LaRouche Webcast Nov. 11, 2009

LaRouche Webcast:
The Great Change of 2009

Lyndon H. LaRouche , Jr.
November 11, 2009

Debra Freeman: ... As I think most of you know, on Sept. 8, at a gathering very similar to this one, Lyndon LaRouche warned that the month of October would bring with it a new phase of this ongoing global collapse, a collapse of both the financial system, but also, far more importantly, of the global economy. And in fact, he could not have possibly been more accurate: We have seen an escalating collapse, and an escalating strategic crisis accompanying that collapse, as the month of October proceeded.

Now, here we are, well into November, with many possibilities on the horizon. Those possibilities are largely a result of efforts by Mr. LaRouche and his organization, over not simply the last several years, but over the course, literally, of decades. We do find ourselves, without question, at a crossroads. There is, in fact, potential for great good to come in the months ahead. There also, unfortunately, is the potential for a move into a dark age.

What we discuss here today, and what is discussed around the world, related to today’s event, and today’s discussion, I think will largely determine which of those two directions we will take. Without really any further delay, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you.

LPAC/Chris Jaditz
Lyndon LaRouche at his November 11, 2009 webcast.

Well, as you know, since July, the 25th-27th of July of 2007, I had warned that we were headed into a general breakdown crisis of the world financial-monetary system, and the economic system. Three days later, after that announcement, the beginning of the breakup of the world monetary-financial system occurred. It occurred in the form of the dropping out of the mortgage market in the United States, that is, the home mortgage market. And this spread quickly internationally. Now, another thing happened at the same time: There was a fundamental shift in the world economy, because, as you know by now, having seen the Triple Curve, you know that the world economy is governed presently, by a global, Triple Curve function. Forget all the forecasts by the Wall Street crowd, the statisticians: They’re all incompetent, and they’re always wrong. They have always been wrong, and will be wrong, because they use a wrong method. They use statistical forecasting based on accounting characteristics, and that does not determine the way economies function.

Economies—today, and in European civilization, off and on, largely, for several thousand years—have been determined by a threefold principle of economy. On the top, you have international monetary systems. Even before the fall of the Persian Empire, you had monetary systems controlling Asia, especially East Asia and South Asia. And the fall of monetary systems was usually the trick which tipped off the collapse of economies in those regions: physical collapses of those economies, as the result of the monetary processes, and the effects of monetary processes. With the collapse of the Persian Empire, and the Peloponnesian War, there was a change. And that change, which occurred with the Peloponnesian War or its aftermath, has determined the history of economy in European and broader civilization ever since that time.

The three characteristics are:

The monetary system; by that I mean a money system, which is privately controlled, or imperially controlled, over the price of money. Monetary systems. These are used to control trade and other things. All empires, all European empires, including the British Empire today, are not controlled by nation-state power, they’re controlled by imperial monetary power. And nation-states as such which play an imperial role, are simply victims of monetary systems. That’s number 1.
Within nations, you have financial systems, and in trade among nations, you have financial systems. These are systems in which money is used to buy and sell goods. This is a financial system, but it involves, at some points, the sale of services and/or goods.
You have a physical economy. The physical economy measures both the extent and the rate of growth or decline of physical consumption, produced physical consumption, which includes the role of services in those functions.

So you have three curves that, in past history, for more than 3,000 years to date, from Europe and beyond, have controlled the world economy: Monetary systems at the top, and they’re always imperialist. Secondly, financial systems of nations, and in trade between nations. This is the use of money for the purchase and sale of goods, where monetary systems are the sale of money for money, and by money. Thirdly, physical production and productivity per capita and per square kilometer of territory. These are the three factors of economy, and have been the three determining factors of economy, for over 3,000 years of European and extended European history. No change today.

Now we had in 1923, under very special conditions, in Weimar Germany, under the conditions imposed on Germany, reparations conditions—Germany as a whole was under reparations demands. The economy was squeezed, to cover reparations paid principally to France and Britain. But then, in that year of 1923, the French moved into the Rhineland, which resulted in a collapse of production in Germany. But nonetheless, the demand for reparations increased.

So, what happened: The German government printed money—just simply monetary aggregate. At the same time, there was a collapse in the economy, a collapse in the financial economy and the real economy, a collapse in employment, a collapse in production. So over the period from March of 1923, through November, Germany went through a cycle, in which monetary values, output, increased and went through the roof; the value of the currency decreased accordingly. There was a collapse in production and sales, and in financial transactions related to production and sales, and there was a physical collapse in the economy.

In November of 1923, the German economy disintegrated. What we are experiencing now, in the world, especially in Western and Central Europe and in North America, what we are experiencing is a general breakdown crisis, on a global scale, which is a virtual copy, but on a global scale, of what occurred on a national scale in 1923 Germany.

Now, that means, there never was, and there never will be an economic recovery of the United States under the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration is doomed to an early, general breakdown crisis of the U.S. economy, and a similar condition exists in Western and Central Europe. The situation in Western and Central Europe for the moment is hopeless, because it’s under a dictatorship; it’s under a British dictatorship, and they have so far submitted to that British dictatorship.

So, don’t ask yourself what the prospects for the U.S. economy are. Don’t ask a Wall Street stockbroker; don’t ask your wise man, here or there, or your weatherman. Don’t ask him! He doesn’t know. I do: This present world system, and immediately the U.S. economy, is doomed to an inevitable, early, total collapse, unless we change the policy now! There’s no way that the U.S. economy will continue to exist much longer, under President Obama. President Obama is the name of doom. He’s like a floating balloon with a face painted on it, and draperies in the form of trousers and a coat. And to keep the balloon from floating away, he has shoes, which sit on the floor. But this guy is not of any use, in the economy. He’s a puppet. He’s a puppet of foreign interests. But the key thing here is, under the Obama Administration, there is no chance for the continued existence of the U.S. economy, or even the U.S. nation.

And we’re talking about something already in motion, not something that “might” happen. It’s something which is already happening. And it’s increasing day by day: Under Obama and his present policy, there will never be a recovery, or even a survival of the United States. That’s a fact. That’s not a guess; that’s not a crystal ball picture; that’s not a statistical forecast. That is already a fact.

You have a zooming rate of bailout money. Bailout money is entirely monetary aggregate. Hyperinflationary bailout. Since the Summer of 2007, you have an escalating rate of collapse of the real economy in the United States, the goods and services, things which are bought and sold. And all our basic industry has been wiped out. The auto industry, all the kinds of industries related to that, are being wiped out. Food supply is being wiped out, by international food systems, food-control systems, cartels. The United States has been in a process of disintegration over this time.

A Long Process of Disintegration

This actually goes back to 1964-66-68, that period. The assassination of John F. Kennedy, as President, resulted in a change in fundamental direction in U.S. policy. As usual, as today in Afghanistan, the way the United States is broken, is by getting involved in some needless, useless war. Kennedy, as President, opposed going into a war in Indo-China. He did this with very great care, in shaping his policy, under the advice of Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the former President. They agreed with him: no more long land wars in Asia for the United States!

Well, what happened of course, is, they got the war, by killing Kennedy. And having the Warren Commission cover it up. But it was not some poor idiot that did that—there were three other guys from France, by way of Mexico, who walked in, shot the President, and walked out, and the Warren Commission covered it up. But what they got that way, by killing Kennedy, and covering it up the way they did, is they got the land war in Asia, from 1964 to 1975. And under these conditions, whereas Kennedy had represented a resurgence of economic growth, a post-Truman trend back toward Roosevelt’s policy—we went the other way. In 1966-68, the United States lost its infrastructure: that is, the rate of change of infrastructure—we had a contraction of basic economic infrastructure in the U.S. economy, from 1964 to ’66 on.

So, since that time, there has been no net resurgence of infrastructure in the United States economy. We did make a landing on the Moon in [six] cases. These were very successful, but we were already shutting down the economy of the space program before then! So we took what we had used to build up the Moon shots, and we shot it to the Moon. But we were shutting down the very capability upon which the Moon shot depended, from 1967 on. And the economic reason was, the Moon shot, the space program, gave the U.S. economy an estimated 10 cents increase in the economy for every penny spent. So it was not economic pressures, as such, which shut down the space program. The space program gave us 10 cents in return in technology for every penny spent on the program. It was a deliberate destruction of the United States, undermining it, decaying it.

And since that time, with the 68ers, which rendered a cultural change in the United States, and the 68er generation—the Baby Boomers, so-called, like the spoiled children from Columbia University and similar places—they destroyed the economy. They introduced this “post-industrial society.” That was their tick.

And these factors came together, so we have been decaying as a nation, as an economy, since 1966-1968, in the effects of the shutdown following the assassination of Kennedy, and the launching of the war in Indo-China. And since that time, we’ve been involved in other wars, other unnecessary wars. No war fought by the United States during this entire period since the death of Kennedy, has been necessary. Every war has been, essentially, a fraudulent war, conducted by the United States, especially land wars in Asia, and similar kinds of operations. These things have dragged us down, and down, and down.

We never improved. You look at the number of people—look at our factories. We don’t have a basic industry left in the United States to speak of. We have small businesses, small shops. What happened to the auto industry? The auto industry was sort of the last bastion, that and the aerospace industry, the last bastions of our high-technology industry. It’s shut down! And kept alive—General Motors only exists for looting and stealing purposes, not for production purposes.

We’re ruined, we’re broken. We’re wasted, and people are talking about, “Well, maybe there’s going to be a recovery of the economy.” Can a dead man recover? That’s what we’ve got.

So, the question of forecasting: Forget it. Anyone who told you that there’s any sign of recovery in the U.S. economy, is either an idiot, or a liar. Any newspaper that says there’s been a recovery, is a lying newspaper, or just a plain idiot. There is no prospect of a recovery of the United States under President Obama. Under President Obama, the United States is doomed. Even if we remove that mustache from his upper lip.

Bring the President Under Control!

And, it’s a fact. I mean, this man has got a Hitler-like policy. His policy is identical with his IMAC ¹ proposal, which is the integral part of his program, which he votes for, he supports, he’s fighting for. He’s blackmailing to try to get it through. The IMAC program is a Hitler program! That’s no exaggeration. It’s a program that was given to him by his protector, Tony Blair, who first introduced this Hitler-like program in England, when Blair was prime minister. And Blair’s program, of Hitler-like genocide against people, through manipulation of health care, is the policy of the Obama Administration. That’s what the health-care program is. There’s no other reason for it. It’s mass murder, and it’s Adolf Hitler.

That mustache stays on this President’s upper lip. It belongs there. He put it there, by adopting the Blair policy of genocide, which he specified. And people say, “No, he’s a good man, he’s a Democrat.” What are they, idiots?

This man’s a killer. And the only way—. You see we have a problem with this guy, because he happened to be elected, which shows you how bad public opinion has gotten lately. So therefore, we can’t just dump him peremptorily because we don’t like him. We’re not a British government, a European-style parliamentary government. We’re a constitutional government, a republic. And therefore we’re very serious about what we do with an elected President.

Well, we’ve got to do something about this President. We have to put him under control, or we have to throw him out. One of the two. If it’s between the nation and that President, guess what? What your choices are?

But, understand clearly: There is no chance of any recovery of the U.S. economy, under this President, as long as he remains in his present policies. His economic policies, his health-care policies, are not tolerable. Either those policies go, or he must go, because we don’t have a United States unless that change is made. There’s no choice.

Now, people are saying, “Yes, but ... yes, but ... yes, but....” They’re fools. The record on my forecasting is clear: I’ve always been right, and the opposition has always been wrong. Because they depend upon statistical forecasting, based on market forecasting, financial market forecasting largely, and a few statistics which are largely faked, or “improved upon,” shall we say? There never will be a recovery. And any American who’s supporting this President and his policy, the current policies, the environmentalist policies, and these health-care policies, these military policies, is simply supporting the destruction of the United States.

And some time, perhaps, I may have to tell you: “I told you so.” And it won’t be far distant. We’re very close to the point, at which the breaking point occurs.

Now, one thing about breaking points: The conditions for a breaking point are objective. We have this plummeting U.S. economy. We have soaring monetary inflation, sometimes called “bailout.” We have soaring downward financial transactions, financial activity in the U.S. economy. We have a collapse of the physical economy, particularly in terms of employment. We are bankrupt—hopelessly bankrupt. We’re as bankrupt in form, as Germany was, Weimar Germany, in 1923, a very similar kind of process.

Anybody who tells you there’s a recovery, is either an idiot or a liar. This system is collapsing. This nation is on the verge of disintegration. And some of us have the guts to fight that. Some don’t. Some are hoping the Democratic Party will revive. Well, I’ve seen a dead man revive, I suppose, before.

But that’s where we stand, today.

We also have other considerations. Now, despite the fact that the United States is under such mismanagement as this, Europe is worse. Because the continent of Europe, that is Western and Central Europe, are under the control of the British euro system. And therefore, they no longer have effective sovereignty. Particular governments in Europe, Western and Central Europe, can not create their own credit: They’re subject to an international institution, controlled from London, under this new euro system, which has gotten tighter, and tighter, and tighter, all the way. So therefore, we’re not going to get anything from there.

Developing a Solution

What I’ve been involved in, recently, has been the development of a solution. The solution, and it’s the only shot you’ve got, is a Four-Power agreement, prospectively, among the United States (with a change in the current Administration’s policy), Russia, China, India, and some smaller countries which would be willing to participate in this. This would represent governments of the world which account for about half or more of the population of the world. So that, if an initiative is made—this includes the United States, Russia, China, India, and other countries—if an alliance of these four and other countries occurs, that is sufficient power to bring down the present world system, and at the same time, institute a new one.

