Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

Lyndon LaRouche Questions and Answers
to forum dedicated to Pobisk Kuznetsov,
December 14, 2001

LaRouche Presentation at forum in Menory of Russian scientist Pobisk Georgiyevich Kuznetsov
LaRouche address to Central Mathematical Economics Institute (CEMI)
Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented her October 2001 appeal for a Dialogue of Civilizations
Kuznetsov on LaRouche's Economics
Jonathan Tennenbaum on the life of Pobisk Georgiyevich Kuznetsov
Kuznetsov: Modern Day Leonardo

More articles on Russia
Join the Schiller Institute
About Lyndon LaRouche
Maps of the Eurasian Landbridge

Dialogue With LaRouche

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, does not the presence of U.S. troops along the Asian underbelly of Russia, in Uzbekistan, link Europe with Asia?

LaRouche: In a negative sense, that's the case, but the situation is much more complicated than that. Obviously, people today, in Russia, are justly concerned, because the implications of what's happening there, are not fully understood. Personally, I think the whole operation is a great mistake. It solves no problems. The Taliban will disappear into the mountains, and come back in the Spring. We see the assassination attempts in the Indian Parliament, yesterday, which are part of the increased instability, spread into the Subcontinent by the bombing of Afghanistan. We must deal with the fact that we have governments which are sometimes less than imperfect, and we must figure out what we are going to do, to try to prevent a catastrophe from occurring.

I think that one should put aside all simplistic attempts to understand the situation, and look at this from a higher strategic standpoint. This could lead to a catastrophe for all humanity. I don't minimize that. But, I'm concerned to find the action, which will prevent that catastrophe from occurring.

Q: I'm an expert in management from the International Academy for the Integration of Science and Business. This Academy is now developing very broad plan for the transformation of our industry, with its hundreds of companies, to be lifted to a new technological-industrial level. I know a lot of economics, including American economics, but concerning physical economy I heard what the gentlemen had to say at the Duma, and I didn't understand anything. Allow me to ask you this question, speaking for myself: Would you be able to come to the Moscow Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, and explain this "physical economy" to them? I had a first American comrade, who helped to save me in combat, at Leningrad under the blockade [during World War II]; and, perhaps you will turn out to be the second!

LaRouche: Well, the point is, I'd be very happy to be in Moscow at almost any time, and for such a purpose, in particular, if it's possible.

Q: In connection with the speech of our colleague, I would like to pose this question: In connection with the extreme conditions in Afghanistan, and in general, in the operation that's now being called "Freedom Without Borders," I would like to turn to Vernadsky's vision of World War II as a resumption of the First World War. Precisely, in his very last work, called On The Noösphere, Vernadsky argued that the outbreak of World War II should be dated from 1931. And, therefore, I would point out that we should, according to Vernadsky's reckoning, be marking the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II this year. Just now Russia and America have been jointly commemorating our common tragedies—marking the 60th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War and the 60th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, it is worth noting that we have this anniversary year in common—but we forgot that we missed a whole ten years after the actual beginning of World War II. Are we not repeating the same historical mistake, by ending the Cold War too early? And is not this "Freedom Without Borders" a resumption of the Cold War, but now—instead of the earlier, inter-bloc phase—in a new phase, which is the phase of a clash between civilizations? This is a far from theoretical question for myself and those of my colleagues, who pay close attention to the heritage of Vernadsky, and to be guided by it in looking not only at the events of the recent past, but to what's happening before our eyes.

LaRouche: Let me just say one thing, first of all, ironically, and then give you a general answer on this question. One of the first impressions, on me, of Vernadsky's work—the strongest impressions—came from a RAND Corporation report, in the late 1940s, when RAND was formed. That began. Now, you go back to a recent period: 1998. In 1998, when Prime Minister Primakov made a visit to New Delhi, he proposed a policy, which I had been pushing for some time, called the "Strategic Triangle," among Russia, China, and India. In December of 1998, the RAND Corp. and the Cato Institute, and others, began screaming that Primakov must be destroyed. And, the reason for some of the recent developments, which have affected President Putin, are of the same nature.

And, now, let me refer to a second case, of a gentleman, whom I've described, very kindly and generously, as a "dangerous lunatic": Zbigniew Brzezinski. The point is, what we're facing now, as Brzezinski has defined, with his clash of civilizations policy, is what should be described as the "Third Geopolitical War" organized by the British monarchy and its friends, which cover World War I, World War II, and the threat of war now—and all threats of war in between. The First World War began in 1894, with the Japanese attack on China, the occupation of Korea, and then the war against Russia. The second one occurred as a coup d'état in January of 1933, when Montagu Norman, the former head of the Bank of England, and his New York partners, financed a coup d'état which brought Hitler into power in Germany. And, then, a British agent, Hjalmar Schacht, in March of 1933, became head of the Reichsbank in Germany. And, then the Reichsbank used credit, obtained from London and New York bankers, to finance German armaments, in preparation for an invasion of the Soviet Union.

Today, what you've seen recently, is an example of the same geopolitical issue. Call it the "Primakov War": Because, whenever Eurasia, as in the late part of the 19th Century, begins to bring together parts of Asia, with Russia, and parts of Western Europe, in economic development cooperation, the Anglo-American financier powers see their power threatened, and they're prepared to kill.

I try to stop them, but that's why I get into a lot of trouble with some people.

Q: I would like to ask three questions, for which I shall need to use the blackboard. We thank you for coming to Russia.

Here we have your diagram [the "typical collapse function," or "triple curve"]. It shows the rate of issue of money, then the rate of issue of secondary paper obligations, and here we have the decline of production, worldwide. First question: At the moment of what you call the "super-crisis" [gestures to vertical line where the curves go off the chart], lasting two or three days, there will be an explosive emergence of a new, worldwide ideology. My question is: Is, then, physical economy, perhaps, metaphysical, or a religion of the mind?

LaRouche: No, it's physical, and, in a sense, spiritual, in the sense that, the belief that money is the economy, is a lie. Money should be nothing but an arrangement, created by governments, and used by governments for their internal administration and external relations. Any time government doesn't recognize that, we create, as we have now, bubble economies. To get at the psychological side, remember now: The U.S. economy is collapsing—physically, it's collapsing. But CNN will insist that it's growing! What's growing is the cancer—the person is shrinking! It's a bubble. The problem is, people believe in money! And, the little people believe in money, too. That's the problem. "I need m-o-o-n-n-e-y-y!" So, money becomes a god.

So, therefore, the state, and leaders, must not present money as a god, but must regulate the economy, to protect the people!

Q: Thank you. Therefore, my second and third question may be merged, in a sense. If there's no money, the epoch of a virtual currency begins, with the absence of money. Or, a "worldwide phase of communism." And, under those conditions, the Antichrist comes as the leader of the world, no? And, at the same time, you say that to study this and the entire invisible world of energy, requires a scientist to understand the existence of the world of the angels. When will science be prepared to undergo a paradigm-shift and accept the existence of invisible beings?

LaRouche: Well, I think, when you understand the principles of science—. For example, let me answer with the solution to this, which makes the answer clear. This is a concrete, actual question; it's not hypothetical.

At some point, very soon, the entire world, or virtually the entire world, will be financially bankrupt. We're not talking about an economic depression; we're talking about what Rosa Luxemburg and others talked about, at the beginning of the last century, as a general breakdown crisis.

What do we do? We certainly don't have a virtual international currency—that's chaos, and that is the Devil. What you do, is: Immediately, sovereign nation-states, which own the IMF, must put the IMF into bankruptcy. They act on the principle of universal natural law called "the general welfare." Each government creates a new series of currency; institutes national banking to replace private banking, as supreme; then, establishes a fixed exchange rate among the new currencies; organizes a gold-reserve standard for fixed currency rates among these currencies. Governments then enter into a series of long-term agreements. For example in Eurasia: Let's take the question of the Land-Bridge corridors. Put the Russian Transport Ministry, and the Railways Ministry, back into full business. These long-term contracts among governments become, then, a mechanism, by which governments assist private firms, in also making the same kinds of agreements.

The governments also, use the same principle of bankruptcy for internal reorganization: Pensions must be supported; evictions from homes must not occur; employment levels must be maintained and increased; essential firms must continue to function. All functions of government must continue to function. The idea is to make the transition, with the least amount of impact on the people, and move from a point of failure, of bankruptcy, to a point of growth. The problem we have today, is that the governments and the political parties are generally stupid, relative to what we had 20-30 years ago.

Hour One, the bottom line: On the day that people suddenly realize that the rich are no longer rich, and that money is no longer god, then they're going to change their way of thinking—suddenly.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. Thanks to all of you.


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2001. All Rights Reserved.