Latest From LaRouche
Lyndon LaRouche gave two lengthy post-election radio interviews, Nov. 4 and 5. Here are the transcripts.
LAROUCHE TAKES A SUBLIME LOOK AT A VERY DANGEROUS WORLD - AFTER THE VOTE ON NOV. 2 -
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Jeff Rense on his nationwide Internet/radio program, late in the evening on Nov. 4, 2004.
JEFF RENSE: And welcome back as we continue to reel and recover, hopefully as much as that is possible from this week. I'm Jeff Rense, coast to coast and around the world as well on the internet side of our broadcast. And on Nov. 9, exactly one week after the U.S. Presidential electionsPresidential selections? I don't know if they stole the election, or they just flat out gave it to him this time, butLyndon LaRouche, former candidate for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination will address the nation, and the world, via an internet webcast, from the LaRouchePAC website. We'll talk more about that.
We're very honored to have back on the program today, a fairly frequent visitor and guest, and a man who has really caught the attention of a lot of people, not only in this country, but around the world, for the decades he has been speaking from his mind, his intellect, and his heart, about what's really wrong with the planet. Agree or disagree, it is always a pleasure, to speak with and to hear Lyndon LaRouche talk. Welcome back to the program, Lyndon!
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Thank you.
RENSE: How are you feeling?
LAROUCHE: Well, I'm not doing too badly.
RENSE: So, did you vote Tuesday, and vote often?
LAROUCHE: No. They suspended that. They didn't want meI was enough trouble as it was, without just voting.
RENSE: All right. Let's go back now. When you withdrew from the race, a couple of months ago, I guess, and threw your entire organization behind John Kerry, you were optimisticas were many people, for a variety of reasons. Most people I know, who were notboy! died-in-the-wool Bush neo-con disciples, wouldn't dream of voting to sanctify and to underwrite the kind of slaughter/butcher/crime/theft/perversion/and abrogation of the Constitution in this country, the likes of which we have never seen before, and which we have been painfully watching for years! And yet, what happened on Election Day has left not only half of America in shock, but much of the intelligent world! And I wanted to ask you the obvious questions: How did it go, in your mind? And how much of a likelihood was it that there was a fix involved here?
LAROUCHE: Well, there was a certain kind of fix. But, the problem was, the Democratic Party had generally goofed up the entire election, up past the Convention. As matter of fact, until after the Republican Convention.
RENSE: Mainly what you're talking about, is the campaign, I think?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, the campaign.
But, then, it started late, even after that: That until you had former President Clinton talk directly to Kerry, there was no effective Kerry campaign.
RENSE: How can that be, Lyndon? I agree with you, and I'm still pondering this: How could it have been such a limp, lackluster, zero campaign, which stayed about a half a mile from all the major issues of importancehow did that happen?
LAROUCHE: We had a good reading on that. In California, we plunged into the Recall election, to defend against Schwarzenegger. Now, Bill Clinton came out there, in the course of that effort, and offered to make a contribution. But, he realized that the Democratic Party machine, the national Democratic Party, was not going to fight this one. And were leaving Gray Davis out to hang.
I and some other people in the Democratic Party, decided and fought. Now, we had limited forces, largely our youth movement. We went into the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, which are strong points in California. In that area, we carried the area against Schwarzenegger, in both the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. The rest of the Democratic Party sat on its hands, and just waited for Schwarzenegger to walk in.
Now, this problem in the Democratic Party continued all the way through the Convention and past the time of the Republican Convention, until Kerry agreed with Clinton, in effect, that the campaign was a bummer, and we got started, really after Labor Day, on serious campaigning. Now what
RENSE: [interrupts] Excuse me, Lyndonbut, honestly, how could John Kerry have been that blind? I mean
LAROUCHE: He was not blind, no. The Democratic Partyhe was being advised by the Democratic Party, pressured by the Democratic Party, to go to 50% plus 1 vote, not to try to get a sweep. I said, this is nuts. You have to bring out the lower 80% of the voting population, income brackets; you have to bring in the youth, especially. They resisted the youth. They resisted going to the population who's been losing jobs, and things of that sort. And they said, we're going to stick with the customary programmed people who voted during three of the last four Federal elections.
RENSE: That's a suicidal wish.
LAROUCHE: It turned out that way.
Then, you had Karl Rove, on the other side, who was playing the politics of fear, with religious cultism and so forth, and we could have knocked that off. But, the problem was, as you saw in Ohiowe might have even won Ohio, you know. We don't know yet; it was that close.