The first step in that direction was implemented recently, in negotiations between Russia and China. They agreed that China, using its credit, which is largely the debt of the United States to China, to use that as a resource of credit, and capital, for cooperation with Russia in developing the essential systems, centered on transportation systems and power systems, in that part of the world, that part of Asia. There are now negotiations going on, supplementing what has already been agreed to by Russia and China, with India. There is a potentiality of the United States.

Because if, the United States, which is in a disastrous condition, which has a vast debt to China and other countries, because of the mismanagement of this place—if we cooperate with Russia, China, and India, which is a great part of the population of this planet, and include other nations of Asia, such as Korea, Japan, Mongolia, and others, which are eager to cooperate in such a venture; and if you take into account Pakistan, which is totally unstable, and rendered unstable by what’s going on in Afghanistan and other parts of that region, and the fact that India’s aware that the very existence of India depends upon the security of Pakistan, in dealing with this problem which the British are trying to build up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—you’ll find that nations, out of desperation and awareness of their threats, and awareness of their interests, are beginning to move in a direction toward collaboration in changing this system—if the United States comes to its senses. And it’s up to Americans here, to a large degree; Americans have got to stand up on their hind legs.

Don’t pay any attention to what Democratic Party leaders tell you. Don’t pay any attention to these other factors. Don’t pay any attention to the press. As I’ve told you—and it’s a fact—this system is coming down. It has been coming down since July-August of 2007. We’re now at a breakdown phase; you can not predict the exact date of breakdown, but you know we’re in a breakdown phase; we’re at a point where there’s no way up, and you’re already sliding down! And one little mistake, by the Obama Administration or something like that, would be sufficient to blow the system out. It would have that little trigger event.

But we’re not waiting for a trigger event, which says, we either have a depression or we don’t have a depression. We already have a depression. And whatever happens on whatever date, this system is doomed, under its present policies. There’s nothing that can save the United States, under its present policies now. That is foregone. There’s nothing awaiting the American people out there, except doom, right now!

We could reverse that! And how will we do that? Simple! Use our Constitution.

What do we do? We go back to Glass-Steagall. We say that all banks which are commercial banks, or which used to be commercial banks, will now be put through bankruptcy reorganization, of the type that Franklin Roosevelt specified back in 1933. That would mean, that we would look at all the accounts in these banks, and those that conform to a Glass-Steagall standard will be protected, under bankruptcy protection by the U.S. government. Those parts which do not conform to a Glass-Steagall standard are—whissskk! Gone! “Look, Ma! No more money. It’s gone!” These banks are gone. This system is gone.

We now have a shrunken financial system. Many billions, even trillions, of dollars have been wiped off the books, in a great bankruptcy reorganization, which does have certain similarities to what happened in Weimar Germany, in November-December of 1923: Suddenly, all the worthless paper was—whhhsk! gone! Except, they didn’t have a good system to handle it. We do. Our system. Under those conditions, we can then use our Federal system to create new credit to rebuild an economy. But it means wiping out most of the loose-money people, who have control of our financial system today. We’re talking about tens of trillions of dollars being wiped off the books. That’s the price that has to be paid, if we’re going to get an economy that can survive. That’s where we stand. That’s what has to happen.

And only if people recognize, that we have to get to that point now, is there any chance for any future for this country. This is reality! Don’t ask your forecaster; they don’t know anything, they’re always wrong. This is a fact. Look in every neighborhood, look at the conditions of life. Look at where industries used to exist. Look where the agricultural sector is collapsing. Look at the tent cities that are being shut down. Look at the condition of health care.

And then look at the financial situation. This system is finished. This nation, in this form, is finished.

However, if we have the guts to put the system through bankruptcy reorganization, this nation can survive. It will survive on the condition that we make an alliance to break the power of the British Empire, and the British interests internationally. That means, making a partnership with Russia, China, India, and other countries, to eliminate the present world monetary system; eliminate the present monetary system, and go to a credit system, which is the system adopted by the United States, before our Constitution was actually formed, under Alexander Hamilton, in dealing with the war debt of the United States in the early 1780s; it then became an integral part of the foundation of our Federal Constitution, at a later point. So, if we go back to our Constitutional standard of a credit system, and join with Russia, China, India, and other countries, and also get a bloc of a credit system, we have the power then, with the support of other nations who are looking for a solution, to eliminate the imperial system, the monetarist system, which runs the planet today. That’s our only chance.

If we don’t have the guts to do that, we have nobody else but ourselves to blame for not doing it. And that’s where we stand.

So that’s what my function is, and my function is here.

Look at what we have to do, look at how this system works: We require large-scale infrastructure; we don’t have industry any more. We have some of the elements, the rudiments of what used to be industry. But the auto industry is gone! The aircraft industry is going. The machine-tool capabilities of the United States population are disappearing. There are some places that are still providing work, but they’re diminishing in number and less in character. Look at areas where there are store systems, we had whole sets of stores in cities, and so forth, that were functioning—they’re closing down, they’re vanishing. A similar process is occurring in Europe. We have a worldwide collapse of the system.

Defeat the British Empire!

And there is a factor behind this; this is willful. This was the struggle of the American Revolution. In 1763, you had the conclusion of a Seven Years’ War. The Seven Years’ War was organized by the British East India Company, which was a private company, and it got the nations of continental Europe—minus the Dutch, who were in on it, with the British—to organize seven years of warfare among the leading nations of Europe. A peace was reached in February of 1763, after Europe had been essentially ruined. And out of this war, the British Empire emerged, not as an empire of a British nation, but as the empire of a British company, the British East India Company. Out of this, Canada was surrendered to the British. The naval power was surrendered to the British; India was surrendered to the British; and in the process, other parts were surrendered to the British. And this went on, until the East India Company was dissolved in bankruptcy, and Queen Victoria took over.

And so, we’ve had an empire on this planet, the British Empire, ever since. The only effective opposition to the British Empire—there have been nations which had effective resistance, but the only real opposition has been the United States. A key case is Germany, and it’s important to look at Germany today, to understand the kind of situation we’re in. That Bismarck, the leader in Germany, the Chancellor, was a bit of a genius. He had problems in terms of the German royal family and its British connection, but he was a smart fellow, a very capable person, who led Germany in the right way, even though his government sometimes went the wrong way. And he was the fellow who worked with the United States to introduce the U.S. system, the same U.S. system associated with our tradition and with the government of Abraham Lincoln. He used the model of our economic development, for Germany. And from 1877 on, until 1890, there were great reforms in Germany which were all based on the introduction of some of the social reforms and other models of the United States, and the initiative of Bismarck.

The British, however, at that time, who were pained by the fact that we had defeated them, by our victory over the Confederacy, which was a British puppet, were again trying to get back their imperial power. And the way they intended to do that, was to get Germany in a war with Russia, and in some degree, Austria, but mainly with Russia.

The problem they had at that time—because in order to have a war with Russia and Germany, they had to have France in as a tool for the war against Germany. But they couldn’t do that, as long as Bismarck was Chancellor. Because Bismarck as Chancellor sabotaged the efforts of the British monarchy to start a war, with Russia, a way of getting this war started. Because Bismarck, among other things, had made an agreement with the Tsar of Russia, that he would sabotage any attempt to get Germany into a war with Austria in the Balkans, which would trigger a war with Russia. So the British solved the problem, in part, by getting Bismarck dumped, by Wilhelm II, who was the nephew of the Prince of Wales, Edward Albert, the later King Edward VII, who was starting the war.

So, Bismarck said later: This is a new Seven Years’ War.

Because the way in which the empire, the British Empire, like empires before, had controlled the world, was by getting other nations to make wars against each other. And by getting other nations to fight each other over issues, then the imperial force could come in and take over, on the ruined combines of a nation—the way we were ruined in Indo-China!

We were a powerful nation, still, under Kennedy. We were dragged into a long war, technically from 1964 on to 1975, which ruined us! This was the way we were ruined! And we’re still suffering that effect. That’s the way Johnson became President; that’s the way that Carter became President, a Presidency which ruined us. We’ve been ruined ever since, by playing into land wars in Asia, and other kinds of conflicts derived from that, by which we destroyed ourselves.

Take the classic case, the so-called Middle East war. What’s the Middle East war? The Middle East war was organized by the British! When was it organized? It was organized at the end of the 19th Century. It was organized on the anticipation of the collapse of Turkey, of the Ottoman Empire. So they organized a thing which they called the Young Turk movement, which was run out of London, and used various people from various kinds of operations; and the intention was, to take the Ottoman Empire, dismember it, and turn the whole region, including Iran, and other parts there, as well as Palestine and so forth, the Arab world, and turn it into an area of permanent warfare. And this was called the Sykes-Picot agreement, which was instituted at the end of World War I. We are fighting wars, or watching wars, in Palestine and elsewhere, today—and everyone wants to try to find peace with the Israelis and Arabs, and they’re never going to find it! Because the war is being run from London! Every time there’s a threat of peace breaking out in the Middle East, London organizes new warfare between Arabs and Israelis. The war with Iraq was a case of this; the attempt to get a war with Iran is a case of this! What happens in parts of Africa is a case of this.

We are subjected by the British Empire to this kind of policy of warfare as a way of inducing us to destroy ourselves, and to destroy our power. And the same method is used, that was used against Bismarck.

What happened with that? Go back to 1890: Bismarck’s fired. Next thing, the President of France, Sadi Carnot, is assassinated. After that, the Mikado and the British emperor—the Prince of Wales—agree to start a long war. The agreement was, that Japan would undertake a war against two enemies. First, against China, and Russia. Second, at a later point, in the beginning of the 1920s, the British and Japan agreed on a naval conflict against the United States, to reduce U.S. naval power. At this time, in the 1920s, the Mikado of Japan agreed to build up the Japanese Navy for an attack on Pearl Harbor, as part of this British-Japanese alliance against the United States. This war of Japan against China and other parts of that region, continued until 1945. The war in Indo-China, in the post-war period, was the same thing. Ho Chi Minh was an ally of the United States. I was in military service not far from there at the time, in northern Burma; and we were operating out of Myitkyina—it was the most advanced airport, or set of airports in northern Burma, which was not only supplying, jumping “across the Hump” into China, but also from there, we were also operating in Thailand and operating in Indo-China. And the OSS [Office of Strategic Services] was operating in Indo-China and Ho Chi Minh was an ally of the United States.

So, what happened? Franklin Roosevelt died on the 12th of April, and shortly after that, Truman, under the influence Churchill, moved in, to have the Japanese reoccupy Indo-China, under British protection! And this led, through a long series of things, to a permanent state of warfare in Southeast Asia, that area. And we got ourselves into a war in 1964 to 1975, in Indo-China, as a continuation of this process. And we were bled, by that war! Morally, spiritually, otherwise—we were bled. That’s how the game is played.

And we say, “Who’s our enemy? Who’s the guy we don’t like? Who’s the guy we gotta beat?” We’re idiots! We get ourselves into wars with people who are not really our enemies, but who can be made into enemies if you annoy them enough! And we fight those wars, and long wars, especially long wars in Asia. They do the same thing in South America and Central America. These wars are not caused really by conflicts, endemic conflicts among peoples in these countries! They’re organized! They’re provoked, they’re orchestrated. And it’s the British system that does it.

So, we’ve come to the point, that the British have decided to eliminate this problem. And the one problem that was in their way—because Europe was destroyed again and again by wars; Asia was destroyed again and again, by these wars, orchestrated wars, orchestrated in the interests of the British Empire; but we still remained, despite the damage done to us, and the bad influence. And the decision finally came to destroy the United States. And that was done, beginning systematically, on the day that Franklin Roosevelt died. We have been played, as our ever-loving British monarchy, monarchical friends, since that time, to get us involved in ways in which they conquer us, by inducing us to destroy ourselves. By weakening and destroying ourselves.

The British ‘Green Policy’

Where do you think we got this idea of the “green policy,” of the environmentalist policy, where do you think it came from? It came from London. What has it done to the United States? What has the environmentalist policy done—it’s a fraud! There’s no truth to it whatsoever. There is no phenomenon of global warming! It doesn’t exist! But how many people believe in global warming? It doesn’t exist—they’re told to believe it. Who tells them? Prince Philip, the British interests, and their sympathizers in the United States. Who tells us we shouldn’t have nuclear power, which is what we need?

We’re in a situation, now—let me just go through this:

The way an economy works, is that we rely upon developing increased power. We start, as mankind, with things like burning wood. Now remember, mankind is different from all animals, in several respects (except some people, who qualify as animals, hmm?). Mankind is a fire-bringer. Mankind is the only living creature which uses fire as a method of existence. For example, you go to ancient sites in Asia and elsewhere, and you find, a million years ago, or so forth, and you find sites, where evidence of something that looks like man, in remnants, existed, and the interesting thing is, you find there are signs of human ancestors having lived there, and also the use of fireplaces, the use of fire by man. The only creature on this planet that uses fire as a means of existence, is mankind. And that has something to do with the human intellect.

Now, we depend, for a living, on what nature provides us to take. And thus, we go to higher and higher standards of combustion: We go from charcoal and things like that; we go up through coal, to coke, to natural gas, to petroleum, and so forth. But we’ve reached the point, that we can no longer rely upon these sources of power, because they’re not sufficient. Because the way we live is, we use power; we use things like ore, wood, for example, but especially things like ores. And the ores we take are from the upper surface of the planet, and they are effectively the dead bodies of plants and animals that lived a long time ago. And the way it works is, we had different parts of the planet that were under water. And in these different parts of the planet, you had forms of life, that grew in these watery areas. Take the case of iron: You get iron ore from areas where there was once a lot of water! And in this water, these microorganisms and other organisms grew, and they died. And when they died, things happened. Now in some of the most important areas, these little animals or plants, lived on iron, iron as a metal. Now iron is distributed throughout the surface of the planet. But how do we get iron? We get iron, because plants and animals use iron, what they pick up from their watery environment, and when they die, they have collected iron, and created an area of deposit, where there’s iron. And that’s how we get iron.

