LaRouche to Berlin Cadre School:
The Fight Is Ours To Win or Lose

Setting the Trap

Open the Convention

I Am the Spoiler

From Volume 3, Issue Number 24 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published June 15, 2004

Latest From LaRouche

LaRouche to Berlin Cadre School:

The Fight Is Ours To Win or Lose

Lyndon LaRouche gave the following address to members of the LaRouche Youth Movement in Berlin, Germany, May 30, 2004.

Let me just summarize what our situation is in the United States.

What happened over the course since the abortive election of 2000, was, if you recall, I got into action immediately, and there was a significant shake-up in the Democratic Party, as elsewhere, on this. As a reaction to that, in the course of time, under the present National Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, there were accelerated efforts to exclude me from the campaign, from the primary campaign, by every means possible. This was objected to in some circles, but they went ahead with it nonetheless. ...

Now, during this period, as a result of what we set into motion, with a series of webcasts and so forth, by me—and documents—during the November, December, January period, prior to the inauguration of the present President, and beyond through the spring, as around the issue of the Washington, D.C. General Hospital, D.C. General, that around these issues, my foothold in the present level of the Democratic Party's organizing was pretty strongly established. And therefore, very special efforts were made on the part of my opponents in the party, to have me excluded, because I had a very strong foothold in the party at that time.

Setting the Trap

Now, what's happened is, two things: First of all, understanding exactly what Cheney and Co. were up to, especially from the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002, I set into motion an effort to stop the war, which Cheney had induced the President to launch. Now, this was not a matter of, can we stop the war? This was a matter of setting a trap. And all good operations involve setting a trap, not trying to get to a necessarily predetermined conclusion.

And the trap was that, if they went with the war, the penalties which would be imposed upon them, and to a large degree because of my action, would create a situation like Napoleon advancing toward Moscow: that is, a policy of strategic defense. They could go ahead with the war, or we might stop them. However, if they went ahead, and overwhelmed our attempt to get people to stop them, that would mean, that they would fall into a trap. And they've now fallen into a trap.

In the course of this, because of a number of things, including my past history in the United States, I was able to concentrate not merely on the Congress—because the Congress was not a decisive place from which to act; it is now becoming important, much more important than it was before. But back in 2002 and 2003, as you will recall, the Congress was not a very important place, in terms of fighting off this war. But now, it's changed.

In the meantime, what I concentrated upon was the institutions of the Presidency: that is, the military, the intelligence services, the diplomatic services, and so forth. And concentrated on those aspects of the Congressional system, which have a very special relationship to the functioning of the Executive branch. In other words, the general idea was the general popular base of the parliamentary side of the U.S. system, would not essentially function, to stop the war. And in general, a parliament is a very bad institution for trying to deal with these kinds of things. It's an executive, or Presidential system, that can deal effectively with something like this. But the problem is, we had the wrong President. And the wrong President was a puppet of the wrong circles.

But nonetheless, we mobilized and developed a working network, which involves us, around my putting a point on the spear, personally. As a result of that, you have seen, over the past period, especially during the course of 2004, but actually in 2003 as well, a buildup of people who are orchestrating in the press, and elsewhere, exposures, and organizing processes, which have led to crippling the neoconservative crowd behind the war. And this influence we've developed internationally.

So, now we're in a position, like those receiving Napoleon at Moscow, in 1812; we're now in a position where action can occur, relevant action can occur. We're down to the wire. The Democratic Party is not closed yet. The word is out that Kerry is going to accept the nomination, and will be nominated. But that is very much in doubt.

Open the Convention

What's happened recently is, that since the Super-Tuesday, so-called, primary elections, Democratic elections in March, that Kerry has been falling at an accelerating rate, in popularity. In a similar period, Bush has been collapsing, President Bush, his popularity, has been collapsing among Republicans. And, on the other side, Kerry's popularity has been collapsing among those who might be expected to vote for a Democratic Presidential candidate.

So the whole thing is collapsing. Now, Kerry is being advised to lay back, and let Bush hang himself. Well, that's rather stupid, as I think the former President Clinton recognizes. So there was a move in the Democratic Party to say, let's have an open convention. Which means, as I had proposed, have Kerry agree to release his delegates, that is, the delegates who are committed to vote for him on the first vote. Because after the first poll of delegates on the Presidential nomination, in a convention, the convention is then open for people to change their allegiance to one candidate or another.

