Georgian Times Runs Interview with LaRouche

LaRouche in Jackson, Mississippi: The U.S. President Can Change the World

From Volume 3, Issue Number 4 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Jan. 27, 2004

Latest from LaRouche

Georgian Times Runs Interview with LaRouche

The Georgian Times published in Tbilisi, Georgia carried an interview with Lyndon LaRouche by Kate Bojgua in the Jan. 15 issue of its English edition, under the headline, "U.S. to exploit the situation to make Georgia a strategic foil against Russia." The article begins with a brief introduction:

"The GT offers an interview with Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2004. As his personal website has it, Mr. LaRouche is 'the only qualified candidate for U.S. President with a political movement representing what Franklin D. Roosevelt referred to as the 'forgotten man,' who is now facing ruin in the ongoing Global Depression and the Neo-con drive for perpetual war."

The interview follows.

GT: Georgia has recently faced presidential elections one more time voting for the presidential candidate beyond alternative, how can you evaluate this fact and could you make a comparison with the U.S.?

LaRouche: It is difficult to assess those elections as such from here. However, I can emphasize that there is no equivalent for the U.S. Federal Constitution and Presidential system in Europe. So, few Europeans, even those in higher positions, really understand the U.S. Presidential system. Today's European notions of democracy, for example, are based upon the model of the Eighteenth-Century Anglo-Dutch Liberal Parliamentary systems. The original U.S. system, as defined by the anti-British-Liberal model of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, was derived from the influence upon the circles of Benjamin Franklin and others, of Gottfried Leibniz's anti-John Locke report, "New Essays on Human Understanding." Similarly, the heart of the U.S. Federal Constitution is its Preamble, which sets forth three great principles of natural law to which all other features of the Constitution and Federal law in general are subordinated.

Although Britain's King Edward VII succeeded, through his New York representatives, in introducing the anti-constitutional institution of the Federal Reserve System, the idea of a privately premised central banking system of the Anglo-Dutch type is anathema to the U.S. Constitution and its Presidential System. Since the only significant internal U.S. opposition to the Federal Constitution are the continuing financier interests originally planted in the U.S. by the Eighteenth-Century British East India Company, all important U.S. Presidential elections are implicitly a conflict between the patriotic conception of our Constitution and the Liberal, and frequently explicitly treasonous interest which continues the heritage of the British East India Company. That was the conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and his opponents then; that is the conflict between me and my rivals today.

GT: How can you evaluate the Rose Revolution that has taken place in Georgia and particularly the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze?

LaRouche: Again, that set of changes involves considerations which I am not yet prepared to assess. What I can state with confidence is my own perspective for the region. My view is as follows:

World history is presently dominated by four phase-spatial developments: a) The onrush of the immediately threatened, greatest financial crisis in more than a century; b) The need to remove the threat caused by the resurgence of the fascist international of the 1922-1945 interval, as expressed most significantly by the policies and role of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and his "neo-conservative" confederates; c) The keystone political role of Russia in an urgently needed system of Eurasia cooperation in global economic development; d) The essential role in a global economic recovery, of a U.S. which might seek to reverse that forty-year-old change from the world's leading producer society, to the self-doomed decadent, parasitical, "post-industrial" economy it had become today. The fate of Transcaucasia as a whole will depend upon the optimal conjuncture of those four factors.

The outcome of the recent Georgia election will be judged in that context.

GT: The Georgian Times has published critical articles about Soros Foundation representation in Georgia. What do you think about the activities of this organization all over the world?

LaRouche: According to his own account, as a Jewish youth in Nazi-occupied Hungary, young George Soros participated in the looting of properties taken from Jewish victims of the Nazi occupation. He went on from there to training in practices of a kindred moral quality, on behalf of Anglo-American financier interests. His predatory role in the so-called "Asia crisis" of 1997 is typical. He is also a leading factor in the promotion of increase of the international traffic in illicit drugs, and plays a related role in attempted overthrows of governments for the benefit of pro-drug-trafficking interests, as in the cases of Peru and Bolivia. Such a man is a wretched creature, and the kind of a tool of predatory interests which should be in prison, rather than influencing the overthrow of governments.

GT: How can you evaluate the role of Georgia in the U.S.-Russian relations?

