Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Nov. 16, 2005

An audio-video file of this webcast is available for viewing.

Freeman: It was about one month ago, that Mr. LaRouche addressed a similar audience, in what proved to be not only a historic event, but a prophetic one. And I think that there really is no question that on that day, Mr. LaRouche moved the institutions in a dramatic way. Within days of Lyndon LaRouche's Columbus Day webcast, we saw a tremendous escalation in the drive to bring the synarchist faction in this government, the faction that is led by Dick Cheney, and which is probably best known as the "coup against the constiitution" faction, to its knees.

Literally one week after Mr. LaRouche's presentation here and a dramatic week of lobbying by the LaRouche Youth Movement, and legislators and labor officials from around the United States, we saw two things happen. One, was we saw the first of what promises to be many indictments in what has come to be known as the Plamegate issue, but which clearly has much more to do with the fraud that brought this nation to war. Along with those indictments, we saw Senator Hillary Clinton step forward and finally take the action that is necessary to begin the process, at least, of saving this nation's auto industry and the vital machine-tool capability that is attached to it. That happened within days of Mr. LaRouche's presentation.

If we fast forward to this current moment, the fact of the matter is that, all over the nation and all over the world, Bush is seen as an ineffective president who is trying to govern from a bunker. And the overwhelming verdict is that, if history is to judge, the largest mistake that George Bush has made in his political career was bringing Dick Cheney along with him in his second term as President. It's our intention to help the President correct that mistake.

Mr. LaRouche's remarks today are directed toward shaping the post-Cheney era in American politics, but I'd like to remind all of you that while Mr. LaRouche must have an eye toward the future, and toward shaping the nation's policies following Cheney's removal from office, we have to operate in the here and now. And we will not rest until Dick Cheney is seen either leaving of his own volition, or leaving in chains, and it's our intention to make sure that this week's activity is a giant step forward in that direction.

There are many more things that I can say. Obviously, events in Washington these days are moving very quickly. Perhaps the most notable event of the last 24 hours was a vote cast in the United States Senate, rejecting the timeline that the Administration has presented on the question of the Iraq war. It is a vote that has much greater significance than the particular issue that it addresses, and by many is seen as a vote of no confidence against this Administration. I think that there will be many other issues to address in the wake of Mr. LaRouche's remarks.

While more chairs are being brought in, I will ask the people who are continuing to filter into the room to please do so quietly, because we do want to start this webcast on time, particularly for the audiences that are gathered around the nation, and around the world, who are listening via the worldwide web. So, ladies and gentlemen, without any further introduction, I'd like to present to you the founder and chairman of LaRouche Pac, the American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche (applause).

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you. As a matter of preliminaries, there are two points I think just to warm things up before we really get started.

One thing is an announcement, which I'll just make now. Is that, according to a scan of the press in Washington this morning, I think one of the big newsbreakers is the suspicion that Bob Woodward, the perennial Bob Woodward, is actually the Judith Miller of the Washington Post (laughter).

And secondly, I have a little something for you. There is a suspicion that, one after the other, key members of the Administration are going to be frog-marched into prison (video interlude to "Alfred Hitchcock" theme).

We are at a very interesting point. We've had, in the recent period, a very important victory, but it's a victory in a battle, or series of battles. It is not a victory yet in the war. And today after covering a few preliminary points, I want to focus on a subject which may be far removed from what you thought about when you entered the room here today, and that is, what do we do with the war. Because when you plan to conduct the war, you obviously intend to win it. But what do you intend to do with the victory? What kind of a peace do you intend to establish, which resolves the issues of war?

The problem is that, today the world is in the greatest financial crisis in modern history. It's a point of fact that there is no major banking system in any part of the world—in Japan, generally, or in Europe at all, or in the United States. The Federal Reserve System is a collection of bankrupts, of hopeless bankrupts. The banks that are part of it are hopeless bankrupts, largely because of this financial derivatives speculation. In Europe it's the same situation. There may be some nooks and crannies here and there which are not yet bankrupt, but the major banking system, the central banking systems, the Federal Reserve System, are hopelessly bankrupt. There is no way of settling accounts, to get out of this mess. In the case of the United States, this means putting the Federal Reserve System into government receivership—the whole system!—because all the components of the system are bankrupt! And therefore, the only thing that can be done is for the Federal government to take the Federal Reserve System itself into bankruptcy, for reorganization, in order to ensure that essential functions of finance are continued, that businesses don't close up, that pensions are paid, and so forth and so on. The similar situation exists in Europe. The similar situation exists in the world.

We have two problems, immediately. One, the problem of how we're going to stabilize the world when it's about to bankrupt, totally. We don't know what day this will occur. People who try to forecast days don't understand humanity. Sometimes, once in a while, you can know that something will happen on a certain day, but most of the time, what you can know is that you're in a bind, you're caught in a framework, in which the crash is now inevitable, in an estimable range of time. The day on which it will occur, you don't know, because human beings can make decisions, and those decisions can postpone this event or that event, but at a price. The price goes up. The longer you postpone a bankruptcy, the more bankrupt you become. The longer you postpone recovery, the worse it becomes.

As we have in the room here today. We have people who represent part of the UAW, which has been thrown into virtual bankruptcy. You have General Motors, which is ready to shut down, at least its domestic operations. It means a whole section of the U.S. economy is about to be shut down, and if you take out the auto industry, and take out part of the aircraft industry, we don't have a machine-tool capability. We are no longer a sovereign nation! And there's some people who are going to wait and watch that happen, and we lose our sovereignty and existence. There's only one way to stop it, is to put the shebang into bankruptcy, and into reorganization, to keep the wheels turning. Now, I'll talk some more about that, but that's the kind of problem we face.

If we look at this on a world scale, it becomes more complicated. Here, you have to think strategically, and here's where most people won't tend to think in this direction. But somebody has to think in this direction. I think I've got elected for that job.

What we have, is we have a group of nations. There's only one nation in the world that is capable of initiating a recovery for any part of the world, and that is the United States. Either we initiate a global bankruptcy reorganization of the world system, or there is no hope for any part of the world.

The danger is not a Depression. We've had the Depression. We had it in October of 1987. We had a 1929-style Depression, and we fooled around with that. But then the Soviet system collapsed, and then we looted the Soviet system, and we've been living on the gut of the innards, which we've been eating at dinner table, of the Soviet system. We've now run out of that. We have destroyed industries. We've ruined ourselves, very much the way Hoover ruined us in his term, from 1929 on. You know, the U.S. economy collapsed by half under Hoover. It didn't collapse because of 1929. It collapsed because of what Hoover did about 1929! And what Hoover did was the work of a genius compared to what this presidency has done. We have reached the point of international bankruptcy, so the world financial system—the way it has been operating, especially over about forty years—is no longer viable. This entire international financial system is finished, one way or the other. The question is, are we going to save the nations and the economies?

Now, some people think that an economy is a product of a financial system. They say, "Well, the bankers, oh, they will do something or they can do something." They will do something! Once they've brought in Hitler, they will do something. And if you don't want a Hitler solution, you've got to come up with something else.You've got to put the bankers into bankruptcy, into receivership.

We have a situation now, as you observe the way are economy has been destroyed. We used to have a lot of farms, independent farms. They don't exist anymore. Brzezinski helped get rid of those, during the Brzezinski Administration, which was sometimes called politely the Carter administration. Eh? We used to have private industries, we used to have machine-tool shops, we used to have all kinds of industries, local industries. We used to have local businesses, closely held. Not giant corporations. These were the gut of our economy. The giant corporation is not the gut of the economy.

If you look at the gut of an economy, any large corporation like General Motors, the auto industry, the auto industry does not produce—in terms of General Motors—does not produce automobiles! It assembles them! The components are developed by subsidiaries. Its components which are put in, they'r largely from smaller industries. We have put out of business the gut of our economy, the people who produce. We call it a services economy. It's like a house of prostitution, where people get serviced. It is not really an economy.

For example, Monsanto. Monsanto should be put into bankruptcy, for intellectual bankruptcy. What does it do? Some idiot in a corrupt administration decided they could patent nature. It was Monsanto. They could, by various tricks, say they invented genes! By discovering one. By mapping a gene, they say, we "discovered" the gene. We can now map it. We own it. You want it? You lease it from us, at our prices. So we have a situation where the farmer can no longer produce seeds. He's not allowed to! He can go to jail for producing seeds. He's got to buy them pfrom Monsanto.

We are faced with an ecological catastrophe based on this. Our food chain is based on the homogenization of types of foodstuffs, for a global economy. Now, one of the great things in food security, just as one example of the problem we face, in food security, variation was our defense. If a disease hit a particular type of crop, a particular type of animal, as part of our food supply, or a tree, a type of tree that we needed for our environment, well, some trees would die but other trees, which have a slightly different genetic structure would not be infected and would not die.

But the way we're homogenizing our food supply, you have one type, it's called the world tomato, the world orange, the world banana. And a simple catastrophe, a genetic catastrophe in the form of a disease, could wipe out that whole supply. It's what Monsanto has done to us. It's not only the United States. They've done it to Brazil, they've done it to other countries on this planet. So we've been under the reign of absolute insanity, of destroying our productive capabilities, and destroying the private initiative on which we used to depend. And making a mystique about the giant corporation.

What we have today, which is where the danger comes from, because what was done to us was not a mistake; it was a crime. It was deliberate. What has been done to us since the reign of Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski back in the 1950s (?), is we have been destroyed systematically, beginning with 1971-72 with the destruction of our fixed exchange rate system, monetary system. And piece by piece, every part of our economy that made us independent, or the economies of other nations, has been destroyed. It's been destroyed by environmentalism, by globalization, by methods of the type I just described to you. We no longer have a residue of private businesses, private entrepreneurships, as being the gut of employment and the gut of production in our economy, or any other part of the world, to speak of.

What we have is giant corporations. These giant corporations are not actually producers, they're slave owners. They're controlled by international financier interests, which do not belong in the United States. Most of these entities, which are powerful, have no loyalty to the United States or to any government. We have been globalized. We have been internationalized. We have now a virtual system of world government, under the power of these bankrupt institutions, these financial institutions, which control the world.

The intention has been to eliminate the sovereign nation-state. To eliminate production as a power of economies. To globalize everything. To produce a world economy, in which there are no nation-states, in which the highest power in the world is international financial wealth, typified by the mentality of someone like, say, Felix Rohatyn of the United States, or people like that, who are part of an international cabal, the same cabal which, on a smaller scale back in the 1920s and 1930s, called the Synarchist International, gave us fascism. Fascism in Italy, 1922. Fascism in Germany, Hitler, done through the Bank for International Settlements. And Hjalmar Schacht, done by what? By the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. With the support of whom? With the support of the grandfather of the present President of the United States, who wrote the order to a German bank, which re-funded a bankrupt Nazi Party in time for Hitler to be appointed as Chancellor of Germany. These same international financier interests, in a greatly bloated, expanded form, have been headed for world government. How did this happen?

The United States, of course, came out of the Depression as the most powerful economy the world has ever seen. We were already the most powerful economy in the world in 1940-41, before we went to war. We did not become powerful because of the war. We became powerful enough to conduct the war. Where other countries would have hundreds of pounds per soldier, we had tons! We had the greatest logistical power the world had ever seen. We had 16-17 million people in military service, the greatest army in history. And we saved the world. And we saved it because of President Franklin Roosevelt, who understood what he was doing. Then Roosevelt died, and Harry Truman, who was a pig, took over. And Harry Truman was not the author of the idea. Harry Truman was the guy who worked for the guys who did give the orders, including the people who owned Winston Churchill. We were headed for World War III before World War II ended.

Winston Churchill, for example, wanted to go to war against the Soviet Union while we were still fighting Hitler, and then Roosevelt died, and that sort of succeeded. We had two nuclear weapons which had not been approved, because we hadn't run the tests yet on the—we had three nuclear weapons. One for testing and two were prototypes. They were not production-line weapons, they were prototypes.

One was a uranium bomb, the other was a plutonium bomb. One of each. The original intention had been to use one of these on Berlin, but before we had the job ready, Germany surrendered. We couldn't use it on Berlin. We did, under British direction, destroy a lot of cities which were innocent cities, which were cities of civilians, no military targets, just to prove how nasty we could get. Then, when Truman became President, he was told about the nuclear weapons, and under British orders, we used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilian targets. We used them because we had them. And we used them because we wanted to start World WAr II, nuclear World War III. By then, the Soviets, in the course of the late 1940s, developed nuclear weapons and achieved priority in developing an operational model of a thermonuclear weapon. So we shifted to a different policy.

This was all intended. We went into a right-wing turn. We didn't continue our investigation of the Nazis, the Nazi bankers, the funders. We stopped it. Allen Dulles, who became the head of the CIA, brought the hard core of the Nazi system, into the Allied security system, including the CIA. This is the issue we have about the torture thing. The torture mechanism of the Nazis was taken over by the United States and British. It was run from Germany, occupied Germany. These institutions were incorporated into the CIA, into British intelligence and other places, and they resulted in things like the Pinochet regime in Chile, and Operation Condor in southern South America under Henry Kissinger's reign. And that has been going on from the end of the war to the present day.

So this is the kind of world we've been living in. It was intentionally created. The intention was, to eliminate the United States. Because as long as the United States existed in the constitutional form that Roosevelt represented, fascism could not come back in the world. And finance capital could not become a predator, to eat the world. So the goal was, get Franklin Roosevelt out of the Americans. Destroy the American system. Destroy the American agro-industrial system. President Kennedy was killed, and the program went into full swing. Eisenhower had warned against it, but it went into full swing. So, from the time we went into the Indo-China war, we were headed toward our own self-destruction.

Our adversary was not the Soviet Union. We had an adversary in the Soviet Union, but that was secondary. Our adversary was closer to home, in our own financial system, in our own banking and financial system. They wanted to destroy us.

Look at the effect! Did they destroy us? Look at the standard of living in the lower 80% of our family income brackets, since 1977. There has been a consistent decline. Look at the pattern of our states. Look at the state of Michigan! Look at the state of Ohio! Look at western Pennsylvania. Look at states across the country, especially the northern belt. Look at the grain belt. We have been destroyed!

How? By policy. It has been the policy to destroy us. It has been the policy to uproot the United States for once and for all, for what it represents. This is the enemy! This is the real enemy!

Reminds us of Ancient Greece. When the ancient Greeks had defeated the Babylonians, which were then called the Persian empire, but it was the Babylonian apparatus inside the Persian Empire that ran it, they tried to destroy Greece. They couldn't conquer it. So what did they use? They used subversion. The subversion was called the Delphi cult of Apollo. The Delphi cult of Apollo did what has been done to the people of the United States in the post-war period. Sophistry! Reason went by the boards.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom and other institutions brainwashed your children, or our children. The children who were born after 1945, that generation, was brainwashed! Yes! It's a fact! The explosion of the adults of that generation in 1968, in Europe and the United States, was a reflection of a process of destruction of the minds and morals of the children of the post-war period. And especially the children of the upper class, the upper 20% of income brackets, the ones who were working in suburbia, in the defense plants and things like that. The ones who were going on to careers in the leading strata of society. They were trained to think in a certain way, a method of sophistry.

They were trained to enjoy television, where you saw monsters from outer space eating children. This was your entertainment for the little kiddies huddled around the Big Eye, eh? Our educational system in the late 1950s, we destroyed our educational system by introducing the New Math and other kinds of innovations. Many people have never seen a history book in the United States today. They study current events—maybe. They don't really know anything, but they can pass the test, because the test doesn't test them for anything. We've been destroyed.

We've been destroyed in the same way that, say, the case of Croesus, which was a powerful kingdom at one time in Lydia, in Anatolia. And Croesus went to the Cult of Delphi, and said, what's my problem? And he believed them. And he was destroyed.

Greece, the same thing. Believed the oracles, and they were destroyed. Who was the enemy? The oracle. The Babylonian system.

And we've lived under a system of empire. We had the Roman empire, which emerged out of the second Punic war. We've had the second Roman Empire of Byzantium. When that collapsed, we had the Venetian empire, with the Venetian banking system and the Norman chivalry, with its Crusades, as predators, destroyed most of Europe and most of civilization, until they collapsed in the 14th century.

We had the birth of the modern nation-state in the 15th Century in Europe, with the Council of Florence. But then they came to destroy it, and they destroyed it beginning in 1492 with religious warfare, which went on until 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia. And when we thought we'd licked that, they came back with something else, called the British Empire, which started actually in 1763, and the British empire, of the Anglo-Dutch liberal system, as it's otherwise called, or the Venetian Party, has dominated the world since that time, except for one little republic, which became a giant, the United States. Everything good that has happened on this planet, of any significance, has come from the United States.

For example. Once we defeated slavery, which was a British thing stuck into us to try to destroy us, from the 1820s until the Civil War; once we defeated that, we went away from a free-trade system back to a protectionist system, the American System, we became a great power. By 1876, at our centennial celebration in Philadelphia, we were acknowledged as a great power. And then Bismarck's Germany, in 1877-1878, adopted the American System as an industrial model, complete with a social welfare system, which is being destroyed only today.

Russia. The great scientist Mendelyev, was in Philadelphia, went back to Alexander III, and they launched the great industrialization inside Russia, including the trans-Siberian railroad. Japan, 1877, from the United States, became an industrial nation, and on the road to the power that Japan represents today. China, later on, in the struggle for New China, was a reflection of the same thing, under Sun Yat-sen. All the great things happened.

And then, the British Empire started a war, starting in 1888-1890. Bismarck was overthrown, which opened the gates for warfare. The President of France was murdered, to open the gates for warfare. Various things of the same type happened. Japan was urged to betray the United States, and to launch the first war against China in 1894-95, and that led to Pearl Harbor, because the British in the early 1920s had made a treaty with Japan, for naval warfare against the United States. The plan included the plan for an attack on Pearl Harbor. Later the British and the Japanese divided opinion, because of Churchill, on this question. But Japan came on and carried out the plan for the attack on Pearl Harbor, and we had people in our own country that covered up the fact that that attack was coming, which was the famous trial of Billy Mitchell, when he proposed to develop carrier aircraft to deal with what we knew in our military intelligence, was the plan of Japan and Britain for an attack by British and Japanese naval forces against the United States. History changed things. The British came to us to rescue them, later on, but in the meantime, Japan continued the policy, and attacked us at Pearl Harbor, according to their earlier agreement with the British.

The policy was to destroy us! Not because we were that good. We were never quite that good. We had some pretty bad presidents, you know, and some pretty rotten people here and there, and some rotten practices. But the character of our nation, the conception of our nation as a state, was a product of the best thinking of all European civilization. People from Europe built up this United States of ours, because they wanted a bastion, which would become a model, for them. Would set a precedent, for them, to secure the same kind of freedom we had, the same kind of system we represented. And those who represent this idea of financial empire, or a worldwide services economy, which is the same thing as slavery, have been determined to destroy this United States, by one way or the other. If they couldn't take us on by direct attack, they would corrupt us from inside. And the great destruction of the United States has come from the inside , not from external enemies! We couldn't be defeated by any external enemy, unless we destroyed ourselves, inside, first. And that's been the case for the United States ever since Lincoln's victory over the Confederacy, and getting rid of Maximilian in Mexico. And that's the problem we have to understand.Our Historic Mission

Now, that being the case, we have a mission. We have an historic mission, which goes back much earlier than the 18th century, much earlier than the 1763 process where we began to fight, to struggle for our liberty. Our mission is to bring forth on this planet, a kind of society, a society of sovereign nation-states, which is a durable form of life for humanity, for generations yet to come.

We're now at the point where, as the financier powers which have brought upon us this latest disaster, and who are behind these poor fools, this poor idiot Bush, the President, and this poor depressed, depraved criminal, Cheney, are being used as tools against us, and the question is, how do we—we now have good signs, we have the signs that our institutions are working. The Congress, the Senate, has shown that it works. The system works, apart from its imperfections. It works, nonetheless! And that is a good system, which absorbs imperfections and yet functions to perform its mission. Our institutions are well-designed, when they're used properly.

We have now won a victory. We have in a sense recaptured our country. Since the summer of last year—we had converted the Democratic Party into the anti-Roosevelt party—we have now swung back in large degree to the memory of FDR, and to what he represented. An attitude of, "we can do it again." It's not perfect, but the Senate has shown, and other institutions have responded, that in this country there's still the potential to rebuild and recapture this country to what it represents. And a lot of good things have happened, including the beginning of the frog-march.

But then, beyond that, we have this larger issue. We can not live as the United States today, isolated in a world that's disintegrating. Therefore, we have to think about what kind of a world system is required: not because we impose it, like George Bush's conception of democracy, but because other nations which may or may not agree with us on many things, know that it is wisdom on their part to cooperate with us to build this kind of a world system.

Now, we're talking of a world system, we're talking, first of all, about the Americas and Europe. The states of the Americas are, for various reasons, particularly since the developments which occurred in them in South and Central America, after Lincoln's victory, they became more and more oriented to the North American system. And what you will find that is generally good in these republics, are constitutional and related legacies which reflect the system of the United States, as in Mexico, as in other countries of the hemisphere. So, if we do the right thing, we will have not too much difficulty in finding a policy with, say, with a person like President Kirchner of Argentina and others, we will have no difficulty in rebuilding the system of the Americas, the sovereign states of the Americas. That will not be a big challenge.

We have, implicitly, the potential with Europe.

Now Europe is a little more complicated. It's complicated because the British are in it, primarily, and because the French have been taken over by it so many times, especially beginning with Napoleon Bonaparte and the French Revolution. As a matter of fact, because of this, essentially from the time that we won the Civil War, the time of the 1876 Centennial of our victory, of our freedom, Germany has been the key, the current pivot of US international policy outside the hemisphere.

The example of that was the case of Bismarck's adoption of the American system of industrialization, which revolutionized Germany, and revolutionized it, put an American social welfare system into Germany, together with the process of industrialization and protectionism. Our policy was, during that period, up until the turn of the century, as long as Bismarck was in office, in particular, and even beyond that, recurring, our policy was to have peace between Germany and Russia, with the idea that the strategy of the British would be to have a war between Germany and Russia, and playing the Hapsburgs in France in that, in order to destroy Europe by playing one part of Europe against the other.

Our policy, from the time approximately of John Quincy Adams, was to avoid, to act to prevent, a war between Russia and Germany, and to hopefully bring France—the France of Lafayette, for example, there were efforts in that direction—to bring France into cooperation with Germany, so you would have a Russia/Germany/France axis in Europe, which would be an axis, a power against the British and which would adopt the evidence of the American system as the model they would use, because Russia had adopted that in the late part of the last century, of the 19th century. They had adopted the American System under Alexander III. Nicholas II was a different proposition, but Alexander III, yes. Alexander II was an ally of the United States against the British, in the case of the Confederacy. So we had friends there in Russia. We had friends in Germany. We had potential friends in France, if we could get rid of this Napoleon business, out of the way, which is still a problem to the present day. And therefore, as DeGaulle attempted to do in his deal with Adenaeur, to try to get a partnership between France and Germany on an equitable basis, for partnership between Eastern and Western Europe, based on the Russia-Germany peaceful cooperation.

Today we have a much larger scope, including that one, to deal with. Today, we have Eurasia, and we'll come to Africa again, which I've mentioned many times, but Eurasia. The countries of China, India, and so forth, are in a sense, entering modern conditions. Not really, though. China is not going to replace the United States. India is not going to replace the United States. Seventy percent of the population of India lives in desperate conditions, and in many respects, worsening conditions. So you can not call the Indian economy a successful model, because it depends upon selling its products abroad at prices which leave 70% of its population in destitution comparable to slavery. That is not a growing power.

As a matter of fact, in the most recent national election in India, you had a prime minister of India, Vajpayee, who was a capable prime minister, but he lost reelection because of revolt among the poor people against the negligence of the prime minister's party on the issue of the welfare of the lower 70% of the population of India, who demand something better than being neglected.

In China, you have a different situation, but a comparable one. China depends for its export market on using cheap labor, Chinese cheap labor. China's labor is no cheaper really than our labor, except the difference is that in our country, we have a social welfare system. We pay pensions. We maintain a social structure to support the entire population. Now, China intends to do that, but China can not meet that burden of developing its own internal population that's poor, without raising its prices to get fair prices on the world market, which means China's role is two-fold. It has two problems. First of all, if the U.S. market collapses, where's China? It goes into a spiral of collapse. If the U.S. market collapses, where does India go? Where does Europe go? Where does India go if Europe and the United States both collapse?

So you're looking at a world which is in danger, and it's in danger because of free trade. You can not maintain this planet as a safe place to live, while you maintain free trade and allow globalization. You must have an American-style protectionist system, in which we have trade barriers. We set up protection so that goods are not produced below the true cost of their production. And the true cost of production is the cost of maintaining the population as a whole, which produces that wealth! Which means pensions, it means social welfare systems, educational systems, health care systems. It means infrastructure in general.

Now of an economy in general, 50% of any modern economy is an investment in infrastructure. These are investments which run with a lifespan of 25 to 50 years, a 25-50 year investment, in dams, power systems generally, water management systems, mass transit systems, high-speed mass transit systems, not all these trucks trying to crowd highways, and turning superhighways into parking lots at rush hour time, but a real system. Power systems which provide adequate power, at the densities we require. Maintenance of our area, so we maintain our environment, maintain our forests, maintain the productive biological structure of our nation. It costs money. It costs effort. And we have to treat this effort as part of the cost of production!

Pensions are part of the cost of production! To provide for the aged is part of the cost of production, because the aged and the young are part of a system, just like children are part of a system. They may not be working. They may not be employed. But they are an essential part of a system, and you have to pay for the system . You have to maintain the system physically, materially. It's called the American System, the protectionist system, which we understood better after the experience of the Depression, and the experience of the successes under Franklin Roosevelt. The world needs a Franklin Roosevelt system.

Now, to have that kind of a system, which means about half of your total investment, in international trade, in fact, about half of that, is in long-term investment, either in basic economic infrastructure, like dam systems, power systems, water systems, whatnot; education systems, health care systems; but also in high-technology, which means capital-intensive technology in agriculture and industry. These also are long-term investments—nearly 10, 15, 25 years, too. A good machine tool—it lasts for a long time, it's adapted to many new things. But it's an investment you must have, and you must maintain it.

So therefore, that means that you have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system. You must fix the prices of currencies among each other, in a fixed way, so that you don't have fluctuations in prices, and rates, and costs on investment. In that way, you can have stable agreements: Because what?

Where are we going to get the capital, to rebuild this world economy? The banks are bankrupt! Where are you going to borrow the money? There are no banking systems that can provide the financial capital for recovery! It doesn't exist! These banks are bankrupt. Where does the money come from? It comes from the creation of credit by governments! In a regulated system. The creation of credit by governments, for the purposes of long-term loans, at fixed prices, for investments in infrastructure, and for providing investments for capital investments in useful industry and agriculture.

