Bringing the Nation Back to a Sense of Mission

From Volume 2, Issue Number 47 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Nov. 25, 2003

This Week You Need To Know

LaRouche Town Meeting in St. Louis:

Bringing the Nation Back to a Sense of Mission

Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche addressed a packed town meeting in St. Louis Nov. 18, hosted by three Missouri state legislators: Rep. Juanita Head Walton, Rep. Esther Haywood, and former Rep. Quincy Troupe. Representative Haywood introduced LaRouche as "a leading critic of the Iraq War," adding that, "he has also led the fight to restore the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. His number one goal, is to reopen public hospitals, as well as repealing the HMO bill, and begin putting millions of people back to work in necessary infrastructure and manufacturing. He's an economist, an international political figure."

Here is an edited transcript of LaRouche's opening remarks.

Thank you.

I shall just make a preliminary comment, first of all, on what I've been doing, since Jan. 1, of 2001, when it was evident that the election outcome was rigged, prematurely, in order to make poor George W. Bush, Jr. the President, whether he were elected or not. I think, frankly, that both candidates should have lost the election, and Gore did a better job of losing the election, than George W. Bush did.

Since that time, it was obvious to me, which way events were going to go. I gave a series of website and similar kinds of addresses to a wide audience, beginning January of that year, before the inauguration of Bush. And, among the other things I said, I spoke of two things we had to look for in the immediate two years ahead: First of all, although George Bush did not create the present depression—he rather inherited it from Clinton. But, since he was a foolish man, and a stupid one, he was obviously not going to stop the depression, and it was going to become worse—and it did.

I also said, that under these conditions, if we study the history of the world, notably what happened during the 1930s, we note, that in times of great financial crisis, of certain systemic characteristics, such as the present one, there is a danger that certain financial interests which control central banks, independent central banks and similar institutions, will be at the point that they will say, "We want our debts collected—even if it means killing people." The tendency of government, to the extent that it is representative government, is to say, "That's fine. But, we must defend the people first. People come first." And therefore, there is a collision, between a certain type of financier interest and representative government, in which various kinds of tyrannies tend to erupt, at the behest of financier interests, as happened in 1789, when the British used a particular cult, called the Martinists, to organize what became known as the French Revolution. And this was done in banking interests, at that time.

Since that time, there has been a frequent coincidence between major financial crises, and the outbreak or threatened outbreak of terrible wars. This was the characteristic of the 20th Century.

The Spread of American Influence

You had the rise of Germany—under American influence! Very important: that, in 1877, Bismarck changed the law of Germany, based on the influence of the leading American economist of the period, Henry C. Carey, and on the influence of the writings of a person, who had similar views, Friedrich List. And, this resulted in the transformation of Germany, with a great industrial development, agro-industrial development, where Germany emerged as a major power.

During the same period, Mendeleyev, the great chemist, who had been in Philadelphia to join the Centennial celebration of the founding of the United States, went back to Russia and persuaded Czar Alexander II to proceed with the industrialization of Russia, led by the creation of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was modelled on the experience of the United States, in our transcontinental rail system.

Similar influences—Japan, for example, at about the same time, was also influenced, from the United States—Lincoln's model, the Henry C. Carey model—and made a transformation into the first modern industrial society in Asia.

So, at this point, the British Empire was threatened. It was threatened from continental Eurasia, as well as from the Americas. The rise of independent, powerful nations, in Europe—nations committed to the development of the people of these nations, through industrial and agricultural development, and scientific development—represented a challenge to the British Empire. And therefore, the then-acting King of England, the Prince of Wales (his mother was off taking drugs in Scotland, and doing other things, and being hauled out for state occasions, like a stuffed dummy from the closet), and he was actually running things, as the acting King of England. He organized a plot to put the nations of continental Europe at each others' throats. This became known as World War I. So, that crisis, the financial crisis of that period, as reflected by the 1905-1907 international financial crisis, led into World War I.