Now, if Kerry were to release his delegates to vote their conscience on the first round, of the nominating poll, then you would have an open convention. If you did that under the intention of having an open convention, and bringing everybody in who should be brought in, for the kind of discussion and so forth the convention should represent, then you would have a situation of the following description: The issues that were being discussed, in the campaign, that is, in terms of television campaigning and so forth, during the early part of the year, have today no relevance to the issues which are on the table at the present time. The economic question, which was brushed aside then, can not be brushed aside now; not with $40 odd, plus or minus, a barrel for oil. And with the general inflation, the hyperinflation, which is in progress, despite the attempts to deny it. And the war question. You can no longer deny the war question, or deny the horror show which this war represents, this occupation.

So, these issues, presently, that occupy the headlines, or should occupy the headlines around the world, and what the issues were considered to be in the early part of this year, are two different things. And therefore, what people thought, up through March of this year, in the population in general, and what they are inclined to think today, or will be thinking during the summer, are two different animals entirely.

So, this is where the fight is. - Protecting the Bankers -

Now, there's a big effort to contain this. The containment comes largely from the same people, the Synarchist International and similar types, and their agents, like Felix Rohatyn and so forth, who are determined that in the coming crash of the financial system, it is the financier interests who will be protected by government, and it will be the people who will be looted. In other words, fiscal austerity of the type that's made a lot of people unhappy in Germany, for example.

So, the question is: Are you going to have fiscal austerity of the type which Herbert Hoover applied in '29 to '33? Which resulted in, could have led to, a fascist dictatorship like Germany's in the United States. Whereas in Germany, as 1931 hit, in which an alternative to the Hoover-like policies of that time, was actually on the table, the decision not to go ahead with an anti-depression policy, with the Lautenbach plan, that decision paved the way under which the New York bankers, in support of Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, put Hitler into power in Germany. And that pretty much determined history, at least after the Reichstag Fire of February that year.

So, by the time that Roosevelt had come into the Presidency actually in March, actually installed as President, the predetermined situation was established. War of the type that occurred, was more or less inevitable, between the time that Hitler was put into power, on Jan. 30 of '33, and the time that Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. It was pretty much predetermined.

So, we're now in a situation in which something parallel occurs. You have the financier interests which know the system is going to come down. They're trying to postpone the crash until after the November general elections in the United States. The assumption is that if they can get a President in office who is committed to the bankers, and not to the people, they can do to the American people what is being done by the vulture funds to Argentina. That is, they will loot the American people, put them under a virtual harsh austerity measure, of a fascist type, with fascist political measures coming along the line, and new wars coming along.

Therefore, the effort to postpone the crash, or the perceived crash, until after the November elections, is part of this scenario.

I Am the Spoiler

I'm the spoiler in this thing. And that's what the issue is all about. But right now, in terms of U.S. institutions, I'm amid a network people, leading retired generals, for example, leading representatives of the intelligence community, and so forth. ...

So, you get this kind of freakout from fascist circles in Britain, Blair circles in Britain, through the Guardian today, expressing the fear that the network of people with whom I've been working, that this network inside the institutions of the Presidency, and also in the Congress, that this combination represents a real threat to what some of these guys intend to do.

So, that's where we stand. It's a fight. But if anyone's going to win this thing, it's ours to win or lose. That is, if we can not succeed, then the world will lose. And we, of course, too. But we're in a position where we can win. And that's the best you get in history. You never get an absolutely predetermined, inevitable result. You always get a set of options, that you're coming toward a branch in the road, where the one road goes one way, and another road goes another way. You take one of them, and, if you're smart, intelligent, you foresee this branch in the road, and you prepare yourself to position yourself for either eventuality; just as the Prussians and Alexander I of Russia knew that Napoleon, when he broke through Poland, could go along the road toward Petersburg, or toward Moscow. And the plan was to fight a delaying action, not decisive battles: Let Napoleon invade. Draw him deeper in, deeper in, and be prepared to destroy him, whenever he reached either St. Petersburg or Moscow. Napoleon made the worst choice for himself, where his logistical situation was the worst, and chose Moscow, and in Moscow, he was destroyed.

And that's the way we have to think today. Strategic defense. The enemy's going to try to drive on. He's going to come to a number of branches in the road, where he will choose, or events will choose, which road is taken. We have to be prepared for either eventuality.

So, that's what I have to say. The rest is up to you, to squeeze out of me.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS