Executive Intelligence Review
This webcast Question and Answer period appears in the August 29, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Dialogue with Zepp-LaRouche

[PDF version of the entire Webcast ]

This is a transcript of the question-and-answer period following Helga Zepp-LaRouche's opening remarks at a two-hour webcast on Aug. 19, 2008. Video and audio archives of the entire webcast are available here.

Ingrid Torres: Thank you very much, Helga. Now we are going to the period of questions and answers....

López Portillo's Legacy

The first question here from Mexico, is from the UAM university: "Who was López Portillo?"

Zepp-LaRouche: I think he was a President who was very much concerned about the nation of Mexico, and he started to implement policies which really would have changed the fate of Latin America altogether.

I want to give you one example: In the Summer of 1982, when Mexico was under tremendous attack by the speculators, and you had capital flight against the peso, López Portillo invited my husband to come to Mexico City, and he asked him to write a program for the defense of the Mexican economy. So my husband immediately did that; but he not only wrote a program for Mexico, he wrote a program for the infrastructure integration of the entire South and Central American continent, which was called Operation Juárez, by reminding people of the cooperation between Benito Juárez and Abraham Lincoln in the last century.

On Sept. 1, 1982, López Portillo started to implement that, by making foreign exchange controls, by nationalizing the central bank, and by starting the kind of development projects which really could have turned the situation around. Unfortunately, at that time, Brazil and Argentina did not support him, and therefore the effort was not as successful as it could have been. And unfortunately, the Argentine nation later got the bill for that, in the form of the Malvinas War, which was directly started by the British. So, I think that the works of López Portillo, really represent the best tradition of Mexico, especially in this century.

Physical Economy vs. 'Money'

Torres: Now ... we have Emiliano in Argentina.

Emiliano Andino: First of all, we'd like to thank the group "Commitment K," from the Kirchner group in Argentina, and their leadership, and [everyone] who helped us create this dialogue and present it here in this country as well.

We have approximately 40 people gathered here in Buenos Aires. From these, I already have four questions; I'm going to read you the first one. And it has to do with the counterposition between the Franklin Delano Roosevelt system, and the Keynesian system. The question is: "Hi, Helga: I would like to ask you to review the distinctions between the British system, based on a floating-exchange-rate system and unlimited speculation on the one hand; and, on the other hand, the system based on a fixed exchange rate, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt organized just before his death. And also the diametrical opposition between that system of Roosevelt's, based on the American System of political economy, and the system which was instead imposed, which originated with Lord Keynes, which came about after the unfortunate death of Franklin Roosevelt.

"So the question is, contrasting these two views, one Roosevelt's, and the other that was ultimately adopted from Keynes for the world financial system."

Zepp-LaRouche: Start with the center of the whole thing: the image of man. Where does the wealth of society come from? Where is it generated? The British system of free trade, and the system of floating exchange rates, basically says you have to "buy cheap, sell expensive," and have the middleman make as much profit as possible.

That has been the basis of the British East India Company; it has been the system of colonialism; it is what the present World Trade Organization system basically represents. And it is the idea that only a few people really are privileged, and should be studying and have knowledge; and that it is the leisure of the privileged class which is the reason why there is wealth existing in the first place.

And on the other side, the system of protectionism, the system of physical economy, the American System, or the system which was also developed by the Customs Union of Friedrich List, which was then continued by Henry Carey, by Mathew Carey, and which was the basis for the industrial revolution in the United States, but also in Germany, in Russia, in Japan, and many other countries: That has the idea that the only source of wealth is the increase of the productivity of the labor force, and therefore the development of the cognitive powers of every member of society.

The idea of a fixed-exchange-rate system, is that you need protection against an influx of speculative money, or influx of cheap goods, because you want to build up a strong domestic market. And only after you have developed a very strong domestic market, can you then have trade, from a standpoint of strength, with other countries.

