As you perhaps know, during the past week, there has been a financial-monetary earthquake registering about 3 on the Richter Scale in Japan. The question is going to be, whether there will be a following earthquake shock of about 5 on the Richter Scale in Japan. The question is, as posed by a number of people, authorities, as to whether the shock in Japan might spread to Europe and the United States next week, which would be about 7 on the Richter Scale.

That's the kind of world in which we live, and that's the kind of world within which context we have to look at the problems we're dealing with here, in Africa, and to determine first of all, not only the nature of the problems in Africa, to which Jacques and Linda before have referred significantly, but as to the significance, the historic significance of the crisis of Africa for us all.

The shock of 3 on the Richter Scale from Japan this past week, which is something which I discussed with Japan authorities when Helga and I were there at the end of 1995; and we discussed the fact that this was going to happen to Japan. It is happening. Worse is yet to come--inevitably.

Every financial system on this planet is in the process of self-destruction. The fires are spreading from one house, which is a tinderbox, to the neighboring nation's financial system. When it will collapse? That's not important. It is going to be soon. Don't ask me what day the ship goes under--get off the ship now, while you can, and watch the event from a safe distance, if you care to watch it at all.

So, that's the general context. We are in the end of a world financial and monetary system. The only solution we have, as I indicated last week, on the question of Bosnia, and as I've indicated otherwise, in papers to various people in government and so forth; the only solution is for the government of the United States--because it's gone beyond any--don't talk about alternatives to that, because there are no other alternatives.

The government of the United States, led by the current President, Clinton, must take certain actions at some early time, in comity with the policy which I have laid out. Unless President Clinton takes those actions in time, the whole planet will go into the equivalent of a Dark Age. And, that is immediate. That is reality. So, don't talk about whether you like Clinton, or don't like Clinton; just don't get lost among the Bushes, eh?

This guy has got to do certain things, otherwise, the human race goes into the pit. The unfortunate reality is that such a responsibility should lie on the shoulders of one man with Mr. Clinton's background, which is not exactly, shall we say, prepared and trained to do this job that he's got to do. He is not a Franklin Roosevelt, whose name we honor here.

I saw the other night, by the way, on C-SPAN, last night, a replay of the Franklin Roosevelt March 1933 inaugural address. And, if you get a chance to see that (it may be broadcast again on C-SPAN), see it. If you can't see it, at least read it. There are books in which it's recorded. It's better to see it.

Here was the United States caught in the middle of a Great Depression, of a world depression. The entire world was in crisis, and a man, Franklin Roosevelt, totally unlike his evil cousin Teddy, responded to the fact that he must take the United States to deal with its own internal crisis, to try to do it with the Congress, but if the Congress wouldn't do it, had to do it himself, to get the nation out of this mess.

And, again, we've come to that point, at a more dangerous time in world history, when this terrible ruined nation, in much worse condition than it was in Roosevelt's time, must, once again, take the responsibility which has fallen on its shoulders, not by its choice but by its circumstance, to lead in getting the world out of this mess.

Establish a `New Bretton Woods'

The safe thing is to establish what I've called a new Bretton Woods, the creation of a brand-new monetary and financial and credit and trade system for the world, scrapping all existing systems, either by eliminating them, by abrogating the treaties, such as the WTO, which has to be liquidated. It's no good. It's like having an anchor around your neck when you're trying to stop from drowning. It's just the additional burden you don't need. And to establish a new monetary system, which will use the precedent of the pre-1966, pre-1967 Bretton Woods System, of a system of fixed parities, on a gold-reserve basis, with cheap credit, and a general program for development of the world, by returning from post-industrial lunacy into investment in scientific and technological progress, for the improvement of the life expectancy and conditions of life, and improvement of the productivity of labor, in every part of the world today, through new forms of international cooperation among fully sovereign nation-states; elimination of all global economy, of all global politics, of all UNO dictatorship, all pretenses at world government.

A community of nations, as Roosevelt described it, as a community of neighbors, who will retain their sovereignty as households, but who will cooperate because they must cooperate. If they don't, they will all die. That's the period we're coming through.

On the other side of the chasm before us, the chasm whose rumblings were heard in Tokyo this past week; on the other side, there's safety, a new chance to rebuild this community of nations and rebuild the planet. If we don't build that bridge, or get to that other side, there's a deep chasm, a chasm of death, and you see the image of that chasm when you look at Africa.

What is happening in Africa, is the doom of the world, unless we make that change. And therefore, we should see Africa in that context.

