October 2007 - the crash is now
Save the American
From the British Empire!
LaRouche Webcast Transcript
Lyndon LaRouche addressed a three-hour international webcast on Oct. 10. His
opening remarks were followed by two hours of
discussion; it is archived at www.larouchepub.com
<http://www.larouchepub.com> and www.larouchepac.com
<http://www.larouchepac.com>. Here is an edited transcript.
Debra Freeman: Good afternoon. My name is Debra Freeman, and on behalf of
LaRouche PAC, I'd like to welcome all of you to today's event.
Certainly, Mr. LaRouche's address here in Washington today, could not come at
a more opportune moment. Our nation finds itself clearly in the throes of what I
think can only be assumed is the final stage of a breakdown crisis that has been
a long time in coming. We find ourselves in a situation where virtually no
American can escape the immediate effects of this breakdown crisis. Probably the
first people being hit are those unfortunate individuals who got sucked into
various kinds of exotic mortgages, or subprime mortgages, but clearly that is
really just the very, very tip of the iceberg.
It doesn't come as a surprise, certainly, to anyone in this room: Mr.
LaRouche has warned about this, and really, with time to spare, proposed an
initiative that would establish a firewall that would protect not only the
American people, but which would also provide a measure of protection for the
chartered state and Federal banks, to ensure not only that people were allowed
to remain in their homes, but that at the same time, our banking system
continued to function.
Now, some of our friends said, "Well! We agree with keeping homeowners
in their homes, but why the heck should we do anything to save the banks? You
know, they're the ones that are responsible for this, they made plenty of money.
Why is LaRouche concerned about them?" And while the anger might be
understandable, I would challenge anybody to try to figure out how to run a
nation—in fact, how to run a superpower—without a banking system. It doesn't
really function. And I think that Lyn's expertise in this area is really vital.
And while the developments of the last weeks and months have not been
surprising to those of us associated with Mr. LaRouche, what has been
surprising, and continues to be surprising to me, is the absolute impotence of
the response here in Washington, where no longer do you have the excuse that
there is not a Democratic majority. There is a Democratic majority; yet, our
national leadership stands paralyzed.
Fortunately, what Mr. LaRouche has been able to do, with the help of the
LaRouche Youth Movement and others, has been to mobilize city, state, and county
leaders—political leaders, civic leaders, labor leaders, etc.—to begin the
kind of drive necessary to get action taken here in Washington. As we
convene today's meeting, more than 100 political leaders from across the United
States, including leaders of some of the largest national constituency
organizations, have endorsed Mr. LaRouche's Homeowners and Bank Protection Act.
At the same time, that legislation, in memorial form, is being considered in
eight state legislatures, which is somewhat unprecedented, when one considers
that at this particular time, about 70% of the state legislatures are not even
in session. Were they in session, I can guarantee you that the number
considering this piece of legislation would be far more.
But the fact of the matter, is that even for this simple action to be taken,
what we need is a leadership in Washington, which is prepared to do what it has
not been prepared to do up to now: And that is to face the simple reality. And I
can think of no individual, who is a better messenger and spokesman for
that reality, than my boss. So without any further introduction, ladies and
gentlemen, I bring you Lyndon LaRouche.
9/11 Was an Inside Job
Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you. Well, let's start from the top.
In early January of 2001, before the inauguration of George W. Bush as
President, I warned that the general nature of the catastrophe would be, that
the U.S. economy would be a failure—the policies of Bush would be a total
failure: We were headed into a downslide, which in fact has happened, all
throughout this period. And the thing we had to fear, from inside the U.S.
government, was that someone would set off a form of terrorist incident
within the year, which would shock the nation into submission.
In the Summer of that year, 2001, the recession was fully on. The collapse
was on; the political systems were shaken by the collapse. And then, on the
famous Sept. 11, someone, with cooperation from inside the highest levels of
power in the United States, unleashed an incident which is called the 9/11
incident. That job was done with the complicity of the British Empire. It was
done with complicity of elements in Saudi Arabia, as all the evidence would
plainly tell you. That was a terrorist act, against the United States, done with
complicity of people at a very high level inside the United States, with
a coverup organized by people inside, a high level inside the United States.
Now, certain facts are not known, and I shall not say what I know now. But I
shall say, that I do know, beyond doubt, that 9/11 was an inside job. It was an
inside job on behalf of what the Bush-Cheney Administration represents. And
since that time, everybody who knows anything about the government, knows about
our system, knows that more or less to be true. You see the behavior of members
of the Congress and political institutions who are running scared! Because they
know that kind of thing is on.
Now what I said in January of 2001, prior to the inauguration of this
President, the first time: I said that we had to look at the precedent, under
these kinds of economic conditions which I indicated, in which Hermann Göring
orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag, for the purpose of making Hitler not
merely the Chancellor of Germany, but the dictator. And Hitler remained a
dictator from the night after that burning of the Reichstag, until the day he
died! Nobody got rid of him. I would say, that what has happened is, with the
case of Cheney, in particular—Cheney is the figurehead of this operation, Vice
President Cheney, the man everybody's afraid of because of 9/11!—that
everyone is running in terror, just as in Germany, they ran in terror from the
burning of the Reichstag, and the Germans never got free of that, until the day
Hitler was dead.
Now, the operation was run against the United States by whom? It was run
against it by the British Empire. They're the ones that ran it. And right now,
you see in politics now, the shadow of exactly that kind of problem, because
that's what you're looking at when you look at the U.S. Presidential campaign,
right now. The Presidential campaign, the political campaign on the Federal
level, is a bad joke! Hillary Clinton says a few things which are important. She
does not have a clue as to what the problem is. She doesn't have a clue
as to what the solution is—but she is the closest to telling the truth, and
all the rest of them are far from the truth. Dennis Kucinich says a few things
that are true, but he has no grasp of this issue.
I do have a grasp of the issue—and I know more than I'm saying: With
complicity of certain people in Saudi Arabia, with the British Empire, which
shares power with Saudi Arabia, through the BAE, a job was done on the United
States on 9/11. And we've been living under the heat of that, ever since. That I
stand by. Other facts will come out at a suitable time.
But the point is, under those conditions—you saw what happened in 2005: At
the end of 2004, Kerry failed in nerve, as a Presidential candidate. He could
have won, but he lost his nerve. It's something that Kerry tends to do—he's a
man of anger, who sometimes, when restraining his anger, imposes a certain kind
of impotence on himself, as we saw in his behavior under attack during the
period of the Summer Democratic Party convention, when this same thing happened.
So, under that condition, we had this monstrous thing face us: the reelection of
the present President, with his Vice President as the actual acting President.
So, I intervened—a carry-over from what I had done in assisting the
Democratic Presidential campaign—to mobilize the United States, the Democratic
Party and others, for the defense of Social Security. This occurred in November
of that year, late November, and was fully in play in January. The Democratic
Party responded to what I set into motion, and organized to defend the Social
Security system, against the plans of the Bush-Cheney Administration. That
program succeeded, during the course of 2005.
The 'Revolution in Military Affairs'
However, approximately April-May of that same year, we had a well-known
fascist, a Democratic Party fascist, from Middlebury College, Felix Rohatyn, who
is a partner with George Shultz in what is called the "Revolution in
Military Affairs." The Revolution in Military Affairs is what you're
looking at when you think about Blackwater, and the Blackwater scandal in the
papers right now. The policy has been, and this was the policy of Cheney when he
was Secretary of Defense, was to eliminate the regular military forces of the
United States, except for the Air Force, which had a special function, and
perhaps some Naval forces, but to eliminate the regular military forces of the
United States, in order to implement what was called "the Revolution in
This is a policy which has been around for a long time. Under Hitler, it was
called the SS policy: Get rid of the regular military forces and bring in the
SS. The International Waffen SS has never come fully into operation—that was a
matter of timing—but the intention remained there. So, we had the intention to
establish, in the post-war period, actually from about the time that President
Roosevelt died—an intention to change the course of military affairs and to
set up a kind of Caesarian world dictatorship, an Anglo-American world
dictatorship, with special military capabilities, in which private armies, or
privatized armies, would be used to police the world. We had this, for example,
in the Pinochet regime in South America, in Chile, the terror in South America
in the 1970s—the same kind of thing, the same operation: Revolution in
Now, this has been the special project of George Shultz, who is the official
author of the Bush-Cheney Administration, and who was behind Felix Rohatyn in
this Revolution in Military Affairs.
So, we had a second program that year, in 2005, which was to defend the
automobile industry, preventing it from going into the dissolution it's
undergone since then, now, by saying, "Let's take the automobile industry,
which is overbloated by the way it was mismanaged, and let's take valuable
sections of the automobile industry, which are a machine-tool capability with an
attached labor force; and use this capability as a government takeover of this
capability, to deal with things like fixing up power stations, fixing up rail
systems, fixing up water management systems and so forth." Which would have
been actually a Roosevelt-style recovery program, which means going to public
infrastructure first! And by employing forces which exist for public
infrastructure, you create a market which builds up your private sector, which
is what in a sense we did with Harry Hopkins under Franklin Roosevelt. That kind
of method would have worked.
However: In comes Felix Rohatyn, with Shultz behind him, and these monkeys
say, "No, no, no!" So, what happened is that the Democratic Party,
while they picked up and defended the Social Security system, did not defend the
rights of the American citizens, because we had to defend the automobile
industry, not necessarily to produce automobiles, but as an industrial
capability, to keep the capability of running an economy here. When the decision
was made by February of 2006, to let the automobile industry go down the chute—and
that was the decision that was made: It was made at the highest levels of the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party: "Let the auto industry
and what that represented go down the chute." And they did. And we have
since gone down the chute.
The last shards of the automobile industry, of the American-owned,
American-run automobile industry, are being destroyed. Throughout this nation,
there's desperation. The state of Michigan is a no-man's land. The state of Ohio
is virtually a no-man's land. Throughout the United States, there is desolation,
because of these policies.
And the war continues! And the intention to extend the war into Iran and
beyond continues. And the same thing behind their 9/11—Cheney, the friends of
Cheney in London, in the BAE, and the Saudi accomplices in the BAE—the same
crowd that gave you 9/11, are behind it all. And many people in the United
States know that, many people in high places. But they're afraid to say so. I'm
saying so. A lot of us have been talking about this in private, at a high level:
I'm saying so, now.
If you don't give up the blackmail, the fear of 9/11, the fear that something
terrible will happen to us if we displease Cheney, and Cheney's backers in
London; if we don't give that up, we don't have a nation.
The Political Parties Are a Joke
We're now at a point, in terms of the economy, where the U.S. dollar is
collapsing. The collapse is worse than it appears to be, because in these cases
they fake assets, as you see massive faking of assets, like the Northern Rock in
England; Goldman Sucks, or Goldman Sachs, or whatever you want to call it, is
doing these kinds of things. This is fake. There is no recovery! There is
no growth! It's fakery! Entirely fakery. And people wish to believe.
Then you have a situation, like the recent developments in the Democratic
Party. Forget the Republican candidates, they're all a joke; they're not
serious. And they don't intend to be serious. It's a joke.
