Executive Intelligence Review
This transcript appears in the April 30, 2010 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
THE CASE OF ARKADI V. DVORKOVICH

Free Russia from
The Pirates of the Caribbean!

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

This is the transcript of a briefing Lyndon LaRouche gave to associates on April 24. PDF version of this transcript

What I have to say about the subject of today's events, which pertain to our "dear friend" from Russia, Arkadi Dvorkovich, who visited California recently, is not to assume more about him, than I actually say. I am merely sticking to the facts of what he did, the essential facts, and to the implications of those facts, as they reveal a crisis which is building up, internationally, not only from Russia, but also, in Russia.

As I have often said, quoting a famous film, which I like very much, what I shall say here, should come under the heading, "Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt, 'tschicke, tschicke, tschicke, tschick'!"[1] And that's the way we should approach it.

Now, what we have on hand, as demonstrated by the remarks, the visit of the gentleman in question to the United States, recently, is what I'm basing this on, and what I know of the historical implications of that. As in most cases of this type, it is the historical implications, often going back several generations, or longer, which must be taken into consideration, to understand anything. In particular, you have to take into account the history of Russia since Peter the Great. And if you're not looking at history against the comparable background, of the position of Russia in Europe, and in the world, since the reign of Peter the Great, you really don't have the background for understanding anything about what I'm going to say now.

Strategic Incompetence

This gentleman came to California, to address the Stanford group, as we call them, and to present them with a load of bullshit. Not only is it a load of bullshit, which would not require much comment—simply to say it's there, or bury it, or something like that—but it has strategic implications, because he is, officially, a key advisor to the President of Russia. And what he says, in his writings, as in his activities here, shows a sheer incompetence of a type I understand—which is presently a threat to civilization coming from the corruption that his remarks represent, or typify, inside Russia's policy.

In other words, what he proposes, implicitly, by his arguments at Stanford and elsewhere, and by his record (not as a chess player, but on other grounds), is a threat to civilization today. Because if Russia were to continue with the policies which he advocates, and policies which are addressed to a kind of evil centered in the Caribbean, the Antilles, where all the Russian big industries are located, on small islands—and they don't produce anything, therefore all they have is paper and electronics, and therefore they don't have any product. So, they manage a non-product, which is a surrogate for bullshit, which is what the basis of Russian foreign policy is, to a large degree, today.

Now, considering the significance of Russia, that together with China, and India, and the United States, it represents the only hope for the rescue of the United States, and the world, from the greatest crisis in modern history, which is now coming down: We're now at a point in history at which we can expect, within either weeks, or, at most, months, under the present trend, we can expect a collapse of the entire global civilization, which will start in the trans-Atlantic region, and will spread rapidly to a thus-made-vulnerable Pacific region.

In other words, if Europe and the United States go down, Russia will go down, immediately. If Russia goes down, then, in due process, China and India and other countries will also go down. And the whole planet will go into a dark age, which will extend for generations, under which conditions you may expect that the British ambition of reducing the world population from 6.8 billion people to less than 2, will be realized as a result of these developments.

These developments are current developments. They're currently ongoing developments. They're developments which will determine the history of mankind very soon, and for a long period of time. So we have to approach these matters in this way.

The Soviet Union Since the Death of FDR

The history of this goes way back, as I said. My history in this goes way back. It goes back to World War II, the end of World War II, and the death of Franklin Roosevelt. Look at the whole story I lay out here, from that standpoint of reference.

Roosevelt's intention, as he said repeatedly, and demonstrated otherwise repeatedly, was to complete the destruction of the Hitler dictatorship, as a temporary, nominal ally of the British, but determined to destroy the British Empire as quickly as possible, beginning immediately at the end of the war. Roosevelt stated this policy; it was his policy, and so forth, and that's where it stood.

The moment that he died, many changes occurred simultaneously. Roosevelt had intended that he would build a postwar development, by using the very large productive potentiality, which had been mobilized largely for the war effort, as an industrial and related effort, a scientific effort. What happened is, with his death, beginning the morning of his death, instead of what Roosevelt had intended: to use the productive capability that we had mobilized for the war, by converting the war element of that to increase of the productive forces of the world, and in that process, to liberate all nations from colonial suppression; and to destroy, specifically, the British Empire and everything that resembled and was sympathetic to the British Empire. That was Roosevelt's policy.

On the day he died, there was a fundamental change.

On the day before he died, the Roosevelt policy was a policy of trying to build up China, and to work with Russia, as keystone allies of a project of recovery of the world, and the development of a world free of colonial and similar kinds of atrocities. There was never any intent, from Stalin's side, of a war against the interests of the United States, but quite the contrary. Stalin's government was depending upon cooperation with the United States, to rebuild a war-torn Russia, as well as other things.

FDR's intention was to create a United Nations which would be a process of liberating all colonial, and semi-colonial victimization of the world, as a form of world representation, as the United Nations, to create a world which was free of the vestiges of imperialism, specifically, British or Anglo-Dutch liberal imperialism.

On the day that Roosevelt died, this changed. Immediately, Truman, under the direction of Churchill, moved toward war. And took every policy of Roosevelt, which had been to free nations which had been colonialized, or semi-colonialized, to free them and assist them in economic development which would make that freedom real. On the day that Roosevelt died, or after he died, Truman submitted, almost sodomically, to Churchill, and the policy was changed. Immediately, the United States policy was a commitment to support the British and Churchill in restoring British and Anglo-Dutch imperialism worldwide.

At the same time, something was already steaming at that point, immediately after the death of Roosevelt: the intention of a war posture against the Soviet Union. This was the cause of everything that happened since the death of Roosevelt, this change in policy.

So now, we have a problem. We have a problem inside Russia, which I refer to here, an intellectual problem, a political, moral, intellectual problem, which is typified, but not rooted, entirety, in Karl Marx. Marxism has two significances in history. It was created, of course, by the British. Marx was a product of British intelligence; he was brainwashed by British intelligence; all his arguments were British intelligence. He was a disciple of Adam Smith, as he avowed repeatedly. His economics were essentially incompetent.

The British had created Marxism—actually it was created by Engels after Marx died, and Engels was a British agent all the way through. He was never loyal to anybody, except the British Empire, and to his lust for money, as he showed later, in 1895. After that point, his latter period after Marx had died, he set out to create what became known as the Marxist movement.

Now, the British themselves organized Marxism, not as Marx had defined it, because Marx was much confused on this, but as Engels steered it for the purposes of the British Empire.

Once this had been unleashed, the British Empire organized a game. They had already become an empire. They organized a game where it used the Marxist movement as an opposition to, particularly, the British imperial movement, as a tool of conflict, to absorb the conflicts of the people with the British Empire. And therefore, instead of fighting the British Empire, you had people fighting each other, which is typical of the method which persists to the present day.

So, there are two Marxes. You have the Marx of this movement, which became a legitimate movement, as a social process, under these conditions. But it had a bomb built inside it, and the bomb built inside it was this ideology, which was especially designed by Frederick Engels, not Marx. Marx shared the confusion, but as he himself said, he was a disciple of Adam Smith in everything he said on economics. And that's the problem in the former Soviet Union, and in Russia today. They still accept Adam Smith, albeit in a different form, under different labels—as monetarism.

And this brings us to this gentleman here.

The American System vs. British Monetarism

The problem is this, today: We in the United States, by virtue of our Constitution, and the history associated with our Constitution, are the source and the model of leadership required for civilization today. And it represents the model which has in fact existed since the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 17th Century, where this conception was developed. It was actually rooted in Europe, but was hatched in New England, hatched in Massachusetts—we have fun about that, don't we?

So, we created in Massachusetts, we created for the first time, the model of the United States. And everything that happened from that standpoint on, was the result of this process, was the result of what was—it wasn't created in Massachusetts, but it was expressed in Massachusetts, under special conditions, where Massachusetts had some degree of independence. Which was what the intention of the whole colonization was—to get sane people out of England and the Netherlands, in particular, and get them to North America, at what was presumed to be a relatively safe distance from Britain, and from European policy.

We find to the present day that European nations do not have a constitutional conception of statecraft, or of economy, which was inherent in the founding of the United States, and inherent to what happened in Massachusetts in the 17th Century. We're the only nation on the planet, which has a heritage of this form. And therefore, in any time of crisis, as our history demonstrates, and demonstrates in particular in our Civil War, it demonstrates it in terms of world wars—but we were on the wrong side in World War I, because we were on the British side, which happened because the British had arranged the assassination of the President of the United States, McKinley, which put Theodore Roosevelt in power. And we went from the right side in history, to the wrong side in history. And remained on the wrong side in history, until Franklin Roosevelt became President.

After Roosevelt died, we went back to being on the wrong side, again, of history. President Kennedy attempted, steered in part by Eleanor Roosevelt, to restore the Franklin Roosevelt policy; then Kennedy was assassinated. The deep issues included the economic issue: Kennedy was trying to save the U.S. economy, and make it grow, as typified by his support for the space program. And he was also determined to prevent the United States from being involved in long wars in Asia.

And his assassination was effected by British interests, to ensure that the United States would destroy itself, in a long war, which actually happened over a ten-year period in Indochina. And we have been conducting similar kinds of warfare, under various Presidents, ever since that time, this kind of long warfare.

In the process, there came a point where I played a role in history. I was still doing this, back in the middle of the 1950s, when I was working as an economist. I already had the policies, essentially, all the economic policies which I represent today. They were based on my 1953 conversion, shall we say, to the conceptions of Bernhard Riemann. Since that time, I've always been a physical economist, working from a Riemannian standpoint. Which, incidentally, corresponds to the standpoint of people like Albert Einstein, and also V.I. Vernadsky—same standpoint, Vernadskyian standpoint, which is the only competent standpoint in physical science today. And very few people support it—which explains some of our problems.

So, what happened to us, with the death of Roosevelt—the intention we as the United States had, which is a continuation of what happened in Massachusetts under the leadership of the Winthrops and Mathers—that was crushed. And we became a tool of the British Empire, engaged like a fat, thick-headed fool in a war posture against China and the Soviet Union. And by that means, we were ultimately corrupted, and destroyed. The corruption which occurred politically inside the United States, was unspeakable under Truman, and this continued until the recent time. It still continues in one form or another.

So, we are a corrupted nation; we are easily led to useless wars, like the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran today, or what's going on inside Afghanistan today, what is going on in general around the world. We are destroying ourselves, under our own existing governments. And Russia is returning the compliment, under the present Presidency, as expressed by the policies of this particular gentleman.

So, that's the issue.

Now, this particular gentleman came to California, went to the Stanford University institutes, the same place where our people were involved, and attempted to corrupt them, on behalf of what? What does he represent?

Dirty Bertie Russell

Well, this gentleman, whatever he thinks his intentions are, is a dupe of something well known to us. He's a dupe of the heritage of, in particular, Bertrand Russell. And Bertrand Russell was, without doubt, the most evil man on this planet, during the entire 20th Century. Even after he was dead. He still stunk.

So, the Russians, in a sense, were corrupted. What happened?

Well, someone got rid of Stalin. And I believe the theory of the "Doctors' Plot" is correct, because the way the thing was orchestrated indicates that. It had a purpose, it had an intention, and it had an effect. And what happened very soon, under the notable successor of Stalin, Khrushchov, is, there was a meeting held by Bertrand Russell in London, for World Parliamentarians for World Government. Organized by Dirty Bertie Russell himself. And to this notable event, there appeared four gentlemen from the Soviet Union, who spoke of themselves as being the official representatives to their great man, Bertrand Russell, at this particular World Parliamentarians for World Government. Which had always been Russell's intention. Back in the 1920s, and even earlier, the idea of world government, as a world empire, which would keep the population down, as Russell said. Reduce the population to comfortable limits. And reduce science to a limit, so that most people were limited in number, and stupid. And therefore, more malleable, manipulable, and, have them have sex fun, and then be killed. You know, just like some kind of a bug: Let the bugs have sex, and then kill them. Ah! Amusing, isn't it? British policy. Brutish policy.