Now obviously, fixed exchange rates are extremely important, because why should anybody speculate against currencies? Why should international speculators like George Soros, or others, be allowed to speculate against that which is the national income and national wealth of people? In the case of Malaysia, for example, George Soros—according to the words of the former Prime Minister Mahathir, that which the Malaysian people took 40 years to build up, Soros would speculate away in one week! Therefore, you have to eliminate such possibilities of currency speculation. And furthermore, if you want to have long-term investment in international infrastructure projects, you cannot have vacillations between currencies, where, in one week, a currency goes down by 10%, or 20%, or 30%; because, you need long-term stability in the system.

And that is exactly what the Bretton Woods system, which was designed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, really did, and which, to a certain extent, functioned. But, as you said, the unfortunate death of Roosevelt at that point, made it a little bit more mixed, and especially concerning the valuation of the currencies of the developing countries—they had a disadvantage from the very beginning.

So I think that that is really the key difference.

And concerning Keynes: Keynes is simply a monetarist, who does not make the differentiation between productive credit for physical production, the actual creation physical wealth—or just giving money to get rid of unemployment lines. And that is, I think, what people have not understood about the question of physical economy, because they think "money"! When people talk about economy, they don't speak about physical production, they don't speak about the increase of the productivity of the labor force and the industrial capacity, but they think in terms of "making money."

And therefore, this thing has been really completely confused, and that is why our efforts right now, to internationally create a new generation of young people who study what are the principles of physical economy, is really very, very urgent. Because with globalization, we had people who believed in the values of shareholder society, of making profit in the here and now, as quickly as possible, in total disregard for the long-term improvement of the economy.

So I think that that is really the key question: How do you create for the long term, the basis for the survival of society; and that is a physical question, and it has nothing to do with money as such.

The Role of Ibero-America

Torres: Thank you very much, Helga. Now, we would like to ask Colombia to ask a question.

Colombia: ... First, an economics student asks: "What do you think, Helga, about the economic situation of Latin America? That is to say, our continent is very rich in raw materials, but nonetheless, there is tremendous poverty and hunger. Is there a way to solve this problem? And Colombia, what's your view of it, looking at it from abroad?"

The second question comes from a retired business manager: "Especially in terms of the development of nuclear energy, are all the considerations taken into account to make sure there are no environmental problems?"

And then there's a question from the political movement Polo Democrático (Democratic Pole), which asks if there's a way to have a defined plan, so that these types of economic proposals can actually be turned into reality in the world.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think that the situation in Latin America, while there are these problems you name—in the recent period, there was a very promising development. On the one side, the collaboration between Colombia and Venezuela: the idea to have railways developing, including eventually to Ecuador and Brazil; the whole idea of the development of the Bank of the South. There are very promising signs, but I think the key question is, Latin America must find a way of intersecting the strategic picture at large.

The reason I mention some of the history of the back and forth between the American politicians who were for the development of the South, of South America, is, I think that you have to think how to affect the situation inside the United States. Given the fact that there are many Hispanic immigrants—both legal and illegal, but many of them are legal—I think anything which can be done to intersect the present fight around the Democratic Party Convention is really urgent. Because, as I said earlier, I think that many people think that the United States is so bad, "Let's just wait until they go down, and then we'll take care of our own problems."

I think the most urgent thing to conceptualize right now, is how to really impact this situation around the U.S. election campaign, and I think Hispanics play a very, very important role. I think they should really make their voices heard in the next days! And I really mean "in the next days," before the Democratic Convention starts.

The second thing is, I think Latin American nations, individually, should really think how they can be part of this Four Power alliance, because I think they have to start to attach themselves, as sovereign republics, to the combination of Russia, China, and India, and hopefully a changed United States. Because the crisis is so far gone, that any idea to solve it just on a continental basis will not work. I otherwise would say, the best thing to really help, is to help in this mobilization to turn the UN General Assembly into the debate of a just new world economic order.

I think, for Colombia, it is also very promising what happened in the recent freeing of the 15 hostages. Because, on the one side, it is the question of the war against drugs, and to replace drug production with agricultural production. And I think that can, realistically, only be done, if all the neighboring countries are working together, and if some of the large-scale plains between Colombia and Venezuela, but also in Brazil, are being used for massive development of agriculture.

So I think that the Colombian situation recently has taken a very good turn, but I think it now needs this question of a real Land-Bridge development, of development corridors, put on the agenda.

Go Nuclear!

Zepp-LaRouche: [On the nuclear question], as I said before, we don't want just any nuclear energy, but we want to have the most modern variety. And that's the HTR, the high-temperature reactor, the so-called pebble-bed reactor, which was developed already 30 years ago, by Professor Schulten in Jülich, which is a laboratory near the University of Aachen. And he designed this nuclear reactor type in such a way, that it is inherently physically safe. Because, first of all, with the slightest incident of an accident, or some other mishap, it closes down itself. Furthermore, the pebbles are made of ceramics which take heat up to 1,800°C, and in the fission process, the most heat which is generated is 1,000°, so there is absolutely no way how that accident can actually occur.

And concerning the so-called waste: One simply has to take the challenge to develop modern physics further, to basically go into the Isotope Economy, to use what now is regarded as waste as a future fuel and raw material. And there, lots of research is happening right now.

I think that we need to go forward, because the reason why we need nuclear energy, and not so-called "renewable energies." is because of the energy density which is in nuclear fission, which we absolutely need as a stepping-stone to come as quickly as possible to nuclear fusion. Because only if we have reached that, can we securely say that mankind will have solved the question of raw materials security and energy security.

I think that right now, there is a renaissance of nuclear energy. I'm very happy about it, even if Germany is, unfortunately, the last country to go back to a technology which it itself developed. But you have massive development of nuclear energy in Russia, in China, in India. All the Maghreb countries in Northern Africa want it; all the Persian Gulf countries want it. Many African countries are committed to have nuclear energy. The South Africa HTR model is being geared up for export, not only to Africa, but to other continents.

So I think that any country, which wants to have energy safety and wants to have plenty of energy and cheap energy, should really go in the direction of nuclear energy.

Every Sector Should Mobilize

Torres: Great. Now the next question is here in Mexico.

Q: My name is Davíd, from Mexico City, and I have the following question for you: Do you believe that in the perpetuation of injustice, the right way forward is to have the active participation of those sectors which have been excluded, and those who have been discriminated against? And that today, tomorrow, and always, abstentionism is not the best pathway to bring about a new just economic order, as you are working for? Thank you very much.

Zepp-LaRouche: I think that right now, the world is in such absolute danger, that only if enough people, enough forces, start to really realize that this is the moment they have to participate, even if they have not thought about it this way before.... Even if they belong to a particular group—trade unions, or social groups, student groups, or whatever—I think it is right now a test for civilization: Can we mobilize in light of the biggest danger which everybody can see? Because, you know, the governments are not doing anything to stop this meltdown of the system, except pumping liquidity! Well, it's already killing people!

Right now, you have in many East African countries, a starvation crisis, due to the price inflation of food, which is threatening maybe 15 million people right now! And that's just in Eastern Africa. I think you have other parts of the world in the same situation.

And if the banking system collapses, if this is true what we expect to happen—namely, that maybe thousands of banks will collapse—what do you think will be the effect on normal people? That is why I'm so upset and so enraged about the G7 not addressing this issue. Why do we have governments, if they don't act to protect the people?

Governments are not privileged people who have their pensions, and their diets, and their whatnot: They're there to protect the people, and if they're not protecting them, we should get different governments! That's exactly the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, which I really think we should adopt as the charter for every country in the world, because it's a very beautiful document, and I made it deliberately the [basis of the] charter of the Schiller Institute when the Schiller Institute was founded in 1984.

No: I think that every section, especially when they have not been heard, when they were not represented, should start to engage in learning about physical economy, learning how to reorganize the economy, how to engage in all of the things which are necessary! And I think the best thing people can do, is help to organize this mobilization to put the new world economic order on the agenda. If the governments are not doing it, it must come from the people.

Insanity of Pushing World War III

Torres: We now ask Argentina to ask the next question.

Andino: Here in Argentina, many questions have come up. I'm going to try to make a general presentation of these questions, which have to do with economics, with political integration, and World War III.

There are five quick questions:

  1. Who benefits from the economic collapse?
  2. Why are some people seeking a Third World War?
  3. The food crisis is hitting our countries seriously, what do we do about it?
  4. Is integration the answer to the food crisis which our countries are facing?
  5. How do we destroy the "brain" of this imperialism, which is using countries, through complicity or otherwise, for the international financial interests which they represent?

Zepp-LaRouche: The first question, "Who benefits from the economic collapse?" Well, in the end, nobody. Because, I think that the only thing which the oligarchy can do, is to destroy. The people who have brought us to this point of collapse, well, they may have had privileges for a certain period, but as you can see now, even in the collapse, you have speculators! For example, the present rise of the dollar, according to our best information, comes from the fact that the central banks have actually supported the dollar, so that the dollar would not fall off the cliff altogether, and in the wake of this, all kinds of hedge funds and speculators have done the same thing. Therefore, you have, right now, a certain rise in the dollar.

So you have speculators—you know, they eat from the corpse; this is a dead body they just killed. For a short period of time, it does function, but once the system comes down, which is happening right now, this thing is blowing into a dark age.

My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has made, many times, the comparison to the collapse of civilization in the 14th Century, when one-third of the people from India to Ireland were killed in the Black Death, in Flagellant atrocities, in a general breakdown of society. And I think that if you would have now an uncontrolled collapse of the system, we have been calculating—and some people have said—that it is their intention to reduce the present population of 6.5 billion to maybe 1 billion, or 2 billion people. Because they are oligarchs, and they think that most people are just human cattle, and they can be slaughtered when there are "too many."

We have, over the years, documented every one of these people, like Prince Philip, for example, who said publicly, that if he is ever reincarnated, he wants to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, so that he can more efficiently contribute to the reduction of world population!

These people are evil! And they can destroy the world. But if the world would go down to that level, like 1 billion or 2 billion, I think it would only happen through a tremendous catastrophe, where, after four generations, maybe after 200 years, mankind would come back and somehow go back to human development. But this could not happen with any normal means, and I think this is what we are on the verge of. And I think if people think this through, it would give you tremendous energy to mobilize now.

Now, concerning the question of who is organizing or intending World War III? I don't think anybody is consciously planning World War III right now. But I think, what you see is a tremendous danger of a miscalculation. Like, for example: This very unstable President Saakashvili miscalculated, tremendously. I'm saying, "unstable," because if you go on the YouTube, you have a very funny video where Saakashvili gave this ridiculous press conference in front of the flag of the European Union! You know, Georgia is not a member of the European Union, so why does he stick this flag there?

While he was giving this press conference, he had a red tie, and he was sticking the red tie in his mouth and was chewing on it all the time, which then led a Russian psychiatrist to do a study, about how this person is really very unstable and should not be taken too seriously!

I think World War III could happen very quickly, not so much that people really plan it, because that would just be the utmost insanity, but by miscalculation. By thinking in the same way as whoever was backing the Georgian intervention into South Ossetia; they did not expect the Russian government to react the way it did! They thought they would back down; they would sit still, and that way, they would have then made the next move, and the next move....

But the Russian government did say "No," and they proved in a precise and necessary way that they are a superpower! They have a tremendous nuclear arsenal. Just today, I learned from a contact—we have to look at it more closely—that they tested a very fast, very modern, powerful missile, making clear, they're not going to capitulate!

Nor will China.

I think that, if it would come to a war, I'm pretty sure that Russia and China already would work together, so therefore, nobody can win that war. Who wants to occupy Russia? Russia is a gigantic country, with 11 time zones! China has 1.4 billion people: Who wants to occupy China? I mean, it's totally impossible to win war against these two countries. But you could destroy a couple of hundred millions of people in war, in these countries, and you could bring about tremendous nuclear destruction in the rest of the world.

So, I think the people who are playing with that, are really crazy—the people who are pushing this eastward expansion of NATO and the militarization of the European Union, which right now is on the table again: You have something called the European Center for Reform; this is a British think tank, and they are suggesting that the European Union should have an army, and not just a defensive army, but combat troops, so that Europe could fight its own wars in Eastern Europe, because you cannot expect the United States to fight these wars, referring to Russia and the Caucasus and whatnot.

These people in my view are clinically insane. Because they're playing with a fire which could destroy civilization, altogether.

Now, concerning the food crisis: I already said that what should be done, is really to take all of these measures simultaneously. I know that Brazil, for its own reasons, thinks that it should produce biofuels—that needs to be discussed with them. But I think for the rest, biofuels should absolutely be banned. With one tank full of biofuel in a car, the amount of food you need to produce that, a human being could live half a year, or even up to a year. So it's totally criminal to use that.

And otherwise, I think one needs to increase production, through infrastructure where there is none. In Latin America, one of the key questions is to develop these plains, the one in Brazil, and the one between Colombia and Venezuela; to have rail systems; to have infrastructure. And in general, go for nuclear energy, go for small, safe HTR reactors; desalinate large amounts of water where it is needed. You know, in many countries in Latin America, you have enough water, but around the world, it really is the key.

And I think that that is really a question of political will! I think Dennis Small, who is translating now, has calculated that in Latin America alone, if these measures are taken, the food production could be 180% more than it is now, if you use the existing possibilities. So it is only a question of the political will.

Now, concerning how to destroy the "brain" of the oligarchy: We are really in a revolutionary period, and what seems to be very impossible under normal circumstances, is possible in times of such revolutionary changes. I think, right now, we have to have the idea, that, if many people who are threatened with this present crisis, are being organized by responsible leaders—by trade union leaders, by parliamentarians, by social leaders—and that hope is being given, because these leaders have the courage to discuss the reasons which would bring the world out of this crisis, I think people can learn very quickly, much quicker than in so-called "peaceful, normal" times.

And once people understand this conflict, and what is the oligarchical system, and what is the image of man associated with it, I think it can be destroyed.

I'm absolutely certain that if we use this present crisis, which is going to shake people up, and then, in the next phase, have universal education for all children and youth on this planet, a couple of years from now, people will look back on oligarchism, and say, "Mankind was really at the absolute low point in 2008, because at that point, the oligarchical, usurious, utilitarian system had taken over all the world institutions." And as the great German philosopher Leibniz already said, at the end of the 17th Century: When the whole world is governed by utilitarianism, it will come to a world revolution. And I think we have reached that point.

We don't want to have a Jacobin revolution, we don't want to have a French Revolution; but we do want an American Revolution, in which the principles of a republic determined to serve the common good of the people, is established in as many countries as possible. And then, when youth and children have access to universal education, I think the question of oligarchy will be like a fossil which you go and see in the museum, but it will not be part of human civilization forever.

I think we have, right now, reached the low point, because we have not only a financial and a military crisis, but we also have a crisis of morality, of decadence, a cultural collapse, from which it can really only actually go up! The only question is, will it go up now, or 200 years from now?

How Can We Double Food Production?

Torres: ... I would like to give a brief idea to our audience, and also people who are watching over the Internet, to let you know that in Mexico we have a gathering of about 120 people, and so far, there are about 25 questions lined up. Since there are so many questions, we are trying to combine questions that are on similar subjects, and we will take up such questions now.

This question is from Ana María Silva, of the UAM university from Azcapotzalco, and this question also refers to questions that are being asked from students at this Psychology Department, from different social organizations, and so on. The question is the following:

"You say that by applying advanced technology which the four major powers of the world have—applying that in the poorest parts of the world—you could eliminate hunger and poverty. What is the price which these powers would charge the rest of the world, what would be the conditions they would impose, and what would be their willingness to do this?"

And adding in other questions: "What sort of technologies could be employed in order to double food production?"

Zepp-LaRouche: I think that even within the structure of the present system, you get a glimpse of what could be done. For example, in Europe right now, there is a complete freakout by the European Union about Chinese and Russian, and recently even Japanese investment in Africa. For example, the Chinese are building railways, they're building dams, they're building all kinds of things, and naturally, it is to their advantage, because they make deals—raw materials for development projects.

