employment of people, we're going to produce wealth. The wealth they produce will redeem the value of this debt, as we did with the founding of our Constitution. And that's what we have to do now.

So, all these problems, including the ones mentioned here in the question, are intrinsically fungible, in terms of solutions. All we have to do is, do it. And the first thing we have to do before anything else—no ifs, ands, or buts getting in the way! Push this thing through, if you've got the guts to do it, buddy. Vote it up, overwhelmingly. And chase this President out of office, to some safe place where he can be protected from his own insanity, and from his people who've come to hate him.

Do that, and we have our country back. Once we have our country back, I would hope, we would never let anybody take it away from us again.

Trumanism and the Baby Boomers

Freeman: Unfortunately, I will not have time to get Lyn's answer to a question that was submitted by a friend of ours from the swamps of Louisiana, which actually is not a bad question. I'll tell you what the question was. He says "Lyn, I've got to tell you, that if you line up the governor of Florida, the governor of Wisconsin, and some of these guys in Washington, like Paul Ryan [Wis.] and Eric Cantor [Va.], and you take a close look at them, do you think I'm being paranoid when I say that it looks like they all came out of the same place? I'm not suggesting that there's a clone factory somewhere in the GOP headquarters, but these guys sure do look alike." I know the guy who asked the question; he is paranoid, but he may be right about this.

Lyn, I mentioned this question to you earlier, and I'm going to ask it, because the person who asked it, asked it, I think, with the best of intentions. She says,

"Lyn, anyone whose basic activity involves policymaking, whether it's domestic policy, or international policy, will tell you that each morning, long before the official start of the business day, that they have a series of go-to sites where they basically surf to put together a strategic and political intelligence picture. I'm not talking about news. If I want news, I go to CNN. I'm talking about real intelligence that shapes our activity that day. I think you also know that increasingly, the LaRouchePAC site has served as one of the most reliable sources for precisely this kind of activity, even among those who do not agree with what you say, and what you stand for.

"But here's the problem. In the past few weeks, those of us who have been a part of this group, have all been either directly involved, or have witnessed critical developments on this front of strategic political intelligence: The President's outrageous behavior during the budget drama. His actions after the budget was resolved. The issuance of the Levin-Coburn Report, which lends new credence to the Angelides Report that some of us worked so hard on. Recent events in Russia. The IMF meetings. Standard and Poor's seeming warfare against the United States.

"I mention all of this, because outside of ongoing daily reports on issues regarding the threat of galactic upheaval in the wake of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, there is nothing about any of these on the website. At least, not on a daily basis, although you do address them in your writings. Frankly, it's been pointed out to some of us, just how much we've come to rely on the site for that level of intelligent discussion, but it has also left us floundering a bit. I cannot believe that you would abandon us at this critical moment, especially when we are at such a point in our mutual ongoing work. I can see that I may be missing something, but I did want to call this directly to your attention in the hope that you would comment on it and alleviate my feelings of abandonment."

LaRouche: Well no, thank you for the question, because I have an answer for it. It's not a prepared answer; it's an obvious answer, if you know me, and know what we're doing.

The major problem has been, that we've had a reduction in the activity, the output of the website, because of a financial problem [of funds] coming into the website. And therefore, the financial problems, and their relative issues have lessened this.

Now, the root of the problem is sociological. We have two elements of composition of our organization. One is the LPAC organization, which is something that has younger people, who move more rapidly and more easily, with less creaking and groaning than the others. And we have an older generation. The older generation is the generation which belongs to those in their sixties and above, generally, but in their fifties, whatnot. And they are more scared. Why are they scared? And people don't understand this; I do. You have to have my catbird seat, in a sense, and you'd know what this is about.

You have to realize that with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, and the subsequent behavior of that bastard Truman, that a wave of terror was directed against people, including the returning veterans from World War II. And this reign of terror produced what is called the Baby Boomer generation, as the children of these terrified adults, returning adults. This had many expressions in the process. Because the people who had the better jobs under the security wraps launched by Truman and company, the people who had the better jobs, were corrupted by and large.

There were exceptions to that, but most of them had the better jobs because they were corrupted. And they told their little kiddies in the beginning, "Don't talk to that little child. Don't be seen talking to that child. Don't go here. Don't read this newspaper. Don't do that." You had McCarthyism, what was called McCarthyism. It wasn't McCarthyism, it was Trumanism. People liked to blame it on McCarthy. McCarthy was a damn fool, but a faker. Truman was the bastard; a British bastard.

So therefore, the children who were raised by the people who came back from the war, that is, the children especially of those whose families sort of made it, because they passed the FBI security checks, and therefore had better jobs, a little more pay, better communities, more likely to be listed as this or that. They ran the place. And it was rubbed into the other people, and often the other people had much more talent, much more skill, better qualifications than these fakers of that generation. They took it on the chin. So we had the result of that in the Baby Boomer generation as such.

That is, you go back into the 1960s, especially the late 1960s. The death of Kennedy; the assassination of Kennedy and the fact of the cover-up of the assassination of Kennedy, which everybody smelled, especially when his brother, who was about to win the election, or nomination for President, Presidential election, was killed too, in 1968. And you had the Baby Boomer generation of that period, who were all in the "best" universities—you know what I mean, the "best" universities—which is another way of saying the worst, the most nasty, the most evil. Because they have more capability of spreading evil.