These loans, which are what? At 1 to 2% interest, simple interest, over the long term, run through a banking system which is coordinated by the government, as a national banking system—private banks participating in a system coordinated by government—get this credit out, the way we used war production credit during World War II. You get the credit out, for what are declared to be purposes of national interest.

The first thing, is to try to bring the level of population in production, up to the level that you're above breakeven. Now, if you're operating above breakeven, current breakeven, you're not in bad condition. Therefore, get above breakeven.

Once you're above breakeven, now you bring into play technological progress, which will increase the productive powers of labor and the quality of product. Now you get real growth. And the next generation will be better off than the present one. And so forth and so on. That's the American System at its best.

Now, we had the basis for that, at the end of the war. The basis was provided by the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, in what became known as the Bretton Woods system. Which was destroyed by the friends of Kissinger, and Shultz, in 1971-72, under Nixon, but was in the process of being destroyed even before that—because of the Vietnam War, helped to do that. So therefore, we destroyed the system, we went to a floating-exchange-rate system, we destroyed the world economy, by a floating-exchange-rate system. We no longer had a stable system of credit, at fixed rates, the fixed exchange rates, over long periods, where you could efficiently have the development of economies on a large scale, or the world economy.

We have to, therefore, create that kind of system, again. But this time, we have to create it to include not only the Americas, not only the Americas and Europe, but we have to also include Asia. And if we do that, then we have the means for dealing with a great stain on our conscience: What Henry Kissinger did to Africa.

And Africa is going to require great aid from these countries—not lending as much as great aid in infrastructure: Because, what we've done to Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, is a crime beyond belief. They do not have the means of recovering on their own. The biological effects that we've imposed on Africa under these conditions, are such that they don't have the ability to rebuild on their own. We must help them. That is our moral obligation. We must give them things, to help get them started. We have to get them through the next generation, to try to get them back on their own feet again, and help them develop.

So therefore, we in the United States, looking at what the Senate is facing today, we have to look ahead. We have to say: We're in a war, against an enemy. The enemy are these institutions, these financier institutions which have come to destroy us, which have almost destroyed our nation, and corrupted our people, as was done to the children born after the close of World War II. That's the first thing. We have to restore the system that was destroyed, rebuild the nation. We have to think about rebuilding the world, and rebuilding as I indicated.

That means, we have to build a world system. And so, the war is against the enemy, who has destroyed us and other nations, by his Delphic methods. But we have to create a system, which is accepted by other nations, as a mutual system, and that is the peace. That is the victory. That means, that we have to do certain things, not simply because they're convenient for us here. We have to do things, because we have to do them now , or they won't be done by the world, and then we would suffer from that.

We can not survive as a nation, if the world goes to Hell. Therefore, the way we act as a nation in our interests, must take into account the effect of our policy, or our lack of policy, on the rest of the world. Because it's the kind of world we're helping to build, in which our posterity will live! And we have to think about the peace, the peace for our posterity: a world in which they can live, for generations to come! We have to build that kind of a system. Our Constitutional system contains that potential: No other nation on this planet has that potential, that we have! Therefore, we have to use what we are; we have to use our heritage for that purpose.

This means, of course, that the planet is getting smaller. Not really, but it's smaller in terms of human action, in the size of human population. This is particularly evident to us, in Asia, where the great part of the whole world's population is now located, in Asia.

Now, we can't maintain the world the way we've been running it up to now. We have to develop new kinds of resources, new technologies, new sciences, new branches of science. We have to engage in a policy of continuing scientific revolution and technological progress. This relies upon, what?

It relies on three things: First of all, the quality of intellectual development of our population, including our young—educational systems. Presently, they stink! We have a Youth Movement going, and the Youth Movement is struggling with almost no means, but it's doing a better job than the universities are, in terms of actual knowledge. We can do it. All right: We need a new educational system, an education for reality , an education for science, not this gobbledygook we get for services economy nonsense. "Bend over, I'll service you"—hmm? Right?

Also, we need the application, a technological orientation of entrepreneurship: Because the way you get things done, is—you have to understand the human mind. Some people know how to destroy the human mind, but they don't know how it works. They just don't like it—"Let's destroy it! Destroy it! Grrh! Get rid of it, it's a problem!"

Now, we call it "private initiative," that's a bad word, because of the connotations of it. But, in point of fact, any discovery, or re discovery, or development of a discovery, occurs primarily within an individual mind, as a sovereign act of an individual personality. And society is a system of cooperation among sovereign, individual personalities. Someone gets an idea, it spills over to someone else, they cooperate and so forth, and things happen. And therefore, you want a system, you can call it an "entrepreneurial system," in which the greatest freedom for people is to use their individual minds in collaboration to make things happen , that make things better . And this is usually science-oriented, or science-application oriented. So therefore, you need a system which is a science- and culture-driver system, which should be centered in our educational system.

Now, you need a system which can absorb that, in the labor force. So you need a system of organization of entrepreneurship, in which this natural potential of the educated population is expressed. You don't say, "We're going to prescribe it, you're going to invent this." You prescribe a problem. Somebody comes up with a solution. That's entrepreneurship. So you need that kind of a system.

Now, we have in society, certain categories of people, some of whom are represented here, today, who are associated with the machine-tool sector of industry. If you want production, if you want progress, science is not enough.

For example: Suppose you're a scientist, you make a discovery: How do you certify a discovery? Well, you have to design a test apparatus, which actually is a test-of-principle apparatus. Now, in that apparatus, you will have built in something, which actually is new. It tests the principle you have never consciously used before. You're testing to see if it actually works, the way you have conjectured it would. Right? Now, once you've done that, and it does work, now you have a secret you've discovered: That test apparatus, that you designed, and you could probably go back and do a better job of redesigning it later, but that test apparatus you've designed, is the basis for what we call "machine-tool design."

Now, this is the way you take a population, which has moderate skills, moderate scientific skills, and through the machine-tool approach, you produce product and systems whereby a large population, thousands of people, can work around a few hundred people, who are involved in machine-tool design. In a sense, the machine-tool designer, by introducing innovation into the productive process, and employing thousands of people in using the innovation, increases the productive powers of labor of the entire population. So, what they're trying to do with destroying General Motors, and the rest of the auto industry—as they're doing, as a productive industry; and the aircraft industry—what they're doing, is destroying the machine-tool capability of the United States! Which means, what? We become Asians: We no longer have the ability to develop technology, we can only copy other people's. We're being destroyed.

And the poor people in the United States, who have come to believe in a services economy, don't understand that . There're people in the Senate, who don't yet understand that. People in other channels of government, don't understand that. People in parties will argue against that! They don't understand it.

But, the success of the U.S. economy, depends upon it!

Take the success under Roosevelt: Do you know what we did, in World War II, in going into it? Do you know how many machine-tools were sitting out there with the U.S. government tag on them? We took people who had no machine tools—we mass-produced machine tools under government contract. We leased these out to firms that had government contracts for military and related production. We produced as no one had ever seen production before! With a machine-tool system. Rosie the Riveter became a machine-tool specialist—out of a household! That's the way it worked. That's our system!

Now, the other part of the system, is, without infrastructure, it doesn't work. Just take a couple of cases—these dams and power station systems. [Figure 1, animated graphic of dams completed in the United States by decade from 1920 on] We're a country that doesn't give a dam! [explosive laughter, applause]

Now, take the power systems [Figure 2, animated graphic of nuclear power stations, showing no new stations have been started since 1977]

All right, now, there's another aspect to this thing. It's not just the fact of nuclear plants, or power plants or dams.

Let's take power: Now, we use a lot of gasoline, don't we? And natural gas, and so forth. Why do we do that?

Because we're stupid.

Because we take a product, natural gas and petroleum, which comes out of the earth, at less than a dollar a barrel—now it's rising somewhat. You haul it all over the world, and the price goes up; the cost of distribution is a major part of the cost. And this is not merely a price, this is a cost which comes from absorbing the income from the sale and production and many other things. So that, actually, the price of petroleum is a tax on the world economy. It's a stupidity tax.

In what sense? What should we be doing, instead of petroleum? Well, first of all, there's the direct application of nuclear power. India's now about to go ahead with a program which has been a capability I've been pushing for for some time: India has a very large part of the world's supply of radioactive thorium. And the thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in the 120 to 200 MW range, is about as efficient as anything in the same range for a nuclear reactor. And it does not have the problems of management, that you get with another fission reactor from uranium, or plutonium.

But, in any case, the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor can take water, and turn water into a hydrogen-based fuel. If you have high-temperature gas-cooled reactors in every part of the country, you can produce your own fuel, in that country, from water , or water-based fuels. And the fuel, when consumed, has a waste product ... called water. Which is not normally considered a contaminant—except among people who don't bathe.

So therefore, now, the idea of energy is also a stupid idea. It was invented by some idiots in 19th Century, who didn't like the idea of power. Energy is an effect. It is not an entity, it's an effect. You get burned, that's an effect. You want to call it energy? Okay, blame energy. You sit out in the Sun too long, you get cooked, that's energy.

But power is a means by which you engage in a transformation of something from a lower state to a higher state; from a lower state of potential to a higher state of potential. Now, when we develop power sources, and power sources per capita and per square kilometer, we increase the potential to increase wealth, per capita and so forth. We can raise the standard of living!

So, why should we haul and stink up the atmosphere, by hauling all this stupid fuel, all around the world? What would we do with this petroleum? Well, petroleum is very useful for the plastics industry; they make plastics out of petroleum. It's a base for that, a product base. So use it! Where do you make your plastics? Well, make them in Saudi Arabia, for example: you got the cheapest petroleum there; make your plastics there. If you're going to ship something, the value per ton, is an advantage: The more valuable per ton, the lower the cost of transportation, as a percentile of total product! So, our objective is, to increase the efficiency of the economy, so that what you transport, transport something which is more valuable each ton-mile than before. If you increase the value that you transport per ton-mile, you are increasing the productivity of the economy. So, why shouldn't we do that?

To do that, you require things like, increasing nuclear power. A higher-density nuclear power. We have to think in those directions. There are many things we have to do.

Now, on top of that: The world is somewhat in trouble. The world as we know it, is divided into three areas of chemical activity. One, is the abiotic system. Second, is living processes and their products. The third, is human intellectual activity and its products, which is a growing percentile of the total fossil accumulation of the planet. Now, our objective is, to increase the ratio of human to Biosphere, to abiotic.

Now, what we depend upon when we mine for minerals, we don't go into the core of the Earth to get our minerals. We go into the fossil area of the Earth, which is called the Biosphere. For example: What is a fossil? Well, the atmosphere is a fossil. The atmosphere was produced by living processes. Water is a fossil. It is produced by living processes. The reason we have oceans and rivers and things, is because biological, living processes, produced water. And this water accumulated and it became oceans and whatnot. We produced—the living processes produced the atmosphere. The atmosphere we have, the carbon dioxide. You know, plants love carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. We should increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere: The plants would be much happier, and it wouldn't be inconvenient for us. They grow much better with carbon dioxide—that's what they feed on! That's what a green plant does, a chlorophyll plant feeds on carbon dioxide! It's its favorite dessert. You want to make the plants happy? Give them more carbon dioxide!

What do you do? If you want to have real growth, build a hothouse—you may not like the carbon dioxide concentration, but the plants will be ecstatic, and they'll grow wonderfully for you. They gobble up that carbon dioxide! Just give them enough power and carbon dioxide, and they're happy: They'll produce vegetation like mad.

So, we're now at the point where we have to consider the fact that we are tending to deplete the minerals in the Biosphere. Now, the minerals in the Biosphere, like iron and so forth, we get them, because they are concentrated as what? They are part of the dead bodies of living things. You get a potassium concentration, iron concentration, any other kind of concentration: Usually, this concentration is the result of the residue of dead living things. That's how people know how to find these things: They go into areas where they know this kind of development occurs, and they're looking for a residue of a formerly living process of a certain type, and they get iron there, they'll get this there, and so forth. That's the way it works.

So, therefore, we're getting to the point that the planet is becoming somewhat depleted, in terms of the rate at which we're consuming known resources of these types—and we have to start thinking about replenishing them! And that's a problem in advanced physics, of high-power physics. So therefore, the economy of the world is going to have to change, and shift from a low-power-density economy, to a high-power-density economy, so that we can manage the planet, with new technologies, where we no longer simply go down there and grab raw materials, which are left over from dead living things millions of years ago; but now, we're capable of regenerating something, rather than simply using it up. We're going to that kind of economy. Therefore, we have to go to a high-power economy, a high-technology, high-power economy. We have to go from a cheap-labor economy, to a machine-tool economy. That's the direction we have to take.

We have to think about a world system, which respects the fact of the nation-state, maintains it. Don't try to globalize the world. No more globalization. Cheney's already too fat.

Go to a managed system, where we rely upon our scientific responsibilities for development. Let each nation develop with its culture, in its own way. And what we need is a system of cooperation among those nation-states. The obvious thing is the United States' relationship to its neighbors in the Americas, which is a unit of cooperation. The United States' cooperation directly, for example, with Europe, as with Continental Europe, in particular. And envisaging the cooperation between Germany and Russia, as a pivot for cooperation throughout Eurasia: Because Germany and Russia are key to trade with China, and trade with India, for example, and Central Asia. So then, we have to deal, again, with the African question.

So therefore, we need to create a world system, as a system of cooperation among sovereign nation-states. Doing this, as a United States which is proceeding from its own character, its own Constitutional character , its own historically determined Constitutional character. And—maybe the world will stop hating us.