So then, we come along, and we find where the iron is most heavily concentrated, as in the case of other ores, other mineral deposits. We mine that, by the use of power, to use that material as a rich—shall we say, a rich lode of some raw material. And our society depends upon the relatively richer kinds of raw materials of this type that we use.

Now, what happens if we draw down the richest stores of these kinds of ores, which are left there kindly by deceased plants and animals? What happens, if we want to have some of the same ore? We’ve used up the richest ores. You have to get more power; you have to go up-scale, to what is called higher energy-flux density. We’re now at the scale, where we can not really maintain the civilization on this planet, without nuclear power. If you don’t have nuclear power, you can’t make up for the fact that you have to use relatively marginal resources. It’s not that we’re running out of iron. There’s still as much iron in the world as ever before, unless we take spaceships out there from them. That’s not the problem. The problem is, we’ve dispersed it, we’ve used it up in a certain way, and we have to recover it, or we have to find new sources of this ore. And therefore we have to have nuclear power.

We have come to the point—you can not have a planet, maintain a population of this type, of 6.7 billion people, you can not do it without nuclear power! And that’s not enough! Because we’re going to have to use thermonuclear fusion power, which is a higher energy-flux density, in order to be able to supply our needs, with at least the same quality of life that we’ve tried in the past with lesser means.

So therefore, for mankind to exist, mankind requires an increase in the energy-flux density of sources of power available. Which means going from burning of wood, or charcoal, or waste, up through other things, including petroleum and natural gas. And you find that you have to go to a qualitative level beyond that, for mankind to survive: And that is, nuclear fission is your first step. But you have to go three orders of magnitude or higher than that, which is thermonuclear fusion. And we have some possibility for thermonuclear fusion now, on the Moon, in the form of helium-3 deposits from the Sun, in that source. But, we’re going, of necessity, into a thermonuclear fusion economy.

What do the British do? The British say, “You shouldn’t have nuclear power. Nuclear power’s dangerous. You should use solar power.” Now, solar power is idiocy. Take an example I was referring to again yesterday: Take the case of sunlight, solar power. Solar power will destroy mankind—why? And how?

Life on this planet—again, come back to it: chlorophyll. And chlorophyll is one of three general modes on which life on this planet generally depends. If we use sunlight, directly, as it impinges upon the surface of the land, we will destroy the world. The way we use sunlight intelligently, is by chlorophyll. There are two other modes of use, also, but let’s take the case of chlorophyll.

Chlorophyll is the major way in which mankind is able to make the planet habitable. Because the little chlorophyll molecule, which looks like a polliwog, and has a little head like a polliwog’s head, and has a tail—it collects the power from the Sun through a tail. And in the head, a marvelous little process occurs, in which the energy-flux density of the sunlight power, is now converted into a much higher form of power, relatively speaking. And this conversion to a higher form of power, not only enables us to develop the land, in terms of other plant life, and the effects of plant life—for example, the sunlight applied to chlorophyll will generally give us a 1% benefit in grasses, from all the sunlight radiation; and in trees up to 10%. So that the ability to inhabit this planet with plant life—and this is true of the oceans as well—depends upon these kinds of processes, which take sunlight, and convert it into a higher form of power, with chlorophyll. That, therefore, creates the conditions of life which humanity requires.

What do they tell us to do? Go to solar power! If you cover this planet with solar power, in terms of an area capable of sustaining some semblance of life, you are going to destroy the planet. Who tells us we have to do this? The British monarchy: Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund! These characters.

We are the target of an intentional destruction of our nation and of civilization, by a kind of culture which comes out of a kind of a relatively dark age of imperialism, back in ancient times. And they’re turning us back to ancient times! And we’re like fools—we say, “We believe in green”! We become greenies. We’re idiots! We’re destroying ourselves.

And that’s how the enemy operates. It’s sort of like the Satan principle. Satan is out there to induce us to destroy ourselves, right? And who is Satan? It’s called Prince Philip. Or people like that. And that’s our folly here.

A Global Strategic Threat

So, what I did recently, in this connection: There are some gentlemen, Russians, who are known to me—scientists, they’re in their seventies and eighties, which for me, it’s good. Seventies and eighties are good; my best memories come from the seventies and eighties. I took steps to try to solve this threat to our existence. And I have dealt for some time with efforts to get Russia, particularly, and China, but Russia in particular, and India, and I’ve been doing that for some decades, to enter into forms of cooperation with the United States, where I knew that our people in the United States, when rightly advised, would want this kind of cooperation.

And this becomes particularly important, now, because countries which technically should be viable partners of the United States, such as Germany and France, are presently not, really, at this time. They used to be more so; they’re less so now. And unfortunately, they are presently under the control of the British, which means that they don’t have real freedom. They’re not independent powers any more. They would like to be powers again, and can become powers again, but the trick is, first of all, we’ve got to break the system. And my concentration is: Okay, the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other relevant countries, if they band together, can change this system. And I’ve been working at that for a long time. And I’ve gotten into troubles with various people because I did it. But I knew I was right.

Now we come to the point that there’s no chance of saving this planet, with the British system, or with a United States under British influence, which is what the Obama problem is. Obama is a puppet of London. He’s not an American! I don’t know where he was born, exactly; that’s been debated all over the place; I will presume that he was born in Honolulu, or some place like that. But I don’t know it; I’ve just heard it, and some people have told me it’s official. But that’s not the point. He’s a puppet of Tony Blair. That’s how he came into existence. He’s from the Chicago mob, through Tony Blair. He’s utterly incompetent; his policies are evil; his intentions, as expressed now, are evil. But if you have a powerful government, well organized, you can take even a slug like him, with his problem, his balloon head, and his draperies, and his shoes, and you can make something out of him, by putting him in the White House and having him surrounded by the right influences. It’s easier than shooting him, and it’s much more humane. And it’s much nicer to have him credited with having accomplished something which he hates—which his owners hate.

So, the point is, now, we have to get the United States free of the Obama problem. If we don’t get the United States free of the Obama problem: “Look, Mom, no more United States. And no more Europe, either.” So this issue of the United States, Russia, China, India, and some other countries, as a cooperative bloc to destroy, once and for all, the British Empire, and what it represents, is the only chance for humanity now. Otherwise, you are headed, inevitably now, for a permanent dark age, for a long period of time, maybe two or three generations. We now have 6.7 billion people estimated; we will go down to 2 or less, in a fairly short, rapid rate, unless we do this. So this is a very strong incentive. And some countries have realized that they’re in danger.

For example, as I mentioned before, you have the case of India: India has had a long, well-orchestrated conflict with Pakistan, which is organized by the British Empire, by the British monarchy itself. But now India recognizes that Pakistan is not its great enemy! That the breakup of Pakistan would mean that the entire region, the so-called Islamic region, would be destroyed. And if that were destroyed, then India would be destroyed. India is now smart enough to recognize that it needs to have a cooperative relationship with Pakistan, and some other countries, and influences in that region, to defend itself! And therefore, to do that, it must have cooperation with Russia, China, Mongolia, and so forth.

And therefore, in that part of the world, there is a very strong tendency for recognizing these problems and these possible solutions. It is also recognized, that this type of solution is not possible without the participation of the United States. And that’s what I’m up to. And I’ve been dealing with Russian circles, and talking with Chinese circles and so forth, and Indian circles for some time, off and on, and recently, more seriously. And we’re now at that point: Were I President, there would be no problem with this. The United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries in the region, will and can cooperate, if allowed to do so. It’s in their interest to do so! All we have to do, is have the right interest in the United States, and we can pull it off. We can save ourselves from this mess.

Mobilize the American People

If we don’t, if we start to say, “Well, maybe Obama will work out,” kiss your—something—goodbye. If you think that these policies can be tolerated, kiss it goodbye. If you think you can adopt Hitler’s health-care policy through Obama, and survive, die! It’ll be more merciful than the alternative.

And therefore, we have to recognize that we have to mobilize the people of the United States around the idea of bringing this Presidency under control, and bringing it under control through a partnership with the United States, Russia, China, India, and other relevant countries. If we do that, I can practically guarantee, that Germany and France will tend to join. They have the strength to be able to join, under those conditions; they will kick the British out, then. They won’t like it, but they’ll do it.

So therefore, we can save the planet. But it’s up to us in the United States, to deal with this Obama problem, to recognize the Hitler mustache on his upper lip. And if you can’t recognize the mustache, the Hitler mustache on Obama’s upper lip, you’re not a patriot!

You may call yourself a Democrat, but Democrats are getting scarce as hen’s teeth these days! Even people who are running as Democrats, are calling themselves Independents and running on both the Republican ticket and the Democratic ticket as Independents! It’s getting hard to find a Democrat anywhere!—except maybe Mrs. Pelosi will grow a mustache or something like that, to cover up her defects.

But this is the situation. And look at the other situation, which I’ve seen: Do you know 80% of the American people hate this President? They don’t particularly hate him as such. He’s not really a hate object; he’s more or less of a lump. But what they hate is the people that they believe betrayed them. Because the American people don’t think of Obama as one of theirs. African-Americans used to try to think of Obama as one of theirs—it was a hopeful thing, but it wasn’t there. They began to find out what was really there, and that’s not working! But Americans do not really hate Obama: They despise him. That’s a difference. They don’t think that shooting him is what has to be done.

They think, Americans think, that their representatives, in the Congress, whom they voted for, have betrayed them. You saw that, in August, in the turnout, which was really a mass-strike movement. You’ve seen it again, popping up again, and again: The American people consider that the members of Congress are the people who betrayed them. They think that the leadership of the parties has also betrayed them, but they’re picking out, especially, the members of Congress, who are considered traitors to them! And therefore, they’re perfectly willing to call themselves Democrats, but they don’t want to be called Damnocrats, these types that they have contempt for.

And therefore, our problem, is to organize the American people to realize what they already feel: Eighty percent of the American population hates what’s happening to the United States! That’s a fact. I don’t care what other statistics people get, I know these facts. Eighty percent of the American population hates their representation. The Republicans are smarter—they’re pretending to be almost Democrats, to try to pick up the votes, hoping that they can take the seats by appealing to the former Democratic voters to come over to the Republican Party in the next election. That’s the game they’re playing! They know the health-care policies of Obama are hated, because it’s Hitler-style genocide. They know that. And they know people don’t like that! They don’t like to be killed! They don’t like to see their grandmother snuffed. Or their kids snuffed—they don’t like it! Strange, you know? They know that this health-care program is mass murder. It’s only stupid politicians who refuse to recognize that it’s mass murder—it is mass murder! It’s Hitler-style mass murder! (Of course, I’ll you a secret: The British invented it. They invented Hitler!)

So, why are you, American people, out there, putting up with something that the average citizen, 80% of the citizens, really hate? And they don’t hate Obama; they hate the Democrats! The Democrats who vote for Obama’s policy! Because their attitude is, and they’re right: Okay, Obama’s an idiot. More and more people are going to recognize that, as time passes on. But they don’t hate him! Because, they say, this could not happen, if the Democrats in the Congress had not sold out. And it’s those Democrats that they voted in, two years ago, or a year ago or so—those Democrats, the ones who they feel betrayed them whom they hate.

Obama, to them, is just a fool. Anybody who thinks seriously, who hears him talk and see what he does, and so forth: The man’s a damned fool. He’s an empty head, with these three teleprompters to guide him in talking. (If you got a fourth teleprompter in there, you probably would really screw him up! You know, just one, with a Mickey Mouse something or other, he’d squeak in the meantime.)

So, our problem is, the American people don’t recognize, that a people has to survive, by showing leadership, when a people as a people must show leadership. Not as anarchy. The problem is, we saw with the demonstrations publicly, in the month of August, and we’ve seen since: The average American person was saying, in August, visibly, and has said more recently: “You!” they said to the members of the Congress, coming out in front of constituents—they said: “You! Shut up! We want to tell you what’s wrong with you! We want you to listen. We don’t want you to talk now. We don’t want you to explain now. We want you to listen!” They’re assuming that the politician—they still control him. They elected him! Or they thought they had elected him. They thought he was their representative. They see, he’s just another Pelosi. And they’re angry, because they think their friends betrayed them! They don’t consider Obama their friend. They don’t think Obama betrayed them—yes, African-Americans, many think they were betrayed, but that didn’t last too long. They began to realize what the truth was.

But what the American is upset about, is the members of Congress, who betrayed them. Look at the recent votes, the two recent votes on health care. First of all, Obama’s intention is Hitler’s! If you vote for Obama’s health-care policy, you’re voting for Adolf Hitler’s 1939 policy. That’s exactly what you’re voting for! If you support a candidate, or a person in public office, who’s supporting Obama’s policy, you are supporting a Hitler policy! Now, Hitler didn’t invent it—the British did. But Hitler was a British puppet; he was created as a British puppet, who went awry as far as they were concerned, and they had to get rid of him. But it was Hitler’s policy, which are the policies of the royal family’s World Wildlife Fund, Prince Philip. Prince Philip has a genocide policy! You don’t need Hitler! Prince Philip is much more vicious than Hitler was! His whole family is! Al Gore is practically a Hitler man, on the same kind of policy—he’s a liar and fool, and complete agent of the British interests.