LaRouche: I am aware of the existence of special relations under which the territory of Georgia has been exploited by certain U.S.-backed circles. The character of these arrangements clearly defines an intent to play a strategic game among the Transcaucasia states with the intent to affect Central and Southwest Asia, and to undermine the possibility of a reemergence of Russia as a regional or global power. When such exploitation of states of Transcaucasia is studied in light of the medium-to-longer-range strategic trends being promoted by U.S. Vice President Cheney's practice of "preventive nuclear warfare" throughout much of Asia, any nation which is drawn into the strategic games coming from certain factions in the U.S.A. and U.K., is setting itself up to become the victim of a terrible nightmare.

GT: You have been called American Zhirinovksi for your radicalism. How do you comment on that?

LaRouche: People who express such a foolish opinion are of little importance. I am certain that no respectable current in leading circles in Russia would actually believe such a silly rumor.

GT: Have you any information about Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili? How can you characterize him?

LaRouche: I have nothing worth reporting so far. I am curious, and I am watching.

GT: As a Presidential candidate, how can you evaluate the Presidential campaign of Mikheil Saakashvili, if you have any information about that? The whole Rose revolution has been his Presidential campaign in fact and what do you think are the priorities of American-Georgian relationships right now?

LaRouche: I can speak competently only of the second of the two matters: U.S.-Georgia relations. The actual strategic interest of the U.S. in that region of the world, is to thwart, as much as possible, all of the "Balkan-style" interventions in Transcaucasia, in favor of economic progress and peaceful relations of the entire region of Southwest Asia bounded by Transcaucasia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt: including a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian warfare. Alliance by the U.S. against other nations within, or adjoining that region, are contrary to the vital interests of the U.S.A., despite the fact that certain U.S. factions are playing such games.

GT: It is said that the role of the United States of America in the November revolution in Georgia was huge. What is your comment?

LaRouche: I believe that it was an important factor.

GT: Do you agree with the speculations that after the Rose Revolution Georgia and U.S. will have closer partnership?

LaRouche: There will be a tendency by some inside the U.S. to exploit the situation, to attempt to make Georgia a strategic foil against Russia. I produced a film, "Storm over Asia," as part of my 2000 U.S. Presidential campaign, in which I warned against the threat of such a pattern of developments. Four years later, it appears that my warnings were correct.

GT: If you win the Presidential elections what are you going to do about Georgian-American relationships?

LaRouche: The mere fact of my being chosen as the likely President of the U.S.A. would automatically change much around the planet, even before any actions by my Presidency. I have a policy of U.S.A.-Eurasia cooperation in long-term economic development, which, with the probable support of leading nations of western Europe and the Russia-China-India strategic triangle, would become the dominant trend-setting factor in Eurasia for two generations to come.

LaRouche in Jackson, Mississippi:
The U.S. President Can Change the World

Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche arrived in Jackson, Miss., on Jan. 21, following a three-day visit to Alabama, where he celebrated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. LaRouche addressed a luncheon meeting of 25 members of the state Legislative Black Caucus, where he was introduced by the chairman, Philip West.

LaRouche's provocative speech challenged the African American leaders to face the reality of the financial and economic crisis:

"This thing is over," LaRouche declared. "We've now come to the end of the road. We should have made the changes, every time I proposed them beforehand. The changes have not been made: Now the country has no choice, but to make those changes. I'm the person for the time to make those changes, and I have been for 25 years."

This elicited tough questions from caucus members, who demanded to know how LaRouche could claim the economy was collapsing, when the stock market keeps rising, and there's supposed to be a recovery underway. LaRouche was blunt: We're in trouble he said. We've gone from the steel industry to the "steal economy." There's no future. People don't want to see it; there's severe denial, both among political leaders and citizens.

The LaRouche Youth Movement played a significant role in building LaRouche's tour through the South, and also participating in many of the meetings. For example, five LaRouche youth appeared for 45 minutes on "Straight Talk," a black radio talk show hosted by state legislators; they organized on campuses, attended Martin Luther King Day events, including a noon-time event at City Hall in Jackson, where they spoke about the Youth Movement, and announced the upcoming town meeting; and thousands of pieces of literature were distributed over the five-day period.

