Latest From LaRouche
LaRouche Addresses Labor in Kentucky
What follows is the presentation Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche made to the Louisville, Ky. Building Trades Council at their regular meeting on May 6.
INTRODUCTION: Join me in welcoming Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. Lyndon LaRouche is running as a candidate for President, U.S. President, and we'll suspend our regular order of business to allow Mr. LaRouche the floor as long as he needs.
LAROUCHE: Well, as you know from experience, that most of the jobs you come to, are bad jobs, that you have to turn into good jobs. I've been there, in the old days of consulting.
Now the job of President is like that. The job of President of the United States today is a very bad job. The specifications of the job are wrong, the materials you have to work with are wrong, and you've got to turn it into something.
Now, that's our problem. It's not the problem of the next President, it's our problem, because this is our country. And the function of President, as the Presidency, despite the fact that the present incumbent is not too clear on which direction North is, that the Presidency is the actual institution, which must make the ongoing decisions on which the way things turn depends. The Congress is important, as it advises the President, in particular, because it makes laws and so forth, but the action from the Presidency.
In an emergency, it is the President of the United States who reacts to the emergency, not a discussion with the Congress. The necessary action is taken, and then the Congress comes in on the act, in terms of how this is going to affect the lawmaking and provisions. When the President acts, he has to get permission from the House of Representatives for the money, with the consent of the Congress to do the job, that sort of thing.
Now, most people who are running for President, tell you what they're going to do when they get there. Now, if they're not already doing it, as you may know, they generally don't do it when they get there. You know, you say, "I don't want to talk the President, I want to talk to his teleprompter. I want to get an intelligent answer."
Now, here's what we face. We're faced with a very bad job. The United States and the world is bankrupt. The banking system of the United States is bankrupt. The IMF monetary system, financial system, is bankrupt, and in the process of disintegration. This is the problem the Presidency faces.
We're also faced with, as often in times of depressions, or similar crises, usually there are military and related crises that occur. We have phenomena which are called terrorism it's somewhat of a misnomer, but it exists. We have wars which are spreading. Right now, Sharon and Cheney would like to have a new war against Syria, for political reasons they're desperate. And Syria's the number one target. They intend to drop a couple of nukes on Iran, if they get re-elected. They intend to do the same thing with North Korea. We're in a period of trouble.
Look at the Patriot Act, look at what its implications are. You look at what's happening in the prisons, the military prisons in Iraq, for the Iraqis, in Guantanamo. And we know the same kind of mood is coming in the United States, with the Patriot Act, and similar kinds of things. There's a tendency to go toward dictatorship.
The real thing comes about money, on this thing, money in a special way. When bankers become bankrupt, and the question is, who is going to pay the debts, the bankers say, "The people will." As they said in the case of Argentina.
Now I happen to know that Argentina does not owe a nickel to anybody, but under the provisions of certain changes in the world monetary system, from 1971-72, and actions taken in 1982, the countries of South and Central America were looted by these international financial institutions. The way they did it was this:
Under a floating exchange rate system, they would start with the London market. They would get a run on a nation's currency. They'd target the currency, they would organize a run against the national currency. The value of the national currency is falling on the international markets. The country's in trouble. People of the country say, "What are we going to do?"
Someone says, "Call in the IMF and World Bank. They'll advise you on what to do."
The people from the World Bank and the IMF arrive, as advisers, and they say, "Well, slice this, cut this, cut this, cut this... and also drop the value of your currency. Maybe 20%, 30%, maybe 50%." The country says, "We've got to do it. We'd better do it. Otherwise they're not going to let you go."
"Okay, that's the deal. Fine."
"Oh, one more thing. When you drop the value of your currency, as we order you to do, that means that you are threatening to cheat your creditors. If you're going to pay in your currency, and your currency has been dropped by us by 20 to 40, by whatever percent, you've got to make up for that. You've got to increase your debt to compensate your creditors on future payments to them."
Now, if you look at the total debt, of the countries of Central and South America, back in 1971, back in August of 1971, and look also at the same figures, the same kind of figures, for the following year of the so-called Azores Monetary Conference, when the floating exchange rate monetary system was put into effect: these countries owe not a nickel to anyone on national account. They have more than paid every debt they actually incurred. The debt which is squeezing them, is the debt which was imposed upon them artificially, without their receiving a nickel for it in advance.
And now they come in, and they say to Argentina, "We're coming to eat your people." And they're going to say the same thing, and are saying the same thing, in South and Central America.
Take the case of Mexico. 1982, Mexico was hit by his operation. It was run from the United States. It was run by very dirty people, against the President of Mexico who happened to be a friend of mine, Lopez Portillo, who just recently died. We staged a fight. We tried to save Mexico and other countries from this kind of predatory operation.
Now, if you look at an area like Monterrey, which used to be an industrial center in Mexico, look at other parts of Mexico, the country has been destroyed. What's happened therefore: we have the globalization and NAFTA process. What we did is, we destroyed the ability of Mexico to provide for the employment of its own people. Then we dumped those people, as virtual slave labor, in maquiladoras in the northern states of Mexico, or we brought them across the border as cheap labor, here.
Now, what they get in wages in Mexico, is not enough to support a family. So, we're destroying the country. This is what we're doing throughout the hemisphere. This operation. This is what they plan for us, here in the United States, and elsewhere, under the conditions of a monetary crisis. That's what the big fight is, behind the scenes in the election campaign.
Now, there are two ways you go at this. We're going to have a big depression, that is, a financial depression. The question is, can we prevent that from becoming a permanent economic depression, a killer kind of economic depression inside the United States.
We can! We have a precedent. Franklin Roosevelt represented the precedent.
Now you go back to 1929, when, because of a breakdown of the Versailles monetary system, over the period 1929 through 31, the United States, between that time, 1931 and 1933, March '33, had lost half of the average income, in real terms, of our people and our industries. We were bankrupt. We were bankrupt not merely because of '29, we were bankrupt because of Herbert Hoover, and Herbert Hoover came in with the same basic economic policies that the Nazis applied in Germany. That is, when the bankers were in trouble, the people are eaten. That's what happened to us.
Roosevelt came in, and demonstrated that, under our Constitution, we don't have to put up with that. That Roosevelt on March 1933, put the banking system into receivership, with a bank holiday, and we came out of that bank holiday, as an intact nation. Roosevelt also launched a program, of a type which we need today, a jobs program. What were the jobs?
Well, the basic point is, when you get into a financial crisis, where business is bankrupt, or about to go bankrupt and I can assure you that all of the leading banks of the United States today are bankrupt, and hopelessly bankrupt, for special reasons. So there is no credit in the system to speak of, net credit. Where is the credit going to come from? Where did it come from then?
It came from the Federal government, in various ways. The government took action either to create credit, the Federal government, or to make arrangements which helped others create credit, as in the case of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which helped to build, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority. So, government is good at one thing, in terms of business: it's good at government business. The government business is what we used to call basic economic infrastructure, before Brzezinski was running the Carter Administration, when we shut down regulation, and began to close down regulated industries, of power companies, mass transportation, and so forth. Government is good at that.
Now, we have, as you know from your work, we have a tragedy in the United States in terms of basic economic infrastructure. We don't have it. What we have is rotting. In terms of generation and distribution of power, we're at a point of breakdown. The industry is bankruptderegulation has created a nightmare. We're headed for hell in terms of power generation and distribution, the way things are going now. This is an area where the government has to be responsible. The Federal government has to take the initiative to repeal deregulation. They can set forth a program, a regulated program, on the Federal level, and on the state levels, of returning to a system of private utilities, to ensure that we can maintain the large-scale investments, that are required to put the whole industry back into shape. Because we've got collapses on our hands coming up fast.
We have the same thing in mass transit, rail transit. We've lost it. We need a national rail system. We also need improvements in rail systems in regions. We need, in terms of this growing sprawl of habitation around cities, we need light rail. We've got to avoid the congestion. We've to enable people to get more efficiently to and from their places of work. We've got to bring the society back together again.
We have a water crisis. The Mississippi system, of which you're a part here, the larger central system based on the Mississippi River, up to the 20 inch rainfall line out in the Midwest, this whole system, it's disintegrating. We started a system of water management. It was actually completed under Roosevelt, up to about St. Louis, and from there on down, we had a system, the TVA system. The attempt to get the TVA, the Tennessee-Tombigbee system, into operation, was an extension of that kind of system, of managing the existing water resources to deal with the problems.
We have not yet attacked the Missouri. We have not attacked the Northern Mississippi, which is a region which fairly needs the same thing.
So, we also have not touched the Great America Desert area, which runs from nearly the border up in Montana, down into the middle of Mexico, in the Sierra Madre region in Mexico. We haven't touched it. So, we have a need for a large-scale water management program, on a Federal and state level, which means putting the Corps of Engineers back to work, in the way they used to work, and with the rules they used to have.
So, we think power, huh? Water. Mass transportation. These are areas in which we need a large investment. In these and related areas, in rebuilding health care facilities, which we've lost, in rebuilding educational systems and institutions, the Federal government, in cooperation with the states, has a major infrastructure requirement. My estimate is that over the next 4 years, what the Federal government should be doing, in cooperation with the states, is creating 6 trillion dollars of credit, against our so-called 10 to 11 trillion dollar economy. 6 trillion dollars of credit for long-term investment, in large-scale public infrastructure on the state and federal level.
