Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

On September 6, 2006, in this moment of the greatest strategic crisis since 1989, the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) will be featuring former U.S. Presidential candidate and noted economist Lyndon H. LaRouche leading a three-hour international webcast, during which he will summarize, and discuss, a fifty-year, positive strategic perspective for dealing immediately with the currently combined, and rapidly worsening threats of economic-financial breakdown-crisis and of generalized asymmetric warfare, now gripping the world system.

LaRouche, who is famous for his unique October 12, 1988 Berlin Kempinski Hotel press conference forecasting the then imminent chain-reaction break-up of the Comecon and ensuing economic crisis of the Soviet system itself, will be speaking from Berlin, again, on September 6 at 16:00 Central European time, to selected international audiences of dignitaries and relevant other persons assembled for this occasion in Berlin and Washington, D.C..

He will be speaking in his capacity as a senior political figure of current significance within the crisis-stricken U.S. political process.

LaRouche's report, to be delivered from Berlin at that time, will focus on the special, global strategic implications for the Federal Republic of Germany's Berlin in its clearly emerging potential role, as a central European hub of long-term, Eurasia-wide cooperation among western and central Europe, Russia, China, and India, in a fifty-year perspective of cooperative mutual development.

The theme of the report will be that U.S., Franklin Roosevelt-style cooperation with a Eurasian economic-development effort, is the visible, positive alternative to the combined, and interrelated, immediate threats of a general breakdown-crisis of the present world monetary-financial system and the generalized asymmetric warfare implied by the presently deteriorating strategic situation in Southwest Asia.

The objective of the Berlin address, is to present a relevant European audience with the existence of such a potential early initiative for cooperation with Eurasian nations from what is admittedly, now, an internally crisis-ridden U.S.A. itself.

LaRouche emphasizes that the presently onrushing breakdown-crisis of the present world monetary-financial system were presently inevitable, unless an early general reorganization of the system brings in actions which will postpone the present disaster for long enough to permit the creation of a new system incorporating the most notable of the successful features of the original intentions for the Bretton Woods system. He emphasizes that solutions to the kinds of combined economic, monetary-financial, and asymmetric-warfare onrushing today can not be negative ones, but must be based, in the spirit of the successful 1648 Westphalian Treaty, on a clear, positive, and long-ranging alternative.

He emphasizes that the mess which the presently combined world economic and conflict crisis represents, could not be solved except through mobilizing a general economic recovery through long-term investments based on one-to-two generation agreements of physical-economic cooperation. For this purpose, the Eurasian continent represents the center of the potential for rising capital formation for world economic development for fifty years to come, and beyond. Cooperation of the U.S.A. with that development is indispensable for the successful launching of such urgently needed perspectives now.

As the Westphalian treaty should remind us, only agreement to a hopeful, feasible, and practical remedy could muster nations and their peoples to turn back the tide against a menace of rising mutual hatreds as grave and immediate as that threatening the world as a whole today. To bring people, who have been brought to hate one another increasingly, to peaceful cooperation, the effort must flow from the clear perception of great advantages in the common interest of them all. The economic recovery of a presently gravely endangered planet as a whole, is the needed perception for conquering the presently onrushing and accelerating, existential crisis of our planet today.


Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The just completed Jackson Hole Federal Reserve conference made Chairman Bernanke's call for a return to Roman style imperialism, together with the onrush of LaRouche's forecast of the "Ground Zero"-centered, onrushing collapse of the U.S. mortgage-bubble, the leading theme of relevance in the currently escalating international discussions of world policies for the immediate crisis-ridden future of the planet as a whole.

That theme is the focus of a notable leading editorial in today's London Guardian, by "Stop-The-War-Coalition" spokesman Andrew Murray, who defines the drive toward empire by Anglo-American circles typified by the names of President G.W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair as "the central issue of our time."

Essentially, Bernanke has now, thus, proposed publicly, to overthrow the U.S. Federal Constitution. Technically, Bernanke is almost as bad at history as he is in the field of economics. His adoption of the Roman Empire as the model for the kind of imperialism which his faction is attempting to pull off, is just one more symptom of his incompetence in the fields of both history and economics. What he is actually working to bring into being is the model of the ultramontane alliance of medieval Venetian financier oligarchs and the Crusading Norman chivalry: not an empire under a Roman-style world emperor, but a hodge-podge like that Fourteenth-Century New Dark Age into which the ultramontane system degenerated, after its defeat of the last Staufer remnant of Charlemagne's reforms.

Nonetheless, with all of this and that to be discussed, fervently, the presently breaking global conditions of spreading asymmetric warfare, general economic breakdown-crisis, and lunatic drives of certifiable madmen, such as the Nero-like George W. Bush, Jr., have brought world as a whole into a U.S.-centered, global maelstrom of tumultuous tragic indecision, which might be the end of civilization on this planet for generations to come.

The threat of degeneration into Fourteenth-Century-style imperialism, and its doom, is the immediate reality of currently converging trends. But that discussion, however necessary, does not provide a remedy for such an outcome. It is time for a new Renaissance, like that centered on the mid-Fifteenth-Century great ecumenical Council of Florence. Discussing the dead will not bring the doomed back to life. A positive, practicable alternative to the present, inevitably onrushing breakdown-crisis of the existing world and U.S. economic system, a true renaissance, must be the foremost topic on our agendas.

The issue posed to all humanity at this moment is the issue of the September 6th Berlin web-cast conference. It is necessary to discuss the present crisis. It were preferable, rather than attempting to write the autopsy report for a soon-dead civilization, to focus our attention on the alternative, as this is already indicated by several reports produced by spokesman Lyndon LaRouche, in the run-up to that Berlin web-cast conference.

There is no region of the world, which is an exception to the doom inherent in the presently habituated trends in decision-making in the trans-Atlantic community. What is going on in any part of the world, is irrelevant except as it bears on changing radically the recent trends in policy-shaping which have dominated the Transatlantic world and beyond since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, and, especially, since the unsolved assassination of the President John F. Kennedy, who was considered a threat by those who were determined to prevent a return to the paradigmatic economic policy-shaping typified by President Franklin Roosevelt. When the Kennedy assassination is viewed in the context of the attempts on Charles de Gaulle, and on others of similar policy-characteristics, and taking into account the accelerating ouster of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and the CCF and AFF crowds, there is no real mystery concerning the actual motive, and general nature of source of the relevant orders in these cases.

Sept. 11, 2006—Lyndon LaRouche has called on all patriotic Americans to join him in pressing for the immediate impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. LaRouche issued the call in the immediate aftermath of three developments in recent days:

1. The release of two additional chapters from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report on the pre-Iraq war intelligence failures, which Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) correctly identified as a stinging indictment of the President and Vice President for lying the Congress and the American people into a needless and disastrous Iraq war;

2. The airing on ABC-TV of the fraudulent mini-series, "The Path to 9/11," on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, which were part of a White House-directed propaganda assault against the American and European populations, to soften them up for new wars in Southwest Asia; and,

3. Vice President Dick Cheney's shameless lies, during an hour-long television interview Sept. 10, 2006 with Tim Russert on "Meet The Press."

LaRouche declared, "The Administration has lied and lied and lied the United States into a senseless and disastrous war in Iraq. We see a pattern of habitual lying on the part of the President and Vice President. This constitutes more than sufficient grounds for impeachment. I consider," LaRouche continued, "that the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney is imperative at this time. They have violated their oath of office, and have brought nearly irreparable harm to the United States. The new evidence presented last week by the Senate intelligence panel serves to underscore just how seriously they lied the U.S. into war.

"Furthermore," LaRouche continued, "Vice President Cheney's shameless lying on nationwide television on Sunday, Sept. 10, and his continuing push for a new, even more devastating 'preventive' war against Iran, underscores the urgency of Congress acting now to prepare a long-overdue bill of impeachment."

LaRouche added that he would hope that former President Bill Clinton would agree with his assessment about the urgency of a Bush-Cheney impeachment and take his own action. "After what has been done to the former President, particularly with the fraudulent ABC-TV disinformation mini-series, blaming the Clinton Administration for 9/11, I would think that he would see the ongoing onslaught against the country, from an ever-more desperate Bush-Cheney White House and its right-wing allies, as cause to issue a similar call. I must say that Hillary Clinton's warnings, as First Lady, about a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' against the Clinton Presidency, ring now in my ear, as I view the recent unfolding events."

Among the incidents that prompted LaRouche to issue his impeachment call was the Sept. 7 release of two additional chapters from the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's investigation into the pre-Iraq war intelligence process. The declassified versions of the two chapters were made public, and were accompanied by statements from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the co-chairman of the Select Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin. The chapter refuting Administration claims on both Saddam links to terrorism, and on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was adopted almost unamimously, 14-1, by the committee. As to the chapter on the role of the Pentagon-linked Iraqi National Congress in shaping policy, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) voted to issue the chapter draft prepared by the Democratic Minority staff of the committee; Snowe said this was because it was closer to the truth.

The newly-issued chapters showed that top Administration officials, including the President, Vice President, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, repeatedly misrepresented intelligence community findings, to support the Iraq invasion with lies that Iraq was tied to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks, and had advanced WMD programs.








Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Here is the keynote address of Lyndon LaRouche to an EIR-sponsored seminar in Berlin, Germany on June 27. See also Mr. LaRouche's remarks later during the seminar.

In this period of time, we're in a world crisis without parallel. There's no comparison to this in European history, since the 14th Century New Dark Age, to what we're facing now. All the things since then, in terms of crises in European experience, have been less crucial than was the case in the 14th-Century New Dark Age.

But that New Dark Age is also a benchmark. Because, to understand the crisis we have today, and to understand how the solution must be designed, we must understand why a New Dark Age struck Europe in the 14th Century, to be prepared for the new dark age which is, right now, descending upon the entire world. There are solutions for this problem. But you have to understand the rules of the game, by which solutions work out.

So that, when people talk about "New Bretton Woods"—many people talk about it. But even the gentleman from Iran who recently wrote on this subject, and then asked, "Well, what do you mean by 'New Bretton Woods'?"—that is a very good question. Because, New Bretton Woods signifies that, at the end of World War II, the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, established a monetary system, a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, without which the world would not have recovered from the effects of World War II. This monetary system was crucial.

Now, the intention of the original Bretton Woods system, by Roosevelt, and the conduct of the Bretton Woods policy by his successor Truman, were two opposite conceptions, united by one common feature, a temporary, fixed-exchange-rate monetary system.

Roosevelt was an American; Truman was really not. He was born in the United States, but it was like a disease that infected us—he was not really a good American.

Roosevelt was committed to overturning the policies of the United States from the assassination of one President [McKinley]; the inauguration of Teddy Roosevelt; the inauguration of another fascist, Woodrow Wilson; the inauguration of fools—Coolidge was an evil fool; Hoover who was not a fool, but who was corrupt. So, the United States from 1901-1902 until 1933 was run by a policy entirely contrary to the Constitutional prescription of the United States.

When Roosevelt became President, in March of 1933, early March, Hitler had already become a dictator in Germany. And it was known to Roosevelt that he had two problems on his hands: First of all, the preceding Presidencies of the United States since McKinley—who was shot in order to make Teddy Roosevelt President—until Roosevelt's inauguration, was rotten. It was evil. It was run from Europe, not from the United States. Roosevelt had to eliminate the system which had created the Depression in order to have an economic recovery. He also had to prepare for what he knew was then inevitable: some form of what became known as World War II.

The British Launched World War I

Because, it happened in the following way: You have to go back to the close of the 19th Century. At that point, the British monarchy decided to launch a new world war, under the then-Prince of Wales, who subsequently became King of England. By operations in France, including the assassination of a President of France, Sadi Carnot, the Dreyfus Affair, and other things, France became totally corrupted. The rot inside France, which had been there under Napoleon III, came to the fore. And the British struck an alliance with France, or certain forces in France, which became the basis for World War I, through the establishment of the Entente Cordiale with the people who represented the tradition of Napoleon I and Napoleon III.

In order to get the war going, they took a foolish Kaiser, Wilhelm II, who was a fool, a British fool, of British descent; and another fool, who was a successor of a great Russian Czar, and put in a fool, Nicholas II. And these three fools—Nicholas II of course was a nephew of the King of England, just as Wilhelm II of Germany was a nephew of the King of England—these fools launched world war! Which Germany would have won, except for the U.S. intervention to bail out the British and French.

They were not satisfied with that. So, immediately, they went into a plan, again from the British, which was organized around the naval power agreements and negotiations of the early 1920s. These early power negotiations were essentially, crucially—with Britain and Japan—against the United States. Now, Japan had been made into a modern nation by the United States, by its intervention. But Japan had been taken over by the British monarchy in the 1880s-1890s, and had launched what became known as the first series of Japan-China wars, in 1894-1895. And at this point, it was an intervention of Japan, as a British puppet, a puppet of the British monarchy, which was out to work with the British to eliminate the influence of the United States in the Pacific, especially in China.

So, the British sponsored the Japan wars against China, and other wars, as part of this policy in the 1920s. As part of that policy, of course, there was the plan for Japan, and the British, together with other European naval powers, to conduct a naval attack on the naval forces of the United States, to eliminate the U.S. naval power in the world, and to restore British hegemony in naval power. This was the basis for the plan, at that time, where Japan was supposed to attack Pearl Harbor as part of its agreement—this is in the 1920s, early 1920s—to attack the United States' base at Pearl Harbor. This was the issue.

Later, Japan ended up as the ally of Hitler, but for the same reason. Japan had become the perpetual enemy of the United States, from the 1890s, on the issue of U.S. influence in Asia, in favor of British influence. But Britain, under the influence of Roosevelt, decided not to support Hitler, whom they had supported up to that time—Hitler was put into power by these guys, including some guys in New York; including the grandfather of the present President of the United States, who was the guy who signed the order to move the money from a German bank to support Hitler's party and keep it in place, so that Hitler could be made dictator of Germany, on behalf of the interests of the French Synarchists and the British Bank of England.

The Treason of the French Synarchists

But then, at a certain point, at the time—go back to 1940: The beaches at Dunkirk were the turning point which leads up to modern history. Hitler had held back the tanks, the tank units at Dunkirk, to allow the British to escape. Now, why had Hitler done this favor for the British? Hitler held back the tanks, because he didn't want to offend the British so much that the British could not surrender, as the French were about to do, and were doing, to Hitler.

The intention had been, which was the revised plan of the Nazis—the original plan was to go East first. Then the German High Command said, "That's idiocy. You never go East and attack Russia, when you've got the British and French on your tail. Eliminate the British and French as a threat, first." So, in the first case, with the help of the French Synarchists, inside the government of France, Germany was allowed to conquer France. Germany did not have the military capability of destroying France. The door was opened by the French government!; by the Synarchist bankers, who we'll come to again, today, to understand what New Bretton Woods means.

So therefore, France became what it wished to be! A puppet of the Nazis! With some objections of some French, but France was essentially a puppet of the Nazi regime, as so-called "Occupied France." But it was willingly occupied. It was like the prostitute who says, "I'm being raped," while taking the money—in this case, paying for the privilege.

However, Roosevelt had intervened into British affairs and this had induced the famous statement by Churchill, that if the German forces should attempt to invade the United Kingdom, the British government would order the British fleet, including the fleet of the colonies, to go to the United States and operate under U.S. command. Now, this turning point in the war meant that the British were allied with the United States against Hitler, where up to that point the predominant leading forces in England had been for Hitler. And had been for the idea of surrendering to Hitler, in order to attack the Soviet Union. That had been the plan.

So, what I've said is fact. But it's contrary to what is commonly taught, which indicates: Don't believe the newspapers!. Don't try to do intelligence by interpreting breaking news in the newspapers, or on radio or television broadcasts. In a period of crisis, the newspapers are the biggest liars of all. Never trust them, and never say, "We must respond, we must interpret this." Anything the press tells you: Don't believe it. Treat the newspaper reports as diseases, and think like a physician: You've got a disease on your hands. Don't let the disease influence you, but identify the disease and control it, which means, control the newspaper editor, control the publisher. Because they all lie.

And this is particularly true today: Most of the things you get in the press, leading press today, are absolute lies. They're not meaningless, because even a lie tells you something about the liar. But you have to know it's a lie. Then you can identify the meaning, why did the liar lie? What is the purpose of the lie?

So, in intelligence—I'm pretty good at intelligence. I can tell you, if you want to be a good intelligence officer, pay very little attention to the press. You have a clinical department, called the garbage department, to say what's coming out in the garbage, to analyze that. It's like you want to find out what's going on in a plant, you look at what they throw away in the backyard, and then figure out what was going on at the plant. So, this is the situation.

FDR's Plan: To Eliminate Colonialism

Now, we come to a point, that at the end of the war, Roosevelt died. Roosevelt had a plan, an intention—which is why the United Nations was proposed by him—to eliminate colonialism and everything like it, internationally. And to use the power of the United States to break any government that tried to maintain a colonial system, by the power of the United States; to support struggles for independence by peoples of oppressed nations; and to assist them, with a new system, in being able to develop their economies to true sovereignty. This is based largely on a three-way agreement, among certain forces in China, with the agreement of the Soviet Union, and the United States. These were the three great powers at that time. China was not nominally a great power, but it's a great nation, inherently. And therefore, Roosevelt's conception was, that if you have the United States, China, and the Soviet Union in agreement on this order for the post-war world, and a program of post-Hitler recovery for the world, that you would create an order called the United Nations, under which these old nations and freed nations, would come together to establish a diplomatic vehicle for cooperation and economic development and other things.

Now, the day that Roosevelt died, that aspect of policy went out the window. And we had a virtual fascist, Truman, became President—and that's a story in itself, as to how he became President. At that point, Truman adopted a policy which was crafted by Bertrand Russell, from England, and the policy was called "preventive nuclear war." Russell's policy, which was fully adopted by the United States under Truman—and it was adopted virtually the day that Roosevelt died!—was to launch a preventive, so-called, nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, to dictate to the Soviet Union submission to world government—not a system of nations, but world government—as a price for not being bombed perpetually by nuclear weapons.

This was the Bertrand Russell policy, as stated in September of 1946, when it was published. But it was the Truman policy, from the beginning.

Now, at the point that the war had ended, Japan had already negotiated surrender to the United States. The surrender had occurred through the Vatican, through the Foreign Office of the Vatican, through the Department of Extraordinary Affairs. It was done by a Monsignor [Montini] at the point, who later became Pope Paul VI. So, the conditions of surrender had already been reached with the United States, while Roosevelt was still President.

But when Truman became President, this was stopped. Why? Because the United States had, at that point, two remaining prototypes of a nuclear weapon, one uranium, one plutonium. These were laboratory prototypes. They were not production-line weapons systems. The United States dropped two, totally unnecessary, nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as part of the policy of demonstrating nuclear weapons; as part of the Bertrand Russell policy—the great pacifist: You know, if you kill everybody, you have peace—the Russell policy of permanent warfare, nuclear warfare, to establish world government, to eliminate the nation-state. That is, to establish what's called, today, "globalization." Elimination of the nation-state, world government under a concert of financier forces which eliminate sovereign government as is being done, today.

The Intention Is Called 'Globalization'

So that, many of the things that are happening, are not inevitable events today, something that happened because of a process, or some non-understandable process. Things that are happening today to nations, as to Germany, as to France, as to Italy, as to other parts of the world, these things are part of a long-term policy with an intention behind it! The intention is called globalization. The intention was first expressed in Europe, and in the United States, shortly after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.

The generation that went to war, my generation, would not put up with the kinds of things that are happening today. It's only because my generation has been replaced in power, that a younger generation, now between 50 years of age and 65, or slightly older, is running the world. The generation comes from the upper 20% of family-income brackets of Europe and the United States. This generation is called the Baby Boomers. Or, in France, the less-complimentary name, "BoBos." A more accurate term: Bourgeois Bohèmes.

So this has been planned all along. At first, under the Bretton Woods system, it was kept alive. The colonies which had been liberated, or were about to be liberated, were suppressed, or absorbed in a new way, by France, by Britain, by the Dutch. The Dutch were particularly nasty at this business in Indonesia. Everyone was involved in the suppression of Indo-China, reconquering of Indo-China, which had already declared its independence through Ho Chi Minh, who had been Roosevelt-sponsored at the time. So, Europe was totally corrupt. The United States was totally corrupt, on this issue.

And we had an anti-Communist movement, which was absolutely insane! There was no reason for it; it was absolute insanity. But under this program, what did they do? They said, "You can not change the older generation," my generation, or the generation which was still older which was living then. "You can't change their ways, they still believe in the modern nation-state. They believe in scientific and technological progress. They believe in agriculture. They have these Roosevelt ideas, about opportunities, like health insurance for everyone—that sort of thing. These ideas must go—and this older generation is embedded with these beliefs, and these political and social values. We have to create a new generation to come to power, which will not go along to believe in these things."

So, from the beginning, from 1946 on, with the launching of a right-wing campaign of terror inside the United States and inside Europe, you had the beginning of a mobilization for a change in direction of society, which became the characteristic of the Baby-Boomer generation. Those who were born between 1945 and approximately 1957—that generation. And this generation was directed to go into the leading universities, from which the leading layer of the next generation's leaders of society would come, whether in government, in business, in universities.

And you had a takeover of the universities, where the quality of the professors became poorer and poorer and poorer—even before this generation took over. Then, you had the great explosion of 1968, in Europe and in North America, simultaneously. And the values, the new values, the existentialist values expressed by certain kinds of fascists, the Frankfurt School fascists, the existentialists—they said, "Move over." And the demonstration, as you see in Germany, for example, the environmentalist movement, the Green movement was created as a result of this. Absolute insanity, using a program which had been developed by Hermann Göring in Germany as part of a cultural program, in the 1920s on, this program took over. And Germany was destroyed from within, largely, finally, in the 1960s already, was destroyed, in part, by the Green movement against nuclear energy, and against technology generally.

Once the Soviet Union had collapsed, immediately, the next phase was, consolidate it. Who did it? The British monarchy and the French, Mitterrand, otherwise known as Napoleon IV, a British agent like Napoleon III.

So this was the process. In the United States, the same thing: the Kyoto demands, these reforms, so-called environmentalist reforms. A complete fraud! To shut down the world economy.

So, what you have, is you have a generation in power, which says you either support, or you have to go along with policies under which your own country is going to be destroyed. And your objective is to submit to a new system of things, called "globalization": You're no longer going to have industry. You're no longer going to have independent farming. You're now going to submit. To what? Or better said: To whom?

So, when you understand the crisis in the United States today, or attempt to understand the crisis in Europe, don't look at what are called the "important forces," because they're not important. No government of Europe is important. None! The former Comecon states are worse off than they were under Soviet direction. Every one of them, vastly worse! Germany has been in worse, and worse, and worse condition, ever since about the middle of the 1960s. Not as collapsed, immediately, but the process leading toward eventual collapse, was in progress. France became more and more degenerate. De Gaulle made an effort to reverse that tendency. Again, it was taken away from him, after 1963, after the assassination of Kennedy. With the launching of the Vietnam War by the United States—this was the beginning of the end.

So that, by 1971-72, after the monetary system had already been wrecked, first by the British, by the Harold Wilson government in 1957; and then under [Lyndon] Johnson in 1968. The system was gone. We had a floating-exchange-rate system. The Bretton Woods system was destroyed. You look at the 1970s, where 1971-72 were the end of the Bretton Woods system, through 1981, the point that poor President Carter, who didn't know what he was doing, left office. Brzezinski did it, not Carter. Carter didn't understand a thing.

So, this group destroyed the United States, destroyed regulation. Destroyed everything in economic policy on which the achievement of Roosevelt had depended; destroyed everything which was in the Roosevelt policy, which is based on the U.S. Constitutional conception of government. And similar kinds of things reverberated in Europe—led by England, which was the worst of all these places—by Britain.

The Origin of the Problem

So, what we have today is this, is a culmination of that process. We've come to the point that the United States is not the source of the problem. The United States is the key symptom of the problem. The origin of the problem, which you see in the United States, is inside Europe. And you have a couple of people visiting today, who will give some reports bearing on that, from Jeff Steinberg and from Cliff Kiracofe [see below, for their presentations].

The source of this problem is essentially a connection between a phenomenon in France, called the Synarchist International, which essentially took over at the Versailles Treaty, in alliance with the British and Dutch. The alliance largely took the form, as you will hear today—I won't go into the details, but just to indicate the nature of the problem—took the form of the Synarchists associated with Lazard Frères, and particularly, specifically with André Meyer of France; leading Synarchist bankers who moved into an alliance with Royal Dutch Shell, and the Dutch royal family and the British royal family. This is the phenomenon today called the Bilderberg Society, which is not really a society, it's just a meeting of people who reflect this. They're not the controllers, there's no Bilderberg conspiracy. It's a completely different conspiracy. But the Bilderberg Society is one of the events which occurs periodically, as now, which is a reflection of what the problem is, of who the problem is. It's a problem centered in Europe, with strong tentacles inside the United States, which we know in the United States as the "Party of Treason," which is centered in bankers. Bankers such as the grandfather of the present President of the United States, who financed Hitler's coming back to power, together with the British and others. They're out to destroy the United States. And the immediate operation was to focus on the machine-tool capacity of the United States, because, without the United States' machine-tool capacity, no recovery is possible.

There are two things to consider here: First of all, the objective is globalization. Europe is absolutely incapable of defending itself now. There is no force in Europe which will be willing to defend Europe, that is a capable force. France is bankrupt. Italy is worse than bankrupt. Germany is condemned to bankruptcy, as you see in Berlin, the destruction of the industrial potential of Berlin.

Germany could, you would say, survive. We've often talked about this. All you have to do, is have a system of state credit. You have a source of state credit, you can find by the proper investments, you can increase the economic output of Germany more rapidly than the cost of this credit. You just need the right program, largely based in infrastructure: Rebuild the machine-tool industry and so forth. But, what's not allowed, especially since Maastricht: Germany is not allowed to do that! Germany is ordered to destroy the industrial potential of Berlin, much below the level it was at the time of 1989.

So, unless Europe is willing to break the political bonds of slavery, within Europe, led by the Anglo-French-Dutch alliance, then there's no country in Western Europe or Central Europe which has the ability to survive. Poland is already virtually dead. The other countries of the former Comecon countries are virtually dead economically, or dying, rotted. Russia has been looted into weakness. It has some program for recovery, but it has no recovery yet. There's no hope, in Eurasia generally, for this kind of recovery. Yes, you have a recovery in China—but, do you have a recovery in China? No, you don't really have a recovery in China. Economic growth is occurring in some parts of China. Economic growth based largely on using U.S. product designs, with U.S. credit to produce products for the world market, especially the U.S. market. If the U.S. economy collapses, the Chinese economy collapses—and China has a social crisis as a result of it. Because you have a disparity between the rich and the poor in China, which is part of the foolish policy adopted by China. You don't have billionaires in a country with very poor people: That is not intelligent policy. You don't give tax-free bonuses to people who are just parasites, to become billionaires, while you have your countryside full of over a billion people who are extremely poor, with no real prospect for the future unless there's a change in their condition of life. Hmm?

Then look at India. India has a better situation than China, because India has greater inherent stability and less dependence upon the world market. India also has its own potential for growth. If India goes into the full-scale thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor program, which fits its requirement—which I've been recommending for years, as have others—then India could have a very rapid internal improvement in the basic infrastructure and power. So, India could undergo, under certain conditions, a significant recovery, and would have greater resistance to the political effects of a general collapse of the economy than China. China would be faced with an immediate social crisis, which would probably explode in some kind of violent crisis, under the present conditions.

So, there is no hope, looking at the rest of Asia; there is no hope, if the United States' economy were to collapse; there is no hope of rescue from Asia. Nor is there presently any political hope of rescue of world civilization from Western Europe. None.

The United States Must Change Its Policy

Therefore, you can't say, as many foolish people are saying, that if the United States goes under as this great imperial ogre, then we will be free of the United States' tyranny and we could find a solution, perhaps with our friends in Asia: Doesn't exist. It's a complete piece of foolishness. It's absolute nonsense.

Yes, the cooperation between, for example, Germany, Russia, and the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, is a model of what must happen; as a factor in a general economic recovery, it must happen. But it will not work, unless the United States changes its policy. And that's what I'm concerned with: getting the United States to change its policy, because otherwise, the rest of the world doesn't have a chance of escaping a new dark age. You find some government in Europe, which is prepared to overthrow these governments now, and establish a government committed to the kind of policies that Roosevelt represented in 1945? Or, policies that Germany represented back before the middle of the 1960s? And turn it back to those kinds of policies? No, none. None.

Because, Germany is controlled by something, also. It's controlled by the evil, which is more resident here than in the United States. In the United States, evil is a European import, and always has been. In Europe, it's the oligarchy.

You know, Nicholas of Cusa, after the fall of Constantinople, and after a defeat against the Turkish Ottoman forces in the Balkans, made a policy, and said: The function of Europe must be to reach out across the oceans, to people living on the other side of the oceans, and establish alliances, in cooperation with them, to rebuild civilization along the lines upon which the great Renaissance had been launched.

As a result of Cusa's efforts, specifically, for example in the case of Christopher Columbus—Christopher Columbus read a copy of the will of Nicholas of Cusa. On the basis of reading the will of Nicholas of Cusa, Christopher Columbus, who was an experienced navigator, got in touch with the friends of Cusa in Italy, in an exchange in 1480, extensive correspondence, and planned the trans-Atlantic voyage of discovery to find the New World on the other side of the ocean, and knew it was there. He didn't have the right location, thought it was China and Japan, because the Venetians had lied about how far it was to walk to China.

But nonetheless, the discovery of the Americas was the result of the influence of Nicholas of Cusa, in the late part of the 15th Century, in prescribing these trans-Atlantic and other voyages, to meet the people on the other side of the world. And to establish collaboration with them, to overcome the great problem which threatened the integrity of the Renaissance.

So what happened as a result of that, is that the Europeans began to move, gradually, increasingly, across the ocean, into the Americas. We went through, from 1492, with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, until 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia, you had a process of bloody, religious warfare throughout Europe. A policy of racism and murder, echoing the Crusades—the most evil thing since the Crusades. And therefore, people, more and more, left Europe, especially in the early 17th Century, left Europe, into the Americas, and established branches of European civilization in North and South America—with complications. But, the result was, in the 18th Century, the standard of living and productivity in the young United States, at the time of its adoption of its Constitution, was about twice the level of productivity and standard of living of people in England: twice. Why? Same culture. We were Europeans. We represented a European culture. We embodied European culture. But we embodied it, free of the burden of an oligarchy!

The Issue Is Liberty

And therefore, the idea was not democracy. Democracy is trash. Look at what happened in Greece: the Peloponnesian War. What caused the Peloponnesian War? Democracy! An evil philosophy called sophistry. Democracy is not the issue. The issue is liberty. The issue is individual liberty, the right to liberty; the right to a society in which liberty is defended and promoted; the right of the liberty of the minority against the majority. Not democracy. So, the idea of liberty, which is the idea on which the United States was founded, which its Constitution represents: This was the issue.

So, what we've represented all along since that time, and we have been in battle with what became an empire; Europe has been dominated predominantly by a rising empire, which is the Anglo-Dutch empire with a French connection, especially the Synarchist connection. The corruption we suffer in the United States has always come from Europe. And it's come from the British monarchy, the Dutch monarchy, and people like that. The alliance of the Synarchy with Royal Dutch Shell, and with the British monarchy, is simply the most recent phase of this process. The goal has always been to establish an empire, empire, EMPIRE. Globalization is nothing but an empire; it's a new form of empire. It's the elimination of the nation-state; it's the elimination of liberty; it's the elimination of the rights.

Now, who's doing it in the United States? Who's my enemy? Well, the most prominent, obvious enemy, is a fellow called Felix Rohatyn. Felix Rohatyn is a fascist. He was a protégé of the André Meyer, who was part of the organization which set up the deal with Royal Dutch Shell, which set up what became the Bilderberg Society, so-called. This is the power bloc.

Now, these bankers are a special type: They invest largely in gaining property, not just in money, because they know the money system is vulnerable. They want to have the property in their hand, under their control, at the time things break down. Their method is to destroy independent industries, which are not under their control, and to grab control of assets which are presently not under their control. And they have orchestrated, this crowd—in the aftermath of '71-72, the change in the monetary system—has orchestrated step by step, each of the developments inside the United States, which have destroyed the U.S. political and economic system. And they're doing the same thing inside Europe, the same people. You look at André Meyer and his descendants, you look at the reports that Jeff [Steinberg] can refer to and others, on the question of exactly what the continuity of this is: It's the same enemy.

An Old Enemy: The Sophists

What is this enemy? It's an old one. Nothing original about it. It's an enemy we know from the Sophists who were responsible for the corruption of Athens, which led to the destruction of Greek civilization through the Peloponnesian War. And the policy is like the policies of Cheney toward Iraq, is pretty much the same thing, as the policies of Pericles and company, toward his victims, starting the Peloponnesian War. No difference. The policies, today, in the United States—the social policies, the so-called "liberal" policies today—are no different than the sophistry by which Greece destroyed itself, Athens destroyed itself, in the Peloponnesian War.

The heritage of ancient Rome, Imperial Rome: There's nothing good about Imperial Rome! A completely degenerate and evil culture, from the beginning! There's nothing good about Byzantium, it was evil from the beginning. Charlemagne was an attempt to establish a civilization of the Augustinian tradition, in cooperation with Muslims represented by the Caliphate of Baghdad, and with Jews who were a mediating portion, and playing a key role in the cooperation between Arab and Christian, in the case of Charlemagne and his immediate successors.

That was a period of hope. It probably saved civilization, in the sense of creating an impetus which we could turn to later to revive civilization.

But then, the Venetian crowd and the Crusaders came in. They were nothing but butchers, with their Crusades: Kill the Jews! Kill the Arabs! Great Crusades! Perpetual warfare! And they destroyed themselves in the 14th Century, in the collapse of the monetary system, which is about to happen now.

We're at a point, where the ratio of collapse of production per capita, the collapse of basic economic infrastructure, in Europe and in the Americas, especially in the United States, is so great, that we can no longer sustain the existing level of population, on the basis of the existing level of financial debt. It can not be done. There's no way that you can pay these debts, none. It is inevitable now, that the present financial system will become extinct in a very near period of time. It's finished.

However, from our experience with Roosevelt, the experience we had in reconstruction in the United States earlier, and reconstruction in Europe in the post-war reconstruction—from the end of the war, approximately, until the middle of the 1960s—that these methods are an example of what will work today. We simply have to find, in the present situation, the method of applying these lessons of experience which are an immediate reference point, and applying these lessons of experience to the present situation.

We can put the entire international monetary system into bankruptcy! It's only a paper organization. It's only a creation of governments. The Federal Reserve System in the United States is totally bankrupt! All these banks are hopelessly bankrupt! There's nothing we can do with them, except put them into bankruptcy. It only takes one act by the government: The President and the Congress agree to put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy, into receivership; take the Federal Reserve System in—the whole thing is under control! Then you have to know how to manage the system that you've put into bankruptcy.

How do you do that? Very simply: large-scale infrastructure projects, with state credit at low interest rates. So, you build up basic economic infrastructure, you build up the industry, the development of industry, by building up the infrastructure. You build water systems, power systems, other kinds of systems which are in the public domain. And by building them up, you stimulate the market for private enterprise. As rapidly as you can develop the technology, you can expand. It was done in the post-war here, it was done in part in France, it was done in the United States.

So there's no problem, in putting a financial system through bankruptcy: After all, it is, as John Kenneth Galbraith said at one point, "It's only paper!" It is not real, it's only paper! It's worth nothing, except what government assigns to it as a value. So actually, the physical values are the important ones. So, in a crisis like this, you don't try to save the financial system. You try to have an orderly reorganization of the financial system. Orderly, which can only be done by governments.

Then, what you do, is, you must create state credit, and credit which is a byproduct of that, to launch immediately, large-scale programs of basic economic infrastructure, which are aimed to support an expansion of private production: agriculture, industry, and so forth. You change the orientation away from a greenie orientation, to what we used to have, prior to '68, back to a science-driven industrial-agricultural orientation. Change the character of universities, back to a production-oriented, science-oriented, physical-science-oriented objective, and start to produce, again, improved products which increase the productive powers of labor.

What Distinguishes Man from a Gorilla?

Now, one final point on this: The key reason why people don't understand what is, for me obvious, is because they don't understand, at least on the level of public policy, they don't understand the difference between man and a gorilla. All you have to do, is read any of these business reports and talk to any of the typical managers: They don't know the one factor that distinguishes man from a gorilla. Because, if man were, as the existentialists tell us he is—like the Frankfurt School crowd, hmm?—if man were as that, man could not make a discovery of a scientific principle. No gorilla could do that. No lower form of life can do that. Only a human being, the individual human mind, is capable of developing a discovery of principle, such as universal gravitation, for example, as Kepler did.

European civilization's progress, above the level of stagnation which had existed previously, was based on the impact of the work of particularly Nicholas of Cusa in the launching of modern experimental scientific method. It's a result of the spread of that, and the development of culture, Classical culture and literature and so forth, on the same basis, in the ideas of Dante for example, that Europe began to move as a civilization which had a significantly higher standard of living than Asia. That was the real beginning. The roots were already there, but the number of people who had expressed these roots was limited, confined, by the prevalence of empires.

So, the key to economy, the key to the ability to rise from a few million individuals living on this planet at one time, to over 6 billion today, is the creative powers of the human mind. What has happened, as Aeschylos warned us in his famous Prometheus trilogy, particularly the second part, the one that's available, Prometheus Bound: The crime for which Prometheus was condemned to torture by the Olympian Zeus, otherwise known as Satan, was that man should not be allowed to know how to use fire. Man should not be allowed to discover universal physical principles and change the way man behaves, based on the power of the individual mind to do something no gorilla can do: Is change its culture, change the character of its culture by technological progress.

Everything that was done in the post-war period, for example: In the U.S. today, the typical person coming out of a scientific education doesn't know what a scientific principle is. And the problem is illustrated by the debates in the correspondence between Albert Einstein and his friend Max Born, in a book published of these letters between them, on this subject. The typical trained scientist today, does not know what a physical principle is; he knows a mathematical formula. The name of a physical principle for him, is simply a mathematical formula. He does not understand, from an experimental standpoint, how you construct the experiment which proves the principle, as a physical principle. And that the mathematics is never an accurate representation of principle. It is simply a symbolic reflection of the principle, the experimental principle itself. And it is the elaboration of that principle in its richer form, beyond the mathematical formula, which expresses creativity.

The same thing is true of poetry. Most of today's popular poetry is garbage. Today's popular music is garbage. There is no creativity expressed in it. Yes, there's innovation. But innovation, like pretending you're having sex with a monkey, is not really creativity.

It's the ability to discover a universal principle, to discover something which lies beyond the formal, "logical," so-called, form of expression, of description of things. That is what drives society. That's what the difference is between man and a beast.

Now, if you look at it from that standpoint, there's a moral implication involved. Man is not evil. Man is not inherently wicked. Man is inherently good. But the inherent goodness of mankind, is expressed in that which makes man different than an ape. And that difference is the power of creativity, the power of the human being to discover universal principles of the universe, and to apply those principles to changing man's practice. This applies not only to practice in terms of man's mastery of nature, physical nature; it also concerns man's relationship to man, creative relationships of man. The characteristic of a society which can do that, since every society has a language which is more than just a language, it's a language-culture, it has to be done in terms of the language-culture. Because it's in terms of the language-culture that we communicate with each other. And it's the ironies of communication, not the literal statements, which define the meaning of a culture. It's the ironies of music, which define music, not the explicit notes of the score: How do you perform the thing, to make it work? And you won't get that, by reading the score. You have to know how to do that, as some of our young people have discovered, more and more.

So, the point is, man is essentially good. The idea that man is necessarily evil, is primarily evil, and has to be rescued from being man, is false! It's a fraud! Man is intrinsically good. The best living thing in this universe: Man is good!

But! Man can be corrupted. And he's corrupted, particularly, by the Olympian Zeus, the prototype of Satan, who says, "Man shall not discover principles, and apply these principles to the improvement of mankind's power to exist in the universe."

What we need as a driver, is not a system of accounting. When you're discussing economics, throw the accountants out of the room, because you won't get an economics discussion. When you want to discuss economics, you discuss creativity. You discuss how you balance physical actions, and coordinate them, in order to create an increase in the power of man to live, and the power of his ability to produce: creativity.

What is lost today, is, we've lost contact, especially under the influence of the Baby-Boomer reign, we've lost contact with the idea of creativity. Creativity is no longer a motive. The desire to get into a plant, and produce and innovate, is no longer there. The idea to make money! How to take money, not how to earn it, and how to account for taking the money—or not accounting for it—is the standard of performance.

So, the point is, man is necessarily good. The problem where we have evil, like the evil of Felix Rohatyn and his friends, is because we tolerate, in society, a standard of a conception of man which does not correspond to the natural goodness of man. And evil in humanity is simply a rejection, or flaunting, of the natural goodness of the human being. We teach people how to behave, how to obey orders, how to get rich—by stealing, preferably—not how to produce.

And the typical characteristic of the intrinsic evil of the Baby-Boomer generation, of the 68ers, is exactly this. They said, "We hate blue-collar workers. We hate farmers. We hate scientific and technological progress." That was the 68ers. That's what happened in Germany—it's called the Greenie movement. That's what destroyed Germany from within, especially. What destroys France from within. What is destroying the world from within.

We reject the goodness, that man expresses, in terms of Classical musical composition, great Classical poetry, great Classical drama, great Classical science. We reject those things! These things express the goodness of mankind, his natural goodness. And we introduce an artificial element of evil, and what might be called fairly, Satanic evil; of the idea of having a society in which people do not produce in factories and farms, do not create ideas in laboratories, do not improve the power of mankind over the universe. Do not progress with nuclear energy, immediately, on a mass scale, which is necessary to save humanity, now! Do not proceed to crash on thermonuclear fusion, which is desperately needed for man in the next generation, now.

So, man is not evil. What is evil is the culture we've imposed upon ourselves, as typified by the 68er culture.


Debra Freeman: Good afternoon. On behalf of LaRouche PAC, I'd like to welcome all of you to today's event. My name is Debra Freeman and as some you know, I serve as Lyndon LaRouche's national spokeswoman and as his representative here in Washington, D.C.

There probably is no more timely occasion than this for Mr. LaRouche to address this audience, and in fact the nationwide and international audience that is listening. I'd like to remind people that it was approximately a month ago, on June 22, that Mr. LaRouche wrote an editorial that appeared in the weekly magazine Executive Intelligence Review. The title of that editorial, was "Time Is Running Out." And in that editorial, Mr. LaRouche made an attempt to prepare both the population and our elected representatives for what was coming. So that, in fact, they could take action.

The recommended action was not designed to stop the impending collapse. There really isn't anything that can do that. But it was designed so that those in a position of responsibility could take the necessary action to mitigate the suffering that that collapse would cause the American people, and at the same time, to make sure that we preserved our capability to build out of that collapse.

At the time that that warning was issued, although it was taken seriously by many here in Washington and around the world, it was, as is often the case, taken also as a somewhat metaphorical statement. And many people responded, by saying that, yes, indeed, these were very difficult times and we were dealing with a strategic situation that could, in fact, be referred to as a crisis. But to say that, in fact, we were on the brink of World War III, that we were on the brink of not only a financial crisis but a strategic crisis of enormous dimension, well, the response was that that was "just Lyn trying to make a point."

Well, here we are, less than four weeks later, and once again, I'm in a position where I can take the podium and say, unequivocally, that "LaRouche was right."

Now, I wish I could bring you a whole series of items that would represent good news, but, in fact, I can't. And, if one were to base his state of mind on the current behavior of this government and the current behavior of the United States Congress, well, you'd really not be a happy person at all. Because, in fact, point after point, when this Congress has had the ability to take action, they have not. And I think that what we saw this week, with the Senate's unanimous passage of a resolution supporting the barbarity that is currently being carried out by the government of Israel, we see that very often we should be grateful when they don't do anything, because, when they do something, it is all too often the wrong thing.

Many people will say to those of us who represent Mr. LaRouche: "You know, I think that what LaRouche is saying is true. I think he's right. I wish your group was bigger, or had greater resources ... because I just don't know if you can win." And then they look at you, and they say, "Do you really think you can win?" And, you know, it's a fair question to ask, I suppose. And the answer, if one answers honestly, is that: Yes, we can win. But, that in fact, based on the manner in which they assess things, the odds of winning are not necessarily that good.

But there actually is an element of good news in there, and that is, that while we have no guarantee of victory in this situation, we've got a shot at it. Our enemies cannot say that.

The one thing we can say, with absolute certainty—and for those of you who are familiar with this organization and familiar, in particular, with Mr. LaRouche, it is very rare that we issue guarantees. But the one thing that I am prepared to absolutely guarantee, is that our enemies, the enemies of this nation and the enemies of humanity, absolutely cannot win. And under those circumstances, the wise thing to do, as well as the moral thing to do, is to take the shot that we have, at preserving this nation, and preserving this nation as a leader of a drive toward progress.

Mr. LaRouche is one of the few people who is prepared to actually stand at the helm of such a movement. And in fact, that is precisely what he has done, week-in week-out, despite the less-than-courageous actions by some of the people whom we are seeking to assist.

That is the backdrop of today's event. That is, in part, the message that the LaRouche Youth Movement has spread throughout the city during the first three days of the week, and which they will continue to spread throughout this city, into today and tomorrow. It is also the message, along with what Mr. LaRouche says today, that will be carried across the United States.

And now that I'm certain that there's no longer a line outside, without further ado, I'd like to introduce Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

An Israeli friend of mine, who is well-known in Israel and outside of Israel as a leading strategic thinker, had a discussion with my wife in the past 24 hours, on the situation in the Middle East. And he said, in his opinion, from the standpoint of Israeli interests, that what is going on now would not be continued much longer, in terms of Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Unless, he said, unless this is a strategic move, by other sources which are now pushing for an immediate response to an impending, general economic collapse of the world economic-monetary system.

In point of fact, the world economic-financial system, and much of the political system at the same time, is presently in the process of collapse. And for that reason, because there's a correlation between what's going on in Southwest Asia, what's going on in India, what was going on in the context of the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, in Russia, we're on the verge of a condition tantamount to the Guns of August of 1914 and 1939. Now. We're not looking at a war of the type, we would class as World War I or World War II. We're talking about something worse, not less dangerous. We're talking about the danger of a general disintegration of global civilization. And it all is tied together with the present economic situation.

This being the case, and the facts to this effect having been presented to leading circles in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere, the U.S. Senate in particular: Why has the Congress behaved like a bunch of braying asses? And being a braying ass does not qualify you as a Democrat! But they seem to have thought they were.

It's because they're Baby-Boomers. Now, a Baby-Boomer is not exactly a generation. And I shall speak to you today as being nigh on to 84 years of age, and therefore have a corresponding experience of life which is probably richer than most people of my age-group, because I was active in certain ways as a youngster. I lived through the 1920s, through a generation of my parents and older people, who were better called de-generates: Because they were corrupt. This was the age of Coolidge, and the age of Wilson. Our society was immensely corrupt.

But when the time came, and when the Hoover Administration had led the U.S. economy down by one-half in physical condition, over the period from 1929, the end of '29 to the end of February of 1933, we had a President, who fortunately was not assassinated, though many in the Democratic Party leadership of that time wanted him assassinated! And even planned to do it. But didn't succeed, because an honest general and some other people, a Marine general, blew the whistle on it, and they couldn't pull off the coup d'état, to do a Nazi-style coup inside the United States. We were fortunate to have a President Roosevelt, who led this nation, to save the world from what otherwise would have been inevitably a Hitler dictatorship, worldwide. A Hitler dictatorship conceived by leading banking interests, financial interests, which are the same interests behind Felix Rohatyn and similar forces in the world today.

So, we are facing today, exactly the same evil, that we faced in the form of Adolf Hitler, and Mussolini, and so forth. And we are facing it at the hands of the descendants of exactly the same circles of financiers, and other circles, which were behind Hitler then, circles inside the United States, inside France, inside the Netherlands, inside Britain, as well as inside Spain, Italy, and inside Germany. The same thing, the same crowd, with the same ultimate objectives.

The World Was Bankrupt

Now, I lived through these experiences. I lived through the moment that Franklin Roosevelt died. And I came back to the United States from military service abroad, in the Spring of 1946. The country had changed. The passing of Roosevelt had meant a moral degeneration of our country. I saw my friends, who had been heroes in warfare, who had been courageous, turned into stinking cowards under the Truman Administration, and what it represented. Because Truman was on the opposite side from Roosevelt! And did everything he could to destroy the life's work of Franklin Roosevelt, at the moment that Roosevelt died!

But they couldn't get rid of one thing: The whole world was bankrupt, and only the United States, as Roosevelt had led it to recovery, was capable of providing the basis for a recovery of the world economy. And so, until the middle of the 1960s, the Bretton Woods system, and some of the other essential economic intentions for the domestic United States and abroad, were carried through. So we had a period of recovery of much of the world, over a period of 20 years, even after Roosevelt had died. And that continued until about the beginning of the war in Indo-China, which was made possible by the assassination of a President of the United States, Kennedy, who was one of a series of targets of assassination and similar things, like President Charles de Gaulle of France, was a target of assassination by the same forces, the Nazi forces, the same force, exactly as behind Felix Rohatyn in the United States and abroad, today!

So, we had the Indo-China War. It was a demoralization of our population, to be in such a war. This was the worst kind of war to be involved in, long wars! It has been called a dark age war, as it was called Armageddon, later. It had many of those characteristics of the kind of war you never fight, if you can avoid it, unless it's forced on you. You never seek it out. You never try to fight it. You never declare it. You may declare against it, but you never declare it. Not if you're human. Not if you're sane. Not if you're moral.

As you wouldn't have started this war in Iraq. If you had been sane, you wouldn't have done it. If you had been moral, you wouldn't have done it. There was never a reason. It was based on lies! And it's still based on lies—by a President who is not called a criminal, because he's insane. And I mean it: He is insane. He's a puppet, but a dangerous puppet, a malicious puppet. We lived through this. I lived through these things before.

A History Lesson

The object here, and I'll give you two lessons today, which I give in other locations, but I'll give them here in this context. One is a history lesson; the other which is crucial, is an economics lesson. Something that no one in the Congress apparently seems to understand is, the basic principles of economy. They don't! You would have to say, if they're innocent, it's because they're stupid, when it comes to economics, because, what they're allowing, what they're doing is stupid. And I'll make that clear.

All right, in the history of the thing: Remember what we are, as I know it from my experience, and people from my same age-group know. We saved the planet. We saved the planet from Hitler and what that meant. Oh, other people did it, too, but without us, without our President Roosevelt, and without our support for that effort, you wouldn't have had the period of growth and peace and so forth, that we had, relatively speaking, in recent times. We'd have been living under Nazism or its aftermath.

But, what happened was, not only did Truman betray the United States—and he betrayed the United States, because we knew what the interest was of the United States at the time the war ended. We knew that. What did this bum do? This stinking bum. What did he do?

Now, before the war had ended, the Emperor Hirohito of Japan had extended a negotiation to the United States and other nations for a peace treaty, or an armistice. He had processed it through the diplomatic channels into the foreign office of the Vatican, the Secretary of State of the Vatican. And into the office of a special part of the Secretariat of State of the Vatican, which was the Extraordinary Affairs group, then headed by a Monsignor Montini, who later became Pope Paul VI. The conditions for the surrender were arranged, with the United States while Franklin Roosevelt lived. Hmm?

I had a friend of mine who was the head of OSS in Italy at that time, who was a personal observer of the details of that negotiation. This friend of mine was also a friend of General Donovan, the head of OSS. Both were attached to the Roosevelt tradition. So, the facts are known. The facts of this case have been verified by the Vatican, more recently, to a member of that friend's family.

What did Truman do?

Japan was defeated! Its situation was hopeless! All that was left was the main island, and you couldn't get a ship in or out of the main island, because the United States Air Force, Navy, and Army had the thing so securely blockaded, that Japan had to surrender.

But now, Truman became President. Why didn't the United States offer to honor the agreement of armistice with the Emperor of Japan, which would have ended the war? Because, Truman said, "No. We don't honor the agreement." And why didn't he? Because Truman, working with people in Britain and elsewhere, knowing that we had nuclear weapons—Truman didn't know about this until he became President. We had two prototype nuclear weapons, one a uranium bomb, one a plutonium bomb. These were laboratory devices, not production-line devices. So, we dropped one on Hiroshima, another on Nagasaki, which were civilian cities, civilian populations: Why?

Roosevelt vs. Churchill

We had a defeated enemy, Japan, whose head of state was prepared to surrender! We postponed the surrender in order to bombard two Japanese cities with nuclear bombs, the only two we had. We'd had a third one, but used it as a prototype for testing in Los Alamos. Why did we do that?

Because: The Truman policy was directly opposite to Roosevelt's! Roosevelt's policy, as he said to Churchill during the war, and said to others, "When this war ends, Winston, we're not going to have your British system any more on this planet. We're going to have the American system. And that means, that those colonial nations are going to be freed! We're going to help them develop." He said that repeatedly. He said it in a visit to Morocco, where he laid out the details of the plan for Africa, while he was there.

What happened? Truman not only dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—on a defeated enemy, unnecessarily!—he saved not one American life by that effort! None! He would have saved American lives by giving the armistice terms, presenting them earlier, because attrition did kill some people. So therefore, you stop a war as soon as you can. Because simply keeping the war going will mean more people will die, even if you don't make any new attacks.

What did Truman do? Well, Indo-China had been liberated—by whom? Well, by people from the OSS, and by Ho Chi Minh, who was a collaborator of the United States. What did we do? Well, the British requested, and Truman allowed: We had Japanese prisoners of war, in camps, in Indo-China. The orders were to release these people from the camps, give them back their weapons, and have them occupy Indo-China all over again—which had been liberated by forces associated with the U.S. OSS forces. We did the same kind of thing in Indonesia, which also had struggled for its liberation. The Dutch went in there with allies, and butchered the resistance to recolonization. Recolonization was on the agenda, this was the Truman policy.

So, what happened? Well, as a result of this, Truman was committed to a policy crafted by Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell was probably the most evil man of the 20th Century. He was the one who devised a policy of using nuclear bombardment, preventive nuclear bombardment, as a way of causing the Soviet Union and other nations to give up national sovereignty—i.e., globalization—and to submit to world government.

An Economics Lesson

That was the Truman plan: Recolonize, loot, suppress, lie, kill! Betray everything he dared to betray. That's what he did.

We did something else. In this process, we formed a series of organizations, presumably to "fight Communism." Presumably. But what did they actually do? They targetted the section of the population born approximately between 1945 and 1957. This section of the population which was targetted, were families whose children would probably go to universities and become the leaders of society, the upper crust of society, once they came into maturity. Not the whole generation, but the generation of the upper 20% of family-income brackets, the future upper 20%, which became later known as the 68ers. The people who, in 1968, massed on the streets, and took their clothes off to demonstrate their sincerity—hmm?—and had all kinds of things they did; smoked everything, did everything, and so forth; and decided that people who worked for a living in blue collars, blue shirts, were no good; that farmers were no good; scientists were no good; technology was no good, and scientific and technological progress were no good. And having to work was lousy. This is called the Baby-Boomer.

These people were called the "Golden Generation"—which I used to refer to as the "Golden De-Generation": known for its brass! Right?

So, what happened is, we have a generation which is now between 50 and 67 years of age, from this particular stratum or influenced by this stratum, which has created a culture called the "Golden Generation" culture, or the Baby-Boomer culture, or "we don't fight; we kill, but we don't fight." We got a victim, we kill him. We don't fight. If he's got a gun, we don't fight.

What we have done, if you look at the figures on what's happened sociologically to our country, since the beginning or the middle of the Vietnam War, when the 68ers moved, we moved against infrastructure development, on which our economy depends. Fifty percent of a healthy economy depends upon basic economic infrastructure, power, water, so forth, municipal care, these kinds of things—50%. Most of this investment is in the form of investments in facilities or institutions, which have a half-life of 25 years, and a full life of 50 years or more. The kinds of things that are wearing out and breaking down and failing, today, in the United States, because we haven't repaired them; we haven't fixed them or replaced them during the past 40-odd years. And it was the Baby-Boomers that did it. They are the ones that came in with the "Green Revolution," with Sun Day—and that isn't a day of worship. That's a day of deviltry.

So we have destroyed our economy deliberately. What we've done is, we've destroyed the kind of economy and the kind of society, an egalitarian society, which we had, and fought for, under Franklin Roosevelt, to get it back. After a lot of bum Presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who were Ku Klux Klan types, and they obviously are not egalitarians, are they? And people like Coolidge. And people like Hoover, who was personally not a bad guy, but he was an instrument of a bad policy, and he did rotten things accordingly.

We were being destroyed; we got our country back. Under Roosevelt and a group of people around him, who inspired our people who were being oppressed and immiserated—and I saw it—and who had done something else. We were a stinking population still in the '30s, I can tell you, I was there. I was in schools, I was in college and so forth, and I saw it.

Reaction to Pearl Harbor

I was on the streets of New York on Dec. 7, 1941, a Sunday morning. And I was going over to a business appointment from the streets of New York to a hotel, where the relevant meeting was occurring. I got there. There was a strange mood in the hotel lobby. I couldn't understand it. And then I heard: Pearl Harbor had been struck.

Now, how did our people react? How did my generation react to that bombardment, to that news? You couldn't keep them from volunteering! There was no good news. There was no easy promise of victory. This was Hell!

But, in fact, for the alliance of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, but for that alliance, you'd be living under Hitler, or an after-Hitler period, today. Those were the odds. We, in the United States, were the gut that saved humanity. And it was people of my generation reacting to '41, and to Franklin Roosevelt, that mobilized and turned the world around and saved humanity from what would have been otherwise inevitable Nazi terror, and occupation of the planet, and whatever came after Hitler. And it is exactly that, that is being betrayed, and it is exactly that, which is the purpose: That betrayal, is the purpose of the policies under which the Baby-Boomer generation, which now dominates the Congress, and dominates other leading institutions of society, was raised.

And you find, the fact of the matter that I have to deal with, and you have to deal with in life, you find that over the process since these events, since the events of 1968 to 1971 and beyond, that people who used to work for a living, and trade unionists, or farmers and so forth, who had pride, over the course of that period of the 1970s, began to lose their pride. They began to lose their sense that they were important people whose voice was important in shaping the policies of government. You saw a period, in the '70s and into the '80s, in which the typical person, who was in a Democratic Party organization as the popular part, began to drift away from parties. There's a separation of the political population; the majority of the population was separated from the idea that government was theirs. That they owned the government—not completely, but had a voice in the government. It was what they said were their interests, which were their interests, or had to be heard as such.

Now, they don't believe that any more. The problem we have in the population, is the Golden Generation, so-called, generally 50 to 65 years of age, which runs most of the institutions, as a group, with their ideology, and says, "We make policy." Look what's happening right now to this Senate that wouldn't do a damned thing for the country! They said, "We want our riches. We're going for the upper class." What do you mean by the "upper class"? The upper 20% of family-income brackets. We're orienting, we're going to the right wing! We don't want to hear about the lower 80% of the population! We want the lower 80% of the population to be grateful for the fact that we're there! But don't come up to us, and ask us to do something for you. Don't ask us to listen to you. Don't ask us to remedy the evils that are done, with your consent, to us, to our communities.

And that's the cultural change. That's what we're up against.

Our Cultural Problem

Now, I'm not saying that these people, of Golden Generation so-called, or the "Brassy Generation," are evil. I'm saying, they're corrupted. They're sophists! They have the same kind of mental disease that Greece had in Athens, that led Athens under Pericles, which had been at that point the leading civilization of the Mediterranean region of that time, and led it into an act of murder, on the island of Melos: a Nazi-like murder, which was the beginning of the total corruption of Greece, and led to the Peloponnesian War, which was the end of the hegemony of Greek civilization at that time.

We in the United States, the Athens of America, we have allowed the generation, just the way it was done in ancient Greece, in Athens before the Peloponnesian War, we allowed the young generation, people being raised to become adults, to rise at the time of their maturity, when they reached about the age of 20 and so forth, to be the "Golden Generation" of Pericles, of the "Golden Age" of Pericles: which was the doom of Greece!

We created a Golden Generation among us: the Baby-Boomer generation, the upper 20% of family-income brackets that bought into this deal.

And the way this was done, was by a very evil organization, led formally in the United States by Sidney Hook, a personal enemy of mine. Or the American Family Foundation, another evil institution. Large think-tanks, influential institutions, evil institutions, the corruption of our universities, the corruption of our campuses; the destruction of competent education; the brainwashing of people in all categories of education. This is what was done to us.

We have become the Athens of America, self-doomed: Because of the Golden Generation!

Now, the only way you're going to get this thing solved, is in part through an upsurge of the masses of people who do not wait for "permission" for the voice of the lower 80% of our family income-brackets to speak of their rights, to speak of their interests, to speak of the interests of their generation, the coming generation, their children, their grandchildren.

And the second thing, we have to find among the Golden Generation, people such as Bill Clinton and others, who are decent human beings personally, and have good intentions, though they have the taint and corruption of being part of their generation: We have to get them to treat their generation as a disease, and set out to cure that disease, instead of adapting to it. The tendency of the Baby-Boomer is, they will not share anything except their diseases, especially their mental diseases. And that's what they do. And we want Bill Clinton to reform. And to become a prophet of what has to be done, rather than what he wants to adapt to. I know that'll take a lot of guts on his part. I think he's got the guts to do it, under the right circumstances, with the right kind of support from people immediately around him.

How To Save the Nation

But that's our problem. We can save the nation. We can save civilization. There's no guarantee that it will work, but it's the only shot we have! Just as on Pearl Harbor Day, 1941: It's the only shot we have. It's either fight that war, or give up. And give up everything we live for. And give up the future of our people. We're going to fight, because we have to fight, because we have no alternative but to fight. Not because we seek war, but because it has been forced upon us: a fight to save civilization.

Now, as you know, most people aren't civilized. That's a problem. And this comes through economics.

The basic problem—that's why I'm turning to economics here, today, not just economics as a subject per se, but economics as moral issue, an issue of personal morality, which most people lack. They don't know what personal morality is, in terms of economics. They don't know what the difference is, between man and an ape. That's the problem.

Every species of animal has a general limitation on its population-density. The limitation is relative. It's relative to the conditions under which the animal lives, or the animal species lives. But it has a limit. Man does not. If man were a higher ape, our population on this planet would never have exceeded several million individuals at any one time. We now have over 6 billion. How did that happen? And the greatest part of this growth in population, the rate of growth, and improvement in condition of life of the average human being on the planet, miserable as it is in some parts, has occurred since the beginning of the 15th Century, with the Golden Renaissance. And it began in Europe.

So, in European civilization, in the 15th Century, there was a beginning of change, where the life-expectancy and size of the population, the conquest of disease, the improvement of powers of man in production and so forth, and improvements in statecraft in the organization of society, all began there, that is, in a significant stage. We now have over 6 billion people. And that involves some problems, some challenges we can meet, so that's not the problem. But we have 6 billion people! Why do we have 6 billion people? Because we're not apes—much as many members of our Congress seem to believe they are. What's the difference in economics, and it's an issue which is central to my work in economics in particular? It's called creativity.

Now, people use the word creativity loosely. I mean, if a guy learns how to unzip his fly, it's called creativity. This is not what I mean. If he can't unzip his fly, that may be a lack of creativity, but that's a different kind of problem. And if he knows when to do it, and when not to do it, that's also very important.

Universal Principles

Now, it's the discovery of a universal principle: In the first instance we think of universal principles as universal physical principles. And one of the paradigms for this is Johannes Kepler's unique discovery of the principle of universal gravitation. And nobody else but Johannes Kepler made it, hmm? What is this difference? It's that mankind, the human mind, is capable of discovering universal physical principles in the universe, which no animal could do. We transmit these discoveries, if we're decent about it; we transmit the reenactment of these same discoveries to other human beings, who can reenact this discovery, because they, too, are human! We concentrate on educating our populations, so they are prepared to go through the experience of reenacting these kinds of discoveries. To some degree, this is limited to professions. But it spills over from one profession to the population more generally.

And this is creativity.

Creativity also occurs in a different form. It occurs in the form of Classical art, true Classical art. Not Classical because it's ancient, or Classical because it's habitual. But because it has the same principle in it, as the discovery of a universal physical principle such as gravitation. For example: We concentrate in the Youth Movement on things like the Bach Jesu, meine Freude motet, because, in order to perform this competently—and that takes some help from people who are masters of it—in order to perform it competently, you have to do something—except you don't sing the notes. You have to do something much more: You have to understand how to integrate the performance of the voices in such a way, that the intention of Bach comes forth. This means that you can not simply read a score, note by note. "I sing my note. I know my note. I sing my note!" A monkey can do that. But monkeys can't do Bach, just can't do it—some try, but they can't.

Because, in Classical art, you have the same thing: You have social processes, social relations, such as Classical polyphony, the singing of it. The same kind of processes which you use for physical scientific discoveries, are now applied to social relations. This includes not only music, as in the Bach tradition, it also includes natural law, the formation of law; all the other kinds of things we do, to impart and share the potentialities of the human mind, as unique, as different from the apes, in our social life. Creativity.

Now, let's stick to Kepler, his discovery of gravitation. Now, the usual explanation is nonsense. What Kepler discovered was the basis for the Leibniz calculus: That is, that the principle of gravitation, the way it functioned, as Kepler measured this very precisely, is a constant rate of change in motion within the orbit. That is, the elliptical orbit does not determine the motion, the motion determines the elliptical orbit. Now, what Kepler emphasized is this particular characteristic, a principle of the universe.

Now, as others understood after him, such as Einstein in the 1950s when he commented on this thing in some detail, is that the principle of gravitation is universal: It exists as a universal, in the universe, as an acting universal. So that the universe is therefore finite. Because there is nothing outside the reach of gravitation. There are other principles, which, like the principle of gravitation, are universal. And to the extent they are determined to be validly universal, we know that they reach as far as the universe does, at all times. And the universe is finite in respect to these principles. This, man discovers.

Discoveries of the Human Mind

Therefore, these kinds of principles and the discovery by the human mind—something no animal can do—are what define the human being. And the just society, particularly modern society with our access to things, a just society does two things: First of all, it demands that every child be brought into this world, and developed with the ability, which is natural to them: with the development of the ability to understand and recognize universal principles, both physical principles and principles of Classical artistic composition. In this way, scientific progress is necessary for us, not merely because we need it materially to meet human needs. Scientific and Classical artistic progress is necessary because we need it for our souls' sake. We need to be human.

And we need to be human, in the sense that what we discover, that we transfer to people after us, when we die, lives on. So that, our brief life, our brief mortal life, is a moment in eternity, which lives in eternity, because our living life participates in the universe, for all time.

And, it's this perception, this understanding of oneself, and what it is to be human, which defines a moral society. Which is the willingness to die if necessary, for one's nation, in order to perpetuate these values for future generations of humanity, and also to honor the previous generations which have given us these gifts to share. We require technological progress, scientific progress, not merely to become richer, or more powerful, though we need that. We need scientific and technological progress and cultural progress, because we need to be immortal, as no animal can be. We need to participate in the discovery and application of universal physical principles and artistic principles that no animal could do. And when we find our motivation and our morality, in that, we are morally invincible.

Immortality of the Individual

And what happened with the Baby-Boomer generation, is many of them will pretend to be Christians. I laugh: "Go tell God."

Because, they are not committed to anything! Typical: Look at your gaping audience of stupid creatures, these Tweeners. You see these films, these television programs of these masses of Tweeners, with a couple of old fakers on the platform, going through fundamentalism, like Tim LaHaye's fools. Dupes! They call themselves Christians? They love Jews so much, they're going to go out and kill them? Like Tim LaHaye? Hmm? They are Christians?

No! This is fakery.

But there is something real. There is the reality of the importance of recognizing the nature of the immortality of the individual, as distinct from the animals. And that the motive in life, is to serve that sense of immortality in an efficient way. And to honor those who have gone before us, as immortal for us, as we must commit ourselves to future generations of all humanity.

Because there are no human races: There's only one human race. All human beings, of whatever background, have biologically approximately the same potential for creativity. It's just a question of what happens to them, and how they develop. And whether we help them develop, or not. So therefore, that should be our motive.

Therefore, when you face a situation like this, the threat of war—and we are facing a threat of war, worse than anything we could imagine from World War I or II. That's what we face, now. We face global asymmetric warfare: We're facing a form of Hell which no man knows.

Rohatyn Is a Nazi

But you have the force of evil, and Felix Rohatyn is evil. Some people say, "You shouldn't call him a Nazi." Why not? He is. "Well, he doesn't like it." Well, tell him to wash! Wash himself for a change.

No, the problem is, Felix is really evil. He's not evil in the sense that he stole a tart. He's evil in the sense that he's made himself immortally, intrinsically evil. Because, he's dedicated to the destruction of humanity. And he represents a group of people—just exactly like that behind Hitler! Exactly the same!—which has a conception that they want a planet with less than a billion people on it. They want the elimination of the nation-state. They want globalization, controlled by these financier interests: The same thing that the Hitler movement was for, the same thing the people behind Hitler were for: Return to the Crusades.

Remember, look at the history of this thing. Charlemagne develops a world order, in collaboration with the Islamic culture of the Arab Baghdad Caliphate. In collaboration with Jews who were the mediation, largely, in the work between Haroun al-Rashid of Baghdad and Charlemagne. These forces moved to destroy what Charlemagne was trying to build. And they took a bunch of gangsters, who were called the Norman chivalry, working for Venetian usurers, and they set up a system called the Crusades. And they killed everybody: Muslims, Jews, everyone. And destroyed society, destroyed civilization.

What Rohatyn represents is a process, a movement, which has continued to exist in the Venetian tradition, since that time, which has moved in and is determined to create what is called a globalized world order, a globalized world order, in which much of society is destroyed, in which most nation-states which presently exist, disappear from the planet, in which the population is down to, say, three-quarters of a billion people, or less, in a fairly short order, and in which the world is run by syndicates of bankers.

Privatized warfare: What happened? For example, the case of Halliburton—what is Halliburton? And Rohatyn and George Shultz, and the Cheney crowd, Rumsfeld crowd, are all for this. Destroy the control of the military by governments. Turn military functions over to private armies—like Halliburton. Destroy the regular military, and let private armies, controlled by syndicates of financier power, run the world by force! We had a proposal like that; it started the late part of the mid-1940s. It was called the international Waffen SS: Where the bankers behind the Nazi system were going to replace the Wehrmacht, finally and totally, with an international SS, the international Waffen SS. Which is what Michael Ledeen represents in his proposals today.

This is the kind of thing we're dealing with. This is the enemy of civilization. We must destroy it.

Generalized Irregular Warfare

Now, what happened? Israel did not start this current war—yes, there's a war situation that's been going on there in the region of Southwest Asia for a long time—Cheney did! And Bush did! Cheney didn't dream it up. They're the instruments which are used to launch it. The Israeli generals, the Israeli leaders, the senior ones, know this is crap! They know what the Israeli government and others are saying about this situation, is crap! The Hezbollah is not going to puffed away in a short period of time. We're looking at generalized irregular warfare, throughout the entire region.

There is no solution in Iraq! Iraq will not be solved for a long time to come. The United States has made an unholy mess of Iraq which can not be repaired for a some time to come. Afghanistan, which we went into first, is now far worse, far more menacing, than it ever was before! We have the spread of chaos, throughout the world, bloody chaos! You're looking at something like the beginning, the onset of a new dark age.

And some people wish to bring it on! This is what my Israeli friend said. He said there's no likelihood that anybody would be involved in extending this war, which is being conducted nominally by Israel now, but which actually, Israel is doing under orders, from Cheney and company, and Bush—not on their own volition. That's why they're shutting up! They're shutting up about the facts. They know the facts! They know the situation is hopeless. They know what, apart from all the propaganda, they know what the forces are involved in, in southern Lebanon. They know the correlation of forces in the Middle East.

This is insane!

It is absolutely insane for Israel to be involved in that kind of war! It means the destruction of Israel and everything around it—in a fairly short order. Why do they do it? They're doing it, because they're being pressured to do it. And the pressure comes nominally through stupid Bush, who's a psychotic, and Cheney, who is a sociopath. But it's coming from higher levels, typified by the bankers who are associated with Felix Rohatyn.

Turning Point

And therefore, we're at a point, where the problem we have with the Senate is sophistry. And the sophistry problem is what I've described: It's the Baby-Boomer generation, the Golden Generation-type of sophistry. And therefore, they don't accept reality! They reject reality! Because they assume that their will—hmm? The Will! Like Hitler: the Will! As at a Nuremberg rally: The Will! The All-Powerful Will, will do everything for us. "It is our Will, that it will happen. Therefore it'll happen." "We Will—we have agreed, that this will happen." "We in the Senate have agreed!" "We in the House have agreed (except for a few holdouts). There, it will happen. Because we have agreed!" "Heil Hitler!"

What's the difference? The act of the Will! The Triumph of Will. "I believe! I don't care what the truth is, I believe. I don't care what you say, I believe!" Like a fundamentalist rally: "I believe!" They're worshipping Satan; "I believe Christ." "Why do you believe in Satan, then? Why do you serve Satan?"

They say, "I'm all for the Jews."


"Because we're going to kill 'em." Tim LaHaye: When we get in power, we're going to give 'em one chance. You either become a Christian now, or we shoot you! Or something else!

The most vicious anti-Semites on this planets are called Zionists, like Tim LaHaye.

No, this is the problem: We don't have rationality. And we who fight for the tradition of the lower 80% of the population, we find ourselves outnumbered by the upper 20%. We produce—"Oh, you just produce. We are the ones who get the pensions. We get the golden parachutes. We are the important people."

"What do you do?"

"Oh, we take the money."

That's what you're dealing with!

So, the problem here, essentially is, these poor fellows, these Baby-Boomers, because they're sophists, do not believe in the soul. They may have thought they sold it for something or another, or it went out with garbage, went out with the bag full of garbage. They don't believe that they have an immortality, they don't believe that they're accountable to past and future generations. They don't believe that their pleasure and what they get, physically, is not the end of life. Animals get that—you want to become an animal? Okay, become an animal! Take your citizenship card, tear it up. "I'm not a citizen any more, I'm an animal." Turn yourself in to the Animal Rescue League.

Take Moral Responsibility

If you're a human being, then you have a moral responsibility, which is innate in the fact that you're a human being. And as you say in religion, you're out to save your soul! That's what you do things for. You don't have to be religious, in the formal sense of being a member of this or that religion: You have to know that's what essential. You do it because it's the right thing to do! You risk your life because it's the right thing to do. You take the pain, because it's the right thing to do. You take the risk, because it's the right thing to do.

How the devil do you think we got this far, in the United States? How do you think we got through Hitler, and got through the other problems we've had, except by people who took that? And who concentrated on trying to inspire and encourage other people to do likewise. It was always a minority of the total population that was the fighting edge of mankind, and everything good that happened. But much of the rest of mankind would follow along, and take the benefit, and say, "Hey, this is good, I gotta be something like that, myself."

So, this is inspiring people to understand, and find their morality—and I admit, it's very difficult to get a Baby-Boomer to accept morality, because they have a completely different agenda. But you have a few people like Bill Clinton and others, who are worth saving, and should be saved, and must be saved. In the sense, that these people are Baby-Boomers who can face up to the reality of their guilt, and do have a higher sense of morality, a commitment to do something for their future while they're still alive; something for the future of mankind, while they're still alive. And face the reality of the challenge and the risks we face, in doing that.

And that's what is lacking.

The System Is About To Come Down

And thus, what's happened is you've come to a point, a watershed: We're at a point, where by approximately September, not precisely—forecasting is not predicting, it's not predicting something's going to happen in a mechanical statistical way—but approximately September, as it stands now, you can expect the whole system to come down. The way it's going now, it's finished. And most people in high places around the world, who are in this area, would tend to agree with me. "Yeah, you're right. You're probably right. This is what we're worried about."

We're getting that in Russia, we're getting it in Europe, and so forth. All these financial circles are saying, "It can't go on like this. The system is about to come down." And it'll probably come down about September—plus or minus, who knows? There can be changes.

Then, that's the war situation. We're up at the point where you must estimate: We have to be prepared for the expectation that the system will come down in September. Maybe it won't, maybe it will. Maybe it'll come down later. If there's a change for the better, it might not come down. I could fix it, I could fix this thing. If I were President of the United States, I could deal with it. This jerk couldn't, of course.

But that's where we stand. Therefore: The enemy knows that, too. The people behind this stupid jerk, Felix Rohatyn know it, too. They know that approximately that time, they've got to figure the system will come down then. Their issue is, they want to get control of the world through chaos, by the time the crash occurs. To make sure that no Franklin Roosevelt, or his like, would intervene, as Roosevelt intervened in early March of 1933, to respond to a general crash of the world system, with initiatives from the United States, which, in fact, could save the world from Hell.

And that's what the issue is. And that's what my Israeli friend's problem was, in what he said: That, if the war is coming soon, if the breakdown of the system is coming soon, then, what is happening with the United States pushing Israel into a war which the Israeli leaders, at least all the sane ones, know is an insane project, well, then that's almost inevitable. We've got to stop it.

But we'll only stop it, by making clear what the issue is. This is not an "Israeli" issue. This is an issue of Felix Rohatyn and what he represents, the people behind poor, stupid Bush, and Cheney. They're the ones who are pushing this war. They're pushing Israel on a suicide mission for the greater glory of Cheney, and Felix Rohatyn! And we've got to stop it.

And therefore, we need people in the Congress and elsewhere, who have the guts to give up this sophistry of theirs, and face the facts about the economy and about the system. And be prepared to join us, and do what is necessary.

I know what to do to deal with this financial crisis. I know exactly what to do. And that's what I'm prepared to see done. I need their permission to do it.

Dialogue With LaRouche

Freeman: Lyn, the first question actually comes from someone who directs one of the progressive think tanks here in Washington. And he says, "Mr. LaRouche, I was familiar with your organization long before I came to Washington to try to affect national policy. In fact, although I was never prepared to fully commit, I was on the fringes of your organization during a good portion of my college years."

He says, "Back then, you were harshly critical of people like George McGovern and Gene McCarthy. Yet, today, it does in fact seem that they are both counted among your friends.

"My question is, has your view of that period changed? Or have you simply decided to put differences aside for the sake of the greater good? I ask the question not simply out of personal interest, but I ask it, because it seems to me that if there is any way that we are going to make it through the current period, that people are going to have to take what are minor differences and put them aside, in the interest of a greater national interest."

This is a transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's international webcast opening presentation Sept. 6, from Berlin and Washington, D.C., sponsored by LaRouche's Political Action Committee. The meeting was chaired in Berlin by Jessica Tremblay and Jonathan Tennenbaum, and by Debra Freeman in Washington. Video and audio recordings and a PDF version of the webcast are also available. See also the transcript of the question-and-answer session.

Jessica Tremblay: Good afternoon. My name is Jessica Tremblay, a representative of the LaRouche Youth Movement here—and good morning, of course, in Washington, D.C. This is an international webcast, and the first time that a webcast of this sort has taken place simultaneously in Berlin and in Washington, D.C., so, it's quite an historical event, and a great honor also to be able to introduce Mr. LaRouche at this point.

Mr. LaRouche wrote a discussion paper about three weeks ago, called "Dynamics & Economy," which was sent to many relevant international institutions and dignitaries throughout the world for discussion, a question of the discussion of a solution for this international financial crisis. Many of the questions that we will hear, will be a part of this discussion process on the question of a solution to this international financial crisis, and they will reflect the ongoing dialogue with Mr. LaRouche.

I think the most important thing to say is that Mr. LaRouche has said that these proceedings today, and his keynote address, will be historically even more significant than in October of 1988, when he predicted the collapse of the entire Soviet system of the Comecon. And if I think of how important that was, and what it meant for history, I think that this will be quite a special day. ...

So, Lyn, are you ready?

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you very much.

The cycle of world history which is coming to a close during the current months, began with the April 1945 death of President Franklin Roosevelt. My first prescience of the fact that this was the beginning of a new cycle of history, a break with the old cycle of history, struck me on the evening that our military unit, which was then passing through India on the way to service in northern Burma, received the news of the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. Now, during the course of that day, a number of the soldiers came to me, and asked if they would have an opportunity to discuss something with me that evening. So, after the Sun set, we went out and we met, and the question was very simple: What does the death of President Roosevelt mean for us now? Now the question came. I wasn't really surprised by the question, but I was surprised. And I heard the words coming out of my mouth, and I can still remember my reply, because it astonished me—my own reply, to the present day—and I said: "I'm really not certain. But I know that we entered this war under the leadership of a great man. And now, the country is being led by a very little man. I'm afraid for our country."

That was the beginning of a new, current cycle of world history.

More than a year later, as I was back from service in northern Burma, and I was stationed for a while in Calcutta before returning to the United States. I made the acquaintance of a large number of people, because I was simply that kind of person. I simply got the telephone directories out, looked up all the political parties in Calcutta, and made appointments to meet with leaders of these parties, in each case, to find out what really is going on in this country. And in the course of that, having met a large number of the leaders in the Bengal area, there was a case in which one morning, some people assembled in a trolley area on the north side of the Maidan, between Darma Hata and Chowringhee juncture, and some of these fellows I knew. And they were going out for a routine demonstration to the Governor General's Palace, which was down this long street, which extends from Darma Hata, and this was usually a routine demonstration, protesting for Indian independence, and so forth.

But on this particular day, the guards, who were armed with large bamboo sticks with brass tips on them—it was called a lathee—made a lathee charge against the people, and killed and injured a number of people with these particular weapons. This resulted in a large protest, because the country was explosive in its temper at the time. And so, on the following day, there was an influx, a great influx of people, to protest this.

Now, the Maidan—it's still there—is a central area, a park area, in Calcutta. And the main street, Chowringhee—what was then the most prosperous, the shopping street, and so forth—Chowringhee ran up toward an intersection with Darma Hata Street, which cut across and ran you out to the direction of the Governor General's Palace. So, the crowd got off the trains, and several of them were coming down Darma Hata in the direction of the junction of Chowringhee and Darma Hata. At that point, there were British police, with heavy machine guns, stationed at the street at this junction. And as the protest mob came down the street, they opened full fire with machine gun fire into the mob.

On the following day, when I happened to get out there to see what had happened on the previous day, the streets were still covered with the accumulation of dried or semi-dried blood, of these people.

As the result, at that point, the whole population of Bengal virtually swarmed into Calcutta, and the police shut down the trains so more people couldn't come in. But millions of people began marching—around and around the city, day and night. And I would get out in the Maidan area, as a soldier; the British had left town; only Americans were left there, apart from the Indians themselves. And I watched this great surging mob, marching abreast, just marching, marching, marching: And one cry would be "Jai Hind!" from the Hindus. And then there'd be a responsive cry, by people in the same ranks, "Pakistan Zindabad!" And they were marching together, for their freedom, and against this monstrosity which typified the British role throughout the British Empire, especially in countries which didn't look white enough to satisfy the British monarchy.

'We're Going to Have American Methods'

So, because Roosevelt was dead, and Roosevelt had intended, as he warned Churchill, repeatedly, at the end of the war: "We are not going to use British methods; the world is going to be ruled by American methods. We're going to free the colonies! We're going to assist them to develop, including Sub-Saharan Africa." And he had plans for Africa, for its development. "We're not going to have your methods any more, Winston! We're going to have American methods."

But the moment that Roosevelt died, that policy died. And Churchill and the new President of the United States, Truman, did a number of things, to prevent that from happening.

Recolonization occurred. The Dutch army, the wonderful Dutch, moved into Indonesia to suppress the free people there. The British government, with support from the Americans, took the Japanese prisoners of war out of the prisoners-of-war camp in Indo-China, and freed them! Whereas the United States, with Ho Chi Minh, had freed Indo-China from Japanese occupation—Ho Chi Minh, an American ally. And this was the policy in Africa and elsewhere. The repression of the aspiration of peoples, whereas Roosevelt had meant the freedom of peoples who had been oppressed, and assistance from the American war machine now producing materiel required to assist these countries in developing their infrastructure, and developing their economies, and achieving the full purposes of freedom, this had changed.

Now, some decades after these events, a friend of mine who had served as the chief for the OSS operations on the ground in Italy, recounted his visit to the anteroom of the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, where he had accompanied the head of OSS, General Donovan, for Donovan's meeting with Roosevelt. Then, as he described this to me, Donovan came out, gray-faced, saddened. And he said to Max [Corvo], "It's over." And my friend said of that moment: "A bad time for the U.S. and the world at large, became the decades-long story of world history since the day that Franklin Roosevelt died."

In the meantime, some other developments by August of 1945 had confirmed my prescience of April that same year, 1945, of the nation's fate under Truman. The same OSS veteran who had accompanied Donovan into that anteroom of the President's office, had also been a witness on the ground in Italy (because he was doing all the spying against the fascists and so forth), of negotiations which were being conducted on behalf of the Emperor Hirohito of Japan. This was in the Spring of 1945. Hirohito, the Emperor of Japan, had used diplomatic channels, through the Vatican Secretary of State, and specifically through Office of Extraordinary Affairs of the Secretariat of State, which at that time was headed by a Monsignor Montini, later known to the world as Pope Paul VI. And during these negotiations, to which my friend had been privy at that time, the Emperor and other countries (that is, Allied countries), had negotiated what were eventually adopted as the terms of surrender which occurred in 1945, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But then, Roosevelt had died.

Now, Truman, who had not known of nuclear weapons until the time he became President, adopted a policy of the most evil man of the last century: Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell prescribed that nuclear weapons—because he was involved in the scientific side on the British side—should be used to attack the Soviet Union with a nuclear attack, for which there were no weapons available after Hiroshima and Nagasaki (for reasons I'll explain). And that the purpose of doing this, as Russell published his policy, that he had earlier established, which was British policy and Truman policy, was the policy of preventive warfare against the Soviet Union by a nuclear attack, at a time that they believed that the Soviet Union would not have nuclear weapons. And this attack was to do one thing: Not to defeat the Soviet Union, but to have the Soviet Union submit to world government, a world empire, the elimination of the sovereign nation-state by use of nuclear weapons.

And it was near the end of the war, that the United States, after the German surrender, about that period of time, had three nuclear devices, explosive nuclear devices of weapons quality. One was simply an experimental product of a laboratory job, which is the famous Los Alamos test bomb. There were two others: One was a uranium bomb, a laboratory prototype, not a mass-production weapon. The second was a plutonium bomb, again, a laboratory product, not a mass-production thing. So the United States, having a Japan which had to surrender, because the main island of Japan was totally isolated, both by the Soviet forces coming down into Manchuria, and by the U.S. Navy, and U.S. Army, Air Force, submarine, etc. blockade: Not a single Japanese ship could get in or out of the main island of Japan. And the main island was collapsing economically, because it depended upon imported raw materials, which it could not get access to, from the continent any more.

So, this was done. Totally unnecessary bombing of Japan! There was no military justification—it was a crime against humanity! To postpone a surrender of a defeated adversary, and bomb the population with a new kind of mass destructive weapon, not for the sake of peace, not for the sake of winning a war, but for the sake of launching a policy of nuclear imperialism, to eliminate the institution of the sovereign nation-state on this planet! And that was what the policy was, and that was what Truman's policy was.

So, in April, when I had a bad feeling about the death of Franklin Roosevelt, I was more than right.

No sooner had the death of Franklin Roosevelt occurred, than the strategic policies of the Truman Administration followed entirely the policies of Winston Churchill, who was on the way out as Prime Minister at that time. Churchill, Truman, and their accomplices agreed to do exactly what I described, Bertrand Russell's policy: Bertrand Russell, the most evil man of the 20th Century. Hitler was mild compared to Bertrand Russell; he just didn't get the opportunity to do it.

And the policy, then, as today, of the same faction, is a policy of imperialism, called "globalization." Maastricht is an instrument, for example, of globalization. Maastricht is an implement of imperialism. The policy was to establish world government.

Now, Ben Bernanke, who is the head of the Federal Reserve system, is not particularly intelligent, at least on performance. He said he's going to establish an American world empire, a new Roman Empire all over the world, which, in a sense, is his own muddled understanding (as he has a muddled understanding of about everything else he talks about), of what his purpose is. The model of empire, which the British adopted under Lord Shelburne, after the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the policy of empire was not the Roman Empire policy, but the Venetian empire policy. And you see the policy today, very clearly—but then, Bernanke is too stupid to know what that policy is. He's also stupid about some other things as well, especially economics.

But the policy was a Venetian policy, a policy which was established about 1000 A.D., when Byzantium began to collapse and the Venetian financier-oligarchy took over control of a group which became known as the Norman chivalry, which had earlier been used by Byzantium against Charlemagne and his legacy.... Charlemagne had been in close collaboration with the Baghdad Caliphate of Haroun al-Rashid, had been a collaborator of Jews from the Middle East with Charlemagne's system, as a policy with Jewry, which had a policy of cooperation with Haroun al-Rashid and Charlemagne.

The Venetian Policy: Clash of Civilizations

What happened is, the Venetians and Norman chivalry declared a policy of anti-Islam, just like today's policy from Washington—the Clash of Civilizations policy. The Clash of Civilizations, which a British intelligence agency, the so-called Arab Bureau, had established as a Clash of Civilizations policy, is the anti-Islamic policy of today, the same policy which had been instituted by the Venetians and their Crusader allies a little over a 1,000 years ago. And with that came, at the same time, massive persecution of the Jews, and denial of their rights throughout Europe. The same policy as Hitler. And Hitler got the policy from the chivalry, who passed the policy to the great Grand Inquisitor Torquemada of Spain, who passed the policy on to the rest of Europe.

So the policy against Islam, the policy against Jewry in various countries, is the same policy, the policy of the Venetian Crusader organization, to this day. That's the enemy. To rule the world by divide and rule, by methods of terror. And so that was the policy at that time.

Now, after that, circumstances and times changed rapidly. In the course of events, Truman was forced to back down, and not run for another term, after '48. Because the Korean War was a mess, the Soviet Union had developed nuclear weapons, and it had developed the nuclear weapons actually on its own, independently from anything they stole from the United States. The Soviet Union did get the model for the American nuclear weapon—they got it from the British by way of Canada. Stalin had a choice. He said, "If we're going to use nuclear weapons, or display them, we're going to test them as the American model and if they fail, we'll blame the Americans,"—whereas they had a Russian model which worked perfectly fine. And the fact that the Soviets had developed this kind of technology ahead of the United States, was demonstrated by the tests of the first hydrogen thermonuclear explosion, which was of military grade in terms of high quality.

So, these events shifted things. Truman was told, "Git, you boy, git!" And a part of the former Roosevelt machine, President and General Dwight Eisenhower, took over the leadership of the Presidency, and probably prevented us from actually going to a nuclear war during the 1950s.

But then, the policy continued!—which is what we have to understand today. The policy continued, despite Eisenhower. Eisenhower warned against this at the time he was going out of office, with his famous good-bye speech, of a privately controlled military-industrial complex. This is the policy of the Bush Administration today! Private armies to replace regular armies. Ruin and destroy the regular armies of the military of countries, and replace this by private armies, like some kind of privately owned SS system. That's the policy of the Rumsfeld Defense Department. That's the policy being carried out in Iraq. That's the policy which is intended against Iran. That's the policy which is intended throughout Southwest Asia and beyond. So, the policy goes on, despite the resistance to that, by forces gathered around Eisenhower.

Then you had other developments. You had Macmillan, Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. A scandal was rigged, to get him out. And after getting him out, after an indecent interval, they brought in Harold Wilson, who destroyed the British economy, and set the pace to help destroy the Roosevelt world system at that time.

We had a picture: Macmillan's out. They went after de Gaulle, with repeated attempts at assassination, by the Nazis. The Secret Army Organization was the Nazis—the section of France which was for Hitler, in the French Army. The Synarchists of France, which conducted the attempted assassination of de Gaulle. They got de Gaulle out in another way, broke him in another way. But that was what happened.

Adenauer, under British pressure, was pushed to take early retirement to get him out of the way. And then, in the middle of the 1960s, they got rid of [Ludwig] Erhard, and ran a junk coalition government, in order to have the United States, through John J. McCloy, appoint John J. McCloy's "pet" as the Chancellor of Germany: Willy Brandt. Willy Brandt would not have gotten a job of even dumping ashes, but for John J. McCloy.

So, you had a process of the destruction of the relics of the institutions upon which European civilization was based, in its better state of affairs, better state of organization, in its process of recovery from the wartime period—the destruction of civilization, destruction of the institutions.

The Committee on the Present Danger and the NPT

In this process, there are some people who have deluded themselves to believe that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is the efficient instrument to prevent thermonuclear war. It is not. The thing to understand, is the policy of Bernard Russell, as nuclear attacks on the Soviet Union. That policy has not gone away. It's still very much alive. It never stopped. When the preventive warfare attack by Russell had failed, they went to a new approach, which is the acceleration of long-range missile devices for delivery of thermonuclear weapons. They used that to provoke the NPT treaty! in response to this thing in Cuba. But the policy never went away!

Now, there's an organization in the United States, which keeps coming back to the surface, which represents that policy: It's called the Committee on the Present Danger. The first formation of the Committee on the Present Danger was in the 1940s under Truman. Then the thing was hidden, in the sense that Eisenhower said, "Get rid of it." It was brought back again, in this context.

Then in 1976, when the Presidential candidacies were up, and I was a candidate at that time for President. The Committee on the Present Danger was reorganized around a group around the Trilateral Commission, which included also Scoop Jackson, a nominal Democrat (who's sort of a Stone Age Democrat, now dead, probably more stoned than ever). It was revived again. I had gained private correspondence among these characters, of what they planned to do: They planned to stage a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union, once Brzezinski was in charge of the government in the Carter Administration. So, I blew it on national television, particularly in a famous October half-hour address, in which I exposed the thing, and it killed it—and they wanted to kill me!

All right. Now, again, under the guy who really controlled the Bush Administration, which is George P. Shultz—the guy who put Pinochet into power in Chile, the world's worst totalitarian. You want to find a guy who doesn't believe in democracy? Take George P. Shultz: He was the one who created the current Bush Administration. He was the one who convinced poor George Bush to run for President. He was the guy who crafted and created the Bush Administration. He was the sponsor of Condoleezza Rice. He is the one who built up Cheney, sponsored him, and put him in power.

He's behind and controlling the Committee on the Present Danger, today, which is the war committee.

The danger that he will succeed, with his accomplices, in getting Cheney to Offutt Air Force Base, to launch a pre-emptive, unannounced attack, aerial attack—full-scale—on Iran, is still one of the great dangers at this moment today. This danger leads to a nuclear confrontation.

If you do what they plan to do, and what they are doing, you are working toward a nuclear confrontation, but of a new kind, where the world is torn apart by asymmetric warfare of the type you see now in Southwest Asia, which is spreading all over the world, and will continue to spread, unless we stop it.

This will continue, and there's an intention of using nuclear weapons. The Committee on the Present Danger means nuclear war—if it's allowed to run its full course.

So, people today have to realize you can not say, that we can hide behind a Non-Proliferation Treaty agreement. And as a matter of fact, the point is, that the U.S. government doesn't care whether Iran develops nuclear weapons or not. They don't care. They would just as soon have them do it: Because the intention of the U.S. government, that is the Bush Administration, on Iran is not that they're upset about the nuclear program in Iran. They're not in the least bit upset! They're lying! They're upset about the existence of the Iranian government! The program is not one of non-proliferation: Their program is one of regime change. And regime change means what Bernanke said: world empire.

But it's not a Roman Empire he's talking about, because he's too stupid to know what he's talking about. It's a Venetian-style empire, which is today, if we understand our history, actually the model, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model.

The Anglo-Dutch Liberal model means sophistry. It means governments which have no principles, they have only sophistry. They do as they damned please. The basis for this, is, "Let money rule the world." This is the policy of John Locke, the policy of Bernard Mandeville, the policy of the British generally, the policy of the Dutch. Just look at the Dutch population: Try to find somebody over 70 years of age, alive in Holland today. That's Liberalism.

So this is the kind of policy we're dealing with, the idea that the bankers shall rule the world. Or financier groups shall rule the world, and governments will simply be playthings of that. You have that in Europe, for example, in the form of the so-called independent central banking system. And an independent central banking system, is not a governmental institution. It is a private institution, which, because the governments submit to the bankers, the governments don't do anything that the independent central banking system doesn't allow. If they do, they may overthrow the government. And parliamentary governments are easily overthrown. So, if you have a parliamentary government, and you have submission to an independent central banking system, your government can be overthrown almost instantly, any time you displease the independent central banking system—which is the financiers behind it.

That's the condition in Europe, today. That's the meaning of Maastricht. It's a step toward imperialism, to destroying the sovereignty of every country in Europe. And they want to do the same thing to the United States and the rest of the world as well.

So that's our policy.

A General Breakdown Crisis of the System

Now, to understand this: What this means, is the policies which were introduced under Truman, under pressure from the Anglo-Dutch Liberals, against the Roosevelt policies, opened up a change in world history, and opened up a cycle in history, which has played out from April of 1945, from the point of the death of Franklin Roosevelt, to the present day. What we are now dealing with, in the world as a whole, is a general breakdown crisis of that system. Because the system is breaking down, the bankers at the top level, who understand this, are moving to make fundamental changes in the forms of government and other things immediately. Because the old system is finished. It can be a matter of days or weeks, that the entire financial system presently existing in the world collapses, and there will be no part of the world which will be exempt from that collapse—a collapse of the United States and Europe.

Let's take just the sequence: Right now, the likely trigger of collapse is the combined British and American real estate investment bubble, with reflections in Europe, which you're seeing in Germany now, especially in recent periods with hedge fund raids, the Heuschrecken. If that collapses, this inflation—organized by London, by the Bank of England, their circles, and the Federal Reserve System under Alan Greenspan—depends entirely on hyperinflated investment in real estate. This bubble is about to come down. When the real-estate bubble comes down, the entire system will come down. We're at the point where we can say the month of September is a probable time for a general chain-reaction collapse of the system. This means, immediately, the trans-Atlantic system, but it also means Asia: It means India, it means China. Because these countries, in Asia, now depend upon the market which is represented by the flood of easy overnight money from Japan, into the smart-money operations in Europe and in the Americas.

Therefore, if that system collapses, then the exports of China collapse accordingly. The exports of India collapse accordingly. There are no Asian solutions! Some people say if Europe collapses and the United States collapses, that means Eurasia will prosper: No! How many poor people are there in Asia? What percentile of the population of India and every other Asian country is poor? Extremely poor? How many poor are there in China? You may have billionaires and millionaires in these countries, but you also have a tremendous number of poor people. And these poor people are much more important than the rich, because they are the population. If you have a chain-reaction, a social crisis in these countries, they will go down into the pit, too, with Europe and the United States.

Therefore, that's the issue we face. The issue we face, is, unless we take measures which are feasible, rationally feasible, to prevent this crash by a fundamental, immediate change in the international economic and financial-monetary system, there is not much hope for life on this planet for some time to come.

So, that much, as I said, is a manner of introduction.

Let me turn your attention to something which happened, midstream, so to speak in the course of this development from the death of Roosevelt, to the present moment of crisis, the full cycle. So, let's look back, first of all, to February-March of 1983, and then to October of 1988, and look at that period, and go, for example to understand that, go to the Kempinski Bristol Hotel in Berlin on Oct. 12, 1988. You'll see that on the screen now. [A transcript of excerpt from 1988 speech follows.]

LaRouche's 1988 Forecast

"My purpose of being here in Berlin, as Volker has indicated, is to read into the record in this geographical and political location, a formal statement, a short statement but a formal one, on the subject of U.S. policy, a change in U.S. policy on the prospects of reunification of Germany. Now, this statement among its other effects, will be an included feature of a nationwide half-hour television broadcast which will appear in the United States, before the coming election, and will have some impact on the election.