As a result of the Versailles System, which was insane from the beginning, again, by 1928, the European international financial system was faced with a new, systemic crisis—not a cyclical depression, but a systemic breakdown crisis. At that point, leading banking interests, in the United States and Britain, in particular, moved to copy what they had done in Italy by bringing Mussolini into power then, by bringing Hitler into power in Germany. This was done, largely, through the financial backing from London, of Montagu Norman, the head of the Bank of England, who represented Brown Brothers interests. Brown Brothers had merged with Harriman & Co. in New York City, to form Brown Brothers Harriman.

Brown Brothers Harriman moved the money into the Nazi Party coffers, to bring Hitler back to power from bankruptcy. And then, on Jan. 30, 1933, Hitler was named Chancellor by Hindenburg, under blackmail. His son was involved in financial scandals, and that was used to bring this about. Then, the following month, Göring organized the Reichstag Fire. This was used, using emergency powers, to bring Hitler into a dictatorial position. And from that point on, World War II was inevitable. Again, coinciding with financial crises.

We're in a similar situation, today.

The Lessons of the Kennedy Assassination

Now, we've come to the point that we are now remembering what happened 40 years ago, in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, President Kennedy. Every television network is doing a feature on the Kennedy assassination. My own organization is producing, this weekend, a review of the lessons of the Kennedy assassination.

But, the Kennedy assassination was not an isolated event. It was an event which fits into the middle of this pattern I referred to, from 1789: a certain tradition, located essentially in certain financier interests, who, when faced with a financial crisis, will tend to tear down the walls of the temple, rather than accept government's role in defending the general welfare of the population. That's what happened then.

But, look back. Look at some other incidents, to understand how we got into the present mess, which threatens us today, worldwide and inside the United States. Look, in that same period, at something else: 1962, October of 1962. Remember, some of you are old enough to remember, when most people were in barrooms, look for God, because they thought the world was going to blow up, with a thermonuclear exchange, any moment, any day. This preceded the Kennedy assassination. The Kennedy assassination was followed, within less than a year, with the outbreak of the Indo-China War, which was a real bummer.

But go back a little bit further. Go back to the end of World War II, which some of us in this room today remember. Some of us were either in service, in that period, or were children of people who were in service. What happened? We were optimistic, at first, going into war. We took people from the farms, and from the streets, from the poor, and so forth; we put them into military training, between 16 and 17 million people, were under military training, at that time, or in service.

We became optimistic: We took people from the swamps, and from the slums, and we trained them. We lined them up in a company street, coming in from the bus. They dropped their duffle bags on the street, and you tried to line them up, and you said, "We just lost World War II." But then, something came out of this, after 16 weeks and more of training—and we produced a force which was not the greatest combat force in that period, but which was the greatest logistical force, strategic-logistical capability. And it was through our strategic-logistical capability, that we came out of the war, having recovered from the Depression, as the greatest power, the greatest productive power on this planet.

But then, it turned bad, before the end. V-E Day was a day of great rejoicing in the United States. But V-J Day was not a day of great rejoicing. Why? Because the United States, under Truman, had done something evil. People didn't understand what it was, but they smelled the evil. For no sufficient military reason, whatsoever, President Truman ordered the dropping of the only two nuclear bombs in the U.S. arsenal, on the civilian populations of two Japanese cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Shortly after that, the so-called "Iron Curtain" myth was created. And the world was back at war, when the war was scarcely over.

In order to motivate this war, this hysteria, under Truman, a right-wing witch-hunt was launched inside the United States. People lost their courage. At the same time, the Roosevelt economic program was shut down, temporarily, and there was a very serious recession, in the United States, in 1946 and early 1947.

So, the veteran, who had come, in the middle of the war, to a position of optimism about history, about the United States, was plunged into something else: the horror of nuclear weapons! The threat of a war, which would involve nuclear weapons! And, a return, from the upturn under Roosevelt, to a recession, a major recession. Pessimism. Fear. People turned against people. Everyone was afraid you were going to turn the other one in as a communist, or something like that. This became known later—first, it was known as "Trumanism"; then, it was known as "McCarthyism."

The Trouble with Truman

During this period, the Truman Administration's policy, was to launch preventive nuclear war, to establish world government, under British and American domination. The problem was, we didn't have the nuclear arsenal yet. We had just spent, and dropped, the only two bombs we had. And the crank-up of significant production of nuclear weapons, was delayed. Also, the question of the development of something beyond the B-29, as a delivery system, for delivering these bombs, presumably on the Soviet Union, was not yet provided.

But, we were hovering on the intent, assuming we had an Anglo-American monopoly on nuclear weapons, on the intent, to threaten to use, or to use nuclear weapons to bring about Anglo-American imperial world domination. And this was used, this terror, internal terror, which came to be known at the end of the '40s as McCarthyism, turned people against people, neighbor against neighbor. This was the rot, which came in. But then, at that point, the Soviet Union was the first to develop an operable thermonuclear weapon. At that point, the possibility of using preventive nuclear arsenals, nuclear-fission arsenals, for preventive war, was out of the window.

Therefore, we went into a new phase. Truman was dumped. He was told not to run again. Trumanism was to be uprooted from government. And rather, a traditional military officer, General Eisenhower, was made President, in order to combat the military faction—the pro-nuclear-war faction—which had come into power under Truman, with the dropping of those bombs.

People were terrified, especially people who had scientific and related professional business careers. They tried to move into the suburbs, into the new suburbs around new industries, which were developing around the developing military industries, and related industries. They had to be careful! Make sure our children don't say the wrong thing! "Your father may lose his job!" "The FBI may get you!" And children were told, "be careful." Truth is not important. What's important, is how you are perceived—especially by repressive agencies and influences of government! There was a reign of terror that prevailed, even under Eisenhower.

Then Eisenhower came to the end of his Presidency. And he made a speech, warning about what the danger had been all along: He called it the "military-industrial complex." Which was a name for this fascist tendency, which had existed since the launching of the French Revolution—what we call "fascism" today. Dictatorship, in the interest of groups of bankers, such as the admirers of John Foster and Allen Dulles. These kinds of people—and J. Edgar Hoover. This problem.

So then, Kennedy was a promising young fellow. But he didn't have the connections to control this problem. The Bay of Pigs was an example of the problem, one of Allen Dulles's stunts, to try to get the war machine started again. And they were intent on going to thermonuclear war. They were intent on the same kind of policy, of the thermonuclear policy, which existed in the 1940s, under the nuclear preventive-war policy. So, we had the Bay of Pigs.

Then, we had the orchestration of the 1962 Missile Crisis. Do you know, do you remember, do you recall—some of you—the emotions that passed through you, in the month of October? Do you recall, some of you, who are old enough to remember: Do you recall the emotions around the time of V-E Day, and around V-J Day, after the bombs had dropped? Do you recall your emotions, your sense, when you heard that we were headed for a new war, this time with the Soviet Union? Do you recall your emotions, in 1946-47 and later, when the right-wing thing called Trumanism, later called McCarthyism, hit the country?

Do you recall people who had been courageous people in war, in the 1950s, turning into cowards? And telling their children to lie, to keep out of trouble? Instead of looking for the truth, you would look for what would get by. What would keep you out of trouble. What would advance your career. You were up for sale, morally up for sale.

Then you were given a respite, the Eisenhower years: Things were somewhat easier. Do you recall that? Some things got better.

Then, do you recall the Bay of Pigs? Weren't you afraid, at the Bay of Pigs, if you were an adult, or an adolescent child, at that point? Weren't you nervous? Particularly after what Eisenhower had said, warning against the military-industrial complex?

How did you react emotionally, with this experience? Or the experience in your family, to the Missile Crisis of October 1962?

Once you had absorbed this succession of impacts, what happened in your mind, on the day Kennedy was shot? And the cover-up went into effect? How did you react then?

