Latest From LaRouche
'WE'VE GOT TO ELECT THE GUY, FIRSTAND THEN, WE'VE GOT TO TRAIN HIM'
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on 1489 Talk WCIN in Cincinnati, by Professor Herb Smith, host of "Pulse of the City," on Oct. 19, 2004. Here are excerpts from that program.
Host: All right. What is your perception of what's going on? I just talked to Congressman Jim Clyburn from South Carolina. He indicates that there are four bellwether states, Ohio, Michigan among them, that will tell the story. What's your perception?
LaRouche: That's pretty much mine. We've got a big concentration in California, where we're on the state committee, and Oregon, and in Texas against DeLay; but we're also operating around Louisville, which, of course, is close to you there; and we're also doing the southern Michigan/northern Ohio areas, very heavy concentration from Columbus north. Because this is the area of the Rust Belt, where the state went from being one of the most prosperous states in the Union to one of the poorest. And this, like western Pennsylvania, Michigan, and so forth, are states which are key, because the lower 80% of the population is hard hit, and they are the people whom we must get out to vote; they are the people who must determine what the next Presidency is going to be.
Host: Exactly. Now, there have beenoh gosh!in excess of 2 or 300,000, or 400,000 new voters registered in the state of Ohio, 153,000 down here in southwestern Ohio. Do you think we're goingwell, do you think those folks are going to get out to the polls?
LaRouche: Well, of course, it's differential. You've got to go within the total population of these people who are applicants, I say the youth are the most serious: The youth, 18 to 25, who have recently become eligible in Federal elections. This is the most important leading group in trying to produce a landslide effect in any state. They are also key, to turning on the lower 80% of family-income brackets. Youth give them more confidence to come out. So, these are major factors and they have to be taken into account that way.
Host: What do you think is going to be the factor, that gets newly registered people out to vote?
LaRouche: I'll tell you, it's fundamental: First of all, the problem we're fighting against, is a pessimism in the population as a result of recent elections and what's happened. People in the lower 80%even under Clinton, in his second termand youth, have become despondent about the future of the nation. They don't think they can do much. So there's a tendency for them to pull back, and say, "It's a waste of time. It doesn't make any difference."
Well, it does make a difference. So, the factor is, of getting these people mobilized. And we find that the youth factor is the best factor in mobilizing the general population. There are also trade unions, for example. Trade union organizations in the state of Ohio for example, which are really progressivelike the mayor of Toledo, who's a Republican, but he's on the right course in terms of the state's interest.
So, if these people turn out, they build up the morale of others.
Now, I'm doing everything I can, on that. For example, take a case, in point: You have this question of the inoculation against the flu, we've got people lined up in supermarkets all over the country, people in their 70s and 80s, who are in the priority category, looking desperately, waiting for the shots that aren't there. The President of the United States has treated their needs with contempt, as he did on this third debate broadcast. This is a major issue.
The economic situation generally is the major issue; to decide to get out of this crazy war pattern, in the Middle East, is the issue. These are the things that move people. But, in Ohio, in particular, they want their jobs back. They want their factories back. They want their schools back. They want the communities to be able to afford the basic services they used to have.
Host: ...Don't you think, Mr. LaRouche, it was a tad convenient that Chiron was decertified, at just the time when we needed flu vaccine stocks to be increased? And suddenly the cost of vaccine skyrocketed?
LaRouche: This was already prepared, beforehand. This thing that hit the press, that people know about now, was already prepared. It was already in the works long before.
The key thing is, that you had not only this, and this is a fraud; it's a breakdown of our national security system: What Bush did can kill more Americans than were killed in 9/11, as a result of his negligence.
Canada offered to help. Bush, on his third broadcast, this third debate, turned down Canada publicly! Saying it might interfere with his attempt to ban cheap prescription drugs from coming into the United States for people who need them.
So, the callousness of the President himself, toward the people, toward especially those peopleyou've got photographs all over the country, of people in supermarkets lined up, especially of older people, crippled people, so forth, lined up, desperately hoping for the immunization shots that aren't there; knowing that this flu epidemic can kill, like the famous 1918 flu epidemic. And the government doesn't seem to give a damn about the people, and the Bush Administration.
To me, this is a leading issue, not only because it's extremely important in its own right, because it typifies exactly what's wrong with the mentality of the Bush Administration....
Host: Mr. LaRouche, you know, we opened the door into the schoolhouse, as it were. And I don't know if you're familiar with recent publicization of the fact that our kids in this country are less prepared for college work than at any time in the past.
LaRouche: Absolutely!
Host: I meanisn't that absurd?
LaRouche: Well, you have to understand what we're doing: Look at the planet, look at our policy in the planet as a whole. What's our attitude toward Africa, toward Mexico, toward South America, toward parts of Asia: What's our policy? Since the middle of the 1970s, with a policy which was enunciated, among others, by Kissinger, we went to the idea of downgrading society.
We take a state like Ohio was a bellwether. Here was the most notable state of the Union, in terms of industrial and agricultural development, combined: We've destroyed it. That was deliberate. We've destroyed Pennsylvania, similarly. We have destroyed Michigan. We're destroying California. We're destroying other states. Why are we doing that?
Because people are going to a different conception of society: In this society, there's no intention to have high-grade employment. The intention is to downgrade our people and to lessen the number of them, and to ship the jobs over to cheap labor overseas.
We have to go back to a traditional American System. We have a protectionist policy: We protect our jobs; we protect capital formation, and essential industries; we maintain a standard of living and a standard of employment which is consistent with our social objectives. We just have to decide.
Now, this is something we have to face right now, going into the election, the education issue, because it's a major issue. But, after the election, I'm going to be continuing to work on this in a different way, on the question of the content of the economy, and the question of the content of the structure of education. What I'm doing is, I've got a youth movement I've organized over the past four yearsit's international, actually. But, it's people 18 to 25, who are in college-age eligibility. They represent all strata of society, that is, people from all strata. They are functioning as groups; we're demonstrating the methods of education that can work, and we are conducting that, as, among other things, an educational movement.
I think we need, in the country, an educational movement, focussed upon young adults, between 18 to 25, who are the ones who are best situated to, as young adults, lead the fight for quality education.
Host: Now, just last night, I finished reading a very, very scary article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, I don't know if you saw that or not
LaRouche: I heard of it.
Host: Okay, about the "faith-based Presidency." What do you think about a President who is so certain of his righteousness, and his rightness, that he will brook no consideration of the facts, in any form or fashion; and in fact, he denigrates those of us, who he considers to be "reality-based."
LaRouche: Well, I'll tell what, the medical diagnosis is: The man is not sane. And people like that are not sane.
Look, I'm probably pretty well educated, I probably know more than most people do, by a long shot. But, I also don't know a lot of things. And I know it. Everybody in any position, has areas in which important subjects come up, they have to deal with, they don't know the answers. We don't know all the answers. We know our principles, which guide us to search for solutions, consistent with those principles; but, we don't assume we know everything.
Even Kerry doesn't do this effectively enough. He does say, "I have a plan, I have a plan, I have a plan." Well, I think he probably does. But, I think that's not the way I want to go: I want to get the people to say, "We agree, that we want to have this plan." So, my point is, we have to get the people involved, consciously, in the kind of objectives and purposes we intend. And, force a discussion! Don't tell the people what to do! Tell them, in an emergency, when they want to know what to do, and say, "Here's what you can do." But, in setting policy, you want to engage the people in a Socratic process, where you have engaged the majority of the people at least, in discussing the formulation of national policy.
And what he's doing, is, on the face of it, he's extremist in this. He is mentally disturbed. He should not be President for that reason alone.
But: When you think about the whole bunch of people, the wild men, who are hoping the Battle of Armageddon will come next week so they won't have to pay the rent the week followingthese people are dangerous. We have them in society. The only way to deal with it, I think, is to educate and develop more of us who don't think that way and outnumber them.
Host: My question to you, though, Mr. LaRouche, I just don't feel like Kerry is going to get us out of that war, anytime soon. What do you have to say about that?
LaRouche: Okay. I don't disagree with you. I'm supporting Kerry because we've got to get rid of Bush, and Kerry's the only available instrument to do that at this time.
Now, Kerry is going to face some problems. He's not just alone. He's going to depend on a lot of people. I'm more closely associated with former President Bill Clinton and that circle, than with Kerry as such. But, like Bill Clinton, we're supporting Kerry's campaign.
Now, the point is, Kerry is going to face, getting ineven getting electedif we say, he's elected as of Nov. 3 when the votes are counted from the day before, then he's going to face a lot of problems he just does not realize exist presently. To get out of those problems, he's going to have to come to us, and I'm talking about some thousands of people in the United States, who are formerly military commanders, retired, or formerly in the State Department, formerly in other positions of government, and professors and so forth who are really part of the Presidential system in an advisory capacity, from time to time. He's going to have to come to us.
Now, Kerry doesn't understand anything about economics: that's his weakness. We're headed for the worst economic crisis the world has ever known in modern times, in modern history. It's coming on, right now! The flu vaccine thing is a reflection of that process. The rise of the price of oil, which is not a shortage of oil, it's a rise of the price of oil as a result of speculationthese things are going to hit us hard.
Kerry is going to face, immediately, on the certification of his election, is going to face a crisis beyond anything he imagines. At that point, he's going to have to come to us, who will work with him, and to give him the kind of advice in rethinking, on these subjects that he hasn't even begun to think about right now. And therefore, that's my commitment. I represent a movement, I represent a part of the Democratic Party, a part of the process; I have international connections, other influences, I can bring to bear, with others, to assist a new President in finding his way through the swamp in which he's tending to wander.
I agree with the problem. We've got to fix the problem. We've got to elect the guy first, and then we've got to train him!
Host: Mr. LaRouche, you were talking about economics: What's your take, your response to the situation, whereby Halliburton has ripped off the pensions of the former employees of one of their subsidiaries; and offered them buy-outs, and they were expecting one amount, but when they got their checks, they got a significantly lesser amount.
LaRouche: All right: What I need is the President, who has a new Attorney Generalnot John Ashcroft. That new Attorney General will immediately have a task force, to go into areas like this, and there are many corporate areas, in which similar things have gone on. Halliburton, like Enron, for example. We're going to go into these areas, if we have "our druthers," and we're going to go, not only to apprehend those who need to be apprehended; but, where an injustice was done, by means of fraud, and we determined it was fraudulently done we're going to order that restitution or compensation be given to those who have suffered from that injustice. It's the only proper way to deal with this.
Host: Now, we've spent a lot of money on this Iraq situation. But, let's just talk about $87 billion. What would we be able to do in this country, if that $87 billion were freed up, and devoted to enhancing the quality of life of United States citizens?
LaRouche: Well, we're going to need a lot more than that, but certainly every $10 billion we can muster in terms of credit, for creating new jobs and new workplaces, is much needed.
We need everything! For example: Take the health-care situation. We've got the flu vaccine crisis. This is not a competent medical defense system! What Bush is doing, with his policy on flu vaccine, is going to kill more people than 9/11 did! Because he's just denying themand going to corporations and get a few to sum up something to beat the demand, is not going to do it.
This is a question of building up our medical defense system, which is supposed to be based under the Surgeon General of the United States. We're supposed to have a capability which involves a lot of different kinds of capabilities, which can be mobilized together, to determine what needs to be done, as preventive measures, as much as corrective ones, and do the job. So therefore, we need to establish, on this vaccine problem, and similar kinds of immunization and things like that, we need to have a task force in the government, in the Federal government, which is committed to a mission-orientationlike a military mission-orientationto make sure that this country is defended against diseases and similar kinds of health problems, in the same way we would defend it against an invader.
Host: Okay. You mentioned credit, a moment ago. What is your take, since we're in the economic arenawhat is your take on the fact that Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia, are our major creditors?
LaRouche: Well, the point is, we're sucking their bloodthat's what it amounts to.
What we have to do, is, we have go back, to realize that the present financial-monetary system is presently hopelessly bankrupt. Nothing can save this system in its present form. Now, when you hear those words, you have to think back to March of 1933: When Franklin Roosevelt, just inaugurated, faced exactly that kind of problem. This is worse than what Roosevelt faced, but it's the same type of problem in general.
Under our Constitution, the Federal government has the power to create credit, which governments abroad don't have. We have it. What we're going to have to do, is, the President of the United States, with the consent of Congress, is going to have to launch a great number of projects, as Roosevelt did. These projects will be, first, in infrastructure. For example, you have, right there, in Cincinnati, look down the Ohio River: How many locks and dams are being destroyed out of aging? We need to repair that. Power: How many power stations are wearing out after 40 to 50 years of non-development? And power shortages are developing?
So, we have lots of needs, in the United States, for basic economic infrastructure: transportation, power, health care, education, so forthall these needs. We have to invest in that. By investing in creating jobs, and I think it'll take about 10 million jobs to do the jobthat is, to get the economy moving againby doing that, we create the market for the private sector; which comes in, just as it did with the TVA project.
Host: Sure.
LaRouche: You put in a Federal project, and the private sector came in on the deals with that. We have to provide credit, mobilize credit. So, we create debt, we charge the debt against the assets we're creating, like new dams, new power stations, new educational systems, new health facilities, that sort of thing, and new factories. So therefore, it's called "fungible," that is, we can get our money back in the long run. So, we're not going bankrupt, or unbalancing our long-term budget by that sort of thing. That's what Roosevelt did.
We couldn't do it during the war, because that was too expensive. But, that's what he did in the peacetime. We have to do that again. And that's where we need the money.
We needthe Federal government must go back to a regulated system. We must have regulation. We must have trade and tariffs protection for our industries, otherwise people can't invest in them; we've got to protect our jobs, otherwise, we won't have them. We've got to rebuild the country. It's going to take a generation to do it. But it's much more fun going up, than it has been coming down.
Host: One last question, sir. Nuclear power: Why aren't we really utilizing the promise of nuclear power in this country, to bring down the price of electricity, like we should?
LaRouche: That's because there was an organization, by the same people that got us into the Vietnam War, in the first place: A tendency to change the country from being an agro-industrial technology-driven power, into becoming a post-industrial society. This has gone on for 40 years. And as a part of that there was a campaign to eliminate nuclear power.
Now, there were problems with nuclear-power generation, but they were being corrected. That should have been continued.
We need nuclear power, not only for electricity: If you have nuclear-power plants, you can generate, from water, you can generate hydrogen-based fuels in local regions. You don't have to haul oil from all over the world to do it. You also have other applications, which high-intensity energy sources provide for you, new kinds of industries.
We have to make the United States, which is going to have long-term relations with the poorer part of the worldwith developing China, with developing India, with developing South and Central America, with Africawe have to be a high-technology economy, which is engaged in meeting the needs of countries abroad, by supplying them the technology they need from us. We, therefore, must upgrade our people, in education and so forth, and have the power to do that.
THIS ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER THE UNITED STATES WILL BECOME A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Charles Traylor, Dr. Bob Fitrakis and Wendy Huntley, hosts of "Front Street on the News," 1580 WVKO radio in Columbus, Ohio on October 19, 2004. The transcript of the interview appears here:
Host:: Charles Traylor, WVKO, how you doing?
LaRouche: Well, I'm frisky. Trying to fight off the remains of the flu, I think.
Host:: And we also have Prof. Dr. Bob Fitrakis with us, and Miss Wendy Huntley. So, Dr. Bob Fitrakis will pretty much lead this discussion with you this morning, okay?
LaRouche: Okay, very good.
Host: And we're back with "Front Street on the News," 1580 WVKO, Charles Traylor and Wendy Huntley. And we have on our live line Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. And we have also brought in our resident international expert on political matters, that reach beyond my capability, we brought in, Professor, attorney, Dr. Bob Fitrakis.
Host: Mr. LaRouche, Bob Fitrakis here.
LaRouche: Good, good to hear from you.
Host: Some questions, I think that the callers want to know this close to the election: Your organization has been able to expose stuff that, when it initially came out, people dismissed it. What should we make, in this election, of the rise of the heroin trade in the Golden Crescent? And, does that relate to the failure, or any deliberate policy by the Bush Administration?
LaRouche: It does relate. Remember, that the heroin traffic, the drug traffic in its present international form, was given a very specific upgrade in the course of what Brzezinski initially launched as the war, the intervention into the underbelly of the Soviet Union: that is, the war in Afghanistan.