But look at the Democratic Party side, it's a real joke: Do you realize
that the entire Congress has the level of popularity today, that Dick Cheney
has? The leadership of the Democratic Party is held in the highest contempt,
by the Democratic voters of the United States! And this despair, this lack of a
sense of leadership at the top of the Democratic Party, is one of the problems,
which aggravates our problems. Hillary Clinton has expressed some being upset
about that. She doesn't understand what the answer is, what the solution is; she
has no program that fits reality. None of the candidates has a program that fits
reality—they're not about to. And the leaders of the Democratic Party, for
example, Harry Reid in the Senate, and Nancy Pelosi in the House, will not allow
the Democratic members to do anything worthwhile doing.
Take, for example, at the beginning of the nomination campaign for the 2000
election: Before the Iowa caucuses, I published a summary of my estimate of the
various Democratic contenders, leading Democratic contenders for the nomination.
And in that, I made a special note of the fact, I said: Many people think that
Howard Dean is a contender. And I said, he is not a contender. He's going
to blow his stack, and that is going to take him out of the race—it did! He
remains "Howard Scream" to the present day. That's all he's good for!
He was a key part in wrecking the Democratic campaign in 2006, a key part of
it. He was the one who had moved the money around to prevent a serious campaign
being done from the Democratic Party on behalf of the candidates, and he spent
the money in his own, little special projects! So the Democratic Party had no
money to run its campaigns, as it should have had, to launch from the top its
campaigns for the year 2006, and you saw the result. Howard Scream: They made
him the head of the Democratic National Committee! Howard Scream! And he has
certain qualities worse than just his bad temper. There was a cartoon series
that used to appear in the newspapers back during the 1930s, called "The
Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang," and I think that was Howard Scream, or Howard
Scream's grandfather, or something like that. But that's our situation.
Now, where are we?
Right now, we're on the short end of the end of civilization as we've known
it: this present world monetary-financial system is hopelessly bankrupt; it's
at its terminal end.
Now for reasons I shall explain to you now, here, you can never precisely
predict a date on which something is going to happen, in economic processes:
Because, economic processes are a reflection of voluntary powers of
persons and institutions. And so, they don't operate on the basis of a Cartesian
projectile system, where you launch a bullet, or launch a cannon ball, and it
goes out at a certain speed and comes to an inevitable end at a predictable
point. In real life, in real economies, economic systems don't function with
that kind of predictability. Economic processes are not statistical in nature,
they are actually dynamic, in the same sense as the term dynamis was used
by the ancient Greeks, the Pythagoreans, in defining scientific method, and the
way that modern scientific method which is based on Leibniz's definition of
dynamics, operates. We operate in a universe which has laws. These laws include
laws which are discovered by mankind and used by mankind, and become an integral
part of the way society works.
In this process, there's free will operating. There are choices. Free will is
operating at all levels, on an individual level, in powerful institutions, and
so forth. But the rules which society has adopted, rules which function like
universal physical principles, these rules remain—at least temporarily until
they're superseded—they represent the thing that controls what is going to
happen in society. Within this set of rules, individuals have choices, they can
make decisions. Institutions have choices, they can make decisions. You can
shift the way the consequences unfold. You can change the timing of events, by
human will. But you can not change the characteristic direction, which the rules
of the system have built into it.
So, now we have reached a point, where we are, at this point, in terms of dynamics,
in terms of the system, this world monetary-financial system is finished.
It's as good as dead, right now—or as worse than dead, right now. There is
no possibility, that, of its own volition, it will rebound. There is no
possibility that it can have a remarkably extended life. Though you can have an
extended life, under a dictatorship. But as the kind of political systems we
have now, it can not continue. You can have an exception to that—dictatorship,
extended wars, other things that will delay the point of decision, or
resolution. But this system is finished. There's nothing you can do within the
terms of this system, to prevent it from collapsing. Somebody can alter the date
on which the collapse officially occurs. But the inevitability of the collapse
is built into the system, and it's on the short term.
But you can change the system.
We Are a Unique Form of Government
Now, the United States has had quite a bit of experience with systems. The
system which the United States represents was new in its time. We were a unique
republic. Nothing like it actually existed in Europe. It did not exist in the
18th Century, it did not exist in the 19th Century, and did not really exist in
the 20th Century. We are a unique form of government.
The European systems, and systems of the world in general, are oligarchical
systems: That is, you have an upper ruling class, or influential class, which
dominates society, typified by parliamentary systems. A parliamentary system is
a system of tyranny. You have a parliament, elected officials, who presumably
make certain decisions. But the minute they try to make a decision that offends
the leading powers, the parliament goes into a crisis, and you have a new
parliamentary government, the end of the threat. That's the way it works.
Our Constitutional system, inherently, is superior to any other system on
this planet, when we use it, when our Constitution is followed. Because, our
Constitution is based on certain principles which flow implicitly, from the
intention of the Preamble of the Federal Constitution. And also, that our system
of government, constitutionally, is not a monetary system—it's a credit
Read the Constitution! How is money created, under law, under our
Constitution? A bill is presented in the House of Representatives. That bill
authorizes the Department of Treasury, and therefore, the President, to utter
credit of the United States, in the form of currency or some other form of
credit—public credit. This credit is then released, and applied, according to
law, at the discretion of government. This credit forms the basis for our
currency, the utterance of our currency; it forms the basis for public credit,
such as investments in public infrastructure: building a railway system,
building power systems, dams, and so forth; funding certain kinds, or launching
certain kinds of private projects, as well as for warfare. Public credit is our
system. We regulate our currency, as we did best under Franklin Roosevelt, to
have a fixed-exchange-rate system, among nations. That works the best.
We are unique, in that sense. Every part of Europe, for example, is still—well,
forget Eastern Europe, forget Russia for the moment—but every part of Central
and Western Europe is actually an oligarchical system, in which there is a
higher power than government. That higher power is central banking. Central
banking is private central banking. And private credit, in the form of a
monetary system, controls the governments.
We're living in, essentially, a British Empire: That is, the world is run by
a money system, called a "free-market system." Or the equivalent. The
money system is controlled by banks and similar financial institutions.
Governments, under free trade, are not supposed to interfere with the
functioning of that system. You're under a dictatorship of international
finance. The only alternative to this, which is what is hated by the
oligarchs, is Franklin Roosevelt's system: Franklin Roosevelt instituted a
revival of the American System, based on public credit, rather than monetary
power, arbitrary monetary power.
Now, the present system—to make as short of this as possible in terms of
this aspect of the presentation—the present system, as long as we try to
operate according to the rules of an international monetary system, the United
States is now hopelessly doomed. And Howard Scream can scream all he wants—it's
still doomed. He would just make it worse. There is no hope for the continued
survival of the United States, under the present monetary system.
However, under our Constitution, with a President, and with the backing of a
Congress which supports him in this, the United States can turn on a dime: Precisely
such is the key to my proposed legislation, which is now before the
Congress. That is: You can not reform this system. You can not improve it, it
can not work, there's no way of escaping catastrophe globally, under this system—none!
What you can do, you can do under our Constitution: The Federal
government can act, to create a firewall, in which we protect—for
example—mortgages, and banks, that is, legitimate banks, chartered banks. We
move to protect them, absolutely, under the same thing as a bankruptcy
procedure. In other words, you're putting the system into bankruptcy, under the
authority of the Federal government. That means that no household will have an
eviction. We'll sort it out later. No bank will be shut down; no regular bank,
no chartered bank, will be shut down—they're protected, under bankruptcy
We now proceed to decide what is going to be paid in the future. We're not
going to pay gambling debts. And most of this monetary effluent, that you're
seeing floating out there, is gambling debts, what is called "monetary
assets." All of it is speculation, speculation, speculation, speculation—gambling
debts. We don't pay gambling debts. "What about my bank, my debt? I got
this note, I got this note, who's going to pay my note?" "We're not
paying your note, buddy. It's a gambling debt. Can't collect—it's an IOU, not
worth anything." As George Bush said—wrongly—about Social Security
claims. That's not an IOU, that's an obligation of the Federal government.
That's not an IOU. Gambling debts are IOUs, Goldman Sachs is a bunch of IOUs,
and I don't think they're going to pay them, either.
So, the point is, what you can do under the authority of government, you can
create a new system. In our case, in our republic, the system you would create,
would be a return to the principles of the Constitution, as typified, for
example, by the precedent of what Franklin Roosevelt did, with Harry Hopkins and
others, to save the United States from the worst Depression we'd had up to that
time, that is, in the 20th Century. We do the same thing again.
A Firewall of Law
So what is required here, leadership, means very simply, things that the
average guy out there can understand. The average person on the state level, the
state legislatures and similar institutions, are sane. The people in the
Congress are insane from the top down. That doesn't mean they're all insane, it
means they're intimidated by Harry Reid, they're intimidated by Pelosi, and so
forth and so on. Therefore, they will sabotage anything, which is not pleasing
to the bankers, to the financiers. And that is to the international financiers,
in the City of London.
The center of the world economy today, is the City of London. It's not the
British monarchy, as such. The British monarchy is an institution of the system,
but the British monarchy is not the controller of the system. The
controller of the system is a Venetian-style system of private financier
interests, sort of like a slime mold, which assembles and asserts its collective
power, and uses the instruments of government, under its compulsion, to cause
societies to submit to its will. That's an empire. That was the empire, the
medieval empire, of the Crusaders and the Venetians, the usurers. That's been
the British Empire since February of 1763, when we broke from the British on
All we have to do, is reestablish the principle of sovereign government: That
sovereign government is the highest authority on this planet, and especially in
our own country. We say, we put the system into bankruptcy reorganization. Our
objective is to make sure that we can keep the economy, society going, without
missing a step. No one is evicted from their homes. No bank, which is a
chartered bank, is closed down. We take other measures of a similar nature, to
ensure that what we're doing today that is good, will continue! And we will
build on that to introduce new things, which will get us back on the road to
And the first thing we'll have to do, once I get this bill through the
Congress, the next thing, is go back to do what we should have done, in 2005 and
2006: Take the capacity represented by the automobile industry of the United
States—that is, U.S. corporations—take that capacity, which represents
primarily a machine-tool capacity, in locations which still exist (the
plant may be closed down, but the location exists; the people still live there,
or most of them do). It has a machine-tool capability. It has also an associated
labor force which worked with the automobile industry, and similar industries,
to engage in the production to realize the fruits of what the machine-tool
sector does in terms of rebuilding.
We can use the remains of the machine-tool sector associated with the auto
industry, by getting it back into functioning under government financing. We can
use that to start a recovery program. We start it in the public sector. We build
nuclear power plants, rapidly, many of them. We rebuild our water
systems, rapidly. We create a national rail system, immediately, rapidly.
We use these kinds of projects, which are government-related projects, we use
these to stimulate employment and production in the private sector of industry,
in agriculture and industry. The same way! The same way as the Homeowners and
Bank Protection Act, the same method: We create a firewall of law, a
firewall of Constitutional law, which protects what is essential for the
functioning of the nation and the security of its people, to separate what we do
day by day, which is protected from claims of another nature. Those claims of
another nature can stand outside the offices and wait their turn to be
considered: We are going to protect the people and nation of the United States.
We're going to encourage other nations to join us in doing the same thing.
We're going to shut down British Empire! Which, as I described it, is the
source of 9/11: We'll shut it down.
We Can Break the Power of the British Empire
We'll bring together a cooperation among nations. Take the case of Israel.
The thing is a little more complicated than it might seem on the surface. But,
any sane Israeli, and there are some there, wants peace. They realize that
Israel has no future in a continuation of the present system. Every sane Israeli
knows that there must be a permanent peace between Palestinians and Jews. It
must be established. The President of Israel at present, has said so. Well, I
know him quite well, and I believe him. And these have been ideas he's had for a
long time. He is, for me, and for many Palestinians, an acceptable partner
for discussion of this question. And the idea of having a two-state solution
for the Middle East, Palestinians and Israelis, each with its capital in
Jerusalem—so you have in Jerusalem two capitals, one the Palestinian state,
one the Israeli state.
You do this, first of all, by going to Syria, which is ready to make a peace
agreement with Israel. Everything is done that needs to be done, to discuss. You
can go in there and you can make the agreement. You can't dictate it, but you
can make the agreement—it'll work. If you're determined to make it work, it'll
work. And that closes the last insecure border for Israel.
That means then, that you proceed with what? Well, with nuclear power! What's
the big problem in that area? Water! There's not enough water; how can you get
water? With nuclear power! Nuclear desalination.
So, now you can transform an area which is destitute because of the water
crisis and related things, and if you have peace among these people, as parties
to the peace, and base the peace on commitment to this project, you can
stabilize that region! If people of good will are there.
The problem is, the Israelis did this operation against Syria, and therefore,
they're not too enthusiastic about going ahead right now, and making the
negotiation. Though Peres has indicated he's committed to doing it, and
everything he's said so far, indicates that's true.
So, what we have before us is the prospect, if we can get this thing in view,
we can proceed quickly, throughout the world, to work through part of the world,
we can begin to put things into place, to rebuild the world as President
Roosevelt had intended, had he not died. The intention, coming out of the war,
the idea of the creation of the United Nations, the idea of the elimination of
colonialism, systematically and immediately—these kinds of things were the
intention of Roosevelt. The Truman Administration turned it around, and went
with the British.
But today, the same kind of thinking applies: If we decide that we're going
to defend the U.S. economy, in particular, against what is now an immediate and
virtually inevitable collapse, disintegration of our economy, of our republic—if
we decide to do that, and use the methods I indicated, that can change the
world. It will break the power of the British Empire: the empire which gave us
Dialogue With LaRouche
Debra Freeman: Thank you, Lyn. As we normally do during these webcasts, I
have a series of questions that have come in while Lyn was speaking, via the
Internet.... I'm going to alternate. We do have a lot of institutional questions
that have come in, and as always I will give them priority; but I will try to
get to your questions as well.
Now, Lyn, we have a lot of questions that have come in, very specifically on
the question of the HBPA [Homeowners and Bank Protection Act]. And I've put
together five basic questions about the measure itself, that are kind of a
compilation of what people have asked.
How the Housing Bill Will Work
The first one comes from someone in Pennsylvania, who says that he has been
trying to get his Congressional Representative to endorse the bill, but that the
Representative's staff told him that the member of Congress believes that the
bill is full of unworkable proposals. And not only would he not endorse it, but
he was systematically contacting those state legislators who have endorsed it,
and asking them to rescind their endorsements. So, our supporter here has some
questions that were given to him by the Congressional office, and these are
similar to questions that we've gotten from other Congressional offices as well.
I'll ask you them, one at a time....
The first one is: "Mr. LaRouche, if you stop all foreclosures, how would
you prevent some people from simply ceasing to pay their monthly mortgages? Or
even just cutting back some months if their money is tight? If banks can't
foreclose, how does one force people to continue to pay their home mortgages at
all? The entire population could just skate home-free on their payments."
LaRouche: What a swindle! What a phony question!
Look: The provision is—as I made very clear, and even an idiot in the
Congress can understand it—the way you do it is, once a property is in a state
of threatened foreclosure, you come into negotiation, and it's a negotiation
conducted under law. What's the law? I specified it very clearly. Didn't the
idiot listen to what I said? He wants to criticize what I say, before the idiot
knows what he's talking about?
I said, we will, instead of paying the scheduled mortgage as scheduled, there
will be an agreement, an arrangement, under which the person who is the occupant
of the property, will pay something per month, in the form, as if of rent; until
such time as a resolution of the debt can be made. The object is to keep the
people in their houses. And if you take them out of their houses, and if you
take the extent of the evictions which are about to occur if this does not
happen, you're going to have the United States going into a sinkhole of
Anybody who opposes this, should be considered as tantamount to a criminal
Freeman: I figured that was a good warmup.
Another Congressional office says, "Mr. LaRouche, your bill says that
banks must be under protection until home prices come down to fair prices. But
wouldn't that leave people with mortgage amounts that are way higher, than the
price of the underlying asset—i.e., their home—leaving them with huge
"Or, are you calling for the mortgage amounts, as well, to be somehow
slashed, to match home prices? If so, how would this work, and how could it be
"And if it were done, wouldn't it be a kind of expropriation against the
banks and other lending companies?"
LaRouche: Well, if we don't do it, the banks are going to disappear, so
how can you expropriate the banks if you're going to cause them to disappear?
What is going to happen is precisely that: You're going to take the amount of
the overpricing—the overpricing through a national swindle, a mortgage price
swindle—and we're going to come to a legal proceeding; under the Congress,
under Federal law, we're going to decide what's a swindle and what's not a
swindle. And any amount of the excess value of the mortgage that is a swindle,
will be slashed! Under law.
But, what we'll have, as a result of that, on the other side—which you
won't have any other way—in that way, we will keep the local bank in
existence. What we're going to do, essentially, is take all this paper,
which is highly inflationary, it's speculative, it's gambling money! It's
gambling house money! We're going to see to it that what should be paid, to keep
the economy going, will be paid, or will be covered by protection.
We're going to rebuild the economy. This means that we are engaging an
obligation to increase employment—not of bank clerks, and certainly not
of stockbrokers. We have an excess of stockbrokers—as a matter of fact that
error is being corrected right now, by the market itself, eh? You're going to
find, stockbrokers are going to be paving the streets—with their bodies. We
don't need them! We don't need these guys!
The time when you had a rational economy went out about the time of the
assassination of John Kennedy. We've been a screwball economy ever since then.
Look at the records. We had a lot of filth going on in the economy around Truman
and beyond. I wrote about this, back in the 1950s; I warned about the '57
recession, which was a deep one. I was right! I was right then, and I'm right
now—and they were wrong then.
But we still kept the economy going, and Jack Kennedy kept the thing going.
And then they killed him! And then some idiot terrified Johnson into going into
a crazy war, by fraud, by lies! The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Big Lie!
We got into a long war, like a Peloponnesian War, starting with Indo-China. We
got into a long war in '64, we continued it through '72; we resumed it, again,
at the end of the 1970s, in the form of the war in Afghanistan. We launch more
and more wars. We used 9/11 to launch wars, permanent wars! And we've destroyed
The point is, we have to realize that wealth is created not by people signing
paper. Wealth is created as physical wealth, by physical production, by
conditions of life, or physical conditions of life—health, and so forth—and
that's real wealth.
We have gone to a point: Look, we are a swindle economy! We don't pay our
debts! What do you think we owe the world, in terms of financial debt? We
don't produce our own food; we steal it from other countries. We take it from
them at the lowest possible prices, then we don't pay for what we bought! That's
the present system. Have you looked at the accounts recently? The United States
is one of the biggest swindlers in the world. It's only a smaller swindler,
compared to the British. But it's a swindler; we're swindling the world.
What I'm proposing to do, is to go back to a productive society, where
we produce wealth, physical wealth, in the forms of care, in the forms of
education, that sort of thing, which increase the power of mankind, physically,
per square kilometer and per capita. And we used to do that.
So, we simply say: "Well, we're in a depression. Now, if you're in a
depression, you're a bankrupt. And the United States is bankrupt. The whole
system is bankrupt. Why are we bankrupt? Because we mismanaged, we're
Now, what do you do with a bankrupt? He has to take the heat. He lost, he was
a fool, he didn't manage competently, he swindled. He's a failure, and
this failure is now coming around and telling us how to run the economy?
No. The point is, we must have solid banks. We must give them the chance to
come back on their feet as solid banks of the type we used to have. We must have
solid businesses, we must have solid farms, solid communities. We must give them
a period of time to get back on their feet, to recover from what we did, since
the death of Jack Kennedy, to destroy them. They have a right to do that;
they're human beings. Society is based on the welfare of human beings, the
principle of the General Welfare, no other consideration.
We're not a money economy! We're not a loan shark economy—or we shouldn't
be. And therefore, we'll freeze the thing; we'll keep the banks functioning
because we need that, because the people need them. We'll keep the people in the
homes, because we need that. We'll slash the part they were overcharged in
buying these homes in the first place. We'll slash the charges against the
banks. We'll protect the banks, too. We'll give the society the chance to get
back on its feet.
And otherwise, if you don't do that, if you object to these measures, you're
going to send society to Hell, and you'll be to blame for that.
'We Have to Protect the People'
Freeman: Another question from the Banking Committee on the House side:
"Mr. LaRouche, your proposal would essentially wipe out what could be as
much as trillions of dollars of assets of both banks and mortgage-backed
securities. Now, a lot of pension funds are invested in mortgage-backed
securities, and it would seem to me that this would be not only a disaster for
the banks themselves, but also for pension funds.
"However, I do see that you are calling for some form of protection for
the banks that would be orchestrated through this new Federal agency that you've
proposed. Specifically, what form of protection are you talking about? Do you
mean that the government would then bail out these banks, if they were in
LaRouche: Well, the government would do two things: The government will,
first of all, ensure that the bank continues to function, because the greatest
calamity to be avoided, is the idea that the banks start collapsing, and don't
function. Try to imagine functioning in an economy in which your local banks
don't function, in which the savings bank and the other things you depend upon
don't function. Think about that: Are you willing to take a measure which will
deny relief for those threatened institutions? Do you want to take that on your
conscience? Don't talk to me about swindles.
Now, on the question of pensions: If a guy has a gambling debt, my view is,
"tough luck, buddy." You gambled! And much of this so-called wealth,
which people call "assets," was arrived at through gambling. You have
states which have engaged in gambling. Now, gambling is actually immoral. So
we'll call this a "sin tax."
No, the point is, a pension—a human being went to work for a firm. They
were engaged in a Federal, or private, or state pension fund. That was part of
their wages. Therefore, you owe them that! Now, you come along and say,
"Now, we're going to cut this fund out, we're going to cut this fund
out." Well, who's going to eat it? Not the person, the pensioner. I mean,
you may have a limit on pensions: If somebody came out with a golden parachute,
or a diamond-studded golden parachute, from some corporation recently, they've
got nothing coming to them.
But the average person does have. And, more than that, it's in the interest
of society, that this person have that right! Our society has to be based on
humanity, on social stability, on the welfare of future generations. You know,
you're all going to die! What are you, monkeys—you just die, and another breed
of monkeys come along? Or is there some purpose in this whole organization we
call human society?