"I should also qualify, before delivering the statement, that I'm an economist in the tradition of people like Leibniz, Alexander Hamilton in the United States, and Friedrich List, of course, in Germany. My political principles are the same, those of Leibniz, List, Hamilton, and of course, are consistent, therefore, with the politics of Friedrich Schiller and Wilhelm von Humboldt. And like the founders of my republic, I should say, I have an uncompromising belief in the principle of absolutely sovereign nation-state republics. And therefore, I am opposed, and will attempt to prevent, by every means within my power, the attempt to destroy the sovereignties of independent nation-states, by such means as Europe 1992, and anything else which might undermine the sovereignty of any nation.

"However, like Schiller, I believe that every person who aspires to become a beautiful soul must be, at the same time, a true patriot of his own nation but also a world-citizen. For these reasons, during the past 15 years, I've become a specialist in my country's foreign affairs. As a result of this work, I've gained increasing and significant influence among some circles around my own government, on the subjects of U.S. foreign policy and strategy. My role during 1982 and 1983 working with the National Security Council to shape the adoption of the policy later known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, is an example of this.

"Although the details are confidential, I can assure you that I speak today at a time that my influence on the policy-shaping in part of the U.S. establishment, is greater than ever before, at this time. Therefore, I can assure you, that the statement I'm about to make, on the subject of proposals and prospects for the reunification of Germany, is a proposal which will studied most seriously among the relevant establishment circles in my own country.

"Now to the statement itself.

"Under the proper conditions, many today will agree, that the time has come for early steps toward the reunification of Germany, with the obvious prospect that Berlin might resume its role as the nation's capital."

The SDI vs. Economic Collapse

Now the background is the following. As I indicated to you earlier, there was this paper we picked up in 1976 from the Committee on the Present Danger, outlining a threat, a nuclear threat to the then-Soviet Union, as a gimmick, a stunt, a political maneuver. That, on the basis of my reaction to that, which did change some of the politics of the Carter Administration: Because we blew the whistle, they couldn't do it. They wanted to get rid of me. But I went to work with an organization which we had founded in that period, the Fusion Energy Foundation, which represented some leading scientists in the United States, and some other countries. Therefore, we had a scientific capability, which enabled us to define the alternatives to the use of ballistic missile barrages as a method of controlling world affairs.

This became a part of my Presidential campaign for the 1980 Democratic Party nomination. And in the process of this, I met personally with Ronald Reagan, who was then a candidate, and then, I had an approach later, after he was President. And I had a certain kind of relationship with the Reagan people at that time. We had a walk-in from a UN-based Soviet official, who said that his government was concerned to try to find, aren't there new options for discussion with the new President. So I sent a message to the relevant people in the institutions of the Presidency, and said that this approach had been made by a Soviet official to us, and I recommended that the U.S. government take up the option of discussion; it would be in the interests of both parties to have such a discussion.

So, the U.S. government, through the U.S. National Security Council, accepted the idea that I should be the interlocutor for a back-channel discussion with the Soviet government, which I conducted between February of 1982 and February of 1983. Now, in this discussion, I outlined the situation and proposed that the Soviet government and the U.S. government, together with others, have the capability of developing a new type of system, which, with their agreement, could prevent the use of a nuclear attack as a successful tactic for changing world politics. We had leading flag-officers in Germany, in France, in Italy, and in the United States, and other relevant people who were associated with me in that period in this project. It seemed to be going well, until Andropov was confirmed as the new Secretary of the Soviet Union. And, we had our last discussion with the Soviet representative in Washington, and he said that his government under Andropov would reject the offer. I outlined to him exactly what the offer would be, that I thought it would be, and said the following. I said, "If"—and I indicated what the offer would be in my view—"If the President of the United States accepts my proposal, and if he presents it to the Soviet government; and if the Soviet government were then to persist in rejecting the offer, the Soviet government would collapse in about five years."

And it did collapse, in about five years.

So, I'm rather good at that sort of thing, in forecasting, and that's a very relevant thing for the situation we're discussing here today: This was a part of the cycle. This was a point which demonstrated that you can change the cycle. You can change the cycle by the agreement of governments, particularly powerful concerts of governments, who, if they agree to change the policy, can change the cycle. The problem is, that ever since the policies were brought in by the death of Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1945, the world has been running under that policy!

There've been changes in many things. But the policy has remained the same, the strategic policy. That has led us to the point that the entire world system, at this moment, is on the edge of a total chain-reaction collapse. Not a financial crash, not a depression, but a disintegration of the world economy. Because, the problem today is, as the result of several things—and I'll indicate what the problems are—that between the late 1980s and today, people who are more than ten years older than I, have generally either died out or become inactive. They've been replaced in leading positions, in Europe and in the United States, by people from the upper 20% of income brackets or social status of the respective populations.

That is, people who were born between 1946 and 1957—the 1957 U.S. recession for example—who were brainwashed, extensively, as a policy by what was called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The brainwashing of an entire generation, from their infancy into this period, resulted in the same kind of effect that happened in ancient Greece, in ancient Athens, when the Cult of Delphi introduced a conditioning through teaching of the education of the youth population of Athens and related Greek cultures, so that Athens went into a crime against humanity against the island of Melos, genocide against the island of Melos. And the entire Greek culture collapsed, as a result of continuance of that policy, which resulted in what was called the Peloponnesian War. And Greece never recovered, to the present day from that policy of Athens.

The Brainwashed Baby Boomers

Similarly, the same policy was introduced by the same social forces behind the Truman Administration, called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was very operative in France in particular, in Germany through some of the leftovers of the existentialist movement, and in the United States. So you have a brainwashing in sophistry, a modern version of Classical Greek sophistry, in these countries, and you have the problem itself: You have people who are viciously, today, just as bad as the Nazis. But the Nazis had access to a group of resources, of managements who were technically competent. The Nazis were a danger because they were the most technologically competent; Germans were the most technologically competent people in Europe. When you take the most technologically competent part of a population, an economy, you have a machine, which, if it turns to do evil, is very powerful, very effective at doing evil. As a matter of fact, without the United States alliance with Joe Stalin, we would not have defeated the Nazis!

Look at it today: Today, in Germany, and other countries in Europe, as in the United States, the generation which retired or died out about 10 to 15 years ago, which had competence, is replaced by a leading generation typified by Ben Bernanke, a generation of dangerously incompetent people! They're perfectly capable, under certain circumstances, of using weapons to control the world—but they couldn't feed it. They couldn't maintain it, economically.

And that's our problem: That we have this sophistry. They say, "Well, public opinion is what's important to people." You have an alienation of the lower 80% of population strata, by the upper 20%. Politics in the United States is made largely by the upper 20%, and it's already headed toward the approval of the upper 3% in income brackets! What we're trying to break in the Democratic Party, is to break exactly that, to get the Democratic Party to go back to the Roosevelt orientation and go back to the people, the ordinary people: To inspire them, and uplift them. To go into the poor areas in the world, where people are poor, and to win them over, to a way of life which should be accessible to them, for a better way of life. To base politics, not on public opinion, but to base politics on doing good for the majority of the population, doing good for the coming generations of entire peoples.

And this is where problem lies.

So you have incompetence: Incompetence says, "If I've got money, I don't care." You have parents, who are now between 50 and 65 years of age, and so forth. They had children sometimes. One wonders sometimes how they did that. But they don't seem to care much about them. They consider them more of a nuisance, a problem that has to be controlled. That problem pervades society.

The other aspect of this, which is a correlative, is that economy is not based on money. This is the great illusion. Money is a necessary instrument of organizing circulation in society. But as we demonstrated under Roosevelt with a system of regulation, there is no intrinsic value in money. The essence of British Liberalism, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism in Europe, is that money has an intrinsic value. The basis of this value is something like gambling, as described by Mandeville, and others of that persuasion. And we have systems which say you have to bend economic policy, to meet the requirements of the circulation of money. Whereas what Roosevelt did was exactly the opposite: We set up a system of regulation, in terms of priorities, in terms of systems of taxation, and so forth, which kept the economy in balance.

Large-Scale Infrastructure Investments

See, the key thing we have to do right now: We have a world which is in a state collapse, economic collapse, physical collapse; the infrastructure of Europe is collapsing, the infrastructure of the United States is collapsing. We can no longer continue to support the existing populations in the existing way under these systems. We have to change. We have to have large-scale investments in water management. We have to have large-scale investments in mass transportation, instead of all these automobiles jamming things. We have to have investment in health care; investment in developing the territory, more trees planted and so forth, things of that sort.

You have about 50% of any economy which is soundly organized, modern economy, 50% goes into areas which are neither white-collar work in a sense, nor non-skilled work, but into things which are investments in basic economic infrastructure, which are investments which have a 25- to 50-year life, physical life. And these investments are made possible by government sponsorship of the creation of the capital to be loaned, to be invested in these investments, and also in private investments which are contributions to society. And then by regulating and protecting these by price protection, by fair-price levels rather than free-trade levels. If you're going to invest in a firm, you're not going to bankrupt it by driving the price down to the point that it can't carry its own capital. You're going to regulate! You're going to regulate taxation. You're going to regulate prices, as we did under Roosevelt.

We produced, between the time that Roosevelt entered office, and the end of the war, we produced the greatest economic machine the world had ever seen! We defeated the Nazis not because we were better soldiers. We weren't. We defeated the Nazis because we had tons, where they had hundreds of pounds of raw materials. We contributed to the Soviet ability to defeat the Wehrmacht, by matèriel. Tanks, yes! Lots of other things—planes; the ability to make planes, the ability to build tanks: Logistics.

And therefore, you say, 50% of the total national revenue must be considered as going into investment in, and maintenance, of basic economic infrastructure. No free market.

In private initiatives, you're looking for ingenuity. You want to product the ingenious, creative, and useful producer. You want to give opportunities. You don't want too many big industries. You have a lot of what we call closely-held industries, where the purpose of the investment is not to make profit for a stockholder. The purpose of the investment is to allow an entrepreneur to build up a firm which is useful to society, and whose motive in existence is not just to make a lot of money, but to be a success, a success in the coming generations of an industry which is useful to society.

An ugly thing that is missing in this, is that people don't understand what value is. Value is not monetary. Monetary value belongs to a slave system, or a degenerate form of society. The source of wealth is not speculation, is not price competition. The source of wealth is science, primarily. The source of wealth is the individual mind's mastery of principles of nature, that no animal could discover; is applying these discoveries of principle to increase man's power per capita, and per square kilometer, in the territory of society.

The same thing is true in culture: Classical culture, which is the mode of developing people's relations with other people, which enables them to cooperate and be more productive; which enables them to think, as people used to do (even in the more poor cultures, people used to think). Before the Baby Boomer was invented, they used to think that what I'm doing with my life, is going to be realized in my children and my grandchildren. What is beautiful to me, is the fact that my life could make things better for the coming generation, and I can live in such a way, I have a sense of a participation in immortality. Which is done with Classical art, done in similar ways.

Developing a Beautiful Culture

So the development of a beautiful culture, a beautiful people, who are not beautiful because they've got tattooed or because they wear junk in their faces, or this sort of thing, but beautiful because they sweat and work and scheme, to make sure that the coming generation is better, more capable than their generation. And they will see grandchildren, who are better, in terms of opportunities and skill, than anybody else that they know. They say, "My life is not for nothing. My life means something."

But we live in a culture, which is corrupt, in what way? Corrupt as the Zeus, the Olympian Zeus, as Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound describes. We live in a culture which says: "Be practical. Don't tell me about theory, don't tell me about culture! I want to get my thing off. I want to get sexual satisfaction. I want to get amusement. I want to get some drugs to fix my head, so it doesn't bother me, it doesn't interfere with my pleasure." Hmm?

What we've come into is a society where we treat people like animals. Don't think. Don't discover. Don't create. Don't think about immortality. Don't think about coming generations. "Just think about gettin' by an' enjoyin' y'self. Heh-heh-heh!" Hmm? This is what we've done to people! This is our culture!

But if we don't progress, if we don't make scientific and technological progress, then the coming generations will be worse off than we are! Which is the trend today. If we don't develop culture, the next generation will be more brutish than we are. And that's no immortality.

And therefore, economic value comes, first of all, from physical economic value. The ability to provide a better physical standard of life, for members of society, per capita and per square kilometer, that's one value. This is done chiefly by scientific and technological progress. But scientific and technological progress does not work, unless you have cultural progress. And therefore, society depends upon these considerations: That the way ideas are passed around society is based on the culture. And the way you develop, is you improve the culture. The cultures are associated with the languages. Culture, because it involves communication, means that you have to use the medium of language, as all Classical periods of language did. You just don't use words with literal meanings, like they were game parts you throw around to play with. But words are full of irony, full of contradictions, full of insights to how silly what you just said was; how irrelevant it is to reality.

And by great Classical drama, by musical work. You realize that, you don't sing a note. There is no such thing as a fixed note. It's an ironical function of the Pythagorean comma, in counterpoint. And what you see on the score is not what you should hear. You should hear something better, which comes from the interaction and the dynamics of it.

The other part is this: that this kind of mechanistic way of thinking about man, which dominates society today, and allows a lot of evil to occur, is called the mechanistic view of Descartes: We think of people as little pebbles. We think of objects as pebbles. We do statistical checks on details, pebbles, which doesn't mean anything.

Real systems are what are called dynamic: For example, living systems, are different in what way from non-living systems? Dynamics. The same elements react in living systems that exist in non-living ones, but they react differently. But why? Because, as Vernadsky pointed out, dynamics. Society is not a collection of individuals "doing this," all the time interacting and trading. Society is the interaction of the people, the interaction of processes. Therefore, you have to think dynamically.

Think Dynamically; Reductionism Doesn't Work

Look at all your statisticians' economics, what do they do? They follow statistical methods. Statistical methods are Cartesian, reductionist methods. They don't work. Every economist, in the sense of forecasting-economist, every economist I know is incompetent, because they think in statistical terms. They're taught to think in statistical terms. They're incompetent.

You have to think in terms of dynamics. How can you improve the whole process of society, the process of cooperation in society? In production? In the work? So, that's what the issues are. And that's what I specialize in, is this question of dynamics. And what we're doing now, for example, just to get this around, because I know we want to get into more discussion, and I have a lot more to say. But, it can't all be crammed into one occasion.

We are taking young people, 18, up to 30: We're taking them, we're putting them through an educational program, which is based on dynamics. In physical science, they start with the ancient study of Sphaerics, which is actually another name for astrophysics, which was passed on as a method from the Egyptians to the Greeks. This is the work of the Pythagoreans, the work of Plato, and similar kinds of things. The tradition of the Platonic Academy through people like Eratosthenes in Egypt, and so forth. We started them with that. Then we have taken them actually into a Riemannian physics. And the entirety of modern physical science, is located essentially in the methods of Kepler, as this process started by Kepler, in systematic science, moved up through Riemann, through Riemannian dynamics.

So, today, we know that we've lost the scientific generation, of mostly my generation and older; they've died out. The generation which is trained in schools and colleges today, is generally incompetent in science. It's not their fault. It's because they've been educated incompetently, they've been educated, downgraded, into a Baby-Boomer mode, a post-industrial culture which no longer understands physical science.

So, we're got to look at the people who are now—if we're thinking of the future, if we're thinking about policy—18 to 30. We've got to make sure that they're educated, and they're developed, to think in terms of dynamics, to think in these terms. You've got to create a generation which has a leading component within it, of people who are the foundation for the future development of science. Science, not as something to contemplate, science as a way of thinking about what you're going to do, what you're going to accomplish.

We've come to the point that the statistical mechanical systems which are popular and taught today, like that poor idiot Bernanke who knows no better—those systems don't work. If you adapt to them, you're a fool; you're committing cultural suicide. So you've got to create, like this case here in Berlin: Berlin is typical of this problem—largely because of Maastricht—but Berlin is not capable of generating sufficient income to maintain it's existing population because it has no industry. It's losing its industry. Without industry it can't grow. It can't even continue to exist! The issue is not debatable! The issue is debatable only from the standpoint of either the people who hate Germany, who want to take away the industry; or people who are foolish, who don't want to work; they don't want to produce anything. But it's the fact that the leverage you have when you do creative work, as in modern technologically progressive industrial work, creates more wealth than is required to employ the people who produce it! You create a higher standard of living in the employment of people who produce, than you do in anything else.

The worst economy is one which is a services economy, an unskilled services economy, an economy that is doomed, by its own will.

But this is not the characteristic of Germany, of Berlin, or anything else! It's the characteristic of Europe and the United States which were brainwashed by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the 68ers who were brainwashed into believing "take your clothes off, throw your brains away, and go out and have fun!" And they don't believe in producing! There's no satisfaction about achievement, there's no intellectual satisfaction. They want to be entertained! Because everything they're doing is intrinsically boring. It's only exciting if they didn't do it yesterday. They no longer have pleasure, satisfaction of the ability to understand what a real idea is! The joy of doing work, because you like to do the work. You don't do the work because you want the money—yes, you need money to live on. But you do the work, because you like it! You have a sense that this is important, that you're doing something important for mankind. You can walk proudly down the street, as a person who's doing something for mankind, who doesn't have to be ashamed of life, of living.

And we've done that to a whole generation, the generation born between 1945 and 1957: We generally have destroyed them, especially those that were told they were going to be the upper class. By going to universities, they were going to be very smart (they weren't going to know anything, but they were going to be very smart). They were going to get ahead, they were going to be important, they were going to get larger incomes than the rest of the people. And they would look down on the rest of the people as failures, the lower 80%, which is the situation in Europe, and the situation in the United States today.

'Stop Being Monkeys'

What we need to do is simply, recognize these kinds of facts, that we're in a culture which has dynamic characteristics. And there're some people, in society, who have organized to start this society around certain ideas, certain systems of organization which have caused this cycle from the death of Roosevelt to the present, this general collapse of civilization worldwide. And we will never free ourselves of this disaster, unless we can get up off our hind legs, and say, "Stop being monkeys," hmm—get up on our hind legs and say, "We're going to change the world system now." We can do it. Because when people realize, as they've done before—all great revolutions have done this—when they realize that they can not go on the way they're going, there is no possibility for living under this system for the next ten years. Or even five years, or even two! Then they know they have to change! And that's the time that revolutions occur.

Now, good revolutions are based not on getting bloody. Good revolutions are based on ideas, and the value of ideas. And the problem we have today, the biggest problem I see, is that we have people who are not unintelligent, but they're cowards. They will not stick their necks out to exert the kind of leadership that's required, to "damn the torpedoes" so to speak, and to go against the authority, that is holding society back. And say to the authority that is holding back, "You are in the way!" "Change or get out of the way!"

This is the time you make industrial revolutions, cultural revolutions, great leaps forward. This is what happened in Germany with Moses Mendelssohn and Gotthold Lessing, who inspired a Germany which was going into the pit, like the rest of Europe, under Liberalism, and caused an eruption in Germany, which is the German Classic, which rejuvenated other parts of the world—including the United States, including France, and so forth.

So, a revolution in ideas, as typified by the work of Gauss, the work of Leibniz, the work of others; the work of Beethoven, the work of Mozart. These kinds of revolutions have to come along, and break through, and change society, to stop doing what is considered conventional. To find leaders who are courageous, who will speak, because what they say is the truth, and they know it, not because they want to be approved of for what they say.

And that's where we stand today.

We'll get into the discussion. I could say a lot more, but this I think is enough.

This presentation transcript appears in the November 10, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Lyndon LaRouche addressed a LaRouche Political Action Commitee-sponsored webcast in Berlin, Germany on Oct. 31, 2006. The event was videoconferenced to an audience in Washington, D.C., and was watched by "satellite" audiences around the world, including 220 people at universities in Colombia alone. The moderators in Berlin were LaRouche Youth Movement leader Jessica Tremblay and Mr. LaRouche's science advisor, Jonathan Tennenbaum; the moderator in Washington was Mr. LaRouche's U.S. national spokeswoman, Debra Freeman. We publish here the full transcript. This is Lyndon LaRouche's opening presentation.

Dialogue following the opening presentation

PDF version of LaRouche's opening address and the dialogue

Video of the webcast

Jessica Tremblay: Today is Oct. 31, 2006, and I think that this day will go down in history as being a pivotal point in the decision of the direction of mankind, really for the future of the entire mankind.

My name is Jessica Tremblay and I have the great honor of introducing to you the greatest living American, Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., and the greatest economist of our day. I'd like to welcome all guests gathered here in Berlin, this full room, and I'd also like to welcome all guests who are sitting in Washington. I know that there are hundreds of gatherings throughout the world, today, and all of us are very anxiously awaiting the very wise words of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. And the reason is, the current financial system is disintegrating. Therefore, LaRouche is rallying those forces who are going to really represent and fight for the General Welfare, be they in government, be they in the population. And I would like to say, specifically, also, especially thousands of youth throughout the world, who are those who are looking to live the next fifty years, and to give something great to posterity.

So without any further words, I'd really like to very much welcome Mr. LaRouche, and I think we'll have a lot of fun today.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you very much.

You know the worst and best moments in history come to most people, of the time, as a surprise. And that is going to be the case with what's happening in the world now. We are now at the end of an entire period of history. During the middle of September, in the U.S. and other parts of the world affected directly by the U.S., there was the beginning of a new downturn in the world economy. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that there is an election campaign, so-called midterm election, now occurring inside the United States. The party in power is losing power, that is, losing power in terms of support from the people. It is preparing to commit great electoral fraud in the United States, to try to keep some of that power. It is prepared to go to war, to try to preempt the situation, the political situation, to retain power. But it also has long-term intentions to establish world dictatorship, called globalization, which would mean a disaster for all humanity.

Now, these events are coming rapidly. There are some good things happening in the world, as well as these bad things: but they're coming together, as often, at the same time. As in war: A terrible war breaks out, and people are prepared for war, but they don't know what war is. Then suddenly, they get a taste of it, and it wasn't what they expected. And sometimes the war goes against the offender, and that's a good thing. That also comes suddenly, as surprising developments and mobilization of people and institutions, mobilizes people to resist evil. The same is true of great economic depressions. Everybody is surprised by a great economic depression, even those who predicted it. Because it doesn't come exactly as they thought it would, when it comes.

So that, in terms of governments around the world today, as I know of them and know what they're saying, most governments of the world, including the governments we've referred to principally today here, in Eurasia, will be taken by surprise: In China, in Japan, in India, in Russia, they do not yet have any sense, of what is about to happen. They have a sense of a crisis occurring, but they have dreams, they have beliefs that they believe they can control their situation by certain beliefs they're operating on now; and they won't be able to. Demands will be made upon them, which will catch them by surprise.

The Basis for Optimism

I'm not particularly surprised. I've got a pretty good idea of what's going to happen. And I'm also more optimistic, because I know that the good thing about this crisis—and there are many bad things, as well—the good thing is that what most people believe is going to be discredited. What most believed yesterday, they're going to find tomorrow, they no longer believe. It is going to seem to them, that everything they believed, is suddenly become untrue.

They believe they know how to manage an economy. Governments believe they can cope with the economy. They're trying to postpone the crash, which is already coming on. They can't postpone it. They may delay it for a short period of time, by another hyperinflationary inflection. Like in the United States: The United States' economy is disintegrating! It's not collapsing, it's disintegrating. The loss of the automobile industry, in the course of the last year, continued this year; the United States no longer has an automobile industry. It has some automobile plants in the United States, but they're no longer a U.S. automobile industry. They're foreign owned, and foreign controlled. The same thing is true of steel production in many parts of the world: All the essentials, are no longer controlled by nation-states and the people of nation-states.

And so, people have illusions: "Everything will be all right—our government will handle it." The government of France; the government of Italy is not a government. It's death, waiting to be buried. And this is characteristic of many parts of the world.

So that's what's coming upon us. Now, the turn came, as I indicated earlier, in the middle of September, with the onrushing, longstanding decline in the world economy, which has been in the process of decline since about 1971-72, actually. Some people were becoming rich, but at the expense of other people. Economies were collapsing. Look at the United States, every county by county around the United States. In virtually all counties where there used to be production, there is no longer production. People are no longer living by a high degree of skill. They're living as waitresses or waiters, or other kinds of things—so-called "service employment," largely make-work, which is not even necessary. You don't cook a hamburger at home, you go out to a hamburger stand. You don't need that.

So the economy has been disintegrating. But the upper 20%, particularly the upper 20% which is now in positions of power—people generally between 50 years and 65 years of age—that generation lives largely in an illusion. They think their world has come. They think this is a post-industrial society—they think that's good. They think globalization is good! Globalization is a disease that will destroy the entire planet, and kill off most levels of population today. It's an empire! It's imperialism! It's a return to a caricature of what happened in Europe in the Middle Ages.

And all these things are happening. And people are not prepared for the shock that suddenly is going to change. In the United States, the characteristic, as I said, is the election campaign. The attempt to postpone the appearance of reality, for just a few more weeks, hoping—on the part of the Bush Administration—hoping that they can deceive people, even though they're losing the election, losing popularity. And hoping they can hold onto power for one more round.

The United States Is Destroying Itself

And many people believe, for example, that the evil is coming from the United States. But it really isn't. The United States is not the source of this problem. The source of this problem is right here in Europe. It's in the Anglo-Dutch Liberal establishment of Europe. And what we have in the United States is an extension of that—and we can discuss that—but an extension of that. And what the United States is doing is not trying to conquer the world. What the United States is doing, is destroying the United States. To destroy a powerful nation, how do you do it? You induce that nation to discredit itself. You corrupt it. You lead it to discredit itself. It loses the confidence of its own people. It loses confidence abroad. It becomes desperate in trying to keep power, it makes mistakes, as the United States has.

Look for example, at Southwest Asia. Look at this war in Afghanistan. Look at this war in Iraq. Look at the spread of this same kind of warfare into other areas, the aim at Iran! The aim to break up Turkey—which is also on the agenda, as well as all of Southwest Asia. The intention to break up Pakistan. The intention to break up India. The intention to disrupt China. The intention to start a conflict with Russia, as in Transcaucasia.

The United States is key in doing these things. It's not the sole author of this mess, but it's leading in doing it. What is the United States doing? The United States which, six years ago, was still admired by many in Europe and elsewhere, is no longer admired. The Bush-Cheney Administration has destroyed the influence of the United States, its credibility throughout the world! The United States has destroyed whole sections of the world, and is spreading that to other parts of the world. What is happening in the process, as leading military figures in the United States, leading intelligence figures, leading political figures, who understand these things, see the United States under Bush and Cheney destroying itself!

Globalization Means Empire

Then, who benefits from the destruction of the United States? Well, who put this Bush-Cheney Administration into power? Ask the gentlemen in London, how this was done. Because the goal is a name you know! You've heard! It's the name for a poison, but you don't think of it as a poison. You think of it as the inevitable. The word is "globalization is inevitable! You can not go back from globalization to the nation-state! It's inevitable."

But globalization is empire. Globalization is the lowering of the standard of living throughout the world. You take a plan in Germany, as in Berlin! Look at Berlin since 1992: Did Berlin benefit from the breakup of the D.D.R.? In a sense. More freedom, but freedom to do what? Freedom not to work. Freedom not to be able to support the city, because the industry is taken away.

Where'd the industry go? Sometimes it just disappeared. Sometimes the jobs were shipped to parts of the world where people are poor, where they have no infrastructure, where they have no health-care. They work cheaper, because their standard of living is much poorer.

So what is happening, is, with the destruction of Germany, the destruction of the German economy, the Berlin economy in particular—under orders from London and France, the orders from Margaret Thatcher and Mitterrand, that Germany must destroy itself as a price for unification: The world becomes poorer. As the United States destroys itself, its economy, the world becomes poorer.

Work is shipped to poorer and poorer sections of the world. Jobs were exported to Mexico, but Mexico's too high-priced; they shipped the jobs to Central America. The same thing is happening throughout the world. Employment in production is being shipped from areas of high degrees of skill and high degrees of conditions of life for the population, to poorer and poorer parts of the world: This is called "globalization."

It's the elimination of the nation-state, the elimination of the protection, the standard of living, the health-care, the educational systems. All these things are being destroyed. You have—what?—10% of the labor force of Germany has no hope, no future. Germany is being destroyed. Italy is being destroyed. Some jobs are going to China.

What If the Dollar Collapses?

All right, but let's look at this thing, this American empire myth: What happens if the United States collapses? Let's suppose that a collapse occurs as a 20%, 30% collapse in the valuation of the dollar. Does that mean that other parts of the world suddenly become better? Because they take over from the United States? No.

If the United States goes under, the rest of the world goes under, immediately and automatically. Why?

In 1971, in August of 1971, the administration of that time, the Nixon Administration, through an individual called George P. Shultz—the man who later put the dictator Pinochet into power in Chile, together with Henry Kissinger and Felix Rohatyn—floated the dollar! That is, up to that time, the U.S. dollar had been a regulated currency, within a fixed-parity system among currencies internationally. The dollar was still, essentially, as good as gold. It was the dollar which was the only world currency at the end of World War II. The power of the dollar, the stability of the dollar, through things like the Marshall Plan, and similar arrangements, and the fixed-exchange-rate system, enabled a recovery of Western Europe, enabled a recovery in other parts of the world, through things like the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau in Germany; as vehicles for mobilizing credit to reconstruct the economy of war-torn Germany, to reconstruct the economy of France, to build up the economy of Italy, which continued into the late 1960s.

Now, in 1971, the dollar is turned into toilet paper, by an act of an administration. It is backed up in 1972, by a meeting of the International Monetary Fund. Again, George Shultz was there: They had a floating-exchange-rate system—what backed up the dollar? Well, the dollar was no longer a U.S. dollar. It was an IMF dollar: a U.S. dollar denominated in IMF conditions. With nothing underneath it—just good faith and trust that everything would be all right.

Now, everything in the world today, is related to this dollar. China has vast claims denominated in dollars. All parts of the world have vast claims denominated in dollars, assets denominated in dollars. What happens if the dollar collapses by 30%?

Then China collapses. Then India collapses. Because not only is the dollar worth less, in their so-called asset list, but the collapse of the U.S. market, and the chain-reaction collapse of the U.S. market, its effects on other parts of the world, mean a collapse of the economy of India, China, and so forth. And also Europe. So, a collapse of the U.S. dollar is a disaster for every part of the world.

And people don't understand that. There are a few people in the United States who understand that—I think Paul Volcker, the former head of the Federal Reserve System, I think he probably understands that; I know a number of other leading people in the United States understand: You can not devalue the dollar. If you devalue the dollar, you bring down the whole house of cards of the world system. Because world trade is denominated and calculated in dollars. The largest portions of the claims, the financial claims of the world, are denominated in dollars.

If the dollar goes down, everything goes down. Therefore, you have to worry about what happens to the United States. Because only if the United States takes action, with the consent and cooperation of other nations, to make the dollar a fixed value of security, thus maintaining the credit system upon which the entire world depends at this time, only under those conditions can you avoid something happening to the world as a whole, which is comparable to what happened to Europe in the Fourteenth Century, when the Lombard banking system collapsed, and Europe as a whole fell into a prolonged New Dark Age. The collapse of the dollar today, in the world market, would cause a collapse of the planet into a new dark age.

And therefore, this is typical of what happens on the day of crisis: Suddenly, you're faced with a point, a collapse of the dollar is about to occur. You say, "Well, the dollar's going to collapse, the rest of us will get by, China will do well, India will do well, Europe will find a way to manage, Russia will do all right..." No. No: The world will go into chaos. As one of those things that happened in a time of crisis, when people are taken by surprise, and things they kept telling themselves were true, are shown suddenly not to be true. And the survivors are those who wise up quickly, and recognize that what they believed was a fraud, was a lie.

A Culture of Sophistry

Because people live lies. This is also a sophist culture. The post-war world has become largely a sophist culture. Europe, the United States, in particular. We are sophists in the same kind of sophistry that led Pericles' Athens to destroy itself in the Peloponnesian War. That kind of sophistry: Words no longer have meaning. Truth no longer exists. Sophistry! "But, I don't know—you say it's true! But popular opinion says no. You say this is good, but popular opinion says no. Popular opinion says this is good, but you say no." What's your authority? "Popular opinion." Or what you perceive to be popular opinion, or some group's opinion. But a belief in something which is not proven, which is not true.

And that's the way civilizations are destroyed, especially European civilizations, ever since the fall of Athens under Pericles: "Golden Age of Athens"! The "golden age" proved to be something flushing, and Athens went down the toilet. "Golden Age"—this is the way this cuts.

How To Defend the Dollar

Now, let's look at the other side. That's the bad side. Not only are we in a period of war, we're on the edge of a threatened dark age, a collapse of the dollar, a collapse of the world. All of these things are now in process.

Well, I said, we have to defend the dollar. Let me explain that, again, as I have recently in some questions on this: First of all, the world is dominated—especially, the world denominated in dollars, it's denominated in a kind of pseudo-currency called financial derivatives, such as hedge funds. Now, what are hedge funds, what are financial derivatives? They represent gambling debts. There is no product in hedge funds. There is no product in financial derivatives. There's nothing physically worthwhile in them. What this is, a bet—it's a gambling bet! And then it becomes gambling bets on gambling bets, where hedge funds compete in gambling against each other. The world has become one giant gambling casino, ever since 1987, since Volcker left office at the Federal Reserve System and Alan Greenspan came in—and legalized what should have been outlawed as criminal practice, called financial derivatives! And the world is now run and controlled by financial derivatives. And this is a bubble, which is about to collapse. Hmm?

So, what do we have to do? The first thing we have to do, is get rid of this paper: Cancel all hedge funds, all financial derivatives. Now, you'll get a big scream from some people when you say that, but you have to do it. You'll do it one way or the other: You will either do it in an orderly fashion, by actions of government and agreements among governments. Or, it will happen to you anyway! And if it happens to you anyway, it's going to come like a collision, not a decision by governments. Because, we could never pay, the world could never pay, to support the claims denominated in hedge funds, in financial derivatives generally. It couldn't be done. The debt is so much bigger than the entire annual product of the world, and particularly at today's interest rates, you could never pay it.

So therefore, as long as you cling to financial derivatives and hedge funds, you're doomed. If your country supports them, your country's doomed. And it will find a new government, somewhere—maybe one that solves the problem, but it will be a new government, whether it solves the problem or not. That is, the crisis will occur.

Therefore, the first thing we have to do, is we have to put the world into bankruptcy reorganization. We have to agree, that the dollar must become, once again, a fixed-exchange unit. Why? Because it's worth that? No—because we're going to make it worth that. We're going to shift the world economy by putting it through bankruptcy reorganization, like any ordinary, orderly bankruptcy reorganization: We're going to put the world financial system into bankruptcy reorganization. We're going to convert short-term claims, if they're viable, into long-term claims. We're going to operate on a low interest rate, as we did in the 1930s, when the recovery was started in the United States. We're going to now re-create a banking system, because we have to save the banking system. We can't save many of the bankers, who are insane; but we can save the banking system. Because we need the banking system: The banking system is the method by which you handle deposits of people, by which you circulate credit, by which you build up long-term credit for investments, that sort of thing.

So the governments will have to intervene, to re-create, in bankruptcy reorganization, a set of banks, often the same banks that exist now, to go back and do business in a sane way, as opposed to the insane way we've been functioning recently. Because, we need the banks, we need them to support the investments that are being made in local industry, and so forth, and in personal accounts of citizens and so forth. And in local communities.

So, now we have to have a solid system of credit, based on long-term credit, on the elimination of claims, denominated in financial derivatives or similar kinds of things. Now we find that the world economy, particularly in Europe, as in Germany for example, or in France—but take the case of Germany, here: The problem is, that there's not enough production or productive employment for Germany to be able to pay its taxes in order to have a stable country, and to have growth. So the problem is a shortage of credit, because you have people who still have skills, and if they could be employed back at their professions, if businesses could be started up which were useful, especially in industries, like the industrialization of Berlin, then you could begin to have, very quickly, a recovery of the economy, with sufficient credit and reorganization of finances. This is true in all parts of the world, more or less. Now therefore, that means we need a new supply of credit, long-term credit, for that purpose.

A Mission To Develop Eurasia

This all fits into a global picture: We have two parts of Eurasia. On the one side, you have European civilization, as it grew up in Eurasia since the time of ancient Greece, the time of Solon of Athens for example. That's European civilization. This has undergone, with all its problems in between, betwixt and before, with all kinds of developments; European civilization is a very solid institution. It may not be solid in the way it acts sometimes, but it's a very good idea. As a matter of fact, it's the most successful idea for the development and improvement of the conditions of life of populations. The nation-state as developed in Europe, is a form of institution which, when properly developed, is the most efficient institution we know for promoting the improvements of the welfare of humanity. That's the case today.

So therefore, on the other hand, we have Asian populations. And Asian populations, until recently, until a modernization development occurred, have been essentially treating the mass of humanity as cattle. Yes, some people are wealthy; some people have an impressive culture; some people have this, and so forth—but the masses of people, 80 to 90%, are impoverished and living almost as beasts. With the life expectancies of beasts, the standard of living of beasts, enslaved. With no real development of the mind of the individual, the thing which in the best instances in Europe and the United States, we had.

So therefore, the problem is, we now have come to the point, on this account alone, that we must think about the world: We have a growing population of Asia. A growth area of Asia. We have to think about re-cranking up European civilization, with a mission-orientation for the development of Eurasia as a whole over the coming two generations. Which means Europe must crank up, as a source again, of scientific and industrial output, in the form of long-term credit, long-term investment, in exchange with Asia, to build up countries, like the 70% or so of the poor of India, of the poor of China, of the poor of other countries, where these poor have no future to speak of.

And we have to have a mission, of building up a just world, based upon cooperation among nation-states, with the Westphalian principle, that we must think, in all policies, we must think as the authors of Westphalia did: We must think about the other person, rather than our own demands, first. What are we doing for the other? What are we, as a nation, as a people, doing for the other people, the other nation? And to build bonds of cooperation, long-term cooperation among peoples and nations on that basis.

So we have to organize, in coming out of this depression, which is now hitting us, we have to organize on the basis of a long-term, 50-year approximately, perspective for developing the Eurasian continent.

Change the Relationship of Man to Nature

Now there's another aspect to this, which I referred to the last time I had a Berlin assembly here. And that is, we've come to the point where there's a fundamental change in the relationship of man to nature. The growth of population, and the increase of technology, improvement of technology, which is necessary for that growth of population, has created a situation where we are using up prime quality raw materials, more rapidly than the planet can regenerate them.

Now, we have entered also, a period, the period of fission and fusion processes, at which we can actually not only regenerate high-quality raw materials, that is, help the Biosphere recover from the damage of our consumption; we're also entering a period where we're going to create new conditions, and new kinds of materials on this planet which never existed before. Because we're going to go into the transuranic period of development of the planet, where we are developing new kinds of materials, with new purposes, new compounds, new things, we've never done before. We're going to have to, to meet the demands of the population, say, of China, over 1.3 billion; the population of India, over 1 billion people—70% poor! How are we going to produce enough from this planet to meet the demands, for power, for materials, for development and production of food, how are we going to do this, so that we provide the people, the children of the people now existing, in Asia, to provide them the opportunity of a standard of living which enables them to survive, and improve?

Therefore, we have entered a period, in which we no longer think about taking over and exploiting raw materials. We think of taking over and developing the planet's equivalent of raw materials, today. Which means an emphasis upon largely thermonuclear fusion and related technologies.

Return to Nuclear Energy

So the next 50 years will have to be that kind of transition. It means, now, a return to nuclear energy. For example, let's take the water crisis: We have on this planet, a freshwater crisis. This is particularly true in India. Look for example, at Southwest Asia: The essential crisis, apart from all the political problems, in Southwest Asia, is a lack of water, lack of potable water! Water for crop growth, water for drinking! The wars, like Israel's war with Syria, was over water! Israel had an expanding population; it had to steal the water from Syria; and grabbed the water from everybody around there, to meet their requirements. A water crisis. This is something we knew at the beginning of the last century. Before World War II began—we knew that you could have no stability in the Middle East without development of freshwater supplies. Without the change of climate, by the application of power and water management, to create an environment which would support a larger population, per capita, throughout that area.

We have, in India now, and other places, populations are living on what's called fossil water or semi-fossil water resources. You have water that's been stuck in the Earth, down in a hole someplace, for over the past 2 million years of glaciation. The melting glaciers and so forth, put water, deposited like some kind of metal, down there, deep under the soil. And people are now, as in Australia, they're drawing water up, that's fossil water. Or, they're drawing water, as in the United States, the Ogalalla Reservoir, withdrawing fresh water from reservoirs, more rapidly than they can be replenished, at present.

So therefore, we have a water crisis. We have plenty of water. You know about the oceans! We have plenty of water. That's not the problem. But we need a quality of potable water, for the development of agriculture, for greening and improving the climate by simply trees—trees and grasses and so forth, improve the climate. The more life you have in the ground, in the form of plant life, the better off you are, especially the green growth. So have it. We need that. We need fresh, clean, potable water for people. We can not get that economically, without the massive use of nuclear power, nuclear fission.

India has a very poor population: 70%. It's a very poorly educated population, this 70%. Therefore, you have to find a lever, to raise the standard of living, when you don't have the educational base in the population for getting this through simply technology by people. So what do you do? You come in with nuclear power. You suddenly get an infusion of power and water, cheaply and efficiently, and you've changed the conditions of life in which people live, and you increase their productivity by improving their environment, as a productive environment. This is true in other parts of the world, as in the Middle East; we have to transform these areas to make them more livable to meet the needs of their populations, today and tomorrow. And this must be the kind of mission we have over the next 25 and 50 years.

So, when we're building an economy, rebuilding an economy from the wreckage we've made of it since 1970 in particular, we have to think in these terms: We have to think two generations ahead. We have to think in terms of the Treaty of Westphalia: What are we doing for the other? What are we doing for Asia from Europe? What are we doing for other nations in Europe? What are we doing for Africa? The world as a whole? And therefore, in a sense that our life now has a purpose. We're not living like greedy Baby Boomers, trying to satisfy our own pleasure while we're still on this planet. We're now giving back a purpose in life, a mission in life.

We all die: What's our purpose in life if we all die? Our satisfaction while we're alive? Or is it what we're doing, while we're alive with our life, which is of continued value for the human race afterward, that makes our life having been lived, worthwhile for humanity? The thing that we can take pride in, in the eyes of our children and grandchildren, that we're doing for them, and for the world after us?

This is the passion which must grip us, if we going to come out of this mess. And therefore, we have to think in global terms. Not in terms of globalization. We have to think of mission-orientation, for bringing nations together, to bring their own houses in order, to bring our relations among nations in order. To create a world system of financial and related cooperation, which is organized to meet these kinds of needs, and to give us, again, not the pride of arrogance, but the pride that we are necessary, each of us, and each nation, is necessary for the benefit of the world as a whole.

That's the point we've come to, and that's where we stand now.

What Is Economics, Really?

Now, one of the problems here, is that most people think they know something about economics. And I can tell you, most people don't know anything about economics. They know what they've been taught. They know what they've been taught about money, money procedures.

They don't understand physical economy, for example—and Baby Boomers particularly don't understand physical economy, at all. Remember, the generation of Baby Boomers, the people in the upper 20% of family-income brackets, now, say, between 50 and 65 years of age, they don't have any understanding of economy. First of all, the 68ers, which they generally are, the 68ers were against production—it meant work! And they didn't believe in work, they believed in pleasure! All kinds of pleasure. And they picked up some pleasures and it got them sick. And so, they went to a different pleasure—or they went to sadism as a form of pleasure.

So we have a society which no longer thinks in terms of real values. It no longer thinks in terms of immortality, in the sense of, "Are you an animal?" If you're an animal, you come and you go, and you die. You live happily or you live miserably, but you die. What's the consequence of your having died? Somebody remembers a pet, an animal you had on a farm? But what importance did that animal have as an individual, for the future of the species? None.

Human beings are different. We are capable of reason. We're capable of discovering universal principles, as in physical science and Classical art. We transmit to develop these principles to coming generations. We thus increase the power of coming generations. We benefit the future generations of humanity.

The Baby-Boomer generation lost that. They didn't want to produce, they wished to have pleasure. They wished to have thrills. They wished to be able to ignore what was happening to the world around them. So we destroyed—. We had the green revolution, not the green in terms of vegetables, but the green in terms of, "I don't work, I don't produce." We live in a world in which most people are starving, and their starvation is increasing, and we don't care about what we produce or don't produce. We're indifferent to the rest of humanity. We think in terms of our greed or our pleasure, our lifestyles, our habits. We don't think of what we're doing, which makes us immortal, in the sense of what we're contributing to the future of humanity.

We've lost the sense of identity which was the basis for European civilization. Formerly, we thought in European civilization of what we're doing for our grandchildren and those who come after them. People would sacrifice for the sake of their children and grandchildren and what came beyond that. They would sacrifice to build something in which a future generation could take pride, that they'd done that. They'd built this, they'd accomplished that. We went from a generation which thought of making contributions, permanent contributions to the future of humanity, to one which was totally selfish: "what I get, my satisfaction, my pleasure." And this is how we were destroyed.

We were destroyed by our own sophistry. We wanted to be respected among people like ourselves, especially Baby Boomers. We didn't care about what happened to the rest of humanity. We wanted to beat them. We wanted to find somebody to beat, to get the better of them. We didn't, as people learned in the Treaty of Westphalia, after a horrible experience, learn that the way you succeed, is taking care of the other person first. And that's how you build a civilization which has a future orientation. That's what we need now.

The problem is, because people don't have the value that used to be the basis for European economy, that is, the idea of better production: better conditions of production, producing better conditions of life, better physical conditions of life, better mental conditions of life for physical production, and so forth. A culture, rather than just arbitrary pleasure—we've lost that. So we've lost the sense of what real value is.

The Power of Ideas

Value lies, in what? Value lies in those kinds of ideas, discovered and developed ideas, which enable us to improve the condition of humanity, per capita and per square kilometer of this planet. Which gives a better world, for a coming generation, than we had. This is done by work. By producing things. By using more advanced skills. By increasing the power per capita, to increase man's power in and over nature. By developing minds! So people can think clearly. People today don't have time to think, they're too occupied with pleasure-seeking, or avoiding pain. So therefore, we don't think about a purpose in life. Therefore, we don't understand what an economic value is.

Obviously, a physical economic value is what we can do, today, to improve the life of humanity in terms of developing things that are useful for the future, which means physical production of things that are useful for the future, and developing ideas which, passed on to future generations, will be used by them to make things better. So this is all tied up with what we call scientific and technological progress. And also, cultural progress.

For example: We've been working with this question with the Bach. People have forgotten what Bach was—some never knew. Bach was the foundation of modern civilization, his work in music, his work in counterpoint. His rediscovery which had been understood by the Pythagoreans a long time ago: the comma. Which is expressed in great performances of choral works by Bach, and by the great works of the Classical composers: All are based on this. Which involves the same spark of genius, in a different application than we have in the development of fundamental scientific discoveries.

So, what is important, in a healthy society, is the fact that you're dealing with ideas, whether in terms of physical scientific implications, or cultural artistic implications, ideas which you are creating, or improving in the sense of creating, that you pass on to future generations, so that somehow, mankind is progressing, because the generations of the future will be more powerful and smarter than we are today, in coping with the problems that humanity faces.

And as we see, we have to have this, because we've now come to this point of raw materials crisis. We could no longer solve the problem we're facing today, with the kind of approach we had to raw materials two generations ago. Couldn't do it. Without the development of a thermonuclear fusion technology, and what that connotes, we could not deal, successfully, with the problems of this planet, today. Without nuclear power, we could not deal, efficiently, with the water crisis of many parts of this planet, today. So this process of progress, of scientific progress, of cultural progress in general, is necessary, and is the essential value, the physical value, the real human value, which should dominate an economy as a sense of value. And what we put a higher price on, or what we value in money terms, in greater degree, should be those things that are of value, to the future condition of humanity: physical improvement in the conditions of humanity; improvement in the physical ability to survive, of human beings, for future generations; the development of the human mind, to a higher level of development of culture, through cultural development, which gives us an individual who's risen to a higher level of outlook, about man's position and function in this universe. These are the things of value.

A Society Without Values

And what do you have now? The highest prices, the highest wages are paid to the most useless people, the predators. Whereas the people who are denied the right to work, even simple work, respectable work which corresponds to their given skills, they don't have the jobs! The opportunities for farming, in a traditional sense, don't exist where they existed! The opportunities for the machine-tool designer, for the machine-tool maker, for the maker of a better-produced product—most people are denied the opportunity to have that! Oh, you can have a job, a single-euro job.
[*] But you can't have a job which has value for society! A job which gives you the opportunity to have self-respect for what you're doing in society, a kind of job which says, "You are useful in my community. You have to be respected as a useful person." They don't have that kind of job.

You look at the figures in the United States, as we look at: Every county of the United States, we studied. And you look at, in the county, how much employment and how much economic activity was for producing useful things? Agriculture and industry, and so forth? As opposed to so-called "services employment"—doing somebody else's dishwashing? Being a waitress in somebody else's eating place? Picking up garbage, doing odds and ends, make-work? And you find a shift in the United States over the past 30 years, from people who were productive—county by county—counties where the majority of people were employed in productive employment, to a situation where a very few, a very small ration, of the people are in productive employment.

And the people who supervise the useless employment, are the people who get the biggest money!

So therefore, there's a moral problem here, and it's a problem of value. The problem of value, this term "value" has physical connotations as I've illustrated. There are physical benefits for humanity in this kind of production. Whereas simply pleasure production, which prostitution exemplifies, is not very productive. It is not intended to be productive. And that's our problem.

So therefore, we have to have a mission-orientation to organize this world, around a sense of mission, looking two generations ahead, about 50 years, and saying, "How can we get out of this Hell we've made of this planet, now?" And say, that 50 years from now, when the generation which is now becoming adults is approaching the age of nominal retirement, that that generation having completed its two generations of work—50 years—will be able to say: "We have contributed something to the future of humanity. We have contributed to the benefit of the conditions of life of people in Asia; we have built up our respect for ourselves, for what we're doing in Europe, or in the United States. We have stopped these practices which we know are immoral and abhorrent. We have stopped this abuse of whole sections of the human race." And take that as an objective.

And that's what we need.

We're coming to a crisis. We're coming to a crisis of values. What people accept today as normal, is rotten and evil. We have to change. We're going to have to change, because we're going to be forced to change. We can not continue to function, the way we've functioned since about 1970. We can't do that any more, in European civilization: We've got to change, and we're going to be forced to.

If we don't change, most of the languages of the world will disappear, as the nations disappear, as national borders disappear, in globalization. That's where we stand today.

Okay. I think we'll get some discussion now.


Yesterday, President George W. Bush appeared somewhat humbled, but still wildly insane, in his internationally televised delivery to an East Room press audience. The impressive voter turn-out for the election itself, had a great deal to do with causing what was in fact the Bush Presidency's electoral defeat; but the greater part of the credit for that belongs to the combination of an energetic minority fraction among Bush's Democratic and non-partisan opponents, as among youth associated with LPAC. It was also the result, very significantly, of the effects of a revolt from among the patriots within the permanent institutions of the Federal government, as signaled, conspicuously, by outspoken leading figures of the U.S. military.

Bush's already somewhat impressive defeat would have come in the form of a crushing landslide victory for Democrats, but for the sloppy behavior of those opportunistic Democratic Party leaders who, throughout most of 2006, have been more concerned with financial campaign contributions from right-wing financier circles, such as far-right Felix Rohatyn, than the welfare of the nation and its people. In some cases, Democratic candidates earned their victories; in other cases, they won despite their opportunistic lack of response on precisely those issues which remain, now as then, of the most crucial importance to the nation and its people.

Democratic candidates had better learn now, that, in the end, especially under conditions of global economic breakdown-crisis, as today, performance on the real issues of a terrible world crisis will be more important than a pretty face or flashy wardrobe. Such artifacts do not cut a favorable impression among those crucially important, wretchedly poor whom Shakespeare's self-doomed Julius Caesar would regard as presenting "a lean and hungry look."

As a result of this combination of trends and developments, the situation facing the world in general, and the U.S.A. in particular, is far more deadly after the Democratic Party's victories, than before.

To wit, President Bush exposes himself as being either stupid or insane, when he asserts that the U.S. is in a state of prosperity. The non-existent prosperity which he proclaims so madly, is on the verge of the greatest and deepest physical-economic, as well as financial collapse in modern European history since the end of the Thirty Years War. To wit, as leading military and intelligence services' veterans warn, there is presently no U.S. military course in Iraq with which to stay. The U.S. under the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld band has subjected our republic to a self-inflicted humiliation, and a presently onrushing danger, even far worse in its implications than the folly of the U.S. Indo-China war.

The immediate problem now, is that every policy associated with the George W. Bush, Jr. Administration over nearly six years, has been a net disaster. This is a general disaster threatening the welfare of generations yet to come, unless we act soon to reverse the wrong-headed policies which our electorate has already tolerated much too long.

The Crisis Now Before Us

The pivotal feature of the world crisis now spelling doom for a U.S. under a continuation of a George W. Bush Administration, is the presently onrushing general breakdown-crisis of the entire world's present monetary-financial system. As I emphasized, once again, from Berlin, in my Oct. 31, 2006 international webcast address and remarks, there is no effective reform which could be undertaken successfully within the framework of the existing world monetary-financial system.

The present world monetary-financial system is a dollar-denominated system, a system upon which the majority of the outstanding indebtedness of the entire world is dependent. That dollar is not simply a U.S. dollar; it has been, since 1971-72, a world currency denominated as premised upon the U.S.'s ability to defend what is presently the unsupportable ability of the U.S. government to prop up the value of that nominal world currency. At the time any significant sudden decline in the valuation attributed to that dollar occurs, there would be an immediate, chain-reaction collapse of the world's entire monetary-financial system, a collapse comparable to what struck Europe with the collapse of the Lombard banking house of Bardi during the Fourteenth Century.

Only if we put the entire world system into bankruptcy-reorganization by a concert of leading and other governments, and if we debride the financier derivatives and related claims from the accounts through bankruptcy-reorganization of existing national systems, could relevant agreements on recovery measures be struck in a timely fashion.

For example, in the case of the U.S.A. itself, a "bank holiday" would be required, to prevent a chain-reaction sort of speculative disruption of essential functional elements of banking. This would mean putting the present Federal Reserve System into government-directed bankruptcy-reorganization. The first measures would be directed to maintaining stability for family households and essential business and professional functions. The measures of reorganization-in-bankruptcy would clear the way for creation of masses of Federally-created credit for emergencies and for long-term capital investment in new basic economic infrastructure in the public sector, and matching, related expansion of technologically-advanced modes in agriculture and manufacturing.

This would require an abandonment of all "free trade" measures introduced during and since 1971-1981, and return to a protectionist, "fair trade" policy, as replacement for the ruinous "free trade" policies of the post-1960s interval.

The purging of the monetary-financial system of obligations on account of gambling and related pure speculation, such as "financial derivatives," would allow the establishment of new international agreements among a significant number of nations, forcing the world to return to the principles of a fixed-exchange-rate system. Without such a fixed-exchange-rate system, no recovery from the presently onrushing general collapse of the world system would be possible. It would not be a U.S.-based system, but a U.S.-dollar-denominated system based on long-term treaty agreements among, principally, leading nations of Eurasia and the Americas, but also covering the urgent need of development in Africa.

This means impeachment of both the President and Vice-President now. The greatest monetary-financial crash in modern history is onrushing now. Drastic reforms made, largely, in concert with the willing among leading nations, now, will determine the future of the U.S.A., and all humanity for a generation or more to come. We can not postpone that decision—unless our political leaders were idiots—until January 2009.

One would prefer that both the President and Vice-President go quietly. That would prompt a kindly reaction on our part: "Go with God, but go!"

Where are the political leaders who have the guts which I have for such an urgent enterprise on behalf of both our republic and civilization generally? Those who lack the disposition for that specific expression of guts, are not leaders, and should not be supported as would-be leaders.

Who Is Our Enemy?

As I have emphasized repeatedly, Europe would be behaving very stupidly if it attempted to blame every problem of the world on the U.S.A. Admittedly, the George W. Bush Administration has been a global disaster; but, the policy he represents did not originate inside the U.S.A. His Administration's policies have been imported from those Anglo-Dutch Liberal circles, and their neo-conservative offshoots, in Europe, who have sought to induce the U.S.A. to discredit, bankrupt, and destroy itself. To destroy itself by such means as the policies which represent Anglo-Dutch Liberal styles in international financier interest. There are the interests using their influence over U.S. channels typified by circles such as those of the architect of both Chile's Pinochet government and this Bush Administration, George P. Shultz. These latter are, historically, the same channels based among European Liberal financier interests which have been working to undermine and destroy the patriotic legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt since the last breath of that President.

The principal strategic significance of the existence of the U.S.A. since its founding, has been as an expression of the best cultural heritages of modern European civilization transported to a place across the ocean, at a relevant distance from the immediate reach of the seats of European oligarchical traditions. Those European oligarchical traditions, especially the Anglo-Dutch Liberal global geopolitical tradition which has been the sponsor of the leading traitors and the like among us ever since 1763-1789, have recognized the U.S., especially since the victory of President Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A. over the Confederacy puppets of Lord Palmerston's Britain, as the greatest threat to the Anglo-Dutch Liberals' long-standing intent, since 1763, to establish a form of world empire called "globalization" today.

It was for that awkward reason, that Anglo-Dutch Liberals and their U.S. accomplices hated the President Franklin Roosevelt who led in defeating the Hitler machine.

I know, and also remember these Liberal types very well; they are, and have been my personal enemies, such as opponent of the FDR legacy Felix Rohatyn; George Soros; and the circles of that John Train who is closely tied to the operations of Mrs. Lynne Cheney's ACTA (American Council of Trustees and Alumni) and related pro-fascist operations. These types have hated and feared me bitterly since the early 1970s, and especially since President Ronald Reagan's March 1983 announcement of his proposal for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) as a replacement for a regime of "revenge weapons."

Look at the facts which confront us now. The effect of the George W. Bush Administration, has been to bring our economy down into a condition worse than national bankruptcy, and the ruin of the lives of most of our population and the communities in which they live. Never in living memory has the respect for the U.S. as a nation been brought so low as under the George W. Bush Administration; if you doubt that in the least, you have no idea of what is actually going on in the world at large!

Supporting the Bush-Cheney regime would not be an act of patriotism. There is no threat to the U.S. anywhere on this planet, as much as the threat to us which the Bush-Cheney Administration has created by its complicity in promoting the Europe-based Anglo-Dutch Liberal game.

Come on folks! Are you actually dumb enough to think that either Bush or "Shot-Gun Dickie" Cheney is smart enough to have designed the disaster which grips the fate of our nation and its people today? Both of them are actually no more than intellectually and morally deranged puppets, who have been foisted upon us, while most citizens who should have recognized this fact, were, in effect, sleeping at the switch, or so obsessed with what they perceived as their personal short-term interests, that they showed no efficient care for the welfare of their nation and its posterity as a whole.

Impeach that worse-than-useless Bush-Cheney pair while we still have a nation which exists to forgive them for what they have done. Let them go kindly; let them go humanely, but "humanely" means that they must go, and that quickly, for the sake of our nation, and also for all humanity, too. Those who lack the political guts for that great send-off should not be treated as leaders inside the U.S.A.



About 220 people attended the event in Washington, D.C. In addition, there were many "satellite" showings, among them: one group in Paris; five locations in the Mexican Congress and environs; one university in Mexico; four universities in Bolivia; five universities in Peru; two universities in Argentina, and one additional site in Cordoba; and in Colombia, the CUT labor federation invited all members to watch and participate in the dialogue.

The proceedings were moderated by his spokeswoman Debra Freeman.

Freeman: Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to welcome you on behalf of the LaRouche PAC. My name is Debra Freeman. I serve as Mr. LaRouche's National Spokeswoman and his representative here in Washington....

I think there's really no question that today's event takes place in a much happier environment, than events in the past may have, and I hope everyone is happy, because happy people work harder. And we have a great deal of work to do.

So, if everyone now will take their seats, we're going to close the doors for the next part of the presentation, and then I'll come back, and when I come back, we'll open the doors again. But right now, I'd like to bring Mr. LaRouche up here, and he'll introduce the next part of the program. Lyn?

LaRouche: Thank you. As you will understand better, I think, in the course of the next three hours, the subject we have to address now, is of momentous world importance, and you will appreciate better, later, as we get into the discussion, that the moments which in past history, in past history of European civilization, correspond to what we're going through now, should remind us of 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia: Where, as over a period from 1492 with the beginning of the expulsion of Jews from Spain, through the Treaty of Westphalia, the question of European civilization's existence as civilization, was in doubt, as today. Similarly in the middle of the 14th Century, Europe was plunged into a dark age, after centuries of cruelty under the Norman/Venetian tyranny.

So, in 1648 and immediately afterward, Germany in particular, as the center of the great conflict of the Thirty Years' War, rejoiced in liberation from religious warfare through the Treaty of Westphalia. This is comparable to the great terror which threatens us today, a monetary crisis like that of the middle of the 14th Century, the so-called "new dark age crisis." Today, at this time, as will become clearer not only from today's discussion, but from the events which are about to occur on a global scale, you're living in one of the most terrifying periods of history known to you. Now, right now.

In this circumstance, in the rejoicing in the liberation from religious warfare, in Germany, around Lutherans, of all things, a hymn was developed, called Jesu, meine Freude. Later, in the course of the early 18th Century, Johann Sebastian Bach re-set and treated this as the greatest of his several motets. Today, we're going to have a performance of it, to begin this, in celebration of the kind of the great moment of history which we're trying to bring forth again on this planet, in this time of great danger.

Unfortunately, we're in a hotel, where the acoustics are not those you would get in a good church, so you will not get the full beauty of the performance, because it doesn't fit these walls. But, with a little stretch of the imagination and some good hearing, and some insight into music, you will appreciate what they're about to do. And after you hear them sing, I'll get back to you.

[The LaRouche Youth Movement chorus performs J.S. Bach's motet Jesu, meine Freude. For a high-quality recording of the performance, see the bottom of the webcast media page.]

Freeman: Once again, let me welcome you to today's event. Certainly, after the last few weeks of this campaign, it's with a certain amount of pleasure that we can say that the Democrats now control both Houses of the U.S. Congress [cheers, applause] and I think that there is broad recognition, both here in Washington and across the United States, that that victory was in fact, sparked by Mr. LaRouche and by the Youth Movement that is associated with him. Because, in fact, the Democratic Party itself was not in the greatest shape during the course of this Spring, when the campaign really did take off in earnest.

The situation now in Washington is an interesting one. Because, for many of us who work here and who represent Mr. LaRouche, we've listened to our Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill tell us—for months!—that they agree with Mr. LaRouche, and that they absolutely agree with Mr. LaRouche's economic policy. But the only problem, you see, is that we Democrats are not the majority party! And what would be the point of introducing this legislation? The Republicans would just strike it down.

And we've heard that refrain, over, and over, and over again. But now, the Democrats are in control. So, there's really no reason at all, why we should not expect that they will, in short order, introduce all of this legislation, and we can get on to the important tasks at hand. And it actually—and I'm not being facetious: It's my full expectation, that that is in fact the way we will start the new year, because it's the way we must start the new year. The fact is that the Democratic victory is an important one.

But now that the election is over, we also have to face the simple reality that the onrushing strategic, financial, and economic collapse will accelerate. And now, the question on the table, is not a question of who will run for President in 2008. The question on the table is how, in fact, the American people, and this nation, are going to organize their way out of the Great Crash of 2007. And there is no better person to address that, than Lyndon LaRouche. Please join me in welcoming him.

LaRouche: Thank you, young lady. Thank you.

Just to start with a few observations, our subject will essentially be the question of the economy as such, which requires a lot of attention. It will get more attention: I will producing, this weekend, for publication over the weekend, in EIR and in other publications, a study of the U.S. economy and how to save the U.S. economy. The title is "Saving the U.S. Economy." It will cover some of the same area, that I'm addressing here today, but it's a more in-depth treatment, of the type due to an audience for a written publication, as opposed to an oral presentation. And there are some things which I shall say here, I will not say there, because this is an oral discussion between me and people out there and people here. So, that's a different kind of communication than writing to a reading audience.

Now, there are three subjects which I would call to your attention as reference, and then I shall return to the one, which is the economy.

What Bob Rubin Knows—And Doesn't Know

First of all, you may know that Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury, made some remarks recently, and some other people made similar remarks, but he in particular: In which he did not exactly go all way, but he did warn that we are facing an immediate crisis, an immediate collapse of the present monetary-financial system, which he has been saying for some time. He did not propose the remedies for this, but simply indicated the need to address the reality of the threat, which he much understated.

But I don't object to that, because Bob Rubin is committed to two things: He's a professional in the banking field, which is his basis for having been Secretary of the Treasury. He's a very bright person, very intelligent, and very courageous. But he is a banker, not a politician. He's not a commander of a field army. I'm more inclined to the latter profession, as you know.

But I agree with him on this point: that he is what he is, and I am what I am, and I have no objection to the fact that he's greatly understating the problem, and not identifying the solution, even to the degree that he does have a solution. Because his job is to move things forward, to get people off their butts, so to speak, to recognize that there is not a happy economy out there, there is a terrible economy, in which the lower 80%, even the lower 90% of family-income brackets of the United States, in particular, are suffering greatly. In which every nation-state of continental Western and Central Europe is in the process of disintegration. In which there is some recovery in some parts of South America, but the extent of misery is massive. The situation in Africa is unspeakable. And if the United States goes down, as I shall explain, in that case, China will go down, India will go down, and the rest of the entire world will go down! Go down in a chain-reaction, not into a depression, but into a general breakdown crisis, comparable to what happened to Europe in the middle of the 14th Century, a period which became known as a New Dark Age: in which half of the municipalities of Europe disappeared from the map, and one-third of the level of population, in a period of one generation.

We're now facing a condition which potentially threatens that on a global scale. So, I don't object to what Bob said, because his job is to try to move some dead-heads to life, to realize that this is not a happy situation, that we're in a very deadly situation, which requires rather strong and exceptional remedies. Fortunately, those remedies exist, if we have the will to adopt them.

The Iraq War

You have a similar kind of situation around the Iraq withdrawal issue. Now, we are all committed to the Iraq withdrawal, I presume. But there are practical problems in executing the withdrawal. So therefore, we have to be concerned that there's a serious commitment to getting out of there. That it's not a "baby" commitment, it's not an "if" commitment, it's an absolute commitment. But we are not going to simply leave the place! Therefore, as generals have said, leading generals, who oppose the war, have made the same observation: You have to adopt a process by which you successfully disengage, and don't increase the mess which already exists, created by the Bush Administration and its policies. So therefore, I agree with both those of us who say "immediate withdrawal," but who also say, "We've got to have a scheme for withdrawal, which fits the requirement."

Impeachment: We Press, They Process

There's another question of the same nature: Some Democrats are not saying "impeachment," if they're in the Congress. Why? They're for impeachment. We are for impeachment. But why are they saying that, apart from the deadheads—like, we have a Democratic deadhead, he's called Lieberman, from Connecticut. He was elected by the Republican Party, and he's called a Democrat. But in general, they're right. Why? Because, as they will tell you, as Conyers, for example, who's the head of the relevant incoming committee of the Congress, will tell you, that when you are putting the President on trial, where you have to be a judge and jury, you can not be a prosecutor from the outset. You must conduct the proper procedure, because you can not destroy law itself and due process, in the process of seeking to do something which is even necessary.

However, we, who are not in the Congress, who are not in the Senate, who are not in the House of Representatives, have the responsibility to press for the impeachments we know are necessary: Cheney, number 1. So therefore, we press, they process. And as long as their processing corresponds to our pressing, we're going to come out just about all right.

This is the nature of the function of leadership, and function and process in government: You must have a strategic outlook as to what must be done, an understanding of the problem to be corrected. But you must also have respect for the process, so in the process of getting to where you want to get to, you don't destroy your destination.

So therefore, I speak as I do, and it's my job to do so. I'm the tough guy. They're the soft guys. They speak softly; I speak toughly.

Now there's another reason, which I'll return to, the main point here today, is, that Bob Rubin doesn't have a solution. None of the well-meaning, leading financial authorities, and economic authorities, in the United States, or in Western Europe, or in the world at large, have any conception of how to solve the presently onrushing international financial-monetary and physical crisis: None! I do! Now, in this case, therefore, it is my job to state frankly what that solution is, and to identify the nature of the problem to which this remedy, this medicine, is to be applied, in order to cure the sick patient. If we don't do what I know we have to do, if we don't take some of the necessary steps, then in the attempt to deal with the crisis, we'll make the mess worse. And if we make the mess worse, now, in a crisis which is far more serious than the 1929-1933 period—if we do that, we get a dark age.

So therefore, action must be taken now, decision must be made now; the medicine must be the right medicine; the solution, the plan, must be the right plan—and we can get out, alive and well. And be free of some of the diseases that have gotten us to this point. That's my job.

It's my job to say what has to be done, because others don't know what is to be done. Bob Rubin doesn't know what to do, and he's about as smart as they come in the United States, on this question. Nor does former President Clinton. Nor do any of the leaders of the committees in the Congress, the Senate or the House: None of them know what to do. They have the intention, the best of them, of doing something. They want to know what to do. My job is to tell them what the solution is, and what to do.

And let's hope they agree, for the sake of us all, and for the future generations of humanity.

What Happened to the Economy

Now, the present crisis is something which I warned of in particular, at the end of 1995, when I was a guest of a Vatican conference on health policy questions. And during the conclusion of that session, I presented a paper, in support of the proceedings, in which I specified the general nature of the crisis which we face, in which the whole health question had to be situated. The economic aspect of how do you address the growing health situation, the deprivations which were occurring, the failure to meet requirements around the world. And I published this same material in the form of what I called "The Triple Curve," publicly, in January of 1996, as the launching of my then-Presidential primary campaign. Since that time, there's been some change: One aspect of the curve relationship changed, as I noted around the year 2000, 1999 to 2000. But! What I had said then is absolutely true.

What has happened, the reality of the economy, is, that over the period, especially since about 1987, and the measures taken under Bush I—"Bush 41" as he's called—a process was set into motion under a raving fascist lunatic, otherwise known as Alan Greenspan. And this process resulted in a decline in the physical income, and productive output, of the United States. But this decline was apparently offset by an increase in financial aggregates. Because the Federal Reserve System and other mechanisms were printing money, in the wildest way imaginable, on the basis of so-called "financial derivatives." And therefore, you had a financial growth, a hyperbolic tendency in expansion of the amount of financial aggregate, while the physical aggregate per capita of production was going down! In the meantime, you were driving this financial aggregate, by expansion of the monetary aggregate, by new ways of creating fictitious money, which some people try to take to a bank. And every banker knows, you don't do that. You take fictitious monetary assets and you sell 'em to some sucker, to get whatever you can get in terms of physical assets, or negotiable assets.

So now we've reached the point, at which the rate of monetary expansion required to support financial expansion, to keep the whole blasted bubble from popping, or to cause it to pop, is such that we're now at the fag end of the system. We've now reached the point with the collapse of production... like for example, the Congress did nothing, the Congress did absolutely nothing definitive, during the entirety of 2005, to deal with the collapse of the auto industry. We said, "Change it." The Federal government should bail out the auto industry, by taking the sections of the auto industry which are not needed for production of automobiles, and use that section for other things we do need: such as fixing up the rivers, which are no longer functional; fixing up our infrastructure in general; producing new power plants. Basic economic infrastructure, which is what government does well, as opposed to the private sector. And use that driver, of using the high-technology section of the auto and aerospace industry, which is not needed any more for automobiles—use that sector, keep it fully in function, because it has a machine-tool capability, the ability to produce almost anything. So use that to build up our infrastructure, to expand our production in the private sector generally, and to go away from being a post-industrial society, which is another way of describing death, back into an industrial society, which means physical progress per capita and per square kilometer.

And all you have to do is look at the conditions of life of the lower 80%, even now, the lower 90% of family-income brackets in the United States, and you see that the President of the United States is, as we've all suspected for some time, a raving lunatic. There's nothing true in anything he says. I mean, a President who wants to go out and kill "tourrists" is not exactly doing something good for the United States, hmm?

Don't Sink the Dollar

Now, what has to be done? To get to the essence of the matter, what is the solution? Well, the first thing, is, don't sink the dollar. Because if the dollar is devalued, today, in a significant degree, say 20 or 30%, it would mean the entire system, the entire world system, would go, chain-reaction fashion, into a global dark age. Because the whole world system is dependent on a dollar, which intrinsically has no intrinsic value. The dollar has a conventional value, not a physical value.

In 1971-72, we destroyed the dollar. We took it off the Bretton Woods system, and we said it was "floating." What does it mean, "floating"? You know what floats, huh?

But the point was, the dollar was still used as the currency of account and denomination by the International Monetary Fund. So the world system is a dollar system, Despite the fact that some parts of the world are trying disengage from heavy implication in dollars, to other currencies, that's no escape either. Because the entire world system is based on the ability to collect on the U.S. dollar! If you can't collect on the U.S. dollar at parity, then you are bankrupt, too! Every nation in the world: China goes into a crisis. India goes into collapse. Every part of the world goes into a collapse, if the dollar goes down by 30%!

So, the first thing you have to understand, is, there is no solution unless you prevent the dollar from collapsing. How can you prevent the dollar from collapsing? Well, two things have to be done: The United States government has to get rid of this President, and Vice President. If you want to save your rear-end, get rid of this President. And have him go where you put your rear-end.

An FDR-Type Solution

Because, unless you can make a change from his policy—and the guy's pretty stubbornly insane—unless you can do what I want to do, what President Franklin Roosevelt would have done, unless you want to do that, you are useless; you are worse than useless; you are an impediment in the wheels of progress. If I'm President of the United States, or can get somebody else who is President, to do the right job, we can stop the crisis. By political power: We can say, "We are going to defend the dollar at parity, on international markets." On condition that other countries will cooperate with us in doing it!

So what we do, is we agree that we're going to set up a return to something like the Bretton Woods system that Nixon shut down in 1971-72. We're going to say that the policy of the United States is to establish a fixed-parity relationship with other currencies, other nations and currencies of the world; we're going to create a new system, which will be denominated in dollars, but at a fixed ratio. We are going to convert short-term obligations, en masse, into long-term obligations of up to 25 to 50 years by treaty agreement. And therefore we can stabilize the world, on the basis of the agreement with countries that are willing to do that.

We can then, on that basis, we can issue new credit, at 1% to 2%, as fiat credit of governments, or under treaty agreements, long-term trade and credit agreements among governments. For example, take the case between Germany and China, a good example, because Germany is pretty much a trading partner of Russia and China. That's the key to Germany's having any economy at all.

All right. So, these countries have different kinds of political, economic, and monetary systems. But therefore, if you have a treaty agreement, covering a 25- to 50-year period, at 1% to 2% simple interest rates, of government to government, over this period, you can now create a new vehicle of credit to finance the major projects, which Asian countries in particular require, because they don't have enough facilities now, to do the complete job they need to do for their own countries.