That of course, as you know, when you go into Federal projects of this type, and state projects, with government organized credit, under the kind of system that Roosevelt used, that is the way you revive the private sector: through contracts, through the market that is created by increased employment in these areas. Therefore, you need credit for that, as Roosevelt did then.
So, you have to take, reorganize your bankrupt banking system, make credit available, federally organized credit, or credit indirectly federally organized, as with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to recycle the credit in the system officially. Make the credit available through local banking facilities. Establish institutions in each area to review loans, loans to be made under this kind of system. If somebody's a good businessman, and's got a good proposition, the local community thinks it's sound, it meets federal standards and priorities, they should get the loan. These loans have to be in the order of magnitude of a basic rate of 1 to 2 percent, long term credit.
This means we need a regulated system, a fixed exchange rate system, where we control inflation of the currency by the way Roosevelt did, and the way we did up until the early 1960s. Because only with a fixed exchange rate system, can you keep interest rates down. If you have a floating exchange rate system, debt will drive the interest rates up, and will put you out of business, or in restrictive conditions, through what's happened to us.
So, we have a great problem. We're in a depression. It's coming on fast, it's coming on now. They'll lie about it here; in Europe they're much more honest about it. The system is finished. That's the bad part of the job.
The good part of the job is, we can make something of it, as a nation. We in the United States have the experience, as with the Roosvelt experience; we can tackle the job, we can get it done. We can create the credit.
The problem is, how is the job going to get done? Who's going to do the job?
Now, obviously, being the President of the United States, gives you the power, as it did Roosevelt, to get a lot done. And it's important to have a President who's going to do that. But that's not enough. The mistake people make, and I'm sure that in dealing with your areas, your respective areas, you know this very well, you can put a man on a job, but is he going to be able to do it? You can give him the guidance, you can give him the education, the schooling and so forth to know what he should do. Can he do it?
Well, something else comes in. A different human factor. There's a difference between knowing something from a book, or having rehearsed in a laboratory, or rehearsed the job, and facing a job that requires ingenuity, innovation. Doing something that's not in the book. It requires the kind of leadership that is looking for trouble. A good man is always looking for trouble. Why? Because you've got rules. You're supposed to do the job this way, that way. Rules.
"I don't like that." If you're any good, [you say] "I don't like that. There has to be a better way." That's the way you do a job. There has to be a better way. There always is a better way. And you need people who think and act on the basis of that simple philosophy, which was the basis on which the smart corporations in former times, set up their system of turning in proposals, through the box, in the employees' suggestion box. Because the good employee, the good skilled person, whether they're a scientist or just a skilled person, comes onto the job, looks at the job, and says: "I don't like this. There has to be a better way." And therefore, ingenuity and creativity comes not from someone saying, "What's up? We need an adviser on this problem." I was a consultant for some decades, I can tell you about that one.
But that doesn't really do the job. They call in Booz Allen Hamilton, or someone like that. I've tracked some of their jobs in the old days. They did a lousy job. They would go by the book, they would make plans, and so forth, no good.
But you have to have an attitude of doing the job. The attitude of the troublemaker who, on the one side, says, "There has to be a better way to do the job. I don't like this way. It's boring, it's stupid, it's inefficient, it's lazy. There has to be a better way," and has the competence to work out a solution that will work, and prove it. And put it into action.
Now, troublemakers, good troublemakers who are the best managers, don't wait to be asked. They're pushing, they're always thinking. And they're the ones that will carry the job through, because if they run into a problem, in implementing the new policy, they will fight to make it work. Whereas the mere book technician, who's educated in how to do it by the book, will give up if it doesn't work. Whereas the person who understands what the innovation is, will make it work.
Now, this is true in government. The function of a competent President in the United States, in a time of crisis, is not to be the guy who has a teleprompter, which tells him what to tell people to do. A good President is a man who's got his hands dirty, who's looking for trouble, having people around him who work with him, who are also looking for trouble, in each department of government. "Look, I want you to look for trouble! I want you to see what might hit us, or where we're doing the wrong thing. That's your job, and your job is also to do something about it. If you don't think you have the authority to do something about it, come talk to me. I want to know about it. We'll get some people down there to help you. We'll get the job done."
And that's where we are now. That's where you are now. Because you are a part of the people who are on the line, who have to get the job done. You're the troublemakers who recognize what's wrong with what's being done often, and can have access to people we work with, who will show you what the problem is, and how the improvement can be made.
What you need, and many Americans need, in government or not, is to be turned loose, in that way, in an organized way. Where we say, we've got a problem, we've got a mess. In principle we can solve the problem. We cannot rely on waiting for somebody to cut the orders, to tell us how to solve the problem, or that it exists. We have to be troublemakers, who suspect what's wrong, who recognize what's wrong, who have the ability to find out from others what they need in assistance to determine what the problem is, and what the solution might be. The kind of troublemakers who are going to get on the job, and make sure the job is done properly.
You need that all the way from the top down, in government, and in society. You need a leadership by troublemakers. And I think you are troublemakers. Because you wouldn't be in the positions you're in if you weren't. You're the ones who are critical of what is going on. You're critical of the way the job is being done. You're critical about what is not being done for the society. You see the mess we're making of our economy. You see the problems that are associated with trying to build up, these suburban build-ups around a city like Louisville. It's a problem. It's a mess. It's a problem, a crisis for the future. It shouldn't go that way. There should be rules and directions, to prevent this thing from becoming chaos, and becoming the slums of the future.
We're destroying... You know this stuff. You see it, day by day.
So, you know something about being troublemakers, and you want permission to be a little more of a troublemaker. You want some cooperation up and down the ladder. Your initiative is an essential part of government. You're the ones saying, "I can do it." And when somebody's in charge, in government, and they want a job done, they go to someone who is competent, and who will say, "I can do it."
You can't give an order, and expect the order to be carried out because it was uttered from your lips, because you copied it from the teleprompter. When you give an order, you're actually turning someone loose. You're looking for somebody who's capable of doing the job, who is willing to do the job, and, with your encouragement and backing, is going to have some zest for getting the job done, competently. And that's how you run government.
Now we have a situation where you've got the other philosophy is now running the election campaign. The question is, which can lose the quickest, the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate. They're both losing. Republicans who wanted to vote for Democrats out of disgust, are now being discouraged by Kerry; that's what they're saying.
So, we've got a mess. The parties are operating on the usual old game. They're looking at the upper 20% of family income brackets, they're taking the count of average voters, typical voters who are expected to vote, looking generally for the upper brackets, and then trying to figure out how to manage and brainwash the lower income brackets, if they choose to come out to vote. The parties are operating on the basis of getting big money from big contributors: like George Shultz, Warren Buffett, and George Soros, and looking at the people who are likely to vote, based on past performance.
They're trying to influence them and manage the others, discourage the others from taking any role other than supporting their leading candidate.
You look at their programs, look at their definition of the problems. How many people as candidates, in the United States today, are talking about the Fact, well-known, that we are in the process of a financial collapse internationally? A housing collapse, internationally. The housing market is about to collapse. We have a bubble in the housing market, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They can go under.
We've got other bubbles. Who talks about it? We're got a war in Iraq, which is threatening to spread to other countries; what are we doing about it? People are making proposals; maybe the Secretary of Defense may be dumped, any day now, over this scandal of the prison in Iraq. But they're not doing anything about it. They're saying, "me, too. I can do the job in Iraq better."
No one can do the present job in Iraq better. You've got to cancel the job. We should not be in the occupation business. We're in a situation where we send people over to get killed, and that's called patriotism. I don't think sending American soldiers over to get killed in Iraq, is patriotism because that's the only thing you're doing. (applause)
I've got a policy which is getting a lot of support from around the world, and people here, on how to deal with this Iraq situation. But nobody else is doing it, not in this country, and other candidates. We don't belong there. We've got to get ourselves out clean. We can't just scamper and run, but we've got to stop the killing. We've got to pull most of our people back, retrain them. We've got some other things to do in that area. We've got these wounded veterans returning who can't get health care. We've got a Veterans' hospital system that's broken down, that can't care for them. That's called patriotic, huh?
So, that's our situation. Neither party, presently, is disposed to act. And the reason they're not disposed to act, is because they lost the fundamental principle of our Constitution, from the beginning. In politics, if you're any good, you look at the guy who's at the bottom of the barrel first. Because if you cannot take care of the people who are at the bottom of the barrel, you can't take care of anyone. What you do, as we've seen over the recent years, as the lower 80 percent of family income brackets in the United States have been going down, down, down, since 1977. We've seen the poor, who are now becoming up to 80 percent of the population, do not have the standard of living they had back in 1977, in terms of effective physical standard of living. They're being more and more neglected. They're becoming more and more discouraged, more and more withdrawn.
When you say you're President of the United States, you say, "I represent the United States." Well, why don't you represent the lower 80% of our citizens of the United States?
You say, "We represent the Western Hemisphere." "Well, why don't you do a better job in representing Mexico, and Argentina, and Peru, Bolivia?"
The problem is, people are not taking any responsibility of being troublemakers, who look for problems where they're emerging, and try to determine solutions for those problems, and measuring the competence of their solution, by the test of what effect are you having on the poorest, least well-protected sections of our population? What are you doing for the coming generation? What kind of a world are you creating for people who are now 18 to 25? What kind of a world are you entering, for the next 50 years of their adult life?