RENSE: We'll never know, because of the
LAROUCHE: Well, no. Who knows? We might actually know. We had, for example, we had over 100,000 extra votes in Cleveland alone, which have not yet been counted, or possibly counted. So, there is a big margin there.
But, the point was, nationally, the Democratic Party lost it. And they lost it, because there was no serious campaign, as there should have been, since actually November of last year
RENSE: Was this stupidity, or sabotage, Lyndon?
LAROUCHE: Ideology. Remember, that what happened with the Carter Administrationand it wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault entirely. But, under Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission went with a "me, too" approach to competition with the Nixon Republicans. And the Democratic Party has moved in that direction, up to now. Not to contest the thing, to be part of the system, not to go against it. To work within the system.
This became worse, with the founding of the Democratic arrangement between the Republicans and the Democrats. So, this imported from London.
And so, we now have, in the Congress, and around the Congress, we have people who are just running one party with two divisions. And the fundamental issuesfor example, the problem with Clinton was, when he was President: Clinton was probably the brightest President we've had in a long, long time. But his policy as a President, was to go for tactics first, and then try to bring policy in second. My approach is different, directly the opposite: My point is, subordinate the tactics to the issue.
For example, now: We'll have a fight now in the Democratic Party. You know, a friendly quarrel. Some people agree with me, some don't. Some people say, "Well. The lesson is, we've got to go with the flow," which means, go with what happened with this election, and appeal to them, instead of appealing the other way. I'm saying, don't go with the flow. Because this financial crash which is coming down now, is going to convince even George Bush, that he wishes he hadn't been re-elected. This financial crisis, is also going to take people who were wrongand they were wrong, as you and I knowthey voted for Bush. That was morally wrong! That was intellectually wrong. They weren't voting for their own interests, they were voted for some crazy politics of fear, concocted by Karl Rove.
Elections, in my view, and politics, what I always stood for: Stand for what you stand for. Don't try to sell yourself as a travelling salesman, and find out what product you're going to sell. And that's where the problem lies.
RENSE: I agree. I think that's a good analysis. I still cannot believe that the Democratic leadership was that stupid, but that's what we're hearing.
LAROUCHE: Yup! That's what I'm seeing.
Now, it's not hopeless. Because, it's hopeless in the sense, that were this to continue without interruption, the United States will be soon finished, as a nationand I mean "soon," within this period.
RENSE: Yeah, you're right. And thank you for saying that. I've been suggesting it, and to hear it from you underscores the importance of this issue. We will be finished, on not just one or two counts, but on multiple
LAROUCHE: The war, for example. People know that we are losing the war in Iraq. It's a loser.
RENSE: Right. Correct.
LAROUCHE: People in the State Department know we are losing that war. George Bush says, "no." Cheney says, "no." Others say, "no." The mass media often says, "no." We are losing it!
Now, the collapse of the international financial-monetary system is coming on now. It can not be stopped. We are bankrupt. George Bush and company hocked every piece of asset in sight, to try to hide the collapse for the duration of this election campaign: Now the collection agencies come in! So, we're going to face the worse financial crisis in modern history. It's going to hit in the coming period. And George Bush is going to soon wish that he hadn't been President, when he really gets hit with this.
RENSE: Hold on, I agree. Let's develop that theme a little further. We have a break here.
The dollar, clearly, teetering, like a prize fighter, groggy, almost out on his feet now, ready to go down. Back in just a minute with Lyndon LaRouche. [station break]
RENSE: Okay, welcome back, we're talking with Lyndon LaRouche, on this post-Election Day, plus two.
All right, Lyndon! The dollar, groggy. There are constant rumors about, perhaps Russia, dropping the dollar in favor of the euro; other nations as well. Certainly, Saddam Hussein did, in fact, drop the dollar, shortly before he was overthrown, and ousted, in favor of the euro.
How does it look to you, at this point now? And, if there was an impact on this issue of the dollar's weakness, by the election, address that, too.
LAROUCHE: Oh sure, there is an immediate impact, because, for example, had Kerry been announced as the winner, even by the morning of the 3rd, at that point, some things would have kicked in between the United States and Europe. Now, of course, Kerry would have no ability to make U.S. policy, directly through the Executive branch at that time. But the fact that he was coming in, would cause Europeans to talk to him, and there would be a discussion of options between an incoming President, two and a half months down the line, and Europeans. So, they would, in a sense, would hedge their bets on the assumption that the cooperation they discussed with an incoming President, would be an agreed deal.