But, that's our responsibility. Not simply to address the problems before us, not to come up with practical, immediate responses to problems. We have to look ahead. We have to look ahead three generations. And we have to take the steps now that are necessary, so that two or three generations from now, when certain kinds of problems become mature, that we have laid the groundwork for the ability of our descendants, to solve those problems. We can not sit back, and just simply put one thing on top of the other. We have to think ahead. We have to think of the past, we have to think of the future, but we have to think ahead.

We need a system for this planet, that will last for fifty to hundred years to come, in terms of relations among nation-states. We need a system of cooperation. We need a system of vision , of where we are going! We need a system of values, of what we value, as accomplishment. We need an orientation toward our children: Especially our young adult children, who have 50 years of work, and influence before them: They are our future! Without them, we don't have a future! And therefore, their fate, for 50 years to come, is us : We will die, but whether our lives mean anything or not, will depend, 50 years from now, on what happens to those young people, what kind of a world we create for them.

That's strategy. Not war. Strategy is strategy for peace, for building a system which is so good, that people don't want to break it, and therefore, you have peace.

Thank you. [ovation]Dialogue

Freeman: Thank you, Lyn. As has become our habit at these webcasts and seminars, we have a series of questions that were submitted while Mr. LaRouche was speaking—some of them came in a little bit earlier—submitted by various elected officials on Capitol Hill. We also have some questions that have come in from around the nation.... [Provides protocol for questions]

Lyn, the first question was submitted by the Democratic leadership of the United States Senate. It says:

"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, we've now won a commitment from Senator Roberts that Phase II of the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] investigation is going to be more extensive than simply a perfunctory review of a series of documents. As that investigation progresses, many of us are more and more confident that the principal issue that will emerge is the central role played by Vice President Dick Cheney and his office, in fraudulently leading this nation to war. One immediate issue that's emerging with increasing clarity, is that, fearing that professionals in the nation's intelligence establishment would not simply toe the line, the Vice President and his friends erected the equivalent of parallel institutions, indeed, of a parallel government that would operate directly under his control.

"If it comes to the ouster of the Vice President, by one means or another, our question to you is this: Will that be enough? Will the structure that he leaves behind pose a continued threat if it is not also dismantled as part and parcel of his ouster?"

LaRouche: Well, I think that's too simplistic a view of the problem. First of all, what Cheney has—.

Look. Without even going through the investigation, there are certain things that I know, because I've been following this thing, and I know how the U.S. government works and I know a lot about the inside of it. Also, from abroad, I also get an insight into what goes on here, from foreign sources, as well as from inside: That, Cheney set up an operation—now, who set it up? We've got to deal with the reality here, not whodunit's. We've got to get rid of Cheney! Period!

Now, instinctively, we know we have to do that. Instinctively, everybody in the Senate knows we have to do that. We're going to do it! What's our rationale? We're going to do it, because he's a bum! He's an evil bum, who we know induced the Senate to lie, partly out of their cowardice, but because he lied to them! He got institutions that work with him to lie . This was not "bad" information; this was not "misinterpreted" information! This was no mis-assessed information! This was lies!

He lied to John Kerry! He lied to others, directly, personally! And he knew he was lying. The evidence is there.

Also, you see—the other evidence is crucial. You look at it from a military standpoint, and you get Bumsfeld, hmm? Cheney used to be the office boy for Bumsfeld. Now, they've sort of reversed roles, I think (an awesome concept, huh?).

Who created this administration? How was the Bush Administration created—from about 1996 on? It was created under the supervision of George Shultz . Now, George Shultz is probably known to you as, formerly a Secretary of State. He's known from the Nixon Administration, as the man who sank the Bretton Woods system at the Azores Conference—he supervised that. He's known as an all-around no-damned-goodnik! With powerful financial connections.

So, you're not looking at a man, who committed a crime. You're looking at a tool, that was used to create crime. George Shultz was a tool, and Cheney was a tool of George Shultz. Remember, Shultz constituted the search committee to craft a proposed government for Junior—that's the guy who was born to Arnold Schwarzenegger—in that famous film called "Junior." And they were going to create this monster, this Bush Administration around Junior. So therefore, Shultz was in charge of creating that. At a certain point, of course, in the process, Shultz in searching for the Vice President, announced to Elder Bush, "I found your man: Me." So, he took over.

Now, what took over was not an eruption from within the Administration: From the beginning, Shultz was running the Administration . Shultz is the Svengali, who controls Trilby Bush. And who doesn't sing very well, in any case. That's the situation.

So, you're looking at a machine which has a policy. The policy is called "Halliburton." It's this new definition of "steal business," it's called "Halliburton." Steal from the U.S. government.

So, what you're looking at, is you're looking at an international financier cartel, with a policy, which includes the policy of destroying the United States. Shultz is famous for his role in destroying the Bretton Woods system, which is part of the process of destroying the United States. So, you've got a faction, an international faction, of which Shultz is a part.

And—you know, don't overestimate Cheney. Cheney is not bright. They wouldn't let him climb a telephone poll when he worked as a lineman! They weren't sure he knew which end was up. He was a poor slug, who could never make a living; flunked college—that's one of the honest things he did. And he's out there on the ground, as a groundling, facing a potential draft somewhere along the line. And anyway, he's out there as a groundling, and this woman, who'd been sort of the star performer of her high school campus (his later wife), picked this bum up and married him! Used him for a stud. And got him through her college, got him a job, got him top connections with the British government, things like that (the dirtiest part of the British government, by the way).

So, he's entirely a creation. He's a thug! He was stuck in Halliburton as a thug. He was stuck in the Nixon Administration, as a thug, as an errand boy. Under Ford, he was a thug. He's been a thug all his life. He's a mafia boss, a mafia sub-boss. He's not capable of carrying an idea across one end of the room to the other: He's a thug! "Do as I tell you, or I'll kill you!" He hasn't got any arguments: "Do as I tell you, or I'll kill you." That's his mentality. He's disintegrating. He's like the Disintegrating Man—because he's so evil, the parts are just falling off him.

So, don't exaggerate his intellect. He is not an intellect. He's a mafia type, he's a thug. He's not qualified for office boy. He might abuse the water cooler, or something like that. The President, of course, is no great shakes himself. I mean, this guy, you can't accuse him of evil, because he doesn't know what good or evil is—whatever it is, he worships it.

So, you've got to look at this thing realistically. Not dignify things, make them important entities, when they're only tools. All right, now the point is, George Shultz and company, which represents a very distinct financier interest in this country, and internationally, was entrusted with creating an entity called "the Bush Administration." The entity was crafted under the direction of a subaltern of Shultz: Cheney. And they were connected with the California money connections. He became the Vice President: He created a machine based on a fascist element within the U.S. government, which is called the neo-cons. These fascists are connected to fascists abroad, including the P-2 crowd in Italy! The ones who ran the right-wing terror in Italy during the early 1970s, the so-called P-2 Lodge. These are the guys who run international terrorism! You want to get rid of terrorism, get rid of Cheney! He's part of it. [applause] That's the reality. And you want to understand 9/11, you ask that question, too: How these things are done? That's how those things are done. I've seen it done!

So, we have that kind of problem.

So, let's be realistic. You have an entity, which is called the Cheney Gang. The Cheney Gang is identifiable inside the Bush Administration, and outside. The Cheney Gang has a policy. The Cheney Gang has a crew of actions. All of the so-called intelligence used to start the war in Iraq, were fabricated by this gang! Not by the intelligence services—the CIA didn't fabricate it! The CIA, of course, behaved in a cowardly fashion, in not denouncing it. But that's the story. And we know it!

Now: If we can't say that—in the Senate, if we can't say, we don't deserve it, we don't deserve to survive! There's a time that comes, where you have to have enough guts and brains, to be fit to survive, and this is one of those times. This guy has got to go, because he did it : The evidence is already there . All you have to do, is draw the lines together. Connect the dots, and it's done! You don't need to go fishing for some theory. There's no question of "misinterpreting intelligence"—he lied! You don't call lying "a misinterpretation of intelligence."

Furthermore, this thing started under Bush I, under Bush 41, when he was Secretary of Defense: He had this policy for continuing occupation of Iraq! He had the policy ever since. He's part of an apparatus, which has such a policy of going into every part of the world, including Afghanistan—and every imaginable part of the world, in Transcaucasia and so forth! There's terrorism running all over the world, that he's tied to! Maybe he may not be running it, but he's tied to the organization for which he works, which is doing it. He's part of the problem why you can't get peace in the Middle East—part of the same problem.

So therefore, he represents a policy, which he has represented consistently in terms of himself and his associates, people like Scooter Libby. They've represented this! Addington—look at the corruption—Addington! Addington is "Mr. Torture" himself! He's a Nazi!

This is the crowd that was behind Pinochet! The same crowd. The crowd behind Operation Condor, which was a Nazi operation ! Nazis transported into the Americas, via Spain, authentic Nazis; went down into South America as authentic Nazis, by way of Mexico and elsewhere; and created an apparatus down there, which was a Nazi apparatus, second, third generation: They did Operation Condor . That's Pinochet! Shultz was part of that!

Are we fools? Our intelligence services, people in our intelligence services know this stuff ! Some of them may be retired— we know this ! We know what this entity is.

You want a case? We can present it. We already have, through my publications, my associates' publications. We already presented much of this stuff. It's there—it's known!

If we allow Adolf Hitler to run amok, don't be surprised at what we get! We're dealing with a question: Can we make sure that Adolf Hitler doesn't take over the United States, or the equivalent? And that's what Cheney represents. If we don't get rid of Cheney from his office, for the crimes he's committed, if we don't put the case together and drive him out—and I mean drive him out! and a lot of things with him! You've got to have a chain-reaction, and clean the whole bunch out. [applause] This is much worse than Watergate. [ovation]

Freeman: Your next question is from a Democratic political consultant. He says, "Lyn, I've been pretty quiet lately, but right now, I feel like I really do have to say something, because I'm concerned about the President's psychological state. [laughter] There have been numerous articles and commentaries on this subject, probably the most recent being this piece in the Washington Times Magazine , that describes the poor President as suffering feelings of deep betrayal, bordering on paranoia. It describes a man attempting to rule from a bunker, his only daily contact being with his mother, his wife, Condi Rice, and Karen Hughes, which is not a happy state of affairs. [laughter] Some have compared his demeanor to what we saw in him in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but, to be honest, I think he looks more like Anthony Perkins in the final scenes of Perkins' immemorable performance as Norman Bates in the movie Psycho . I'd be interested in your opinion on this, and how you think we can manage, with a President in this condition?"

LaRouche: Well, first of all, he's a defective personality, it's obvious. And one thing that's left out in this report, is the fact that his controller is Cheney. It's Cheney who talks to him every day. Svengali talks to Trilby every day. And Trilby can't sing. I don't know whether to object to the relationship, or the music.

But the man is defective, he's a non-functional personality. He never made an honest nickel on his own in his life. He has no qualifications for any political office. I'm not sure he's guilty, because of insanity. I don't think he really is capable of knowing what the truth is. Except in a very trivial sense. Because, he's so busy fabricating explanations for what he does, which are loony.

This man is nothing but a puppet. Yes, he has psychological characteristics. Justin Frank has gone through his psychological characteristics. I think that's significant, but that doesn't explain Bush. How do you explain, Edgar Bergen's Charlie McCarthy?

What do you do to control Charlie McCarthy, if he's bad? Cut the strings.

Get him out of there! But—the problem is, here—.

The problem of statesmanship is where the problem comes in. Sure, he should go. He has no business being President of the United States. But we have something else to concern us: Not just who occupies the Presidency, but the institution of the Presidency, and its function . We have to have a functioning Presidency. Now, if we have to have a perfect, gibbering idiot called George Bush in the Oval Office, we can put rubber walls in there or whatever we need to do! But, if we decide that we are not prepared to eject him, then we have to build something around him that controls him. The way you do that, is you strip everything that's bad , every bad influence—get him out from under bad influences .

Now, you also see, that he has a problem of a type which is called in German, a Kronprinz Problem. He's a total incompetent—and Justin missed this one—he's a total incompetent. But he was raised and protected by women. Now, where the account that is referred to by this questioner is accurate, is this women factor. The women factor is an essential part of managing him. He only responds to management by women.

Remember, the case of a child, as in the German literature on the Crown Prince syndrome: The case of a child who finds himself, as a male child, who is totally dependent upon the care of a number of women in his childhood. And therefore, his ability to control his environment as a child, depends upon his being able to manipulate or influence these women—or to believe that he does. That becomes his characteristic in life, unless he cures himself of it. And it can be a very savage and very painful, very sick kind of situation, the Crown Prince syndrome.

You have, in George Bush, a fellow, who, because of his family background—and where Justin does describe some of these factors in his book—but, because of his family background, has no intellectual capability whatsoever. He's a complete fake, he's a drug addict, a drug user, he's a flunkey; all his mistakes are covered up for him by his family. But he's out there—he has no capability, but he's the first-born child, of Barbara and George Sr. And they have dynastic delusions: They want the Presidency to pass from father, to son, to grandson, and so forth and so on, and so on. So, he's the first-born child, [pauses, then sweetly] the first-born child.

George finally says, "Yeah, but Barbara, he's kinda stupid, dontcha think?" She says, "No—he's our first-born child." [rolling laughter] "We have to create a Presidency for him. We have to make the Presidency fit him. He's got to be King—maybe Emperor!"

But he only responds to handling by women, women who know how to manipulate him, just like the typical Crown Prince sort. The Crown Prince thinks he's manipulating the women, but the women are actually manipulating him, but they're manipulated by the pleasure in being able to manipulate him! It's one of these—it's a dynamic relationship, huh? Not a very nice one—but dynamic!

