STATE OF THE UNION
Lyndon LaRouche Presents a[PDF version of this article]
Vision for America's Future
Lyndon LaRouche gave this address in a webcast aired live on LPAC-TV on Jan. 18. The two-hour program began with a keynote speech by LaRouche and was followed by a dialogue with members of the international audience, including high-level Russian personalities. In his introduction, moderator Matthew Ogden noted that LaRouche had decided that, in the absence of any qualified Presidential figure in the United States, today, "the responsibility has fallen to him, to give this nation's annual State of the Union address."
This, I promise you, will be an exciting evening; but not because I'm exciting, but because the nature of the subject-matter is exciting.
Now, I'll take four sections of this, just for your identification. The first, I'm going to deal with identifying and discussing the present great world crisis of 2012, because that's what it is. It's a crisis which is tantamount in effect to two world wars, and probably much worse, potentially, than the two world wars of fame. And this will include the question of the financial crisis which is crucial in this, and we also have in progress, a high degree of potentiality for an early worldwide, thermonuclear war, which might leave very little of civilization alive. That potential now exists. It does not mean it can not be stopped, but it can only be stopped by those who are qualified and able to stop it.
Because right now, amid all these other things, we're looking down the throat of a clear, early potentiality, for thermonuclear global war, in which the targetting will be primarily against the nations of Asia, or Eurasia, Russia, China, India, and so forth. And of course, these nations can shoot back with thermonuclear weapons, just as the United States is the greatest thermonuclear power on this planet, for this sort of thing. So there won't be much left of the planet if this war is actually allowed to occur. And therefore, this is a very serious business.
I shall also deal with, first of all, the Constitutional implications of what has to be done, in terms of Constitutional measures and reforms which are required as essential elements, if we are to succeed in preventing this war from occurring.
Then, I shall deal with the question of economic reforms, as such, physical-economic reforms, in particular.
And then, I shall take you, at the end of this presentation, to the subject of our new galactic destiny. If we can escape thermonuclear war in the meantime, mankind, and we on Earth in particular, have a galactic destiny before us, something greater, more beautiful, more satisfying, than anything you've ever dreamed of before.
The Final Stage of a Breakdown Crisis
Now, what we're in right now, we're in the final stage of a general breakdown crisis of all of the nations in the trans-Atlantic community. We have, at the same time, a crucial kind of crisis developing in China, India, Russia, and so forth. But these nations of the Asian region, the major powers of the Asian region, are in a much better condition economically, than Europe or the Americas, to say nothing of poor Africa, which has continued to die under the influence of British slavery of the Africans in general. So that's the first thing to consider in this. Then we have to consider, actually, the details of what I mean by this thermonuclear war threat.
Now, we have been [in a breakdown crisis] since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the later assassination of his brother, when his brother Robert was about to be designated by the Democratic Party as the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate. And he was eliminated by an assassination which brought us a series of disasters, including the Nixon Administration, which would not have occurred without the assassination of Robert Kennedy.
This breakdown crisis which we're in now, has been going on for a long time, as I said. We made a downturn when Franklin Roosevelt died, and a British agent, virtually a British puppet, Harry Truman, succeeded to the Presidency. From that point on, the United States lost the drive that it had for a recovery program, a postwar recovery program, which had been in place under Franklin Roosevelt. There was a systemic and intentional destruction of the potential for growth by conversion of the war potential, that is, the economic potential for war-fighting, which we mobilized in the course of World War II. And at the end of that point, we had this vast apparatus. And what Truman did and the British did—and Truman did it under British orders, Churchill's first—what he did was actually shut down the greatest productive potential which had ever existed on this planet, which was the potential controlled, in a sense, by the United States, which was organizing other nations of the world around this kind of program, which had been the greatest burst of progress for humanity we had ever heard of. But that was pretty much shut down.
We went on, through that. We were saved when Truman was dumped. This man was essentially a Wall Street asset. He came from the Midwest, Missouri, but he essentially was a Wall Street asset; he was very much a Wall Street man, taking orders on everything, first from Winston Churchill, and then from the British government in general.
Then we got Eisenhower—and the country was pretty sick of Truman after the few years he was President. He also got us into a long war, which was cut off. The long war—and all long wars—are bad! The intention is to drag down civilization by protracted wars. When a war must be fought—and I will say that wars of that type can no longer be considered, because the threat to humanity of conducting any of these long wars under modern conditions, would tend to destroy civilization. It might not eliminate the human race, but it would pretty much make a mess of it.
So, Eisenhower saved us. He did not succeed in reversing all of the effects which the Truman Administration, and Churchill and so forth, had combined to develop. But he did a very good job. For example, he slapped the British in the face, got the Prime Minister of Britain [Anthony Eden] to retire, and prevented a major war involving the Soviet Union in Egypt and so forth, at that time. He also cooperated with Charles de Gaulle, who was then the President of France, who was a great leader, whose program would have made France a great success, but unfortunately, the British, who controlled the opposition to de Gaulle, managed to frustrate him.