Well, that's what he represented. He represented the conception that the British Empire, which he loved, but as a particularly slime-like form, should live forever, as a system. He was speaking for the same people, as in ancient Greece, the authors of anti-Promethean policy: that mankind should not be allowed to use his brain. Mankind should not be allowed to use fire, which was the symbolic treatment of this subject, by Aeschylus, in the Prometheus Trilogy. Mankind should not have access to fire.

Now, this is a very interesting concept, and bears upon the subject today.

What has happened is that, with the use of fire, mankind increases his power in this universe, in various forms of what we call energy, or increased energy flux-density—which is the only form by which mankind is able to maintain and increase the human population. And mankind has always been like that. As far as we can determine, the way you distinguish between an ape and a man, in an archeological site, is, you'll find a fireplace, and wherever the hominid-looking type of thing lived at one time or another, if you find a fireplace there, a fireside, you know it's human. Because no known non-human living form will promote fire. Only mankind promotes fire. Only mankind promotes an increase of higher energy flux-densities. And those who are opposed to that are being inhuman, and should be treated accordingly.

So, that was the concept: That was the concept of the United States, under any decent President. It was the concept on which our nation was built, beginning with places like Massachusetts, the Commonwealth, in the 17th Century. It has always been the policy. It's always been the policy of civilization.

Whereas, the contrary policy is to keep the masses of the people stupid, and entertained, busy rutting. Keep them quiet, and then, when they become too numerous, you kill them, so they don't become too numerous for your comfort. Because, if they become numerous, they will demand the right to live! If they demand the right to live, they're going to require technology. But if they get technology, technological progress, they're not going to be monkeys any more. They're going to use fire! Especially nuclear fire. And thermonuclear fire, until we can increase the power of mankind in the universe, without limit, which, essentially, should be our purpose.

Now, Russia is divided between, essentially, since the time of the Soviet Union, between these two contrasting tendencies. On one side, you have the British side, and it was well known at various periods in Russian history, that it was the British side. Because the British Empire was the chief threat to Russia.

On the other side, it was recognized that scientific progress was necessary. You get this from the 18th Century on, the resurgence of scientific progress. Powerful things under certain tsars, during the course of the 19th Century. And you had the opposite side, which was based on the large oligarchical formations, which wanted to treat human beings as serfs. And we have this conflict.

The expression of the conflict, in Russia in particular, from the time of Peter the Great, who was not the greatest man that ever lived, morally, but, from that time, the emphasis on scientific development, especially through mineral resources and so forth, was characteristic of Russian progress. It was a conflict between the tsar and the system of the tsar, and the great oligarchs, who owned estates which were as large as entire kingdoms in the rest of Europe. And who were brutal bastards. And who kept the peasants in an animal-like condition of life.

So, this was the characteristic of this.

The Fight in the Soviet Union

So, we come into the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, and then you come later into the time when Roosevelt was still alive, and Stalin was meeting with Roosevelt, and an agreement was reached: that the Soviet Union, which had been decimated by the effects or war and similar conditions, would be re-created. And it had developed, at the same time, a significant scientific institution, or redeveloped it, and Vernadsky typfies that development in the 20th Century, in this kind of scientific institution, on the one side.

But, on the other side, you have the case of the conflict between Vernadsky and Alexander Oparin, on the question of life; you have a fundamental systemic conflict. There is no possibility of reconciling Oparin with Vernadsky! They're opposites. Scientifically, systemically, opposites. Oparin is a reductionist.

Now, although he only has a limited number of pieces published, which actually explicitly attack Vernadsky, he is anti-Vernadsky, and typifies the anti-Vernadsky reductionist movement in Soviet science all the way through.

For example, when I was in Russia back in the 1990s, I was a guest of a large meeting of the scientific community, and my subject was the defense of Leibniz, and Leibniz's contribution to science. And there was no one who spoke up in the entire meeting, who was not an opponent of Leibniz.

So, in Russia, on the one hand, you have a scientific commitment—and also in Ukraine, the same thing—a scientific commitment, which is associated specifically with Vernadsky. That doesn't mean that everyone who liked Vernadsky was associated with this, but the Vernadsky influence typified the scientific tradition of Russia back to the 17th and 18th centuries, especially the 18th Century on. And what had happened is, under British influence, this had been crushed, been crushed largely by the Marxists, who were the chief advocates of crushing science. They thought science was what the reductionists think science is. And they were really clumsy fools.

But you had in Russia people who were creative—creative scientific thinkers. And they managed to survive; and with Stalin's promotion of the work of Vernadsky, they created quite a movement, and created some great achievements, which are the greatest achievements, and the greatest heritage, from the standpoint of humanity, that Russia has to contribute today. And you find that, that is a minority, in terms of power.

Also, these Russians are typified by an inclination to the kinds of social policies of science, which we experience in the United States and the best cases in Western Europe. No difference.

The British Influence

So, therefore, what you have now, in the case of our subject here, is that we have a case of a force inside Russia, a continuation of the British influence, British control operation, in Russia, which is destroying Russia—despite other efforts in a different direction—and which has been a characteristic feature of British influence over Russia for a very long time, British imperial influence.

Now, for example, concretely.

What does this gentleman represent? He represents British interests. Now, he may think of himself as a Russian, but the thing you have to understand about Gorbachov, particularly, but also Andropov, and also earlier, Khrushchov—they're all inclined.... Khrushchov made a pact with Bertrand Russell.

You go back to 1945. The thing that was most hated in Russia, in Soviet Russia, was the British. Stalin hated them, because he knew they were the enemy. And most of Stalin's adversaries inside the Soviet Union were of this type. They were British—like Bukharin, for example. Whole groups of these people were British agents. Or agents of the Habsburg interest, which is the same thing. And therefore, you had this problem inside Russia of this cultural degeneracy, this pro-British cultural degeneracy, which is expressed neatly by the conflict between Oparin and Vernadsky on the question of life.

Oparin did not accept the idea of life. He defined it as a mechanical process, a mechanical molecular process, not as involving a principle. In other words, Oparin was British, in his ideology, as was Marx. And, as was Frederick Engels. And therefore, you have the contradiction between the socialist movement, which called itself Marxian, and the reality of what the movement often expressed. The movement was often positive, as Rosa Luxemburg typifies that, was often positive in respect to scientific progress, the commitment to scientific progress and the development of the human character and the human mind.

The other side, the British side, was crude and rude, like the typical Communists in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. Crude and rude. And they didn't like intellectuals! They hated them. Because they thought! And you're going to spoil the party! "We want to get drunk, and you want to have a serious discussion. You're going to spoil our party! We want to have a sex romp in the back room, and you want to discuss a serious subject. We don't like you. You're not with the people. You don't have the feeling of the people. You don't want to meet my feeling of the people."

So, this has been the problem. And this carries on today.

The pessimism which hit the former Soviet Union, with the fall of the Soviet Union, is an example of this. This fellow would not be possible, but for the demoralization of what had been the Soviet Union. The whole crowd that he represents, represents a demoralization of the Russian people, the Russian intellectuals, by this effect. They all became whores. They became what their masters told them they were allowed to become.

And the whole crowd is run by the British. More specifically, this particular gentleman, who came to Stanford to try to wreck our organizing among economists in the United States, which I'm alluding to here—and we just spent a couple of weeks on this subject. It was an attempt to destroy the work of what we've referred to as the Stanford group. And this gentleman, who is the chief advisor on economics to the President of Russia, Medvedev, went to California with an open, overt attempt to influence the destruction of our work, in economics. And he himself is nothing but a British agent of the Inter-Alpha Group, which has a death grip on Russia today, who went on a mission. He's less than 40 years old; you can sort of say that he's a Kriegspiel player.

You know the game of Kriegspiel? I played this often back in my follies of my youth. You exhausted the potentiality of chess, so it was boring. So, now you played a German game, called Kriegspiel, which was developed by the German high command, as intellectual training for officers. And you sit back-to-back, in different chairs, and your pieces are there before you. You can make your moves—you have an umpire in between. You can ask a number of questions each time. It was a fun game when I first played it, because it was fun to play a full game of chess entirely in your own mind, against another guy who's playing the chess game in his own mind, and you have an umpire in between—there are limited rules, so you have to create the entire chess game from beginning to end, in your own mind—which is a nice trick, when you're young. I enjoyed this trick very much.

And what is happening here—this gentleman, Dvorkovich, who is a chief advisor on economics to the President of Russia, Medvedev—his father was a leading chess umpire in Russia. He's the son of a leading chess umpire, which means he thinks like a chess piece. Not war, but chess piece.

And he is totally owned by the British, intellectually. The whole crowd is. How?

Russell and the IIASA

Well, it goes back again to this visit of the representatives of Khrushchov, to the Bertrand Russell meeting of the World Parliamentarians for World Government. From that point on, the representative of Khrushchov presented to the representatives of Russell, that Khrushchov was an admirer of Russell, and wanted to work with Russell.

Now, you have to think about this. You have to think about what Stalin thought about the British, between the wartime and the end of his life. This was the dirtiest thing on the planet. Kill them all! He would get in these moods—kill them all! So, now suddenly you have a change—and this was a true enemy of Russia, a true enemy of the Soviet Union, the British Empire. They organized the war, they organized the conflict, the so-called Cold War, organized by Churchill and company. Completely a British operation.

And it was an operation aimed at the included purpose of destroying the United States, by getting us involved in wars by which our economic potential would be destroyed. And so, therefore, the beginning of the degeneration of the Soviet Union began thus, after the assassination, or whatever, of Stalin, and the rise of Khrushchov. Khrushchov revealed himself, adapted himself, to the British Empire, and British influence.

And that has a long history from that point, in the early 1950s. From that point on, there was a direction, more and more, toward what became later known as IIASA, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which is a part of the Club of Rome, same thing. Real degenerates. The Russellites in the extreme.

This is what the President of the United States represents today. He's in that tradition! Not as a Russian, but as the same thing on the American and British side. The same British tendency.

Then you get to a point where Andropov was already a British agent, at least from the time of the Hungarian revolt, where he changed his career, into the security forces. And he rose as a British agent, recruiting talented, young Russian intellects from scientific professions, into studying British methods, British economics. And that's the long process of Andropov.

Now, at the time—I'll go back to this, but at the time I dealt with Andropov, or had occasion to deal with Andropov, it was already settled, it already existed. I did not at that time refer to Andropov as a British agent, although I knew he was. But I didn't have all the facts at that point—I just had what I had before me. So, he was a British agent. His successor, his notable successor, Gorbachov, was essentially a traitor to the Soviet Union, as well as a British agent. And the present crowd, this crowd that controls, today, which includes Gorbachov, who's a traitor to the Soviet Union, and a traitor to Russia, and a British agent: The whole pack, including this Arkady Dvorkovich, are British agents! They're agents, and specifically, of the interests we're dealing with, in the United States, in the Americas.

And that's where the problem lies.

So, you have a Russian spokesman, advisor to the President of Russia, about 38 years of age, born of a chess board—probably somebody got rooked—and here he is, advisor of Medvedev, who is soft on the British, and becomes, in part, the instrument of a policy of people like Chubais and Gorbachov and so forth—these crumbums—who run Russia economically, from the Caribbean. With thieving operations, just like we have in the United States, from Wall Street—the same kind of thing—running a British operation under a Russian flag, in the Caribbean! And the Russians in Russia, don't have any control over this, on the international scale.

Russia's Mission

The only way that Russia could become free and independent, is by crushing this thing in their own midst, and going back to a Russian interest. What's a Russian interest? Well, everybody knows, Putin knows what it is, others know what it is. Russia's a very large territory in Europe and Siberia. Its specific capability was demonstrated in the 19th Century, and even before. This vast territory, with vast mineral resources, for the people who know how to use that territory, which are the Academy of Sciences people—the real Academy of Sciences—know how to utilize one of the world's greatest concentrations of raw materials for the benefit of Russia, and the world. There's no one else, in terms of culture, who's prepared to deal with the tundra of Siberia, where a great concentration of these riches lies.

For China, for Mongolia, for India, these potentialities of Russia are highly significant, for the nations of Asia, which are underdeveloped—up to 70 to 80% of the population of Asia lives under miserable conditions, and miserable potential. Therefore, you have to introduce large-scale infrastructure projects, which require vast resources of materials, developed, to do this: transportation systems, power systems, and so forth. Because 70 to 80% of the population of Asia is very poor, and very unskilled. The only way you could bring Asia up to something like a modern level is by large-scale, high-power, high-energy-flux-density systems of power. Because you compensate for the Indian, the 70% or so, who are very poor, very unskilled, by introducing nuclear power. There, the high-energy-flux-density power added to the situation, takes a poor, unskilled people, and increases their productivity, not by forcing them to become skilled—it will take more time. But by subjecting them to the benefits, in infrastructure, of high-energy-flux-density power sources.

Now, you find today, for example, the orientation by some people in Russia is exactly this: Take Russian territory, especially the Siberian and related territory, which has these resources; go to the Russian Academy of Sciences, as it should exist today; take the resources which are represented there, with the archives and so forth they have on this thing, and go to the areas they know, where the mineral resources are or can be found—which is often in the Arctic area, or the tundra area; develop those resources; and now supply products of those resources to China, which is very poor in terms of these resources, to India, which is very poor in these resources. How? Through large-scale infrastructure projects, such as mass power facilities, applied to a population which is largely highly unskilled, and very poor.

So, you use the factor of increased energy-flux-density, to create something where Russia's purpose now becomes, as a strategic purpose, a keystone for linking together—what? Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas. Through mass transportation systems and related systems, all requiring high-energy-flux-density development. Without that, there is no general hope for mankind as a whole today.

And Russia is a keystone in this process. The value of the existence of Russia, both as a nation and as a territory, is precisely that. What makes a nation indispensable? Its value not only to itself, but to its neighbors. And what is the value of Russia from this standpoint? The legacy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since Peter the Great, whatever his other faults were, who intersected the Leibniz tradition, just north of what's called today, Czechia.

This is Russia. This is Russia's mission. And Russia's mission is defined by nuclear power, its role in nuclear power, the resources for developing new sources of nuclear power, the space program that Russians used to have, the Soviet Union used to have, which is essential for the space program on which the existence of humanity depends, if we're serious about it.

And these twerps, sitting in the Caribbean, as grave robbers, are part of the British looting system, of what? Of the Inter-Alpha Group. This entire thing, including this Dvorkovich, are effectively agents of the British Inter-Alpha Group—not Russia! Their actions, as the actions define their interests, are not Russian, they are British! They are tools of the British Empire, whether they know it or not.

And as we say: "Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt, tschicke, tschicke, tschicke, tschick!" That's it. So, that's the problem we face.

The Start of LaRouche's Political Career

Now, let's go back to the other part of the history, and take my particular role in this history. Well, I'm a product of World War II. I spent some time abroad during the war, in Burma, and in the postwar period, in India, for some months. My views at the time that Roosevelt died, which I had the occasion to express at the camp in Kanchrapara, which was a training depot for U.S. troops who were there; and these young fellows came up to me on the day that Roosevelt died, and said, "We want to talk to you tonight." I knew, basically, what the subject was. And when we met at dusk, off in a corner of the base, they said, "We want to know what you think is going to happen to us, now that Roosevelt is dead and Truman is President." And I said, "Well, I'm not sure, but I do know that we had a great President, under Roosevelt. And we now have a poor excuse for a President, which is Truman. And therefore, I'm afraid for us, and for our nation."

And that was sort of the beginning of my political career, because the events that I experienced later—this was at the time of Roosevelt's death, but later, coming back from northern Burma, back into Kanchrapara, and then into Calcutta, this became a bigger question. You know, I did the obvious thing that anyone would do in intelligence. (I wasn't in intelligence, except myself.) So, I just got into Calcutta, and went to the relevant telephone directory, and pulled up the list of all the political parties, their addresses and names, and telephone numbers, I called them up, and said I wanted, as an American soldier, I was interested in the future of India, I would like to talk to them, basically about the future India from an American standpoint.

So, I talked to all these people. They greeted me, they entertained me nicely, and I was having a grand time in Calcutta at that time, as a soldier—just the grandest time, meeting all these people, getting mixed up in all this culture and this sort of thing.

So then, the British did what the British do. There was a routine demonstration, coming down the street, which was then called Dharmatala, which led to the Governor General's palace across the other side of Chowringhee. And, I met some students; there was a great trolley car station right at that intersection, they were there, and I said, "What're you up to?" And they said, "We're going on to make this demonstration at the Governor General's palace for Indian independence." I said, "Fine." And shortly after that, after they'd gone there, they were attacked by a lathi charge—you know, brass tips on a bamboo stick, which is rather nasty, because it has a whip-like effect. And they killed a few people. It had not happened recently, at that point, so obviously, this was a British provocation.

And it resulted in a large demonstration, two days later, coming down Dharmatala. Now, for the large demonstration coming down Dharmatala, which is on the other side of Chowringhee, away from the Governor's palace, the British had stationed two heavy machine guns, aimed down the street of Dharmatala. And as the crowd moved up, abreast from sidewalk to sidewalk, from building to building—massive—angry people. Hindus, Muslims, no difference. And the British opened direct fire with heavy machine guns, directly into the crowd, and kept the fire going.

This resulted, two days later, in the breakout of what became the so-called "Calcutta riots." They were not riots; it was a revolution. And I was running around, calling people I knew, of these various political offices: "What's going on now? Is this going to mean a move for independence right now?"

The war was over. The Roosevelt policy was what it was, for India, even though Roosevelt was no longer there, and the intention was the development of industry. Because you had poor people, working for a few annas a day, as pay, as labor—not enough, really, to live on—working as coolies for the British Army. This kind of situation begged the creation of sovereign government, according to the Roosevelt policy. But, Truman was not Roosevelt, but quite the contrary.

And so, that was my experience. My association with these kinds processes was defined by these events abroad, during my military service, at the end of World War II, both in Burma and India—two times in India, and once in Burma.

And I came back to the United States, and it had changed, from what I had seen when I had lived there before, before going abroad.

So, my views and my political history has always been based on that experience, that this is what's wrong with the world: That what happened after Roosevelt died, is what's wrong with the world! Not that there weren't errors, terrible errors before. But the point is, what direction are you going in? Are you going away from evil, or are you going toward it? And we had turned, suddenly reversed, from going against evil, which is Roosevelt—to evil as such!, which was typified by Truman. And that defined my entire history. I don't see any reason to consider myself a loyal part of anything that is contrary to what I consider moral, and particularly as it affects the future of humanity. And that's my history.

And therefore, I look at these things differently than many people do, also because of this process.

Because of my own personal history, I always hated fake science, which is what we were all taught. And therefore, I became a convinced follower of Bernhard Riemann—not convinced, but a delighted, ecstatic follower—"This is right! This is it! This is what I believe!" You know, like the first opening two paragraphs and the last sentence of his habilitation dissertation: This, to me, was perfection! This was wonderful, I had a wonderful experience.

And so, this wonderful experience, and these past experiences, have shaped my view on this thing. And since I have a great detail of knowledge of these matters, in Russia and the former Soviet Union, from that standpoint, I have a certain commitment. And a certain way of looking at things.

And Dvorkovich insults my intelligence. His existence, as he's behaved here, and as he's behaved as an advisor to Medvedev, insults my intelligence. He is an exemplar of bad taste, bad political taste, as just another Russian who turned out to be a goddamned British agent! An agent for British thieving, an agent for the Rothschilds, for the Inter-Alpha Group, and for every other kind of filth on this planet! Now, as I say, I'm not blaming this poor slob for anything except what he's done. As I said, "Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt": And the effect is, he's a skunk. I won't say that's his personal character, but that's his behavior, that's his role, that's his career! That's what he does. That's what he did in California, at Stanford. And what he represented when he came back to Washington, the same kind of thing.

Defeat the British Agents!

Therefore, you look at the list of the controllers of the economic policy of Russia today, as opposed to the patriotic Russians, who are actually patriots, who want to develop their country, who understand Russia's intrinsic role—strategically, historically, today! Russia is a great nation, with a culture which has embedded in it, certain treasures of value to humanity as a whole. It has a role which is immediately essential to China, to Mongolia, to India, to other countries, to Korea, to Japan. And with the development of a railway system between Siberia and Alaska, you open up the development of a planetary-wide, modern, rail magnetic-levitation system, which unites every major continent of the world, except Australia/New Zealand. United in one economy! You have a system that goes down into Africa, through the straits there. A system that goes through Alaska, into the Americas as a whole, down to Tierra del Fuego. And into all of Africa, throughout Eurasia.

Suddenly now, you have the extension of the idea of a transcontinental railway system, and a transcontinental power system. So these continents of the planet are now, while there are separate nations, they are united, properly, under a fixed-exchange-rate system, to become a world economy, of different languages, different cultures, different national sovereignties. But they are in a state of cooperation to a common purpose, which is united by, what? It's united by the idea of a space program.

If mankind is going from Earth, to deal with the question of colonization and exploration of neighboring planets and beyond, mankind has a destiny in the universe, a mission in the universe, not just in some patch, on this planet. And the children today have, implicitly, an immortality in the purpose of their existence in that process. And you have people in Russia who represent, typically, the skills and the outlook which go with this, as some people in the United States, still; as some people in continental Europe; the ambitions of people in other places, for this idea: Does mankind himself have a purpose in this universe? Do the various nations, while different nations, have a commitment, implicit commitment, to cooperation among nations, to solve the problems of the planet, in the light of going into the future, to other planets, exploring the cosmos more completely? And conquering the problems of entering the cosmos more extensively?

That's our purpose. That's the only decent moral purpose for humanity today.

And what does this poor fellow do, poor Arkady Dvorkovich? He has no conception, in what he said, in what he does, in his function! No conception of the actual, vital interest of Russia today! And yet, he's presumed to be the advisor to the President of Russia. He's incapable of expressing the interest, the actual interest of Russia, which should be obvious to anybody who understands the world at large! An interest which is not unknown to Russians themselves, and to leading Russians, who understand the importance of the cooperation with Mongolia, with China, with Korea, with Japan, with India, and the other Asian nations, and with the rest of the world, and with Europe: They understand this! They're committed to it.

Well, why do we allow the British Empire to control the Russian economy, from the top? Through the Rothschilds, who are nothing but British agents, and predators, and mass murderers?

That's our problem.

The Origins of LaRouche's SDI

So, we ran into a big problem here. And what I did—I got around to doing something—when the fools in Washington and elsewhere, in general, Wall Street, brought about the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, in 1971, something which I'd forecast, and nobody else had. And that defined my position.

I had this debate, on Dec. 2, 1971, at Queens College, where I confronted these characters—the whole bunch of them were lined up there, from all around New York; they were all sitting there, in chairs, like objects, like fat penguins, arrayed in chairs—as I had this debate with Abba Lerner, who's a socialist, a Fabian socialist—and a fascist, which is what Fabian socialists really are. You shave them, or give them a haircut; you find out what's behind there, what's behind that hair. And that was the case.

So, having settled that matter, I became rather more influential as a result of this process. So I ran for President on this basis, on this issue. And then, in the process of running for President, we received a carbon copy of a letter, written in Washington, D.C., on behalf of the incoming administration of Jimmy Carter. The letter pertained to a plan for a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. I took this matter as a special responsibility I had to deal with. I couldn't reveal the letter, obviously, but I had the knowledge of what it was, and I had confirming evidence, independently, of the letter.

So, I proceeded to denounce this intention of the incoming Carter Administration, especially Brzezinski himself, publicly, and made that the key feature of my campaign, from that point on. And the key feature of a public national address I gave as a Presidential candidate on election eve, in that year.

That won me a lot of things, including trouble, because I had taken the bastards on. And so, Brzezinski returned the favor, by organizing a special committee, which was trying to organize my assassination. I was in Europe at that time, so the word came from high-level sources in the United States, that Brzezinski had organized this with a special committee—and, things began to get bloody at that point. So then, in the course of time, I said, "What do I do?" I had intervened and sabotaged the Brzezinski intention to make this nuclear confrontation.

But, they had gone ahead with this business in Afghanistan, as an alternative action. And I was on the "shit-list," as they say.

So, what do I do, next? This, by now, is 1977: And so, I reached out, to determine what are the alternatives for dealing with the threat of a new nuclear/thermonuclear crisis. And we had resources.

At this time, we had established the Fusion Energy Foundation, which was a fairly representative group of leading scientists in the United States and elsewhere, so we had capabilities, scientific capabilities. So, I went through this, and defined a program, which became the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. And this I adopted and presented in '79, as a key feature of my Presidential campaign for the Democratic nomination.

Then, in the course of that time, in January-February of 1980, we got into a fight with George [H.W.] Bush—with the Carter Administration and George Bush. This got into a relationship with Reagan, who was to become President. It happened in New Hampshire: We were sitting side by side on the same table at a general debate of the Presidential candidates, and this is how it happened.

During the same period, as a result of my activities, there were various people from the former OSS, who I had not known earlier than that, personally, but who had been my contemporaries during World War II. So, we began to "chat it up," as we say. And they were still functioning; for example, Bill Casey, who became the head of the CIA under Reagan, was part of this group, and he'd been sort of a friendly character toward me, for some time, just because he would see what I was doing from his position, and recognize what I was up to.

So, we proceeded from that. When Reagan was elected, I went to Washington, to meet with the outgoing National Committee crowd, who had run the campaign for Reagan. And that grew, and I was still working on this project. I began to get into extensive discussions, also with some Soviet representatives at the United Nations, and others, who were suggesting, "Can't we do something with the new President?" I said, "I think it's a good idea." So, I went to the officials in the U.S. security apparatus, and said, "Well, I think we should do something," and I indicated what I thought. And the message came back to me, "Why don't you do it? You know what the problem is, do it!" So, with that authorization, I did it.

And that was the beginning of what became known as the SDI.

LaRouche vs. Andropov/Gorbachov

And then, we got to the point that, in the beginning of 1983, President Reagan, at a January meeting, had adopted the SDI. At that point, the Soviet representatives were working with us on this, on this project, it was an accepted project. But then, suddenly, a turn: Andropov was now head of the Soviet Union, and he was actually a British agent! And if you don't understand he's a British agent, you don't understand what happened. Because the Russian institutions, the Soviet institutions, knew that this would work, and they said so to me! "This will work!" This SDI is a solution to the crisis, and the threat to war. And it's also a solution to the economic crisis: It will work, we can do it!

Andropov said, "No." Reagan went on the horn, tacked it in over the objections of some Republicans—he slipped in a speech, the several-minute SDI speech—and that shook the world! It also got people, including Ted Kennedy, to go after my scalp. And that's what happened to us.

We came very close to winning that fight for the SDI. And I warned the Soviets, that if they turned away from the SDI option, they would be destroyed within about five or six years. Because their economy would collapse under any such program that they had: the effort to maintain a military posture against the United States, under these conditions, would mean that within five to six years, the Soviet Union would collapse—and it did collapse in six years.

Now, what you're talking about here—with Gorbachov, who, in my view, was a traitor to the Soviet Union, and is implicitly a traitor to Russia today, as a significant influence, and the whole crowd associated with him—is largely a pack of traitors to Russia, today! And I know this, directly, because I've been involved enough in Russian affairs to know exactly what the interests of Russia are, in this respect. And what they're doing, including Dvorkovich, is directly contrary to the vital interests of Russia, today, from an objective standpoint. And I presume it should also be seen so from a Russian standpoint.

But from a world standpoint, what he's doing, this poor guy, who's immature, throwing his chest out, shall we say—this immature character is babbling around, saying silly things, not seeming to recognize that he's not a Russian patriot, he's a British agent. He may not know it, but the British know it. And he acts like a British agent, he smells like a British agent, he talks like a British agent, he must be a British agent! And that's the issue.

As I say, I'm not making any accusations against him personally, except: "Die Hauptsache ist der Effekt!" That's my indictment of him.

What Do We Do Now?

So, there's a general scientific problem, and that is, we still have a society which believes in statistical economics. Most Americans are idiots when it comes to economics. Very few Americans have the slightest idea of what a sound economy is, or what the principles of an economy are. They think in terms of financial economy! And that's what this poor guy, Dvorkovich, thinks. He thinks this is chess-playing, perhaps. He seems to believe that: It's merely chess-playing. Well, what's chess? It's a board; it's a zero-sum game, on a board: There's no growth, there's no progress, there's no positive change. It's the "same ol', same ol.' " Hmm? Utter incompetence!

Where's the secret for the world, or in the Russia in particular? Russia has no chance of survival, without having an economic system, of management, of national management and international management, which is based on the mobilization of high-technology, high-energy-flux-density technology, for the development of the resources of the vast area of Russia, in a way which is relevant to Russia's relationship to Western Europe, which is crucial, and even more crucial, with respect to China, to Mongolia, to Korea, to Japan, to India, and to the South Asian nations. That's Russia's interest! It's its real interest, which any objective thinker coming from Mars or someplace should be able to recognize! And then, certainly, Russians—who live closer to Russia than Martians do!—should be also able to see this from their own experience. And there are many Russians, who I know do think that way.

But what's happened, is the British are controlling Russia! Russia has today been functioning, economically, financially, as a puppet of the British Empire. Specifically with this BRIC[2] thing, which was created by, guess who? Goldman Sucks created this: Another crime of Goldman Sucks. We'll have to put something in that soup that they suck on, and solve their problem ... and ours.

Anyway, that's the issue.

So therefore, this is the question: What do we do, now? What is our policy? My policy is exactly what I've been advocating, what I've been advocating to people associated with the Stanford group, which is not just limited to Stanford, but it's a more national group. They are moving, with a comprehension of what we've been talking about, in terms of economics. They're actually making significant contributions to my knowledge. That is, they have taken up areas of investigation, which I've referred to or alluded to, and they've gone into specific studies of these areas, and come up with results which are very valuable.

And this guy comes in, and he wants to screw them up? On behalf of the British Empire? On behalf of the Caribbean thieves, "The Pirates of the Caribbean," who control Russia, from offices in the Caribbean? Why don't we just clean that nest of pirates out? Go in there and clean 'em out! And just put 'em in packages, and ask Russia if they want them back. We'll deliver them back to them, for whatever their courts of justice decide is appropriate!

So therefore, this guy—whatever he thinks he is; whatever kind of chess play he thinks he's playing, whether Kriegspiel, or something else—is contributing to the destruction of Russia, and thus contributing to the destruction of the hopes of the world. And being a British ass-kisser on top of it! And therefore, that's his problem.

The only remedy is: We've got four nations on this planet which are actually crucial, because Europe is in trouble today, continental Europe. France, Germany, and possibly northern Italy, are areas which, intrinsically, are capable of being revived as economic areas of development. The British could probably do that, but they can't think. They don't know how to think any more, so they're kind of useless. But we have in France, we have in Germany, we have in northern Italy, in particular, we have people who do have some competence for making a vital contribution to this process of world development.

Russia is absolutely crucial in this, because it is the link between European culture and Asian culture. Russia is a Eurasian nation, with a Eurasian culture from its own history, which is reflected in many ways. It is the link, as it has shown itself to be, by the policies of Putin and so forth, in respect to China and India. It's a long-standing thing between Russia and India, in terms of this kind of relationship. China, because of the conflict between China and India, has been difficult. The relations since Khrushchov, the relations between Russia and China, have been difficult.

Now, we've come to a period, where the instinct, the impulse for cooperation among these nations of Eurasia, exists. It depends upon creating an international monetary system, financial system, a replacement for the monetary system, based on the American model. Therefore, the United States is indispensable to these three nations and their associates in Eurasia, for their success. The Bering Strait project, the rail project, is crucial for all humanity.

We can foresee, within a relatively short period of time, a generation or so of time, we can foresee a time, when a Bering Strait rail system or the equivalent, from Siberia to Alaska, down to Tierra del Fuego, exists; in which a similar kind of system, the type that was implicit in what the United States did, in the period of the Civil War and immediately following, that kind of system extended, throughout the Americas, extended from Europe, into Africa. Which means you essentially now have a world economy, based on high-speed transportation systems; a world economy based on nuclear and thermonuclear systems, which transforms the world in terms of the potential power per capita and per square kilometer, of the planet as a whole.

We have the same technology, the same technological drive, that brings us to the threshold of what can be, in a generation or two, a successful penetration of a Mars orbit. It brings us to the point where we can now understand the universe, better than it was ever understood before, through the concept of cosmic radiation—because there is no empty space. It's only a shortage of the faculties to see what's out there. There is no empty space in this universe, none! It is what is united by cosmic radiation. And we are working in the Basement now, on this question of how we can approach a higher standpoint of understanding—which we need for even understanding what the Mars landing program is, and mastering that—of cosmic radiation. We live in a universe which is defined for us, today, those of us who think, by the concept of cosmic radiation, not bodies bumping around in empty space.

And this is where we're going! And this is where the best tendencies in the Russian scientific community were headed, and that's where we have to go. And thus, on this account, as well, our relationship, between the United States and Russia, is crucial. Because we share a certain history, and certain common objectives, and certain complementary skills. And together with these other nations, we can do that! We can solve the Mars problem, which is enormous, but we can do it. And we're trying to do it, right here in the Basement, with our limited resources.

And therefore, we need a Four-Power understanding among representatives of the United States, which we are; representatives in Europe, especially of Russia; representatives of a different culture, China; representatives of another different culture, India; and other nations, which are also other cultures. We have to bring these nations together around a common program, a common system of economy, a common system of physical economy, a fixed-exchange-rate system of physical economy, free of all this crap, all this British crap. And use that system of economy as a means of organizing cooperation for the long-term development of the planet's surface itself, and go onward, to reaching the solution for the challenge typified by the image of Mars out there. Go back to Kepler: Kepler's consideration of the problem posed by Mars, was the secret of his discovery of the principle of gravitation. Go back the same route.

And that's our destiny of mankind. Mankind must have a destiny. You can not have a sense of some purpose in life, and put it on your grave, that said, "I had a purpose in life, and it's on my tombstone," or whatever else there is to memorialize us. You can't do that! That's not real! That's no guarantee that humanity means anything. How do you prove to me, that humanity's not a dead-end? You say, you believe in the future, you believe in Creation, you have a religious belief—do you believe that mankind's going to continue to exist, in the universe? If you don't think as I do, you don't believe there's a chance out there. And therefore, our commitment to a purpose for mankind, which involves the conception of the future of mankind in the universe, despite the blowing up of the Sun into a large object which eats everything in its vicinity, and destroys the habitability of the Earth before then—where the hell are you gonna go, if you don't have a space program, of the type we're talking about?!

See, that's the actual, essential criminality, which has infected Arkady Dvorkovich. Chess-playing is not the secret of civilization. I played chess, I can tell you. I played Kriegspiel, I enjoyed it—then I said, it was disgusting, because I realized it takes you no place. You're playing different games, you're getting different strategies for the board, different techniques for interpreting in Kriegspiel, how you infer what the other guy is intending to do. You do all this stuff. But in the end, what have you accomplished? You're playing in a zero-sum game. Like all other zero-sum games. And that's not a good profession!

And maybe you are going to find out, when you take into account friction, Arkady Dvorkovich is playing less a than zero-sum game.

So I'm not accusing him of being a bad person—just an ignorant one. Thank you.


[1] "The main thing is the effect," a song from the 1960 musical comedy Das Spukschloss im Spessart (The Haunted Castle in the Spessart Mountains).

[2] Brazil-Russia-India-China. See related article.

Subscribe to EIW