What are you doing for the young children, who are coming up and getting into those generations?
That's the test of government. That's the test of a good troublemaker, and we don't have it. But you, in the unions, typify those who are the right constituency. We need to have a representation, Roosevelt-type system of representation, in which the major part of the population, including those who fall in the lower 80% of family income brackets, know they have an advocate, a leader and an advocate in government. And then you ask them, "Don't tell them to get big money from the big contributors, and tell you what to do. If you want to turn out the vote, why don't you motivate the person to vote? Motivate the citizen to vote? Give him a reason to vote? Don't try to buy his vote."
Become his representative. You know that, in the union business. You want the people to turn out? You want to build? You've got to convince the people you're leading that you're working for them. You want people to turn out to vote? You send the people, and go to the people who need that the most. They'll be your best defenders, your best promoters.
And that's the situation. I can do a good job. I'm probably the only man in the United States who can, because of the peculiarity of my situation, knowledge, and so forth. I'm the only one qualified to be president, that I know of right now. The others are far down the list. But nonetheless, what I have to do is not simply sit back and wait to become president. I have [tape break]
leadership now, within the population, as a man of our nation, with some skill and some access to influence. And that there are people like you, working with what I'm trying to do. And we have to, sort of, move in on the government and on the partieswhatever the outcome of the elections are: We have to move in, and make sure, that we are controlling the standard of performance we impose upon them: "You want to be President? Do the job we want you to do. You want to run an economic policy? Create the economic policy that we need. We'll tell you what that is. We'll tell you what the needs are."
We have to, as citizens, realize that, in us, in each of us, is something of the President of the United States, is something of the leadership of our states. We have to think, as if we were Presidents of the United States, each of us, in part, in ourselves. We have to provide the spark of leadership, that will force some of thosesome are good, some are dummiesin government, to do what we know has to be done.
We, as troublemakers, have to create the spark, which is the spark of leadership, which will control the nation. We have to have the image of what Franklin Roosevelt brought out in people who were waiting to die in 1932-33, and brought them back to life, and made us, again, the most powerful producer nation on this planet. That was leadership. We have to have that leadership in each of us. We have to collaborate to create that force of leadership, which politicians will be compelled to get along with.
Thank you.
Dialogue with Presidential Candidate Lyndon LaRouche In Utah, on the Jack Stockwell Show
May 3, 2004
JACK STOCKWELL: Good morning, everybody. It is the third day of May. You are listening to the Jack Stockwell radio program, brought to you this morning live; none of this canned stuff on this show....
Now, unannounced as far as I know it was unannounced Lyndon LaRouche, live on the line. He's going to be with us most of the morning, I hope. We will be having traffic on a regular basis for you, coming in here. But, again, I want to announce him as the fellow who has more individual contributions in the Democratic Party, than John Kerry. There is a lot of controversy going on inside the Democratic Party right now, as well as a lot of Republican influence, but you're not going to hear too much of it in the media, because the name of LaRouche is a hiss and a byword to the international banking cartel, and they do not want this man's politics, his ideas, or his thinking, but especially his ideas, getting out there into the public sector. Because once he has a chance to establish a new mindset, a new construct for your mind to grab a hold of, and to think and contemplate, rather amazing things happen inside the human psyche, when things like that are allowed to take place.
But here, on this show, he gets a chance, and by popular request. Many of you who attended his appearance here a couple of months ago in Salt Lake, have asked several times, through e-mail or phone calls, "get him back on, get him back on."
So, without further ado, Mr. LaRouche, are you there?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Yes, I'm here. I could correct you on one thing. The media has just, in an interesting way, featured me, on the front page of the Style section of today's Washington Post.
STOCKWELL: The front page?
LAROUCHE: The front page of the Style section. Yes.
STOCKWELL: Are you in your Gucci, or your Versace outfit? How are you on Style?
LAROUCHE: I was in a monkey suit at the time, but that's. I'll read the paragraph, because I think people will enjoy it.
"Nix the moment where Henry Kissinger, older than ever, declines, with actual horror in his voice, the opportunity to speak to Lyndon LaRouche,"
And then it continues on the jump page: "who, it happens, told us, 'Keep out of mischief, unless you enjoy it.' " And then it concludes, "Oh, that lovable LaRouche."
So, that kind of coverage, I get. On the deeper stuff, it generally does not appear.
STOCKWELL: Well, for two reasons. Number one, I think the prevailing reason is they don't have the education to understand what you're talking about. But number two, those who do have the education to understand what you're talking about, do not want to see the citizens of this country, or the whole Earth, for that matter, being placed before the interests of the corporations.
And you're kind of the front man, in my way of thinking, you're kind of the front man out there right now, who represents the common man, the forgotten man and woman, the individual whose productive efforts, and back-breaking sweat labor, has made this country the number one, or at least one time, the number one productive power on the face of this planet. Only to now slide behind several others, rapidly gaining, as those whose interest at one time were to make this country productive, are now interested in: "Well, let's just send them all out to the Malibu Beach, and let them sip banana daiquiris, while they live off the efforts of slaves around the rest of this planet."
LAROUCHE: Yes.
STOCKWELL: And it's coming to a head, sir, it's coming to a head.
LAROUCHE: Yep, it is.
STOCKWELL: The Federal Reserve people meet this week, what do you think's going to happen?
LAROUCHE: Not sure. We're in a real crisis. I can tell you what happened in Germany this weekend.
STOCKWELL: All right.
LAROUCHE: The German government met, most of the officials of the government met, and agreed that they're going to dump the austerity policy as such, as an error, as a hopeless mistake, and go for a stimulus package in employment. That is a change. We've been pushing for itmy wife, you know, who's a candidate for the European Parliament, has been pushing that in Germany, and apparently some of this is getting through, one way or the other.
STOCKWELL: What's the unemployment rate in Germany?
LAROUCHE: I'm not sure right now, I think it's about 10 million, or something.
STOCKWELL: Yeah, but it's a higher percentage than we have.
LAROUCHE: Officially. I think our percentage is actually higher. We are more experienced at lying in government than they are. What they do is, they drop from the labor force entirely, and therefore they drop the percentage!
The LaRouche Doctrine
STOCKWELL: Well, that's one way to do it. Now, tell us, sir, what this means, that that kind of change occurred this weekend in Germany. What does that mean?
LAROUCHE: Well, it means a lot of things. First of all, the same thing I've been involved in. As you know, I've put out this proposal, which is called the LaRouche Doctrine proposal, for settling the Iraq question. This has large support in Europe, as well as in the Arab world and related places. Prominent figures are actually formally endorsing this which is what I've asked for.
Now, this tends to have happen, what happened under General Conway, in part, the Marine commander in the Fallujah area, who brought in an Iraqi general, to replace his forces in policing Fallujah, and drew his forces back to a reserve position; which is not received happily as news in Washington, D.C. But the mood is now, that we can get out of there. Many people who've heard my proposal are acting upon it. That is my policy is accepted, the Arab world, or a lot of it, will accept what I propose be done.
STOCKWELL: Now, I want you to explain in greater detail in just a moment, But we do need a traffic update, as we're just getting started.... [commercial break]
My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, live from back in Virginia, this morning. And those of you who are calling, I'll just ask you to be patient, and hold on for a few moments. Let's get Lyndon rolling, and then we'll be glad to take your phone calls locally....
So, we're talking about what just happened there with Fallujah, a little bit of a pullback. Isn't that the general idea of the LaRouche Doctrine, right now?
LAROUCHE: In a sense, it is.
STOCKWELL: To bring in some UN people, bring in an Iraqput the Iraqi army back in charge. The U.S. soldiers will fall back to a position where, "if you don't fire on us, we won't fire on you," and let's get this country in transition to your own control?
LAROUCHE: Yes, essentially. But there's a key part here, which, it won't work except as I proposed it.
First of all, you have to have support from within the Arab world, and some adjoining regions, for the policy. Otherwise, you won't get the negotiation that you wantthat is, a workable negotiation.
Secondly, the problem here is, the United States and the rest of the world are now on the verge of the greatest financial crash in modern history. It's now oncoming. The crash has not occurred, but the crumbling preceding the crash, is now in order. And we can expect things like a collapse of the entire U.S. real estate bubble, and a chain reaction of that, around the world to occur at any time. Since there's free will in these matters, you can't tell the exact time, but you can say, "we're in the area, in the locale, where, within the coming weeks and months, we must expect this to happen."
Now, if we have a world war, which is what Iraq really represents, a commitment by Cheney and company toward a world war, if we have that in progress, we're not going to be able to get the cooperation we need, to deal with the international financial crisis. And therefore, what I've proposed, of course, is that we create a zone of security in Southwest Asia, ringed by states such as Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and so forth, and also bring in Armenia and Azerbaijan, which are on the flank of this thing: to get an agreement on a security and peace arrangement, which means that the present policy of Israel will have to be ended. We're going to have to give it up under U.S. and other pressure, and go back to the Oslo Accords, as proposed by Yitzhak Rabin when he was Prime Minister, before they killed him. That kind of approach, backed by the full energy of the United States, will bring about the preconditions needed for peace in the Middle East.
STOCKWELL: You're going to have to have somebody in the White House with the backbone that Eisenhower had back in the '50s.