How did you react, less than a year later, when President Johnson—the same President Johnson, who with an act of courage, was responsible for pushing through two pieces of civil rights legislation—one of which was partly repealed under the influence of Al Gore, the Voting Rights Act. Which was repealed by the Federal courts, under the influence of Al Gore, a great Democrat. Do you recall this process?

Now, do you understand where we are today?

Depression and War

Now, we are now faced with another financial crisis, another systemic crisis: The whole system is coming down! It's finished! Despite the great "John Snow job," from the White House: There is no recovery in progress. There is no prosperity in prospect. None! This economy in its present form is finished! When? It's not certain. But, it will be soon—unless we change.

Now, we're at the edge of war. Where has the war broken out? Cheney broke the war out, on Sept. 11, 2001. As I said, under these conditions, as I said in January, before Bush was actually inaugurated, I told a broadcast audience: You must expect the risk of a Reichstagsbrand . You must expect the same kind of thing to happen, soon, under these kinds of conditions.

And that is exactly what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

As a result of that, Cheney's policy for preventive nuclear war, a revival of the original policy of preventive nuclear war, from years ago, struck again. We're now at the Cheney policy of global, preventive, nuclear war! Against a series of countries—not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not North Korea, not Iran—but many countries, including China! And, the world outside the United States, at a high level, knows it!

The world knows that the United States is acting right now, as a war criminal! For no legitimate purpose, in violation of moral law, and natural law, it is moving toward war: criminal war, of the same degree of criminality, as we tried people for at Nuremberg. Such a criminal is Dick Cheney. Such a criminal are those associated with Cheney, we call "neo-conservatives." The President is only a fool—a usable puppet—controlled by Cheney.

That's what we're up against.

Now, look at this situation. What is the situation? Look at the military situation. Let's return then, to this question about the Kennedy assassination memorial, 40 years ago. The results of the two world wars was, the conviction was, that a conventional war would be a horror-show. World War I was a bigger horror-show, for Europe, actually, than World War II, in many respects. The understanding was, we don't fight war like that any more; particularly, you don't allow somebody to fight, because they choose to. That strategic defense is admissible, and necessary. But you don't look for war, as a instrument of policy. You look for war, only as a way of dealing with the danger of war—if it's real. And you react, only under attack, or under immediate attack.

People who came up with this nuclear weapons idea, said, "Ah! We don't have to fight conventional war any more. We don't need large armies! We don't need the consent of large populations, to be willing to go to war. Millions of people from each country, willing to go to war as soldiers—we don't need that any more. We can use superweapons! We can use air power! To deliver superweapons." And then, they came up with nuclear submarines, and big aircraft carriers: "We don't need civilian armies any more. We will use limited, professional armies, like Roman Legions under the Caesars! From many nations, who will go out and fight war for us, as professional killers, who will not ask why—they will just kill, and be killed."

Like kids trained on video-trained point-and-shoot operations, trained as soldiers. They have no judgment! They have no logistical capability. They have a weapon, with high firepower: They see something that disturbs them—they will let loose with high precision in aiming, and probably keep firing until all the ammunition is gone. Even at a puppy, or at a child.

These are not good soldiers.

Now, it became obvious then, as a result of the Missile Crisis and things before, in the 1950s, that with the development of deployable thermonuclear weapons, that we are reaching the point where a full exchange of thermonuclear capability, could virtually exterminate civilized life on this planet, if not humanity as such. So, this became known as "Mutual and Assured Destruction": We can not go to nuclear weapons. So, the policy then was, "Let us use the threat of thermonuclear war, to force nations to make concessions, political concessions, by giving up sovereignty of their governments." That was the policy which was adopted after the Missile Crisis, during the course of the 1960s and 1970s. This was the problem.