We all die: Doesn't our living probably have a purpose? Is it not a purpose
which is expressed in what happens in the next generations that come? Do we not
have a policy? We don't throw people out on the elephants' graveyard, simply
because they become retired. Don't we recognize that we have an obligation to society's
future to take care of these things? We contracted them; we owe it! What
kind of skunks are we that we say, "Aww—You gotta take this guy, this 'investor'"
(probably a swindler, Las Vegas type, hmm?) "A gambling casino operator, we
gotta take care of...." Oh? What about injustice?"
What about injustice to people? What about, did the people of this country
actually have a say, in the mismanagement of this economy? Who managed this
economy in the recent decades? What are you going to do, charge the members
of the Parliament or members of Congress for mismanagement? Are you going to go
back and take all the people who were running the state government as elected
officials and charge them? It was their will that did this.
Or, are you going to say: We have a moral responsibility, to have an orderly
development of society. And we have to do that which is just. And what we're
doing, is justice—it's for human beings; it is justice for the presently
living human beings, for the sake of the future generations.
And what I see now, as I saw recently in the shutting down of the auto
industry: The people who did that, they didn't have to do that. They did it. Who
did it? These big speculators, these swindlers. Who did it? These guys who took
the golden parachutes. The hedge funds. First of all, you go through the thing.
The first guy to go, is the hedge fund. Hedge funds get nothing. And if they've
got something, we take it from them. No, it was a swindle. I mean, everyone pays
But we have to protect the people. And we have to protect the future
generations. We have to protect our nation. Some people say, "no." I
say, "They're immoral." And they probably will go to Hell.
Look to the State-Level Leadership
Freeman: This question is from a senior Congressional staffer whom you
know rather well. She says, "Lyn, please explain why you think that none of
the legislative efforts by Congress so far address the home mortgage crisis in
any way. I understand that you may believe that they are just interim, or
stopgap measures, but surely they're a step in the right direction. However, you
seem to be saying that these actions are actually making things worse. Please
explain how and why that is so."
LaRouche: Every time a bank in the United States contributes to bail out
Northern Rock in London, what are you doing? You are throwing assets of U.S.
institutions, which are now in jeopardy—your banks, are now being put
in jeopardy—to bail out worthless investments! What? Ten cents on the
dollar! The guys who are taking over Northern Rock are paying 10 cents on the
dollar, or the equivalent. We are supposed to bail them out on the basis of
100%. We're being robbed! Why should we be throwing good money after bad? Why
should we be robbed? These institutions are bankrupt: Let them be put through
bankruptcy! You don't want to take care of the householder, you want to throw
the householder out in the street? Well, we'll throw you out in the street! The
householder is more important to us than you are!
This is false morality! The morality of the cash nexus. And I see this.
The problem with these guys in the Congress, is they're cowardly. They're
gutless. And the people know it!
Look: I'm dealing right now with two political levels. One, I'm dealing with
the Federal level, typified by the Congressional level. The Congressional level,
hmm? They're about the moral level of Cheney; that's their performance. That's
what the people think! The American people consider the members of the Congress
as being as low, in worth, as Dick Cheney. And that's a change that has occurred
within the past year. And it's a change which has come about, precisely
because of the arguments I'm hearing now, on these objections to this reform!
Whereas, get down to the state level. Now, you also get a generational
problem here. You have three adult generations to consider: One, 18 to 35, in
two sections, 18 to 25, and 18 to 35. Then you have a slightly younger
generation of 35 to about 50, and they're the in-between, the iffy generation.
Then you get the level of 50 years of age, to 65: Baby Boomers—generally
born between 1945 and 1958. Sixty-eighters. Remember them? Pot? The generation
that went to pot? Pot luck. Right? The guys who were on the streets in '68, what
did they do? They tore their clothes off, grew new sexual organs, all these
kinds of things; took all kinds of drugs, burned down buildings, burned down
schools—all these good things: They're now the stolid citizens who call
themselves the members of the Senate and other institutions!
So, what you're seeing here is a contempt expressed against the members of
Congress, generally, including the Democrats! Nancy Pelosi has no admirers among
stalwart citizens in that area. They're submitting to her. And they look at
Congress with contempt.
Now, look what we're getting: The government of the United States, the
quality of leadership fit to govern the United States, is found on the lower
level! Where? Well, you find it in state legislatures. We've got about 70% of
the population of the United States involved in, represented by legislative
bodies. They are not all in session, of course, unfortunately. But people in
those bodies have taken a stand on these issues. These guys are willing to take
a stand on an issue, where the Federal government, the members of Congress are
not! They represent the lower age-group, and the lower income-bracket
influence, than the Federal level. But they represent the majority of the
people. Because the Congress represents, typifies about 18% of the people! This
[the state bodies] represent 50-60% of the people—in the same states! State by
The problem here, is, someone says, "But you can't do anything about it!
Reid won't let you do anything about it, in the Senate. Pelosi won't let you do
anything about it in the House." Who are these two clowns? The majority of
people, the majority of elected people in the United States, on the state level,
will tend to support this policy which I've laid out. The upper group, in the
Senate or the Congress, won't, not because they're evil, but because they're
stinking cowards! And they're intimidated. They're afraid.
You look at what happened at the recent meetings of the Democratic
Presidential party leadership: a bunch of clowns! These people are acting like
clowns. They're not necessarily clowns, but they're terrified! They're afraid to
be caught breathing!
And, you see, the reason why Hillary Clinton is so popular is because she has
guts. She's often wrong, and usually wrong. But she has guts! And you have all
these guys who are running for President, or the Presidential nomination, and
they have no spine—and no brain, either!
Freeman: We still have lots of institutional questions, and a lot of
questions from the states. But I'm going to just mix it up a little bit, and
take a question now from the audience gathered here. Joe Elkins: Do you want to
come to the mike and ask your question?
Q: Hello Mr. LaRouche. I've been doing a lot of organizing on the Hill
lately, and I had a question that had been posed to me from two Senate offices.
They both represent an enormous number of foreclosed constituents, and they've
had this as essentially their only question to me during meetings. Their
question is: "Who are you meeting with on the Banking Committee? And what
are they saying? We aren't on the Committee; we can't introduce it. But maybe we
could do an amendment."
LaRouche: Well—I'm setting fire to the tail of some creatures these
days. And I'm going to get more and more rough. It has to be done: We're trying
to save the nation, and these gutless wonders, they disgust me.
Don't be intimidated by this crap. We have, we know, on the state level, in
the Democratic Party and outside—we have support from those who are recognized
representatives: whether they're in government or in leading institutions like
trade unions and so forth, people who have been elected representatives of
institutions on the state level. And cumulatively, on a national level, we know
the majority of the people—as against what we're getting in the Congress—agree
with us! We're right! And they're wrong, and they're cowards. And that's what
the problem is.
And the way to deal with this, is, don't say, "How do we do this, if
these guys, won't... ?" Well, we can always lynch 'em! And you know, that
may be said in jest, but it's a very nice jest to make.
What Is Congress Afraid Of?
Freeman: Lyn, the next question comes from a Democratic consultant here
in Washington. He says, "Lyn, by my estimate, based on the polls that we've
been taking, it would appear that we're virtually guaranteed"—(when he
says "we," he means the Democrats)—"we're virtually guaranteed
of a Presidential win in 2008. However, on the Congressional level, what we're
seeing is a phenomenon unlike anything I've ever seen in all the years that I've
been in politics. It's not about party, it's about incumbency: The general mood
across the nation, without limit, is to kick the bums out. And it really is
across the board, regardless of demographics. Citizens hate the old hands in
Congress, and they hate the freshmen, too, because they feel that they elected
the freshmen with a mandate, and that the freshmen haven't delivered on it, and
haven't even tried.
"Now, it isn't as if this is secret knowledge. Members of Congress are
as aware of this, as I am. I know that, because I share these polls with them.
Now, you say that they're cowards. But my question to you, is: Cowards about
what? Afraid of what? What they're doing now, is going to virtually guarantee
their exit from office, and frankly, even though I don't have a very high
opinion of a lot of them, I am concerned about the idea of a complete turnover
in Congressional leadership."
LaRouche: Well you've got to think a little bit more, about warfare, as I
know this gentleman does. He's inclined to warfare.
Now, we're in a war. And the tide of war is turning against the enemy.
Because you've got a lot of people out there—do you have any idea of what
the level of foreclosure is, that's about to descend on this population during
the coming 30 days? To say nothing of the coming 60 days: Do you have any
idea, of what the level of foreclosure is going to be? And similar kinds of
For example: Take the case of Loudoun County. You've got a fascist crew out
there running for sheriff, on the Republican ticket. It's Blackwater! The
candidacy for the sheriff, in Loudoun County, today, the Republican candidacy,
is Blackwater! And what that represents. These guys represent real fascists. I
mean not something you can label "fascism" or
"fascist-like": This is like Pinochet and similar types. And remember,
this is minor in the U.S.—Blackwater is minor, compared to the British
operation! This is the Revolution in Military Affairs! This is the dirty-stick
end of it. These are the guys who go out and kill, not because they have a
target, but because they need to kill. Remember, look at these stories that keep
coming in, you see what the pattern is: They're not killing by over-enthusiasm.
They're going out to kill, to create an effect. Just like the Nazis did, exactly
the same thing. And these guys are Nazis! I know who they are. I know
their pedigree: They are Nazis.
So, you're in this kind of situation, and the target of these Nazis is
Hispanics. You have a lot of people who come from Mexico and similar places,
who've been working in the construction industry in the greater Loudoun County
and adjoining areas. Now, this group, this campaign is intended to create a
lynch mob business about burning out Hispanics. It's a real Nazi-style, Ku Klux
This is what the American people are faced with, not just the Blackwater
case. We're faced with this kind of world! Look at the lack of
resistance. Look at what is known about what's been going on in Southwest
Asia: Where is the guts to stop it?! Yes, you have some people who are doing
something about it, but in general, in the Congress, there are no guts! The same
way they deferred to the Bank of England, they defer also to this thing. They
say they're opposed to it, but they're afraid to be caught opposing it, when it
comes down to concretes.
So, that's our situation: that we have people who are cowards. They won't
fight. You have people on a lower level of influence, but more of them, on the
state levels, who want to do something, but they're told that they don't have
the authority to do anything! They say, "Well, we represent a
Banking Committee—you can't do anything!" Right?
Well, you can do something: You can get resolutions; you can get out there,
and say, these guys ought to be thrown out! That's what you can do. You've got a
couple guys on a Banking Committee, you know the fate of the nation depends upon
a banking reform—and you're not willing to demand that of your fellow member
of your party? The party organization? What do you do? You say, "He won't
do it—he should be thrown out of the party!" Say that a couple of times,
and see what happens.
What you're going to see, though, is when this heat builds up, over the next
30 days; the heat is going to build up rapidly, to the point that you're going
to have a social explosion. And people who are now saying, "Oh, ya can't do
it! You can't do it! You can't do it!" are going to say, "We're going
to do it!"
A Winning Policy Against the British Empire
Freeman: Before I move on to this pile of questions from state
legislators and labor leaders, we do have some international questions that I'd
like to entertain. This is a question from Yuri Tsarik, who represents the World
Development Network in Minsk, Belarus. And he says:
"Dear Mr. LaRouche: The recent events in Myanmar and Pakistan, which
earlier, as we know, were included in the so-called development triangle,
China-Burma-Pakistan, and the situation around Iran, concern me. To what extent
do you think that it is all directed against China? And is there, in the White
House, any other vision of a U.S. policy toward growing and developing China,
outside of the destructive crash course that Cheney & Co. seem to
LaRouche: Well, there's no simplistic way of looking at this thing. In
Myanmar, you have a China-backed government, not really
"China-backed," but China sympathizes; China says, this is a good
thing to have in place. So, therefore, you have a Buddhist organization which
organizes an attempted insurrection. And you get a reaction.
In Pakistan: Pakistan is being chopped into pieces. It's being chopped into
pieces essentially by the British Empire. All this stuff is done by the British
Empire. The Americans are a bunch of idiots in this category. They don't do much
of anything any more. Back in the World War II period, people of my generation,
we did do things. We were for freedom of peoples from colonial
governments and things like that. We did do things; I did things.
But that's not there any more. The British run it.
Who controls the Buddhist operation in Myanmar? The British! Who controls
much of the Islamic operations in Pakistan and so forth? The British! Look at
the history of this thing; look at the British East India Company, which
established power with private armies, in 1763, when the British Empire was
created, as a system of private armies and private bankers. Then take the case
of Al-Afghani, and take the case of the Sykes-Picot Treaty, and realize that the
whole region has been run by the British Empire. The Muslim Brotherhood is a
British intelligence operation, with various branches. They run this. Who do you
think runs most of this stuff in Africa: It's run by the British! Since 1898, in
the operation there.
That is what you have today, in this part of the world! In Asia, especially
throughout South Asia, the operations are essentially British intelligence
operations. I'm very familiar with these kinds of operations. Our work in this
area, in intelligence, focusses on this stuff. This is it! During World War II,
the intelligence organizations of the U.S. were divided between patriotic and
British operations. Allen Dulles was with the Brits. Some of our friends were on
the other side. I was on the other side, in my own way, on the American side.
And so, when you're looking at this kind of problem, you have to look at it
from a positive standpoint, not from the standpoint of the negatives. The
whole of Asia is a mess right now, politically.
You have a very interesting development in Korea, very promising.
China has so far not indicated willingness to take a significant position, or
a necessary position on anything. They're dealing with their own problems. They
are doing what they're doing. But on this general problem, as I see it, they're
not really much proactive.
Russia has a proactive approach, of its own type. There are other tendencies
in Russia, which I think also have a good sense on this thing. But that's the
nature of the situation.
What you have is the British Empire, in its present form—the way I mean
British Empire—is engaged in a general destabilization of most of the world.
Look what is happening: like Northern Rock. Why the hell is a United
States asset being put in jeopardy to bail out a bankrupt British bank? Why are
the resources of Goldman Sachs and company being mobilized to bail out Northern
Rock, which is to bail out the Bank of England? Why are we bailing out the
bankrupt Bank of England? Is England worth saving? Since how long?
No. So, one should not look at this from that standpoint. What you have to
look at is this: The question is, what are the positive actions, which I say, I
do from the United States. My point is to say, "What should be the policy
of the United States? What should be the policy of the United States toward, in
particular, Russia?" Well, I made it very clear: If the United States got
off its bum, and had some sense, it would go to Putin and say, "Okay, we
want cooperation. We want cooperation with China. We want cooperation with
India. India's a mess, but we want cooperation, nonetheless."
On that basis, we would have enough power, a concert of power, to introduce a
general reform of the world monetary-financial system. We could force it.
Because with that kind of power, other countries, like Germany, would be among
the first to join; Italy would tend to be among the first to join. With that
kind of power, whole parts of the world would immediately tend to join, because
people like to be in the shadow of power. And if you represent power, and you
come up with a proposal which they like, they're more likely to tend to go with
you on that one.
And that's the way I think we have to approach this. Yes, the whole world is
being destabilized by the British Empire—although I prefer we call it the
Brutish Empire—it's being destabilized. Therefore, rather than trying to
react, or detect and react to specific forms of destabilization of the planet,
in this problem, my thing is, let's go for a counter-operation, let's take a
positive course of action, to bring powers together around common interests, and
to use that sense of common interest to get an overwhelming shift in a new
Since the present world monetary-financial system is a total disgrace, anyone
with any brains knows this system can not last. If you've got a combination of
power that can dictate the establishment of a new international
monetary-financial system, a credit system; if you can do that, you have the
ability to walk into any nation, and get a favorable hearing for a change
in policy. That simple.
So, negatives, being against something, is sometimes necessary. But being
against something is not the way to create policy. You create policy by what
you're for, not by what you're against. If you're against something, what
are you for? What are you willing to do for? And that will give you the
ability to deal with what you have to deal against. And the problem of trying to
find, who's the bad guy, knock him out one by one—no, that doesn't work. You
have to have a winning policy, which can bring nations together in a common
interest, and use that common interest as the wedge to deal with the
A Conspiracy of Folly
Freeman: Okay, we had a question that had been submitted by the Economic
Daily of China, but I believe that you did just answer it, in your response
to this last question.
The next question comes from Würzburg, Germany, from the Department of
Monetary Policy at the University of Würzburg: "Mr. LaRouche, I have a
question concerning your latest press release, 'A Conspiracy of Folly.' There
you describe the fact that many Goldman Sachs officials are appointed to key
financial posts in the Western world, and you call this phenomenon a 'conspiracy
of folly.' My question is this: whether you really believe that these people are
dumb and without any real insight into the current problems in the international
financial markets and the banking system, as well as the possible impact of
these problems on the whole economic activity. Or, let me suggest something
else: Isn't it imaginable that these people would like to govern a controlled
crash? A crash that might boost their power, in a post-crash world, and that
this crash would, in turn, destroy the vestige of the current free world,
namely, that part of the world which is currently not under their control?
"It seems to me that these people could benefit from a crash in many
ways, hedging against inflation by buying real assets like gold and silver, on
the eve of a controlled crash, etc. If this would be true, the conflict with
this group of people would come to its maximum in this onrushing crisis. I would
appreciate it, if you would answer this question, because it has been on my
LaRouche: Well, essentially your observation about the nature of this
apparent alliance, is true. It's fair. But then you have to say, "What are
the implications of it?"
First of all, the first irony of this thing is, that it won't work. That it
is a conspiracy in folly. It's like a guy who says, "I'm going to take
control of the ship." "How're you going to do it?" "I'm
going to bore a hole in the bottom. I'll drown all the other people."
What you have, actually, is—I know these people. I'm an old hand at this
thing. And their instinct is, their "way of life." Their way of life
is not something which is an independent, individual decision by their part.
They have cronies. They have associations, groups, ways they meet. Like this
whole Goldman Sachs crowd. They're associated with each other at many points in
the past, many points of intersection over a period of time.
And therefore, when somebody comes up with "this here deal," they
will tend to go with it, because it's their group and people they know, and they
say, "We can win, we can win." But they also, at the same time, do not
understand the world system. The intrinsic thing here is not merely that they're
greedy—they're probably greedy—but as you suggest correctly, the impulse of
agglomeration is agglomeration for power. It's an instinct for power: Grab
power. The problem is, they're incompetent, and anything they try, as shown now,
will result in the worst possible calamity.
Now also, the other side, as the Cayman Islands suggests: Anybody who goes
into the mouth of this kind of deal, may be eaten by the caymans. And the
British are behind this thing in the Cayman Islands. So, what you have is,
everybody's being played. It's the Great Game; everybody is playing. Now, if you
look at the history of the British Empire, and look at the mentality of the
British Empire, it's the Great Game. It is not a simple linear game.
For example, the British Empire organized World War I. There's no guilty
party for organizing World War I except the British Empire, including some
characters in New York, who are Teddy Roosevelt's crowd who were for it. So they
organized the British Empire—why? Because there was a wave of development of
economies based on the American model—as typified by the post-Civil War model,
Lincoln, and so forth—in Asia. You had the transcontinental railway system in
the United States emulated in Russia by the Trans-Siberian [Railway]. You had
the various railway systems developed in Germany and other countries, including
the Berlin-to-Baghdad system. This integration of the interior territory of
large parts of Eurasia, was considered a threat to the British Empire, which is
based on maritime power.
So, therefore, the British Empire organized the war, just as they organized
the Seven Years' War earlier, before 1763, in order to get the nations of
Eurasia to destroy themselves mutually in a war. And the British threw
millions of their own soldiers into the conflagration to do it. You have to see
this kind of mentality. They do not choose up sides, fair teams, one team
against the other, that sort of thing. That's not the way they play. The British
method is to betray your ally; to set your ally up for destruction. And
you ally with them for the purpose of influencing them to do precisely that.
That's what you're seeing now. The Bank of England, or the Bunk of England, is
the center of organizing this great swindle centered around the Northern Rock.
It's a great swindle; it's typical of swindles being run in the United States. I
know these guys. They do this. This is the way they think. They
think like caymans.
Harry Reid Ready for Retirement
Freeman: We have now a series of questions from the people who are on the
front lines of this fight—some of the state legislators and labor leaders who
are fighting for the HBPA. The first question comes from Sen. Joe Neal, from Las
Vegas, Nevada, which has the highest rate of foreclosures in the United States.
He says: "Lyn, I've been informed that my Senator, Harry Reid, has said
that the Senate is not going to take any action relative to the hedge funds
during this session. In your judgment as an economic forecaster of conditions
that are distressing our nation, can you address the question of just what such
a postponement or lack of action on the hedge funds during this session of
Congress will mean, in terms of the impact on our nation?"
LaRouche: I think it means that Harry Reid is ready for retirement. Now
what these guys are doing—look, Harry Reid is Harry Reid. He has his own
prejudices; he's pro-Truman, which is not to his credit, but essentially he in
the twilight of his career in the Senate. And he is ready to throw up his hands
and say: "OK, I'm about ready to quit. What do you want me to do?" to
the bosses. And I saw him turn—remember, I was involved with him all through
2005, into the beginning of 2006. I saw him turn in 2006, and he was reached. He
went exactly the opposite way on every kind of issue, and it was really a very—with
an emotional turn against me on this thing—very clear, clear signal: "No,
no, no, no, no." And he sold out everything.
Pelosi? Well, Pelosi's a limp fish, similar type, limp fish. She's a nothing,
but she's the head of the institution, and she's a snippet, an angry, a nasty
little snippet; a worn-out housewife. And she comes from a family with a certain
reputation, where they were known to have their hands in the public till, but
never too much involved in the public interest.
So, this is the kind of thing you get: not someone who is naturally
malicious, who's made some big deal. But when big power came up to them, like
the Mormons in that region, and told Harry Reid, "No Harry," he said
"OK." And he took his licking, and he's been taking it ever since. I
would say he's a man who decided to quit, but go out with a nice pension.
Freeman: In Speaker Pelosi's defense, I think you have to hold her
surgeon partially responsible, because when you wind those threads too tight, I
imagine that it's extremely uncomfortable. And while I don't have any direct
knowledge of that, I do have some training in the health field, and I know that
chronic pain can really produce incredible bitchiness, and that could actually
be one of the problems that she has. So, I would give Speaker Pelosi something
of an allowance in this regard. Maybe she should take painkillers.