This came to a point where, now, Kennedy was President; his brother, Robert was an active part of that Presidency. They dealt with Khrushchov—and the British-created crisis, successfully. We escaped a major war, which would have been a nuclear war, at that stage! But, then Kennedy came in as part of this process, and for as long as he remained President, as long as he remained alive, not only did he continue the upturn in the United States, which Eisenhower had helped to foster, together with our dear friend in France, Charles de Gaulle, but he also introduced programs of recovery and expansion, including the space program. And his programs actually sent the United States soaring in the direction of a great recovery! It would not undo the entire damage that had been done by Truman, in shutting down the postwar potential we had then, but it was a great job.
It was during this period, for example, that President Kennedy organized the Glass-Steagall-type of operation, but in the form of a program for developing our water system, and that was one of the great achievements. The other one was the space program: The space program was entirely the creation of John F. Kennedy. And also the development of NAWAPA was his creation. So, again.
JFK: 'No' to Long Wars
Now, at this point, the British as usual, and shall we say, the "Liberal people" in our establishment, decided they wanted to have a long war in Indo-China. And President Kennedy said, "No. We're not going to be involved in a long war in Indo-China." Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was the chief advisor to Kennedy on preventing this long war; and General Eisenhower, the former President, had also supported that view.
How then, were the British and their lovers in the United States, going to defeat the most successful President of the United States since President Roosevelt himself? How were they going to defeat him, and get him to involve himself and the United States in a long war in Asia? They assassinated Kennedy! And then, later, when his brother Robert, who had been his collaborator while President, was going to take up the position of President, and was within days of receiving the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidential candidacy, he, too, was assassinated.
As a result of that, the United States was largely destroyed, by the long war. Which the British had intended, to run us down, and to take the Franklin Roosevelt out of us, if possible. The killing of Bobby Kennedy gave us Nixon, another disaster! And there were a number of disasters with Nixon. Well, we got through that mess.
Then we got another President [Ronald Reagan], and this President did something good: He supported my proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative, what has become, and still is, the founding program for any future of the United States. And it was my invention. I'd gotten people who were formerly in government, formerly leaders of our intelligence service, who voluntarily came over to me, and said, "Okay, you're right. We're going to support you." I had leaders in the military in France, leaders in the military in Germany, in Italy, and other countries, who supported me, and as we came to the eve of what was a great movement by this President, they shut it down, again, and some of the Democrats, again, did that. So they shut this down.
Now, what they did, whether they understood it fully or not, those who shut it down, including members of the Senate of the United States, together with British-controlled clowns such as Mikhail Gorbachov, a British agent! He's still floating around in the world, in Russia, but mostly in England, where he gets his advice from, and where he gets his soul from: from the British, again.
So, what happened was, we got to a point, where because of the defeat of the SDI, which was my baby, by these political forces, they pulled down and induced the Soviet Union to destroy itself.
But they also did something to destroy civilization more generally; and that was demonstrated by the fact that we're now on the verge of not only a series of wars, usually British-organized long wars!, like the long wars in Afghanistan by both the Soviet Union and the United States; long wars all over the place. A long war in Iraq that was totally unnecessary and fraudulent. So we got into long wars.
In the meantime, in the background, the great nations of the planet were building up thermonuclear capabilities, thermonuclear-warfare capabilities. These accumulated. The Soviet Union collapsed out of its folly, under Gorbachov, in particular, probably the greatest enemy Russia ever had, or at least qualified for something like that. This led to more long wars! More long war in Afghanistan. More long war in the Middle East! More long war in other places. We were being destroyed.
The Bailout: Economic Suicide
Now, we've come to the point that what has been done, also—again, the British! From the British Queen herself. The British Queen thinks there are too many of you. She and her family, and the whole kit and caboodle of the leadership of the British establishment, has said, "We must, knowing now that we have 7 billion people living on this planet, human beings, we're going to reduce that, to 1, or less." And so, we have a policy of reducing the economy and the population of the planet, especially the trans-Atlantic region, reducing it to destruction.
And in the process, a final stage was put in: the bailout process! The bailout process was the economic suicide of the United States, and it was orchestrated from London, and by Wall Street clowns, who were actually London agents, not Americans, really. They may have American citizenship, but they're not American in spirit or morality. And they started the big bailout.
What happens now? They have successfully destroyed the economy of the United States, in a long wave of things which began, essentially, in the later period, but essentially, with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. That set into motion a long war in Indo-China, a destruction of our technological capability, a moral and intellectual destruction of our young people who were then coming out of junior high school and high school ages, who degenerated morally. And then produced children of morally degenerated parents. And the nation became more and more corrupted, self-corrupted.
And we got to the point, that the whole nation—all of Europe, the United States, the trans-Atlantic region generally—has gone into a deep economic collapse, such that we now have a situation where we could not, without a change from the current policies, we could not guarantee an adequate food supply beginning this Spring for the population of the United States, and for the populations of other nations. We've come to that point.
We're now at the point, with this bailout, which bankrupted the United States, in every way imaginable: No one could ever pay that debt. It could never be paid! And we're having this worthless debt piled on us, geometrically. It's killing us. And it can be stopped, as I shall get to that later.
But in the meantime, the British Empire, the British Queen, the ones who want to reduce the numbers of you, from 7 billion to 1, or less, has proceeded to organize a war, with the complicity of a British agent, who is currently the President of the United States. He's nothing but a British puppet. He has no mind of his own. He's actually clinically insane, but they keep him on as President, despite that.
So what happens? Now we have, in the meantime, Russia has come back to some degree—under the leadership of [Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin in particular, and [President Dmitri] Medvedev, and others—has come back, in programs which would actually successfully, not only rebuild Russia, the whole area of Russia, including the Siberian area, but would open up areas of development throughout the world, because Russia has certain technologies which are specific to them.
In the meantime, China now represents 1.4 billion people. India represents 1.1 billion. They may have been weakened by the international economic problem, but they have still maintained a certain factor of growth and progress. Japan is a vigorous, smaller nation, but a vigorous nation, as we see with the tsunami operation: No nation but Japan could have done as successful a rescue operation as Japan did, and the recovery operation! No one could have! So we have Japan, who wants to cooperate. We have an improvement in the situation in Korea, where North and South Korea are now going to more of a collaboration: This is an excellent development.
But, the British Empire, which is behind all this, which owns their clown called Obama, this psychotic clown, and they don't like that. So, they decided to start a great, new war! This time, a thermonuclear war, in which the United States would be a key force, under this President, Obama. Other nations—Britain is a somewhat downtrodden thermonuclear power; France is a thermonuclear power; other nations have some thermonuclear capabilities. China has a very important thermonuclear capability. Russia has a very important thermonuclear capability.
The Libya War
Now, what are these guys trying to do? Well, it happened when you had a law that was rammed through the Congress by a leading Senator's collaboration with the President. And that law set into motion and authorized an illegal action called the Libya War. The U.S. involvement in a war in Libya was a violation of the Constitution. It was a criminal act, by the President of the United States, an impeachable act.
What they did, then: You had Britain, France, and the United States, and some other collateral powers, who were going ahead with this Libya War. And they succeeded in getting to the point, through President Obama, of bringing the country down.
Then you had the President of Libya, who was defeated, had agreed to admit that he'd been defeated by this force of powers—but then, the British were not satisfied, nor was the President of the United States satisfied. Because the problem, as they put it, in France and elsewhere, the problem was, that if he lived, and they held him as a captive, they would have to try him; if they put him through a trial, this would delay going to the next chosen target. So they had him killed, murdered!
Here's a man, who's captive. No evidence has been presented; the trial has not been established. But to avoid a trial of the accused, they murdered him, Obama-style! Which Obama's been doing to Americans and others, recently, on his way.
So now we come to the point: What's this all about? Why should this crazy idiot, our President—why should he want to make a war against a rather small nation, a weak nation, Libya? Why should he want to do that? Why should he want, as he did, together with the French government, together with the British government: They connived to assassinate a captive, who had been the head of state of a nation. Why would they do that? Well, they said so. They said, "We can not allow ourselves to be tied up with a long delay, bringing to conclusion, this Libya case. Why? Because, they said, we intend to start wars immediately against two West Asian nations: Syria and Iran.
Now, the purpose of doing this was not to conduct a war against Syria and Iran—that was not the purpose. That was the sideshow. What you had, if you looked at the map, and looked at the Eastern Mediterranean and the bay around Iran, you saw the greatest concentration of thermonuclear-warfare capabilities on this planet, represented by the forces of the United States, Britain, and other powers. Why would they have to have the thermonuclear capabilities of major powers and others combined, against two small nations—a relatively very small nation, Syria, and a medium-size small nation, shall we say, Iran: Why?
Because their target wasn't Syria, their target wasn't Iran. Their target was—as we know now, from the diplomatic scandals that have broken out in Washington and Europe—the target was Russia and China. What does that mean? Why should Britain and the United States, and other nations, wish to launch thermonuclear war, against two great thermonuclear powers, Russia and China? And you have a nuclear power, Pakistan; and India's also a thermonuclear power.
So what you have, is that the entirety of that part of Asia is now under death threat from this President! Who is not fit to be in a cattle herd. And the suckers are letting this happen! This man, under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, is clinically insane! The terms are specific: This man is clinically insane.
And our leaders in the Congress—and some of them are people I like, and think they're otherwise nice people, or proper in their duties—but they're not acting that way! Just like Kerry, Senator Kerry, has acted in a terrible way. Nothing like we used to think of him: I once supported this man in his candidacy for President. I wouldn't do so today. He's changed: He's not the same man he was then! And if you know his record, that's striking.
So therefore, what's the point? The British now say, what's the purpose of this? They told you: The purpose is, as the Queen of England and others have insisted, their intention is to reduce the population of the planet, from 7 billion people to 1 or less! Their argument is the Green policy! And therefore, if you want to have a Green policy, and what that connotes, you can not tolerate Russia's existence; you can not tolerate 1.4 billion people in China; you can not tolerate 1.1 billion people in India, and other nations. Therefore, this is a British operation, run under the Green policy of Her Majesty the Queen and her cohorts to change the character of the planet, in this way. In other words, these guys make Hitler look like a piker!
A Loss of Morals and Guts
And we in the United States have a President, who is the leading edge of that policy under British orders, the British monarchy's orders. That's why this is the big crisis. And that's why anyone in politics, who's running for President, or similar rank of office, and doesn't deal with this, ain't fit to be elected anything. There are some of these candidates, a couple of these Republican candidates who are sane; I would admit that. Some of them are not sane: I will also emphasize that. And we have a similar kind of situation among others.
We are a nation which has temporarily lost its guts, lost its morals and its guts. Because the evidence of this, is what it is.
Now, in fact, the only reason that I know of, that we're not already in that war, is because people in the Joint Chiefs and other institutions have said, "Don't go ahead." So it's only a minority, but an important minority in our government, which is an organized resistance against this thing, which is far worse evil, far more evil, than anything Adolf Hitler ever accomplished in his intention.
And that's where the problem lies. And therefore, we have to deal with it, accordingly. Anyone who's running for office, who does not say this President, Obama, must be immediately removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, is not fit to lead our government! They haven't got the guts and the honesty, to do it. They can't be trusted, because they refused to respond to their responsibility, to the office for which they were elected, or which they have the prospect of being elected to. They are not fit to serve!
And therefore, look at the clown show we have going on, outside in this nation. Look at the Republican campaign, so far; it's a clown show! One of those guys in there, is a decent fellow; he's an intelligent, decent, probably under most circumstances, would do a good job; he was a former governor of a state. And I think he's intelligent enough to be that. But look at the rest of them: Who is standing up? Who is fit to run for Federal office? Who is fit to choose a candidate for Federal office, who does not recognize these implications? Where is someone who will stand up, who has the guts to be errand boy, let alone President? And that's where we are today.
And that's the first thing you have to consider: We are dealing with a regime of evil. The organizer of that evil, centrally, is the British monarchy. The most conspicuous tool of that evil is the current President of the United States and his accomplices. And that's what's wrong with our government. And anybody who wants to bring up any other issue, any different issue, contrary to what I've just said here, is not fit to vote, let alone be elected! Because the fate of humanity depends upon defeating what this British operation under the Queen, and what this President of the United States represent: They are unfit to be in public office in any major nation. And those who support them, are not fit to hold important office in any nation.
And yet, why do our people act like clowns? And vote for these Republicans, who've just been running?
Where's the sense in this whole election campaign that started last year? Where's the sanity? Where's the morality? Where's the morality and intelligence of the citizens who would participate in this atrocity called an "election campaign," the Republican election campaign? And what we have on the Democratic side: We have Obama, the more-than-Hitler of the United States. People will support him? What's wrong with their minds and morals? They say they want to lead this nation, they want to determine the policies of this nation, when where they lead, is leading the world to a holocaust beyond belief?
No, this election campaign in the United States, so far, among the leading parties, is a farce. And the sooner you recognize that, and say so, and act so, the sooner we might get out of this mess.
Now, there are some other aspects here, to be dealt with. Assuming that we're going to avoid thermonuclear war, avoid this holocaust, what's next?
Well, let's take the question of the U.S. Constitution. There are two actions which must be taken now, by any authorities who deserve to be called "authorities." The United States, like all of Western and Central Europe, is now bankrupt. It is, under its present statutes, its present Constitution, it is hopelessly bankrupt! There's no way, under these kinds of political leaders, with these policies, that the United States or Western or Central Europe, is going to survive. Not possible.
Well, where's the seriousness on this one? You want to pick somebody for President, you want to pick a party for President, with these kinds of clowns loose? Where's your guts? Where's your mentality? Where's your brains? Where's your morality?
The evidence is clear: We are bankrupt. Look, all that bailout money, between Europe and the United States, that has been put out so far, will never be paid! It's worthless! And worse than that, the worthlessness of that money is the fact that a slight twitch, right now, as we see this in Europe—in Greece, for example; threatened in Italy, for example; threatened in Spain, threatened in Portugal; threatened in other parts of Europe—we're on the verge of a general collapse! In other words, it's like 1923 Germany, but on a multinational level.
Well, what are we doing about that? Where's our economic policies? More bailout? The whole thing is totally bankrupt now. There's no value in it. All it takes is a twitch! And the whole system goes down. And the Queen gets closer to her ambition of reducing the world's population from 7 to 1 billion people. Because that type of catastrophe can have exactly that type of effect.
Well, where are the politicians that are saying something about that? Or doing something about that? You want to call them serious? Can you call yourself sane if you consider voting for one of these clowns? Can't we find some Americans who are not clowns? Who have the guts to tell the truth about the situation? The United States now, in its present condition, is hopelessly bankrupt and on the verge of going the same way that Greece is going right now! What are you going to do about it? Where's your morals? Where's your brains?
Now, there's a remedy for this. And it's not a remedy that London and Wall Street like—I have to concede that. They won't like it at all.
What are we going to do? Well, the two things we have to do, which are Constitutional in their character: First of all, they're Constitutional against the background of our Constitution. Also, people don't understand economics. The leading economists generally in the United States are distinguished by the fact of their total ignorance of economics. They have these myths: Anyone who could believe that the bailout is a help to the world economy, when it's nothing but complete bankruptcy of every part of the world that's in on it? Of course, the British have a view on this thing, the British monarchy: They're going to kill a lot of people—that's good as far as they're concerned. They say so, repeatedly.
But the other side is, they don't intend to play by the rules. They intend to see the world collapse around them, and they intend to have a survival group, which is going to come up with a completely new system to replace—they hope!—the bankrupt system, that they made bankrupt.
So therefore, there are two things that we have to do, but the two things are under one idea, one principle. The principle is: As far as we know from direct evidence, in European civilization and beyond, nations have been governed by a system which is called a "monetarist system." Now, the peculiarity of this monetarist system, which virtually no economist in the United States understands, and very few in Europe: We used to understand this, when we had the Massachusetts colony, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, we understood what the difference is between a monetarist system and a credit system.
The United States government, the Constitution, was based on the concept of a credit system. But Andy Jackson, who was not exactly a patriot of the United States, worked under a whore, a British whore, who followed him as President [Martin Van Buren]. And they shut down the essential institution of banking of the United States.
Our system, which we got in the period coming out of the victory in the Revolutionary War, in the process of creating our Constitution, went to the precedent of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to create a credit system—in other words, not a money system, but a credit system—where the Massachusetts Bay Colony created credit. Not currency, not a monetary system. And the credit was simply, credit by the government, or the collectivity of the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, to allow certain scrip to be uttered, to allow for the production of goods and the means of production.
Under this policy, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was way ahead of the British Kingdom, in terms of technology, and in terms of economic growth. It only lost that growth, after it was suppressed by the head of what was called the New Venetian Party, which led into the establishment of the British Empire.
Now, what happened with Andrew Jackson, that whore Jackson—and I say it advisedly—he was a Democratic whore. They say he's a Democrat, but he's a whore, so therefore, he must be a Democratic whore! What he did was to induce, with his boss, who was later President, the Great Crash of 1837. This destroyed the credit system of the United States, by that operation by Andrew Jackson, under the orders of his boss, who gave us the 1837 Crash.
We've had recoveries from that kind of effect, since that time. One, in fighting the Civil War: In the case of the Civil War, we went to greenbacks. Now, the greenback system was a credit system, and it was a credit system that is specified in our Constitution! It's one of the strongest features of intent in the U.S. Federal Constitution: that the United States currency is based on a credit system, not a monetary system. And everything we've been ruined in, in economy in the United States, has generally been a result of a return to this kind of monetarist system, some kind of monetarist system, as opposed to our Constitutional system, which is a credit system.
Now, I'll explain what this means: We're now bankrupt. The whole country is bankrupt. The situation of our people is generally hopeless, for most people, right now! How do we cure that? Well, we have two things we can do which will get us out of this mess: One is called Glass-Steagall. Now, Glass-Steagall, which is a law crafted under Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President—this saved the United States, and made us the greatest power, again, in world history at that time, and defeated Hitler. Without Glass-Steagall, Hitler would be ruling the world, today! Or something like him.
So therefore, this system, which we keep going back to every time we want to have an American-style recovery, is going back to the concept of a credit system, which is built into the design of our Federal Constitution. Now, a lot of jerks don't understand this; that's why they're called jerks. Because anyone who's trying to run the United States, who doesn't know the principle which makes the United States function effectively, is not qualified to be advising anybody on how to run the United States.
A Broken-Down Economy
All right, so now, we have a broken-down economy. The economy was broken down beforehand, before 2008, but, the breakdown was aggravated by the bailout. The bailout, as in Europe, the interchange between the U.S. banking system, the Wall Street-type of system, taking over the U.S. banks, not only those banks which are Wall Street-type of banks, but also the commercial banks. So our entire banking system, and the looting of our mortgage system, was engineered by this mechanism, of the monetarist system. And now, the actual debt of the United States, the debt of Europe, far exceeds anything that could ever be paid!
Well, I say, number one: Use Glass-Steagall. Roosevelt created it. It's in the tradition of the United States, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in the Pine Tree Shilling system. And what we did with the idea of the paper currency, by Benjamin Franklin—it was his proposal—then, under Franklin's influence, it became the policy of our Secretary of the Treasury [Alexander Hamilton]; and that became a Constitutional principle. And every success we've had in the United States, since that time, has been based on those periods when we went back to that principle of the credit system. Abraham Lincoln—the credit system—that saved the United States from destruction.
Roosevelt saved the United States from destruction by the credit system, which is his idea of the Glass-Steagall law. He did not go all the way, but he went far enough to enable us to recover, to become again a powerful nation of the world, and to win World War II. And that was only destroyed under the influence of Harry S Truman.
But that's not adequate, because we have a broken-down economy. There's no chance of any full recovery. The hopes of most people out there—they have no real basis for hope! Not under this system. Even Glass-Steagall, while it is necessary to get rid of the real garbage, which is what it does: Glass-Steagall puts the garbage in the garbage pail, and leaves what is not garbage to be used. But the problem is, the system has been so rotted out by the looting, by this monetarist looting, that even Glass-Steagall will not be sufficient to cause an actual recovery of the U.S. economy, physically. But, however, these systems, which are based on that kind of monetary system, even of any improved type, will not allow the nation to come back to life.
So therefore, we have to go to what's called a pure credit system. And do the same thing all over again.
Now, the only way we can do that, is bythe entire United States system, banking system, and so forth, on a credit system. Why? Because, in the kind of money you would get in the banking system from Glass-Steagall, you will not get enough money, as credit in the system, to organize an effective recovery of the United States from the slide into Hell, where it's going right now!
However, under a credit system, we can utter credit, legally and properly, based on the amount of good we intend to do. In other words, we just say, "We, the Federal government, as we did in bailing out from the debt of the United States, coming out of the victory over the British in the Revolutionary War, we utter credit, by the Federal government—no other authority—in order to cover the loans needed to finance the recovery we need." Under Glass-Steagall, you can't do that, because you're limited to the amount of funds you're able to salvage from the bailout.
If you want to have a recovery of the United States, you must dump the monetarist system, and go to a credit system, which is what the United States did in coming out of the Revolutionary War as an indebted nation. It's exactly what Lincoln did, to win the war against the British in the Civil War. It's what Roosevelt did, in his own intention, but he had the resources available, under that intention, to save the United States and save the world from Hitler.
So, that's where we are, again, and that's what we have to do. That's the Constitutional thing: This is a Constitutional principle, not an ordinary piece of legislation. Glass-Steagall was passed as a legislation, but the principle of credit is a principle, not an ordinary law. And it's the return, by agreement, to that principle, which is the way we can save this nation from a collapse which is now about to hit it. Without that method, there is no recovery from collapse.
This has another aspect to it. Why is it that the United States developed a credit system, when no other system in the world, at least in European systems, actually ever developed a credit system—except for Charlemagne. He's dead, of course, and not able to do that any more. But so therefore, what we have to do, essentially, is extend the idea of a credit system to our partners in various parts of the world: All they have to do, is do the same thing we do. They now will clean up their mess, take all this cheap money, this phony money, put it in the garbage pail, and we go with the credit system, which is based on the kind of investment we need to make and implement, in order to save the United States, and in order to save our partners from other nations. The same thing.
So that's where we stand on that. That should be our policy. It should be our policy we propose to our partners.
For example, the intention of Russia, in particular, now, under Medvedev and Putin, is a serious attempt to set up close cooperation between Russia and the United States, among other nations. And such an agreement between the United States and Russia—which means removing Obama from office, of course—would actually be the basis for organizing a group, a large group, of major and other nations together, to save the economy of the world. There is the technology available. We can catch up.
One of the things we have to do, apart from Glass-Steagall, is NAWAPA. It's a typical program: NAWAPA was a creation of President John F. Kennedy: He was the one who authored this thing, and put the backing in. And it was killed because he was killed, as part of the process.
So therefore, we have, under our law, under our system, a perfectly rational, clearly understandable method for dealing with these problems. And the fact that these are the aspirations of Russia, under the present government; that we have a similar attitude on the part of China, 1.4 billion people. A similar attitude now coming out of Korea; a similar attitude in Japan, and other nations. So, what are we waiting for? The greatest part of the population of the planet, will come to join us in this process, if we reach the agreement among two or three of the major parties in this thing.
So that's our operation.
The 'Gods' of Olympus
The problem is this: There's a theory behind this crime. Monetarism is a crime against humanity, but what is the theory behind it? It goes back a long ways—it goes back in European Mediterranean history in a particular way. That you had a class of people, who called themselves "gods." They were actually called "gods": The use of the word "god," or its translation of the same meaning, meant that there are certain people who ruled over the planet. They were the real human beings; the other human beings were not really human, they were treated as animals, like cattle. And that was the system. So the word "gods," as translated from various languages and used in the Greek, for example, was exactly that: There are some people who rule the world because they're gods.
Now, how do they do this? Well, first of all, they keep the majority of people stupid, and not too plentiful. You don't allow scientific and technological progress, the Promethean principle—you don't allow fire, don't allow mankind to learn how to use fire—or nuclear power, for example, which is a form of fire! And therefore, you keep the population of the human species down to a limit, which you decide to tolerate: Don't let them have technology—keep them dumb and barefoot! And that's called the monetary system.
How does it work? The "gods," or the gods of various nations, like with the Wall Street "gods"—and you know what filth they are!—the gods of various nations decide, "We're going to keep control of this system. We're going to keep the people not too plentiful, and dumb. Stupid. We can not allow them to have fire!" Because mankind is the only species that can use fire. The only species that is willing to use fire is mankind, no other species. That's the difference between a monkey and a human being. And obviously, some people are monkeys, by that rule.
So the monetarist system is the value represented by an oligarchy, like the Wall Street conception. An oligarchy takes a monopoly on all money and declares that only money in that form can be used as credit.
Now, the other side of the fact is that the human species can't tolerate that, really. Because without scientific and technological progress, and without the increase of the human population in size and numbers, we can not maintain the human species as existing. Because we're living under conditions in which, gradually, the old ways of life—like take the dinosaurs for example; what happened to the dinosaurs? They stuck to the old ways of behaving, and nature took care of them—they're gone!