Now, the policy toward Africa, which was discussed previously by Linda, and especially by Jacques in some detail, the policy of raw materials looting, is a reflection of the fact that, contrary to the idiots who believe what they read in the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post, to say nothing of the Washington `Moonier' Times, or the Moonshine Times, as we call it; that every leading circle in the world, admits publicly--not just privately, but publicly--that the international financial system is in a process of disintegration. They've admitted that for some time. The actual process of disintegration was visible in 1992, when I referred to it as a mudslide driven by derivatives.

At the beginning of 1995, the whole process of disintegration was accelerated. And, there was a shift at that time, beginning January approximately 1995, a visible shift in investments of the insiders away from financial markets. Only the suckers invest in Wall Street, in the financial markets. The dumb people, the suckers. Those are the ones who are buying stock, or letting their insurance company or pension fund buy stock or invest in Wall Street.

The smart money's been doing what? The smart money has said, very simply, as they've said for some time, as was understood back in the middle of the 1960s. It was said clearly by Henry Kissinger in 1974, in a memorandum which came to light recently, and has become famous as a result of that. But, it's not the original source of the policy, it's only typical.

Kissinger said that countries such as Africa are sitting on large amounts of raw materials, which the Anglo-American Atlantic powers will require in the future. And therefore, we can not tolerate overpopulation in Africa or other countries where these raw materials exist, because the people are eating up the raw materials, which we intend to have for our future. And, above all, these nations, these parts of the world, must not have development. Because if they have economic development, then their consumption of raw materials per capita will increase. Therefore, U.S. foreign policy, says Kissinger, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser in 1974; therefore, U.S. foreign policy must be based on making our relations toward nations and governments abroad, conditional upon Anglo-American population policy.

That was the same policy of the Carter administration. That was the policy authorized by Kissinger's famous rival, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was sort of the den mother for Madeleine Albright. He's a little bit crazy. You've got to understand what he's been through. He was educated at McGill and Harvard, and kicked out of Harvard to make way for Henry Kissinger. He's never been the same since.

That was the policy which was first formally introduced in the Twentieth Century by Bertrand Russell, in 1923, who said that if the darker-skinned races of this planet do not curb their birth rates and reduce their populations, we shall have to reduce their populations, "by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary." That is the great pacifist, the great humanitarian, Bertrand "Hitler" Russell.

The Malthusian Conspiracy

In 1961, a member, a former member of the Nazi SS, otherwise known as Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands--who resigned from the SS in a congratulatory letter to Hitler on the day that he married the princess of the Netherlands. Now, Prince Bernhard, together with the official Giant Panda surrogate in London, Prince Philip (they're known for their defective breeding habits, the quality they have in common), organized the World Wildlife Fund, and simultaneously organized a support group, called the 1001 Club, an association of a group of oligarchs who are committed to population policies in the name of saving the animals.

This was the policy which launched Malthusianism, neo-Malthusianism. This is what gave you Greenpeace, and other kinds of fungus infections which afflict the landscape these days. It's a part of British Intelligence. This is what gave us, in 1966 an thereafter, after the Soviet Union had signed the agreements with the Anglo-Americans after the Missile Crisis, in which they said, "We can eliminate the modern nation-state, we can eliminate industrialized nations. We are now going to a post-industrial society. No more technology. We're pulling the astronauts out of space after we hit the Moon, no more space, no more science. We're going to an environmental economy, an environment-free economy," or something.

And, the world economy has been systematically destroyed, including the United States, since 1966, under this policy. Under this policy, Africa was red-lined. And, you will find the rate of increase of Hell in Africa from 1966 on.

You'll find the same thing, from 1967-68 on, you'll find a similar policy in respect to Central and South America. There has been retrogression, economic retrogression in South and Central America, since 1966-67, especially 1971-72.

In 1989-90, the Soviet system was dead. There was no longer a military imperative for maintaining some degree of national sovereignty, no longer a military-strategic imperative for maintaining modern economy. George Bush, the pet poodle for Margaret Thatcher at that time, said, "Let's go to a global economy, a global system. Let's eliminate the nation-state as an institution. Let's establish the United Nations as a world government." Who elects it? Nobody! It just takes over, and represents those families which are otherwise represented by the World Wildlife Fund in 1961, which is sort of the Whore of Babylon for this period of human history.

And, under this policy, we then see Africa, and we see the world. It is that policy which has resulted in the great financial crisis which is hitting us now. That system is vulnerable, at its maximum degree of vulnerability, as the financial and monetary system collapses. If you look across Europe, you will see political mass strikes across Europe: France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Serbia. Now, South Korea. A political mass strike is threatening to overthrow the government of South Korea, which has tried to repress the labor movement on orders from the IMF and related institutions. And, that resulted in a mass strike process there.

It's in its greatest moment of vulnerability. War has broken out between the Anglophone and Francophone interests of Africa, the imperial interests, which must be understood morally, when one can't cheer for either side too much. You just hope that they deal with each other appropriately.

But, you must recognize it as a symptom of vulnerability of the system. You are now in a revolutionary period in which, whatever happens, the institutions which have ruled us, the policy institutions, the combinations of power which have ruled us over the recent years, especially the past 30; those institutions are doomed! The world monetary system, the world financial system, the U.S. system in its present form, the World Trade Organization; all of these systems and policies are now doomed. They're going down like the Titanic, and nothing can save them.

The question is: What next? You're in a revolutionary period. You can not stop the progress of history. You must go forward. The question is: which direction? To chaos, or to a fresh start? To rebuild the world as a world of nation-states committed to scientific and technological progress, and the cooperation among nation-states as good neighbors, in those policies and actions which are to their mutual benefit?

The Problem of the African-American

In that context, look at Africa. And, when you look at Africa in the United States, you should do two things. First of all, you should let the facts about Africa, and leaders of Africa speak for themselves. And, the first thing you have to do, in that course, is to address the problem of the African-American. Because, first of all, the African-American is not an African. The fact that somebody's ancestor came from Africa, doesn't make them an African. They can't represent Africa. African-Americans are Americans. They are not African-Americans, they're Americans. They're no more African-Americans than Italian-Americans are Italians, or French-Americans are French.

And, you see that very clearly when you survey African-American opinion about Africa. If you come from Africa, and you meet African-Americans and ask them about Africa, you say, "These are the worst-informed people on the subject of Africa on this planet."

Furthermore, you say a second thing: "Most of them don't appear to care a bit."

Now, I've been dealing with Africa policies significantly since 1975, when Helga and I met a number of African government representatives, of nations which no longer exist today, among others. And, we entered into a large project for us at that time, a project of research, into the prospects for the development of Africa, concentrating especially on the northern part of Africa, that is, the Sahara area, the Sahel area, and the so-called Arab section together.

We've worked with African representatives of Africa. We've also worked with realities of Africa, the facts about Africa. We've also, of course, worked, in the same period, with many African-Americans. We know this case very well. We, probably, and I, collectively, that is, with my associates, know more about Africa than most African-Americans put together. Because we're dealing with the reality, the life and death questions of Africa.

But, nonetheless, even though the African-American is the poorest source of information on the history or current status of Africa, nonetheless, you must deal with the African-American when you raise the African question in the United States. Why?

Well, for one thing, as a result of a misunderstanding, most Americans, when they think of Africa, they think that some African-American has some connection, and he has all the scoop on it. You get somebody in the Congress, for example, in the so-called Black Caucus, who probably is the person who's one of the least informed people on Africa in the United States. Then you get some people from various foundations and universities, who are specialists in Black nationalist studies, for example, or African studies. And, the congressman will assemble and hear these people tell him what the story is in Africa. These fellows don't know anything about Africa. They just know what the foundations or the guy who paid them told them to say.

This is the case with Zaire. You will find a group of African-American "experts" talking about Zaire, who will authenticate a Laurent Kabila, who has a 30-odd-year record as nothing but a gangster and murderer, and racketeer, who represents nothing. You might call him Laurent "Hitler" Kabila. Even Che Guevara said he was one of the worst, most degenerate criminals he ever met.

But, you will find people in the United States will defend, and African-American faces with these funny words coming out of their mouth, telling people about this country called Africa, and about the politics in Africa are, and what a good guy this Kabila is because he's going to overthrow Mobutu. This great hero. And that's typical. But, nonetheless, we have to deal with the problem, because most Americans think that African-Americans have something to do with Africa.

Now there are some African-Americans, particularly among elected public officials on the state level, and people like that, who are very concerned, as honest persons, to find for themselves, whenever possible, what the truth is about the situation in Africa; who have, because of their moral persuasion, and their recognition that there may be some connection between discrimination against Africa as a continent, and discrimination against African-Americans in the United States, there may be some connection. Therefore, we find a number of African-American legislators, particularly on the state level, who are concerned to find the opportunity to investigate Africa for themselves.

Confederate Degeneracy

But then, the other part is much more subtle, but I think you can all get it very easily. The problem of the United States, the characteristic problem of the United States, which was the finest conception of statecraft which ever existed on this planet, the U.S. Constitution. There were precedents for the nation-state before then, but the American Constitution is the finest piece of statecraft ever to establish a state. Well, what has been our problem, inside the United States? What causes us in the United States to make the wrong policy, consistently? What's the problem?

The problem has been twofold. First of all, generically, there have been certain people in the United States, like the opium traders and the slave traders, who are tied to the British interests, who we used to consider traitors, but who became wealthy at treason.

We have, for example, in this country, not only the slave system, in the Southern states, the cotton slaves, but we had people in Massachusetts and elsewhere, who said they were abolitionists, but they made their wealth out of slave-produced cotton, as did the British. These same groups created the Confederacy, which was not an honest formation, or a misguided formation. It was a creation of Britain's Lord Palmerston and British intelligence. We have--this country is being ripped apart today by the tradition of the Confederacy, otherwise called the Nashville tradition; not the Ku Klux Klan, but the Agrarians, the Agrarian movement, which has a certain psychological influence on our Vice President, for example, who not only comes from Tennessee, but he has Agrarian movement ideas. That is, you don't sit around talking about holding slaves, but you drink a lot of mint juleps, and you think like a slave-owner, on a white-painted porch.

This is Robert Penn Warren. This John Crowe Ransom. A great part of U.S. literary culture, all the useless people who specialize in the English prose style, who write books; all of these parasites who turn up sipping cocktails at funny literary parties, and similar kinds of degenerates, they're dominated entirely by the Pulitzer Prize group, which is a bunch of degenerates, typified b Robert Penn Warren, John Crowe Ransom, and people like that, or Tennessee Williams, and people like that. All degenerates.

What's wrong with the United States today? We have neo-conservatives and theo-conservatives. You're going to serve the devil, by God, that's called a theo-conservative. These are the people called the Conservative Revolution, the worst killers we've ever seen in this country. These are the people behind the HMOs. These are the people who want to force Medicare people into HMOs so they can be killed more rapidly. These are the people who are cutting everything, especially life expectancy, among the so-called "useless eaters"--that's what Hitler used to call them. Today we call them senior citizens. Today we call them African-Americans. Today we call them welfare recipients. Today we call them the poor. We call them the chronically ill. We don't kill them, we "accelerate their death rate." We hasten them to that divine, splendid experience of dying. We have somebody come in from the insurance company, hovering over a person who is in great pain in a hospital bed, saying, "Sign the DNR" piece--do not resuscitate. "Sign!" Consent to your own murder, for greater profits for the superprofit companies of Wall Street who control managed health care, and other institutions.

Where does this come from? Where is the political force? Well, these are the unbalanced minds and the unbalanced morals who want to balance the budget. That's where it comes from. "We've got to balance the budget. We've got to privatize. We've got to privatize everything." We use to call that stealing, now they call it privatizing.

So, in this country the issue, therefore, is, the great sin of the United States, is the fact that this country not only tolerated slavery, but that it tolerates the heritage of slavery, which is what the majority of the Congress represents today; especially the neo-conservatives, the theo-conservatives, the Conservative Revolution. This nation must be called to a great moral purpose on his planet, again, like Roosevelt tried to do years ago, in his time, as the purpose was posed then, not as it's posed now, but as it was posed then.

The great impediment to getting our institutions to respond to a situation like that in Africa, is the fact that the moral judgment which controls the Congress or the State Department on a subject like Africa, is that they'll come up with any excuse. And, they will treat Africa as a continent, the same way as they treat a senior citizen in managed health care: with the same calculated, murderous indifference, this malicious indifference to human need.

So, the problem is, until this nation gets rid of its essential immorality, the immorality of racism, and things which are like racism, until it gets rid of liberalism, like the liberalism of Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice, and says, "No, a human life has an intrinsic value, an inviolable intrinsic value"; until we say that, we can't make moral judgments. Because, you say to Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, "Governor Ridge, you, after being forewarned, are wittingly doing exactly that for which we indicted, convicted, and sentenced Nazi criminals at Nuremberg; therefore, you are not a case of first impression, you are a repeat offender. You are a reincarnation of a Nazi criminal, Nuremberg criminal."

They say, "You can't say that. That man has a right to his honest opinion."

So, because of this kind of liberalism, that says that you can not call things by their right name, in the name of civility, that the horror which ought to fill your eyes when you face the facts of what's being done in Africa, when you see the United States, knowing, at the highest level, how these people were driven out of these camps, for the most intensive genocide in modern history. The genocide done by Hitler was a mild form compared to what was done in Central Africa in the Great Lakes region.

Take the population, as Jacques presented earlier. What's the population of the so-called Hutu population of the combined regions of Rwanda and Burundi? How many people of that population have been involved in targeting for death by these operations? How many days did it take to kill how many people in a forced death-march out of the camps, back into the jungle, to whatever

- 30 -