So, the American people react, as you know them and as I know them; they react to a sense of being betrayed by their friends. That’s where their greatest anger is. You know, most killings occur in families for that reason. Hatred is the greatest against the person you’re close to, who’s betrayed you—you know, the child against the mother who they think has betrayed them; or the father; or the cousin; or the sibling in their class, or the teacher; or some local official. The person who hired them and fired them—these are the people who stir up the greatest emotion in the typical American, these kinds of cases. And that’s what the people are saying. And now, the Congressmen, who are frightened cowards, are running to Obama for succor! Against whom? Against the people who voted for them!

And therefore, you Americans: Better wake up. You’ve got to understand how you think and what you think. And recognize, that you’ve got to get this man, whom you elected President, you’ve got to bring him under control! We don’t want any shooting around here. We want him brought under control. And some people in Washington know what I mean by that: He’ll be in the White House. He’ll be there! He’ll sign the bills! And we will take care of his teleprompters for him—he won’t have to worry about what goes on those; we’ll take care of that for him. It may not come out too clearly, but it’ll be there. And the American people will say, “We have a President, again.” Why? “He’s ours.” What do you mean, he’s “yours”? “We control him.”

And that’s the way the job has to be done.

And the way you control him, is by bringing under control those who need to be brought under control: first of all, your own elected representatives, who are supposed to be your bosses; then, you’ve got to get the institutions to function under control.

You’ve got to have an assessment, a practical assessment of what has to be done on this planet, to stop what is now a presently onrushing, inevitable, general breakdown crisis, of the entire planet. We can stop it. We made an important step in that direction, right after my trip to Rhodes. It was done by the Russians and the Chinese. And contrary to some doubts on the Russian side, the Chinese did do what I knew they would do. They made an agreement, of historic importance. There is discussion with India, and with other countries in that region on the same thing.

We need to bring the United States into line, on this policy: Put this President, in the White House, under parental supervision. Maybe his grandmother—but she’s not available any more. Bring him under parental supervision: He’ll sit there, he’ll sign the laws, he will authorize the speeches, he will do all these things. He will be informed on everything. But, he will be in the White House, and under management. And we will kick the butts of the members of the Congress. And we will go to cut the deal with Russia, China, and India. We will bring other countries into that: Japan will come quickly; so will Korea; so will some other countries, come quickly into that.

No Solution Without the U.S.

And we have to save this economy, we have to put this entire economy through a Glass-Steagall type of reform—immediately! We must take all banks which had any characteristic of commercial banks in them; put all these banks under government receivership, in bankruptcy. Put them into bankruptcy reorganization by a Glass-Steagall standard, the one that used to be on the books, that we know we have to return to. Keep the commercial banks functional. Those which are bankrupt presently, put them back into operation! Because people had their savings there, and we have to defend that.

Then utter, by cancelling all this worthless paper, maybe $20 trillion worth in worthless paper, cancel it! It’s fake money! It’s not honest money, by Glass-Steagall standards. Then, create, by a Federal act, create something which Roosevelt would have done: Create a reorganization of the U.S. economy.

Now, we have destroyed most of our industries. We have almost lost the skills that were concentrated in the auto industry, for machine-tool design and similar kinds of skills. We’ve lost the ability for major infrastructure. We’re about to lose the last remnant of the aircraft industry. We’re losing our machine-tool capability. We do not have functioning industries, of the type we used to have ten years ago! We’ve lost it. We have communities that are disintegrating! What we’re going to have to do, is have a mass program of basic economic infrastructure of the type that requires a maximum emphasis on agriculture and machine-tool design, in order to make sure to get the highest levels of technology functioning again, immediately, in this country. We’ve got to get to a full-employment program, which is not a make-work employment program, but one which is of infrastructure, which is actually building the skills and productive powers of the nation.

We’re going to have to cooperate among nations, to enhance this capability. We’re going to have to have a 1.5-2% basic interest rate for these kinds of projects, which will be authorized by the Federal government. We’re going to talk in terms of 50-year and less, shorter types of investments by the Federal government. We’re going to build a mass transit system. We’re going to build a nuclear power system, beyond anybody’s imagination today. We can do it! All you have to do, is start doing it, and you can replicate the project, and train more people in it.

And that way, we’re going to save the nation, we’re going to save the planet. We will find that Europe, probably beginning with a phase in Germany and France, which are nations which have the greatest relative potential for getting back into business—except for the greenies in Germany. We’re going to have to start to do that. We’re going to have to continue and expand the general program of development for Africa. We’re going to have to look at the countries of South America from the same standpoint. And within ten years, or less, we will have built—rebuilt—for the United States, a semblance of what we once thought we had, in modern terms.

That’s what we must do. And you, in the United States, must do it! You must organize those in the United States to do exactly this! Because, I can tell you, that Russia is prepared to do this! China is prepared to do this! There are 1.4 billion Chinese! That’s important. There are over a billion Indians; they’re important! Russia commands one of the greatest raw materials potentials on the planet, in the Arctic region! We have in North America, we have in Canada, in Alaska, we have a similar potential for development, in the Arctic regions and the sub-Arctic regions. We can make a revolution on this planet, rapidly, within ten years—easily! We can change things, to get us moving in a completely different direction.

But the problem lies, not with who we criticize, outside in other nations, though criticism must be made—we have to look at ourselves! We are the supposedly great power! We are the nation, which inspired modern society! We have to kick our people in the butt, and get them to organize themselves, for no less a purpose than their own survival! Because if we don’t, if we don’t organize our own people to clean up this mess, in the Congress and in the White House, and put it back into order, there isn’t going to be a United States. And if there’s not going to be a United States, there’s not going to be much of a world, either, at least for a long time to come.

So this stuff we’ve been doing, and putting up with, this debating, this question of popular opinion, this question, “We-ell, I don’t think ... well, I’m not sure ... but, somebody tells me ... but somebody says differently than you’re saying....” You know? Idiocy! Idiocy!! Cowardice! Corruption! When people don’t think things through, in a time of crisis, because they want to doubt, or they want to protest, or they want to raise some objection of that type—you’re the kind of people who’ll condemn themselves to Hell! And if they’re looking for it, they will probably find it.

So, the point is: It lies with us! The crisis is now. The time is short. The weeks ahead can not be wasted. I will be working during these coming several months, to try to put into place some of the agreements which are needed, to get this world out of this mess. But I need more showing from the American people, of all particular degrees. Let’s get up, off the ground, let’s mobilize, and let’s take charge! The mass strike movement which we saw in August is good, but it was not good enough! Because then, the people who were enraged were saying justly, “You! You! You!” To their members of Congress, “You shut up! Listen to us!” They didn’t say, “You! We’re taking charge.” And that’s the difference.

Thank you.

Dialogue with LaRouche

Freeman: The first question that I want to ask you, comes from someone in Russia, whom you have been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with on these very questions. For people who have been following this on the website, this is the third in a series of questions from one of Russia’s leading bloggers on economic issues, who has asked Lyn in the past to explain what he meant by various elements of the recent Russia-China economic agreements. And Lyn has answered those; those answers are public, and as I said, you can see them on the site. But as Lyn answers, he has more questions.

He says: “Lyn, you say, without an essential change from the present world British-run monetarist system to a credit system, all of the currencies of the world would become worthless very soon. This point is, at the very least, it seems to me, disputable.

“If we look at, for instance, the Russian economy, we will see that it does not have as huge an internal debt, and so many financial bubbles as we see in America. So, even if the dollar collapses, it does not necessarily mean that the same will happen with our ruble. All that we would need to prevent such a scenario is to leave the foreign exchange market, and start using the ruble in international trade. If someone needs energy supplies from Russia, he will have to offer something useful to us—technology supply and industrial modernization, for example. Please comment on this.

“Secondly, you say, the U.S. dollar’s ties to China’s economy mean that an increase in per-capital value and output of the Chinese economy engaged in the presently agreed China/Russia agreement, would mean a revival of the value of the presently collapsing U.S. dollar through the increased value of the U.S. debt to a rising Russia/China economy. I will put my question to you in slightly different form. Do you agree that Russia and China are able to perform this project even if the dollar collapses?”

You Need the U.S. To Defeat Globalization

LaRouche: On the latter question, no. Without the United States, Russia and China’s collaboration would not be successful.

This other question to consider here—the deeper one—is, there is no such thing as an autonomous economy on this planet today. There is no self-sufficiency; nor is there any pair-wise self-sufficiency. If two nations decide to try to cooperate, and tell the rest can go to Hell, they’ll go to Hell first. They’ll be delivered the next day, in fact, to that destiny.

Now, you don’t have a “rules” system; you don’t have national economic systems any more. You don’t understand globalization. The problem in Russia today is largely a result of the failure to recognize the menace of globalization. Because that was what was done to Russia, was globalization. Russia’s potential does not lie very much in its own existing industries, that is, on the scale of those industries. And trade within that country, or trade with other countries, or a few countries, is not going to solve anything. You’ve got to increase the productive powers of labor of each country and all countries, and you can only do it with cooperation, because of globalization.

For example, take the case of grain. Helga [Zepp-LaRouche] went through this in her presentation just a few weeks ago, on this question. There is no such thing as any independent nation on this planet! If you’re not prepared to destroy Cargill, you don’t have independence. If you don’t look at the firms that control your food supplies on this planet, and go in there, if necessary, with troops, and straighten them out, you’re not going to have a food supply. You need an authoritative international force, composed of sovereign nation-states, but an effective force which is powerful enough to go in and shut down Cargill. Otherwise, you don’t have a chance!

You’re in a globalized system. What’s a globalized system? It’s an empire! You tolerated Cargill! You tolerated similar kinds of firms. You tolerated globalization, and you thought you were smart. You had legislators who did that in country after country. You talked about globalization; the Tower of Babel back again, with similar results promised, for now. That’s the issue!

What we need is a consent of the people, consent of nations. Now, we know that Europe presently, under the euro, has no sovereignty! Continental, western, and central Europe no longer have real sovereignty. It doesn’t exist in any of those countries! We have to take a bunch of nations which do have enough power to represent sovereignty, which is largely the United States, Russia, China, and India, and a few neighboring countries, which will share their emotions in this matter, and that will constitute a representative body of the human race. And that representative body of the human race is going to go out and crush the imperialists.

I’m declaring war! And, as Franklin Roosevelt said: I hate war!” But that’s why I got to declare it.

That’s the solution here.

We have to create an economy. No economy presently exists, no sovereign national economy presently exists anywhere on this planet. You want to talk about trade within and among nations? You don’t have sovereign nations anymore. There’s no nation on this planet that’s sovereign; it’s all under globalization. It’s under the empire.

What’s the empire? The empire is the British Empire; the enemy is the British Empire! And the British Empire does include Buckingham Palace (or, there’s another name for the place, but I won’t use it here). And there is Threadneedle Street—that exists. But the Empire is international; it’s an international monetarist system. The system which is typified by the globalizers—the ones that control the food supply of the world, that control the mineral supply of the world, that control the industries of the world. These bastards have to be shut down, in order to get our national sovereignties back. And what we have is, we have a nasty pact of nations who say, we’re going to take our national sovereignty back.

We’re going to eliminate globalization. We’re going to have equitable treaty agreements among cooperating nations. We’re going to think in terms of 50-year projects—in some cases, 100-year projects. The development of northern Siberia is a 100-year project, which is extended across the Bering Strait, through a tunnel through the Bering Strait, into Alaska, into Canada, and down into the United States. We’re going to take the Arctic region of the continents, and we’re going to start to develop them, because they contain essential resources, and we do know how to deal with them, at least some of us do.

We’re going to deal with Africa. We’re going to build a modern type of railway system which unites the world. We can devise it, we’ve reported on this repeatedly. We can today, create the equivalent of a high-speed rail system, including a magnetic levitation system, with a high degree of automation in it. We can create an entirely new transportation system for the entire planet. We can connect all of Eurasia with Africa and with the Americas, with, effectively, a single stroke—one continuous set of railway systems, going down into Africa, and transforming Africa. And you can’t do it without railway systems.

Look, for example, take Africa: Africa has a great amount, especially in the Southern Shield, of the mineral resources of Africa as a whole. Well, why aren’t the Africans rich? Take a picture of this helicopter study, which was done from helicopters, travelling over various parts of Africa, and looking down at these parts in daytime and at night. What’s the condition of Africa? Africa is a British crime against all humanity. Africa has one of the greatest agricultural areas of the world. Why don’t they have farms, for food? Why is there no light at night in most of Africa? Why is there no mass transportation system? Why is there no effective system of disease control? Why is there no development? Why is Africa only raped of its raw materials, and not developed? Why is the water system of Africa not developed? Why was the Nile River system never completely developed?

That’s the problem. And therefore, we have to have ground rules for nation-states. Our basic point is nation-states, because nation-states involve the concept of culture.

Now, the power of creativity, which does not exist in monkeys, but should exist in people, even among some politicians. The power of creativity is unique to mankind. All processes on this planet and beyond, are creative. Inanimate nature is creative.

Look what happened: You had a Sun; the Sun is sitting out there, it’s all by itself. It’s spinning around rapidly, not knowing where to go, in this neck of our galaxy. You got that little Sun. And the Sun spun off some things. It created; it just spun out there, and it began creating the Periodic Table; the complete Periodic Table, which keeps growing and developing all the time, through isotopes, some of which are generated by the aid of life, living processes. And so, suddenly, the Sun suddenly became a whole solar system. And all these kinds of developments occurred.

So, the Sun itself is creative; the universe is creative, inherently. Animal life is creative. But none of them can think; none of them have the ability for voluntary transformation of the universe. Only human beings have the mentality for the voluntary creation of new states of organization in the universe. And we need more people who are creative. We need to get rid of this uncreative nonsense, which was introduced in the postwar period.

We have to develop populations; therefore, we have to realize that when you’re dealing with a language culture, which is a very complex thing—it involves not just the language, but a whole lot of other things: If you’re dealing with a language culture, you have a certain depth of a faculty called irony, which exists in every language culture. Which is generally expressed in the music and the poetry, the art and so forth of that culture. And therefore, when you touch that aspect which is deeply imbedded in national culture, you are getting close to where the creative powers of the individual lie.

So, what our objective must be in a nation-state, is based on the idea of nation-state culture. You must bring into play the creative potential of a people through its culture. Therefore, you want them to represent themselves in terms of the fulfillment and enrichment of their own culture. Therefore, we want the consent of humanity—we don’t want a consent of pigpens, we want the consent of different cultures, because creativity lies within the culture. Therefore, we want an assembly of peoples which are respectively sovereign peoples, in order to mobilize their cultural potential, for becoming truly as human as they can become.

And it’s the consent of these sovereign cultures, which we must bring into play, in order to finally achieve what Franklin Roosevelt intended, when he designed the idea of the United Nations: to eliminate all elements of oppression from this planet, and to create a system of sovereign nation-states, of developed sovereign nation-states, which will then take over the entire territory of the planet, leaving no room for empires, or similar kinds of phenomena. And bringing that together, that should be our purpose. So therefore, we have some nations which have, together, the power—sufficient power—to free the slaves among other nations. And our job is to free the slaves.

Europe is a bunch of slaves; South America is largely a bunch of slaves. We must free them, and those nations which have the ability, the power, and the determination to do that, must join, on behalf of humanity as a whole, because we’re going to create another thing. We’re going to go to Mars! Not this week, but we’ve got to get there. I won’t be there. I will be there in spirit, and you never know what I’ll be able to do as a spirit. I’ll do the best I can.

So, therefore, mankind has a destiny. All nature is creative. Inanimate nature is creative, as we see when we study the inanimate processes of physics, of physical science. Living processes, all living processes are creative. Look at the emergence of species, new species and varieties which have come out of the existence of life on the planet. Life itself is creative. The human mind is creative, and the human mind is the only willfully creative power on this planet. And that’s what our purpose is.

Therefore, we, as mankind, must look to the future, and the future is not what might happen next week. The future is what we can cause to happen, which is a higher state of existence of mankind than has ever existed before. For that reason, we know we must go to Mars, and there are a lot of problems which some friends of mine and I are working on, on this question of how we’re going to get to Mars. We’re very serious about it; we’re determined to get there. I may not see it in this incarnation, but—. Nonetheless, it’ll take us about four generations to do that, and we can solve, in that time, we can solve the problem.

So therefore, our objective here is to bring nations together, recognizing that no nation has sovereignty—not now. But we’re going to have a system of sovereignty on this planet—of sovereign nations—because we need it, because human culture demands it. Therefore, we nations which are strong enough to do this, who represent enough power to pull this off, have the obligation to exert that power we have, when we’re acting jointly to get rid of the British Empire. And when you think that way, you’re thinking strategically. Get away from those lower forms of thought, which are petty ones. We’re going to change this planet; to make it a respectable planet, that other planets don’t have to be ashamed of.

Our Job Is Creative Development, Not Trade

Freeman: The next question comes from Australia, from the Australian Movement for Sustained Development. And the question is: “Mr. LaRouche, if Russia and China use their existing dollar reserves to undertake massive infrastructure development, does this not have the same effect as dumping the U.S. dollar, when those dollars are spent and don’t come back into the U.S. economy? And with it is the increased pressure toward hyperinflation? If there is no common agreement between those nations, and the nations of the West, with the U.S. as the linchpin, it seems to me that there still would be no resolution in international finance and economics, and the downhill slide will not only continue, but will accelerate. In my calculation, the actions of China and Russia may be sensible for them in isolation, but will only exacerbate the dollar collapse, and thus accelerate the global economic event horizon into view. I’d greatly appreciate your opinion.”

LaRouche: Well, that’s a completely mistaken view of the situation. First of all, if you want to talk about human beings, make sure and check that you’re talking about what distinguishes a human being from an animal. Now, human beings are creative. They’re creative in the sense that I use the term creative. What most people call creative today is not creative: It’s filthy, it’s dirty, it’s confused, it’s chaotic. People think innovation. I mean if people are at rock concerts, you can’t expect them to have minds when they leave the place, hmm? And people who think in terms of what we have as popular entertainment today, are not creative people. As a matter of fact, they don’t have creative powers; they lost them somewhere along between childhood and adolescence, probably with the monkeys, or something like that.

No, the essence of humanity is creative; creativity as such. And the power in Russia, as I know the power in Russia, is in institutes like the Vernadsky Institute, which has a headquarters in Moscow, in what used to be called Red Square. These people understand how to make a creative development of the planet. And our job is not money; it’s not hakem makem as they say in Israel. It’s not money. It’s not trade. Trade is nothing. Trade is a divorce court; that’s trade. That’s the trading market these days.

No, we’re talking about creativity; we’re talking about transformation. Do you know what the Vernadsky Institute represents in Moscow? Do you know what Vernadsky represents in terms of Russian science, and in world science? Do you know what we can do if we unleash technology, which is now being suppressed? Do you know what we can do to this planet? This will require a lot of nuclear power. It will require all the things that go with nuclear power. It will mean the development of thermonuclear fusion. It will mean the use of a space exploration driver, as a program for driving human technology in the Solar System.

In other words, if you want to create something, really—and unfortunately most people in the world don’t know what creativity is anymore. They think it’s, I don’t know, taking your pants off in public, or something like that. I mean, things almost like that are called creativity today. Take rock music—does somebody call that creative? The mind that does that is not creative; it may not be any mind at all.

Now, we look always at objectives. In artistic creativity, Classical artistic creativity, and scientific creativity: We define objectives. The objectives are beyond the reach of what we can do today, but we’re able to define the objective we wish to reach, often by negation. So therefore, the way you run a world economy today—in every part, you start with, what? We’re going to Mars! When? Well, it’s going to take a little time to do that.

How are we going to get there? Well, we’ve got a little problem right now, that we’re talking about very much among my circles. When the astronauts landed on the Moon the second time, they discovered a deposit left by the Sun, called helium-3. And helium-3 is the most useful, and the most accessible, and desirable fuel for thermonuclear fusion. Now, if I want to go to Mars—and this is the way you have to think, pose a question. You want to go to Mars? What does it take to do that? How is thermonuclear fusion developed in the first place? How were weapons systems developed in World War II? Completely new kinds of systems—how were they done? Because somebody asked the question: How can we do this? When somebody else said, “Oh, that’s impossible! I can’t find it in the textbooks.”

So, we’re going to go to Mars. And I pose this here as a very serious answer, implicitly, to this question and others which are coming up. We say, if you want to know how to think about humanity, talk about travel to and from Mars. Because by asking yourself to work out all the questions and solutions to those questions, which that question asks, you’re giving mankind a sense of a future, a destiny, of mankind. And you’re forcing yourself to find in yourself the creative powers to determine how this could be done. And you work back and forth over generations. People are excited about it; they’re excited about this thing today. Young people are excited about going to Mars. And we know that we are on the verge of losing the ability to do that, because humanity may be going back to the apes, the way we’re going now.

So, therefore, we pick an objective beyond what we think could be done, and we say, maybe some of this stuff can be done, can’t it? And you think about travel to Mars. Well, to travel to Mars by ordinary methods people think of, it would probably take 200 to 300 days. But, if I wanted to send a vessel to Mars, an automated vessel, we could probably try it—it’s a shot—within about 3 to 6 days. We would use helium-3 as a fuel, build a fusion-impulse device with a potential thrust equivalent to one gravity, as an acceleration factor, and you can probably make the trip in 3 to 6 days.

Now, whether a human being could survive that treatment or not, is another question. Possibly, and so forth. But that’s just another thing to ask about. We know we can send things to Mars, including some politicians perhaps, hmm? And see how they come back, what condition they come back in. Maybe it’s a very interesting test to run.

But, by challenging ourselves to look at these kinds of questions, and challenges which are on the fringes of the imagination, and sorting out those which we realize we have some capability for solving, that is the process of creativity. That is the case in Classical art; that’s the case in Classical poetry; it’s in everything of any importance. Always look ahead beyond what you are today, what you’re capable of doing today, what your nation is capable of doing today, and take that as your objective.

Now, that is not a thing in itself. What you’re doing is, you’re forcing yourself to bring forth in yourself, what is particularly, specifically human—willful creativity. Real creativity; to making an original discovery, how? It’s stimulated by kicking yourself in the butt, and saying, this ought to be possible to do. What do we know about it? Could we actually do it? What questions do we have to answer to solve that problem? Everything that mankind has done, whether in art, in poetry, in physical science and so forth, in achievement generally, is done that way. And therefore, that’s the way we have to approach this. We have to say, our objective is to go for progress.

Once you define that, and once you take a factor in Russia, which is one which I especially like—the Vernadsky Institute in Moscow, headquarters in Moscow—and I think about what that institution represents, and what Vernadsky represents, as the unfinished work of Vernadsky and some other people associated with it. Now, if I talk about Russia, or Siberia and so forth, aah, so what? But then I say, what are some of the questions which are posed by Vernadsky and his associates? Suppose we start to look at some of the things which are made possible, once we take Vernadsky’s questions into account. Now, I have oriented society toward that.

What we want to do, is take young people, not to give them a job, not to train them to do something. We want to put them through a training program, yes, as a context, but we want to give them a destiny. We want to give them a mission; a mission which takes them beyond themselves. We don’t want to give a guy a job at a shop, producing something. We want to make him a machine-tool designer; we want to make him a scientist, that sort of thing. And the secret here is to do that; is to take the view of society. We’re not going to the same old, same old, same old, all the time. We’re going to take our young people, and we’re going to inspire them with what they can become, not just what the Army promises them. The U.S. Army, “What you can become.” This is the standard.

We don’t want routine education. You know, I take people, I say, “Cut the mathematics! You’re stuck in routine. You’re not thinking; you’re not thinking creatively. You’re not posing any questions of principle, and testing those questions of principle in your own mind.” And when you do that, they start to think, if they’re talented, young people.

If you go through a routine, go through the mathematics and learn this, and learn that—that’s nothing. That doesn’t get you anywhere. And that’s what we have to do here.

We have to realize that what we’re doing, we’re taking people who are being stultified, who frankly are being drugged by a routine, who have no future; they have a skill, probably better than their grandfathers’, or less so, than their grandfathers’. And you’re giving them a job, and they’re “trading”! What the Hell is that?! It’s nothing.

It’s giving them the challenge of bringing the creative powers out which result in an increase in the creative abilities of the human being. New technologies, new frontiers. This is the answer. And we do that by going into the culture of the people, and we try to promote the creativity which lies within the culture of a people. Provoke that culture, challenge it, bring people into cooperation around this kind of cultural opportunity, and you increase the productive powers of labor.

Don’t talk about trade. Don’t bring this idea about trade, or dollars, or currency, or prices! Forget it! It’s irrelevant. We have to make the future, we have to shape the future, not try to dig out some old routine.

Russia’s now dead. Without the stimulus of taking what Russia can do, in terms of some of its people, its scientific traditions, its cultural tradition, Russian familiarity with the resources of its own territory. Take the case of Mongolia, which doesn’t have any ocean borders, but has large resources. Take the case of China, where two-thirds of the population are in miserable conditions still. And, if we can bring these nations into cooperation, in going to new frontiers, to new technologies, the higher energy-flux densities, we can, by that very cooperation itself, we can raise the standard of living and the standard of production.

And that’s what a society is. It’s a culture. It’s not a trading organization. Forget the trading organizations. Forget the businessman. You know what I would like to take, you know, Russian businessmen? I would like to put them in a cage, because Russian businessmen have been the worst curse that Russia’s experienced since Gorbachov.

Currency Has No Intrinsic Value

Freeman: We have, actually, almost identical questions coming from someone on the professional staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then from someone at Brookings. What one of the questioners says is:

“Mr. LaRouche, I have found your discussion of this new China-Russia venture to be most interesting, and I agree with you that it can serve as a stepping-stone for very significant developments. Not that it’s going to solve all of the problems in the world, but again, that it at least puts us in the right direction. What I do not understand, and which I wish you would explain a little bit more, is, in some of your recent comments that I’ve seen on your website, and that your spokesman has discussed with us, you have said that what the Chinese are doing is, essentially, by investing hundreds of billions of dollars into this project, i.e., their investment is essentially denominated in U.S. dollars, that they are in effect giving those dollars more value than they have under current circumstances. That they are taking what is U.S. debt, and turning it into an asset. This is what I do not understand, and I wish that you would explain it in a little bit more detail.”

LaRouche: People believe in fairy tales, and the fairy tale is that value lies in a currency. A currency has no intrinsic value; no currency has an intrinsic value. See, what’s the value here? The question is typical, though. It’s typical from Russia, it’s typical of some people from China, it’s typical all over the world. They don’t understand money! They think they do, and that’s the biggest mistake. And I would like to take money out in the backyard and shoot it, and then give it a new name—not money—and then people might understand it.