But then, after the Soviet Union collapsed, some people got the idea, "Ha! Now there is no danger, or will be soon, no danger, of a general thermonuclear deployment against the United States. There are thermonuclear weapons which might be used, but they wouldn't dare use them. Therefore, we can proceed now, in going back to various kinds of nuclear weapons, to do what had been intended back in the late 1940s, after Hiroshima: The Bertrand Russell policy of preventive nuclear warfare."

This is what we're dealing with.

Now, there are several cases of warfare, in modern history, which show this didn't work. Truman was an idiot. He was not a good person, but he also was a qualified idiot, strategically. He got around, in the Truman Administration, to playing games with Russia and the Soviet Union. He assumed, that since the Anglo-Americans had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, that he could play with various parts of the world, with no fear of any reaction from these two powers (China was not really much of a power, in a sense, at that time, except regionally). And, he made a mistake. He was wrong: As a result of his bluffing, in Asia and elsewhere, North Korea invaded South Korea, and destroyed the South Korean army, entirely; and had the U.S. troops in there, stuck around the Pusan perimeter in southern Korea. Until MacArthur did a flanking operation at Inchon.

That went on. The Korean War is still going on, in a sense, today. We have the relics of it, still, out there: unresolved war.

Indo-China: Same mistake. The United States understood, in the '60s, that the United States could proceed against North Vietnam, with relative impunity, on the basis of their estimate, which was correct in a sense, that China would not intervene forcibly, against U.S. operations against Vietnam. They miscalculated. The Soviet Union gave logistical and other advice, and assistance, to Vietnam.

Asymmetric Warfare

And they made a fundamental mistake—the same mistake that is made by Cheney and Company in Iraq today; and Afghanistan: They overlooked what is called asymmetric warfare. That under conditions in between the two levels, of conventional war and full-scale thermonuclear war, what happens when somebody tries to use superweapons to take on a country, the response will be a policy, modelled upon the advice by the Prussians—the Prussian military advice—to Alexander I against the invasion of Russia by Napoleon Bonaparte's Grande Armée. The advice, which came from von Wolzogen—who was an in-law of Friedrich Schiller—was based on the study of the works of Schiller. And the advice was: Do not attempt to make a decisive engagement, with Napoleon's Grande Armée at the Russian border. But, engage in a withdrawal action, drawing the enemy back, toward either Petersburg or Moscow, as Napoleon might choose. When Napoleon's forces had occupied Moscow, or Petersburg, blow the place up—in winter. And thus, bring about a case, in which the remaining, surviving Russian forces, and the Russian population, would fall upon Napoleon's army. And, when Marshal Ney, as the rearguard of Napoleon, came out of Russia into Poland, he said, "I am your rearguard. There are no others."

This is asymmetric warfare. Instead of accepting the warfare, on the terms proposed by the attacker, to attack from a different standpoint.

Now, in dealing with the age of nuclear warfare, the natural action is what's called "people's war": a form of asymmetric warfare based on people's war. We went into Indo-China with superweapons. The Vietnamese came against our forces with people. People-to-people. At short range, thermonuclear weapons don't work. Superweapons don't work.

We went into Iraq with the same assumption. Absolute superiority. At a point, in decisive battle, the Iraqi Army disappeared! Now, it's back, person-to-person. Over 2 million Iraqis with military training, adequate military training, back into action, surrounding the U.S. forces, which will have to leave.

So therefore, we're into that kind of situation. The world is planning to defend itself against such policies as those of Cheney. Russia is planning. China is planning. India is planning. Other parts of the world are planning what they would do, if they came under attack, under the policies of Dick Cheney.

Now, the problem I have, is none of my fellow Democrats have the guts to say that. Every one who's qualified in military training, today, who has studied the characteristics of asymmetric warfare knows exactly what I said to you right now: We have an insane government. And we have politicians on the Democratic side, who are also insane, because they don't have the guts to name the story. Do we want that kind of a world, under this kind of asymmetric policy, simply because someone behind Cheney wants to try to set up a world empire with this kind of policy?

Do we, as an American people—are we so gutless, are our politicians so worthless, that we will sit back and let this kind of politics run our country? That's the question.

Vietnamizing Our Population

Now, let's look at another aspect of this thing. I'm going to pose this problem. As I said, we're in an economic crisis. Now, what happened? How did this happen? How did we stop being the world's leading producer nation, and become the kind of junk heap, which is preying upon other nations for their cheap labor, to produce our food? And Vietnamizing our own population, with Wal-Mart?

The most important subversive enemy against the United States people and economy today, is Wal-Mart! People say, "Why do you buy at Wal-Mart? Don't you realize it's not the patriotic thing to do?"

"Yes, but I need the cheap food. I can't afford higher prices."

"Why can't you afford it?"

"Because I don't get paid enough to buy that stuff, at higher prices."

So therefore, the collapse of the actual, physical income level, of the American people, is combined with this swindle, under which Wal-Mart demands of its vendors, that they shut down employment in the United States. And instead, get their products to sell to Wal-Mart, from countries such as Mexico, China, and so forth, which supplies these from cheap labor.

So, we're now put in the position, where the American consumer is now depending upon the virtual slave labor, or cheap labor, of people in countries that are being bled—as China is making a willing sacrifice, in this case—Mexico is being bled. Other countries are being bled. We depend upon the death, this slaughter, of cheap labor, to destroy our economy—which we destroyed, by going in and buying in Wal-Mart! Because we are supporting the destruction of the industries and farms in our own country! Saying, "I can't afford to do it otherwise. I need that cheap food. I need those cheap garments. I need those cheap parts."

We don't make our products any more! "Made in the United States" is a lie! Maybe "Acquired by the United States"; maybe "Specified by the United States"—but we shut the company down here, and shipped the production over to China, or someplace else.

Why do we do that? What I described before, explains it, in large degree:

When we went through the incidents of the Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination, and the Indo-China War, young people, who had been trained in the 1950s not to tell the truth, but to say what was "wise" to be overheard thinking, were faced with a challenge. And when they were faced with the challenge of the Missile Crisis, the Kennedy assassination, and war, young people going into universities in the middle of 1960s, went through a cultural paradigm-shift, inaugurated by the appearance of the British Beatles—a form of insect life—on the Ed Sullivan Show.

We went through a cultural paradigm shift, of rejecting science-driven technological progress. We went through a paradigm-shift, against being a producer nation. We went to becoming a consumer nation, which other people, with cheap labor, would work for us. Just like the Roman Legions, returning from the Second Punic War, and related conquests, looted the world! To support Rome. And turned the population of Italy into "bread and circuses".

We have bread and circuses in the United States, today. We have mass spectator sports. We have mass entertainment, dance entertainment. We have rave dancing, rave parties. We have similar kinds of things: Mass entertainment, no different than the decadence of Rome. Bread and circuses. Get a little, and watch a lot.

Entertainment is the name of the game. Pleasure is the name of the game. Instead of accomplishment—pleasure.

So, what happened is, the people who went through that experience, or the population in general, became known as the Baby-Boomer generation. They're now in their 50s, or very early 60s. They are a population who occupies most of the leading positions in government and private life. They are the post-industrial society. The consumer society. The pleasure society.

And they don't believe in immortality.

A Melting-Pot Nation

Normally, the expression of immortality, as a practical expression in society, is through children and grandchildren. People who came to this country as immigrants, would come in poor, from various parts of the world. They were called "green-horns." We're a melting-pot nation—we're not Anglo-Saxon, we're a melting-pot nation. We have people from all over the world. Asian people. We have people of African descent, who were not brought here willingly, but they were brought here, and they became part of the culture, and they have a culture. We have Hispanic-Americans from many sources. Lots of Asians. Every part of Europe is represented, in terms of cultural influences. We are not a race nation. We are a melting-pot nation, a republic based on the culture we develop, by our joint efforts.

Our sense of immortality does not lie in some sense of race, or some sense of this or that origin, as such. Our sense lies with our nation. Two ways: What are we doing for the future of this nation? What are we doing for our grandchildren? We're all going to die: What is going to come of our lives? What does it mean, to be a human being, and be alive? Are we doing something good? Can we die with a smile on our face, because we know we've done something good, and because we believe it will survive, the good we've done?

That went away! Those are the ideas of a productive society: A society that produces, that makes things better, that produces better products; that is more efficient; that is more productive; that makes the land more fruitful. And so forth.

We went away from that.

When you go away from that, when you go away from being a producer society to a consumer society, a post-industrial consumer society, a pleasure society like the decadence of Rome, what happens to the generation which assumes that role? They have no sense of immortality, because they have no adopted mission in life! No purpose for living! No mission that makes life, and death, meaningful. If you die, on a mission, and the mission is successful, then you have achieved a certain kind of immortality—a typification of immortality! If you make a contribution to knowledge, you have won, over death.

So, what happened is, we produced children who are now in the university-eligible age-group. These young people have been given a no-future society: A no-future society, which is headed toward the kind of warfare I described. A no-future society, whose economy is disintegrating. And they don't want it.

A Sense of Mission

My job, is to try to get you to, in your own mind, and others, relive the kind of experience I've described to you—an experience which many of you have had, either directly in your personal experience, or know of from your experience in society generally—as you know your parents and your grandparents, and so forth. Much of this you know: It is your experience. You know it!

So, rather than just assuming this or that, as the so-called news media says, why not think about that? Why not think about how we were manipulated, for better or worse, by these kinds of processes. Why did we, in one time, make the right decision? Why did we, in another time, make the wrong decision? Why did we do this to ourselves?

These young people, with whom I've been working—they're only in the hundreds, but they're going to be soon over a thousand, and they will soon, by next spring, be 10,000 at least: They're the most effective organizing force ever invented. When they get you, they got you. When they go to work on you, they got you. Because they have a sense of mission. They have all the problems you might imagine—and more! Most of them, many of you are blind to, because you don't see them the way I see them. And the way they describe themselves to me.

But, they have a sense that they have to save society. They have to achieve a certain kind of immortality. They have a sense that they have to go to the older generations, and say, "Come join us. Let us save humanity. Let us save the immortality of the people of this nation. Let us adopt, again, a sense of a mission in society. Let us develop this society. Let us feel good, morally, about who we are, and what we're doing."

Now, what I'm doing, is—being a wise, old owl, in some sense—knowing these things, and knowing how they work; knowing how the economy's going, I'm taking this, as right now, as I've been doing since the 1st of January 2001, is to do this: to explain the story, in various aspects, and various facets, and with varying emphases from one subject to the other, to record it; to put it on the Internet; to play it back to people, even to the people who were in the audiences, when the thing was done. And, let them see themselves, not just as individuals, but let them see themselves as part of a process—a process of trying to organize the conscience of the people of this nation, and other nations, to a sense of what they represent; a sense of their participation; a sense of a new political morality in the United States, in which we will rely, more and more, upon trying to convey this understanding, these ideas, this knowledge, this experience, to these young people, typically in this 18-to-25 university-eligible generation: To give them a sense of mission. To give them the ability to develop a sense of mission. And to use that sense of mission, as they develop it, to influence their parents' generation and others, to bring about a new political movement in the country.

And, as the crisis comes down—and it is coming down; as the politicians who are my rivals, so-called, are failing—as they will fail—they are going to go from failures, to disgusting (some have already achieved that status, like Lieberman): We will build a movement in this country, to, in a sense, take the country back. Take the country back to the sense of mission, we had during the early years of World War II. The sense of hope of mission, that we had with the Civil Rights Movement's rise, in the 1950s, and the achievements into the middle of the 1960s. Go back, to capture these great moments of our past, and give rebirth to them, in this situation. That kind of movement.

And, that's what I'm up to doing. And now, go at me.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS