Executive Intelligence Review
This webcast transcript appears in the December 11, 2009 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The Real Change Is Coming

Lyndon LaRouche gave this webcast address on Dec. 3, the 11th and final one of 2009. The event was moderated by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche's West Coast spokesman, and Debra Freeman, his national spokeswoman. The webcast video is archived at www.larouchepac.com. This presentation was followed by an extended question and answer period. A PDF version of the entire webcast, including graphics, is available here.


Harley Schlanger: Good afternoon. On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I'd like to welcome the people who are here in our audience today, and those who are listening on the web. I'm Harley Schlanger, the Western States spokesman for Lyndon LaRouche.

This is one in a series of webcasts presented by Lyndon LaRouche, economist and statesman, who's been presenting, consistently, over the last decade, webcasts that have provided in-depth analysis and forecasts on the economy. And throughout this period, there's not a single forecast that's been made by Mr. LaRouche, which has not proven to be deadly accurate. And up to this point, the fight has been to develop the potential in the United States, to move the country behind this idea of the Four Powers agreement that Mr. LaRouche has been presenting and organizing for, not just in the recent period, but over the last decades. And so today, we're going to hear from Mr. LaRouche on the progress that's been made towards the Four Powers agreement, and further elaboration of the economic crisis that we're facing. So, without further ado, let me introduce Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you, very much.

We have three people present I shall cause to be introduced later in the course of events, who will be running as Democratic candidates, for selection as members of Congress.

I'll just explain what this is about: The three candidates are located respectively from the Boston area, from Texas (that is in the United States, you know), and from the West Coast. And the purpose of their function is to coordinate and create a national campaign around three initial, pivotal Democratic candidates for nomination and election in the coming year, in order to create a pivot around which to begin to mobilize the population now, for what it must do now. And we have to give the American people a perspective, and the Democratic Party, which is presently a shambles, a perspective, for—we're going to create something new.

We're not going to wait until November of next year, for new candidates to be elected, or for January, for these candidates to enter office. We're going to organize now, to get the people ready to clean the mess out in Washington, to replace a lot of key people. But the campaign now, is essentially, creating the three points of reference, for creating a national organization to straighten out the Democratic Party, by setting forth and defining a policy, a national policy.

This is unusual in one respect, but not unusual for the United States. Unlike the parliamentary systems of Europe, which have never been cured of certain diseases, the United States Constitution created a Presidential system, not a parliamentary system. The weakness in much of the candidacy of representatives to the Congress, is that they get the delusion that they're part of a parliamentary system, a European-style parliamentary system, and our Constitutional system is not parliamentary. Their function is as representatives, and they're representatives to a national government, to a Presidential system.

And more than ever, now, we need a Presidential system, because we've got to engage in agreements, solemn agreements with selected governments of the world, either the present governments or their suitable replacements, in order to change the way the world is going as a whole. We have to make that change now, but we have to get the juggernaut in motion, now, to make changes, now, which will be consolidated once the next generation in Congress is in place. The next generation in Congress will not initiate the changes. They will consolidate the changes, as our system of Congressional government is supposed to do.

But we're going to have to make Presidential changes now, which means there's going to have to be some change, of some kind, around the White House. As the recent folly, of the greatest silliness I've ever heard of—more troops into Afghanistan—comes forth, we need some changes in the Presidential department. Because if we don't, we're not going to exist.

And before we get into the question period, I'll ask to have these three candidates presented, who represent New England, Texas, and the West Coast: Three points of reference to define a national perspective for the Democratic Party campaigns of the coming year. They're not candidates representing three points on the map. They're candidates representing what must become an avalanche of candidacies, which are going to transform our government in detail.

Our Constitutional System

Anyway, two years ago, on July 25, 2007, I had a webcast, in which I announced that, within a matter of days, the United States would plunge into a deep financial collapse. Three days later, it did. I had warned that the collapse would begin in the area of real estate speculation. It did. I warned what this would lead to, and I made certain specifications.

First of all, that we must have an act, which I prescribed; it was called the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. This act would have frozen those real estate properties, which were in jeopardy of foreclosure in the coming period, in order to have a general reorganization of the field. It would also, in effect, put the banking system as a whole, under a commercial bank standard, under Glass-Steagall; that is, restore Glass-Steagall, which is already really in the Constitution: The Glass-Steagall Act was an implementation of a provision of the Constitution; it was not a change in policy of the United States. Which has to do with the nature of the United States, which unfortunately many Presidents and others have not understood. They think we're some kind of European freak show—we're not. We're the United States.

Columbus's Mission

We were created by the initiative, or the attempted initiative, of Christopher Columbus, who was following the inspiration of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who had died before that time. But Columbus had consulted with close confederates of Cusa, and Cusa had said, because of the crisis in Europe, due to what we call today, the oligarchical features of European society, that it was necessary to take the best contributions of European culture, and take them across the great oceans of the world, to other shores, in order to create the kind of system of government of nations that was needed.

Columbus was inspired to undertake this project, about 1480 A.D., and as we know, a dozen years later, having received a good deal of advice from the survivors of the associates of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, set forth. This colonization, the exploration and colonization by Columbus, failed, not because it was his fault, but because by 1492, we had entered a period of religious warfare in Europe, which had broken out. It was to break out more seriously around Henry VIII. So Europe, from that period, from 1492, with the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, which was the beginning of this great horror-show, until the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, Europe was torn apart by a bloody mess.

So, in this period, while the Habsburgs were still a great power, Europe was unable to realize the objectives which Cusa and others had had for European civilization. And the Hispanic and Portuguese settlements in America had failed, because they were under Habsburg influence. So the beginning of what became the United States, in terms of policy, came with the Plymouth settlement in 1620, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And so, this—the constitutional features, including those of economy, developed in Massachusetts, up until about 1690—was the basis for what later became the United States. The United States was a mission, to take the best of European civilization, to bring it across the waters—at a relatively safe distance, one would hope, from Europe, which was a sinkhole of corruption—and to establish here a place for the best of European civilization in the American continent, and thus, to set a beacon for humanity as a whole. This was in jeopardy at that time, because of James II of England and then, William of Orange.

But at a later point, Leibniz personally had a great influence in England, in a faction which was opposed to this degeneration. And his influence as transmitted back into the United States, by the way of a German scientist, Abraham Kästner, who called attention to the earlier work of Leibniz on this question, came to Benjamin Franklin and Company. And Franklin, as a leader in the United States, set into motion what became the United States Constitutional system. We went through two phases: First of all, the Declaration of Independence, and secondly, the formation of a Federal Constitution.

Now, the Declaration of Independence was won, because, at that time, in Europe, nations of Europe were opposed to the British Empire. Now the British Empire was not an empire of the English people. It was an empire of a certain Venetian interest, a financial interest which controlled the Anglo-Dutch system, especially since the accession of William of Orange. And so, the fight was, by Europe, which supported the United States' struggle for independence—Russia, France, other countries in Continental Europe, rallied to assist the United States through the League of Armed Neutrality—to assist the United States in securing its right to our Presidency.

A Struggle for U.S. Survival

What happened, then, later, of course, because of the French Revolution, which was a complicated mess of corruption, was the destruction of France, and the greatest asset that Britain ever had, Napoleon Bonaparte, fought wars on the continent of Europe, which destroyed Europe, to the point that the British Empire was consolidated in 1812-1815. And from that point on, the United States was engaged in a great struggle for its own survival, not only from outside forces, but from corruption which spread within: Like the founding of the Bank of Manhattan by Aaron Burr, an agent of the British and a traitor to the United States, who should have been hung.