In the process there, the Soviet Army became involved heavily in drug trafficking, as a by-product of the activity of troops in the area. Remember, that was a very large concentration, close to about 100,000 Soviet troops in there. This became an integral part of the entire area, so that, in addition to the drug traffic we have in the Americas, which is the center, and the preexisting drug traffic in that area, we had a sudden surge of a drug trafficking coming out of Afghanistan, into, through Russia and into Europe in general.
This is now a major strategic factor. It's a major factor in the logistics of running what are called "terrorist operations" such as those of Osama bin Laden and others. But, this is a general problem. It's not only an economic and social problem; it is also a strategic problem.
Host: Now you've run for President as an independent, I believe, in '76, many other times as a Democrat. You're a well known economist, and you've written many, many things. You're saying, thatand I've seen this among other commentatorsbut you're saying that you believe the President may not be mentally sound. Is that correct?
LaRouche: Well, that's the kindest way of expressing it. I think most people have seen it on the television screen, and seen something that disturbs them. But, until they have the insight, provided, say, by an psychological expert, a clinician, it's sometimes difficult for them to recognize what they're seeing. They see something wrong. This guy is not right, something's wrong with him. But, to draw the conclusion that he's mentally unbalanced is another step. The facts are there, but it takes a mind which understands the facts, to recognize the nature of the mental disturbance.
But, it is a mental disturbance. It's multi-phased; it's extremely serious, and probably has something to do, in large degree, with his former drug and alcohol habits.
Host: Well, there is an analysis that says that he's suffering from "dry drunk" syndrome, correct?
LaRouche: That's right. This was the point that was made a leading Washington-area psychoanalyst, psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank, published in his book entitled Bush on the Couch.
Host: Okay, but the fact that the President may be showing visible signs, and in his own, almost theocratic world, where he doesn't consult with his father's advisors or known diplomats, but keeps referring to a "higher father"only, there's a variety of other things. That doesn't seem that that's going to stop the people around him, these Vulcans and neo-cons, from running him for President.
And, also could you explain what you make of this Sinclair Broadcasting? They own two channels here in Columbus, Ohio. And when we investigated, Sinclair has Sinclair Ventures: They're tied to covert operations; they're tied to a variety of CIAMark Hyman brags about having four medals of commendation. It almost looks as if there's covert operation intelligence forces that are trying to get this man re-elected.
LaRouche: Well, that's a general phenomenon. Remember that during the first Reagan Administration, my friend Bill Casey, who was then head of the CIA and Director of Intelligence, made a mistake in saying the United States was going to operate on a multi-phased intelligence operation, using the kinds of irregular forces which were used by the Israelis.
Now, irregular forces by the U.S. government was not new. This was done in the formation of the Department of Defense. We had a whole section of the Department of Defense, which was really called CIAit wasn't CIA, it was "off the reservation" musclemen of all kinds, who did the assassinations, and other things around the world, principally.
So, what Bill did, was allow for expansion of this, privately financed, with its own resources. And what you're seeing in these kinds of phenomena, in every aspect of the institutions of government and of public life, are to one degree or another, affected by the infiltration of institutions by these kinds of tentacles from this network.
Host: And, again, what can the American people do about it? And what's at stake in this election, if Bush is re-elected?
LaRouche: Well, I'll tell you, the day after Bush were elected, or within a matter of days, you would have a launching of a war against Iran, which would involve the whole area. There would be no limit to this: It would go on indefinitely, until somebody just stopped it.
You would also have an immediate measure, where Bush would move for the privatization of Social Security, and other rather drastic measures of privatization of the public sector.
There will be all kinds of diversionary efforts, to distract the public opinion away from the reality of an onrushing economic collapse. You're looking at a period in which a transition from, at least, a formal democracy, into dictatorship would be under way, full steam.
Host: Mr. LaRouche, Charles Traylor here. What do make of Nader's campaign? They've gone off the ballot in so many states, such as Ohio, because of fraudulent registration; and some have been calling this a Republican operation. What do you make of that?
LaRouche: It is a Republican operation! It is exactly that. A Karl Rove specialnothing else. Nader's a throwaway. He's got Camejo, who's also a throwaway, running with him. These are leftovers, from things that have existed as quasi-independent political movements before, that brought together, but it's not hanging together. So, Nader fielded himself without a real base.