LaRouche began his second day in Jackson with an interview with Mississippi Network News, a radio network with 75 stations throughout the state. He was then interviewed by the Jackson Advocate, the oldest black newspaper in the state, after which he held a news conference there. Mrs. A.M.E Logan, the "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement" in Jackson, and LaRouche's authorized representative in Mississippi, spoke at a reception for the candidate.

Later that day, LaRouche addressed a Town Meeting at Tougaloo College, where he was introduced by Mississippi State Rep. Erik Fleming, who has endorsed LaRouche for President. Fleming is also the former State President of the Young Democrats for the State of Mississippi and a member of the Democratic National Committee.

Here is Erik Fleming's introduction of LaRouche at Tougaloo college, followed by LaRouche's keynote. (Subheads have been added.)

Erik Fleming: 'We Didn't Get the Memo'

Good evening. First of all, I want to thank Tougaloo College for allowing this to happen. I've got some friends of mine that I've met from Jackson State—Jackson State is my alma mater. But, since Tougaloo College is my legislative district, I wanted to kind of show off Tougaloo a little bit; and they said, they'd forgive me for that.

Let me just tell you a little bit about my relationship to Lyndon LaRouche, as the best the way to introduce him. When I was a young boy, growing up in "north Mississippi"—for many of you, that was Chicago, Illinois—I remember, it was a statewide election year, and there was this guy named Fairchild, who got nominated Lieutenant Governor for the Democratic Party for the state of Illinois. And the guy who was at the top of the ticket, was a guy named Adlai Stevenson III, and he was favored to win the election. But he was having these conniptions about this Fairchild guy—just was losin' it on television. And he essentially lost the election, because he basically didn't want to campaign with this guy. So, of course, being the inquisitive future political scientist that I was going to be, I wanted to know: Well, what was this connection with this LaRouche guy, that had Adlai Stevenson basically give up being governor of the State of Illinois? A position that his father and his grandfather held.

And so, as I got older, and came down to Mississippi, and got involved in politics at Jackson State, I started reading some of the materials from EIR. We would get these New Federalist papers. And it was the most in-depth analysis about what was going on, in the country. A lot more in-depth, of course, than the national media, were allowed to portray—and even more so, now, considering with all the news channels, and cable channels, and all this stuff, everything has to be homogenized.

So, prior to me being elected, many of y'all have heard about James Chaney, and his compadres, who were murdered in 1964. Chaney's brother was involved in the LaRouche movement for a while, and we used to hang out at Mrs. [A.M.E.] Logan's house, as Mrs. Logan is coming in. And we used to sit around and talk about who this Lyndon LaRouche guy was, and what his vision was for America.

And over time, somehow, this boy from "north Mississippi" got elected to the state legislature. And during that period of time, even more so, I got involved with Lyn's movement; got involved in going to the national meetings, because there were so many rumors floating around—and I have to say this: there was this awful rumor floating around that Lyn was this racist person, that he was anti-Semitic. And when I went to the first conference, the only people who were there were people of the Jewish faith and black folk! And so, I said, "Well, obviously, we didn't get the memo." Something happened—or, else, we wouldn't be there.

And, having a chance, then, to really get to know him and work with him, and I really got intimate with him, when we had the fight to save D.C. General Hospital, which, at that time was the only trauma hospital in Washington, D.C. And the unfortunate irony of that, is that they did succeed in closing the hospital, and then about nine months later 9/11 happened. And so, you can imagine, he's been on the cutting edge.

The other privilege I had, was, I went to Mexico. And I had the privilege of talking to my counterparts in Mexico about a major policy decision they were going to make: They wanted to sell—in Mexico, the government controls the oil and gas rights, for the whole country. And they were actually contemplating selling the oil and gas rights to this company you may have heard of, called Enron. And, fortunately, myself and another state senator from Nevada, we made our trips to Mexico. We talked to them. The Mexican government decided not to do that, and I guess maybe that was the last straw that broke the camel's back for Enron, because they ended up going bankrupt, and y'all know the rest of the story.

And so, I throw those two things out to tell you that, the man that I'm introducing to speak to you tonight, is a visionary; he's one of the most intelligent men that you will ever meet. And on a college campus, that's what this is all about: Allowing college students to be able—and grown folk, because we never stop learning, right, grown folks? Where're the grown folks at?—we never stop learning. And so, to be privileged to have a man, with his intellect, with his knowledge of world history as well as U.S. history, and his commitment to helping average people—because that's what his political campaign is all about, this Presidential campaign.

And you may not have heard about him in the mainstream media, although we finally did get a write-up in the Clarion Ledger today, showing up in Mississippi—he's been here yesterday and today. And we did get, and we are starting to get some notoriety—he has raised more money than one person, who's already dropped out of the Presidential race, and three people who are still pretending that they want to be President. And he has been, basically, the most articulate candidate on the issues. But they're afraid to let him sit in the room.

So, tonight you have the privilege of hearing probably the most intelligent, most capable person, who can be President of the United States, and I give to you the Honorable Lyndon H. LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: The Presidential System

Thank you, Erik. That was very sweet.

What I'll try to do, because, with me, as some of you know, I give you a presentation, and then I let you get at me. It's the best way of getting communication two ways, in this process.

First of all, let me just summarize what the situation is, and look at it from the standpoint of a President of the United States, or a prospective President of the United States. What must the President do? What are the things that he's important for, as opposed to things that other parts of government may deal with?

Under our system, the President is the center of the system. The system is largely, first of all, the Presidential system. The Presidential system is all of these things that go together, to make the Executive branch of the U.S. government. This includes people who are in government; people who were in the Federal government; retired people; people who go in and out—like diplomats, who sometimes go out as a diplomat; then they go back someplace else, and they teach for a while, and breed more diplomats; then, after breeding more diplomats in the educational process, they go back and be a diplomat again. And so, these people are always in the environment, whether in the intelligence community, military, so forth, they're always in the environment of the Presidency, as an institution. And their voices are always heard, even if they're in office or out of office, they're part of the discussion process within the Presidency, which makes most of the policies, and decides most of the direction our country takes.

The Executive branch has a very important function, including: Checks and balances are the most important; lawmaking, and checks and balances. The Legislative branch does not run the country. It makes laws, which may run the country, but it doesn't run the country. The Executive branch does; the Presidency does.

However, the legislature also controls the Presidency, especially in areas, such as military areas. When the Constitution was formed, we created a form of government, a Presidential system, which concentrated great power, Executive power, in one branch of government, the Executive, the Presidency.

The problem of concern, as the Constitution was being framed, is, how do we make sure that some bum doesn't become President, and do like George III of England, and start a war, all on his own, against even his own people? So therefore, the most important of the checks and balances, affecting the Presidency, is war powers: The President can not go to war—he can conduct emergency action, under rules of engagement, but he can not go to war without the consent of the Senate, without the consent of the legislature. That's the most important of the checks.

This has been violated. It was violated with the consent of a bunch of weak-kneed Congressmen who consented to allow George Bush to go to war, illegally! As it turned out, he went to war, on the basis of allegations which were fraudulent, largely organized by the Vice President, who actually is the controller of the not-so-intelligent President. And "not-so-intelligent" is a euphemism.

So, anyway, that's one big problem.

Preventive Nuclear War

We are now in a situation, where the Vice President of the United States represents a policy, which the President of the United States does not oppose—as a matter of fact, he carries it out—on orders from the Vice President! So, we have the "President of Vice" running the President.

This policy is called "preventive nuclear warfare." It means trying to set up a world empire, by using nuclear weapons as such a threat, that nations will submit to dictatorship by the United States. It is also an intention to set up a dictatorship in the United States, something very much like the Hitler operation in Germany. This is very much in the cards. That is what Cheney and his people represent. That is problem number one.

Problem number two, specific problems: The relationship of the United States to other nations, since the January 2002 State of the Union Address by the President, has been the worst in our history. We are more disliked and more hated around the world, as a nation, because of this Presidency, that is, under George Bush, than ever in my memory. Never before, since the bad guys controlled Europe, universally, has the United States been so hated. And we brought the hatred on ourselves, by having the Bush Presidency being run by Dick Cheney, and the people around him.

This is severe, because, at the same time, we are gripped by the worst depression we have known in more than 100 years. The depression is onrushing. It is happening now. Many of you are experiencing it, directly or indirectly. We have a situation, in which 48 of the 50 states of the United States are bankrupt: That is, they can not possibly raise sufficient money to maintain the essential functions of the states, by government, without raising taxes, which would have a negative effect on the income of the state. In other words, they would have to dig so deep, that they would actually collapse the state. So, there's no possible way, that they could not be bankrupt, under the present conditions. That's at least 48 of the 50 states of the Union, are in that condition.

People are not aware of this, in one sense—not that they're not aware of the poverty; not that they don't feel the pain; but what they believe is, somehow, they have to believe in the "market." Now, if you get around Washington, and you go through the Congress, and you're talking to people in the Congress (I have not been there recently; but our friends are there all the time), you can get into an intelligent conversation with a Congressman, about all kinds of subjects.

Suddenly, he stops! He says, "But, what about the market? What's the market doing?"

What's the market?!

We have shut down our industries. We have shut down our agriculture. We've exported our jobs, through NAFTA, and other kinds of things—and people say, "Yeah, but the economy is doing well." What do they mean, by "the economy is doing well"? They mean that the gambling casino is doing well! Wall Street, which is nothing but a gambling casino, is doing well. And they think they have "investments" in Wall Street, in stocks, and bonds, and whatnot, and as long as they believe, that what they've got is increasing in price, they pretend to be confident and happy.

Even while everything is collapsing behind them!

The United States is now bankrupt. We have an annual current-account deficit, that is, our trade deficit, payments deficit, to foreign countries is over a trillion dollars a year. And the United States' total magnitude of economy is estimated at $11 trillion a year.

At the same time, recently, under Bush, the unified currency which was created in Europe, called the euro, would buy $0.83 of a U.S. dollar. Today, a euro will buy $1.28 of U.S. dollars. In other words, the U.S. dollar is collapsing in value. The U.S. economy is collapsing. We are a bankrupt nation. Most of our banking system is ready to disintegrate. All that is needed, is someone to light the fuse.

And what keeps this going, politically, is the delusion, that as long as the "market" continues to inflate, with foreign money, and U.S. printed money, that somehow the market is growing—even while the number of jobs is collapsing! Even while the number of businesses is collapsing! Look at the prices of food. Some of you go to grocery stores: Think of the rise, in the past six months, of the cost of food. Just by basic prices. We are in a collapsing economy.

What is going to happen is, this bubble, this gambling casino, is going to collapse. It'll pop soon; it's inevitable. We're at the edge. People we talk to around the world—bankers in various parts of the world—agree. Leading economists in Europe and in the United States, agree with me: This thing is about to go. Not at some distant time, or the distant future, not maybe—but absolutely! It's going to go!

So, you put together these three things, so far, and you have, first of all, you have the war danger, and the war danger will spread, unless we get rid of Cheney, get him out of there. We have the economic crisis. Our relationship with our foreign friends, deteriorating.

The 1960s Paradigm-Shift

Now, what's behind that? Go back about 40 years: In the middle of the 1960s, the United States was still the most prosperous producer nation on this planet. We produced more wealth per capita, than any other country in the world. And we were growing. We were high-tech. We were making progress. The conditions of life for most people were improving, sometimes slightly, but they were improving. Job numbers were expanding. The Civil Rights Movement was a reflection of part of this process. It seemed like opportunities were going to begin to open up. Until the reversal came, when Dick Nixon went to Biloxi, Mississippi, and met Klan—and then things began to get not so good!

But, now, for the past 40 years, we're not the leading nation in the world. We're not a producer nation. We live on the sweat, of virtual slave labor, in parts of the world which supply us with what we consume. Much of the quality is poor, poorer than what we used to have. But we're supplied by the sweat of nations, from whom we loot their labor, like Mexico.

What happened? What happened to us, 40 years ago, and more?

What happened was, coming out of the last war, at the end of the war, things turned nasty. Roosevelt had been a hero, a beloved hero. A leader. The nation had improved. But Roosevelt was getting sick. We had won the war in Europe, essentially, by June/July of 1944. And then some of the same people in the United States, who had put Hitler into power before, and in Britain, who had put Hitler into power before—who had opposed Hitler because he was German, not English-speaking—but, they liked an English-speaking Hitler. They didn't like Hitler, because some foreigner was going to control things.

But these guys moved in; pushed Harry Truman into the nomination for the Presidency, and began a big right-wing turn in U.S. policy: It was called Trumanism. Later, they talked about McCarthyism. McCarthy was a joke! Truman was the real problem. Truman was the one who created McCarthy.

People became demoralized. The right-wing turn—everybody was afraid of J. Edgar Hoover. He was in your bedroom, he was everywhere.

So, the people who came back from the war, most of them, as I knew them, were frightened. They were keeping their noses clean: "Be careful what you say, be careful with whom you associate, you can get into trouble." "Be careful, child, don't say the wrong thing, your father can lose his job!"

This was the kind of terror we came to live under.

When Eisenhower became President, it eased up a bit. But then when Eisenhower left office, Kennedy did not have the power that Eisenhower had as President, to control the extreme right wing. We began going back in that direction. Kennedy was killed. We had the Missile Crisis; Americans were terrified. Kennedy was assassinated; Americans were terrified. We went into the war in Indo-China; Americans began to be terrified. They became so terrified, they said, "The best way for me to get through the night, is to lose my mind. Take LSD, dope up, drop out."

And a generation of young college students dropped out—not all of them, but many of them. And the dominant culture today, is led, at the highest levels of employment, by people in their fifties, who are running many key corporations, many key parts of government: They were the drop-outs of the second half of the 1960s.

What happened in this process, is we were transformed, from a society with a culture of a producer society, of more jobs, of upgrading employment, of improving agriculture, of improving the standard of living, of improving people's education with the idea of opening up new opportunities, at higher grades of employment in terms of technology. These were our values.

And, suddenly, it changed. We went from a producer society, to this—the consumer society: post-industrial ideology.

What happened? Gradually, as this took hold, over the 1970s, by the time Carter had left office, we were no longer the same. We had become a "pleasure society," a "bread and circuses" society.

And, then people began to—beginning with Garn-St Germain, and Kemp-Roth legislation in the Congress—we began to say, what's important is financial gain. Invest for financial gain. We went to the idea, if you have money, get it.

I recall, in the neighboring state, Louisiana, Governor Edwards (you'd never have thought the Edwards family would go for it), but when the Texaco crisis occurred, they suddenly decided that legalized gambling was the thing for Louisiana. Legalized gambling spread; it spread through Indian reservations, where they looted the Indians, by bringing in reservation organized gambling. And they brought in gangsters from South Africa, like Sol Kerzner, to run some of these reservations, and to loot the Indians. Everybody was going. Senior citizens were going down to Atlantic City and other places, where there were gambling casinos, and gambling away their income, hoping to get a hit.

Wall Street became nothing but gambling. The stock market was nothing but gambling. Pensions funds were gambling. Nothing was secure any more.

So, we began a society that believed in luck, in gambling.

So, the ideology's changed. People said, "Well, we don't like to work any more. We want to wear white shirts, not blue shirts." So we changed our values.

The U.S. Is Bankrupt

But this couldn't go on forever. We're building up, piling up debt, in the United States and other countries, piling up around the world. Do you know that the world total product is estimated at about $41 trillion equivalent? Do you know how much financial debt there is in the world? If you include derivatives debt, short-term derivatives debt, you're talking about hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt.

Our banking system, the U.S. banking system and the IMF financial system, are bankrupt. The U.S. banking system is bankrupt! There are no solid banks in the United States. Bob Rubin, who is the former Treasury Secretary, made a statement recently—he told you half the truth, or one-quarter of the truth, if you listened to him. This thing is ready to blow, right now!

Now, why is it ready to blow, and what's the problem? The politics? We have a generation which is in a dominant position in society; these are people in their fifties or sixties. These are people who are running the major corporations, in key positions in government and similar kinds of things, in professions. They are absorbed—not in every individual case—but as a generation, they are absorbed with this idea of this post-industrial, bread and circuses society.

Remember, there are two things that dominate the American people today: One, is the money market—that's generally for people who are looking for a buck someplace. The other thing, is mass entertainment. Mass entertainment, which is mostly in the form of what you see on video, what you see in rave dances. Mass entertainment of the most corrupt type, more and more sadism in the entertainment. Killing, meaningless killing, not drama, not plays, not real entertainment, as we used to see—but the most degraded kind of entertainment.

This reminds you of the Roman Empire in the process of its disintegration. We have gone from being a producer society, a producer of wealth society, into becoming a society of bread and circuses—get a hand-out; get something, to get by; stay poor, but get a hand-out. And rush into the Colosseum, to watch the Christians eating the lions, or vice versa. Or men eating each other, virtually. That's what you're seeing! That's mass entertainment. That's mass sports entertainment. We have become a society of games, a society of gambling.

We've become a people without purpose in life. We have created a generation, in the top ranks of society, who have no purpose in living. The purpose in living is to be entertained! To enjoy the passage from one day to the next, by being entertained! You don't have a sense of accomplishment as a motive in life. A sense that your life is committed to accomplishing something. That when you die, you will have left something behind which humanity can use and be proud of.

It used to be that people would think of their children and grandchildren, they would sacrifice for their children and grandchildren's sake. They would get great pleasure out of the fact that they were going to give their children and grandchildren a better opportunity in life than they had enjoyed. They would enjoy that. We've destroyed that. We have become a society which is corrupt, on bread and circuses; mass entertainment, which is corrupt. Gambling, called the stock market, which is our God.

'We Want a Future'

But then along come some of you, who are younger. Now, 18 to 25 or so, college age. And you look at this. And your generation, 18 to 25, in the recent period, has undergone a change—a shift in attitudes. Your generation, this generation, is saying now, "Our parents' generation has given us a society, which has no future. We want a future." This generation is effective, because it has the potentiality of turning to its parents' generation, and saying, "Mommy, Daddy, c'mon: Get out of it! We have a right to have a future. Don't you want grandchildren? Don't you want another generation coming that's worth something? Do you want a generation that will remember you, kindly? Or, a generation that will curse you, because you gave them no chance for a future?"

And therefore, young people today have the potential, if they understand this, if they understand what the problem is. The greatest power of young people, is to convince their parents' generation, that we've got to fight for a future for this nation. Because you've got a weapon, with the parents' generation. The weapon is, you say, "Look, do you want to have grandchildren that survive? Isn't that your immortality? Aren't we your immortality?" A person who has reached 50 or 60 is now getting on the edge of mortality. Death rates are increasing. Severe disease rates are increasing at that age. And medical care is collapsing, of late, especially for the poor.

"Parents, don't you want to think that when you die, which is inevitable for all of us, that when you go out, you're going to leave something behind, in the form of your children and your grandchildren, that means a future society, that means something?" That is your power. And that is what young people working with me have demonstrated: the ability to deal with their parents' generation, and remind them: that we do have a purpose in life. We are not animals; we are people. We are people unlike animals; we have a divine quality within us. We are capable of making discoveries, passing them on, adding to the stock of discoveries, making the condition of humanity better, through our lives. We have a way of expressing an immortal purpose for our existence, of contributing something to society that's important for coming generations, of making changes that are important for coming generations. We have that power, as human beings.

What has happened, is the people who joined this "lost generation," now in their fifties and sixties, have lost that connection. Younger people, who may not know much about that, or may not have been told much about it, sense it. They sense the fact, suddenly, that they're young: They have presumably their whole life before them. And they're looking at rubbish, and they're saying, "This is wrong. We've got to have a future. There's got to be a purpose in life." And they're very powerful—young people who organize that way.

So, my function is this, as a Presidential candidate: First of all, by various tricks, to make sure we survive. I have a lot of friends around the world. If it were announced that I were going to be President, say on Election Day, the world would change. Governments around the world would change their policies, in the direction I have discussed with people in governments around the world, immediately.

We would put this system, this financial banking system, this crazy thing, into financial reorganization—in much the way that Franklin Roosevelt approached the problem, back in 1933. We would not let chaos hit. We would not let the bank doors close. We would not let the pensions be cut off. We would increase employment with large-scale projects of infrastructure, which are needed. And they're all over the place. Many of you know them. They're ready to go.

We'd have a science-driver program, to get this economy moving. We'd have cooperation with other nations.

A Little Personal History

For example, let me just give you one example, what I've been working on for years. Go back—just a little bit of personal history on this, because it will help to make the thing clearer to you:

In early 1980, I was sitting at the table with a bunch of Presidential candidates in New Hampshire, at what was called the "Gun Club" or something. It was held in Concord, New Hampshire, and it was a place called the New Hampshire Highboy Hotel, right across the railroad tracks from the state government. And we were seated at this long table, in alphabetical order by surname. So I was seated next to the last person in the line, Ronald Reagan. So, Ronald Reagan and I were sitting there, with all these other candidates to the right of us. They were all to my right, I'll have you know—including Reagan—to Reagan's right, too.