But, the essence of human existence, and of economy, is increase in the productive powers of labor. There is no intrinsic value in any substance or any currency, especially currency. It has no intrinsic value! A currency is simply a convention. It has no intrinsic value! The intrinsic value is physical, but it’s physical in a general way, not in simply a way that’s something tangible.

What is an investment, you presume? You invest certain assets, like physical assets. Don’t talk about money, just talk about physical assets. A guy wants to start a business. He wants to start producing something, and he needs the following machinery, he needs these other physical assets, and these skills and so forth. He’s going to put these together, and he’s going to try to do, what? He’s going to try to produce more, as a result of combining these resources, than he put into it. He’s going to get more value, in terms of physical reality, out of production than he contributed to start funding the production. Sometimes it’s called profit. Profit is a lousy, dirty word, but you can use it sometimes, with my permission, under my strict supervision, because people abuse it very much.

Therefore, the value of a currency, insofar as it represents purchasing of something useful, is expressed by its profitability, its physical profitability, not necessarily its monetary value.

So therefore, if I take a trillion dollars of U.S. obligations to China, a trillion dollars worth of obligations which are denoted in Chinese assets, and they’re just sitting there. No use, nothing’s happening to them. And I come along, and I say, let me buy, or guarantee, or pledge myself to support a trillion dollars’ worth of Chinese activity, pledging these funds, these trillion dollar debt funds, for this purpose. Now why am I going to do that? Because by investing that trillion dollars, or what it can buy, in terms of the development of the economy of Asia and other things, I’m going to produce more than a trillion dollars’ worth of value, and therefore by investing that in physical production, which involves a factor of growth of values, I’m increasing the wealth of the world. The wealth of the world does not lie in those dollars, or those other currencies. The wealth of the world lies in the activation of the productive process.

You see, most people say their accountants make money. They make money, unfortunately, which is why we have to put them in prison at times! Right?

What we invest in, we invest in the power of labor, the power of human labor when equipped with certain means, to produce more value for human beings than that labor and those resources represented beforehand. So, if I take a trillion dollars that the United States owes to China, and instead of letting it sit there, as a debt, waiting to be collected by China—which never will happen—we say we’re going to take that debt, and we’re going to tell the United States that we’re going to invest that debt it has to us in this investment, then everybody benefits. Because we bring together the means for creating the wealth.

You get this hakem-makem crazy stuff that goes on, and people talking about money, money, money, money. Investing money, investing money. Stop it! Get it out of Russia. I mean, the Russians are poisoned by this stuff about investment in money. They’re brainwashed into thinking, ever since Gorbachov—they’re brainwashed into thinking that investing in money, that money is the secret of wealth. It is not!

As we should know, money has been destroying the real wealth of the world. Money can be slavery. No, the key thing here is this wealth is, to the degree that it’s invested, or its equivalent, what is represented by it, is invested in a way which results in an increase of the amount of real wealth—not money wealth—real wealth, and therefore, if you have a sane system of economy, the money value of wealth should conform to and follow the actual physical wealth increase. In other words, if there’s an increase in profit, without an actual increase in physical wealth, it’s a fraud: typical of what goes on in the United States these days. You get less than what you pay for. By investing in things which result in a greater gain for humanity, in terms of efficient physical values that you’re investing in, and if you’re investing in improving your nation in physical terms, you’re profitable. If you’re investing in money, you’re a parasite.

The Power To Smash the British Empire

Freeman: This next question is from a member of the Stanford group who is now assigned with leading a new section that’s dealing with some international questions, and his question—he phrased it as relating to the question of gold, but I think it goes a little bit beyond that. He says:

“Lyn, if we’ve learned one thing, it would seem—and, as I’m sure you’re aware, this was at the heart of President Clinton’s drive for a new financial architecture—it is that we must abandon the system of floating exchange rates and interest rates in favor of a fixed currency and fixed interest rate. And that unless we do that, we are not going to have any hope of ongoing economic cooperation. It’s the only way that, it seems to me, we can proceed, where you don’t end up with one currency as dominant, but with a common agreement among different currencies.

“The question that I have in all of this is the role of gold. Some of my colleagues here have argued that the 1944 Bretton Woods system was based on a gold standard. Now, I’m not at all sure that that is even true, but in any case, I see a problem with using gold as a standard of value, and without going into the details of why I say that, I think you could probably figure it out. My question is, couldn’t we use production as a standard of value?

“So, what I’m asking you is, number one, in terms of discussing a new financial architecture, how do you see the role of gold? And, number two, concretely, if you agree with me that we wish to use production as a standard of value, how would that work?”

LaRouche: Well, you’ve got several problems, including some historic ghosts in this question. Go from April 12 to April 13, 1945. You had, in the previous year, you had the Bretton Woods conference, and in this conference, Franklin Roosevelt had denounced the policies, the British policies, of a monetary system, the Keynesian system. This prevailed until the 12th of April, 1945, when Roosevelt died. The following day, Harry Truman was President, and Harry Truman went with Churchill to a Keynesian system, as opposed to a Roosevelt dollar, a fixed-exchange-rate dollar. And then we produced a monster, which was an attempt to return implicitly to the gold standard, rather than a fixed-exchange-rate system, based not on a monetary standard, but a credit standard.

So, if you think about the gold question as a credit system, not a monetary system, most of your confusion is eliminated. But the confusion comes, once you ignore the fact that there was a revolution against the United States, a virtual act of treason under Truman, on the 13th of April 1945. Where Roosevelt had denounced monetarism at Bretton Woods, had fought against it and suppressed it, defeated it, as soon as he was dead, Truman, the traitor, brought Keynes in, and the world system, since that time, was Keynesian, not U.S. That was the beginning of the return of the British Empire, was that event.

Now, there should be no gold standard, for the same reason that Roosevelt opposed Keynes: The use of gold is as a denominator of a credit system, saying that a uniform price of gold will be a reference point, but for a fixed-exchange-rate system; and therefore, the gold is simply a mechanism to facilitate a fixed-exchange-rate system, as a credit system, not as a monetary system.

The thing is to concentrate on the essential question. It comes up in this question of law. We’re going to tell those idiots in the Congress to vote up a law, and the crooks in the back room are going to fix that law so that by the time what comes out is going to have no resemblance to the initial intention of the members of Congress. We call it the “dis-Members” of Congress, often for that reason.

The problem is, that we don’t go by the idea of production values, and in a fixed-exchange-rate system, the motive is production values. And what happens is, we absent ourselves, by the way we allow crooked behavior in the Congress generally. We allow crooked behavior. We allow people in the Congress to go behind doors and devise laws, which are cheating on what the public thought the intent of that law was. It’s happening right now. What are legislators? Legislation is a form of lying! You don’t know what you’re getting. It’s like getting a krait snake in your bedroom, you know? It’s not what you intended. So, that’s the problem here.

And therefore you have to go at the question of how the system will operate.

You know, the other aspect of this in respect of law, is our lawmaking is increasing law-less. The U.S. Constitution, which is the only decent constitution in the world, really—when it’s respected—was based on certain principles. It was not a farrago of this and that, with a multitude of different kinds of nooks and crannies, not like a British parliamentary system. But we’ve been corrupted by adopting the habits of practice of a parliamentary system, not a constitutional system based on credit, and therefore we put up with this nonsense.

But there has to be a general overhaul of our system of law, and the behavior of the legislatures, because our legislative process, over the centuries, has become increasingly corrupt. For example, the Hill-Burton standard of health care. Why should anyone ever change it? The change was a piece of thievery and robbery. It’s a fraud! So we talk about health-care reform! Why don’t we just go back to Hill-Burton and end the HMO system, which was a fraud from the onset?!

What’s being proposed by the President is a fraud! It’s mass murder of our citizens! There’s no excuse for it. We have legislative doubletalk all over the place. This is mass murder! What President Obama is proposing is nothing other than what Hitler enacted in 1939, in September-October ’39. We called it genocide, later. And this creature, this Obama, wants to practice genocide against the American people, the same way Hitler did, and the same way that’s being done in Britain by the sponsor of Obama, Tony Blair.

This is what’s happened to our law. The constitutional intent has been betrayed. You see, our conception of law is based not on trading, not on parliamentary horse-trading. Our conception of law is based on a principle of respecting the nature of man. The rights of man. Our Constitution was the greatest constitutional instrument of any part of human history, and it’s been made a shambles by these prostitutes called Congressmen, and others, who sell themselves for their own convenience. We don’t have people like John Quincy Adams. We don’t have men like Abraham Lincoln. We don’t have these types of people. We have imitations, cheap imitations, and that’s the problem.

So, the problem here is not in the question of gold. Roosevelt’s intention was clear; it was clear in 1944 in Bretton Woods. He wasn’t there, but he made the remarks. And the intention of Truman was different. Truman was not an American patriot. I would [come to] consider him a scumbag very soon. I was in Kanchrapara, I was on my way going from India, up into northern Burma, where I spent the concluding war years, and some soldiers at Kanchrapara, American soldiers, came up and said they wanted to talk to me at night. I said fine. So they came up, and they said, we wanted to ask you what’s going to happen to us now that President Roosevelt is dead. And my answer, which was memorable to me because it was short (that helps sometimes, doesn’t it?), I said, well, I haven’t thought much about this until now, but I can say this: We were governed by a great man, Franklin Roosevelt, and now our President is a very little man, and therefore I’m afraid for our people. And I was right. And as soon as I got back to the United States, I really knew I was right. This guy was a menace, and he’s typical of the political corruption.

The problem we’re going to have to deal with in this, is to recognize that these problems exist. They lurk all around in the institutions of government, and we’re going to have to clean the mess up. But we’re going to have to do this by a radical move of this Four Power agreement. The assembly of four of the most powerful nations on this planet, nations which are of a diverse cultural character with respect to one another, but which therefore are more suitably representative of humanity than a group of nations which simply agree with each other in their cultural characteristics.

We’re now representing humanity, rather than a bloc or a group, and we’re taking the most powerful group, and assembling around them to have a powerful enough group to smash the British Empire! To destroy the British Empire, once and for all, in order to free mankind of Satan. Want to get rid of Satan? Close down the British Empire.

So therefore, this is the kind of situation we’re in, and therefore, we do have to establish a law for mankind again, which is not essentially different than what the intention of our Constitution was. We’re going to have to do it in terms which are understood, as Roosevelt would have agreed, among nations which have different cultural characteristics. We’re going to bring nations with different cultural characteristics together for a common understanding of the aims of mankind, and that’s what the thing is. And we’re going to have to realize that we’re cleaning up a mess, we’re cleaning up the outhouse, in the process of doing this kind of negotiation, in reforming the United States. And presumably, we’ll have an angry group of Congressmen who will do something, who will no longer go along to get along, but will do the job which their conscience should require of them. That’s where we are, and these problems will occur. Don’t worry about them, as long as we’re doing something to fix them.

Measuring the Increase in the Productive Powers of Labor

Freeman: We have another question here from the Stanford group: “Mr. LaRouche, as you know, we have labored over the distinction between a monetarist system and a credit system, both from the standpoint of historic function and from the standpoint of an urgently required restructuring. Utilizing your Triple Curve Function, it became apparent to us that what had been a decades-long process of economic disintegration, reached a new and more dramatic phase in approximately the middle of 2007, when the price of monetary aggregates, as opposed to regular financial aggregates, began to skyrocket.

“At the same time, net physical income for physical consumption began to spiral downward. The result was a collapse in the market for products, especially for products of production, and as that occurred, employment also began to move in a rapidly accelerating downward spiral. But, the volume of monetary aggregates soared, contrary to financial transactions related to the real economy. This process grew even more critical with the effort to prop up and sustain these monetary aggregates, at the expense of America’ s physical economy.

“The Obama Administration, contrary to its promises, has adopted policies that have not only continued this, but actually have accelerated the process. And it’s our conclusion that this series of facts is absolutely indisputable scientifically, and we’re prepared to defend it.

“Now, in terms of a transition to a credit system, when you discuss a return to a Glass-Steagall framework, and putting the current system through bankruptcy reorganization, it seems very apparent to us that what you are discussing and what former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker is discussing, are two very different things. Our question to you is, aren’t you really talking about eliminating the monetary curve entirely? It would seem that then, the primary measure of economic value becomes the interaction between the financial curve and the curve which represents the physical economy, and that that is the basis of what you refer to as a credit system. Are we correct in concluding this? And if not, could you please shed more light on where we are making a mistake?”

LaRouche: Okay, got you. Well, no, there is a little discrepancy here. The discrepancy is simply this: I do not believe in monetary value. I believe in an assigned monetary assessment of value, but that is not mathematically interchangeable, as value is physical. Monetary value is not physical; it’s a conventional value, not an actual value.

See, you’ve got to go back to the question of what is an economy. Money has nothing to do with a real economy, as such. That is, in terms of the essential value terms. Money has nothing to do with real value. Money is a convention; it’s a piece of workable fakery, in terms of, like, promissory notes. And the promises are what they are, and the outcomes are not necessarily in accord with the promises. I’ve referred to this before; let me put it to you in this way.

What’s involved here is, first of all, the increase of the productive powers of labor, as measured in the level of population density and productive powers of labor of the population as a whole. That’s value. This value is determined by a rate of growth, which is not necessarily a simple increase, but it’s an increase in productive powers of labor. It’s an increase in productivity. That the idea of profit itself, real profit, as opposed to nominal profit, is located in: Is there an increase in the physical productive powers of labor, as measured per capita and per square kilometer? That’s your fundamental measure. That’s your measure of value. And it’s a measure of value of development, not of a fixed value.