You know, the younger generation which he would try to appeal to, is those in the 18-25 university age group. Now, those in that age group, whether they're in universities or not, I mean, even poor kids on the streets in the slums, these kids look at themselves as being in a no-future society. They look at their parents, and they say, "Our parents aren't listening to us; there's no sense talking to them. They're not in the real world. They've given us a society with no future for us. And our case, is to find a society which gives us a future for 40-50 years to come." So, these young guys are no longer listening to the Nader thing.
The Bruce Springsteen rally for the Kerry campaign, the hip-hop motion, is an example of the same thing: Young layers who would draw to channels, which were normally the counterculture channels of the 1960s on, these young guys are reflecting a generational sense that they're in a no-future society, and they're hoping that Kerry and Kerry's election will save them from a no-future society. They're not too confident in Kerry; they don't like him. But they feel he's their alternative.
Host: [Traylor] Now, Mr. LaRouche, I know that you're going to be coming to Columbus, Ohio, I believe it is tomorrowor sometime in the very near future: What do you make of the Secretary of State's actions with regard to provisional ballots, in Ohio?
LaRouche: Well, I'm not too familiar with it. Other people are. But, I'm very concerned about what is going on in Ohio with the attempt to strip out, by one pretext or another, whole classes of voters. We're getting this all over the country. It's generally a Republican operation. It's going on, again, in Florida. It's going on in Louisiana. It's going on in various parts of the country, and I know it's going on in Columbus, where there's legal action around this thing.
You know, the Republican campaign is desperate: On the basis of what are called the "usual voters," that is, voters who voted in three of last four Federal elections in an eight-year span, there's an even split generally, that tend between the two candidacies. But, when you get into another section of the population, those in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, who've largely dropped out of the electoral process, in any active sense, and then these young guys, 18 to 25, they do not fit the profile of the older voters, the so-called "usual voters." Therefore, the polls run on the basis of the "usual voters" show Bush as having a chance of winning. If you bring in the lower 80% of family-income brackets and the young guys, 18 to 25, as voters, then you change the whole balance, and suddenly you get a swing, toward even a tendency toward a landslide victory for Kerry.
So therefore, these guys are going at minority groups, Hispanic and African-American, and trying to terrorize them out of going there. Because, if you take the Hispanic-American group, which is the largest minority in country; you take the African-American group which is the second largest in the country, if you knock them out, they represent the typification of the lower 80% of family-income brackets in incomeand therefore, the attempt is to terrorize them not to come out to vote. And every trick in the book is being done, by the Republican campaign for that purpose.
Host: [Fitrakis] If we look at what's happening, at what point do we begin to say that this looks like incipient fascism? I mean, there's sort of unbridled corporatism; unbridled militarism; a doctrine of preemption, that really isn't preemption by any legal standardit's the old Nazi doctrine of waging aggressive war against whoever you want, whenever you want, whether they pose an actual existing threat or not. At what point, do we get franker about what's going on the U.S.? I mean, didn't Florida, to a large extent, look like a coup, at least to many in the rest of the world?
LaRouche: Well, actually, as I got active on this issue, immediately following Nov. 7, 2000, right after the election, when the confusion about the Florida vote came up. And I made a number of forecasts, including webcast forecasts, which I indicated that we are already in a fascist mode: That is, the Bush Administration, from the inception, not because Bush knew what he was doing, but because the mechanics of what was coming in there, predominantly around this guy Cheney; and this neo-con crowd around Cheney is outrightly fascist. They're not the only fascists on the scene; they're not the most important ones, but they're the most visible ones.
This regime was headed towards fascism from the beginning. Now, 9/11 was actually an attempt to impose a fascist rule in the United States, and it did happen, to some degree, through Ashcroft, the Attorney General, where under the Patriot Act and similar measures, dictatorial measures, including the imprisonment measures in special cases, were introduced.
But they didn't succeed. We've now come to this election, now. And, at this point, the test is, if Bush is re-elected, then the fascist drive is fully on: It's on from Day One after the election. If Kerry's elected, then we're going to have a fight to prevent it from continuing.