So, up until the victory of the Civil War, when we defeated the British who created the Confederacy, we were established. Then Lincoln was shot! And the assassination of our Presidents, and of some Presidents in particular, has been a crucial part of our history. We got into World War I, because of the assassination of McKinley, without which it would not have been possible. We got into World War II, for similar kinds of reasons—the Harding problem was also part of this reason, because it brought the real scum into place in the United States.

We were saved by the Franklin Roosevelt election and what he did. We were ruined by Truman. And we've been ruined, more and more, with a few exceptions, all the way down since that time. Instead of patriots, we have people who admire the British Queen, even Presidents who admire the British Queen—the force of imperialism, the enemy of the United States!

So, this is a continuous struggle, by a nation—our nation—which has a philosophical intent, a Constitutional intent, which is the greatest on this planet. Our Constitution is a true Constitution. It is not a catch-all of odds and ends, rules which are voted up. We're a mission-oriented nation, a mission-oriented nation to be a republic, but also be a factor for world civilization as a whole, as Franklin Roosevelt understood this. And what he would have done, and attempted to do, had he not been replaced by a successor, Truman, who was a skunk. Eisenhower was a good President, but his administration was a skunk—not as bad as Truman, perhaps, but still a skunk.

Then, you had Kennedy: Now, I didn't really admire the Kennedy family at that time. I didn't think they were the best thing for the United States, but John did a fairly good job. And he listened to Douglas MacArthur, which is what got him killed: Because MacArthur advised him, to the effect that the United States must not become involved in any extended land war in Asia. And Kennedy was committed to that. And the only way they were going to get that policy turned around, was to kill him! And they did. And it wasn't some "Oswald" character. It was three other guys, associated with the attempted assassination of de Gaulle, from France and Spain, who walked in and did the job.

But the killing of Kennedy meant that we were going to war. It took us a decade, after the killing of Kennedy, before we fully got into the war, but the steps were made. Since that time, we've been in extended land wars in Asia, and other places! Wars that never should have been fought. Wars we could have won, without a war! If you have enough strength, where people have to listen to you, and they can't make war against you, and you've got a good case, by diplomacy and by imaginative approaches, you can usually resolve a problem of that nature, which might lead to war, without actually fighting it.

The point is, to be able to defend one's nation if necessary, but to use that capability to prevent your having to be drawn into wars. What has ruined the world? How have empires, repeatedly, since the time of the Peloponnesian War, how have empires in European civilization, been able to rule over nations? By extended war. The Peloponnesian War, for example! Greece had prevailed over the Persian Empire, and the Peloponnesian War—the Greeks destroyed themselves! Between three financial groups, one in Athens, one in Corinth, and one in Syracuse. The whole history of the Roman Empire was an empire ruled by what? By killing off, wars among subordinate groups, by organizing wars among its intended victims.

How was civilization destroyed in the 14th Century? When the Venetians organized wars in the 14th Century, which became the New Dark Age. How was Europe weakened and destroyed in the 16th Century, in the 17th Century? By war! 1492, with the Expulsion of the Jews, to 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. How was an empire created by the British? By the Seven Years War! The nations of Europe got into a quarrel, and the British and Dutch sat there, and waited to collect the empire. They didn't get an empire of the British monarchy, but they got an empire of the British East India Company, which was the empire at that time.

So, how was Europe managed? As Bismarck said in the 1890s, after he'd been discharged: We're going to have another Seven Years War! A general war in Europe, a Seven Years War, to ruin Europe in the interest of the British Empire! And that's what happened.

They killed McKinley. And the United States, which was committed to opposing the British Empire, switched, because a nephew of a traitor, Teddy Roosevelt, became President, and we switched sides! Woodrow Wilson, the great leader of the Ku Klux Klan, the man who reorganized the Ku Klux Klan in the postwar period. Again, we went into World War I, like idiots! We had no business there. We were destroyed, and weakened, and the killing of McKinley made that possible, just as the killing of Kennedy made possible what has happened to us since his death. Johnson was scared: He was convinced those three rifles were aimed at the back of his neck, if he should oppose their policy. He backed off. He let us be ruined—because he was scared! And, not without some justification, considering the record of things. Presidents get killed.

The way they got World War I going: It started with Bismarck. Bismarck was fired under British influence. The British ordered his being fired as Chancellor of Germany, and we got into war. How did it happen? First, they killed the President of France, Sadi Carnot. And they do similar things. Now, how did they get the whole thing going? By killing McKinley! It never would have happened if McKinley hadn't been killed. We were turned around.

We Do Not Need Wars!

We were ruined by getting involved in that war in Indochina, which we had no business getting into. We're now being ruined in a similar way, by the British, in Afghanistan! Idiocy! Insanity! We don't really need to make wars! We may have to use military force, but actually, today—the way it stands today, if we do the right thing, we do not need wars. We may need certain special actions, short-term special actions, but we won't need wars. You want to fight a general war? You want to fight a nuclear war? You want to fight a thermonuclear war? You want a war of diseases, plagues? You want a call for all-out war, in the world? No!

You may have to discipline a certain part of the world, and bring peace—but you're in there to bring peace, and enforce the peace. Not to fight general wars. And we're used by the British Empire, or what the real empire is, to get us to do foolish things, to get into foolish quarrels, with people who may be problematic, but there's a better way to deal with the thing.

And people are ambitious, to fight these wars—and sometimes the folly is McChrystal clear. It's a piece of insanity, and the President makes it even worse than McChrystal did, and his crowd.

So that's our problem.

We are a nation, based on a European cultural basis, a basis which was defined by the circles of Nicholas of Cusa, who was the central figure and the architect of modern European science and culture. And the effort was, when what happened with Constantinople and following that, when Europe was going back into disgusting conditions again, after the Renaissance, they said: "Go across the oceans. Meet people across the oceans. And take our cultural achievements with us to these people, but don't take our diseases, our political diseases with you." And that, in effect, was done. And we, with this picture which I've given some general outline to, we in a sense, produced a nation. Which is the only possible rallying point, still today, to save this planet from Hell. Without this nation, you can not organize the world to avoid the Hell that's coming down on it now, without this United States.

And we have to deal with our United States as an instrument, for that purpose. We have to have a Presidency, a Presidential system—and we don't have a Congressional system, we have a Presidential system! And the Congressional function is a part of the Presidential system; it's not an independent factor. We need a Presidential system that functions. And we're going to have put this President, either in a cage inside the Oval Office, probably with rubber walls, and somehow get a Presidency. And if he can't do that, we're going to have to replace him. Because, without a functioning Presidency of the United States, I don't see much of a chance for civilization in the period today. I don't believe in making promises that are not feasible: I don't see a possibility, under this President and his present behavior, I don't see any chance for the United States, or the world.

A Mission for All Mankind

Now, what has happened is this: Europe has been destroyed. Western and Central Europe have no functional value today. I think that France and Germany, if they were freed of British control, under the present European system, would tend to go back to sensible approaches and would cooperate with us, and others. But as long as they're stuck in the euro system, Western and Central Europe is not going to go anywhere, anywhere good. And since what happened this past weekend, as you now see, the entire financial system of the world is disintegrating. Whole nations are bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt! We're in a general breakdown crisis, a chain-reaction breakdown crisis, of the entire international monetary-financial system, and economic system.

Now, what I've done, is to propose, some time ago, that we get certain people in Russia, China, and India, and the United States, as a bloc of nations, around which to combine our sufficiently powerful bloc, as a combination, to force the needed changes on a planetary level. In other words, by changes, I don't mean "jobs." You know, the idea of giving somebody a job to rake leaves, is not exactly an economic development program.

What we need is production jobs! We need nuclear power. We need a national rail system. We need a space program, a real space program, revived! Because we don't have factories of any significance any more—we shut them down! Especially under George W. Bush, Jr., and this thing in there—they shut it down! What happened to the automobile industry? What's happened to the aircraft industry? Go on, through all the high-tech industries we had: What happened to them? They're gone! We still have the knowledge of that technology, but we are losing the people who are able to practice it.

We have "jobs"—yes! What are "jobs" worth? Raking leaves? You build a world by raking leaves, or doing social work? No, you build industries.

Today, that means, for example, nuclear power. Technologically, it's impossible to develop the population of this planet without nuclear power, on an extensive basis—and that's not enough. What you have to count on, is higher energy-flux density. You have to increase the energy-flux density of the power in the hands of labor. If you can't do that, you can not achieve the productivity necessary to save this nation and save the world.

We're talking about a vast program of this! We have to go to space! We have to undertake the industrialization of the Moon, because if we don't do industrialization of the Moon, we can't get to Mars. And if we can't get to Mars—which may take several generations to do that, with human beings; we can get there already with slow craft in 300 days, or something like that. But if you're going to bring human beings there, you've got to talk about a mere few days, between Moon orbit and Mars orbit. And that involves some problems. But we pretty much shut down NASA, which was the mission-orientation for that sort of thing.

Now, the Mars project is necessary for humanity, in the sense that humanity functions on the basis of something about human beings which animals don't have. The animal world has creativity in the development of species, new species, varieties, and so forth. Even the non-living world undergoes development. The universe, the physical universe, is undergoing development all the time. But it has no will to develop! It has no knowledgeable will to choose to develop. It develops because the creativity is built into the universe. Man is different. Man has the willful creativity, to shape the universe. And therefore, man can not function without having the inspiration, to use that ability, that creative power, to achieve higher goals, than are currently practiced.

For example, we have a planet of very poor people, in Asia, in particular, and in Africa—a terrible mass of poor people! We're running short of many resources. We have to create new resources. We have to increase the productive powers of labor of the existing population. We have 6.7 billion people now on this planet—we're headed towards 7. We have to progress, to meet that challenge. We have to inspire our people, each in their own culture, to take this mission-orientation for mankind as their responsibility.

A Challenge to Mankind's Creative Powers

In order to challenge people, what do you do? You educate them, and you adopt missions, which make goals, higher goals, clear to those people. And children say, "I want to do this." We had, back in the 1960s, even into the beginning of the '70s, we had children who would say, "I want to go into space." The Moon landing program of NASA was an inspiration. The Russian Soviet program was also an inspiration to the planet! You have to have these kinds of goals, of missions for mankind, for mankind to use his creative powers, to raise humanity to a higher level of existence. You have to talk to your children and your grandchildren about this kind of goal. And it's only when you get their imagination stirred that they become creative. And without bestirring that creativity, mankind does not progress. Hmm?

And that's what we used to say about the United States; we were a nation that was committed to that sort of thing. What we did under Franklin Roosevelt was an example of the nation which had been crushed, under a legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson, and similar types of scoundrels. We were almost destroyed. But we rebuilt. And facing the challenge of the war in Europe, and the challenge of unemployment, the challenges here, we mobilized our people, to create a machine, which was the most powerful machine the world had ever seen: the machinery of the United States which was deployed for World War II.

The intention was to continue the development of that machine in the post-war period, not for war purposes, but for construction of the planet. Roosevelt had a clear plan for this thing. Truman had a different idea: Truman kissed the butt of Winston Churchill—and we've been getting backlash from that ever since. We destroyed most of our capability. We destroyed our industries, we just shut them down! We had all kinds of projects, for post-war projects, which would have led to great achievements, and we shut them down.

Nuclear power was one example of this thing. It was feasible in principle. Sometimes, it takes a couple of generations; once an idea is clear and feasible, it may take you two or three generations to actually bring it online, as effective.

But the way in which you organize mankind—two questions: First, we have to understand culture. We have to understand national cultures, in particular, because national cultures embody—within the use of language and other things—embody the inherited bits of knowledge and experience of past generations of that people. Therefore, you can not go into a country and say—you can't create a Tower of Babel, a one-world economy. You have to use the culture, the various cultures of the people, as your mobilizing force: Because it's in their imagination, the powers of imagination, which is associated with their culture, in which they are able to mobilize creativity. So you want to create the opportunity, for upgrading them, through fostering the benefits of their own creativity, and inform them of the objectives that other people were achieving, which they may copy and build upon.

So you need a system of sovereign nation-states, of sovereign people, different cultures, each with its own sovereign expression. And the unity of these people for a common purpose, the purpose of humanity. To do that you must stir the imagination, the powers of the imagination of the people. And that means: Reach to space! We're going to Mars. It will probably take us three to four generations to do that, to solve the scientific problems that are involved in overcoming very high speeds or rates of acceleration in interplanetary travel, which is required for moving mankind around. And this is not easy, but we know we can solve the problem. We just have to go through the steps of solving it. It will take us two or three generations or more, but we'll get there.

But as long as we inspire our young people, especially younger people, to look at their adulthood—we've got people in their twenties; they're going to be functioning, probably, for 50 years to come, if we can get Obama out of office; he doesn't seem to be in favor of that sort of thing—and they should be looking forward to what they're going to produce, within their own lifetime, as benefits for humanity, of which they will be proud. It's a span of about 60 years, approximately, that they think in terms of. Most people think that way, if they live that long. And when people can find a purpose in their life, in the sense that what they are doing now, what they are preparing themselves to accomplish, will lead, within their own lifetime, to the foundations of something much better than they have today, that's when you can capture and sustain the imagination of a people, in its own culture. And when people are united, even if they have different cultures, if they're united by a common purpose, to do this!, to cooperate to do this!—then we have peace among nations on this planet. And that should be our goal. It should be our goal, now.

What seems impossible to small-minded people, are the ideas that are necessary, to get out the pit we're in today.

We Don't Need Wall Street!

So, we're in a very interesting crisis, right now. And it started in a sense—the present crisis, in its present form—started back then, back in 2007, when I proposed the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. Now, this act was not adopted, because of people like Barney Frank, who was up front on this sort of thing. And Barney's a funny guy: We've never been able to determine exactly what language he speaks, but we know he's there—and we're not too pleased by it.

Anyway, so they led the charge, in opposing the installation of my Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. And there were many people in leading positions, including governors of states, in the United States, who were prepared to move, to push that act forward. And it could have been implemented by the Autumn of 2007. What Barney Frank and his cohorts did was exactly the opposite. They wrecked that. And what became the process of bailout, in its early phases—bailing out corrupt banks, bailing the swindlers of Wall Street and similar kinds of things—became the objective. They did nothing to stop the loss of homes of American citizens. They did nothing to save jobs, industrial jobs. They did nothing to maintain education. They did nothing to maintain and improve health care. But they went in exactly the opposite direction. And they became slaves of the British Empire, the little tiny Queen of the British Empire.

And so, we built up—we have trillions of dollars, tens of trillions of dollars, right on the books in the United States of worthless debt! Which was imposed upon us, by bailout of things which we should let go bankrupt! We don't need Wall Street! This economy doesn't need it!

We need a Constitutional banking system, of the type, which Alexander Hamilton prescribed, and which is embedded in our Constitution. So, why don't we just stick to our Constitution? We are supposed to be, not a monetary system—we're not a monetary system, we're a credit system! The government of the United States has a monopoly, Constitutionally, on the creation of credit, and of public credit! No other institution should be allowed, and should go to jail if they try, to inflate things by coining their own money, such as by a central bank! That's a swindle. These people belong in jail. And they should have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them! But in this case, these people were able to bail out bankrupt institutions which were hopelessly corrupt, and wreck the United States!

What do we do about this? The solution is simple: You have to have the guts to do it. If you don't have the guts to do it, you're not going to have a United States; you're not going to have a Europe. Have you got the guts to do it? Are you worth your salt? Are you going to do it? Put this thing through bankruptcy reorganization: We have the precedent with the former Glass-Steagall Act, which was actually nothing but an implementation of a provision of the U.S. Federal Constitution. We are a credit system, not a monetary system! Monetary systems are illegal, with respect to our Constitution. They were practicing an illegal practice, an un-Constitutional practice.

Sorry, buddy! We found an honest judge, and you're about to lose all these ill-gotten gains you had. We don't need Goldman Sachs. We don't need these kinds of things that Roosevelt tried to free us from. We don't need them!

What we need is a good, sound system, a commercial banking system such as what we used to understand as a commercial banking standard. But we need to create a credit system under the U.S. Federal government and our Constitution, because we're going to have to cancel this $23 trillion of waste paper, as debt—just wipe it off the books! And the Federal government then has to have a single act, rammed through the Congress, which creates a supply of credit for several purposes. One, we don't create jobs. When these guys talk about "jobs" today, they're talking about handouts, picking up paper, digging your fingers in your nostrils, and cleaning out your nostrils, or something like that! It's worthless!

We mean, productive jobs! In certain categories: We don't have an auto industry! We're losing the aircraft industry! We're losing the power industry! We're losing everything that's worthwhile. We're taking people who have skills, but are aging, we're throwing them out on the streets. We're threatening to kill them, by health-care policies which are as intentionally mass-murderous as Adolf Hitler's! Which we have on the books, right now, that are being voted up or down. We don't need this. What we need is real work!

Now, we've got a youth population, which is not accustomed to real work. Well, there weren't the jobs available to get it! We destroyed the auto industry; the apprentice program that went with that is gone. All our high-tech industries are virtually shattered—we have nothing. We've got to build it back again.

Therefore, we have to take a number of things, that we can do, which will re-create the kind of industrial-agricultural potential which we formerly had, which we've lost. And we find that we are in the same situation in that respect that you find, in Russia, the largest national area in the world, and with some very important features; and China, and India, and other countries, where they have a very large part of the population which is exceedingly poor and unskilled.

Now therefore, if we're going to have a future for humanity, we have to solve that problem. And we have to do it in our own country, as part of that.

Uniting the Planet

Now, I have some measures that I've indicated to my friends, but I've also some measures which I've indicated to some governments around the world, and friends of governments around the world: that we simply take four nations, the United States, Russia, China, and India, which, together with nations which are closely associated with them, represent the greatest power on this planet, in terms of people power. And that we create a new order of affairs among allied, cooperating, sovereign nation-states, to solve this problem; to solve the problem of underdevelopment where it occurs with large populations like India, China, and so forth—large parts of the population are totally undeveloped—and to develop it.

We have a shortage of development of sources of certain essential raw materials. We're going to have to build a system of cooperation to solve that problem. Russia, for example: The north of Russia, in Siberia, has one of those areas of the world where there's a great concentration of mineral wealth. But it's a tundra area; it's an Arctic area, like northern Canada, which is a similar kind of area; like Alaska. You can't just go up there, as they do in Africa, and steal the raw materials and walk away with it, and put it on a boat and ship it someplace else! No! You have to develop the area, you have to develop the production, which means you have to put people there! You have to build residences there, under those kinds of conditions—we can do that! We have to build the industries, which will not only extract raw materials which are needed, but which will develop them, into a semi-finished product for application. We therefore, have to take the areas of the world, where we have dense populations, where there's inadequate development—we're going to have to produce the raw-materials development program, which will solve the problem for them.

So this kind of cooperation among nations, which means long-term capital investment—we're talking about 50-year, 100-year kinds of investment—this is what we need. And this, in three or four generations, we can change this planet, to reach certain objectives which are within our reach, under those conditions.

And therefore, what we need to do, for example, I have one project: the United States. We've lost most of our industry. Well, we can do one thing. We can do one thing which was international: We can unite Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas. How? By a single rail system. If you build the railway tunnel/bridge system through the Bering Strait, which is a well-defined project and a feasible project, you take that area of Siberia, you link into Alaska, down through Canada, down through the Darien Strait in South America, and down to the tip of South America. You do the same thing in the other direction, in Eurasia, down into Africa. And therefore, you can effectively, for most of this planet, now create a high-speed system of mass transportation, for passengers and freight, which is more efficient than any short- or medium-term aircraft travel, and much more efficient than highway travel, in terms of cost and effectiveness.

We can do that. We can unite this mega-planet, or this mega-continent, composed of Africa, the Americas, and Eurasia. And the Australians are eager to cooperate, because Australia has a great mass of such things as uranium and thorium, which are the fine ingredients of nuclear power, these days. So therefore, Australia will be invited to contribute its development of its relevant industries in this large area they have for themselves as a nation, and they will have a future, in the world, by playing this kind of role of cooperation, as Australia, with Asia in particular. Hmm?

So we can unite the world, on the basis of the fact that we are going to have a division of labor, among respectively sovereign nation-states. And how are we going to do it?

Cancel the Monetary Systems

Well, we're not going to have a monetary system. Monetary systems have to be cancelled. And you do that by cancelling all the worthless debt around. Like you go into a bank, you go into a bank under Glass-Steagall: You find there are a lot of bad assets in that bank, a lot of bad obligations. And you have the orders come in, for reorganization under Glass-Steagall or similar law, the way Roosevelt did in the original Glass-Steagall operation. And you say, "That's crap, pffftt!, forget it! It's gone!" "This is solid, this meets a Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, or a savings bank, or similar kinds of banks. That stays!"

Now, when we clean that mess up, now you turn around, and now, you create a new debt, which is, the Federal government authorizes the creation of a mass of utterance of credit. And we invite other nations to do the same thing. Get rid of the monetary system—take the IMF and everything resembling it, and bury 'em! Take the City of London, and bury it! Get rid of it!

Then what you do, is, you now have a system of currencies. Nations of currencies, their legal currencies. Well, you have to create a fixed-exchange-rate system. Do you have to figure out how you calculate that? No, you don't. You take the existing relationships in terms of currencies among nation-states, with whatever adjustments people think are necessary and equitable, and you simply say, "these are credit systems." That is, the currency of that nation belongs to that nation, as its authority. The only legal currency is what that nation itself creates, as its credit, which then can be capitalized for production.

We now have to have a system of credit systems, as what Roosevelt had intended in 1944, contrary to what happened under Truman. Eliminate the monetary system, entirely. Wipe it out! We now recognize, as money and credit, only national credit. And by creating a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, among cooperating nations, you're now ready to go.

Now, once you've created a credit system under a fixed-exchange rate, now you go to treaty-agreements on long-term credit agreements across nation borders, where nations contract, among themselves, terms of cooperation over the long term, under a fixed-exchange-rate system. Because the important thing is not what the relative value, nominal value, of a currency is. What's important is maintaining a baseline of improvement. And the baseline improvement—you have to get credit. You have to satisfy the physical needs of national development of various nations. And you create a system of credit, denominated in terms of like 25 years, 50 years, 100 years, in certain long-term projects. And that way we can achieve what has to be achieved.

Mobilizing the Imagination

But we have to do something else. We have to mobilize the population and its imagination. Because only the desire for a better future, only goals for a better future, can mobilize a population to be motivated, to do what has to be done. When you put this Mars question: We have to industrialize the Moon, which is already a project that's understood: Ten nations are actually concerned, with the idea of industrializing the Moon; ten nations that are Moon-landing oriented. We have to take the Moon, and make the Moon a baseline, for going into space.

In other words, you don't want to build up tremendous weight in apparatus on Earth, and have to pump that stuff up to the Moon! What you do is, you take your technology to the Moon, and then you find the raw materials on the Moon, which you use to build the craft. Now you build the craft which will actually take you, or take whatever you want to send, to Mars, in that direction. So you have to build an industrialization of the Moon.

Remember, this is not a new idea! The space pioneers, as early as the immediate post-war period, in the 1950s in the United States, were already talking about that, as they were in the Soviet Union, and in other places. The Mars objective was the objective, the planet Mars. Getting there is going to be complicated; it's going to take a lot of science, a lot of development, but that's our mission. We're thinking ahead: We're not thinking about what we're going to get tomorrow; we're thinking about what our people are going to have, two or three generations ahead.

And we're thinking about the purpose in life, which we're giving to young people today, who are coming out of adolescence—the purpose in life, for them! When they ask themselves, "To what purpose am I living? Am I living to my satisfaction? Am I an animal? Or am I living for the sake of my coming generations? Am I living for the joy of my old age? Am I living to do the things that will give me joy in my old age?" It will take a grandfather, who will tell his grandson, "I helped build that! And here's what you're going to do, in your time."

It's that force of imagination, when that becomes the policy of nations, to develop the imagination in this way, the scientific imagination, the cultural imagination, where do we want to go? What do we want to promise to our grandchildren, and their grandchildren? What do we expect as goals that we think we can realize in this term of life? How do we have to educate our people, what do we have to do now, to give a meaning to life? I mean, are we animals? That we just eat, and have pleasure, from one moment to the other? Or, are we people, who are thinking about humanity, about future generations, are thinking about what we owe to past generations, and what we owe to future generations? Do our lives have meaning? Do they have purpose? Or are we just silly pleasure-seekers, or something? Entertainment-seekers?

And the problem we have today, is a cultural problem, which is a moral problem: Is that under a zero-growth society, a zero technological growth society, a greenie society, mankind becomes less than an animal in moral value. That's why we have this health-care program! What's the health-care policy, that we're getting in Europe? What's the health-care policy now in the United States, under the Obama Administration? Kill people! Reduce the number of people! By cutting down the means of life! They're too young, too many babies—they should die! They're too old, we don't want them—they should die! We don't want jobs which require skills—which means we'll be able to produce less, more people should die!

The goal that Prince Philip has described is to reduce the population from 6.7 billion, to 2! Or less! A maximum of 2: The official policy of the British monarchy, is to reduce the world's population from a 6.7 level, today, of billions, to less than 2. That's his policy. That's what the Greenies are all about. That's what the Copenhagen thing is all about: Mass murder!

When we're on the road, where the population requires that we must anticipate right now, a world level of population of 7 billion. We have to anticipate that now, in this coming generation. And we have to prepare to be able to meet that challenge. And we can! The point is, as you make people creative, you inspire them to be creative. Inspire them to see objectives beyond what their habits are today, and they will be creative, and they will create the ability to satisfy these goals. And mankind is not going to stick around as being just in the nook of this Earth, just some corner of the Solar System: Mankind is going out into the universe. If we can have a constantly accelerated flight within our galaxy, men, in their own lifetime, can explore some distant parts of this galaxy. We can do it.

'We Are the Fire-Bringers'

We're not going to do this tomorrow, but our perspective has to be in that direction. It's what we have to tell to our children, and our grandchildren: "This is what we must do." And when you capture the imagination of people, in a realistic way, this way, then they become moral, because they become inspired to do good.

And you see around us, people want to be entertained. What kind of entertainment do they want? They want to dull their sense with marijuana or some other drugs, or some crazy habit, all night, with some crazy dancing going on. Crazy, invented new sexes, or whatever other kinds of entertainment they want. They don't have a human purpose in life, they don't have a meaning. They would stand ashamed in front of a court of humanity. You ask them, "What was your purpose in life?" "What's that?" They don't have a sense of a purpose in life!

And we, as human beings all die: No one has invented a non-dying science. Human beings die. Well, what is important about human beings? Is it the fact that they die? Or the fact that they're living? No, not that. It's what human beings contribute in the course of their lifetime. And by capturing the imagination of young people in schools, for example, and inspiring them to realize that they can make discoveries, or they can begin by reenacting discoveries which people have made before them; and realize that this human power of creativity, of discovery, is what makes them human, and is what gives meaning to their life. That's where you get morality. There's no other way to get it. Otherwise, you're just an animal. If you're not oriented to the future, and the development of mankind, what are you? You're just an animal!

And how does mankind do that? With fire. You know, as I've emphasized repeatedly, contrary to the Greenies, the key evidence in ancient archaeology, between a monkey or an ape, and a human being, is a fireplace. Human beings are the only creatures that use fire. And we not only have fire, the burning of wood, and coal, and so forth; we now have big fire: We have nuclear fire. We have thermonuclear-power fire. We have hadron collider fire. All this kind of fire, ever-increasing higher order of energy-flux density.

And through this, we're able to transform the planet, we're able to use poorer natural resources, with the same effect as we once did with richer natural resources. We're going to find that we're able to master more and more of the vicinity of Earth and the Solar System, through the increase of fire: higher fire, nuclear fire, thermonuclear fire, antimatter/matter-reaction fire, always more dense. And with that, mankind can do almost anything.

So, we are that: We are the fire-bringers. And by doing that, we increase man's power to exist.

A Pacific Orientation

So, that has to be our mission. Now, what I've proposed, so far, of course, practically, is two areas I want to focus on: First of all, at present, as I said, Western and Central Europe is dead. It, by itself, presently has no ability to meet the challenge of its own future, because of this euro system, this British-imposed euro system, which was imposed beginning 1989-1990. However, there are other parts of the planet, which, as they've shown, are more open to development. The United States, because of our legacy, we have deeply embedded in us, a commitment to this kind of thing, and we just have to reawaken it, based on our own culture.

We have Russia, which is a similar case. It's the largest land-area nation in the world, with immense resources, and also, with a culture which has adapted it to operate effectively in an arctic or subarctic area, such as that of northern Siberia. And you've got a little, one place, in Moscow, the Vernadsky Institute, which has the knowledge of how to develop that. I've talked with our friends in the Vernadsky Institute repeatedly; we've talked about this. They know how to do it! How to get a population—and a Russian population would like to do that—how to do that, how to take these areas which are considered uninhabitable, make them habitable! And by making them habitable, and developing industries and transportation systems there, we can extract the raw materials which Asia as a whole requires. And by cooperation with other places, we can do the same thing. By bringing these continents together, into a super-continent, through mass transportation systems, we can do that! We can solve this problem.

And in the process, at the same time, space. Space is important, because we should do it. We should adopt it as a mission. But space is important in order to force people to see a future for mankind, beyond the limits of Earth itself. And that inspiration of the imagination of children, to that effect, is the most important thing we can do. Because, as we see, from degeneration of Europe, culturally and morally, in the United States, culturally and morally, recently, it's the lack of inspiration to think in that direction, which is the source of our acceptance of degradation of our culture in recent times.

So, this means that the United States is crucial, because we have an ingredient in us, if we awaken it, which is essential to the other cooperating nations. The other cooperating nations generally have a Pacific orientation, rather than an Atlantic orientation. The development of European civilization was to get away from Europe, toward the Americas; and once they filled up the Americas, then the direction was to get across the Pacific, to Asia, to get at that part of the world. And we have a Pacific orientation today. It happened with the recent developments in China and elsewhere. We have a Pacific orientation: We're going across from the United States, from Europe to the United States, and from South America, to Asia. So the center of development now, the focal point of development now, is the relationship of the motion, from the United States, since western Europe doesn't function right now, to Asia, and beyond, across the Pacific.

So, we mobilize in that direction: the United States, China, Russia, India. That's the center, that's your baseline. That is sufficient to do this. Because if you have those nations united, we can push it through; we can push it through, now! Not two years from now, not after the next election next year, but now! Because we're now in a breakdown crisis of the entire international financial-monetary system! Which happened last weekend.

As I said, back in July, the 25th of July of 2007, I said this system is crashing. It's now crashed. It's finished. Its collapse will be a process ongoing, but it's collapsing. And therefore, we need an immediate treaty-agreement, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries which are relevant in that area, first. We have to do what was done, in a limited way, in the agreement between China and Russia, most recently, in October. Because that's the beginning, that's the pattern. India must be included; Southwest Asia must be included; Southeast Asia, particularly, must be included.

So, now, we start a development program. The United States must subscribe to this and become a partner in its operation. Then we have enough power, to change the direction of the planet. And that is the way we'll solve the problem of the United States.

A New CCC

Now, inside the United States, what do we have to do? As I mentioned, we have a labor force of young people which is not qualified to do much more than pick their nose—and that's better than drugs. So therefore, we're going to have to create in the United States, a peculiar kind of revival of what Roosevelt created as the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps. We're going to have to take these young people, who have very little chance of developing modern skills, and we're going to have to open an academic type of alternative to military service, or it may include people in military service; but like a Corps of Engineers, in an extended sense. And taking young people into this, and giving them an orientation to begin to develop themselves as becoming a productive force in society, a meaningful force.

We are actually going to move people, as we did with the CCCs before, we're going to have to move many of these young people out of the cities, into special encampments, as their residence, as they're qualifying. We're going to have to have a special educational program. We're going to try to turn as many as possible, into qualified engineers and things of that sort. We did that before—we can do it. But it has to take patience, and you have to have some art. We have some experience in this from the past. We'll do it again.

Create a civilian corps, which is dedicated to this general purpose of taking the labor force of young people, coming out of high school age, in their 20s, and moving them in a direction where they begin to develop—with some self-discipline as well as discipline—to learn how to be productive people. That will be a source of strength. We did that: Remember, we had a famous division from Michigan, which fought in World War II, and it came from this kind of source; a lot of it came right out of the CCC camps, and they marched into war.

Then, from that, you have the branching opportunities, in kinds of employment, or kinds of employment careers—aerospace, building railway systems, other kinds of things—so you actually are developing people, while they're being educated in this way, into a productive force. And we know enough in our own culture in the United States how to do that. What's needed is the will to do it, if the will to do it is there. What we need is, people in productive jobs.

Then we have to have productive programs. Well, we've lost most of our industrial potential. It's there latently, but we shut down the auto industry, essentially; we've been shutting down the aircraft industry now. We're shutting down almost everything of any importance, now. We'll stop that. So, let's build an international, modern, rail, magnetic-levitation system, among these continents, as a mission-orientation.

Now, you put the pieces in, one by one, as you choose, but that's your orientation. You're going to take people off the highway. Instead of commuting two hours or more a day, each way, from one place to another just to do work, and destroying family life, you're going to decentralize the relationship of place or location of residence, to work. People should not have to travel an hour to two hours a day, each way, to and from their work. It destroys family life.

How do we do that? Well, there are two ways of doing this: Regrouping the habitation; or, you can regroup the orientation of habitation. The other way is high-speed transport. People on the highways in great numbers, in flocks, in automobiles, travelling an hour to two hours each way, each day, to and from work, is not good for family life! Not good for any kind of life, not good for social life; it disorients people, corrupts them. Therefore, you need high-speed transportation, which can get people safely to and from the place between where they work and where they live. And you restore family life, which almost does not exist in the United States, these days. So we need this kind of motion.

Greening the Deserts

We need a space program! We need water-management programs. We need to turn whole areas of desert areas into rich areas of growth. And we're not going to have solar reflectors, we're going to have chlorophyll! You take an area—I've described this before—you have these giant arrays of solar reflectors—what idiocy! What insanity dreamed this one up!

You have a certain density of sunlight radiation that hits the surface of the Earth, like a desert area—no green. Or you clear an area of shrubbery and growth, to put solar collectors out there! Now, the solar collector collects power at the incident level of energy-flux density, of sunlight hitting the surface of the Earth. But, if you didn't use a solar collector, or the silly idea of windmills to generate electricity (which is even worse than a solar collector)—as a matter of fact, windmills, if you take them down and liquidate them when they wear out, the net contribution of the existence of a windmill as a source of power, is zero, or less! Because the cost of building the damned thing, operating it, handling, and then taking it down, combined, is greater than all the benefit you get in terms of electrical power! Windmills are for nuts.

All right, now, solar collectors: What's the best solar collector? Well, you have solar collectors in the sea, and you have them elsewhere, but the most familiar solar collector, which most people know, is called "chlorophyll."

Now chlorophyll is a molecule which looks like a pollywog; it has a tail. But that tail is actually an antenna. And it has a head, with a big atom in the middle of it. And what the tail does—the tail collects power from the Sun, and the power is accumulated, as in a capacitance effect, in the head. And you have several of these molecules, or a number of them, working together. So one of the molecules gets pregnant, and is ready to give a spurt of power. Now the spurt of power is actually amplified, in what we call energy-flux density, over the incident energy-flux density of sunlight hitting the soil.

So what happens then, is, you get several effects from the chlorophyll: First of all, you get a higher level of power; it's much more efficient and it's not wasted. Secondly, chlorophyll develops the land area, by turning a desert area, or a barren area, and getting growth, trees. It creates rainfall patterns, where rain is recycled from one part of an area to another. Incident rainfall!

How do you get rainfall? Well, the rainfall starts from the ocean, largely, it comes across the land, it falls on the ground. It then is evaporated again, because of the respiration of plants, and moves on, to start another rainstorm down the road! So the same water in this rainfall is being used time and time again, between the time it originates in the ocean, and the time it gets back into the ocean again, by flowing downstream.

Now, this creates, what? This has the effect of cooling the environment. Grasses do a fairly decent job; trees are much better. Trees will take up to 10% of the incident solar radiation, and absorb it and convert it into biomass—and will cool the environment! The way you get rid of a desert, is you grow a forest. And you have to go through these cycles to do it.

So therefore, we don't want this nonsense any more. What we need is high energy-flux density power, and high energy-flux density is the measurement of effectiveness of production. The higher the energy-flux density—and this means you go from incident sunlight, you go up the scale toward nuclear power, and then to thermonuclear power, and beyond that.

A Filling Station on the Moon

Well, for example: If you wanted to take a ship, and you wanted the ship to take you from Earth-orbit, as in, from the Moon to Mars orbit, with people in it—if you wanted to have that ship travel at a speed which gives a gravitational effect for the inhabitants of the capsule, you will have a tank attached to it, as big as the Moon, just to contain the fuel. It's not a very good idea.

So therefore, what you need, is you need a much higher energy-flux density thing; you need fusion thrust. And where do you get the fusion thrust? Well, you go to the Moon. That's your filling station. You'll find at the filling station on the Moon, there's helium-3, an isotope of helium. Helium-3 is the best fuel for thermonuclear fusion, it's the most efficient. So if you wanted to have a ship go, so the one-gravity effect on the passengers and the crew, between Earth orbit and Mars orbit, you would want to have thermonuclear fusion as your propellant. And it would come from helium-3, picked up from the gas station on the Moon. And most of the equipment you would fly in, would also be built on the Moon, from raw materials which are present on the Moon. And once we get into that racket, we find that we're not limited to the Moon. Once we become gatherers of raw materials and so forth, in various parts of the Solar System, then, we find that we have many more kinds of resources to deal with.

So, in general, the point is, we have to go to this kind of development. Therefore, we want a space orientation. We want a power/space orientation combined, to complement the development of a railway system. Now, in this process, when you start to build the railway system, of the type we're talking about, you're going to have to recreate the machine-tool production, and so forth, that you need.

So essentially, in my view, in the United States, what we would do by tradition: We would take a large-scale project, like the Tennessee Valley program, or our developing a railway system, the transcontinental railway system—you would take that project, and you would assign Federal responsibility for creating the credit, and authorizing this, to build this system. You would then go to private contractors, along the way, who would pick up on filling out subcontractors on these projects, which is the way things always work in the United States, when they worked. And thus, you take a driver, some scientific project, like a space program, or a railway program, a water program, building power plants—these things now become the stimulus, which spin off the subcontracts and opportunities for expanding industry again.

So now we want to increase the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. We take the large projects as drivers. We take the offshoots of the large projects, which are largely national projects, as stimulants for the smaller level, for people who do the things that are necessary to support the major projects out there. Now, you can expand, raise the level, with aid of education, which is stimulated by this, to increase the productive powers of labor per capita in physical terms.

And that's what we used to do, in our best time! That's what we did under Roosevelt, with a lot of improvisation. Do it again! That's the solution for Asia, as well! You have to have the process of self-development of a population, through the kinds of goals and stimulants which will enable that to occur in a lawful way. And you have to have a people-carry orientation—that's to say, when you've got little kids out there, young people, who have no future, who are extremely poor, with no significant prospect of getting a better life—this is the way you approach that problem. You transform people who have no future, and you give them a future, by creating this process, where they're assimilated to the process of the general growth of the society.

A Credit System Now!

Now, so therefore, what we need right now—immediately—is, we need this program: We need to eliminate the present world monetary system, by a credit system. We create such a credit system by—because the United States is crucial, we have to have the United States cooperate as a part of this, as an initiating part.

The United States, Russia, China, and India are the base of doing that. If the United States, Russia, China, and India begin to cooperate, in the way we see signalled by the recent, past months' development of cooperation between Russian and China on certain projects, we see the pathway which can be extended to a larger part of the globe. And by making people conscious of what this means, in these countries and other countries, which will admire this, we're going to change the moral point of view, among nations generally. If your neighbor is beneficial to your existence, then you like your neighbor, and you will not have war. You will solve the problem without having war.

We will not have this terrible thing.

The problem we have now, is, the Americans have this generation that's dominant in the United States, which has lost that perspective. I represent one of the old fossils, who are still running around functioning, who represents this tradition which was once known as the Franklin Roosevelt tradition, and even earlier generations. But my view is this: Right now, right now: the entire world financial-monetary system is collapsing! Right now! It's not going to collapse, it is now collapsing! It has a date where it collapsed: It collapsed on the day that the Little Queen of England, in her capacity as Emperor of the World—which she described herself as being, virtually!—she said: "We represent one-third of the world, you know. And we're going to reach out further! We are going to run the world!" From places such as Dubai, no doubt!

Now Dubai is what? When China assimilated Hong Kong, the tradition of Hong Kong under the British Raj went by! And what did the British do? They picked Dubai! "Goodbye, Hong Kong. Dubai, we come!"

Dubai is the worst, filthiest center of corruption on this planet. For example, in places like nearby countries, if you want to have a crooked transaction, you go to Dubai. They talk about a certain amount of money. Well, what was Dubai, essentially? What was Hong Kong? How did Hong Kong exist? How did it come into existence? Drugs! What's Dubai represent? Drugs! Where are the drugs? Well, all over the place, if you want to ask for them, in the right way.

But the drugs come from—Afghanistan! They come from the southern part of Afghanistan—Oh! Aren't we fighting a war over there, or something?—from the southern part of Afghanistan, which is occupied by the British military, which is in there supervising the drug business. And the drug business is done by natives of the country, who are told, if they don't want to get shot, they will grow opium, and hashish, and other things. And produce heroin. And the heroin market of the world is now centered on this part of Afghanistan. And the British, by occupying it with their troops, are managing it!

So, all the drug trafficking in the world is now centered, as in Hong Kong, the same way, now, in Dubai! It's a center of intellectual filth and other kinds of filth of the planet! And the other Arab states around there are very embarrassed, when you start talking about Dubai these days, because it's a very dirty place—evil.

So this is the problem: The British Empire, which is Prince Philip, this crazy thing, the Copenhagen Conference, all these things are part of the intended destruction of humanity. This is worse than Adolf Hitler, what this amounts to in its effect. It has to be destroyed.

And the present world monetary-financial system is now disintegrating. Under present conditions, the present monetary system can not be saved! You can't save it—don't try. You have to shut it down. You shut it down, by putting it through a bankruptcy reorganization. You already have a step in that direction, in the agreement between Russia and China.

That agreement is a step in that direction: To take an asset—China using an asset, which is the debt of the United States to China. Instead of sitting there as an asset, waiting for it to be repaid, they now use it, as an investment capital, and use it to develop the economy of Asia, and other places. If this thing goes further, Japan will jump on it immediately, because Japan has no future, except as a partner of that region of the world. Korea, essentially, immediately. Other parts of South Asia, immediately; they will orient immediately in that direction. If India enters this, and India has to, because it has no rational choice but to do that, and a lot of people in India are inclined to go in that direction, then you'll have this whole section of Asia, which can now be involved in a development perspective.

And the way to make it work: The United States must join it.

And the present direction of policy of the U.S. Presidency must cease! And the United States must go away from the British-oriented policy, toward this policy, toward a Pacific policy. That is, the United States, as across the Pacific, to China, Russia, and these countries. And we have to push it through. And we have to use a weapon, and the weapon is a true weapon, it's not a fiction: The entire, present world system is going into the form of a collapse, which mimics what happened in Europe in the 14th Century, which was called a Dark Age, or a new Dark Age. Mankind has no choice: It must do this, or mankind, as a whole, goes into a Dark Age.

And there's no reason not to do it. There are impediments to doing it, and that means that serious people in the United States, have to use the potential for bringing key forces in the United States, into cooperation with what is going on, as a process between Russia and China, and what should be, also, India. Once we do that—and I know it's possible—we're talking to people in the United States, with whom we're discussing this. It is possible to do this, and it's possible to do this, very soon. I'm thinking in terms of months, or weeks, that something like this could be done. It's our chance.

Purify the Presidency

That means that this President—look, the Congress is not worth much; the President is worth less. We have some people in the government, in the United States, who are good people, intelligent people, who are capable of understanding this, and would tend to go with it. With a very slight adjustment in the composition of the present Presidency of the United States, eliminating the fruitcakes, like Rahm Emanuel, whose tutu is getting too tight for him! He screams a lot—it's that tutu squeezing in on him, you know. It's shrinking—he's getting fat, and his tutu is getting tighter and tighter; he's angrier and angrier! And what he has to do, is have this tutu removed. He probably should be sent to a health-care center where the tutu is removed—he's getting fat! You know, and the tutu doesn't fit any more. He doesn't dance well.

Anyway, but by eliminating this factor, the so-called behaviorist factor, in the present Administration, the part that's hated the most and increasingly hated, out, you have a U.S. Federal system, with people who are loyal to the system. You know, our system is of that character, as some people know. Our system is a Presidential system; it's not a parliamentary system. You have people who are—like me! I'm not part of the government. But I've been associated with the government for a long time. As a matter of fact, ever since I was in service, in military service in India, where I became sort of self-involved in the cause of Indians, at that point, against the British Raj, back in 1946.

So, and over that period, many of us are loyal to our sense of our government, our nation, our republic. And we tend to gather around the idea of our republic, as a republic; and we gather around the idea of the Presidency, as the key to our republic. The Congress has a very definite function. Our state representative system has a very important function. But the thing that holds the country together, that gives it a direction, is the Federal Executive; and the Federal Executive is a very large organization of people who are members of government, and people who are not members of government. Some were formerly members of government; they're not members of government anymore. But we all have our attachment, our emotional attachment, patriotic attachment, to the idea that this is our government, and this belongs to a government according to our Constitution. And our primary concern is our nation as a republic, and the role of the Presidency of this republic and the Executive branch in steering the policies of the nation as a whole, diplomatically and otherwise.

And therefore, if you purify this government of ours—which can be done—you can have very rapidly a very serious change in policy from a very bad policy, which we have now, to a very good policy, with some of the same members of government who are in position right now. And that's what I'm talking about. There are people in government or around government, associated with government right now, who understand some of the things I'm talking about, and who can very quickly learn to come to an accommodation around what I'm talking about. There are people in government, in this government, even the Obama government, who understand something of what I'm talking about, about this U.S.-Russia-China-India cooperation. They understand it; not perfectly, but they understand it. It's an idea that's there! And if you get the Obama situation under control, with the weight of this crisis now coming down, which is going to be more and more obvious as the days pass—we're in a breakdown crisis in the entire planet.

Under these conditions, under this condition of shock, you can make sudden changes. But you have to have clear, correct ideas, or you make a mess, not a change. And the time has come for the action to occur, to purify and strengthen our Federal Executive, in terms of its historic, Constitutional mission orientation, and tell Mr. Obama he has to be re-educated, one way or the other—in the White House or out—but he will be re-educated in either case. He will have a different orientation, and this clown, Rahm Emanuel, this silly fellow, will have to find another place; take his tutu someplace else. And that is a very feasible thing, right now. It's real, and it's necessary.

You're in a period of revolution, and history says, if you don't make the right revolution, you get the wrong one. We're in one of those times, and that's what this is all about.

A Real Change

The time has come for a real change! And the real change, the ingredients of a real change, as far as the United States are concerned, are really here. What are the changes?

The changes are: We're going back to a productive economy. We're going to a high-technology economy again. We're going to repair what we destroyed, in terms of the auto industry's potential, other industries' potential. We're going to repair, we're going to end this slavery to foreign control of food supply. We're going to insure food sovereignty for every nation.

Nations don't have national security now, because they don't have food sovereignty. The food on which they depend, is grown in another country, and it's international forces, not any of the countries, that control the food supply. And the food supply is being destroyed, deliberately, by the international cartels, the financial interests. Those cartels must be broken, their rights taken away, because every nation has a right to food security.

So anyway, this is the kind of thing we must do; we're at the point we must do it. And I say, from my knowledge, the potential ingredients to be put together inside the United States, for cooperation with Russia, China, India, and other countries, around a Pacific orientation, exist. It's just going to take the guts from a few people to make it happen.

And Obama can sit in the White House, or he can sit outside. He can do what we tell him, inside, or he can do something else, outside. And he will be nicely protected, he won't be hurt—his feelings may be hurt, but he'll have a good life. We take care of our Presidents, even when they're bums. We have respect for our Presidents; not because of them, but because of the institution they represent.

So, that's what our situation is. Anyway, I think we'll clarify some of this material in discussion, which is now, I presume, proceeding. And I would like to have Harley introduce our three candidates.

The Three Candidates

Schlanger: Well, as Lyn mentioned at the beginning, we're launching a new phase in American political life, with the announcement today of three campaigns in three very different parts of the country, but which will provide a national focus for the ideas that you've just heard presented by Mr. LaRouche. So we have our three candidates here, and I'd like to introduce them to you. These are members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, who have played an active role in recruiting young people into politics, and who represent individuals who have developed both intellectual capabilities and emotional capacity to inspire the desire in others to act for the future. And that's what these campaigns will be. So, the three candidates we have:

First of all, someone who became a little bit famous earlier this year, during the town meeting brawls that were taking place—Rachel Brown, who will be running against "Bailout Barney" Frank. And Rachel will be telling anyone who will listen, that if you've lost your job, you've lost your house, if your grandmother is being carted off to be killed, blame "Bailout Barney"! And this is a national campaign, because Barney Frank is at the center of this corrupt and immoral policy of bailing out the banks, while ignoring the welfare of the American people.

Now, secondly, we would be remiss if we didn't take on the poor woman who sometimes appears like a jack-in-the-box when she's sitting behind the President at his speeches, namely the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. So, we have a candidate who will be running in her district in San Francisco, who will be bringing this Pacific orientation, and I assure you that once his campaign starts, we probably will see some sign of emotion on her face. So, Summer Justice Shields will be running against Nancy Pelosi.

And then, there's a part of the country which I have inhabited for the last 30-something years. It's a tough part of the country; it's one of Lyn's favorite parts, because it has so much potential and needs so much work. Namely, Texas. Now, in Texas, we had a character a few years back, who some of you may remember, Tom DeLay. And we ran a campaign to save Texas and save America "without DeLay," and it finally worked. Only, the person who came in last time, is another bum who worked with DeLay, and he worked with Phil Gramm, in pushing through the elimination of the Glass-Steagall standard.

And so, we have a candidate who's going to be running in that district, to once again restore dignity to that district. But there's another very important aspect to that district. That's the district where NASA is located. And as you've heard Lyn, in his discussion today, a central part of changing this country is going to be inspiring youth to drop their computers and their cell phones and their XBoxes, and to actually take on the challenge of going into space. And so we're going to running a campaign in the district of NASA, which will have, as one of its ideas, to take the troops out of Afghanistan and put them in space. And the candidate there will be Kesha Rogers.

So this will be a national campaign to make sure the Presidential system functions in the United States. And we're going to need your support for these campaigns. We're going to run, not campaigns on a shoestring, but serious campaigns, with websites, and the websites will be launched within the next days. You will be able to go onto the websites, and see the latest developments in these campaigns, and also crossfired on LaRouche PAC. But we're going to need your support for them, so as soon as you can, go on these websites for Rachel Brown, Summer Shields, and Kesha Rogers, and write checks for them. You can write checks for all three of them, or one big check for one of them, however you want to do it. But this will be one of the ways that you can participate in this fight that Lyndon LaRouche identified today. Thank you.

Subscribe to EIW