So therefore, the issue is, that the idea of a monetary system is a way of imposing a dictatorship over the masses of populations; whereas, a credit system has the opposite effect.
And this is the difference, the fundamental difference between the United States and the Europeans. It's not that the Europeans like this stuff, but they're taught that they have to accept the law. The law under which they're ruled, as under the Roman Empire and its successors, is that system. And therefore, in the United States, we have gone back, we reinvented it again, reinvented the credit system, as in Massachusetts and later, in our Constitution. The Europeans stuck to some version of a monetarist system. And that's how the Empire ruled in Europe.
Therefore, we are going to a credit system, in which the only money that is allowed to be uttered in the name of the United States government is a credit system. And thus, that credit system now becomes the means for organizing employment.
What do you have now, like in the farm belt? The agricultural system of the world is being starved by illegal methods. Like Monsanto! What Monsanto is doing is rape of the United States and other nations! It's illegal! It's unconstitutional! It shouldn't happen! But therefore, we now have the means, by control of the monetary system, to starve whom we wish to starve—by channeling money, by asserting its value in other terms. So we control what is perceived as the "value" of money, we control what is considered in monetary terms the "value" of various kinds of products and services. Therefore, we are under that kind of dictatorship.
And we, in the United States, who have been unique in leading this kind of revolution, which is why we came here in the first place: Because Nicholas of Cusa recognized that the European system was not salvageable; that we had to go across the waters, and bring our culture to other parts of the planet, and to develop a system which would meet the needs of the people, and then go back to the old European system and tell them, "Good news, we've got the solution for your mistakes." And that's what we have to stand for.
So therefore, we need that kind of thing. The United States presently will not continue to exist—with or without a thermonuclear war—will not continue to exist, without going to a credit system in place of a monetarist system: What has been done in terms of the bailout, has reached such enormity, that even Glass-Steagall could not save the United States, unless we applied to Glass-Steagall the standard of a credit system. And without that, we're not going to survive. Those who wish to survive, will agree with me. Those who don't agree with me, do not wish to survive—because they will not survive, if they rule. - We're Going to Mars -
Okay, now: Those are the only Constitutional principles that I am pushing at this time. I have other notions of Constitutional principles, which should be incorporated in the law of the United States as part of the Constitution, or interpretations of the Constitution. But, I didn't want to do that now, because I didn't want to open the gates for a flood of wild-eyed, cockeyed ideas, like from the Austrian school of finances, or some ghoul like that. These nuts will call that, that, so therefore, I did not want to open the gates to allow this kind of fraud, like the Austrian school of fraud, which I think Mitt Romney is part of, or he's close to people who believe in that. And therefore, he can't be President of the United States. That can not be allowed, unless he has a complete conversion to something more sane. But that's typical of the problem.
What are we going to do? We've discussed money, we've discussed the politics of money, things like that: What are we going to do with this poor world? Well, one thing we're going to do, and we have to do, is, we're going to have, as some people know, here in the room and elsewhere, we're going to go to Mars. Now, we're not going to pack our bags, and go to Mars—that's not the way this thing works. But what we're going to do, is we're going to take a technology which we now have, but which needs a little perfecting. We're going to take those tunnels in the Moon—we will probably send people directly to Mars, but they'd be sacrificing their lives in doing so, at this time. Their lives would be shortened considerably. But we're not going to chug-chug-chug-chug-chug-along to Mars, either.
We're going to have to go to a method of power which will enable us to reach Mars within a week, from Earth. Now, this is going to change man's understanding of mankind. And it's something which we will be working on now. There are several principles which I'm working on right now: First of all, we realize that the thermonuclear-fusion driver, for travel between Earth and Mars, is necessary. We also recognize that to go efficiently to Mars, we have to make a little intervention, which was understood by some German scientists, back in the 1920s: We have to go to the Moon, first.
And therefore, we aim at the Moon, where we build up resources, which we then shoot, at longer distances, and thermonuclear-fusion-driven rates. In other words, acceleration out, deceleration down, and we can do that in about a week. That's what our prospect is.
That changes everything! It changes man's relationship to the Solar System. It changes, implicitly, our relationship to the universe. And these are things which we can not realize overnight, but we can set into process the motion which will enable these things to happen. We will then no longer be poor human beings, sitting vulnerably on this poor planet of ours, waiting for our extermination. Humanity will be moving throughout the Solar System, and finding ways to live and develop in the Solar System. We'll be invading the galaxy, at least in some part of the galaxy; we'll be developing things and the future of mankind. They will happen long after I'm dead, but they will happen, and that's what's important.
So we have a number of things that go into this. First of all, that's the big one. Right now, the big one is that: Mars travel, with the development of the tunnels of the Moon as the way in which we build up the capabilities logistically of supporting the Mars operation and going further. We're going to go out there, to save mankind—what Obama would not allow! We're going to prevent asteroids from crashing into Earth, and killing human beings. That can be done. We have to develop the capability of doing it. Russia and China are working on that kind of problem themselves.