So therefore, you had a demoralization, which was a combination of the [cover-up of the] assassination of Kennedy—which nobody believed in, nobody with any brains believed in it. It was an assassination, not by some lone assassin. But assassination by a team of three people, coming from Spain, part of the anti-de Gaulle operation, coming through the Mexican border, firing their rifles at the President, slipping across the border before anybody knew what the news was.

And then they got their Vietnam War, which the President had been blocking; the antiwar build-up during the middle and later years of the 1960s. And then you had the assassination of Bobby Kennedy—chaos. Then, you had what we call the Baby Boomer syndrome. And it was from the universities which had the greatest privileges in them, that this element from those universities, which had been corrupted by the fact that their parents had been corrupted. That's why many of them were there—because they came from the "right" families on the "right" lists. And they were told that they would have to go for military service in Vietnam. They, their precious little things. "We should risk these precious little things? Don't we have all these poor people we can send over there as cannon fodder? Do we have to send our prizes?"

Then one day, in the middle of the 1960s, the word came down—"We're losing the war in Vietnam. We need more bodies. Some of you guys whose grades are not too good there in the universities these days, I think we're going to ship you out next."

And you had a change; they turned rotten. They became the worst. And all the way through, from that point on, those who had become the most rotten, from the "best" families, dominated the political scene, dominated the sociology. Those who were really human, found themselves defeated, again and again and again. They didn't get the best positions. They were not considered politically correct. Some pot-smoking whatnot thing running loose in Washington was considered elegance.

You had Mark Rudd, for example: the national vendor of gonorrhea; his role of leadership in that particular part of the thing, became a part of the circles of President Obama in Chicago. And that's a signal to the rest of the population: "Hey, who's going to get the job? Who's going to get the career? Who's going to be voted?" So, you had a systematic demoralization of the children of a generation in the United States.

Now, there are still some of these people in their sixties now. They're still intelligent people; they can talk a good fight; they know things, but they're not fighters. Some of them took a part in fighting; some of them fought on my side. But they didn't have the guts to stand up to what they were subjected to, and they turned rotten. Not because they were rotten, but because they were frightened and they gave in. They were not warriors, and that's the root of this problem.

You have a generation, you know, fifties on, into their sixties, seventies, who don't fight. They talk about issues, and I'm not talking about children or babies. They talk about issues. "Well, uh, yeah, you, yeah, do you suppose we should vote for this guy? Or do you suppose that maybe we should do this? Do you suppose that maybe this is a good issue? You know, don't try to do it all at once; build it up a little bit. Niche by niche by niche by niche." "Aw, gee, that didn't work out. I'm getting discouraged. This isn't working. Oh, we'll try again."

The Stamina To Sustain a Long War

I say, as I have said, even among my own associates who are in the Baby Boomer generation, they have a weakness. When I say Glass-Steagall, I mean it! I mean nothing but Glass-Steagall. That's already settled, as far as I'm concerned. The question is, what do you do to go with it? What's the menu, the full menu? Glass-Steagall is the name of the menu; what are the fixings that go with the meal? Glass-Steagall is the beginning and the end of life in this nation, right now.

The Baby Boomer does not like to think the way I think. They don't like to assume that they have to make a decisive action. They want to influence the process, not change it. You've got a baby there in a diaper, who's been sitting in a diaper for two days. They want to fix the problem, not change the baby. And that's the Baby Boomer problem.

So therefore, many of my associates, who do some of the fundraising particularly, will not like to go into the area that's required. That is, heel-and-toe fundraising. They like to get on a phone, talk to somebody of their generation they like, and hope that that guy will come through with financial support. And this generation that they're referring to as their clientele, are becoming more and more weary and scared by the present. They've lost a lot of their nerve. And that's the problem.

That's the problem in a long war, military wars, or other kinds, political wars. There are very few people in life these days, who have the stamina to sustain a long war. An old geezer like me is used to sustaining long wars, because to me, as to people like me, this is not an option. This is not a form of entertainment; this is not a trip to the theater, or a holiday in Florida at the right season. This to me is a war, in which the meaning of life is dedicating oneself to purposes and missions which mean something for the future of humanity, and mean something also as vindication of the mission bequeathed to us from the past. Very few people in society have the guts to do that. Now, what's my response to it?

We've got people among us, of the Boomer generation in particular, but not only them, who really do not have the guts for a long war. Who can't stand it; who become weary, weak, frightened. They're not warriors; they're volunteers who are trying to help out in a cause, but they're not warriors. Old characters like me, I'm a warrior. I've never killed anybody, but I'm a warrior. I've tried to kill some bad ideas. I think that's a more durable accomplishment, and to promote some good ones. So therefore, I have a characteristic which other people don't have, because I'm an old warrior. And that's why you still see me standing up here. I'm an o-o-o-old warrior. And I like being an o-o-o-old warrior. Well, the oldness part could be improved upon, but the rest of it is fine.

Freeman: So, there is a big message in the answer to that question. If you don't like long wars, and you'd rather fight a short war, this is your moment. Pass Glass-Steagall. Get rid of Obama. And give us money. Do those three things, do them now, do them enthusiastically, and it will be a short war, and one which we'll win.

So, with that, I want to thank Lyn, and thank you, because you've been a good audience. But please do join me once more in thanking Lyn.

LaRouche: Thank you all. Have fun! Have a good time! And defeat the enemy!

Back to top