And the European Union is completely freaked out, because they said, "Oh, look! Africa is becoming Chinese." But I have talked to many African representatives, and they say, "Oh yes, sure, China has a self-interest, but they do also serve our interest: We get the modern technology, we get the railways, we get the modern hydroelectric dams, and other such projects."

Look, my husband has written a very nice book, which I can only emphasize for you to get. It's called Earth's Next Fifty Years, and it is a vision of how the world could be organized in the next two generations, namely the next 50 years, and it is a very nice conception: How do you make investments and treaties among different countries which have completely different conditions?

For example, you have countries which are large, you have countries which are very small; you have some countries which have lots of raw materials; others have energy, oil; others not. So, when you build the Eurasian Land-Bridge, how do you balance these differences? The only way you can do it, is, you establish the idea of the common aims of mankind, to which all participating nations agree. Then, you do not ask a small country which has no raw materials, to pay back initial credits by participating in these development corridors, before this country has developed the productivity of its population and the buying power, to be able to pay back any credit it received—maybe 20 or 30 years ago.

We cannot come out of this crisis by just making a couple of tricks, and then continuing with the old method of exploitation, speculation, and so forth. We only will come out of this crisis, as mankind, when we radically change our ways of thinking, when we radically change, away from the principles of the last 40 years, which have brought this world to this point of crisis.

And we have to go back to sound economic principles, to the idea of the common good, to the idea of science and technology as that which causes the wealth of a country to increase. And only if we really go back to ideas which existed at certain periods before: For example, in Germany, the reconstruction after World War II, really in a few years, changed Germany from a total rubble-field, into the famous "German economic miracle." We have to go back to these methods, but do apply them in every country, not just in one country, but apply them everywhere.

And, you know, there are sound principles. For example, without infrastructure, of the kind which was the basis for the industrial revolution of the United States, starting with the Lincoln period, and then beyond; or the same method applied in Germany, to turn an agrarian country, during the time of Bismarck, after he adopted the reforms of Henry Carey, and turned to a protectionist policy.

Actually, this is very little known: The head of the German Industry Association at the time, his name was von Kardorff, was first a believer in free trade; but then, when he met the ideas of Henry Carey, he turned into a passionate defender of protectionism, and he then also influenced Bismarck. And when Bismarck made the famous industrial reforms, and the social laws—especially the industrial reforms—he defended that with the American example. Railroads, infrastructure—there are certain known physical things which have to be done, as a starting point for any industrial revolution, to turn an agrarian society into a full-fledged modern society.

Now, the only difference is, that we are not proposing that less-developed countries should repeat exactly all the steps that more advanced countries have made, one by one, until they reach the most advanced level. You know, it's not like a family with many children, where the younger children always must wear the clothes of the older children! No, we don't want that. We want every country to pick an area of expertise, where that country can become world leader and then participate in a more elaborated division of labor among the countries of this world.

And that way, you could make a jump start, and overcome underdevelopment, by simply taking young students, developing them in a field, and then in that way, you can really close the gap, because there is no law in the universe that the world should be divided forever, between poor countries and rich countries!

What we need for Latin America, and for Africa, is—I mean, I don't know if you have a vision of how the infrastructure in Europe looks. It's beautiful! You can go by ship from the Black Sea, through the Danube, then you go by canals, to the Rhine, and you end up, maybe in a port in Duisburg, where your containers are being transferred to rail, and then they're shipped the last part, from the rail by trucks to the final point of destination. You have a tremendous infrastructure density in Europe!

And while you don't need all the mistakes—you don't need all the trucks jamming up the highways—you want to have a much bigger emphasis on public transportation systems—I think it's a model!

But look at the map of Latin America, look at the map of Africa: You do not have railways connecting the north and south, and the east and the west. You have some little railways and infrastructure from the iron ore to the port, or for some other goods for the export, because it's all still how the colonial system was! Therefore, this new discussion about building large investment in infrastructure in Latin America, is very, very important. It's the precondition.