So, we can fix this at low rates of borrowing costs. We crank up Europe, starting with Germany. We crank them up to produce the product that Asia requires, particularly for capital goods, capital investments, capital improvements. We finance the thing on a 25- to 50-year basis, in bulk. We also use a reformed monetary system, of a Bretton Woods type—not the Bretton Woods system, but a Bretton Woods type—a fixed-exchange-rate system, and we lock the world up into a set of agreements for physical economic recovery and growth.

End the Greenspan Financial Casino

Now, we also do something else: The reason that this crisis is so severe, is because of Alan Greenspan. That man was no good. Wherever he is today, he's still no good. And you don't know where he might have gone in the meantime—if you know anything about him! Any follower of Ayn Rand might have gone anyplace. He may still be following her, for all I know! And when you look at the Ayn Rand supporters, who turned out to be some of the nastiest fascist types of neo-cons, in existence on the surface of this planet, you have to know, that Alan Greenspan, was, as they say of Satan, "no damned good."

So therefore, this is the mess. We have created by, instead of investing, instead of creating debt for investment, for investment in creating new plants, new production facilities, basic economic infrastructure, scientific and technological progress, large-scale investment in nuclear power plants, things of that sort; instead of doing that, we have invested in gambling! How many parts of the United States have opened up casinos, and legalized gambling, as a substitute for tax revenue? As a mode of employment? What is that worth? It's gambling! Now where in the Hell did gambling come from?

So, what we have, is, we have the entire world is based on a gambling system. Hedge funds: gambling system! The banking system is bankrupt, implicitly, because of its tie to hedge funds.

We're now getting to the point where the hedge funds are going to start collapsing, one after the other, by bubble-pricking. We have the real estate bubble. It's a fraud! The entire real estate investment in the United States is a fraud! Right where we're standing, across the river in Loudoun County, it's ground zero for the biggest financial real estate crash in all human history. It's going into a chain-reaction collapse, and other parts of the country are not far behind. That's the situation we're in. It's because we have incurred a mass of debt, of financial debt, in the system, based on a gambling system.

And instead of being honest gamblers, who accept their losses, after they've lost their money, they demand to be paid for their losses! At a profit.

So therefore, what we will do, is simply go at this through financial reorganization: We must save the banks. I agree with Bob Rubin on that. You must save the banking system. Why? Because of the function of the banking system in the circulation of credit, deposits, and so forth, and organization of communities and private and family life, and so forth, huh?

But they're bankrupt.

All right, we still save them: We put them through bankruptcy. We keep the doors open ... in bankruptcy. Guess where the word "bankruptcy" came from? From banks!

So, the Federal government now moves in, and takes over the bankrupt banks, and says, "You guys are going to keep the door open, by Federal order. We're taking the Federal Reserve System into receivership by the Federal government. And the Federal government is going to operate it. We are now going to take accounts, which can not be currently paid, we're going to put the entire system through bankruptcy reorganization! You can't close your doors! We will tell you what accounts you are allowed to pay. We'll tell you what accounts should be guaranteed, whether they're paid in order or on account. We will regulate where you can take your unpaid balances in the banks, and you can draw upon them, at nominal rates, for your own purposes." In other words, you may have savings, or something lodged in a bank, in a bank account. The bank doesn't have the money to pay you for your investment. But we can decide by Federal law that certain kinds of investments of that sort will be guaranteed, and therefore we can negotiate that a person who can not withdraw money from the bank because the bank doesn't have it, can get a loan at minimal charges, in which to use their own money, until we can get to the point that we can liquidate this, as we did with the bank holiday procedure—a much milder problem—back in the 1930s under Roosevelt.

So therefore, we can keep the banks functioning! We can selectively protect those things which are of highest priority to the functioning of communities and families. That we can do!

We will then, simply take the financial derivatives, and similar kinds of phony investments, and we will cancel them! Write them off. They're gone anyway! So why not write them off? The banks are bankrupt. You have to settle so much on the dollar. We may end up settling on 20 cents on the dollar for the entire banking system, financial system, in terms of assets, like that.

But if we do it, we go from an unregulated situation of chaos, to a regulated system. We turn short-term crisis into long-term stability. We eliminate things that should be eliminated from the accounts; we protect things that should be protected; and we enter into international agreements to expand physical production and development of infrastructure.

At that point, we really don't have a problem. Because, if we are keeping enough of the people of the United States working—not in McDonalds, but in actually useful things where you dare eat—you know, in your own kitchen you dare to eat the food, most of the time, don't you? When you go to McDonalds, you wonder, "What am really eating? Who am I eating?" [laughter] "It tastes like somebody from Australia. What's this pouch doing in my hamburger?!"

So, the problem is not insuperable. And you can look at what Franklin Roosevelt did during the 1930s, and turned an economy which had collapsed by one-third under Hoover, and he turned it into the greatest economic machine the world had ever seen. A machine which was the only thing which saved the world from a Hitler dictatorship—was the United States and its partnership with other countries, including the Soviet Union. Including an unwilling ally, Great Britain.

Great Britain had been fully for Hitler. And Roosevelt and some other developments convinced some people in Britain not to go for Hitler. The leading bankers of New York City were all for Hitler. They'd been for Mussolini, too. Roosevelt beat them over the head! Said, "Now you're against Hitler"; they said, "Okay! Yessir, ma'am." (They get confused on these things.)

So we forced these guys, who were actually the authors of the Nazi system, in the United Kingdom, among the French Synarchists, among the U.S. bankers, including the granddaddy of the present President of the United States, Prescott Bush! Who was a Hilter-backer! He, personally, signed the order which moved the money into the Nazi Party, as a loan, which guaranteed the non-collapse of the Nazi Party, in time for Hitler to become the dictator of Germany, and almost the dictator of the world. That was the "gran'daddy of this heah President!" This guy who wants to kill "tourrists." Not good Presidential material.

We're Coming to the End of the Road

Anyway so, the issue here is, that we can, as governments, if governments agree—and you need a conspiracy among some good governments in the world, and the rest will have to go along. This comes to another question I'll get to later: But we are now involved in a general collapse, where the amount of debt and the acceleration of the amount of debt, unpayable debt being paid off with more unpayable debt, is reaching the point, as typified by the housing crisis or the debt-mortgage crisis in the United States, that we're coming to the end of the road—as Bob Rubin says. As I said, I support Bob Rubin, because he's trying to awaken some idiots in the United States, to the fact that there is no prosperity, that the system is about to collapse: That we're already overripe for an immediate collapse—any day, any morning, any afternoon. And once it starts, if the U.S. government and some other governments don't do the right thing, the whole world will go into a dark age. We're at that point. That's why I have to do something.

Now the problem is, the psychological problem, is people believe in money. For example, the British have theories of money. Marx got his ideas from the British, therefore the Marxists have silly ideas about money. They have a theory of value about money.

Money, whether in metallic, or paper, or computer language form, has no intrinsic value. None. It is a medium, it's a contract, that's all. Or it's a medium of a contract.

Defeat the Oligarchical System

Now, especially in modern society, since medieval society, in fact, since ancient Greece, money, as a notion of value, has always been a characteristic of what's called imperialism. Now in the old days, they didn't call it "imperialism." In those days, in ancient Greece, for example, it was called "the oligarchical system." The oligarchical system—and this is where the problem arises inside the United States—it's where the problem arises inside the Democratic Party leadership. The oligarchical system, where you had people who were running the Democratic campaign, Howard Dean's Democratic campaign, who were looking at people like Felix Rohatyn, who is by all credentials a fascist—after all, he financed bringing Pinochet to power in Chile. That is not exactly what we consider a first-class Democrat!

But they said, "We're going to the upper 3% of family-income brackets to finance the Democratic election campaign. " I said, "Nonsense." They said, "No, we're going to do it, anyway." So the Democratic campaign organization, particularly under the Democratic Leadership Council and under Howard Dean, was going in this direction, to get money. From whom? From the upper 3% of family-income brackets. Now, what's the problem in the United States? The big problem is the lower 80% of family-income brackets! Even the lower 90%, these days, as some of you may have discovered. It used to be a safety valve to be in the upper 20%. Now, you have to be in the upper 10%, or the upper 3%.

So the Democratic Party politics was oriented toward the upper 3%! Because, whose butt did you have to kiss to get the money in order to run your campaign? Why did some Democrats want to work through Felix Rohatyn? Because they wanted the money that he controlled! Therefore, he could dictate their politics, based on their desire to ple-e-a-se him, in the way they ran the campaign. It's still a problem. We're going to have to sort it out.

Whereas, real politics is, the lower 80% of the family-income brackets, that is, in terms of physical standards of living, conditions of life. Of communities in which they live. That's real politics. That's real, American politics, as opposed to some European oligarchical system, where you have landlords running the world. This is called the "oligarchical system": A group of wealthy families run society, the way they ran ancient Sparta, where the helots were hunted down for pleasure, by the young bad guys of the wealthy families; where the poor were persecuted and treated as animals; where society was based on treating human beings as animals.

Take Quesnay, for example, the so-called author of the Physiocratic system, who said that wealth comes from what? From production? He didn't say that! What he said was, the property title, the title of nobility to property and land, for mining and farming, was the magical thing which produced wealth. And the people on the estate, engaged in production of mining and agricultural production, were no different than cows! Who should be fed enough straw in order to continue to produce milk and meat. But, the fruit of production, the gain in wealth, had been produced by that lazy bum with a title, sitting in his estate, and it was this magical title to that estate, which secreted this surplus value, this wealth. That's the oligarchical system.

That was the system of Sparta. That was the system created in European history by the Apollo Cult of Delphi, which created Rome. This is what created the Roman Empire; this is what created the Byzantine Empire; this is what created the form of empire of the Middle Ages, where the Venetians were running these bums called the Crusaders, the Norman chivalry, in running a system of persecution of Muslims—"Hey what d'ya know about that? Back then?" The anti-Islamic movement? Medieval! The Crusaders, who were not Christian. They were out to crucify everybody. And they were working for the Venetian bankers! This was the medieval system that led to the Dark Age.

This was what was restored in Europe, again, with the Fall of Constantinople, where the Venetians took power again. This is what led to the formation of British Empire, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, which is the same thing. They reintroduced slavery. Now, again, they've reintroduced the anti-Islamic movement, have a war against Islam! Same thing all over again.

So therefore, the system is to manage the planet, by treating the majority of the human population of the planet as animal life, which you can cull, kill, or maintain as a pet—and then eat—as you do a pet cow in a barn. The oligarchical system.

What was achieved in the Renaissance was the kind of idea represented by Solon of Athens, represented by Plato: the idea that the totality of the people—the people contain something which is not an animal. The people contain a spiritual, intellectual power, which distinguishes man from the beast. And therefore, human beings can not be treated as animals! And society exists for the benefit of humanity, for future humanity, and future humanity is the children of all of people living now!

A Community of Sovereign Nations

So therefore, real politics is not democracy. Real politics is care for the welfare of all of the people, for the benefit of future humanity. It is the respect for the sovereignty of cultures. Because different people have different cultural backgrounds, they can function only in terms of their language, their culture, which they communicate in. Therefore, people organize themselves in language-cultures, or cultures of tradition. Why? Because they think in those terms. If you want to have representative government, you have to give the people the access to the system which is theirs, in which they do their thinking, in which they can develop ideas.

And therefore, at the same time, you must then have a fraternity among relations of different cultures on the planet. Roosevelt such had such intentions, Franklin Roosevelt. Truman had the opposite intention. Franklin Roosevelt's determination, as he said repeatedly, was at the end of war, the great economic production machine which the United States had developed to defeat Hitler, would now be converted as a source of productive power, to enable the colonial nations of the world, and the suppressed people of the world, to develop their own government, independent. And to create on this planet, a fraternity among national self-governments of peoples. That was Roosevelt's intention.

What Truman did—Truman was a stooge for Churchill. The British did not intend to give up their Empire. Truman let the British occupy their colonies, again. The Truman Administration gave Vietnam back to the Japanese in order to turn it over to the French. The British government and the Dutch suppressed the people of Indonesia; the cause of freedom in Africa was brutally suppressed, repeatedly, throughout most of the post-war period. So that's the difference between Truman and Roosevelt.

That's the difference between the American System, the American Constitutional System, which we created in this country. We were able to create it, because we were at a distance from Europe, where the oligarchy was dominant. And therefore, we were able to take the best ideas, that had developed in Europe, and build a culture and a nation around the best ideas of Europe, but at a safe distance from the European oligarchy. Not completely safe, but relatively safe.

That's the difference in politics. That's the issue today.

The Indispensable Role of Youth

Look at what won the election. What won the election? And it's no exaggeration, as Debbie said: That our role, particularly the role of the Youth Movement, and what we were pushing as our policy, was crucial during the last weeks of the campaign, in securing a landslide victory for the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. Where did the votes come from, that won the election in that way? Well, it came from the people between 18 and 29 years of age. Some of you people are acquainted with some people of that age group. It came, also, from a surge, a great surge of the population between the age of 25 and 35. That is what won the election! This was a part of the population which the Democratic campaign had done nothing to win over. The leading policy had been doing nothing to win them over.

That's where we played a role. We pushed. And the youth pushed hard: We won the election. Because we sparked a reaction in the population by the methods we used, here, to create a mass effect. You have a few people with ideas, you produce a mass effect. Not by person-to-person conversions. No religious conversions—please. By mass effect: You spread ideas. You deploy in such a way as to spread ideas among the people! And the spreading of ideas among the people, when the ideas are attractive to them, cause them to have a better relationship to each other. And the people who develop this better relationship to each other in terms of ideas, then become influential in the entire community around them. And that's what happened!

We went to everybody, in our campaigns, in the recent period. But we went especially to those in the 18 to 25 age group, as the base. And we also went to those in the 25 to 35 age group. And that's exactly where we had our success! We went to other people, but we never had the success in the older generation that we had in these two sections of the population. And this is particularly true of the college-educated population, or quasi-college-educated population—you have quasi-universities today. They're called universities, but they ain't really that.

So that's how we changed it: We created a mass effect. What happened? Where did we stimulate it? Well, tell me about people who are between 25 and 35. Tell me about people in the United States who are between 18 and 25: How many of them are rich? How many of them can afford a university education? How many can afford the effects of having had it? [laughter]

So therefore, there are two things about these two groups, 18 to 25, and 25 to 35: What is characteristic of them? Baby-Boomers are approaching the fag-end of existence, and in their cases you call it the fag-end of existence. 'Cause they don't believe in the future: They believe in their pleasure. [dumbo voice] "History stops with us." That's the Baby-Boomer.

Whereas people who are 18 to 25, either are going to go on drugs and kill themselves; or they're going to say, "I want a society with a future. I'm going to be around here at working age for 50 years to come! What kind of a future do I have in the coming 50 years? Can I produce children? Can I have a family? And if I try, what's going to become of them?" The person who is 25 to 35 faces the same problem: "I'm around, I may have 40-50 years of fight in me, of working life. I want to have a family, somewhere along the line. I want to have a family that can live, where the children can live! I want to look forward to grandchildren, who will be in a society which is at least as good as ours, and perhaps better."

Our Culture Was Destroyed

This is the motivation of people who have not yet reached the Baby-Boomer age as a result of the post-war culture. The 68ers have no sense of the future! They didn't believe in production! They hated people they caught wearing blue shirts! So they took their own shirts off completely! [laughter] Because, they were using, taking in stuff, and you couldn't tell what the color was—so, to get rid of all shirts.

So what you had, our culture was destroyed, by what was called in Europe, the Congress for Cultural Freedom. With the Truman Administration, various social measures were taken, especially in the upper 20% of family-income brackets, especially in suburbia, in educational systems, through television and so forth, in order to condition the population which was born after 1945 to about 1957, to condition that population to have no values; to condition them to be complete sophists. In Europe it was called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. In the United States, the same thing was done.

So the young people who went into universities in the 1960s, were generally products of this cultural indoctrination. The same thing that was spread in Europe, as the Congress for Cultural Freedom. And therefore, when they exploded in reaction to the fact that they were about to be drafted—they didn't explode as long as they could get exemptions from the draft by being in a university. But when the day came that the U.S. government said they could be drafted, that the college exemptions were cut back, they went wild!

And what did they do? They demanded clothes and took them off. They demanded freedom of the mind, and took drugs to destroy their minds. Like LSD: They would set up parties, where they would have parties, they would have coke, wine, and pot. And then when they had finished going to pot, they would say, "This no longer is a thrill, I want a real ride into insanity," and they would take some LSD. They were against technology; they were against production; they were against people who worked in factories; they were against farmers; they were against every system on which the welfare of the general population depends, and they called this "the new freedom."

And this is what happened to us: These were the Baby-Boomers. In Europe, as in the United States, the Baby-Boomers destroyed society. Not because they had intended to destroy society, but because they themselves had been destroyed by the Truman-Age culture to which they were born. Especially if they were in the upper 20% of family-income brackets of that period.

Now that generation has been running society, and therefore, leading members of the Congress, political parties, and so forth, are not exactly in the best mental condition. They have certain ... [parodies goofy mannerisms]. [laughter] And they don't really believe in anything. They believe in their pleasure. They believe in their advantage. They're looking for thrills of various forms, like getting elected or something. But they don't believe in a mission for the benefit of future humanity. They haven't got that kind of commitment.

Therefore, the future of mankind rests on the shoulders of people between 18 and 35, today. Because, unless they're destroyed already, they're thinking about a future. They're thinking of the outcome of the years to come. They're looking for a meaningful life in 50 or more years to come, whether they have children or not. As we used to!

In all my experience, and I go back a good ways, in terms of grandparents and so forth, well over 150 years—and in terms of people I know in the family, whom I didn't meet actually, go back over 200 years—so, in a sense, sociologically, I'm 200 years old. And I'm working on a third ... I think.

So, that's the situation: This generation is what we depend upon. This generation are in motion, as you saw in the election results! This generation will inspire even some of the deadheads of the Baby-Boomers to come back to human life. They won't initiate it, but they'll follow it.

All Revolutions Are Made by Youth

This is not entirely unusual in history, that you will find that all revolutions and wars are fought by people, generally, mostly, between 18 and 25. All great changes in society originate, within the development of people between the ages of 18 and 25. This is the way history has been run. Look at history! Look at what age-group in each generation played what part in shaping history: It's been the same. I used to warn people about this, I said, "You know, at the age of 27, you change your sex, if you're a university student. As you're about to get your doctoral degree, suddenly your mind drops away—because you don't want to destroy the perfection of what you already know by learning something new. If you're a professor at the age of 27, and you start to teach, and you begin to 'repeat after me' from index cards the same lecture you got, and you pass it on to the suckers in the next class to come that you're teaching."

So there's a phenomenon in society, where a lack of creativity in the development of the young people results from the age of about 27, 30 and so forth. At that point, they develop a kind of "the end of progress," "the end of development." They may learn new things, they may acquire new skills, they may gain in effectiveness, but they're not really creative any more. They really are not human any more. They're sort of an animal-like version of a human being. What they've learned and conditioned up to that time, stays with them, until the memory begins to fail. But they don't progress. They don't undergo personal, internal revolutions in knowledge, in breaking free. They tend to become stagnant. Oh, a minority can differ: You have an Einstein here or there, and so forth. But the majority of people, in a society of our time, still goes stagnant at about the age of 27 to 30. And very few actually continue to be creative beyond that point.

And so therefore, the key thing in society, is always focus upon what leads into the 18 to 25 age group, the 18 to 35 age group in our society: Focus on that; instill creativity, or a sense, an association with creativity, as a normal social process, in that age group. Because, if you can instill that in that age group, then you have set a new direction in society into motion. And then your life means something, because you're doing what the Baby-Boomer generation didn't want to do, is create their successors. "History stops here with us, and after that, we don't care."

So therefore, you see precisely in these election results, that.

So therefore, we're coming, in this time, to a point where my conception of economics is crucial: What is that conception? What's the difference between man and monkey? Bush could never tell you. His mother was never able to tell him. And if she'd been able to do so, she wouldn't have been willing to do so—because she's a very cruel person. She doesn't like children—uses them like Kleenex tissues.

The difference between human beings and the animal is creativity. It's typified by the discovery of a universal physical principle. Or what we've done with the Youth Movement, in terms of the work of Bach, which we celebrated again today: That, in Classical musical composition and its performance, if properly understood as Bach understood it, and the great composers after Bach, and the great musicians, the great performers, is creative. It is not playing the note. It's playing between the notes. It's playing the passage. It's playing the interplay of voices. And in this, this difference, between the literal note, and the music, is creativity. It involves the same powers of mind, applied to a social process, that the scientific discovery of principle applies to an object in nature.

Science and Classical art are the same. They involve exactly the same specific kind of creative mental powers. In the one case, the object is something in nature or animals. In human beings, it's something social, it's something in the cooperative relationship of human minds. And this is best expressed in art, in Classical art. When we organized the East Coast youth operation, Youth Movement, we had a meeting, and we decided—and my proposal was accepted—to take Jesu, meine Freude, the work we performed here today, and to use that as the emphasis for a cultural orientation which corresponds to the same mentality in physical scientific creativity. And to develop the practice, and development of this work in vocal music, with that mind. As playing between the notes, or the kind of thing that in John [Sigerson] has been working with the choruses on doing, on the question of the comma: What does the comma mean in music? When you get to the idea of irony, irony was the comma, as an ironical development, which distinguishes the music from the notes, it's irony! It's something between the notes. It's the same thing as the irony of the infinitesimal in physical science as defined by Kepler, in the discovery of universal gravitation, or the organization of the Solar System.

Irony: Because a universal physical principle is never an object of the senses. The effect of a universal physical principle is an object of the senses—but not the principle itself. Why? Well, gravitation is as big as the universe. Now how can you see an object which is as big as the universe? With what will you compare it? What you see, is the effect of that object, as it rolls over you, so to speak. "Oh! There's something there!"

And this is reflected as something that happens, that hits you in each instance. Well, how big is the instant? Well, the instant is as small as you can get ... and smaller. The same thing is true in poetry, Classical poetry. It's true in all great art: It's not the literal, mechanism interpretation, which defines the art. It's the irony! It's something between the cracks, which is universal, a universal principle. That's what defines art. That's what defines science, as Kepler defined science. As the ancient Greeks defined science, in terms of the concept of dynamis.

The Difference Between Man and Ape

So therefore, the function here, in economics, is what? The difference between man and the ape is creativity. If man were an ape, you wouldn't be bothered with more than a few million neighbors of that type, at the most. Because you couldn't sustain a larger population of apes, or gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. Human beings: We've got over 6 billion of them. How'd we get that? Because of development. What kind of development? Because humanity developed, in terms of art, in terms of the equivalent of science, humanity made discoveries. These discoveries were reenacted by successive generations, became part of the practice of society: Man's power in and over the universe increased. And the more individuals who expressed this power, and gained it, the more prosperous and better the society was; the more powerful the society was; the more we could conquer the world around us, to provide for a better standard of living for people, for future humanity.

So therefore, this is what's crucial. Now, in oligarchical society, the oligarch does not want the majority of people to understand this. It wants to reduce, like Adam Smith, or the Physiocrats, to degrade man to the status of being an obedient cow! And to tell himself to be happy. Tell the cow to be happy. Tell the cow to "shut up and be happy! Stop that noise at night! I want to sleep! The cow's keeping me awake, or I'll slaughter it in the morning!" Hmm? And people are treated as cows: You're supposed to "learn" things. Learn how to behave. Behave as your ancestors did. Behave as you're taught in school. Don't learn a principle by yourself. Don't learn something the teacher doesn't know. You'll be thrown out of class!

But that is the difference. In a society, which the United States was intended to be at its inception as a nation, even before then, even in the 17th-Century colonies, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, that was the intention: It was the development of the fullness of the creative powers of the individual, of all of the individuals, all possible individuals. To develop creativity! This creativity resulted in—Massachusetts was, up until 1688 when the British cracked down on it, was one of the most prosperous areas of the world! Why? Because creativity was fostered in that Commonwealth at that time.

It is creativity, the development of the creative powers, the nourishment of the creative powers, and the use of the creative powers of the individual, which defines the difference between man and the ape. It is also what is not understood, by the people I referred to, the so-called economists: That's the secret of economy! If you develop people and develop those powers in people, if you invest in the use and promotion of those powers, their realization, then you create a population which is capable of growing in its power per capita, per square kilometer: through creativity. Through the fostering of the creative powers of the individual. And that's what the oligarchy doesn't want.

Return to a Creative Economy

Now what happened to you? What happened is, we used to be a productive United States: We had farms, we had industries, we had skilled professions, and so forth. We prized these things. The more skilled professionals we had in a community, the more doctors, nurses, and so forth, all this sort of thing, the better off we were. And we knew it. But now, they said, "No, factory jobs are no good." That's what the Baby-Boomers said, factory jobs are no good. We'll take away the factory! So you won't have to slave at a factory. "What do I do now?"

"You work at McDonalds."

"What do you do at McDonalds?"

"You flip hamburgers."

"What do you do that for? What don't you do it at home?"

"I don't know how to flip hamburgers at home. I only know how to flip hamburgers at McDonalds—never at home."

So you have a degeneration of the U.S. labor force, into what's called a "service economy": of labor-intensive, non-productive, forses. The amount of product which we are producing per capita, physically, is not sufficient to maintain the existing population! We're dying! We're dying of Baby-Boomerism!

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)