LAROUCHE: The point is, you have to have somebody in the White House who has just dumped Cheney, and is scared stiff, and has gone back to his Daddy and said, "Daddy, what do I do?" And that crowd says, "Look we need Middle East security. This is the petroleum-producing area of the world. We need security in this area if we're going to deal with an economic crisis." And therefore people like James Baker III, and others, who may not be too friendly to me, would nonetheless, under those conditions, say, "Let's do it." And if they had to fire Karl Rove to get Cheney dumped from the ticket, they'd do it.
Under those conditions, the President would probably be inclined to go along.
STOCKWELL: Without a change like that, and the scenario that you're setting, for a continual engagement of American troops until we have Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations well under way, to the point that we just can't withdraw from Fallujah any more, that could be the end of things as we know it.
LAROUCHE: Well, it could be a Dark Age. We could get into that: People don't realize in the United States. It's the generation in power, the upper 20% of family-income brackets, who are now, shall we say, in the 50s, and very early 60s.
STOCKWELL: All right, hold on. My guest, Lyndon LaRouche. Greg, I'll get your call, right on the other side of the first break.... [commercial break]
I've got a guest on here, Mr. LaRouche, who is here right now. Lyn, we've got lots of people who'd like to talk to you. Do you mind if we get some calls on here?
LAROUCHE: Why not do it? Good.
STOCKWELL: Let's go right now with Greg. Greg, you are on the Stockwell Show.
Q: Good morning, Mr. LaRouche, and Jack Stockwell. My question has got to do more with American regional problems, rather than the international ones. Would you consider that?
Mexican Immigration
STOCKWELL: Certainly.
Q: Out in the West here, especially in Utah, since one of our counties, either Unita or Dushane County, is the highest percentage of Mexican influx throughout the United States. We have this Mexican immigration problem. Now, I've been an ardent supporter of yours, Mr. LaRouche. However, some of your explanations as to this immigration problem, are not quite clear to those of us who live right with it. Can you re-explain your solution to that, in light ofseveral years ago, at the Cinco de Mayo Day here in Utah, the Mexican Consul said to his people, "Act like this is your country, because it is."
STOCKWELL: All right. Now, before he answers that question, Greg, I'm going to leave you on hold so you can converse with him on that question, but we need another traffic update.... [commercial break]
Mr. LaRouche, it sounds like, you know, there are shows here at K-Talklet me put this in another contextthat really hit the immigration problem heavy. Because I don't know what your experiencing in Leesburg, Loudoun County, Virginia. But out here, it is beyond belief. Especially with Utah being the first state in the Union to grant a legal driver's license to an illegal alien. They don't pick them up any more, they give them drivers' licenses out here. So, in the context of everything Greg had to say, would you address the situation?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, fine. The problem here is U.S. policy, and it goes back to 1982 in particular. We had for a long period of time, prior to that, we had a policy of bringing in virtual slave labor across the border from Mexico, as the so-called wetback labor. This was done by U.S. employers, and done through the aid of contractors, who were sometimes criminal types, who would engage in telling people they'd get a job in the United States, and smuggle them on railway cars, or trailer-trucks, and often, if they got caught, they would leave the people inside, dead.
Now, this thing was regularized after '82 increasingly, when the Mexican economy was shut down. And what had happened is, that more and more, certain financier interests in the United States, decided to shut down U.S. employment of U.S. citizens, and bring in cheap labor from Mexico, either directly, or through NAFTA, through the maquiladoras operation in the northern states of Mexico.
So, what we have is, we have a U.S. policy which is wrong, which is based on treating Mexicans, who are looking desperately for employment, as virtual slave labor inside the United States. This, of course, has a chain reaction effect on our citizens. We dump the slave labor, or people who are virtually slave labor, we've dumped them in to replace people who are presently employed. Therefore, we create unemployment. We do not provide sufficient support for the infrastructure of the communities into which these people move. We don't allow, or we have not yet allowed, any regularization of the relationship between this immigration, and the United States.
The other side of the point is: The people who support this illegal operation, from the United States, include people like Soros, who support the legalization...
STOCKWELL: Hey, Lyn? I've got to interrupt. We've got a big blast of static show up here on the line.... [interruptionthen commercial break]
All right, we're back. Thirty minutes after the hour of 7 o'clock. We were able to get Mr. LaRouche back on the air.... Good, let's get back to where we were a moment ago, this immigration thing.
LAROUCHE: Let me qualify myself on this one, because I think the caller may not fully understand what I'm talking about, and many people who are listening, who are also concerned about the same thing, don't understand what it means, when I say something.
STOCKWELL: Are you just finally learning that?
LAROUCHE: I know. I'm an action person, essentially. The only reason I don't act on some of these things, is because the government won't let me. But if I have any influence on government, it will act.
But I can also tell you, that if I don't have influence on government, nobody's going to act, and the problem is going to become worse! So, you come with me, or don't complain. I'm the action man.
Now, what's the story here? I was recently in Mexico. I was in Monterrey, which used to be one of the industrial centers of Mexico. I was previously, the earlier year, in Saltillo, in Coahuila, which is the next adjoining place. Now, I spoke at universities in both cases, and was interviewed all over the place. I also met with people who are relevant.
Now, here's the story: There are four states of Mexico which border Texas. There has been a proposal for cooperation between Texas and these four states. It's ongoing. I'm supporting it. My solution to this, is to create the jobs in Mexico, and to have U.S. policy oriented toward developing jobs in Mexico, not for the purpose of excluding Mexicans from the United States, but because they would rather have decent jobs in their own country, and be with their own families, than living as immigrants inside the United States, particularly illegal immigrants.
And the way to do that, is very simply: take the Northern area of Mexico, develop projects which are of interest to us as a nation; develop them in Northern Mexico like infrastructure projects and so forth developed in cooperation with the Mexican government; and stop this erratic flow into the United States, which is being used by racists, like the supporters of Samuel P. Huntington, who is trying to orchestrate, with racist types, such as Dick Cheney's crowd, a conflict inside the United States.
Now, here's what the danger is: You have from Spain, a fascist organization, an extension today of the old Nazi organization, which is operating from Italy, from France, but coordinated from Spain. These people are saying that the former colonies of Spain, belong to Spain today. These people have been taking over the power interests of South America, looting South America, helping to cause a crisis, and they have been mobilizing anti-American hatred in these populations, under the direction of people I know to be Nazis. And you have people who are pro-Nazi in the United States, along with Samuel P. Huntington, pushing from the other side.
Now, when I say I'm an action man: We do have a problem. Our people are upset and frightened by this problemas you, Greg, have said. I want the problem solved. I know how to solve the problem, I'm ready to solve it. Give me the backing and I'll solve it. Otherwise, we have nothing to complain about.
STOCKWELL: So, you're talking about creating a situation in the northern states of Mexico, where they would find it's just as good for them to stay there, make the money they need to make, that they got to run up here to get, rather than having to come across the border to support their families?
LAROUCHE: Exactly. The point is, the United States' immigration policy should be our traditional melting-pot society policy. But, that means, there has to be a certain quality in the process of immigration. We can not destroy our country by turning it into a patchwork country. It has to be a melting-pot nation, where we develop a common culture, and common standards, and we share them.
STOCKWELL: Well, there are a lot of people who are using this current immigration flood to their own nefarious ends, and that's this Nazi network you're talking about. Is that also the group that's pushing this Aztlan thingthat whatever existed as a part of Mexico prior to the war with Mexico, that they lost to the United States, down south of the Rio Grandethat would include the whole Western part of America, including the state of Utah!
LAROUCHE: Absolutely, you're right Jack. These are Nazis. They're pure Nazis, and they represent a terrorist threat against the United States, among other things. I'm determined to shut that down. I know how to shut it down, and I'm prepared to act and do it. If I were President of the United States, it would be shut down. If I get enough backing, it will be shut down.
STOCKWELL: All right. Let's go to Max. Max, I think we have enough time for you to ask your question, and then we've got to go to a commercial break.
Q: Yeah, I've always had the same thing, that Mexico needs to develop its own economy, and quit relying on our companies down there, that aren't paying them enough anyway, to make a living down there. There's no infrastructure to even hook up a Whirlpool washer, or electricity, or whatever, to have it in your house, and they can't even afford to buy it anyway.
What I really wanted say, though, Jack, is, I heard last night, that China's going to float their yuan, and it's going to cost us a lot moreyou know, it's going to devalue our dollar against it. And, Chinese goods are going to be a lot more expensive. I wondered if he'd comment on that?
STOCKWELL: Does that mean the Wal-Mart prices are going to go up?
Q: Yes, they're going to skyrocket.
STOCKWELL: No-o-o-o!! Don't tell me that!
Q: Yes, we're heading for a great big round of inflation, unless we start making things ourselves.
LAROUCHE: It's true. He's right. This is a reaction of China, a defensive reaction against what George Bush and company won't admit: The U.S. economy is going into the bucket! We're in an inflationary collapse of the U.S. economy. Therefore, China is defending itself against the onrushing collapse of the dollar, and its onrushing dependence on the U.S. export market, as an export marketthey're taking defensive measures.
These are normal reactions of a nation, against what they know is the ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy. The problem is, we don't admit it! George Bush won't admit it.
STOCKWELL: Well, they certainly won't admit it before November!
LAROUCHE: Well, they're going to have to admit it now, because the collapse is coming. It's going to come before November. We're on the verge of the greatest financial collapse this country has ever experienced. It's coming on now.
I'm prepared to deal with it. We can deal with it. But, if you don't like Franklin Roosevelt, you might as well stop complaining, because that's what you're going to get.
Q: Yeah, it's going to cost more to shop at Wal-Mart, so.
LAROUCHE: So what!?
STOCKWELL: Thanks a lot, Max.
LAROUCHE: That's all right. We can do without Wal-Mart. I like the other businesses better!
STOCKWELL: Yes, of course.
We'll be right back. Lyndon LaRouche, my guest. We're going to talk more about this greatest collapse in history on our doorsteps. Don't go away. [commercial break]...
My guest Lyndon LaRouche, live from back East. Again, according to the Federal Election Commission, Mr. LaRouche has more individual contributors to his campaignand believe me, the DNC knows thismore individual contributors to his campaign than even John Kerry. John Kerry has more money, because you got to pay more money if you want to buy somebody. But, when it comes to individual contributions, he's still the lead, as far as the Democratic Party race is concerned. More and more delegates want to support him in the coming Democratic Convention, which, of course, has every intention of not even letting him in the city! Let alone inside the building, where the Democratic Convention will be held. We'll get into that a little bit later, as to why that might be the case.
But, I want to give you a phone number, right now, where you can get a hard copy of what he is talking about. If you've never seen a copy of the EIR magazine, which to this day. I get a lot of them, and I read a lot of them on line, and I have a lot of them sent to me as complimentary subscriptionsI haven't seen anything with the depth, the content, and the research, that goes into EIR. Here's a phone number, it's toll free: 888-347-3258. Tell 'em you heard Mr. LaRouche live on the Jack Stockwell Show, and you would like a free copy of the EIR. You might also ask for a copy of his DVD, his Talladega speech: If you still are not clear in your mind where Mr. LaRouche stands on many concepts relative to bringing America back to where she was 40-50 years ago, as the number-one productive power on this planet, that might be the speech you want to listen to.
Now, I got to try and sift through here, and find out where my traffic is.... [traffic break]
All right, nowbefore that break, Lyn, I've got some people already calling in, wanting an elaboration on what you had to say about FDR. I'm going to go ahead and bring them on, because you're out here in an area, that is, for whatever reasonI think I know the reason [LaRouche chuckles]but, it's very anti-FDR. In fact, a lot of people out here have the idea that FDR must somehow, have been in communication with Yamamoto himself, orchestrating the attack on Pearl Harbor. You know, Billy Mitchell and his court martial; Operation Red and Orange, and all that stuff notwithstanding, from 20 years prior. So, I think it would be a good idea. Let me get Ed on here, because he's got a question relative to that, and then, maybe you can elaborate what you mean, on the more positive things that FDR represented. Because, I know that in personal conversations that I've had with you myself, there were things that FDR did, that you were not very much in favor of. So, Ed, your question, please.
FDR and Infrastructure; FDR and the War
Q: Well, good morning, Jack. I'm not totally opposed to FDR. I used to live right next to the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington, and that was a result of the FDR public works projects, and so forth. And, I guess, I'm just trying to understand how he would applyand I understand that we're already in $31 trillion in national debt at this point; and if we go into much bigger spending mode, and borrowing mode, that would put us even deeper into debt. So, I'd like to know what Mr. LaRouche proposes to do on that.
STOCKWELL: That's a good question. Now, let me model that question here a little bit, just slightly with a question I want to add to thatLyn, so you understand where we're coming from out here: Everybody out here thinks, that when you mention FDR, our taxes are going to double and triple. And I don't think they've got this concept, yet, in their mindI know Ed does, but there's a few others that don'tof this idea of this system of central credit. Where the government itself extends the credit, rather than borrowing it from the Fed, without having to drive taxes to Communist Russia levels. When you say "FDR," that's what they think.
LAROUCHE: The problem here, is, in the past generation, about 40 years, the generation which is now in their 50s and early 60s, does notin general, with very few exceptionshave any comprehension of what a real economy is. And therefore, they think like George Bush thinksmaybe the daddy understood something a little bit differentlybut the son, who's now President, doesn't even know what an economy is. They think that an economy is current money spent, and they just don't understand the principle of capital.
Now, the way that you get out of a depression, is, the government must put the system through reorganization: The present banking system of the United States is hopelessly bankrupt, under present conditions.
STOCKWELL: That's that $31 trillion, that Ed's talking about?
LAROUCHE: Well, it's much more than that.
STOCKWELL: It's more than that, actually, yeah.
LAROUCHE: We're talking about quadrillions, in terms of impact on the U.S. economy, in terms of financial derivatives and things like that.
So, we're now hopelessly bankrupt. All the leading banks in the United States, maybe with a half an exception here or there, are bankrupt. They're bankrupt, largely because of this buried-in-financial-derivatives-crossover kinds of things like that.
So, this thing is coming down, it's coming down soon. It may come down within days; it may come down within weeks; it may take a few months. But, she's coming down! So, what do we do? What we have to do, is, we have to put the system, under the Constitution; under the Preamble to the Constitution, the provision for the protection of sovereignty, general welfare, and posterity: The President must act, with Executive Orders, later supported by the Congress, which put the Federal Reserve System itself into bankruptcy reorganization.
Now, as Roosevelt did, with his bank reorganization act, but in a much less serious situation, put the thing into reorganization, and we got through, without any significant crisis. The government, also, to protect us against speculation, gold speculation at the time that the British gold system had collapsed in 1931the British collapsed it, themselvestook in gold, and used it as an implicit reserve currency, to back up the dollar, and to prevent speculation against the dollar in the international markets.
On that basis, the United States created credit, Federal credit, that is, Federal obligations, for capital improvements. Now, by a capital improvement, you mean generally something you invest in today, which is going to be paid out, both in terms of being used up and otherwise, over a period of some years, maybe a generation, maybe two generationsa major dam, a major water system. We're talking about two generations' capital cycle. A normal investment in a plant, about a generation. Investment in an important machine tool, would be from a half-generation, or a third of a generation, to a full generation.
So therefore, what the government does, by investing in things which are useful, over a period of years, decades or longer, it is able to increase the level of employment to the degree that two things happen: First of all, you increase employment as such in government-sponsored projects, which may be Federal credit applied to the states, or to a Federal project as such. Secondly, you produce a line of credit through the banks, which are now in a reorganization mode, under which private investors, who go to the bank, who qualify for loans for expansion and maintenance of their business, will be granted loans on the basis of what the local banker and some committee in the community, thinks. On that basis, you promote capital investment. If, for example, by such means, today, we increase the net employment in the United States by 10 million persons, in decent jobs, that itself would mean, that we could cause each of the states of the United States to come into balance on current account. It also means that the United States as a whole, can operate in terms of current expenses, on current account, by taking into account capital factors.
Now, that's what you have to do. That's what Roosevelt did, in his way. His method was a great experiment, in which there were many things that didn't work right, partly because the opposition prevented it from working right.
STOCKWELL: Okay, now, when we get back from the break, I've got some questions relative to this, to make this as simple as possible, for everyone to understand. Don't go away. We'll be right back....[commercial break]
All right, I have my guest here, Lyndon LaRouche. He'll be on the rest of this hour, and the coming hour. Now, Lyn, you went into some length there, describing what you would do as if you were President right now. And I know a lot of that terminology, kind ofyou know, you were talking about things like that when you were first born. That's why your parents knew there was something very weird about you [LaRouche chuckles], but, it escapes the understanding of some of my listeners.
Let me try to simplify this, and tell me if I'm wrong in some area here, but, what you're going to do is, you would put the current financial system into bankruptcy, which means they wouldn't have the option of deciding whether to go along with it or not; they would just finally have to admit the truth to everybody, "Listen, we don't have a tenth of a penny to cover a hundred billion dollars we've got out there in loans right now, because there is no way to control the value of the money itself." It's just going to continue to inflate, and this condition's going to go until nobody will trust anything. So, to stop that from happening, we're going into involuntary bankruptcy.
But, we're going to bring a program in, immediately behind it. One based on the whole Hamiltonian concept, of state credit: Where the state, the government itself, backed up by a gold-reserve standardone thing that's missing in our economic program, right nowa gold-reserve standard, so that we know, that if the government were to loan Bank System A (there's several major banks out here, but I won't mention any of them by name), but The Major Bank A, out there in Utah, would get a certain portion of money from the government, not tax dollar moneycredit money, based on the faith and the credit of the United States government, backed up by a gold-reserve standard, at a very low interest rate, designed for infrastructure projects. Projects that will build our ability to produce steel; our ability to mine coal; our ability to put together sophisticated nuclear power plants; our ability to put maglev trains, and anything else that we want to do: We have to have the productive ability restored in this country to be able to do that.
So, the government itselfor Bank A would apply to the government. The government would say, "Sure. Here's $2 billion. Now, this is what we want to see for this $2 billion that we're going to give to you at 1.5%. You're going to loan it out at 1.5%, or 2%, or whatever, but very low interest. And it's going to hold that interest value for 25-30 years, a whole generation, because it's tied down to the value of gold. It isn't going to be able to be played with, as one market company buys a loan from another company that bought a loan, from another company, and keep jacking the value of that loan all over the place.
We'll tie it to the value of gold. We will build watershed projects in Utah; we will build a nuclear power plant in the Four States area, so that we can get 4 cents a kilowatt power to those people down there, who can take advantage of the natural resources, that they can't take advantage of now, because there's no water and there's no cheap power to do it.
Is that the kind of thing we're talking about?
LAROUCHE: In that direction, yeah.
STOCKWELL: Okay. Add to that.
LAROUCHE: Well, what we need: We have to have, as I say, a national program, which means we have to go back to regulation.
STOCKWELL: Yeah! Definitely.
LAROUCHE: People have to understand, that any currency is an idiot. Any paper currency is an idiot. There's no way that paper currency, or money defined in terms of paper currency, can find a natural level of value. The whole idea of free trade is a piece of nonsense, which was invented by the British to keep us and other people poor! So, there's no sense to it.
So, we must have regulation. Government must be responsible. We must make sure that what is done with our credit, is spent wisely, and that our investments are protected. For example: If we're going to make a loan to someonesay, it's a loan of 1.5% or 2%, or something like thatwith a foreign country, or someone domestically, we have to be sure, that the currency does not depreciate in value, through inflation or other means, over the period of that loan. Otherwise, you'll either have the bank go bankrupt, or you will have the company that borrowed, forced toward bankruptcy by the rise in the cost of these loans, that is, maintaining them.
So therefore, we must have regulation. That's the sticking point. People who believe in free trade, simply do not understand the ABCs of economics. And therefore, they think that somehow free trade means that by free decisions of billions of people or something, that things will level out at the right price. And that is not true; that is a myth; it was never true.
STOCKWELL: Level out at the right price for the mega-corporate CEOs. But, not down on the other end. Not for us.
LAROUCHE: No, no, of course not! You're not important! You're not the guy that owns the government! And that's the point: Who owns the government? Our people have to own the government. They can only own it through their control over the government. And government has to be accountable.
People don't know what government accountability is, today. That's our problem. The present generationrunning businesses, running the governmentonly a small minority of this generation knows the ABCs of economics, as people of a previous generation, say 30 to 40 years ago, knew. They don't know the ABCs of running business. And that's what killing us.
STOCKWELL: Well, we're going to have to go to the break, national news feed. But, I think most people equate a good economy with the availability of cash. You go to the bank, you walk out, you've got your $15,000 or your $30,000 truck loan, and that means the economy's okay.
We'll be right back with my guest Lyndon LaRouche, right after the news feed. Don't go away.... [commercial break]
My guest is Lyndon LaRouche live from Leesburg, Virginia, this morning....
I'm sorry, my apologies. I forgot to put the VIP button on here for Lyn, so I cut off Jim. His question was, Jesse H. Jones' [Reconstruction] Finance Corporation, the things that worked well, the TVA, some of these other things were his doing; it was his intellect that brought this to pass. Do you have somebody in mind? How would you go about replacing Jesse H. Jones today?
LAROUCHE: Well, there are a couple of people around who could do it, but, you know, they would have to have the right President. For example, I think the former Treasury Secretary is typical of people who know the ropes well enough to manage things off. For example, you have Laura Tyson, who was formerly in the Clinton Administration in the Treasury Department. She's competent. There are other people who have that kind of competence. So, we don't have an absolute shortage. We do have a critical shortage of enough people in that category, but I think we have enough to get by with.
STOCKWELL: You say Laura Tyson?
LAROUCHE: Yeah.
STOCKWELL: If you were to somehow be elected, today, to be the President, do you have some Cabinet ideas?
LAROUCHE: Oh, well, I have a lot of people, including a lot ofright now, I have military, because one of our big programs has to be to retool our youth. And I want to get the military back to an engineering basis, and use an engineering program for our military program. Because, when you get into a combat situation, the first thing you have to doas we see now, in Iraqthe first thing you have to do, is clean up the mess you made. And, we're not doing that job. So therefore, the people who clean up the mess, are the people who have engineering training, engineering knowledge, and that's a skill which is useful in life generally.
So therefore, if we're educating our people, including young people, who today are practically unemployable in proper industries, if we're educating them in, say, a military program of national service, and given them an engineering training, that is going to take up a lot of the slack we need taken up, in terms of rebuilding our economy.
The Reconstruction Finance Corporation
STOCKWELL: And, once they're out of the military, then they have a great career ahead of them, as an engineer.
I have to apologize, Jim. I pushed the wrong button, in my hurry here. He's talking about Laura Tyson, who served in the Clinton Administration. But, if you have some more, you'd like to ask Mr. LaRouche, please feel free to do so.
Q: Well, I was just thinking in terms of things of, you know, the things that didn't workfor instance, the third row, where they had the farmers plowing under the third row? And Jones said, "No, this is stupid. We'll take that produce, those things, and we'll put them in warehouses, and we will loan them money against it, and when the prices go up, we'll sell it." Now, that was a good idea. And Jones never lost a penny. He made money for the government, and they were direct government loans. They go the bankers the heck out of the picturenow I'm liking this thing I'm hearing Mr. LaRouche saying, because it sounds very much the same.
LAROUCHE: Well, the problem is here, is that, Roosevelt had political problems, and so did Wallace, in getting things through.
Q: Oh yeah! Well, Wallace was the one, that just about destroyed
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well fine. Wallace had a very strong constituency among farmers. And farmers thought that by creating a shortage, that they would pull up the price of food. And that didn't work, and Wallace was wrong on that.
But, you have to understand the political pressures, and anybody who's going to be President has to understand that: That he's going to run into pressures, where what he wants to do that's sensible, the Congress won't go along with, for reasons like that. And you will have somebody in the government, who will be the vehicle inside your government, who will go with certain people in the Congress.
So, that is a problem.
STOCKWELL: Go ahead, Jim.
Q: Well, probably the best thing that Jones did, is, when World War II broke out, two years prior to World War II, he had gone through, contacted people in manufacturing, set up government contractsall under the table and very sneaky
LAROUCHE: Yep!
Q: So, that when things happened, our mobility was just like overnightboom!we were into action.
LAROUCHE: Well, Roosevelt understood that himself, actually from 1936 on.
Q: Jones was way smarter than Roosevelt. So many of the good things that can be done in this country. The problem is, we were an agrarian country. We didn't have dams. We didn't have these things. These things had to be built. So now, what's the next step? Where do we go from here?
STOCKWELL: Good question. Thanks for your call, Jim. Lyn, where do we go from here?
LAROUCHE: Well, we have to go to a new kind of world. The world is getting more crowded in one sense. We have over 6 billion people on this planet now. We also have a situation with military technologies, as such, that, we're faced with two possibilities. We're faced with war with superweapons, and many countries have them, weapons beyond what have been used previously, and they're being developed rapidly. We also have the phenomenon we're seeing in Iraq: We're seeing the spread of what is called "irregular warfare," or sometimes "asymmetric warfare." Which means, in practice, it means a combination of modern weapons with so-called "people's war," as we had in Indo-China. We already had that, in a sense, in the Korea War.
So therefore, we have to think about these things in a different way. Instead of saying, "Who're we going to beat" in war? We have to run ahead of that, and determine how we're going to organize the world, in such a way we don't get to the point that we say, who we're going to beat in the next war.
That, I think can be done. I think governments are sufficiently terrified, by things including this war in Iraq, to realize, we can not do that kind of foolishness any longer. So therefore, we better use our heads.
STOCKWELL: Well, we have books like Caspar Weinberger, that wrote here a few years ago, The Next War, talking about six or seven possible war scenarios. If I understand what you're talking about, you're referring to a mind-set that would be more oriented in, who was going to be our major trade partner five years from now. Because, without strong economic ties, between countries that have strong, sovereign borders, to protect their own industries, without that as a backbone, there never can be a world of peace.
LAROUCHE: I think we can do better than that. See, because at the same time, you have a technological revolution we have to make. Our big problem is now, from the middle of the 1960s, we had the spread of this anti-technology movement, which came out of the so-called youth rock-drug-sex counterculture, which is now called the environmentalist movement.
STOCKWELL: Anti-technology.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. And this is a fraud. This is what threatens to kill us. We can deal with most of the problems we have to deal with, if we would develop technologies we need. For example: The case of nuclear energy. There is no substitute for nuclear energy! It doesn't exist! People who are trying to talk about itit's idiocy! Because, when you think about greening the United States, for example. Take the whole American Desert area: This desert has no development of significance, since the beginning of the last century. Here's a rich area, which needs water. We have the potentiality of developing water resources. With energy in that area, and enough water in that area, we can begin to green it. We're going to have to think in terms of one and two generations, but we can do it.
There are similar things in other parts of the world, desert areas that should be greened. So, if we have positive programs of technological development, we can create common interests among nations, to replace competition. In other words, we still have a system of sovereign nation-states, which we must have. You can't function in a globalized economy. But, we can have arrangements, where we understand, that our interests in cooperation, is our strongest interest, and we can come to agreement on things that ensure long-term cooperation, as opposed to medium- to short-term to long-term conflict, in terms of economic issues.
That we can do. That we must do.
STOCKWELL: All right, 18 minutes after the hour. We'll have some traffic for you in just a moment. My guest is Lyndon LaRouche. Judy, you'll be next, if you'll just hold on [commercial break]....