There’s no such thing as a fixed value of money. It does not have fixed value. If money sits there and is not invested, it deteriorates. If somehow the process becomes more productive, it suddenly appreciates. It has no intrinsic value. It’s a convention we use in society in order to organize trade and investment; that’s all. Nothing wrong with that; but we have to keep it in its place. Don’t make it a god! The monetary ideas are the ideas which are the typical poison.

So therefore, what we’re talking about is the increase in the productive powers of labor.

You’ve got two problems here. Let’s take the planet, the Biosphere, which includes the Lithosphere. We’re on this planet Earth. Now, are we increasing the potential population density for human beings on the planet Earth, or are we not? That’s the number one estimate of value. Are we increasing the potential population density of this planet, of human beings? Are we, or are we not—value! What’s that got to do with money? Nothing!

Are we increasing man’s power to increase this gain? Aah! Now, we’re touching upon money. It came up earlier, when we discussing this thing about China’s investment, a trillion dollar investment. If I take a trillion dollars of Chinese claims against the U.S. dollar, and if it sits there, it has one value, which is pretty much that of dung. If I say, this same $1 trillion of credit is going to be invested in a science-driver program to transform the productive powers of labor throughout much of Asia, well! And you get a lot of growth of value. Aah! Then, that trillion dollars is worth something, isn’t it?

So, value is based on these kinds of considerations. There is no such thing as an intrinsic monetary valuation, except among people who believe in the fairies, or something. So, that’s the difference.

As we do with the Triple Curve, what we’re looking at, is we’re looking at a physical relationship to a monetary process. In one case, we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the money system; in another case, we’re looking at it from the standpoint of a credit system, a financial credit system. And we’re looking at it, thirdly, from the standpoint of a physical system. So therefore, the success of the process means that the physical system is increasing, in terms of man’s power to exist in the universe; that’s the physical part. The monetary part is simply fictitious; it’s imperialism. Then, you have in between, the credit system, which is the credit uttered for the purposes of promoting actual productive activity in sales and so forth of real goods, which are invested as consumption to support people, which is good, or as investment to increase the productive powers of labor as such.

So therefore, the real values are these relations, which are essentially physical, mental relations. They’re physical in the sense that mankind is physical; they’re mental in the sense that they deal with the creative powers of the human mind, and the development of the creative powers of the human mind. Those are the real values.

And the function of government, if it’s sane government, is to regulate finance, economy, government, according to these understandings. Their objective is to increase the productive powers of labor, through developing the mental powers of mankind—and improving their health, of course, at the same time. And everything else is simply things we take into account in managing the productive process. But money is not the productive process. Money is a convention which we use, presumably under policies which govern the way we use money. And it’s the policies that contain the value, and the expression of those policies, not the value as such.

So, if you just stick with the Triple Curve, and realize that by eliminating the monetary curve, which is the imperialist curve, and going to only a credit system, which is what is in the U.S. Constitution—the U.S. Constitution proscribes a monetary system, and prescribes a credit system; and that’s explicit. It’s explicit under Hamilton’s initial efforts, and it’s explicit in the Constitution. We have been corrupted by the intervention of the British system, which is a monetarist system, an intrinsically imperialist system of at least 3,000 years in existence. So, that’s the distinction.

What we would do, for example, if we cancelled this several trillion, $20 trillion or so of monetarist debt. Sshwish! Gone! Get thee gone, devil! If we do that, what happens? We say, “Aah! Aah!” And then we say, “Ah! But we now can create a number of tens of trillions of dollars of credit,” which is no longer this monetarist crap! We are now going to assign credit to rebuild our industries, for rebuilding our infrastructure, for developing our health-care system, and so forth. And this will produce real physical value.

And therefore, the end result is the real physical value, and the end result of physical value is determined by how many people we have; what is their life expectancy, how long is it? What’s their health condition? What’s their productivity? What’s their education? What’s the rate of improvement of life among a population in general? These are the real issues that we deal with. How creative are we? How smart, how creative are our people? How many inventions have they made? How many things have they done that are brilliant?

Those are the real values. And we have to simply take the process of government, and use the instruments of management of government, and self-management of government, to bring about these results. What we really are talking about is increasing the productive powers of labor, which is another way of talking about increasing man’s power as man.

What we are talking about is immortality. We’re talking about a process in which mankind is a creative species, the only willfully creative species on this planet Earth, or any other planet we know of. And we’re defending the essential immortality of man, or what should be the immortality of man. Animals? We’re born and we die. We have animal bodies; they’re born and they die. We try to make that as comfortable as possible, and as happy, and as long as possible, but that’s not what man is. Some people call it the soul.

But, you look at the factor of creativity in human existence and culture, you realize that when a person makes a creative contribution to society as a human individual, it doesn’t end there, or begin there. What happens is, the process of humanity as a whole, is generating creative products of the mind. Culture is being developed, the powers of mankind are being increased. This has no beginning that we know of; this is humanity; this is culture. This has no end that we know of. As long as there’s progress, it goes on indefinitely, and as we may come and go, be born and die, we are a participant in a process which we can call creativity. And creativity was there before we were born, and will be there after we die. And we have, in a sense, immortality in time, by virtue of participating in this phenomenon called creativity.

And that’s what the moral purpose is. And the moral purpose should dictate government. We want to produce people who are more powerful in terms of their development, who are maintaining the heritage of the people before them, the great ideas, so that when people die, what they have done does not die; it’s embodied in what happens to society later. And what came before them did not die, either, because it is embodied in them. And you have a sense of a human interest as being the interest of mankind, who, on one side, is merely a mortal creature like an animal, who is born and dies. But the role of mankind in this process is not that of an animal. The role is a process of creativity from earlier generations to the future.

So, you live not as an animal; you live as a creative part of humanity. You live eternally in what you came out of. You live eternally in what comes out of you. You are really mankind, and you are mankind by being a creative process, by being a creative part of this process which is specific to mankind, as not to any form of beast. Be man, not beast, to be a participant in that great force of creativity which is unique to humanity, which began before you were born, and lives on as creativity after you die. And you have a permanent place in space time, in physical space time, in that creativity. And that’s what you have to think about.

Citizens Must Speak Up Now

Freeman: The next question was submitted by the governors of two large states on the East Coast, who are officers of the National Governors Association. And they say: “Mr. LaRouche, while we fully understand your point that the solution to the current crisis has to take place on an international and national level, our question really is a very concrete one, and it’s one that affects the immediate well-being of millions of Americans. If you were the governor of a major state, and were constrained, as we are, by the boundaries of state budgets, what would you do? How would you act to alleviate the immediate crises that our constituents face? Is there anything that we can do, short of just picking ourselves up, and going to Washington?”

LaRouche: No, we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens. And the responsibility is to kick them in the butt, because they’re not in doing what they should do. Most people are concerned, honest citizens are concerned with these matters, but they’re not doing much about it. Or, they’re saying, “We can’t do much about this.” Well, I don’t agree.

Now, I have successfully gotten into a great deal of trouble by doing that sort of thing, but I think that’s the right thing to do. If you have a sense of immortality, then you can have more strength to do it. If you’re afraid that you’re not very important, and your little life is going to be snuffed out, or you’re going to be rendered permanently unimportant among your friends and neighbors, you might lack courage, and you might give in. But if you think of yourself as a leading citizen, who cares about the country, you’re not going to sit back. You’re not going to say, “I don’t dare talk, I don’t dare speak up.” You’re going to speak up. You’re going to do something, you’re going to get something in motion, real fast. Because you won’t let our nation go to hell, just because you’re scared; just because you’re afraid of being denounced by somebody. I mean, do you care about humanity? Or are you just trying to get ahead, and do what you have to do to get ahead? And find out that you don’t have a head!

That’s the point! We have to stand up as citizens, and we have to say that really the highest rank in our society is that of citizen, an adult citizen who should be able to figure these things out. And we should realize that our mission here is to make sure that the citizens—our citizens—they’re not a bunch of scaredy cats, afraid of what somebody will say about them. And if you have some more ability, use it! Scheme! Conspire! Do what is necessary to get this thing under control. And that’s what we have to do. I do the best I can, what do you want? Want me to do more? I’ll do more.

Glass-Steagall: Path To Ending Monetarism

Freeman: The next question comes from a think tank here in Washington that is working on various aspects of economic policy. And they say: “Mr. LaRouche, we recently participated in a roundtable discussion with James Galbraith, and in discussing the current crisis, the point that he made most emphatically, is that this crisis could have been prevented. That the people in a position of authority two years, three years, five years ago, did know how to prevent it, but that they simply chose not to act, because they were getting a political and an economic benefit out of this speculative explosion. The Federal Reserve, in particular, knew that the dam was cracking. Alan Greenspan, regardless of what one might think of him, surely knew this, and chose to wait until it had washed away.

“Dr. Galbraith insisted that they let all of this run, because they were getting at least a superficially stronger economy out of it. And that, basically, what they were running was a scam, that was designed to lure people in. So, people who could never have afforded certain levels of mortgages accepted them; and the process continued. Certainly, any rational person in the securities industry knew that this could not last. But their view was, that when it blew up, they would be long gone.

“Now, I’m not an attorney, but by any measure, it would strike me, that this is simply criminal fraud, and there was a huge amount of it that went on. The Bush Administration chose not to actively investigate the fraud, even though they knew it was occurring. And the FBI knew it was occurring at least from 2004 onward.

“Now, our position—and I would like to know if you agree—but our position is that you can not legalize financial fraud by looking the other way, and that the bottom line is, that if we are going to proceed and go through any kind of restructuring; if we’re going to, for instance, reorganize under Glass-Steagall, that still there has got to be a full-scale investigation and cleaning up of the residue. If you don’t do this, you will never have any confidence in the financial sector, and that is a process that needs to get underway. Some people disagree, and say that we should just proceed with a clean slate. We disagree, and think that you have got to prosecute this; that you have to give appropriate punishments, that we have a system in this country that is designed to be able to do that.

“We’d very much like to know what your overall view is, because unless we do that, any kind of new regulation that is discussed, we believe, will be incapable controlling these institutions.”

LaRouche: Go back some years ago, back in the 1980s, it was ’82 approximately, or ’83. Paul Volcker came up to a table we had in some street someplace, and asked then if I were a “kind” person. Because in the preceding period, from 1979 or ’80 on, I had made some very strong observations about Paul Volcker’s policy, that what he had allowed to occur, in terms of the savings & loan associations, was what I considered criminal, morally criminal in many ways. I refer to this to make a point in this question coming up.

What’s the problem here? Of course, I agree with what you say, but how are we going to skin this cat? I don’t like to frighten any cats present, but we have to do something about this. The problem with Paul, then and now: Paul did believe, and does believe to the best of my knowledge, in defending a commercial banking system, more or less, in accord with what our Constitution implies. That’s not where the problem is. The problem is, that Paul refuses to recognize that you can not reconcile what he probably considers, as he said recently, his moral standpoint in banking, with monetarism. That the evils which he complains about, are inherent in monetarism.

And therefore, he’s got a problem. On the one hand, opposing this thievery, which it is—he’s probably a little less critical than the questioner is on this question about morality, and which leads to my answer of this thing—but he’s not willing to give up monetarism for the sake of what he asserts to be his principle of honesty. That’s where the problem lies. The need is to eliminate monetarism, and Paul’s sympathy for London is based on his defense of Keynesian monetarism. And the problem is, the disease of this nation and the world, is the disease called monetarism. The source of the principal evils in the name of finance today, are products of monetarism. So, Paul has—like many other people—this problem. How do you reconcile Satan and Christ? I think it’s not going to work.

So, the problem here is, we have to do something very simple—and Paul won’t like me for this—we have to eliminate the monetarist system, his toy. We have to solve this moral problem for him, because he doesn’t seem willing to do it himself. So, we’ll do it as a favor for him, out of my kindly regard for him as a person. We’ll solve this problem by eliminating the monetarism, and then he’ll be free of sin, forever more.

But the point here is simply this: We have to take effective action. Punishing people for evil is not a sport that I like to play. I think I want to get at the business much more quickly than going through the business of torturing the poor creature. But, simply, we take away his toys. We put the entire financial system through demonetarization. We use the Glass-Steagall standard, which he would say he would tend to agree with, for commercial banking.

But we have an ulterior motive in doing that. I admit an ulterior motive: We are going to shut down this monetarist system. Because what we’re going to do is, the people have had enough of this monetarism; they want the $23 trillion back that just got stolen! And we’re going to get it back for them, or at least a good part of it. We’re going to simply say, it’s cancelled. You don’t have anything; it’s gone. It’s not fungible. Whoosh! “Sin; you’re purged of your sin. We took your sins away from you, you’re no longer guilty.” Can’t you like us for that? We removed your sins, your monetarism, by cancelling it.

And then what we do is, we go back to the U.S. Constitution, which always was and is the U.S. Constitution. And it’s very clear—there is no honest, sane person with any knowledge of anything, who can defend this stuff. It can’t be done. It’s crime, and in a crime, the easiest punishment is to take away the temptation. Take away the crime; don’t kill the person. “I’m not going to kill you today. I’m going to take away your crime, and I’m going to review your case.” Because if there’s something decent in you, we’ll be able to recognize it. But we have to remove this stuff. That $23 trillion? We’re removing it now. Then we can go to a credit system. We no longer have this $23-odd trillion and so forth, probably $100 trillion. Who knows what it is? It’s a fantastic amount. We’re not going to let you have that.