So I think all of these problems can be solved. And I think there are many models which can be studied—the American industrialization, the German industrialization, the Russian industrialization under Count Sergei Witte, the Meiji Restoration in Japan—and that can be repeated everywhere. And that's exactly what the battle is. Because, when the Council on Foreign Relations in the 1970s wrote these books on the "controlled disintegration of the world economy" (these were 22 books, which were then published by McGraw-Hill), the key idea was that never again should a Japan happen in the developing countries.

Japan, for centuries, was completely isolated, because at some point they had kicked out some monks, and then sealed themselves off, so they were really backward and completely isolated for centuries. And then, because they came into touch with the American economists around Lincoln, and with the tradition of List in Germany, in a few years, Japan turned, through the Meiji Restoration, into one of the most modern industrial nations. And what these people from the Council on Foreign Relations said, explicitly was, "Never a Japan again!"

Now, why not? Why should we not have modern countries, in every part of the world? I mean, it's your choice: You don't have to repeat everything you don't like, but the principle of having the transformation from a agricultural society into a largely industrial society, with a decent living standard for everybody: I think that is absolutely applicable. We can learn from the mistakes, we don't have to repeat them; but I think the idea of having some countries poor forever, this is just an idea which should go out of the window! Because it's not in cohesion with human dignity!

A Complete Change in the System!

Torres: Thank you very much, Helga. Unfortunately, there's really no time for further questions. But nonetheless, questions can be brought to the organizers of the event, and to the degree possible, we will answer them. But we will make sure that they get to Helga, and that way we can stay in contact with you.

And to close, I would like to ask Helga if she has any concluding remarks, anything she wishes to add, and then I will make some announcements.

Zepp-LaRouche: I'm actually very happy to have started this dialogue with you, because the oligarchy is organized internationally, and I think what the humanist, republican forces who want to have a new world economic order, also need to do, is to work together much, much more. And what I want to ask you, really seriously—but I want you to stay in contact with the organizers of each event, and get a copy of this resolution, addressed to change the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. And then help to circulate that: Get as many signatures, contact as many groups as you can, to really raise this issue.

I know that there are already parliamentarians doing this in some Middle East countries; I know that some farmers' organizations are doing it in Germany and France; and even professors and all kinds of people. So, I think if we create a world movement, a groundswell, to say, "Enough is enough! This world is going to pieces, we need a complete change in the system, and the UN General Assembly is the place." We have to create 5, 10, 12 leaders who have the courage of Fred Wills, or who have the courage of López Portillo, and then it can be done.

So, I want to ask you very seriously, join in this effort, because it may be really the last chance we have to turn this thing around. And I thank you very much for listening to me, and you know I'm happy to be with you.

Support the LYM!

Torres: Thank you very much, Helga, and we hope to have you here, live, here in Mexico, and also in Argentina and Colombia! We thank our colleagues in Argentina; we thank people in Colombia as well.

And briefly, many of the questions that were sent to us, asked "What can we do? What can be done to change the situation, to put an end to the oligarchy, to the power of the multinational corporations?"

What I can say to you, immediately, is: Support the LaRouche Youth Movement everywhere, where it is now organized. And you should get to know the LaRouche Youth Movement, and we will be having more events elsewhere in our countries. We ask you for contributions to be able to print the material, such as the material which we published here in Sonora, for the PLHINO [Northwest Hydraulic Plan]; that's a leaflet which we're now mobilizing around, and which we're going to mobilize the institutions of Mexico for: the idea of returning to a productive economy to our countries, which so desperately need these policies. We need money to be able to publish these pamphlets. We need people to also stay in touch with us, and help us in every way you can, as much as you can, with as much time as you have available....

So, again I would like to thank all of you for your participation, and I would like to thank Helga once again for having been with us. We would have liked to have kept her up all night, there in Germany, answering all of our questions, since we had so many questions, but we do have to allow her some rest; and therefore, thank her for having stayed with us as late as it is. And again, a round of applause for her, and for everyone who helped us to carry out this conference. Thank you very much.

Subscribe to EIW