So therefore, you get this kind of defective personality, occupying the most powerful position in the world, in terms of government. How do you run it? He's got no brain power. He can't run the world—he can't run the United States! He can't run the Oval Office! He has to sleep at 9 o'clock at night. He has to ride a dirt bike up and down the walls of the Oval Office, to keep himself in shape. If he falls on his head? No damage, nothing is lost.

Study history! How many times in history, has a head of state, or comparable person, been in that kind of situation that I just described of the President of the United States? When you have a system, like the old, corrupt court system, where a court system manages the idiot emperor—and that's what you have. You have the idiot emperor is being managed by an apparatus.

How'd he become President? He went to—according to his account!—he went to George Shultz, who told him he had a future. He went down to Texas, and had somebody tapped him on the head and said, "You're a Christian." "Okay—good!" I mean, the biggest drunk in Texas, you know? Suddenly, he's a Christian—and cured. He's a dry drunk, rolling around on the sand.

So, this is the problem we have. So, you have to look, in understanding him, you have to look at what he is really. And you have to have a sense of Classical tragedy to understand him. The Classical tragedy is not his. It's our nation's. Don't worry about him. Worry about our nation.

But the problem is, we have a problem—this damned idiot is President. Now, it would be better if he were replaced by somebody who was competent. But we have to think about, what's the process of replacing a President, like this? When you have to go through the process of getting Cheney out—and that you have to do ; you must get Cheney out now. There's no compromise on that. And you have to take his apparatus down with him. And you have to find some way of managing this President, so that a policy-making body comes into the Executive branch, which manages this basket case. [applause]

Freeman: If he really needs a woman to tell him what to do, I could probably pencil some time in. [laughter] Especially if the organization springs for a new pair of black boots like Condi's.

Okay!

This is an unusual question, because it was submitted by two Senators together, one of them a Republican, and the other a Democrat. And they wanted it to be mentioned that both of them served in Vietnam.

What they say is: "Mr. LaRouche, you may be aware of this, but at a recent Republican Senate Caucus meeting, that only one of us was at, Vice President Cheney, in an attempt to coerce us to adopt torture as an official policy of the United States, argued that these are extraordinary times, and that when we signed the Geneva Convention, 9/11 had not occurred, al-Qaeda was not viewed as a problem, nor was Osama bin Laden. Now, putting aside for a moment, the fact that our stand against such policies, is embedded in the founding of our nation, there still is a question that would seem to be on the table—at least many of our colleagues took pause when he said this.

"But the fact is, that a recent article in your publications, which resurrected the unresolved Olson case, seems to indicate rather clearly that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld enjoyed an embrace of torture, that goes back to at least 1975, when most of al-Qaeda's foot-soldiers were no more than a twinkle in their mothers' eyes.

"Would you comment on this, please? And give us some guidance as to how you think this should be addressed, in the context of what's currently going on in the Senate?"

LaRouche: You had a famous commander in the Albigensian Crusade, which was the first Norman crusade organized by Venice that I know of, which began the Venetian empire. In which the command was, "In here, there are members of this cult, and there are members of ordinary Christians. And we're attacking this city." And the answer was, "Kill them all, and let God sort them out."

Now you find a replication of that kind of policy, which was the policy of religious warfare, and so forth, which was outlawed by the Treaty of Westphalia, and which modern civilization is based on the repudiation of precisely that, especially after the experience of the religious wars started in Spain in 1492 with the Expulsion of the Jews by Torquemada, and the continuation of that through 1648 and beyond.

This is the characteristic of religious warfare, of this kind of genocide. Now, this is not a special circumstance to modern times. This is what Hitler did! And this is what is so embedded in Eurasian culture, that under the Soviet Union, similar policies were carried out, in terms of the gulag system, or the worst aspects of the gulag system.

Expedient murder, not because somebody is guilty of something, but because it's expedient to kill them ! For political effect! What this is, is a terrorist method .

Now, our military people and our historians have gone through this question, over centuries: There is no question on this: That you do not torture to get information. Because, first of all, information you get by torture, is probably a lie, is probably worthless.

And, for example, in the case of Iraq, we now have suicide bombers, who are a key part of the problem in Iraq. Why'd this happen? The suicide bombing process was provoked by U.S. policy. And the policy of torture in places like Abu Ghraib, was the provocation which caused it.

So, he talks about "international terrorism." Well, he is an international terrorist. What do we do? Interrogate him, until he confesses? If he doesn't confess, keep interrogating him, until he's willing to confess? And then believe what he tells us, when he does confess?

No.

No, see the problem is, in policy by government, as some people, as I think Senator McCain has expressed this in his remarks, who know what torture is—not out of prejudice, but out of understanding: It doesn't work! Except to terrorize a population.

There is no justice in it. There is no desire for justice in it. It is simply a form of murder, which is characteristic of societies which we knew we had to get rid of. We had to get rid of the religious warfare institutions of the Habsburgs, Spanish, and others. Modern civilization was based on getting rid of that religious warfare policy. And what goes with it. And this is a case of it. We can not allow that, in our culture. We don't care what the provocation is: We don't allow it in our culture. Because we don't make ourselves the kind of people, who do that! [ovation]

Freeman: We now have a couple of questions, Lyn, on some domestic economic issues, both of them from Democrats. The first one is from a Democrat from California; the next one will be from a Democrat from Louisiana.

From California, it says: "Lyn, congratulations for the work done by you and your organization in the defeat of Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the special election on Nov. 8. [applause]

"As you may know, right now Schwarzenegger is trying to recoup from his loss, by putting forward an infrastructure bond issue. The proposal that I've seen is for the state of California to issue $50 billion in bonds to finance what he calls 'general infrastructure,' which would be in the form of state debt. Personally, I don't think he's serious, but I'm still interested in the proposal. How would this kind of plan for state bonded debt differ from your proposal for a national FDR-style infrastructure program, which might include rebuilding New Orleans?"

LaRouche: Well, first of all, someone should read our Constitution. And understand our Federal Constitution: The power to utter currency , or the promise to deliver currency, based on utterance, is a monopoly of the Federal government, in which the House of Representatives has a special function, of course, and the Executive branch. This is our system.

See, we don't operate on a money system. This is not our system. Our system is a credit system, not a money system. We say, "There is no such thing as money which has a universal value." Someone comes along and says, "Well, gold creates money." No! You don't get by with that, buddy, not under our system.

Money is a monopoly of the Federal government, under the terms prescribed by the Constitution. And there are certain habits of practice and so forth of our government, which pertain to that. So, therefore, there are cases in which bond issues were proper in states, for example, education, things like that. We'll come to that. Or, for an investment in a specific infrastructure program, for example, to invest in power stations, which... not enough of that was done, instead of what was done with Enron.

So therefore, in general, at this time, the states are all bankrupt. The states have no ability to assure the ability to repay the loans they take out. Only the Federal government has that power.

What we need is—we have a problem with the U.S. banking system, financial system is now collapsing, it's bankrupt. Don't wait and say, "Well, when it goes bankrupt—" No! Now, it is bankrupt. If you're talking about credit, you're talking about something to be paid a year from now, two years from now, three years, five years from now? You're crazy! You have no ability, no competence to say, that can be paid! Your promissory note is worthless—not because you're worthless, but because you're just foolish enough to make a promise that you wouldn't be able to keep.

Unless we reorganize our system, our financial system, we can not make promises . And unfortunately, states, which are nearly all bankrupt, or on the verge of bankrupt, are in no position to create credit, unless they find some way that they can assure this thing is going to work out. So therefore, the idea of creating something, without a very specific purpose for it that's credible, doesn't work.

However, we do need this kind of operation. What we need is, first of all, we need to put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy. Get a national recovery program through a takeover of the Federal Reserve System by the U.S. government, to take it under protection. We then have to organize how these bad debts, which are massive, will be handled, including generally the cancellation of all financial derivatives. A financial derivative has no valid origin. It's something which has validity in the mind of a departed man, the former [chairman] Alan Greenspan—and he was long since departed before he left office. Where he departed to, is a question, but he's been departed. Probably to Mount Atlas, or something.

But we're bankrupt, and therefore we have to create a system of credit, which is soluble. And it has to be created by the Federal government, and the Federal government has to be largely the engineer of organizing credit for the states. And the way, generally we do that, is, we've done it by allocating programs to make sure that we get the states into balance. In other words, we can't have bankrupt states. So therefore, we will often, in Federal policies, we'll allocate projects among states, to make sure that there's enough going around to keep all the states in fair condition. And to develop the poor states, and so forth, and that sort of thing. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with that. But, what's wrong, is that you can not accomplish the ostensible purpose of such a loan, without a revision of the entire Federal system, by putting the entire banking system, the entire Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy.

And realizing that the money in circulation is not intrinsically valued. Especially when the whole financial system is bankrupt. And therefore, you have to create value. Created value is value of the future, values that are collectible, are fungible in the future , five years from now, ten years from now, fifteen years from now. Therefore, it is investments in projects and programs which in combined effect will create the wealth needed, to meet the obligation when the time for payment comes due. That is the basis for policy. A sound credit policy.

This was laid down by, for example, one of the greatest economists the United States ever had: Henry C. Carey, who wrote something on the credit system. And we have to understand, we are not a monetarist system. Not Constitutionally. We are a credit system. This is specified in our Constitution.

Remember, the first money was created in the United States by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, prior to 1688, when this was cancelled by British intervention from abroad. And the Commonwealth of Massachusetts created a scrip which was limited in circulation to the internal affairs of the Commonwealth. And this scrip was used as a promissory note by the state, was circulated like money, and became, in effect, money. And it was done to promote trade in such a way as to make useful ventures and so forth, work. This was the period when the Saugus Iron Works, one of the first important ironworks in the world, was built up, things like that. So, Massachusetts had a rich development, up to 1688, till this was shut down, based on this system of the scrip system.

Now, the U.S. policy was then based on a paper by Cotton Mather, after this tragedy had occurred in Massachusetts, on the subject of a paper money. And then, a follower of Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin, wrote a famous paper on the subject of paper money. The policy of the United States, the Constitutional policy of the United States, was based on this conception of paper money, which had its historical origin in reflections upon the Massachusetts scrip system, built under the Winthrop and Mathers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, prior to 1688.

So, that's the system, that's the American System. We do not recognize money as having intrinsic value. We recognize money as a creation of government , and government is responsible to keep the money fungible as a form of debt. And government must make laws and taxation and so forth, to make sure that the obligations incurred in the form of issuance of money, as credit, that this works. And that's where we're at, we're at point where we have to go back to reinventing the wheel: money. And we do that by having the Federal government, without breaking a step, put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy in one hour, and the next ten minutes putting in a new credit system which will mean the country functions. We have to guarantee people, the banks' doors stay open ; that loans are made; that investments are made. And moreover, we have to expand the economy, otherwise a bankrupt economy is not going to expand all by itself: It needs some stimulation, it needs some credit. And the only source of credit, is the Federal government.

That's sort of, one of my areas of economic expertise, on how to do this. But that's what has to be done.

Freeman: [station id] Lyn, as I said, the next question is from a Democratic Representative from Louisiana. She says, "On Oct. 3, we stopped all search and recovery operations for the bodies of victims of Hurricane Katrina. Now, as our residents return to what is left of the city and their homes, there are increasing reports of residents discovering dead bodies, and the casualty count continues to rise, despite the fact that it's not being reported. Following a national outcry over this administration's criminal malfeasance in the handling of the Katrina disaster, they made a number of promises. However, to this day, not one of those promises has been kept. Bidding has not been reopened on any of the contracts that went to the Vice President's friend. Reconstruction has not taken place. The debris has not been hauled out. And, of course, the city has not been rebuilt.

"Yesterday, the administration announced that it will no longer pay hotel bills for Katrina's refugees. This issue no longer dominates the nation's headlines. It's been pushed off the front pages by indictments of administration officials, by the war in Iraq, and by the circus surrounding the Supreme Court nominees. Nevertheless, it serves as a paradigm for this administration's attitude toward the people of this nation, and some of us are not prepared to let it go.

"You took the lead in the immediate aftermath of the Katrina disaster. But it seems that even you have put it on the back burner. I'm not criticizing you for doing that, but I simply am in a position where I can not do the same. I would really appreciate your advice in the full context of what our nation faces, as to what you think we should do."

LaRouche: Well, I haven't let up. I'm like a hungry leopard: I'm ready to spring, when he walks under my tree.

This is a crime against humanity. It's a crime against the United States, as well as a crime against the people of Louisiana. Period. That's it. It's a crime. It's a crime, by the Federal government, and, in fact, it's a crime by the President of the United States, who has made himself a dishonorable man.

Remember, he went down there, and he try to pull this fast one with Trent Lott? Stood there, with his big, fat mouth hangin' out: "Ah'm gonna give him a house, bigger and better than ever before." Really, to embarrass Trent Lott. Old Trent Lott wanted a railroad system and Bush didn't agree, so he "feels mean " about Trent Lott. This pettiness—do you want a government that reacts this way?!

Now, the problem is, as you know, in the Senate, that the Senate has limited powers. The Senate has very important powers, but they're limited, they're not Executive powers. They may have the impact of Executive powers under certain, very specific circumstances. But, what we're engaged in, is a war to defeat an enemy! The enemy is that which is controlling our Presidency, our Executive branch. And what we've seen demonstrated in the case of Louisiana, and the effect of Katrina, is that without controlling the Executive branch, that is, getting it out from the control of what controls it now, this country doesn't have a chance! And the horror-show in Louisiana is an example of that.

So therefore, our job is to win the war! Not to try to win each battle, one at a time, because you can't win battles one at a time. You can't choose your battlefield. You've got to make your battles to win the war! You've go to defeat this administration, this Executive branch administration— now!

Every day you don't defeat it, is a crime.

Don't pick on Louisiana. Yes, that is what you complain about. That is the crime you complain about. That's right! But! What is allowing that to continue? You allow this Presidency to stay in power! Every day you allow this Presidency to stay in power, you are condoning that sin, that crime. And there's nothing we can do, if we don't force this Presidency to change its behavior! Therefore, what merciless acts are you performing against this Presidency? I would say, the thing to do, is pull Cheney out and throw him in the rubbish bin, and you will find a wonderful improvement in a lot of things, including the state of Louisiana.

Freeman: I'm going to take one more question, right now, from Capitol Hill, and then we'll take some questions from people here. And then maybe we'll come back to the questions from Capitol Hill—but, this one is from a New Yorker and I'm biased.

It says: "Lyn, I was born and raised in New York, and I've served a good number of years here in Washington, and that kind of toughens you up. There's no question that I've thrown my share of kidney punches, and I've taken my share, too. But I have to tell you, that nothing I've ever done or experienced has brought the kind of artillery barrage down on my poor head, than even the hint that I might be collaborating with you. [laughter] And this is despite the fact that so much of what you say is obviously correct.

"Now, I've posed this question to many of your associates, and they've given me a variety of answers, all of which are quite reasonable. But I wanted to pose this question to you, because I want you to answer it for me. My question is this: Who the hell are you?" [explosive laughter] He says, "Who the hell are you? And what have you done to these people that makes them so thoroughly committed to denying you a seat at the table?" [ovation]

LaRouche: Well, I think there's an adequate supply of autobiographical information about me, supplied by me, and a few of my friends, which is reliable information. There may be a few blanks to be filled in here or there. There's no difficulty in getting those blanks filled in if they're identified.

But, the point is, is that, I'll tell you what the fear is: It goes way back—I was one of the guys who was angered by Truman and McCarthy, Joe McCarthy. And I stuck my neck out, in a bunch of cases where McCarthy was running a raid, because in 1948 I knew that this thing was gone . Already, when I came back from military service to the United States, I saw it was a different country. It had been destroyed by Truman and what Truman represented. This was no longer my country, this was a piece of filth. And we were being destroyed. And I saw people who had had courage in warfare, lose their guts under pressure from their wives, "get along, learn to get along, capitulate." I saw people crawl —people I had respected, who I thought were fighters in warfare, and they were cowards at home! Heroes on the battlefield, cowards at home. I saw this. It disgusted me.

But then, 1948, it reached a point, we were morally destroyed , 80% of our people were morally destroyed. They had submitted to Trumanism. McCarthy was not even then a problem. The problem was Truman ! And the magic word to say, is "Truman"! Now, McCarthy was nothing but a Communist candidate from Wisconsin. He was elected by the support of the Communist Party directly to the Senate. He went in, and for most of his first term, he was called the Pepsi-Cola Kid, because he was a lobbyist for the sugar interest, the sugar lobby in the Senate. That's his function. Then, he was coming to the end of his term, his six-year term, and he was approached by the internal security apparatus which was left over from Teddy Roosevelt's time, and from Charles Bonaparte who was the founder of the National Bureau of Investigation where the internal security apparatus—which was actually run by New York bankers and law firms—this crowd, through Walsh, went to McCarthy and told him, and Roy Cohn (who's really a charming fellow!) went and told McCarthy that his future lay in picking up on this anti-Communist stuff, to be the successor to Truman.

And so, he became a menace. And he began running operations, including targets who were people I knew. So, I just intervened and picked up a few people, and defended them, because I was there—no other reason, I was just there; somebody had to do something. So, I began becoming a publicist in defense of some of these guys who were targets of McCarthy. And this continued until Porter from Michigan and others intervened, with Eisenhower's backing to stop this process. But, in that period, I made myself an enemy in the internal security apparatus which was centered in the Justice Department, officially, but it was actually the New York law firms, and that type of group.

So, it went along. And then they tried to play a game with me, again, in the late 1950s, when I was working as a consultant. And they ran operations. They ran operations, they broke up my first marriage with that kind of operation, FBI type of operations all over the place, going to everybody I was working with; that sort of thing.

I was on the list, on the hit list.

And then, in 1971, when the system collapsed, as an economist since the beginning of the 1960s, I had been forecasting that if the policies that Arthur Burns had represented under Eisenhower, were continued in the 1960s, that by the middle of the 1960s, we would have to expect a series of crises, international monetary crises, financial crises, which would lead to, if continued, to a breakdown crisis of the Bretton Woods system. Now, most economists of that period who were publishing in various institutions, said this was ridiculous. They all toed the line: The built-in stabilizers would prevent any crash from ever happening again.

Well, then you had in 1967-68, you had a beginning of a breakdown. You had the collapse—the British were the first to pull down the system—and you had the breakdown of the monetary system in 1967 with the pound collapse; then that led immediately to the dollar collapse of January through March 1st of 1968. And they were still saying, "the built-in stabilizers."

So, 1971, I had made quite a bit about getting the word around among this revolting bunch of young people at universities, about this problem. Everyone was saying "Wha! He's crazy! He's crazy! Never happen, never happen—built-in stabilizers! Built-in stabilizers! Built-in stabilizers!" Like shark fins or something.

So, then suddenly on the 15th of August, 16th of August also, Nixon dropped the Bretton Woods system. And the following year, used George Shultz to collapse the Bretton Woods system internationally.

Now, at that point, I had a debate, which was forced, because, I began referring to all of these economists who had said I was wrong, as "quackademics." Particularly university economists. And I began calling them quackademics, "Quack, quack, quack, quackademics!" Hmm? And I said, if anyone wanted to prove that they weren't a quackademic, they could debate me on the question. And they grumbled and mumbled, and "Mrmrmrhhrhh."

And then they decided that they had a guy, who was coming in from England, who was considered the world's leading Keynesian, Abba Lerner, who was then working as an extraordinary professor at the Queens College—very extraordinary. So, he was willing to debate.

So, I had attacked Lerner, as advocating a Schachtian policy, that is the policy of the Nazis, for Brazil—which he'd done. So, we came to Queens College. There's a large assembly there, because it had been a cause célèbre . And we had a little debate there, and he kept ducking the issue.

And finally, at the end, he broke down. He said, "But! If the German Social Democracy had accepted the policies of Schacht, Hitler would not have been necessary ." Exact words, "Hitler would not have been necessary."

End of debate.

At that point, the head of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was the Congress for Deep Obscenity, headed by Sidney Hook, said that I had made myself a very credible proponent. That therefore, I would never be allowed access to public representation again , or debate with any economist, again.

That was enough.

Then other things happened that I was involved in. So, I was already on a list of the real right-wing in this country, which is the Congress for Culture Freedom—which I used to call the Sexual Congress for Cultural Freedom.

So, then, in 1975-76, particularly '76, I got ahold of a document, a primary document, which indicated that Brzezinski's Trilateral Commission, if they got Carter elected, were going to stage a thermonuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. So I publicized this, in a Presidential campaign, an independent Presidential campaign, in 1976. And this caused Brzezinski to hate my guts, and as a matter of fact, he had a special hit squad that went out to get at me in that period.

So, then, it came on, and in the meantime I'd done some other things. And then, we defeated, in a sense, Bush in New Hampshire—which Bush has always hated me, because he blames me for his losing the Presidential nomination in the New Hampshire primary. But, in any case, in this period, I was talking to Ronald Reagan, who then became President. I went down to Washington to meet with the Reagan team, the incoming team during that transition period, and I began discussing with certain people in the Reagan Administration who were friendly types, about various things. And the point was, they were saying, "what's your agenda? What's your agenda? What's your agenda?" You've probably heard the spin from various people in that way before. So, I told them.

And so, in the meantime, we had an approach from a Soviet representative who tried to approach the Reagan Administration through me. So I had immediately reported the facts of this to the Reagan Administration, and through that the intelligence services asked me to pick up on the response to the Soviet government. And I said, I would do it on the recommendation of the U.S. government, if I was able to have certain conditions, and to say what I believed. So, this was the genesis of the official SDI, which occurred in 1981-82. So, I began negotiating with the Soviet Union, in the sense of an exploratory discussion of principally this idea of a Strategic Defense Initiative. At the same time, we were organizing with the French military, the German military, the Italian military, and much of our own military on this policy—as well as with scientists; and we had a large organization of leading scientists internationally who were working with me on this thing.

So, then on March 23rd, '83, President Reagan announced the SDI as a proposal in his name, to Andropov, who turned it down flat. And I had warned the Soviets, that if the President made the proposal and they were to turn him down publicly, that the Soviet Union would collapse within about five years for economic reasons. Because, I knew what their military policy was, and I knew they couldn't sustain it. They would collapse in about five years, because I knew the problems in their economy: And they collapsed in about six.

So, as a result of this, after Reagan was turned down, at the end of March '83, beginning of April, the operation against me in the United States went beyond belief! Resulting in several assassination attacks, including 400 people deployed around my residence in Northern Virginia, and a special team with heavy weapons and armored vehicles intended to come in and kill me at night, or in the morning. It didn't happen, because the White House intervened to prevent it. But this was just before President Reagan met with Gorbachov, who had been asking for my head, publicly, in Reykjavik. So, the point was, they said, "He goes to prison, or we kill him!"

I went to prison. Clinton got me out.

That's the reality. Now, in all this time, George Bush Sr. hates my guts. But, that's sort of a compliment you know, because, I mean, when a guy who you know is kind of stupid—he's not crazy like his son, but he's one of the dumbest men that ever got to high office in the United States. The guy is really dumb. His father was clever and evil; he's dumb and sort of evil, as a dumb man can be; the son is psychotic and evil. I mean—this is a dynasty on the way down! [laughter]

So, this has been the situation. Now, the enemy knows who I am. I know who I am. Many people who should know, don't seem to know seem to know who I am, even though the evidence is all there. I'm an opponent of fascism: The fascists happen to be the international financier cartel, which put Hitler into power, or attempted to do so; which broke with Hitler because he was going to go west, instead of eastward first; and as soon as Roosevelt was dead, they began to go against the United States, again. I know these guys. These are typical powerful financial centers in Europe and the United States: They hate my guts, and they're afraid of me. And they're afraid of my influence upon political processes. To them, I'm worse than the devil—as a matter of fact, they're on the side of the devil, that's why they think that.

But, that's the long and short of it. I mean, there are other details of this thing, but that is the essence of the history of this problem: They are afraid of me, because of what I've demonstrated I've been able to accomplish or nearly accomplish on a number of occasions. Therefore, they're scared. They're afraid that people who listen to me, might win. That's what frightens them. [loud applause]

Freeman: Actually, it's increasingly the case in Washington, D.C. that any time anybody does anything potent, they're accused of having suffered a "Lyndon LaRouche moment."

I'm going to take some questions from some of the people here, especially some of the people who have traveled from distant places to participate in today's activity. Valery Nevels, from Flint, Michigan UAW. Do you want me to read this question, or do you want to ask it yourself? Want me to read it?

Q: "Mr. LaRouche, Congress created the loopholes that allowed the corporations to rape our pension funds, and to do it legally by the laws of the land. Globalization of our manufacturing base, and service organizations that provide no tax revenue. Therefore, my question to you is, is Congress ready to forgo their retirement and health-care benefits in their pursuit to please the special interest groups that feed their political pockets? They can't seem to get blood from a turnip. What is your solution to this problem?"

LaRouche: Well, we've got two steps to that solution: The first one we're making some progress on. Up until the summer of last year, the Democratic Party was not for Roosevelt. They were for the "new ways," they were for globalization and other things of that type. But beginning with the Convention in Boston, because of the activity of our youth organization up there in particular, there was a change in circles in the Democratic Party. The effect of this was realized at the end of August of that summer, after about a month had been wasted by the Kerry campaign, and they were going to start the Kerry campaign seriously, which was a little bit too late. But, we were brought in, I was brought in indirectly into advising the campaign. And we did a pretty good job. It wasn't enough; it was too late, and too little.

But, in this process, then we had a turn toward FDR, which was expressed rather vigorously in a sense by Edwards on a practical level in the campaign; and by Kerry in some degree, although I thought Kerry was a little bit late on this stuff. But, then, after the election, when we had this meeting, this webcast in November, we had a turn where a significant number of Democrats were rallied, and decided they were going to go on an FDR approach.

And we had very specific recommendations on how to deal with the issue of the inauguration of the President, we considered not exactly properly elected. Because of vote suppression and other considerations. And we did it around the issue—we knew that Bush was going to try to loot Social Security, which was part of the welfare policy.

Now, that worked, because the Democratic Party did mobilize around the Social Security issue. We did, for the time being, defeat the Bush Administration on the attempt to loot and rape Social Security. The issue has not gone away. But it did not mean we were able to stop the looting of private pensions, which was already in full swing. And the bankrupting of entities, which had contracts, private contracts—I was always opposed to these private contracts, these private pension funds that people could invest in, because I knew they were intrinsically insecure. If you're going to have a pension, you want an institution behind it, which is going to be there , and intact, at the time you need the pension. And it's better to have a low-gain Federal pension, that's going to be there, than what you think is a high-gain rate of investment on speculation, which is not going to be there. And that was already the case.