And we just struck up a casual conversation, sitting at the table while the proceedings were going on. And, in that time, I had a big fight with George H.W. Bush, who was pulling dirty tricks against my campaign at the time. And George H.W. Bush went ape over his fight with me. So, he blew the primary election in New Hampshire, and he got into a fight with Reagan, and he lost everything. But they gave him the Vice Presidency later on, as a concession.

So, when Reagan was elected, I was invited to Washington, to present my wish-list to the incoming Reagan Administration, as to things I proposed the government should do. Some of these things were accepted. One of them was my proposal to deal with this nuclear weapons conflict, to solve it by making a certain proposal to the Soviet Union, as well as other nations, on a system for eliminating, in the long run, the danger of a thermonuclear war. It was called the SDI, later.

In this connection, I conducted a back-channel discussion on behalf of the government, with the Soviet government. The Soviet government eventually turned down the proposal—privately, to me first, and then later, publicly to the President. But, as a result of this discussion, I told the Soviet government, at that point, I said, "It's a mistake: If you turn this down, I can assure you that your economy will collapse within about five years." I later said that publicly. The Soviet economy, as you know, began to collapse in six years. So, I was off by a year.

Now, in this process, I came up with a proposal, which I presented again, on Columbus Day, in 1988, in an address I gave in West Berlin, which then was repeated on national television here. And the proposal was, that the collapse of the Soviet system should provoke a certain kind of response from the United States, which would mean the reunification of Germany, help for the countries of Eastern Europe, and economic cooperation, long-term economic cooperation. As a result of this proposal in 1988, after the Soviet system had collapsed, suddenly where I had been on the hit-list of the Soviet government under Gorbachov, suddenly I was some kind of a hero among many people in Russia—because I had been right, and some of them had been insiders on that, and knew what I had done.

So, as a result of that, we developed an approach in Eastern Europe, and throughout Asia, which has resulted today, in the development of projects for long-term cooperation, from Western Europe to the Pacific. These are large-scale operations, which include China, India, Southeast Asia, and so forth. Major projects, covering 50 years to come. These projects, involving the largest concentration of population in the world, are the greatest market for long-term markets for our future economy.

People in Italy, the Italian government, the Chamber of Deputies, have voted to support my proposal on reform of the monetary system in this direction. They are ready to do it. Countries around the world are ready to do it.

Great Opportunities

So therefore, we don't have to have a crisis. We could take Roosevelt's approach generally to the financial crisis. The Federal government has the means and the precedents, to reorganize the financial system, the monetary system in any crisis: There's no need for great suffering. There may be hardship, but there's no need for great suffering, if the government is organized and gets its head together in the right way, we can fix it. It may take us 25 years to fix it, properly, but we'll fix it. And the nation will be standing 25 years from now, and healthy.

In the meantime, we have great opportunities for cooperation with Eurasia. If we have cooperation with Eurasia, we can fix the problem in Africa, where genocide prevails today. Without that cooperation, the physical means to deal with the genocide in Africa will not exist. We can make the world better, not perfect, not paradise, but we can give a future to the coming two generations, that they can carry on with, afterward.

Now, that, to me, is the function of the President of the United States. We have the Presidency, which deals with all the day-to-day problems, of the military, the intelligence, and the various functions of government. These people can function well, if they have a good Presidency to lead them. But the President himself, under our system, must sometimes make crucial decisions, that only the President can make. And these are the decisions on which I have concentrated, which I'm prepared to deal with. And, I have the friends abroad, or the people who acknowledge me, who would cooperate with me as President. I can assure the American people, these countries would cooperate with me personally, were I elected.

And, under those conditions, there's no doubt, of what we can do. We will not have paradise. But we will have survival, and we will have improvement. And if we learn the lesson of the foolishness we did, since 1944, the right-wing turn at the end of the war; McCarthyism; the out-of-control military right wing—that sort of thing, like Cheney: If we've learned the lesson of these mistakes, and come out safely from this crisis, then the younger generation, and those who follow them, who will eventually, soon, take charge of this country, one would hope, they would never let us make the kind of mistakes we've made in past 50-odd years, again.

That way, we'd make it. And that's my job.

All rights reserved © 2004 EIRNS