Baby Boomers vs. the Standard of Truth
The next question comes from Rep. Juanita Walton of St. Louis, and actually
before I ask the question, I really do want to point out that although the
response overall to the mobilization of the HBPA has really been tremendous, it
is also the case that Representative Walton from Missouri, and Rep. Harold James
from the state of Pennsylvania, really have spearheaded this fight, and have
acted with tremendous courage and real resolution in support of their
constituents, without any regard for anything else, and I personally have
tremendous admiration for the two of them, and I really think they deserve a
round of applause. I think some of their supporters are here today.
Lyn, Representative Walton says: "Mr. LaRouche, I have two questions on
the same topic. As you know, I have been following the foreclosure crisis very
closely. It is also the case that my husband is a bankruptcy attorney, and he
has been warning folks that they have entered into mortgages that are going to
vastly increase their monthly payments. That has been borne out, and in some
cases, people's payments have doubled. Yet, they go ahead anyway, thinking
somehow that they will never be the ones to lose their home.
"What I don't understand is, why it is that average people have gone so
crazy as to do this? Also, why are our leaders nationally, putting their heads
in the sand, knowing what is happening? This is outright robbery, and they are
refusing to do anything to halt the crisis. This is not just about citizens
being robbed, though in many cases you could argue that they walked into it, but
it is really the Congress sitting by and doing absolutely nothing to halt
the process from continuing, let alone doing something to alleviate the effects
of it. I have put a resolution into the National Black Caucus of State
Legislators, in the hopes of addressing precisely this. But we need Congress to
act, and I'm wondering if you have any suggestions as to what more we can
LaRouche: The problem here is a sociological problem in large degree—which
is where the advantage of my age comes to the fore. You have to understand what
has happened to this society and its morals since the 1930s and since the death
of Franklin Roosevelt. You have to look at what is identified today as the
pacesetters of ethics, morality, achievement, and so forth in society. What's
the image of the successful person? Who defines that? What group defines that
Essentially, it's the same nuts who were screaming and screaming on the
streets of Manhattan and elsewhere in 1968, who had come from families of the
middle class, white-collar oriented, born between 1945 and 1958. This was a
phenomenon in Europe as well as in the United States. This generation now
represents people between 50 and 65 years of age. This generation has come,
since 1968, to dominate the cultural trends and social outlook of the
population of the United States, and also Europe. The Baby-Boomer syndrome—environmentalism,
anti-nuclear power, anti-technology, anti-modern science in any sense—is
completely irrational. And they're oriented that the authority lies not with
truth, but with opinion.
In other words, in a healthy society, the idea, the principle is, as the Pope
said recently in one of his addresses, that the standard of truth is truth.
That is, truthfulness on an individual basis, and if you're a minority and
you're right, you're right. That's truth. The sophist says, it's prevailing
sentiment, the most popular sentiment. For example, the Hollywood standard—popular.
Why is she considered beautiful? She's popular. Why is so-and-so intelligent?
He's considered popular. Why are they considered a good candidate? Because
they're popular. Popular stereotypes become the standard of behavior, and people
are intimidated, because in place of a sense of right and wrong, they now go by
established popularized stereotypes. If you're going against popular opinion,
you're wrong. If you're not keeping up with the Joneses, you should be bankrupt,
etc., etc. So, that's what the problem is.
Now, the only way you can deal with that, is not with the idea of success.
There is no magic recipe where infallible success is within your reach. But,
what are you going to do with your life? Which side are you going to be on?
Which side are you going to come out on? Are you going to come out on the side
of the pigs, or on the side of the people—which? If you say, "The pigs
are more popular, therefore, I've got to be a pig. I want a popular image,
therefore, I'll go with the pigs." The problem you have with people in our
society who have a poorly developed moral sense—that is, a real moral sense, a
scientific sense of a moral sense—give way to popularity of this type, this
Baby-Boomer type. That's what dominates the whole slogan of the Congress—"Go
along to get along!"—that's the substitute for morality. So, the idea of
what's right, what's wrong, what's truthful, what's not truthful, what will lead
to a good result, what will not lead to a good result, means nothing. Are
you popular? Are you popular? And you have to think about how the Baby
Boomers function, how the '68ers function, as I saw them function.
I'll tell you, after I saw their functioning—at Columbia University and
elsewhere—at those campuses in the late Spring of 1968, I wrote this paper on
the role of social control in fascism. Because what I saw in the New Left, was
the same thing we knew from the early 1930s, when there was a big trolley car
strike in Berlin, and the members of the Communist Party and Nazi Party were
swapping memberships back and forth regularly over this period. That's called
And I saw that in the New Left. It's the same thing as those Germans who, as
activists—Communist and Nazi—were swapping spit in the early 1930s in the
Berlin trolley car strike. And that's what I saw on the campuses in 1968 in the
late Spring, and Summer, and beyond 1968. It is that ideology. Look at the ages,
and look at the background, look at the cultural outlook of the members of the
Congress between the ages of 50 and 65, and that's where the problem lies. There
is only one remedy for that, and the remedy is truth, upholding truth. And the
remedy is possible in a time when sophistry is shattered, as now. In a time
where "but you've got to pay the mortgage or the whole system will come
When you decide that that is what you hate, that is false! Then
you say you question popular morality, and that's when you come back to truth,
and that's our only chance, Juanita. Take the issue, the hard issue; keep
fighting for the hard issues, win or lose. Because if you don't fight for the
right issues, win or lose, you lose your personal character; you lose your
judgment. The time will come, as it has in history in the past, when the right
issue has enough legs to carry truth. And I think we are in such a time now.
Machine-Tool Capacity in Michigan
Freeman: The next question comes from Rep. Lee Gonzales in Michigan....
Representative Gonzales says: "Mr. LaRouche, our nation is clearly in a
crisis on many levels, and this is probably mirrored nowhere more than here in
the great state of Michigan. I represent Flint, which is a former center of the
auto industry, but it is now increasingly becoming a ghost town. The state as a
whole is experiencing the simultaneous collapse of the auto industry, of real
estate. We have increasing foreclosures, we have an incredible and unprecedented
rate of homelessness, and we also are experiencing a dramatic loss of state
revenues. Our legislature has been in almost continuous special session to try
and balance the budget, and it is clear to many of us that this is near to
impossible. It is very important to us that you are pursuing this national
dialogue on these crucial issues with the due diligence that you are. Please
comment on the implications of the national crisis with regard to the state of
Michigan. Do you think that our circumstances are special? Is it worse here than
it is in other places, or is this something whose impact is being felt even in
places like California?"
LaRouche: Again, let me strongly recommend that when you are dealing with
issues of this type, don't look for the negatives, look for the positives.
Always look for the positive. What is possible? Now, let's take the case of
Michigan, and take the adjoining area of western New York state, and Ohio, an
area immediately, functionally associated with the collapse of the automobile
industry and so forth. What's good there, what's positive? What do you have as a
weapon? Not what do you lack, but what do you have? Because you're not going to
build with what you don't have, you have to build with something that you do
What you have in this area is, a concentration of what had been the greatest
machine-tool capacity in the world, centered around the automobile industry.
This was not simply the automobile industry; this was the machine-tool-driven
industry, this was the science-driven industry. This built nuclear power plants;
this built airplanes. It built all kinds of things, because the essence of it
was production, and real production, real production based on
science-driven machine-tool capabilities.
And what you had was a level of top engineers and scientists, working
together with people who are design engineers, experimental design engineers,
and they developed the possibility of making the machine tools and designing the
products on which the nation depended. One of the products of this was the
automobile—the tractor, the automobile, the locomotive were produced in this
area. And in this area to this day, the people have a culture which is still the
same culture. They are now being dissipated.
My view is, there is only one remedy, which is the next important thing I'm
thinking about pushing, beyond this housing and banking action: to go back to
2005, go back to my proposal then in February and March of 2005. The Federal
government should step in, and buy up control of those facilities which
represented this part of the auto industry, with special emphasis on its
machine-tool design capability. Since we don't need to produce that many
automobiles—fine! I think we have too many automobiles right now. We don't
need more automobiles. What we need are other things which we have not been
making. We need power plants; we must have nuclear power plants. We must have thousands
of them, because there's no possibility of meeting the challenge without
them. We want high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. We want to be freed of oil
from the BAE. We want to make hydrogen-based fuels from water, and the waste of
hydrogen fuels made from water is water. Not bad, eh? It's quite a
Then, we need the power. We need also to rebuild our water management
systems, the river systems and other things. We've lost it! You can't get a safe
drink of fresh water in most parts of the United States today, where you could
20 years ago, or 40 years ago—can't! Bring it back: public sanitation systems,
power systems, mass transit, magnetic levitation, rail. Don't depend on jamming
up highways with commuters.
Clusters of Development
Build a new society. We don't want to concentrate the whole population in a
few areas of super agglomeration, as around Washington, where you have to drive
through a permanent traffic jam of about 60 miles or more to get to and from
work. That's insane! You have whole areas that produce nothing. All they
produce is sitting places for families who live in houses, these kinds of
communities. We need to disperse, go back to dispersing the population into
local centers of production, agriculture, industry, as we did before.
Conquer the land! Don't concentrate everybody around Washington D.C. and New
York City, and Los Angeles, and let the rest of the land go to waste. Take this
land area, which we developed to make a nation: Rebuild it. Do these things, and
also do the engineering for new kinds of systems that we require, and build new
industries in various parts of the world. Develop areas, not to have super
corporations all concentrated in one place, but to have clusters of different
kinds of production skills in the same areas, where they can infiltrate, in
terms of their influence on one another.
This is the kind of world we have to build, and therefore, you take this
area: western New York state—what used to be Buffalo and so forth; Ohio,
northern Ohio and down; Michigan. This was one of the clusters. You have also
Missouri; Missouri had a tremendous aerospace capability, related capability
before. It's been shut down.
So, therefore, what we need to do is look at the country as a whole as areas
for clusters of development, high-technology development. Move into areas where
the skills are known to exist within the population, where you have a culture of
skill. The government starts a corporation, spins it off later as a private
corporation, but starts it up to do something which is in the public interest.
Then use these public-interest developments as stimulants to create new private
industries and rebuild our economy. And, therefore, we have to look at this area
I just designated, not as a slum area, but as an area that has embedded in it a
structure of skills needed for certain kinds of high-technology contributions to
the economy as a whole. Start from the positive. Don't start from what you don't
have; start from what you do have.
Ultimate Catastrophe: A Non-Nuclear Planet
Freeman: This is a question from a think-tank located in New York. It
says: "Mr. LaRouche, at the recent global initiative meeting in New York,
as well as elsewhere, former President Bill Clinton has stated that he believes
that developing sector nations must be permitted to pursue the development of
nuclear power for peaceful uses—i.e., for the generation of electricity. Yet,
here in the United States, where we clearly are well equipped to generate
electricity with nuclear reactors, there seems to be a continued reluctance to
embrace a pro-nuclear position, even though most people involved will tell you
privately that they do support it.
"The reservation seems to be centered on the fact that people do not
trust public utilities to properly maintain these plants. As you may know, there
is a scandal right now that has erupted at the Peach Bottom facility in
Pennsylvania, where videotapes were released showing people asleep at the
switch, so to speak. But my question is, could we really move for the kind of
large-scale development projects that are necessary to rebuild the United
States, and to revitalize our industry, without nuclear power?
"What are your thoughts on this, and how do we address the question of
the regulation of these facilities? Do you think that safety really is a
LaRouche: Well, what you've got is a piece of idiocy, which was started
in part by some people back in the 19th Century—Clausius, Kelvin, and others,
who came up with what was called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which was a
piece of crap. There is no such thing as a quantity of energy. You have an
effect which is quantified, but there is no quantity of energy; it doesn't come
in quantity units.
What we call energy as effect, is measured as an increase of what we call
energy flux density. For example, mankind relied upon the Sun for heat. Now, the
Sun is a very big thermonuclear fusion process, and it has a very high
temperature. Not as high as some supernovas and so forth, but it's very high,
and this heat is radiated from the Sun and, as heat, reaches the surface of the
Earth, where it has a very low energy flux density.
Now, this low energy flux density of radiated sunlight is very useful, if you
use it properly. What happens is that you have a little thing called
chlorophyll, which looks like a polliwog. The molecule looks like a polliwog,
and they sort of nest together, and they have—I don't want to talk about the
sex life of the molecule, but anyway—whatever they do, they absorb radiation,
which can be counted in calories, in the process. Now this process accumulates,
and is transformed by a little magnesium molecule behavior, into a higher energy
flux density, such as water and carbon dioxide, and the production of living
plant life, green plant life. The effect of this is that you have plant life now
using the sunlight to generate chlorophyll and to produce, generate more oxygen
from carbon dioxide, and also water in the process. This creates a climate of
fields and forests, and life in general, transforms the desert into a place
where people can live, where man's power over nature is increased.
What these idiots propose to do is to take the sunlight directly, at a very
low energy flux density—it can burn your skin, but it's a low energy flux
density, not very useful—to apply it directly. What happens if you apply it
directly? You get desert. If you apply it to plant life, you get fields and
forests, and so forth and so on. And you also get a lowering of the average
temperature of the planet, at which people live.
So, the issue here is, mankind has proceeded from relying upon simple
sunlight through the burning of combustible material, to coal, to coke, to
petrochemical fuels; and now we go to a much higher level, which is nuclear
fission—much higher energy flux density. Not only does this mean that you're
increasing the efficiency of the planet, and lowering the temperature of the
planet, the comfort of the planet, but you're also creating processes, physical
processes, which you can not create otherwise.
When we go to thermonuclear fusion, we take charge of a much higher level of
the physical chemical processes of the planet, and thus the objective of mankind
is to go constantly to higher energy flux density modes of generation of power.
Because the important thing is not the number of calories; it's the energy flux
density of the heat applied which determines the effect you get.
So therefore, every part of the world needs a change presently, from the
present modes of power. For example, water power is not efficient. You can use
it as a by-product of certain effects, but the function of water is primarily
not water power. The function of water is water as such. Water is essential to
living processes. That's what it's for. So use it to promote living processes.
Get your power from higher things: from nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.
Because not only do you get more efficient power, but also you're able to
produce, chemically, states of nature you can not produce otherwise.
So that's the point. Therefore, if we do not have a nuclear industry, we're
going to die. We can not maintain the population of this planet. The ultimate
catastrophe would be a non-nuclear planet. We need it.
As for anything else, well, I don't think there's any process on this planet
that can't kill people, even the simplest kind. A rope can kill people. So
therefore, let's not worry about the fact that a mismanagement of one particular
form of power can kill people, or poison people, when mismanagement of any kind
of power will tend to kill people anyway. Rather, the policy is, if you're going
to have a nuclear fission policy, do it right! We know how to do it right, so do
it right. Don't talk about how bad it would be if we did it wrong. Don't do it
And that's what we know as having science and regulation. We need at least
five nuclear power plants to be built on this planet every week. That's our
Freeman: Did you say five a week?
LaRouche: Yes, 1 gigawatt each.
Freeman: That's a lot of work.
LaRouche: That's a lot of power.
Freeman: That's a lot of power.
LaRouche: More power than the Congress has.
Freeman: Two windmills would be more power than the Congress has.
LaRouche: I think we've got two windmills in the Congress!
Relive Great Scientific Discoveries!
Freeman: The next question is from Rep. Catherine Barrett of Cincinnati,
Ohio. She says, "Mr. LaRouche, we really need to turn around the job
situation in the country, and of course we see it here in Ohio. The reason this
really concerns me is that the crisis in jobs is having a massive impact on our
youth and on education. I see young people here in Ohio who are very, very
smart; yet each day I see the spark of creativity in them stifled, and I see
their hope snuffed out. The reason is obvious. We have no real opportunities for
them, as far as offering them challenging employment in the future. And the way
that things are going now, I foresee these young people either just giving up,
or going overseas to seek employment.
"In the United States, we've been exporting jobs, and now I think we're
going to be exporting our young people and our creativity. Just as many old
people abandoned Europe at the beginning of the 20th Century to pursue
opportunity here, I believe that our youth may very well decide to follow suit.
The difference is that, at the turn of the century, people were not just
pursuing a job; they were pursuing an idea. If that idea is dead in the United
States, and our youth see fit to leave, I believe that that will pretty much
spell the end of this nation. Do you agree, and what do you think can be done to
LaRouche: Well, first of all, give up video games, because the same mind
that is destroyed by video games—and it is destroyed—can be employed to do
elementary kinds of machine-tool design, experimental design, proof-of-principle
experiments. And the key thing, of course, is in universities and secondary
schools to have access and regular programs in which the young people would not
simply scribble formulas on a wall, but would actually construct devices, which
are experimental devices, test devices, that test physical principles, in short.
This, of course, went with a community, usually, in which there was a demand
for a machine-tool and related kinds of skills, chemical skills and so forth,
and therefore you would have a young population in the community finding out
what's going on in the community, and we would naturally attract them to relive
through these experiments, these historic experiments themselves, in biology,
biological work, and other things—instrumentation.
Now, when you educate people in that form, they really are having access to
being able to do almost anything, in principle. They're developing the capacity
to do almost anything. Two things: first of all, I think we ought to have
Microsoft pay a penalty for what it's doing, because I don't think its computers
are going to hold up much longer the way they're going. Because what we need to
do is not video games. We need to have the minds of people involved in
experiencing discoveries of principle, especially physical principle, biological
principle, and so forth.
Normal lives should be to provide the kinds of opportunities in which young
people are encouraged to do just that. Call it a form of play! It comes out as
play, but it's the basis of science, this kind of play, because: Why do you do
it? Because it's there! Why do you conduct the experiment? Because it's there!
Why did you try to do that? Because I thought about it and I thought I ought to
test it—that kind of thinking. And then get a little more organization in it.
So the key thing in the destruction of our schools, is the key problem with
youth. We are not giving them the schooling which is a science-oriented,
culturally oriented kind of training. We're training them in behavior:
behavioral training, behavioral conditioning, not doing experimental work. And
we want people to do experimental work, to relive the great discoveries, the
experiences of the past. But do it because, at the age of childhood and
adolescence, you do it because it's fun!
And if you do it as fun, then suddenly you discover that fun is the secret of
life, because fun is discovering principles, going through that process, and
it's also social. The key thing is people who are sharing this kind of
experience, this kind of fun, actually are developing in the process
healthier social relations. People who are learning only how to behave in
school, are not developing good social relations. They're getting bad teachers.
Sharing of this experience of discovery, as the basis for the educational
process, creates both the stimulation of discovery as a form of play, as a form
of play which develops social relations among those who are playing, which is
the foundation for the adult skills, the adult creativity.
We're Living in a Policy of Genocide—and Al Gore
Freeman: The next question comes from Leroy Baylor from WHCR Radio in, I
believe, New York. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, in 2006, a decision clearly was
made to let the auto industry sink. Could you please tell me how that decision
was made, and who the deciders were?"
LaRouche: Well, the decision was essentially a decision to reduce the
world's population to less than 1 billion people. Now, the way you do that is
you destroy the kinds of practices which enable you to support a population
level of 6 and 1/2 billion people. And therefore you let nature take its course.
For example, what you would do is, you invent Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore. Look
what you have. This so-called carbon crap. This is a complete fraud. There is no
scientific basis for any of this. It's a complete lie! There's no truth to it,
but what's the effect of it? The effect is to induce people to lower the
productivity of the human race, per capita and per square kilometer.
What is the effect of that? The effect of that is a collapse of population
levels. We have now reached a precarious level of 6 and 1/2 billion people on
this planet, approximately. What happens if you lower the standard of living?
Don't measure it in terms of money, because what good is money if there's
nothing to buy? Look what's happening to our food supplies because of Al Gore.
Our food supply is being destroyed for these crazy fuels that don't work—Al
Gore, these kinds of ideas.
What's being done with Monsanto. Monsanto did not invent life! It has no
patent on life. It has no right to a royalty on life, even plant life. It didn't
invent seeds. What it did is that it invented a specific kind of seed which it
synthesized in a laboratory, banned the use of competing seeds, and then charged
for every seed you produce. If you've got one seed which has got one strain of
anything of a Monsanto brand, you're fined—by the U.S. government, by
These things are genocidal! We are living in a policy of genocide. The
objective is to reduce the human population to about one-half billion people,
and to do it fairly quickly. And what they're doing will work, if it's allowed
to continue. So prevent it. And that's where the problem lies.
So, [what happened to] the auto industry was simply a process of destroying
the machine-tool capability of the United States, and of other countries. If you
realize what the auto industry is, if you look at what the technology is that's
embodied in the auto industry, and you take that away from the United States,
you don't have an industrial economy. You have to lower your standard of living,
you have to decrease the number of people who are allowed to live.
It's genocide, and that's the problem. But see, the liberal says—pant,
pant, pant—"You can't say that! You can't say that! They have their right
to their ideas, don't they?" Even if it puts your grandmother up a chimney.
"They have a right to their ideas, don't they? Isn't it their opinion?
Isn't it popular opinion? How dare you contradict popular opinion?" I say,
I have nothing but contempt for popular opinion. What better can one expect of
The Problem Is Popular Opinion
Freeman: This is a question from a California Democratic Party official.
He says, "Mr. LaRouche, I've watched as you've forecast that the housing
bubble created by Greenspan would pop, and that it would threaten banks and
non-banking financial institutions. I'm now reasonably convinced that you've
been right. Yet, most Democrats, including elected officials from the state of
California, are continuing to ignore the crisis, even as it has begun to
devastate entire cities and suburbs here on the West Coast.
"What is it that holds them back? Is it really fear of Wall Street, as
some of the members of the LaRouche Youth Movement have stated? I really don't
understand how the fear of Wall Street could be so great! Is it delusion, as you
have recently said, or is it just plain ignorance in economics? The thing that I
don't understand is why it is that they can't see that acting in the face of
this crisis is good politics. Even if they moved for no other reason, you
would think that they would move out of a simple desire for
LaRouche: The reason why they do that, probably because you could say, in
the short term, is that they're insane. The other side, again the same thing. It
is popular opinion. It is Baby-Boomer ideology.
Now, we had backwardness in all parts of the population in my experience of
several generations. I saw it in World War II, when training people that we were
dredging out of the swamps and slums of the United States, and training them to
become soldiers or reasonable facsimiles thereof. But this is more than just
stupidity. It's organized stupidity. It's Baby Boomerism. You have the official
form of sophistry. This is the same sophistry, in principle, so-called, which
was used to induce the people of Athens to destroy their own culture in the
Peloponnesian War and other things. Sophistry!
Sophistry is the substitution of so-called popular opinion, or perceived
popular opinion, for truth. Therefore, you have a population of Baby Boomers.
And, of course, on the West Coast, we call it Californication, the Hollywood
mentality, in which this is very strong. You see it even in the characteristic
of California speech, California up-talk. You rise on the prolonged last syll-AB-le,
which means that no one can understand what you're saying, and you don't know
what you are saying, so you're both on common ground as a result.
That's the problem; the problem is popular opinion. Think about how many
people: for example, you have among teen-agers, you have two things, two kinds
of popular opinion. Popular opinion by girls, and popular opinion by boys.
Popular boys, popular girls, unpopular boys, unpopular girls. What is the
greatest fear of the classroom or the playground? Being unpopular. Fear of being
This dominates society, and that's what the problem is. People are afraid of
expressing unpopular views, or of being seen or considered to have unpopular
views. They say, "No one agrees with you!" Right? "No one will
agree with you! None of my friends will agree with anything you say!"
What's that? Sophistry. Fraud. Perversion. Moral decadence. Degeneration. That's
what's wrong. That's why we call it Californication.
Roosevelt's Standard Was Truth
Freeman: We have a lot of questions about Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and
I'm going to try to put them together, so that they can all be taken at once.
This starts out by saying: "Dear Mr. LaRouche: FDR was responsible for some
of the most dramatic structural shifts of emphasis of administration in this
nation's history. Under FDR, administrative centralization came much closer to
being achieved than many Presidents before him even dreamed of. It was this
administrative centralization that laid the foundation for the executive
Presidency, and finally, to the kind of 'King George' that we have today as a
"So then, how do we address this? Was FDR in fact the most beneficial to
our republic in the past century, or did he lay the basis for problems that he
had no way of anticipating? One of the reasons that I ask this, is that you
continually refer to yourself as acting in the tradition of FDR, and many people
make precisely the same criticism of you that they make of FDR. Please address
LaRouche: Well, the first question of policy is truth. Truth, not
opinion. When opinion, especially popular opinion, is introduced as an antidote
to truth, that's where you have a problem. Now, remember, to understand the root
of this, the birth of civilization from a terrible society called feudalism, and
from empires before that, was in the Renaissance, with the development of the
idea of truth, as at the Council of Florence, which ended religious oppression,
systemically. Then, that was introduced again by the Spanish and others of the
old Venetian types, and there was a fight for the prevalence of popular opinion,
which was called The Inquisition.
And then there was a modification of this process in the fight against the
nation-state, by what was called Liberalism. Now, Liberalism is the same thing
as known in ancient Greece as sophistry. Liberalism is the same thing known as
lying, as a policy. Liberalism denies the existence of principles in the
universe, and says that only official opinion, or popular opinion, as a
substitute for reason, must determine the policy of society.
Now, the U.S. Constitution is anti-Liberal, and the criticism reported here
in this question, is a Liberal attack on truth, the principle of truth. For
example, the kinds of practices—what did Roosevelt overthrow? He overthrew the
tradition of Woodrow Wilson, a liar, a degenerate, and a founder of the modern
form of the Ku Klux Klan. Democracy? Democracy, anyone? Ku Klux Klan? The
President of the United States was the founder of the modern Ku Klux Klan,
officially, while an incumbent in the White House? That's your definition of
truth, definition of popular opinion? Not popular with me.
The entire 1920s, the policy of the U.S. government under Coolidge was a lie!
We bought into—for example, the Treaty of Versailles was a big lie. The war on
Europe, which actually started in 1894-95, with the war against China by Japan
(which was organized by the British), led through a series of wars into the
Treaty of Versailles. The war was organized by the British monarchy, and no one
but the British monarchy. It was organized to destroy the ability of continental
Europe to develop modern nation-states. That was the purpose.
World War II was a continuation of that purpose. At the Versailles Treaty
Organization, Secretary of State Lansing rose to say that Germany was the sole
author of World War I. No! Britain was the sole author of World War I, and
Woodrow Wilson was a great admirer of Britain, and a lunatic and a fascist on
top of it. What you had with the Mellons in the 1920s, under Coolidge and
Hoover, was bestiality.
Roosevelt changed that. Roosevelt's standard was truth. Roosevelt's standard
was the general welfare of the population, the development of the population,
the right of the world to be free from colonialism and similar kinds of
afflictions. These were principles which were in the Constitution, were
the intent of the formation of the United States. Roosevelt did nothing but
These guys, today, who attack Franklin Roosevelt on this this kind of issue,
are defending lies, defending falsehoods, the same as this kind of thing.
Contrary to this kind of criticism, the standard of law is truth, not popular
opinion. Roosevelt defended the common man, and I saw the common man who needed
defending at that time. I was entering adolescence at the point that Roosevelt
was elected. I saw what was going on in the streets of the United States, in the
areas that I knew directly. I saw the process over the 1930s, I saw the changes.
I lived through it. I lived through the War.
I know what Roosevelt was, and the criticism that you make of Roosevelt in
this question is completely false, and without basis. And, on this question: The
answer is, what is truth? The truth is that Roosevelt was not an oppressor and
those who attacked him were. And if you don't believe it, see the result.
No Candidate Is Qualified Now to Be President
Freeman: We have time for two more questions. But first, I'd like to call
people's attention to the LaRouche PAC website, where the HBPA is printed in
full, and where the specific state form of the HBPA is available. It is
currently being considered in a number of states. If it is not yet being
considered in your state, I would really encourage you to talk to your state
rep, and make sure that it is actually brought under consideration in your
I believe that now the resolution actually has a number in the states of
Pennsylvania, Alabama, New Hampshire, Michigan, Illinois, and maybe Missouri—I'm
not sure. I know it's before the NBCSL [National Black Caucus of State
Legislators]. It is in Tennessee, and I believe there is also an intention to
see it introduced, if it's not already in—it just may not have a number yet—in
both Ohio and New Jersey.
If your state is not among those states, you should see to it, that your
state is among those states. And if your state is among the states I
mentioned, you should actually work to make sure that your state representative
has co-sponsored the legislation, and that you support him or her, if he has.
Because, obviously, time is really running short.
Now, to take these last couple of questions: Lyn, the first one is the
inevitable question about the Presidential campaign, and I have a whole stack of
them. What it boils down to is this: One says, "On the Democratic
Presidential candidates, on the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, who's the
obvious front-runner, who often says the wrong thing, but who for a variety of
reasons might be induced to actually do the right thing.
"The other one who stands out is Dennis Kucinich, who may be a very odd
fellow, but who has nevertheless come out in support of impeaching Cheney, of
ending the shredding of our Constitution, of ending the Iraq occupation
immediately. On the positive side, he wants to provide single-payer universal
health insurance, free state college tuition. And although he seems to get very
little notice in the media, he obviously is one Democrat who clearly is
concerned with the general welfare of the majority of the American people.
"Both these two candidates have certain things that speak in their favor.
Both of them also have very obvious problems. My question to you is what do you
intend to do? Will you make a statement soon endorsing either Mr. Kucinich or
Mrs. Clinton, or will you be making an announcement of your own?"
LaRouche: No, I'm going to do essentially what I did today. I often will
defend Hillary, as I did on a recent account, because what she did was right and
what those who attacked her did was absurd. That's simply fact. That's not an
endorsement. That's simply an intervention in the process.
In my view, there is not a single candidate running who is qualified to be
President of the United States. Period. That has not changed. There has been no
sudden Damascus Road conversions of any of these characters coming along on this
question. Hillary is not qualified. Dennis is not qualified.
Dennis does useful things. Fine. Give him credit for it. You don't have to
marry the guy! If he does something right, give him credit for it. You don't
have to marry him! Hillary does something right, give her credit for it. When
she's attacked and it's wrong, defend her on that basis, but don't go into this
business about popularity contests. We need a President of the United States,
and we haven't got one in sight. We're going to have to do something about that,
and I think you're going to have to look at the process that's coming out.
First of all, the conception of what a President should be, among all the
candidates, is wrong. That's where the problem begins. The conception of what a
Presidential candidate should be at this time is what's missing. A Presidential
candidate should be in the image, essentially, of Franklin Roosevelt, and should
say so. They could add a few other predicates to that, from an earlier period,
as a standard of comparison, but if they're not that, they're not qualified to
be President of the United States, because they can not solve the problems.
The fact that they're for this, or for that, or because they
have a list of maybes and so forth, doesn't mean anything. Are they capable of
doing what is necessary to save this nation, and to save civilization, from a
peril which is now ongoing, and which none of these candidates are prepared to
withstand? They're not even prepared to say it.
So, therefore, nobody's qualified right now. But I will say, as I do—I will
say what the truth is. Hillary probably's going to be forced into, likely
forced, Hillary will be President. That probably will happen. But she's not
qualified. But we've had other Presidents who were not qualified, in less
serious circumstances—like the recent case, for example.
But the point is to keep it that way. Keep the issue clear. Don't make this a
popularity contest. It doesn't work that way. You have to think of the long time
frame, the commitment to what does the United States represent, and who must
represent what it represents. And never compromise that. We've had too many
compromises, too many compromises on popular opinion. And someone has to tell
the truth. My job is to tell the truth. She's not qualified. None of them are
qualified. She's the least disqualified, among those running so far.
Time To Listen to LaRouche
Freeman: I'm going to close with this question, submitted by Carrie Kemp
of Pennsylvania. She had wanted to ask the question herself, but for the sake of
time and efficiency, I will ask it. She says: "Mr. LaRouche, looking back
at your long life of speaking the truth, is there anything in the past that you
think you should have said more? Or are you pleased?"
LaRouche: Well, generally, considering my circumstances, I'm pleased.
Should I have said something more? Yes. Maybe somebody else will have to do it
Freeman: As his spokesman, I'll do it for him: Lyn has been right for
decades, and it is high time that some people took notice of that and started
listening to him, and speaking out publicly for the fact that Lyn is
right, and that the future of this nation and the future of civilization depends
upon following what he has to say.
And you don't have to be his spokeswoman to say that!
Ladies and gentlemen, you have been a very fine audience. We have a great
deal of work to do. Although I will say, that we are making progress, we are
making strides every day. But we are also in the midst of a very serious crisis,
and every day that goes by that these actions are not taken, and that Lyn
is not put in a situation of having hands-on ability to guide and direct the
situation, the fact is, that people suffer.
So, we've got to get things moving. We have other questions that have been
submitted from different parts of the world; we have questions about Africa; we
have questions that have been submitted by labor officials. I think Lyn has
touched on the answers to many of those questions, but as we always do, we will
pass them on to him, and he may very well choose to answer some of them in
Otherwise, unless Lyn has something else that he would like to say—I'm
going to bring today's proceedings to a close....
LaRouche: I'll say, thank you all, very much. Take care.