So we're going to go out there, and we're going to do a lot of useful things. But at the same time, we're going to do the Mars mission, we're going to do some other things: We now have a situation, where there's a melting of the Arctic. Now, the Greenies would think that's terrible. Well, let them freeze their what-off, if you know what I mean. We are going to enjoy this thing, because we're going to go with the right stuff, and all these kinds of things. We're not going to have our *** frozen off.
NAWAPA and Beyond
So therefore, we have NAWAPA: When you put together the space program and NAWAPA and some other programs, which are of the same nature, where you are developing the ability of the Earth to defend and sustain human life on Earth and beyond, then you've created a real economy.
And more than that, you know, we human beings, we live a certain amount of time. The British think I've lived too long, for example. But we human beings, the problem we have, is we think that when we die, which comes along to us, sooner or later, we think that means that life is over, or the meaning of life is over. Well, life is over, but the meaning of life is not over. When you think about traveling the distance from Earth to Mars in a week, and think what that means on a larger scale: That means that mankind is now connected to generations ahead, by these kinds of improved means. That the meaning of life has changed for mankind, from what most people think it is now. They see the true connection between scientific progress, the discovery of the increased power of mankind in the universe. We understand what that means in terms of what we discover today, which is realized down the line today, several generations down the line. But that several generations down the line today, when you think about flight from the Earth to the Moon, you realize that we've changed the relationship among successive generations.
And, that is where we have to go, and where we have to think: We have to redefine what most people think is human life, and the purpose of human life. We've got to change that! We've got to realize that you may be dying in the morning, but before you die, you will have unleashed something into the future, which means your life means something for a long time to come! And that's the difference in the way mankind thinks about man, which we have to realize today.
So this defines, essentially, to some, a galactic option. We are now, as mankind—and we who are working, in the Basement Team and so forth, our Basement Team—are thinking in exactly these terms. You're going to see some things coming out in our publications in the coming period, which is more and more of this: We've really got the bit in our mouth on this one. I'm not particularly urgent about getting to Mars myself, personally. But I'm very much concerned about the success of those who will take that journey. Their life, their success, and the fruits of their influence.
So that's where we are. And when we want to think about the United States, we have to think, not about a nation, how you "manage a nation," like some grocery store or something. You have to think about what a nation is. It's the repository of a continuing process, of development of powers of mankind in the universe, to accomplish things that mankind can do, or will be able to do, under this kind of program. And when we talk about the purpose of life, we talk about the meaning of life for our children and grandchildren, that's what we should understand. Not some futile cry, "Oh, you're dead, you're gone, I can't reach you any more! My life doesn't mean anything any more!" No! It should mean something! If you're contributing something to the future of mankind, across future generations, and help to make that leap by this kind of technology, this kind of science, your immortality is not to be doubted. Because what you can do while you're alive, here, or some other part of the system, what you can do will reach across generations, directly, from what you are.
And it's that sense of your own value, in that kind of role in life, which must be the mission, which we, and Russia, and China, and so forth, must share in common.
The Common Aims of Mankind
Now, one final note on this thing: We've reached the point where it's been demonstrated, and it was already true in the 1920s, even then; but now, in the 1970s and beyond: The development of methods of warfare, such as nuclear warfare, and thermonuclear warfare, and other systems, which are now coming online, means that it's not possible, as the present case before us, the question of the British intention, together with Obama, to slaughter most of the human race in Asia, right now; that we can no longer have war, in that sense, in that way. Because we can not put the existence of the human species at risk, when it is the essence of our existence! We can not destroy the essence of a human existence, as a species! Particularly, since our species is a creative species, explicitly so.
Therefore, mankind is too precious to be killed. That does not mean we can't have quarrels. That does not mean we shouldn't have sovereignty of nations. Yes, we should, because only with the sovereignty of nations can you actually develop the mind of the people of nations. This idea that's going on in Europe, of so-called "governance": Do you realize that most of Western and Central Europe, those people have no government? They have no sovereignty. They're not allowed to have sovereignty!
I'm concerned to get the British out, and give the people in Europe their sovereignty back: The Greeks are about to take it, out of desperation. Italy's ready to take it, not out of desperation, but out of rage and anger.
So therefore, there is a meaning of life, there's a meaning of human life. We can not put mankind at risk: The way we avoid that, is by adopting common missions for mankind. There was an old curmudgeon, who was a sort of funny friend of mine [Edward Teller], back in the late 1970s and early 1980s—he's now deceased. But there was a conference which was held on behalf of the SDI policy, on this, talking about "the common aims of mankind." There is such a principle as the "common aims of mankind."
And under the common aims of mankind, such things as an alliance between Russia and the United States, which is now available: Get rid of Obama, do some of the things we want to do; with China, it's there; with Japan, it's there. There is such a thing as the common aims of mankind, among different, respectively sovereign nations.
And it's that principle of law, the higher principle of law, the higher principle of sovereignty, which must rule. We can no longer risk the kind of wars, that that babbling idiot, that rageball Obama, and the Queen, are pushing. That is the ultimate crime! Because, by implication, as well as by direct cause, they are committing a crime against humanity, per se. And they must be removed from office and from power! Because we can not allow these clowns to control the fate of nations, any more.