So, now we utter a debt. Credit of the United States, voted up by the Congress, implemented by the Presidency, and we create also, at the same time, a national banking system. Because now, we take this question of money between commercial banking, related banking, and the Federal system, the Treasury. The Treasury is separate from national banking, and we have national banking as an intermediary for dealing with the banking function both of national banking, in terms of the national banks, state banks, bridge banks, and also international banking.

And so now, what we do is, we take this fund of credit that we define, both from available sources, and from newly created sources, and we decide where to invest it. Not invest it like a miser investing, but in international trade, international projects. We make agreements; we share agreements with China, with Russia, with other countries. And we begin to get into great projects.

For example, we have to have a lot of nuclear power. We’re going to have to do something about plutonium, because plutonium is necessary for charging nuclear reactors. And if we could take some of the plutonium that was tucked away here and there, and use that to assist in charging reactors, we could get more of the regular, conventional types of reactors, nuclear reactors. And we could also do the thorium cycle, which for countries like India, which has an abundance of thorium, is very useful. And thorium reactors of the type we require, are much more quickly put into place; they’re needed in places like India, where you have the water problem, and similar kinds of problems.

So therefore, we simply create a debt, which is an investment in things we can produce and need, and need for humanity as a whole, and a fund of debt of investment, of international systems of national banking, which cooperate in long-term agreements, to develop projects of a quarter-century to a half-century or longer period, which will transform this planet. And we have to do the things that go with that. That’s all we have to do.

I don’t think it’s necessary to worry too much about punishing everybody who committed evil, because there are very few, as the Bible says, who have not sinned in this matter. So therefore, simply, clean the mess up, launch the thing properly, don’t go hanging people here and there—they smell bad under those conditions—get this thing moving. Create a world system which is based on eliminating greenies! They can live if they reform, and give it up. But the greenies and the imperialists and the monetarists and similar types simply have to go out of business. And those of us who are more committed to humanity, will have to conduct things. I’m prepared to do the job.

Conspire To Reverse Our Immoral Culture!

Freeman: This question comes from a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, a Congressman. He says: “Mr. LaRouche, last week, after a Caucus luncheon, one of our members brought up the fact that right now there is lobbying going on from the financial institutions that we just bailed out with taxpayer money, and they are lobbying basically about the various proposals to regulate and re-regulate the financial system. This particular member pointed out that this is just outrageous. And I agree with him. But, I think that the outrage that we are seeing from the population is not simply limited to the kind of anger that we saw on the streets of Chicago a couple of weeks ago, when the American Bankers Association met. (Although I would point out that the only institution in America that has a lower approval rating than the U.S. Congress is the Federal Reserve.) But the anger in the streets of Chicago was not all that dissimilar from the anger that we saw in the streets of Washington, from people who were protesting the President’s health-care proposal. I think it was also evident in the elections that took place last week, where the phenomenon was not simply the ouster of Democrats, but the ouster of incumbents. It is also the case, as I’m sure you know, that right now, a greater number of voters identify themselves as Independents than as Democrats or Republicans, and I believe that this is a first in America’s political history.

“But the bottom line is that while I may agree that all of this anger is justified, it does raise the question, where this anger is going to go. If there’s not a constructive program that people can identify with, then my fear is that there will be a destructive program that they will identify with, and that this will come along very soon. You’ve done a great deal of writing and talking about the parallels between the situation we face today, and the situation that the world faced in the period prior to the Second World War. My question to you is, in addition to the immediate economic crisis that we face, my fear is that we also face a major social crisis, and that if we do not find a constructive solution to the economic problem, what we are going to find ourselves with is an extremely destructive social problem. And I’m wondering if you would comment on how you see this overall.”

LaRouche: Well, we’re living in a society in which the President of the United States is totally immoral, in the most extreme sense of the term; in which the behavior of most Americans has been immoral for a long period of time. They may not think so, but I know so. You see, I was there. I watched many of them get born, I watched their children get born, and I’ve been watching this process, and I must say that the manufacturing of people has not been a very good example these days. So I think that we have to look at—yes, we do have to worry about these kinds of things, but I think we also have to think about them in much more constructive terms.

Let’s go back: Where did this happen? Go back to the post-war period, post-World War II period, and I can tell you what happened, as I referred to this earlier today, on the question of what I said in Kanchrapara, where these guys asked to meet with me and I discussed this question of the implications of the death of President Roosevelt. Before Truman got in, what had happened is, that in Roosevelt’s last term, once, in particular, the Normandy invasion had succeeded, all Hell began to break loose, and we saw this also in the election campaign of 1944, where the Republican line, and some Democrats’, was downright evil. Here we had gone through, against evil, in the 1920s: Woodrow Wilson was evil, Teddy Roosevelt was evil, Coolidge was evil, Hoover was evil. We’d gone through this.

Roosevelt steps in like a miracle, and helps us save the United States. And this continued—there was much opposition to him, but he continued. He did the job. He returned us to the American Constitutional standard. Then what happened? June 1944, the beaches in Normandy were breached; the German military—the Wehrmacht command—was ready to negotiate terms of surrender. But with the help of the British, the Wehrmacht commanders who were ready for peace at that time, were assassinated, betrayed by the British. And then we had a continuation. Roosevelt died. His last election campaign was bitter. A swine from Wall Street, effectively, Truman, came in, and by the time I got back to the States in the Spring of 1946, Hell had taken over. The American people were very cowardly, changed, corrupted, filled with greed.

Then we had institutions that went along with this, trying to go to war with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union never had intended to attack us, particularly Roosevelt’s United States. We started the war. The British organized it; it wasn’t done by the United States, it was done by the British. Bertrand Russell was one of the organizers, a man of evil. And so we got into this question of war.

We shut down much of our productive potential, because the British wanted us to shut it down. We went back to supporting colonialism, where Roosevelt had worked to wreck it. And we destroyed ourselves by cultural warfare. We had things like the Congress for Cultural Freedom in [Europe], organized by pigs like John Train and people like him, who I came up against, one of my enemies. These kinds of things.

You had the same thing in the United States, where people talk about, “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” What’s that? That’s outright moral degeneracy! You don’t believe in conspiracy theories? What kind of a moral degenerate are you? No! Because mankind operates on the basis of conspiracy. How else can you communicate? If you don’t deliberate the question of what causes are, and what results are, and what the relationship between the two is, how can you govern?

No, by saying this, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, or the behaviorists, such as the Authoritarian Personality crowd, all these kinds of things, or what was quoted by Paul Krugman in the New York Times editorial page yesterday—Krugman acted like a pig! Repeating that kind of garbage, for the Times, against the protest movement against what Obama is doing with health-care today. That’s completely immoral.

So, as a result of that, and as a result of the anti-Classical culture modalities, the existentialist mode and culture in Europe and in the United States, we destroyed the morality of the American people. We particularly destroyed their propensity for creativity. The American people became less creative, generation after generation. The 68ers were complete pigs! That whole generation, students in the leading universities, in large numbers—like Mark Rudd and company at Columbia and elsewhere—actual pigs! The whole movement was one of pigs. Degraded. So, we lost the cultural characteristics of creativity by this kind of change, and that’s what our problem is today.

And in my view, there are only two things you can do about it. I’ve always fought against this stuff. I’ve hated it. It’s rotten. It’s evil. But the only thing to do is, first of all, don’t just complain about it: Conspire against it! Number one. Number two, let your conspiracy be of the form of going to the area of the imagination of what we can do to change these things, to make things better, to go back to a higher standard of morality, to think about future generations, to think about what we look like to future generations, that sort of thing. Go back to it! Because you have to deal with this evil, which dominates the United States’ people today, which is mostly the way we afflict ourselves with these problems. By degenerate culture. The rock-drug-sex counterculture was evil. It destroyed the people who believed in it, who participated in it. They lost their morality, their ability to judge; and they became miserable. They hated productivity, they hated people who wear blue shirts—and their shirts were not exactly white, themselves, when you think of the places they rolled in.

The point is, we are in trouble because we lost our morality as a nation, as Europe did too. We gave it up, and we began to behave like pigs, and we went after especially science and Classical art, Classical artistic composition; because creativity does not come from mathematics. Some mathematicians may be creative, but it’s not the mathematics that made them creative. Creativity comes from the imagination, but in a very special way. It comes by recognizing what lies beyond what you already know.

How does this function? It doesn’t function in mathematics. Creativity is not mathematical. Creativity is artistic. How? The imagination in drama, in music, in poetry, in painting. What do you do? You are exploring the imagination. You’re not just doing whatever you imagine. You’re exploring the imagination, to try to find out what is true! That’s what all great scientists, all great creative people do. They go to the limits of the imagination, and try to sort out what it is that they believe, or would like to believe, is true, and what is false. And by testing the frontiers of your own imagination, with a moral purpose of sorting out what you know is true and what you know is not true, this is where human creativity is expressed. Without this habit, without this kind of culture, you don’t have morality, you don’t have the imagination, you don’t have creativity. And what we have done by this culture, the post-World War II culture, typified by existentialist culture: We destroyed that. We destroyed it in its most vulnerable places, in Classical artistic composition. And when you take the violin away from Albert Einstein, you have lost creativity, hmm? And that’s what we’ve lost.

So therefore, what we must do today is to go to the limits of the imagination, a habit which has more to do with art than with physical science; but apply that to the thinking about physical scientific work, and drive the society through, the imagination, to discover what must become, rather than merely what is. And when you do that—when people realize what it is for the first time to be really human, because most people in this society don’t know what human is, because if they don’t have a sense of beauty, of the aesthetic beauty, in the imagination, they don’t know what human is. They would like to have something that feels good, but they don’t have it, because they’re denied a sense of Classical artistry, and the role of the imagination in Classical artistry.

That’s where morality comes from. It doesn’t come from mathematics or how you calculate somebody; it comes from what you imagine is the beauty of the way they function. You talk about a beautiful person, a beautiful soul, a person who exhibits qualities of humanity and the imagination and creative insight which makes you say, “These are good people.” That’s the purpose of society. And when you destroy creativity, and destroy the Classical culture of a people, in which the deep powers of creativity are located in their Classical heritage, you destroy them as people. You destroy their morality. You reduce them to something like animals, which is what’s been done.

And when we fight, when we fight against odds, and fight against the pricks, and kick ’em, then we are discovering our own morality. And the first person you’re saving, is yourself, when you fight for your own moral view of the nature of man and man’s future. And when you see this filth—like the destruction which is occurring now, with the Obama Presidency, which is even worse than the George W. Bush Presidency—when you see that and you see people defending that, when you see people defending Obama and his health-care policy, which is a Nazi, Hitler policy, with the IMAC program, then you know you have no morality. And when you see a friend of yours who’s in that rut, then you know that he has no morality either. And you begin to wonder about where the nation and the world is going. And it’s only when you fear and hate that degeneracy and think about practical ways to destroy it, that you find the way out.

Looking Ahead 50 Years—to Mars!

Freeman: We have time for one more question, which comes from a friend of ours who generally thinks on a pretty high level, but who sometimes slips into pragmatism, and who I kind of beat up yesterday, so I thought that I’d ask his question.

He says: “You know, ultimately the United States is a large and powerful country. In fact, I would say that it is probably the most powerful financial entity in the world, and I think, given that, if we chose to, we could employ our work force in a useful way—if we chose to. The reason why I say this, is that I don’t really believe that the major obstacles that we face are themselves economic. We do have major economic problems, but I believe that the economic crisis is solvable, if we wish to solve it. I think the more difficult question is really almost a moral question. It’s a question of what our overall objectives are, of where we want to be 30 years from now, 40 years from now, 50 years from now. And how we get there.

“Ultimately, while we do have to solve the immediate problem of unemployment, problems regarding our health care system, and other such issues, I think really, it’s only at the point that we can agree that it’s not a question of how we return to full employment in five years, but really how we solve the more fundamental problems that we face, in a way which gives us one to two generations of steady progress, and really, in that light, what I’d like to ask you, Lyn, because I think it would be useful for people who are trying to understand what it is you’re proposing and why you’re proposing it, is where you’d like to be 30, 40, or 50 years from now.”

LaRouche: Me? It may occur to some of you that I’m 87 years of age, and while I do have a certain vigorous view, a fairly long view of what humanity must be doing over the coming years, I don’t know how long I’m going to be in it. But I do enjoy the question very much.

Where should we be? First of all, we have to really—well, let me go back, put it the other way. Let’s take this question of the Mars colonization program. And as I said earlier, the Mars colonization program is something mankind has to do, practically. But, the fun is getting there! The morality is getting there, because this forces us to examine ourselves creatively, and to identify the obstacles to realizing that objective. And to facing the problems.

I mean, can a human being ride in a craft which is being accelerated, as I’ve indicated, in a short trip—and maybe a short round-trip—between Earth orbit and Mars orbit, in a matter of days? Now, if I take that as a challenge, and say that we must mobilize the world economy to feature that mission as the principal objective around which we organize all the other things, then I think we’ll have met the moral challenge. Because we will have posed a problem and proposed getting a solution which would solve a great problem for mankind. What is the human race’s future in the universe?

That’s a pretty good goal. It’s a pretty general goal, and it subsumes a lot of other questions. But what’s most important is the state of mind it requires of you, is what’s most important. Because that impels you to adopt a state of mind, a creative state of mind, which exemplifies what a human being is. And it’s a concrete way of saying, “I’m a human being, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, I’m a human being. And even after I’m dead, I’ll be there, because I was part of this process.”

Meet Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

LaRouche Articles

LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods

Physical Economy

New Bretton Woods

Footnotes

1. Independent Medicare Advisory Council.

LaRouche Webcast: The Great Change of 2009

Lyndon H. LaRouche , Jr. November 11, 2009