Those of you just tuning in, I'm talking to Lyndon LaRouche, live back in Leesburg, Virginia The number back there, 888-347-3258. If you've never read a copy of the EIR magazine, I suggest you do it once. It is the most fact-fillednow, you know there's other magazines out there on economics and whatever else. His is definitely on economics; that's the central core. But, you'll just call the number. Ask for a free copy....
All right, let's get Judy on here, with us. Judy, you're on the Stockwell Show.
Q: Yes, hi. I have a comment and a question.
STOCKWELL: Please.
Q: Thank you so much, Mr. LaRouche, for taking time out to be on our radio program here. I have been a supporter of yours for years, and you have actually changed my life. And I wanted to say that this ThursdayJack, are you speaking at our meeting?
STOCKWELL: You know, I forgot all about it!
Q: Okay, that's why I'm calling. Because, we have monthly meetings for you, Mr. LaRouche, here in Sugarhouse, at 1760 South 1100 East.
STOCKWELL: Well, it's not unusual for me to forget stuff like that.
Q: Well, we put the word out that you're going to be there, Jack. So
STOCKWELL: Wellyeah, I'll be. When and where is it?
Q: In Sugarhouse
STOCKWELL: Oh, in Vintage Square! Yes, yes, yes.
Q: Okay, at 7 o'clock.
STOCKWELL: 7 p.m. this Thursday night.
Q: And I wanted to say, for people who want a copy of your LaRouche Doctrine, EIRs, the DVDs, the New Federalistwe have all of that. And we will bring it. It fills our cars up. We bring it to all of our meetings. And people can see it personally, take copies home, read it.
And also, the Democratic Convention is Friday and Saturdaywe will be there. You will be represented there, Mr. LaRouche!
LAROUCHE: Thank you!
STOCKWELL: Even though [Utah state Democratic chair] Donald Dunn didn't want him.
Q: Yes.
LAROUCHE: I think he didn't object. I think other people did.
STOCKWELL: Well, it's the people who control Donald Dunn.
Q: The National Committee, that's right.
STOCKWELL: Yeah, I think Donald Dunn's a fairly decent guy. He's just under the pressure of the National Committee, and if he's going to stay as chairman of the party, here, in this state, he's going to have to do what the National Committee wants him to do.
LAROUCHE: Isn't that terrible?
STOCKWELL: Well, no. You would like somebody to be able to stand on the basis of principle, and what is morally right, rather than political policies.
LAROUCHE: Well, the point is, the poor guy knows, that what is said against me by the National Committee is a bunch of lies. I mean, you know, I feel pain for him, that he has to eat that junk, when he knows it's lies.
Q: You know, Mr. LaRouche, I think people here in Utah, a lot of them are waking up, since you were here. We're trying to get information out constantly, on a daily basis. And, I'll tell you, people here better wake up, and realize that Bush is not our man. And we've got to change this country, and bring it back. And you really, and your ideas and your proposals are the only way that it can be done.
LAROUCHE: Thank you.
STOCKWELL: Judy, let me ask you again, this Thursday night, is it at 7 or 7:30?
Q: At 7.
STOCKWELL: I am speaking this Thursday night, 7 p.m., at Vintage Square. You might want to call in tomorrow, and tell Sargeant Striker [ph] here to remind me to announce that, because I'll have forgotten by tomorrow morning. I have so many! It's not that it's not important to me, it is important. I just have so many things going on, the only thing I know for sure is when the Sun is up, and when it isn't. [LaRouche chuckling] I mean, I was up the other night, till 4 a.m., and I was back doing what Mary and I took off this weekend to do, by 6:30.
The True Story of the War
Q: Well, I figured maybe you had forgotten. The question that I wanted to ask, that I keep getting from people, is that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor ahead of time, and he allowed it to happen. So, would you comment on that? And then I'll hang up.
STOCKWELL: Now, we will be going to a break in about 30 seconds. Let me put that into another context, and then you can address it as soon as we're back from the break. And that is, because of some recent documents that were made available through the Freedom of Information Act, it seems to indicate that the Oval Office, in the late fall of 1941, knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an attack was immediate. And so, even though we know they knew they were going to be attacked by the Japanese, there are a lot of people who seem to think that FDR was kind of huddled into a corner, with this Grinchy look on his face, just waiting for the bombs to drop, because that was the only way he could get us into the war in Europe, and he didn't do anything to save the servicemen. When we get back, please comment on this.... [commercial break]
You're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk-show program, and my guest, Lyndon LaRouche, Democrat candidate for President of the United States, who just happens to have more economic contributors in the sense of Federal Election Committee observance, than even Mr. John Kerry. Yet, the Democratic National Committee refuses to recognize the man's existence, let alone his candidacy for President.
Now, the question there, before we went to break, Lyn, was, aftersometimes you can throw out somebody's ideas, if you can bad-mouth him bad enough, over this particular issue or that, to try to dismiss the entire cacophony that ever came out of the man's mouth. I think that's what some people are trying to do, is to downplay the fact that FDR had some very, very valuable ideas; in fact, economically, he saved the country from fascism. But, the fascists would like to throw out his ideas and never have them ever considered again, and one of the easiest ways to do that, is to dismiss the person as a devil. Would you comment, maybe in that light, on what Judy had to say, that there are those who believe that FDR essentially was in league with the socialists of the whole world, to destroy the United States, and was hand-in-hand with Yamamoto's attack on Pearl Harbor!
LAROUCHE: Well, actually, the people who spread that overlook some facts, including some books that try to make this connection. The evidence was, in the investigation of the Pearl Harbor incident, was, there was incompetence on the part of the military, the Naval and Army command; negligence, which in a sense, reminds me of what happened on 9/11, in the United States, where the key thing iswe don't know exactly who did it; we have no proof of who did it, to this day. But, we do know that things that should have been operating, to minimize, if not totally prevent that incident, had been pulled down. And that was a matter of negligence.
Also, that there was evidence that we had a security problem, and a threat to the United States at the time. That was out. I was among those who warned against it. I didn't know that New York was going to be the target, or something of that sort, but I did know that we had a major security problem. And I, and many other people, said so. But, now it comes out, in the 9/11 Commission report, that some people are now catching on, to that was the nature of the situation.
Now, the same thing happened in the case of Pearl Harbor. If someone wants to make the point that Roosevelt had not warned against the attack on Pearl Harbor, then why would he also have been responsible for pulling back the military against the defense of Pearl Harbor? The point was, the attack against Pearl Harbor, was, of course, the thing that forced people to say, "Let's go to war with the Japanese." But, why throw the fight? Why not win that battle? By setting up adequate defenses?
What was known, is this: As far back as the early 1920s, when the United States was involved with Britain and Japan and others, in the so-called naval parity agreements, the British and Japan allied against the United States in those agreements. And, this led to the situation, where Japan was allied with the British, in a plan for a joint British-Japan attack on Pearl Harbor. This is what Billy Mitchell referred to, in his trial. So the plan for a British-Japan attack on Pearl Harbor was known in advance.
Now, if Churchill had not made the decision he made, to go to Roosevelt in June of 1940, then Britain would have joined Hitler in an alliance against the United States.
Now, many of the people, who were in that proposal, like Halifax and others, were not prosecuted. Only a few people, who could have been hung as traitors, were actually hung on that issue. But therefore, at that point, Churchill, who was sympathetic to Hitler in many ways, that is, in terms of policy, was not sympathetic to the idea of turning over the British Empire to the control of a Nazi dictator from Germany. And therefore, for that reason, he decided to lead Britain to an alliance with the United States, rather than going with Hitler, as many British leading officials did wish to, at that time.
This changed the situation. Now, what happened was, Japan was allied with Germany. Japan went ahead with the attack on Pearl Harbor, which had originally been planned as a joint operation by the British and Japanese. That's why Billy Mitchell was court-martialed. Billy Mitchell exposed that fact, and demanded that we develop a defense against that kind of attack. For that, they got rid of him: He wouldn't shut up. He kept going at it, and they got rid of him. That's the history of the thing. That's the essential thing.
Roosevelt knew of this plan, this threat to the United Stateseverybody knew, who should have known, of this threat to the Untied States. It was not believed that Japan would actually carry it out. We thought they would bluff. They didn't bluff.
I later had a chance, later in the 1980s, to meet some people in Japan, who had been involved, directly or indirectly, with the Japan planning. And what happened, there were some last minute changes made, where Japan ground-based airplanes were stuck on the carriers, and so what came in, was much more than anyone expected. But, this thing was, even from the Japan side, the actual attack was not clear before the time it was occurring.
Now, in the meantime, what Roosevelt didwhich is the other side of the thinghe deployed our capabilities, our aircraft carrier capabilities, into the Pacific to intercept what he thought would be the main Japan fleet coming in. That was the Battle of Midway. The victory of the U.S. forces at Midway, was a turning point in World War II. It was that victory, which led to a change in the world circumstances, which led to our victory.
STOCKWELL: Okay, I have a question, then, about this Midway thing, that you just brought up to my mind. But, I'll have to wait, obviously, until the break.
My guest, Lyndon LaRouche, candidate for the President of the United States of America.... [commercial break] We have a lot of questions coming, and we'll get to you in just a moment, folks. But, I want to wrap up this idea about Pearl, that we were talking about.
Now, Lyn, I remember in high school there, in Fairfax County, Northern Virginia where I grew upThomas Jefferson High SchoolAmerican history, 11th grade: My class was taught by a retired Army colonel who had fought in World War II, and just loved American history, and that was his retired job, teaching that in high school for kids. I remember him talking about the Civil war, and he said, that the South knew and understood, they could never beat the Union. But they felt, with the help they were getting from Europe, that they could be a thorn in the side of the Union, long enough, that the Union would finally recognize their secession and just let 'em go if they could continue the battle long enough.
Now, wasn't that somewhat of Japan's thinking? Because Japan knew, when the war started, they were starting a war they could not win. But maybe, could be a thorn in the side of the United States long enough, or at least the Allied powers, that we'd finally let them have a section of the Pacific, and just kind of truce it out after that, and let them go on with what they wanted. Now, wasn't there some kind of thinking in the Emperor's mind, or Yamamoto, or some of the others, that if they could hit us hard enough and just stay there long enoughwhich, of course, we ended, the Pacific war was essentially over with the Battle of Midway; there were a few other battles that needed to be done, but after their carriers were destroyed at Midway, that, kind of, in my way of thinking, showed that all Japan was thinking of at the moment, was to just try to be that pesky mosquito, that we finally let it have its blood and let it go.
LAROUCHE: It wasn't quite like that.
STOCKWELL: All right, correct me.
LAROUCHE: Remember, the group that was responsible for the original British alliance against the United Statesthat is, in the post-World War I periodthey were determined to organize the war in Europe. These guys, together with supporters from New York City, such as Harriman and so forth, actually funded putting Hitler into power, when he went into power. Now, at that point, the intention was, to keep the United States out of the war they planned to build around Hitler.
What they planned to do, was to actually have Hitler have a victory in Europe, against Russia, against the Soviet Union. Then, turn around, bring France, Britain, Spain, Italy, German, Japan, as an alliance, especially as a naval alliance, to destroy the naval power of the United States, and thus reduce the United States to second-rate status. That was the plan.
Those, such as Churchill, inside the British Empire, had a growing feeling they didn't want to do this. Not because they were not fascist supporters. They were. But because they did not want to give up, what they considered the British Empire.
STOCKWELL: To a German-speaking dictator.
LAROUCHE: Exactly.
But, the group behind this was not nations. The group behind this was bankers, who were called the Synarchist International. The same kind of bankers who are working to keep me out of the Democratic Party and Presidential elections now. The same kind of people. Whose policies are those of Hjalmar Schacht. And leading banking interests, in the United States, are pushing today for a Schachtian approach to a collapse of the U.S. economy, which they hope will occur after the November 2004 elections.
So, under that circumstances, this was the screw-up in the thing. Now, you have to look at what happened, look at what happened in Germany at a similar time. Midway was decisive for Germany. Two things were crucial for the German policy in World War II: One, was, of course, the Stalingrad battle. They had lost that. Then, the United States' ability to come back, after the Pearl Harbor attack, at Midway, meant that the United States was capable of running a two-front war, worldwide. And under those conditions, Goering and company knew the ultimate situation of Nazi Germany was hopeless.
At that time, the circles associated with Goering, inside the Synarchist International, including French bankers and other bankers, like Lazard Freres, for example, these guys decided on a post-Hitler, spread of the Nazi plan for world conquest. That is now ongoing today! The same plan.
Many people, in Europe, and in the United Statesa few in the United Stateshave understood this. For example, in connection with my work with the security services of the United States, back during the SDI days, I was given access to documents on the Synarchist International from the U.S. over the period of 1921-22 to 1945, and also military intelligence and some French intelligence. So, I know this stuff. I also know that our people know it, that this problem exists.
So, it is not simply a reaction of national governments to one other thing, that does it.
Now, take the case of Japan. Yamamoto represented a group which had run a successful coup against the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito. And that coup had been the second Sino-Japanese War, which Hirohito, the Emperor, was opposed to. But they got it through. But, toward the end of the war, this faction in Japan, knowing that the Emperor had negotiated with the United States, for a peace treaty, which the United States had negotiated under Rooseveltbut this agreement was suppressed under Truman! It was suppressed under Truman, in order to drop two bombs, which he had not been able to drop on Berlin, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You're dealing here, with a mentality, which is not a common-sense mentality. You're dealing with these fascist types, like these bankers behind them, with a certain kind of mentality which operates in a certain way. Now, Roosevelt understood this. Roosevelt knew what this was. Now, he was operating, and our U.S. forces were operating on a basis of a problem, of a compromise with Britain: That is, we were limited by our agreements with our ally, Britain, as to how we conducted World War II. We were also operating with the knowledge of this Synarchist problem. And which we still are today. And therefore, our position was one, of what is called "classical strategic defense."
The first modern case of classical strategic defense, was devised by Lazard Carnot in France, but then was used by the Russians and the Prussians to defeat Napoleon, by letting Napoleon come into Russia, and then destroying him when he got to Moscow. The United States' policy has always been one of strategic defense, since that time. And this is the way we were operating in World War II, with a policy of strategic defense.
STOCKWELL: All right, when we get back, Samuel, Chris, we'll give you a chance to get your questions.... [commercial break] We've got about six minutes left in this morning's program. Three callers, I'm going to please ask all of you to brief in your questions for Mr. LaRouche. Samuel, you're first.
Q: Good morning, Jack. Mr. LaRouche, say, I no longer have any doubt whatsoever that this historical illiteracy that's been created in the United States, by different groups, like the Skull & Bonesthey created the American Historical Association, this Hegelian mind-control; it's all part of a manufactured thing. But, here's the thing: In talking about Pearl, what comes up in my mind is a question about a Mr. Tyler Kent. He was a code clerk in the U.S. Embassy in England, and what was done to him. What he did was capturing and decoding messages between Churchill and FDR, before Churchill even became Prime Minister. Very curious case. It's the case of Tyler Kent. I wish you'd comment on that.
And thank you for your presence in America.
LAROUCHE: Well, on the details of that, I don't know. But, I do know the general circumstances, that Churchill had plans, it was a dirty plan. He detested Roosevelt, frankly. They called each other, you know, "Franklin" and "Winston," but they hated each other in large degree.
But, this was alliance with Britain, during World War II, by patriots was considered an uncomfortable alliance. Because we disagreed on principle, but we had to win the war. And we needed one another to win the war.
What Churchill intended to do, was what Truman helped him do in the post-war period! Of wrecking the accomplishments of Roosevelthe wasn't able to wreck everything. But he got us into unnecessary problems, and spoiled our opportunities. And this was done under the influence of a group associated with Churchill, even though Churchill had been dumped, essentially, by the British people, in the election that period. But, nonetheless, it was dirty games, all the way through.
Q: Right, well I was just hoping people would look into the Tyler Kent case and what Britain to him. He was a U.S. code clerk. The punishment of Tyler Kentthey didn't kill him; they arrested him and took away his diplomatic immunity, and it's quite a story. People should look into it.
STOCKWELL: Thanks a lot, Samuel. Chris, real quick, your question.
Q: Really quickgood morning Lyn. I'm one of your youth leaders here in Utah. A quick question. I've been thinking a lot about education, and, where are we going to go, to revive a Classical education in the public schools? What are some of your ideas on that?
LAROUCHE: You're going to help me do it! What we do, is we have to run the youth movement in the way that higher education should be run. We're doing it, already, to the extent we have the facilities. That is, when you participate in a process of a Classical approach to a Socratic dialogue, with a classroom size of 15 to 25 minimum-maximum. And you discuss topics the way we are doing it, you are getting a Classical education.
My view is that, you guys, doing this, are going to become the nucleus of a new United States. We're going to create a new generation, which is going to come out of this mess, and help us rebuild the United States: That's your destiny. You're going to do it.
The General Welfare
STOCKWELL: All right. Lee, in Salt Lake. Real quick, we have a minute and a half.
Q: I have a question regarding the general welfare concept, as it relates to the Democrats and the Republicans. Is there any difference between a Democrat and a Republican, as far as the Constitution is concerned, and the Declaration of Independence, where we're all created equal?
LAROUCHE: Well, the difference is this: It's within the parties. I have both Republicans and Democrats I agree with. If I were in the general election, then I would have probably almost as many Republican supporters, from among leading political figures, as Democrats. Because, the divisions within the two parties, are greater than the divisions between the two parties.
So therefore, yes, there are some people who agree with the principle of the Constitution. There're many who don't. Cheney does not. I don't think Bush knows what the Constitution is. And, I certainly know Al Gore doesn'tand so forth.
So, anyway, the difference is not between the parties. The difference is within the parties. And if you look back at the American Whig traditionI come from a Whig tradition, as many Democrats do, and Republicans come from a Whig tradition. So, my view is that there is going to be a re-assortment of politics in the United States, under a good Presidency, in which the two parties are going to cooperation in one waythat is those agree with each other; and those who disagree will be on the other side. The time has come for that change to occur.
Q: That's great. I'm one of your followers, here. I appreciate you.
STOCKWELL: All right, Lee. Thanks for your call. I guess I'm going to speaking Thursday night, 7 p.m., at Vintage Square.
Lyn, thanks so much for being here, buddy. I appreciate your being a part of the conversation. It's always fascinating to listen.
LAROUCHE: Okay, have fun. Thank you.
|