So, we weren't able to deal with that. And this came along because of this privatization of the pension system, with no guarantees, no efficient guarantees—even though there were some technical guarantees, but they weren't enforced—no efficient guarantees, of a Federal guarantee of the security of a pension. In my view, there has to be a Federal guarantee of the security of a pension, or it really is not a pension—unless it's one of these very rich things. Because, you've got to protect our citizens. I mean, the idea that people have pensions should be essentially, under our system, should be a complement to the Social Security system. So that a person who's retiring, or who's injured and retiring for injury or whatever, finds that all the combination of things on which he or she depends, are there! And they know they're secure! Whenever this thing hits, either age or injury, it's there, and they know what it is. They can plan and organize and manage their own lives. The community is not hit by disasters.

When you lose pensions, what happens in communities where pensions are suddenly wiped out? What happens to the whole community? You destroy the economy of the community, not just the person who's the victim. All the stores, the businesses, everything is affected by this.

So, my view is, we have to get to that: We have to get to a pension system, where you can have private pensions, and others, but they have to be secured with the Federal government. The Federal government has to be the guarantor. You want a pension, a private pension? The person who's creating the pension has to be accountable to the Federal government. Because, what is this? This is a provision of what? The U.S. Federal Constitution: The Preamble of the Constitution, which the right-wingers never accepted! The General Welfare: The primary authority and obligation of the U.S. Constitution is to "promote the General Welfare" for the living and their posterity. The rest of the Preamble is part of it, but this is the core of it. This is the core of modern European civilization!

This is the core of the creation of the first modern nation-state, Louis XI's France; the second modern nation-state, Henry VII's England: Both were called Commonwealth nations. The distinction was Commonwealth . That's why the term Commonwealth is attached to the founding of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The authority of government and the responsibility of government is the responsibility for the General Welfare of all of the people and their posterity. This is the principle in ancient Greek of agape . This is the principle of I Corinthians 13, of agape : The principle of the General Welfare. This is the principle of the Commonwealth which is the Commonwealth law of our Constitution. It's not a provision in the Constitution: It is the head of the Constitution! The rest of the Constitution flows from it. That's the nature of our government: That's why we have a superior form of government, to any other government on this planet, because of that provision and that tradition.

So therefore, the Commonwealth, the welfare of all of our people, of all ages, of all generations, present and future, is the responsibility of the Federal government—and it is the primary responsibility of the Federal government. There's only one institution in this country which has that authority, and that responsibility: And that is the Federal government!

The only remedy for this abuse, is the Federal government to enact the laws, and enforce the laws, and make the arrangements under law, under which this should be done. We must have a system, in which the assurance of the health care, and the General Welfare of other aspects, for the entire population is a matter of the Federal government as a right of every citizen of the United States, and a right of every member of the United States, whether a citizen or not. The Federal government is the guarantor. [applause]

And therefore, let us not accept the injustice which has occurred. Let us direct our government, to craft the forms of law and institutions which will make this principle a reality. [applause]

Freeman: This is another question from the UAW. This is from Tracy Pervus [sp] from Saginaw. "Lyn, do you believe that the UAW is doing enough, both legally and in Congress, against Steve Miller and the whole situation with the Delphi bankruptcy, as well as the plight of the Big Three as a whole?"

LaRouche: No! (laughter) This is a political fight. Any threat to the General Welfare is a political issue. It is a Federal, political issue. If you are going to win this you are not going to negotiate and have the Federal government sit there and make faces at the enemy. You are going to bring the full power of the Federal government in, to awe the enemy. And say, you guys are going to sit here—remember some of these labor negotiations that some of you people have known, where they say, you sit here, and you keep sitting here until you come up with an answer. We're sitting here. We're the government. We're sitting here at the other end of the table. You guys talk, but you don't get away from here until you come up with an answer! And, the trade union movement, at its best, understood that. You make it stick.

Now the point is, the labor movement is weak. The unions are weak, because the economy is collapsing. They don't have alternative jobs to run to. They don't have the ability to withstand long strikes. Even though the corporations don't either. They're all bankrupt already. But, you have a financial system which is determined to end the pension system , absolutely. And that's a political fight. Somebody's trying to change the character, the Constitutional character, of the United States government. That is an invading enemy. That's an enemy from outside, because these are foreigners who are doing it. And, therefore, we have to defend our country. Defending our country means the principles of our Constitution. And therefore we have to have that kind of attitude.

Now, we don't like to have the government going in with machine guns and so forth, to straighten out some corporate leaders. Kennedy did some pretty tough stuff at one point with the steel barons, but we don't like to do that. We like to keep things peaceable. And, sometimes the threat is much more effective than the action. It involves less bloodshed. And, we don't like bloodshed.

But, therefore, the point is known. The UAW has got in it some elements which are left over from some of the problems in the labor movement, the organized labor movement. Which they are not excessively afflicted with good militancy. There is good militancy, and also, shock militancy, intelligent. And, this is a Federal issue. This is a political issue. It has to be treated as a political issue, otherwise it is a loser. Why stage a war you are going to lose? Bring your artillery in.

Freeman: Lyn, there are two subjects where scores of questions are being sent in here. One addresses the overall question of the next step in the fight against Dick Cheney, and I'll try to come up with a composite of those questions in a moment.

The other topic, and the questions on this topic are coming from everyone, from members of Congress to members of the Youth Movement, to people whom I can't identify, who are sending in questions over the internet. And it's on various questions of education. I really can't summarize those questions, so what I'm going to do since one of those questions is from someone here, I'm going to call Lewis du Pont Smith to the microphone and let him ask Lyn his question.

Smith: By the way, I'm from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (applause) and just to remind some of you who may not know this, I was involved in some collaborative efforts with Lyndon LaRouche back in the '80s and '90s. And, one of those efforts was that Lyndon LaRouche and his wife stepped in to be my best man and matron of honor in a wedding in Rome, Italy. I'm here with my wife, Andrea, and we're still here to celebrate that. Also, Lyn, one thing you didn't mention, which is one of the reasons they went after Lyndon, was because he and his collaborators went after a gang of evil financiers who have been behind the dope trade and the drug money laundering. And that's where I came in to help finance a book, a famous book on the dope trade, called Dope, Inc. . And the same gang went after my family to dry up those funds by taking me to court and doing a bunch of operations. I do have to say that after that period of years, I did reconcile with my family, which is a miracle. But, still one of the proudest moments was my direct collaboration with Lyndon LaRouche. And, I am even more proud now after having heard this fine presentation.

But Lyn, I wanted to ask you something, being a former teacher myself, and having come down with a former teacher, we were discussing on the way down, this crisis in education which you had mentioned, as well as the crisis in science. We were discussing the essential conflict between Plato and Aristotle. Maybe this question will have to lead to a book by yourself or your associates, or a manual on the principles of Classical education or the fundamental conflict between Plato and Aristotle, in such areas as scientific method, philosophy, theology, and education in general. And, I would ask you if you could try and summarize and get to the kernel of this conflict between Plato and Aristotle, because I didn't feel that I was really up to the task to adequately answer this question, certainly in a car ride down. I think you are probably better than anyone that I know, in the world, who can get to this conflict. Going all the way back to your Campaigner article on the "Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." It keeps coming up in so many different areas. If you could address that, I'd really appreciate it.

LaRouche: The issue is creativity. Prior to Aristotle, and prior to Plato, actually, there was a movement in Greece, which was actually sparked from Egypt, which became modern science. The people were primarily called the Pythagoreans. Thales was also part of the same package. Solon was part of the same package, and others.

Now, the discovery of mathematics, as a competent mathematics, as opposed to what's taught in schools today, was done by the Pythagoreans. And, it was based on the difference between man and a beast. And, the difference between Aristotle and Plato is the difference between a man and a beast. Because, in Aristotle, as in the case of Claudius Ptolemy, there is no creativity allowed in the human mind. Ingenuity, so forth, but no creativity. Creativity is—for example, we use this example of the discovery by Archytas of the doubling of the cube, by construction. Now that contains a central theme in mathematics, that goes to the question of, you know the three things in mathematics about the rational, the irrational, and the transcendental series. From the Aristotelean standpoint, this is treated actually as a problem in arithmetic. In Classical physical science it is treated as a problem of geometry. The problem in geometry is quite clear. All modern science, effective modern science, including the work of Gauss, and those that followed, Riemann, is based on this.

What this amounts to, the issue is, that if you deny, or obscure, the nature of the creative act, that is, obscure the way in which the creative act occurs, obscure the way in which you can understand the difference between a creative act and just a normal sort of act, mental act, then you have destroyed the essence of the nature of humanity. You don't really know the difference between a man and a monkey, except a man may talk faster, and articulate a little bit better.

But the creative powers of the mind which are the distinction of the man from the beast, the man from all beasts, is creativity. In the Pythagoreans and Plato, creativity is the central feature. In Aristotle, the existence of creativity is denied. What is allowed is description, of what is seen and what is interpreted after being seen. But the idea of creativity is denied.

And, that's the problem in education generally today: the denial, in the educational program, there is no provision for creativity.

What we are doing with the youth movement, as many of them know, they do it, is to actually go through the experience, of experiencing the act, the creative acts, in terms of the most elementary principles in the Pythagorean method of geometric construction, and applying these to some of the more sophisticated work in science. And, we find that young people who do this, have a better understanding of mathematics than people who are getting doctoral degrees today from universities. Because you eliminate the middle man. You eliminate going through the garbage to try to find out the answer at the back of the book. You actually know what you are talking about. And, most people who graduated from university, when they are talking about science, they may pass, they may be skilled, they may know how to do the job, but they're not scientific thinkers. The scientific thinkers are the ones who can create.

And, this issue is creativity. I've written a lot about this. And we've got a lot of paper on this, a lot of description of the details of these experiments and so forth, a lot of these pedagogicals, and so forth. But that's the difference. What I've done is revived it. It's been there all along. We just put it together. We made a movement around doing that. So now we have a Platonic movement again. (applause)

Freeman: Before I read the next question, while we still have everybody gathered in the room, if at the end of this session all LYM members and youth guests would please meet in the lobby to discuss tonight's deployment. I understand we have an appointment with Mr. Cheney tonight. We have an appointment—I don't think he's agreed to it. But, since this is our town, we think he should hear from us.

Lyn, the next question is from Kofi Web [sp], who is an aspiring future leader from Ghana. He says, "Lyn, how do you help Africa when the last 50 years have seen all colonial states controlled by colonialists, to actually become more evil than the colonialists themselves? African nations are given aid which mostly ends up in Western banks, due to corrupt leaders and their corrupt leaders. It's just a terrible tragedy. And my question to you is, how do we shift the paradigm and ensure that this very sad trend begins to end?"

LaRouche: First of all, the policy of Africa since the middle of the 1970s has been genocide. In Sub-Saharan Africa the policy is genocide. Now, so don't talk about stealing, when they are engaged in murdering! There is intentional mass murder. That's what's involved in Africa.

This policy was laid down by among others, in 1974-75 by Henry A. Kissinger in his capacity at that time when he was National Security Advisor, in National Security Memorandum 200. This policy prescribes genocide against Africa. The argument is as follows: Premise #1: "The raw materials of Africa belong to us ! To our future, our future needs. The Africans are using them up. Now, if we allow the Africans to develop, technologically, they will use these rare materials more rapidly, and we can not have that . If we allow their population to increase, they are going to use these raw materials more rapidly. We can not allow that. Therefore, how do we kill them?" While stealing the title to the raw materials, to make it legal. In other words, you go into a man's claim, "You got a claim, that's a very good claim there, OK. That's your claim, huh? BANG! You're dead, I got the claim." That's the method.

Now, therefore, when people talk about stealing from Africans, that really is not the crime. Genocide is the crime. Which creates a special problem for us, because, how do you deal with Africa? You know, people in the United States who come from African descent, they often tend to think that they know something about Africans, because they come from African descent. They know less about Africans than I do! And I've got some Indian in me, but I haven't got any African descent. I've got some Algonquin Indian up there somewhere, but no African descent that I know of. I could have some African descent, because of my fascination with Egypt, somebody might say is an African taint or something like that. But they all think they know something about Africa, because they think they can project back from the United States, from African Americans in the United States, and they think they know about Africa. They don't know a damned thing about Africa. When they go there, they go as tourists! They see it as tourists. They don't see it from the inside , of the inside of the skin of the African. That is not very good.

So, anyway, the problem is not the money. The money goes. When you shoot the guy to take his claim, the fact that you didn't pay him enough is not the question, not the issue at all. And that's the problem.

So therefore, the policy is, we have to recognize—and George Bush Sr., George Bush 41, is part of the crowd who's engaged in this murder! He's involved in a gold operation which was seized and taken as a result of the Great Lakes War, in part of the Congo, a gold mine. You had the Reverend Pat Roberts, down here in Virginia, not so reverend, "Diamond Pat." Again, diamonds in Africa, stealing. But this is like the carpetbagging coming in. But, they are killers primarily. And the objective is to depopulate Africa of Africans. Genocide. Period.

And therefore the remedies have to be accorded. The remedies, I've said before are, number one: to stop it. Number two: Don't believe somebody who tells you from Africa, that the Africans only need a little bit of money and they can develop. That's bunk. You give some Africans a little bit of money and they'll spend it on themselves. You've got to make sure that the money goes—. Because it is a desperate situation, there's very little they can do.

You want to take a case of Africa, take Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is persecuted by the British. Zimbabwe is the last vestige of the British former colonialization in Southern Africa. It is formerly known as Northern Rhodesia. And, in there, the guarantee was, that the native Africans would be able to have farms, good farms, not the British. But, the British, in violation of all agreements have held all of these farms, and when the governments of Zimbabwe have tried to do something to improve the access of the African to the land, foreigners have claimed that this is an unjust, tyrannical government, because it interferes with the rights of these British predators, who are in there, persecuting them.

So, therefore, what we have to do is recognize the problem, and recognize that a cure has to be provided. But to recognize that under these conditions you can not give them "just a little bit of money," or loan, or help, or give them some inspiration, or latitude. You've got to move in, in a big way. You've got to create the basic economic infrastructure, which will be a starting point for the Africans' ability to solve their own problems. But you've got to give them that first step up or they won't make it.

Freeman: I'm going to save this Cheney question for last. Before that, we have what has been identified as a cultural question, from a member of the House of Representatives. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, I confess that I am a member of that generation that you call Baby Boomers." It's kind of hard to cover up when you have to print your birthdate in the Congressional directory. He says, "From a clinical standpoint and a cultural one, I understand much of what you are saying, and I can't say that I disagree with you. But from a personal standpoint I have to tell you, I'm really not such a bad guy. As a young teenager, I participated in Dr. King's movement, and although I didn't agree with the Vietnam War and didn't volunteer to go, I did serve when I was called. Since then I've spent my life dedicated to public service. Do you really believe that my entire generation is irredeemable?"

LaRouche: I'm not proposing a mass execution [laughter] of Baby Boomers! And they happen to have performed one function: They produced the youth generation. I don't know how they did it, considering the routes they've taken. And, I don't know if the children of the younger generation know exactly which parent is what, because of the marriage habits. By changing Kleenex tissues, they change mates. It's fashionable.

What's happened—you should read very carefully what I've written on this subject. On the one hand you have a pestilence, you have a generation which has adopted certain characteristics. Now this is like dealing with a drunk. And, you don't give any sympathy to a drunk about their drunkenness, do you? Don't show any sympathy to an alcoholic. If you've got an ancestor or a parent who is an alcoholic, and you find out they were beaten, they were drugged, they were forced to drink, they were forced to become drunks, and they were treated like that until they became drunks, they were held in some prison. Do you say they are not a drunk? Do you say they are not an alcoholic?

What happened was, is that essentially we have to understand this. These are victims . The Baby Boomer generation is a generation of victims. I saw it happen. I know who did it. Their parents did it. Or, their parents allowed it. I was there. I saw it happen. People born after the war, when Trumanism came in—which was a form of Nazism, or something approximating it—the generation was subjected to terror. The terror most of you don't even know what it was like. Some of you, looking around to a few faces, do remember what it was like. The change from Roosevelt to Truman, was a change from Paradise to Hell, relatively speaking. You saw people, as I said I served with, when they returned, who I thought were courageous in warfare. They turned stinking cowards, under Trumanism, the right wing in this country. Remember, the enemy was the Nazis. We had Nazis in our country, who had converted because they didn't like Hitler at a certain point—who had supported Hitler, like Prescott Bush, the grandfather of this President. He financed Hitler's rise to power! But then he turned against Hitler, because Hitler's military policy didn't suit his convenience.

But then! When the war had ended and Roosevelt had done his job, the guys who had backed Hitler went back to the same kind of objectives. And that was the Truman Administration. And people, ordinary people, who feel impotent, who may be courageous in crowds and armies, and so forth, in warfare, when stuck, and feeling that they are isolated individuals, and victims of what's happening to them, like the right-wing terror which struck the United States under Truman. You don't know how much better it was under Eisenhower than under Truman. Eisenhower's Presidency was becoming human again, after Truman, and Roy Cohn, and people like that.

So, what happened is, the children, some of you who are of that generation, who were born after 1945 in particular, say between 1945 and '50—a certain part of this population, of my generation, went into the suburbs, and they became Republicans and they worked for defense industries. And they lived in suburbia. Or, if they didn't do that, they tried to find lifestyles like that, which they saw in magazines or saw on television. And they adopted the lifestyle of the 1950s. There are books about this. There is a book called, White Collar . There is a book called The Organization Man , other books of this type from that period, that document exactly what the culture was. We created suburbia. We began to destroy our own children. And, the Baby Boomer is largely a destroyed generation.

Now, the worst were those that went to universities. And the worst Baby Boomer problem is among those in the upper 20% of family-income brackets today. Because they are the ones who had some degree of privilege. And, they were the ones who the enemy most tried to control. The core of this were the Ivy League universities of the 1960s, the late 1960s. That's where it was concentrated. Because, the idea was, if you controlled that layer, who were the pacesetters of society, you could control the entire population. And, particularly, if you repress the entire population, the lower 80%, as you know today, in politics. The big problem we have in politics today is that the lower 80% won't fight. They will riot, but they won't fight. They will annoy and nag, in order to beg for something, or to intimidate. They don't believe they are part of the system. They believe they are outside the system and they are beating at the door to try to make enough noise to get concessions, either to get someone to do something for them, or to stop doing something to them.

So, there is a beggar society, the lower 80% of our population. We made them that. They don't go to the Democratic Party meetings. They don't go to the party meetings, they're not part of the party organization. They're outside. We used to have a Democratic Party that had party organization. It's gone! You have a few people that control the party machine. You don't have a response. It's done with money now. You don't organize the people. In the old days, you organized the people, because you went from door to door. You went to your neighbors. You went to this crowd. You were in with the people. You didn't get a poll to tell you what the people were thinking. You didn't have to. You knew the people you were talking to. And, you could influence the people you were talking to.

Now, you have a small group of people who run campaigns based on large amounts of money. And, the typical guy is sitting in front of a television set, or something different—if he has the time to sit in front of the television set, and he is getting his opinion about himself from some pollsters' secondhand report.

The problem is concentrated in the upper 20% of the family-income brackets of this generation, who represented at that time a group of privilege, who, with the help of getting cheaper access to LSD and other sorts of edifying substances, became the ruling class of the country today.

At the time of the SDI, we got the SDI proposal on the table and other things, by my generation. My generation was running the country in the 1970s and 1980s, with a few older fellas kicking around. Who's running the country today? The Baby Boomer generation. What part? Well, the part that's from the upper 20% of family-income brackets, especially the top 10%. They are the makers and shakers of policy.

And, what's the greatest fear of the politician? Not access to voters? No! Access to money! The politicians are controlled by money, not by voters. And, the voters know it. And the voters throw their loyalty to the politician which is based on that reciprocal relationship.

We have to change politics in the United States.

But, you have to know, and understand, "Baby Boomer" is not a dirty word, it is a sociological category, of a phenomenon. What you are looking at when I am talking about these things, I'm talking about two things: The upper 20% is the most victimized, and there are a few exceptions to it, but not many. You are also dealing with a dynamic process. It is called group behavior—it's rat-like behavior many times. People behave, not because they think something individually, but because they are part of a group and they go with the group-think, a mob response, a mass response. And, if you are a victim of a mass attack, by a mass response, you submit. You duck. You don't fight. You put your head in a hole, hide someplace. You don't fight.

I am of a different type. I know you have to fight. Someone tries to do that to me, I fight. That's why I get into so much trouble. I fight. Other people will say, or the wife will say, "come on, don't do it, don't fight them, don't fight them. Learn to get along with them. Learn to get along with them." Mothers advise their children, "Learn to get along with it. Learn to put up with it. Swim with the tide." And, the Baby Boomers, therefore, control the ideology, from the top down, of an entire generation. People who are not of this disposition submit, because, they say, "we have to get along. We're poor, we are not powerful. The people who have power, the people we depend upon, the people we have to propitiate. The aphids we have to stroke, they are controlling us." And, that's what the problem is. And, people have to free themselves from that.

The problem is when you get a person who is a member of the Baby Boomer generation and they try to go against the Baby Boomer conditioning, it's like coming out of a brainwashing. They come to the edge of doing something that frightens them, and they start screaming, yelling. They are terrified. They're terrified by what happened to them. It's gutless.

And, the only cure is, is some poor fool like me, who shows enough courage to get somebody else to do it, too. (applause)

Freeman: Lyn, the last question is kind of a compilation of questions that come in different forms, from Democrats in the House of Representatives, from one Democrat in the Senate, from a number of the labor people who are here, and also from our own LYM organizers, all of whom are asking very specifically what it is that you think we have to do, in the immediate days ahead to ensure the ouster of Dick Cheney. And that's the last question that I'll ask you, but people really are looking for direction on this.

LaRouche: First of all, you have to start with a state of mind. There is no option but to get rid of Cheney, get him out, get his apparatus out, get it out. Your freedom depends upon it. The country depends upon it. Get the job done.

The responsibility for this lies, in the more immediate sense, the practical sense, with the Senate. But the Senate cannot do it alone. The Senate must do it with support.

I think we're doing a good job. If you look at what's happened, shall we say, go back to the summer of 2004. Take the evolution of the Democratic Party, what's happened in the Senate, what's happened in other institutions during that period. There has been a change. From one standpoint, the change is inadequate. We raised the question in the spring of the automobile industry collapse, and nothing was done about it. Now it's hitting, and it would be much better if we had attacked the issues then, when we had more resources to fight with, than now. So, there was cowardice, of one kind or another, in not dealing with that, which was an opportunity at that point. It was an opportunity to mobilize the people of the United States around an understanding of how an economy works.

Because the main thing is, the people of the United States do not know know how a productive economy works. It's your biggest political problem. You're trying to defend an economy, and they don't know what an economy is! They think it's a services economy. And they say, "Oh, well, the auto industry's going to go, we'll lose this. But we've got a services economy. We'll survive." That's idiocy! But they're brainwashed into believing it. So, how can they fight to keep that which they depend upon, if they don't know it's valuable.

And therefore, by staging a fight in saying that something is valuable, you know, a bunch of Congressmen say, "We've got to save this, because it's immensely valuable, We can't lose this, it's our great asset, We'll all be poor if we don't get it."

Oh, oh! You'll find people will suddenly, "That's riches? These are riches? You mean, these factories are riches, this productive power is riches? Somebody's going to take it away from us? They're going to steal our money?" They'll fight.

And so therefore, the general rule is that you look at the process, and look at the doubts along the way, and you look at the fact that a number of people in the Congress have actually made individual acts which are courageous at the time they were made, and were considered courageous acts by their colleagues at the time they made them, considered even bold —when they look back now, and say, "We did that, we did that."

So, it was actually bold action by individuals, and groups of individuals, which got us as far as we got. And therefore you can not be contemptuous of what was accomplished. We accomplished miracles, by looking back from where we were before. You look at where we were last summer, that is, the summer of 2004, and where we are today: we have accomplished a miracle! We've almost got this guy out! We've almost rescued our nation! We just haven't done it yet. We're on the verge of being able to do so.

It will take the same kind of boldness, which has been mustered fortunately from time to time, over these past months—more of it, more people showing ingenuity, more people showing creativity, more people showing courage. We'll win! My concern is the general command, to get the focus. You know there's always something that's decisive in winning a war. I'm not much for war, but you have to know about war because some people will bring it on you. You have to make the difference between fighting a battle, and trying to win a battle, and winning a war. And not as I said at the beginning today—not just winning a war, but winning the peace. Winning a durable, secure society beyond stopping the war, overcoming the war.

And you've got to guide your policy going into a war, with the objective of peace in mind. You must always control...

For example, take the case of a couple of generals. Take MacArthur, in particular, General MacArthur in the Pacific. Oh, the right wing hated him; oh, they hated him. He was a complicated person, in a sense, but he was also a general, he was a real general, one of the most brilliant commanders we've ever had. And what he did: with the least resources, over the greatest distance, in the shortest time, with the fewest battles, and the least loss of life, the greatest victory that anyone had ever dreamed of, was won in the Pacific war by MacArthur, under his leadership.

Other things were done in the Pacific, which were a pure waste of time. Iwo Jima was a waste of time. You could leave the islands alone. They weren't going anyplace. The Japanese on the islands weren't going any place. Under MacArthur we isolated this problem. We took the majority of the Japanese army, which had dispersed itself in all these places, and we isolated it. It couldn't move! Because of the victory at Midway. We had established hegemony in the Pacific. We had to win.

"Leave them alone! Don't annoy them! Just let them sit there. They're not going any place."

The Japanese have to worry about supporting them. They're not going anyplace. You don't have to bomb Japan. They don't have to get in there. That wasn't necessary. You had already won the war. Reap the harvest of victory. Don't add something to it. Get the victory, with the least damage, with the least hostility, with the least hatred, as quickly as possible. And MacArthur did it.

Now, warfare is never pretty, it's never nice. It is never anything but mean. But do it the right way.

Now, we're not fighting a war in that sense—at least we hope not. But we do have to apply the principles of strategy in warfare, and the strategy of warfare is what is the peace that you're going to bring about? How do you know it will work? How do you make it work? How do you get to the point that the peace is brought into being, at which point the war stops?

The war is simply something you go through, like walking through a swamp, to get to a destination. Your objective is not to walk through a swamp. Your objective is to get to the destination. And therefore, if you have a clear view of where we're going, why, and to what objective, and you're willing to fight, because you know it's not just your life, not your pleasure, that the coming generations, for two or three generations to come at the least, depend upon your winning that struggle, and establishing that kind of peace, you have the courage then, to put your life in jeopardy, if necessary, to bring that peace about.

If you're out there to win a fight, how can you put your life in jeopardy for a mere fight? It's an ego trip. You put your life in jeopardy, put your resources in jeopardy, only when you see the consequences of the peace, as the people who fought dangerously to establish this republic. It's the objective of the peace, the durable peace, which is the purpose of strategy. Keep that in mind, and don't flinch. We can win.