Host: [Fitrakis] What does that mean, then, concretely, for African-Americans or poor people?
LaRouche: Look at the price of oil: That's probably the simplest way to take a reference point to bring a clear concept in a sea of confusion. The price of oil is now $53 a barrel internationally, it dropped from $55. It will probably go up, under present trends toward $75 a barrel. And if there's a war in the Middle East, it'll probably go to $100 a barrel.
Now, so far, that has not hit the American public as significantly as it might, because there's about a 60-day lag, between futures contracts and hitting the pump. But, about 60 days from now, we're going to get the full effect, of this $50 a barrel, or higher, oil price internationally.
Now, there is no shortage of petroleum. The price of oil is not rising because there's a shortage of petroleum. Increasing the amount of petroleum produced and distributed will not lower the prices of petroleum. That's where the present administration is an idiot. The price of petroleum is being dictated by financial derivatives speculation in raw materials, in which petroleum is the leading raw material absorbed by this speculation. You watch the metals market; watch all hard commodity speculation.
The world is now organized in four groups: 1) the United States; 2) Europe; 3) Russia; 4) China. Russia and Europe are in a sort of partnership but rivalry, with the United States on control of the future of world raw materials. China, because of its massive purchasing power, is a major bidder for raw materials, one of the most successful bidders, as in Brazil, for example.
So therefore, what is happening, with all the other financial markets collapsing, including the housing bubble in the United States collapsing, the money is all going into investment in speculative investment in long-term holdings in raw materials. And that's why the price of oil is going up.
Now, this bubble is not sustained in any degree by production: that is, we're collapsing our industries, we're collapsing employment, so there is no real economic basis, physical economic basis, for this rise in prices. What we're headed for is a general collapse of the entire international monetary system. That's what we're facing.
And unless we change this, which can only be done by action which can be led by U.S. government, taking measures like Roosevelt took back in 1933, only with those measures can we bring this thing under control. Otherwise, we're looking at Hell.
Host: Mr. LaRouche, this is Wendy Huntley . I have a question about what your thoughts are on the key issues that are going to help decide this vote for the voters. Do you think there is a key issue? Or do you think that every person is going to be looking at different issues? Do you think there's something that all the voters are going to come down and say, "Really, I agree and disagree with both platforms, but on this particular issue, this is most important, and I'm voting for this candidate because of this reason"?
LaRouche: I'll give you an example of one that's crucial which is just breaking out now: the question of flu vaccine. The President made a real mistake, in the way he babbled in the third Presidential debate. Because he bragged about excluding drugs from Canada into the United States, and bragged in that connection, about preventing Canadian flu vaccine from coming into the United States, and has concealed the fact that it was his administration which orchestrated the case in which we have a shortage of flu vaccine.
Now, look at grocery stores and so forth, supermarkets around the country; look at people who are in their 70s and 80s, who are frightened, particularly people with illnesses, who are frightened; who are lining up in supermarkets hoping to get vaccines that aren't there.
This is one of the biggest issues. It is the most typical issue.
But, the economic issue in general, the scent, the smell, of the Nazi-like contempt of the Bush Administration for the American people, is strong.
On the other side, you have the fanatics, who are almost in the category of lunaticsand there are many of themso-called religious and other right-wing fanatics: These guys want fascism, and they see the Bush Administration as the vehicle that'll bring it for them.
Therefore, you have a contest between those in society who see the dangerthey're appalled by it. And then, on the other side, you see the fanatics, who want the worst possible result: A Bush dictatorship with wars all over the world.
Host: [Traylor] Well, Mr. LaRouche, we see that you're going to be in Columbus, Ohio on Tuesday Oct. 26, from 7 to 10 p.m.
LaRouche: I'm going to be on a webcast.
Host: On the webcast, yes sir, from 7 to 10. And that'll be at the Holiday Inn on the Lane, 328 West Lane Ave, the north side of the Horseshoe Campus.
Mr. LaRouche, we want to thank you, for taking time out of your morning and your busy schedule, to come on Front Street, just to bring up more information on why it is important for the voters to be engaged in this process, and don't give up, and don't let loose but continue to stay engaged, don't be intimidated.
LaRouche: Thanks Bob, and Charles and Wendy.
|