Now, when Bush came in, the Europeans despise Bush. They're not going to tangle with him now, at least not as they've determined at this moment, as they tangled with Bush over the Iraq war onsetthey're not going to do that kind of thing. But, they are simply not going to go along. Because, they can't.
Now, there is another factornational factors. Now, the dollar is about1 euro buys about $1.29. We're looking at, very soon, a steep climb of the euro relative to the dollar, maybe $1.50, maybe $2 for a euro.
In the meantime, Chinese and others, are moving their large dollar assetsthe Chinese have tremendous dollar holdingsthey're moving some of these dollar holdings into agreements with various parts of the world, such as Brazil; potentially Argentina, Canada, so forth; on raw materials, foodstuffs, oil, and things of that sortneeded by China.
So, what's happening is people are moving away from an endangered dollar, into investing in something which is more secure than a dollar, a contract on something useful for the future.
Under these conditions, and once people realize that the U.S. and British housing bubble, that is, the mortgage-based securities bubble, the financial derivatives system generally, and the fact that the oil-price level, which is still going to soar, is headed toward $60 now, maybe $75, and possibly $100; if there is a Middle East crisis, a new war in the Middle East, you're going to look at potentially, $100 a barrel oil. Now, within two months of that on the futures market, it's going to trickle into the home market, into heating oils, gasoline and so forth and so on, and also into the role of petroleum as a feedstock, for the chemical industry, as well.
So, we're in deep trouble. And George Bush and company, have postponed everything that should have been dealt with; it's now going to suddenly hit them, and they don't have alternatives.
RENSE: You know, we talk about this $50 to $100 a barrel oil increase, Lyndon, and we don't thinkusually most people don't thinkthat this isn't just our driving our cars. The petroleum industry is beyond gigantic: We're talking about the delivery of every single consumer item we eat, we use, we buy, we sell, by truck! By diesel engine. It doesn't matter! This impacts the entire economy, not just driving your SUV or your Volkswagen around town. People miss that pointnot everybody, and not this audience. But, many Americans don't get itthey compartmentalize everything.
LAROUCHE: What we're dealing with, we're dealing with a society, which is engaged very largely in a culture of fear. The effect of 9/11 and the effect of the way George Bush and company reacted to it, the way Karl Rove has exploited it: The biggest factor in this election, in turning out a vote for Bush, was the politics of fear. Fear and denial. It's a psychotic condition. And it's a very dangerous condition, because, on the day after denial, you get an explosion of, "We was betrayed!" from the very people who turned out for Bush, even voting against their own apparent, vital interests.
RENSE: Capital "D"capital Denial. I justand your point earlier, about how voting for the Bush-Cheney neo-con Tel Aviv axis, that cartel, was an immoral thing to do.
We just learned, two weeks ago, that we haveAmericans have killed/slaughtered/dispatched between 100 and 200,000 Iraqi civilians, since the most recent war began. That is about as immoral as it gets. Now, that's not even counting the people on our side, we've lost, maimed, and brought home to basically hide away with ever-lessening veterans benefits. The morality of this thingit's beyond negative. It's evil. And anybody who can support that, I don't understand. Unless they're completely brainwashed, totally bought, hook, line, and sinker, into this crap that's been spewed for months.
LAROUCHE: See, the average person doesn't think that way, not the lower 80%. They don't think that way. What they think is, in terms of denial. What they do isof course, the generation between 30 and 50 years of age, in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, is the most vulnerable. They are living in a fantasy world, which is largely a mass-media-oriented fantasy world. Our news programs don't mean anything, any more; they don't actually get news. They are desensitized to the world.
Now, when you get a figure like 100,000 or more, of deaths in Iraq, against say 11,000-12,000 U.S. casualties, what you're dealing with is a ratio which reminds you, or should remind you, of Vietnam, which should remind you of the French in Algiers: That when you get people of that percentile, that is willing to continue to fight, under those penalties, it means that you are not dealing with some terrorist organization: You're dealing with a people in revolt, against terror! And we are the terror! Not the people! Then, that has to be understood. Then we can deal with it.
RENSE: Exactly. All right. We'll take this break and return with Lyndon, just in a couple of minutes. I'm Jeff Rense, inviting you to rense.com, for real news, for real people. Back in a minute.
[station break]
And we're back, talking with Lyndon LaRouche, about the election. Lyndon, let's talk a little bit about the military aspects of this alleged war. As you know, they're drafting now men over 50, pulling them back into the military. The U.S. Army is now negotiating to try to get the ban on women in combat dropped, so they can send our young girls, 18 and 19, into the front lines to die, with their 18 and 19 year old friends and fellow soldiers. In January, they want this to begin. The American military allegedly, is stretched now to the point wherewell, we have a presence in over 140 countries around the worldit is stretched so thin, that talk of invading Iran becomes rather amusing. If you're going to fight a stand-off battle with Iran, that's another story, but then we have a whole dynamic there we could talk about.
But, in general, how is the American military, from your perspective, and from what you've been able to glean?
LAROUCHE: It's a mess! We are destroying it. And we are destroying it especially in Iraq.
It was vulnerable when we went into Iraq, and we destroyed it, by the way of doing that. The key factor in destruction, of course, was the transition from Garner to Bremer. As I've said a number of timesI don't know if Bremer was personally responsible for that change of policy, or just carried it out. But, when we received the surrender of the Iraq officialsthat means the Ba'ath Party and the militaryunder normal military operations, as Garner perceived it, then you take over, and you get these guys working for us. And with the idea, they're going to fix the country, under our direction. And when the thing is working, we're going to leave!
Now, so, instead of taking this force, which was an Iraqi force, and working with them, we turned them loose, and said, "We don't want you." We turned a military force which was capable, into a recruiting ground for guerrilla warfare against us. Then we had the policy, which would enrage people enough, they'd do that, in reaction.
So, this is totally insane.
The problem here, is not a military problem, though it's become one. I think, as I looked at this thing as a candidate, I knew how we could fix it; it's a tough problem, but with our professional military, and our leading generals, including retired generals, we knew how to fix it!
Now, under Bush's re-election, there's no prospect of fixing it.
What we're going to have to do, and of course, it involves the factor of orderly retreat: We're going to have to get out of there. We're going to have to, really, completely change our policy of employment; we're going to have to rebuild our military forces in a rational way, not the Cheney way. And we're going to have to do a lot of other things, in terms of developing our economy.
We can have a secure system. I know, from my knowledge of the world, the United States, if it's sane, can essentially have about as secure a world as you want. We can have cooperation to that effect. That's not a problem. But, the way we're going now, we're creating the insecurity, not trying to deal with it.
RENSE: And, I might hasten to add: the Russians, eminently capable, in a strategic, technological and military sense; and the Chinese, certainly growing by leaps and bounds every month militarily, on every front, are watching the diminution, the deconstruction of America's military preparedness, very keenly, and probably smiling and chuckling.
One asks, almost rhetorically but not quite, is this destruction of the American military, this abrogation of it, as it were, being done with intent, by somebody? Is it being directed? Or is it sheer stupidity of these beast-men, as you called them so appropriately, using every tactic and tool they can to line their coffers of wealth?
LAROUCHE: It is the beast-man factor. But, the problem heresay, take the case of the Russians: The Russians are now, because we refused to continue our arrangement with them, are re-MIRVing SS-18s.
RENSE: I know they are!
LAROUCHE: All right. So, but, this is part of the program, which the Bush Administration set into motion! It's not because the Russians are gloating over our aggressiveness. They don't want it! They don't want a conflict! They've got plenty of conflicts of their own. They're not looking for that trouble. The Chinese are not looking for that kind of trouble. But, we are pushing, pushing, pushingpartly because of malice, and partly because of sheer stupidity and incompetence.
RENSE: Well, well-said.
Let's look quickly at the job issue. You mentioned something about policies on employment here. How do we create new jobs in America, Lyndon, when the jobs have been literally destroyed, here, by relocating
I talked to two customer-service agencies, for two different companies. One was in the Philippines, and the other was in India, somewhere. He wouldn't tell me the name of the city. I mean, they come on with this very thick accent, saying "Hi, this is Andy," and I can hardly understand him. "Yeah, right, Andy, what's your real name?" "Uh, Ahmed." Anyway.
How're we going to reconstitute this job-destruction. Because it's not just a drain. These jobs are literally being eradicated. I mean, they're gone.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, well. Only one thing: Go back to a Bretton Woods system, as designed in 1944, under Roosevelt. And as we kept it, generally functioning through the period of President Kennedy's Presidency, and destroyed beginning with the Kissinger presidency, followed by the Brzezinski presidency. We destroyed the economy!
What we did, is, we, like the Romans, after the close of the Second Punic War: The Romans, which had been a people in Italy whose farmers and so forth had maintained the Italian system of Rome, went into a predatory mode of stealing from abroad, instituting slavery at home, shutting down their own farms, and things of that sort; and that became the Roman system, which eventually died. We have done, in the past 40 years, beginning with the time of the Vietnam War, we have done the same thing to the United States.
Now, there's only one thing to do: Take the entire policy, which has been adopted over the past period since especially 1971-72, under Nixon: Scrap the whole thing! Take Milton Friedman, and finally put him into permanent retirement! We don't need this flea-trade market, any more!
We'll have to rebuild on the basis of long-term trade agreements with other countries. I'm talking about 25- to 50-year trade agreements and credit agreements. We're going to have to rebuild our cities; rebuild our power systems; rebuild our transportation systems; rebuild our water systems. This will create enough employment, which will bring us up about 10 million jobs above the present. We have to protect that employment with fair trade policy agreements, with protectionist measures.
RENSE: Very logical. Very pragmatic. That is always the case, when Lyndon talks economic policy. Back in just a couple of minutes.
[station break]
As always, Lyndon just made a very key point, which again, was just about virtually ignored in the alleged campaign. America'snot only is America bankrupt, but, America's infrastructureroads, bridges, water, sewage, public worksis literally, most cases, in need of replacement, major rehabilitation, or outright scrapping. We are a nation that needs probably a couple of trillion dollars worth of work, at least, to try to reconstitute a reasonable measure of competence for these systems. Freeway overpasses, bridges, these things wear out. You know that.
We should have had a high-speed rail system in here, coast to coast, 20 years ago! You should be able to get on a train in Los Angeles and be in San Francisco in an hour and half, or in two hours. And they can do it in Japan. They can do it in Europe. But, we don't see it happening here. Take you five hours to fly on a plane sometimesby the time you drive to the airport, and wait in line.
The same issues exist for the East Coast population corridors as well.
I don't see anybody really addressing this, Lyndon, at all. I see talk of more overseas adventures, to fight "terror," "terrorism." Which you're supposed to define as anybody who doesn't agree with us any more. [LaRouche laughs] It's joke! This country.
You have the answers. You always have. They're not a big mystery. You articulate them beautifully. But, the traitors in Congress-I'll call 'em that; 99%, 98% of them shouldn't be theredon't give a damn about this stuff! Not that I'm able to see.
LAROUCHE: Nowell, they do. They do and they don't.
RENSE: Talk's cheap. I know what you mean, but I don't see 'em doing anything! They're passing the Son of Patriot Act, and pork barrel legislation, and tacking on BS amendments to various laws and things, to further upbraid and curtail our freedoms and liberties. You know what they're doing.
LAROUCHE: I know what they're doing. But, the problem is a lack of guts. That will lead to all kinds of apologies for various things that you're afraid of doing. That's the essential problem. There is a corruption; there's a lot of corruption. But the worst kind of corruption is simply cowardice: "Why should I put my neck on the line? Why should I lose this or lose that advantage, by doing this? It's not going to work anyway! I'm not responsible. I'm not going to put myself on the line." That's the system. I think 80% of the Americans react that way, not just people in Congress.
It's bad morality, but that's what we've induced over the pastthat's what we've induced over the past period.
RENSE: What you're saying, is these people are basically motivated and governed and ruled and intimidated by fear as well.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. This is
RENSE: We are a fear-based society.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. For most people. That's what I'm up against. You know, people like me, but they're afraid of me, because they're afraid what'll happen to them by being associated with me. You see that, very clearly, in the millions of people I have supporting me in various ways. But, when it comes to an election, they don't want to get caught!
RENSE: I know. I know. Well, one thing, I think has changed in the last two or three or four years, and you've been talking about it and others have; I know I've been talking about it for many years: It is now okay for peopleeh! It's always been okay, let me rephrase that: People are less paranoid about criticizing Zionist Israel, the neo-con agenda, and those who would seek to reduce America to nothing less than a slave state of a Zionist agenda, which does not have our best interests at heart.
LAROUCHE: I'll tell you where the strength comes from: It comes from young people, under 29, especially under 25. I'm talking about young adults: They know, that they have no future, under the system the way it's going. And therefore, they're either persuaded to be completely pessimistic and give up entirely; or, if they have any spark of life in them, to say, "this is wrong.: And they were a very positive factor in the turnout of voters in this campaign. We did not fail entirely with the Democrats. We had some successes. Successes were getting the mass vote out, and also, especially, getting youth outunder 29, but especially 18 to 25 age group. That made, in say, the city of Cleveland, Ohio for example, made a big difference.
RENSE: Will the young people, will these people stay motivated over the next four years, or will they just say, "To hell, with this. My future is not Zionist. I want nothing to do with this garbage."
LAROUCHE: No, these young peoplethat's my job. My job is to, in a sense, give these guys the ability to become a growing, independent force in the United States. I have to think about the future, which is not people of my lifetime, but people of three generations, or two generations, after me. They are the future. I have to do something for them.
RENSE: Uh-huh. That's the most wonderful gift anybody can do for our future.
LAROUCHE: We all ought to do that! We're all going to die, you know! So, sooner or later, we better get around to thinking about what we're leaving behind us. And try to leave something good, which will be alive after we're gone, which will be good, and will ensure that there is a future.
RENSE: Did John Kerry fold up his tents too quickly?
LAROUCHE: I think he did. But, it was a call that's hard to criticize, because he's in the Congress. And on his sideyou know, if you know the President of the United States is nuts, and a very disturbed personality, and if you know that the President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney, is a sociopath, who kills, or has people killed; and you're in the Senate, and you're trying to get some kind of legislation passed for the benefit of your constituency, or the benefit of the country, you say, "Well, let's back off a little bit, from confrontation with these guys." And that's essentially what happened.
Once you decide to stop the fight for President, that's what happens to you.
RENSE: So, who emerges for the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party?
LAROUCHE: Well, I'm going to have to do that job, right now. But, I'm going to do my part, to ensure that there is, in the Democratic Party, a reorganized Democratic Party, a revived one
RENSE: If they don't rebuild it, and rethink it, and reinvent it, they're toast, again.
LAROUCHE: Well, we did that before. That's what Roosevelt did. Franklin Roosevelt did that with a party which was disgusting! And the Republican Party had just become disgusting. And so, the Democratic Party became a reincarnation of the best that had been left over from previous parties.
RENSE: Well, you said it all, earlier, when you said, we have one party, with two divisions, now.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure!
And, we have to change politics in the United States. You know, the American people have made a mistake, not just their leaders. They've made a mistake. I know. I've lived all through this stuff. They just didn't have the guts to do it. Well, I can't criticize thatI just have to have the guts to help them do it!
RENSE: We got a problem, though, in this country. We have, apparently, about 50% of the voting public, which doesn't see things like we do, like the other half of the voting public sees it. This country is shattered. The tear in the fabric is profound. Ithe talk about "healing" is all nice, and [LaRouche chuckles], smarmy, but forget about it! These people are diametrically opposed to each other right now.
LAROUCHE: Well, there's shocks that are delivering. You have to take, sometimes, catastrophe as a blessing. It's this principle of the Sublime in history, as opposed to tragedy: You have to take the terrible, sometimes, as a blessing: Not because you want it, but because you know that this is the thing that is going to show the other guy, that what we've been doing is wrong.
It oftenfor example, let's take 1763: You had the Treaty of Paris, the British have been established as an empire. We were about to be crushed by our British ownership from abroad. We mobilized, in that catastrophe, behind Benjamin Franklin who created our Republic. To this day, this Republic, with all the corruption that's been done to it, is the rallying point in the world for people, as it was during Roosevelt's time. A lot weaker, a lot poorer, but we still have that. So, it wasn't a waste of time.
We took, out of the terrible conflict of our oppression, the struggle for our Constitution, our independence, we built something positive. With Lincoln, we built something positive out of something that was absolutely horrible. With Roosevelt, we built something positive out of something absolutely horrible. And the lesson of history is, that sometimes bad news is good news, if it gets you to respond to the bad news in the right way.
RENSE: I like that positive, positive look at it. All right, speaking of "look," let's look at the immediate future now: With the drums being pounded that Iran has to go. The Iranians, of course, in all likelihood, are not going to go quietly, if at all. And I'm curious as to how you see the next two, three, four months?
LAROUCHE: Well, it's going to be a point of decision. And either this President, or this Presidency, will be tamed by the circumstances of the experiences that are going to come down upon it; or else, there isn't much of a future.
And, you know, I'm on the positive side: I'm looking for the alternatives, the opportunities, constantly, to bring the changes that are needed about. And I'm not squawking too much about the bad things, because I know that I have to use the bad things to bring people to their senses: Maybe we can change this. I think there is opportunity.
But, I must admit, the world, for the United States and for its people, is a far, far more dangerous place than it was before the vote on Nov. 2.
RENSE: Far more dangerous. And, if Americans don't get it, and don't wake up now, Lyndon, I concur with you, fascism in this country will not just be a rumor. Well, it's not a rumor, now. But, fascism will kick in very strongly, very quickly, and profoundly.
LAROUCHE: We will call the fascists, "Rove-ing" idiots! (After Karl Rove.)
RENSE: Well, there you go, that's a perfect use of that name.
Lyndon, thank you for being here tonight. A pleasure. I wish we had better news to talk about, but let's be optimistic, and let's talk again, soon.
LAROUCHE: Okay, thank you.
LAROUCHE TELLS STOCKWELL SHOW: NOV. 9 WEBCAST WILL START - - WITH YOUTH CHORUS SINGING BACH'S 'JESU MEINE FREUDE'
Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Jack Stockwell on KTKK radio in Salt Lake City Utah, on Nov. 5, 2004.
JACK STOCKWELL: [off air] Good morning, sir. Welcome to the state of wackos!
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Which state is that? We've got about 50 of them.
STOCKWELL: The state of Utah, the one that gave the highest per-capita percentage for Mr. Bush. All right, you hold on a second, we'll get you on very shortly.
[on air] Five and a half minutes after 7 o'clock, it is the fifth day of November 2004. You're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk show program, this morning brought to you live, with 25% extra for free just for listening in today.
I have a special treat for you. This was arranged at the very last second: Mr. Lyndon LaRouche will be on for one hour. He's on hold right now, in fact. We'll have him on here in just a second. He'll be on for an hour, and then for the second hour, I would like to address the subject for the rest of the program this morning, what do you see your life being, with another four years of Mr. Bush: What you can expect? What you're preparing for? And all the horrors that might be involved with that.
Let's see, it's a Friday. This coming week, I have several guests lined up for youeverything from UFOs, to the coming economic crash, and some off-setting strategies that you might employ now to better prepare yourself for that, since the administration has been re-elected that may very well be Hoover reincarnated, and will help to spread the horror even faster....
Lyn, you there?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: I'm here, I think.
STOCKWELL: Yeahgood morning, sir!
LAROUCHE: Good morning.
STOCKWELL: Good morning. I just have one question, to get things going here, and that is, as I looked at all the polls Monday, and I have been forecasting for a number of months now, a Kerry landslide, and that didn't work out; and there's only one of two possibilities: Number one, there was vote fraud, particularly in Ohio. Or, we actually re-elected this President.
LAROUCHE: I think probably there's a mixture of all of that. First of all, there was tremendous irregularities in Ohio, as to whether you call it vote fraud, technically, or not, I don't know. We've got over 100,000 of these pieces of papers which have not yet been evaluated, and other things like that. We have the fact that in many areas where the greatest density of population was, the fewest voting machines were available. Things like that. So, a lot of things happened, and Karl Rove played a dirty deal.
But, the essential thing was this: First of all, the Democratic Party didn't start this campaign on time. I wasn't involved in the so-called debates. The thing was fairly dead. Kerry has a lid on him, most of the way, even till after the Democratic Convention, and even after the Republican Convention. So, it was not until after Labor Day, that the campaign got started.
Then, there was a certain amount of vacillation, less and less. Edwards vacillated less than Kerry did. But, when they got onto the issues of youth, the issue of the economy, the issue of the lower 80% of the family-income brackets, this sort of thing, suddenly, Kerry was taking off. But, the problem was, it was too late.
As in Ohio, you have a evangelicals out thereI don't know if they qualify as fundamentalists or not; many of them don't. But, they were in this business, that they believed that George Bush was right, when he said the economy was going up. And that had not been adequately addressed by the Democrats. I had addressed it, but not enough of it, and therefore they had a lot of big turnout for Republicans. So, there was a big turnout for Republicans in that state in particular, which was a crucial state.
You know, actually, we may have won the state. That's technically possible. We don't know. But, that's where we stand right now.
STOCKWELL: Well, the last thing that CNN was reporting, was that President Bush was still ahead by a greater than the uncounted provisional votes. And that even if there were a significant percentage of those uncounted votes for Mr. Kerry, it wouldn't be enough to offset President Bush's lead.
LAROUCHE: That's the argument. We found now that the CNN report is not necessarily accurate.
STOCKWELL: Yeah, well, I rather suspected that to begin with. What about Florida? Are there irregularities in Florida?
LAROUCHE: Oh, they're all over the place. Well, I knew there were going to be irregularities! I said so, from early on in the campaign. I said it in New Hampshire, during the New Hampshire primary campaign. We had to expect it. We had vote fraud with voting machineseverything.
STOCKWELL: Well, regardless, it looks like President Bush has been re-elected. It didn't take the Supreme Court this time to do it. It looks like he got the popular vote, as well as the Electoral vote
LAROUCHE: That's the key thing that influenced Kerry. Kerry thought that Bush had the popular vote. He thought that if Bush had not had the popular vote, then it would have been different.
STOCKWELL: Okay. You're still on the air. I need to get Bob on here for a traffic update.... [break]
All right, if you're just tuning in, Lyndon LaRouche is my guest this morning, for about one hour, till 8 o'clock, as we kind of try to make sense out of what's happened earlier this week.
Now, Lyn, I will ask this question: What can we expectwell I suppose, we can expect what we've seen the last four years, maybe even worse, now; worse attacks against American liberties, worse attacks against foreign nations. But, the thing that I would be the most concerned about, that seems to escape the minds of most people who re-elected this man, is this economic situation that we're in, and that there is an asteroid on its way towards this country, in the name of dollar collapseamong a host of other problems. Some comments on that, please?
LAROUCHE: Well, this President is going to be very unhappy, soon, to find out he's been elected: Because what is going to hit the United States, and it's going to come in waves, one thing after the otherit's going to be more than the poor man can bear. And suddenly, you're going to have a situation in which all those people who voted for Bush, because they thought he must be trustworthy on the economy; or because they were voting out of the politics of fear of Karl Roveafraid not to vote for himthey're going to suddenly turn against him.
Now, that turn is dangerous: Because many of these people, especially on the religious side, people who would follow Tom DeLay, for example, or that sortthese people will turn fascist, with the loss of their money. And therefore, unless there is a positive alternative to a total crash, visible out there, I think the world may be on the edge of not suffering, but a new dark age.
This may be in the worst case, the election of George Bush, may be the death of the United States, before that term of office is finished. That's how bad it is.
STOCKWELL: Well, what is it about him, and his cadre of associates, and neo-cons that surround him, that would leave America so defenseless in the face of an economic disaster?
LAROUCHE: Well, let me tell you: Remember Adolf Hitler?
STOCKWELL: Yeah
LAROUCHE: Remember, how the fascists came into power, beginning with Mussolini, one after the other? Over the period from 1922 to 1945: That operation was run by a group of international bankersthey're not bankers, in the sense of just banks; they're private financiers of an oligarchy, who control many banks, the banks of Europe and control much of the banking system in the United States. Now, these bankers, in the United States, these financial oligarchs, merely typified by the case of Felix Rohatyn, who's a well-known figure, these guys who are the people who are the children of the people who put Hitler into power in Germany.
Remember, these are the same people behind banks that financed Hitler, from New York City, including Harriman, including Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the incumbent President: Who moved the money controlled by Harriman's bank, Brown Brothers Harrimanmoved the money, by a letter, to a German bank, to release U.S.- and British-controlled funds, to revive Hitler's party, in time for Hitler to be nominated as Chancellor.
Now, these people are still here. These were my enemies then, even though I didn't know it. I knew they were my enemies in the post-war period, immediately. I knew these were the guys that Truman had let back in, as Nazis, into the system. I knew all through, that the right-wing, behind the neo-cons in this country, as we call them todaythe utopians, as we called them before thenbehind that was this financier interest, which was using all kinds of flaky people, to try to make fascist coups, then.
We resisted it, then. Because Roosevelt saved the nation, from the mistakes that Hoover was making. Today, the Democratic Party is worse than it was under Roosevelt, by far. Remember, the Democratic Party was worth shucks, in the 1920s. It suddenly became something, because Hoover had become discredited, and suddenly the Democratic Party, despite Raskob, despite the head of the Democratic National Committeewhich was more on the fascist sidedespite that, Roosevelt pulled the Democratic vote, and saved the nation. Now, this time, there is no Franklin Roosevelt in therenot even nominated; not even elected. And people are distressed.
Therefore, the biggest factor here, the difference in change is: The Nazis are there, the Nazis are behind what happened with the Bush campaign. These financial interests are the ones that used Karl Rove, et al., et al., et al., to run this operation.
STOCKWELL: All right. We'll be right back right after a quick commercial break with my guest Lyndon LaRouche, at the voice of Utah!... [break]
[off air] Hey Lyn?
LAROUCHE: Yeah.
STOCKWELL: Is there a certain direction you'd like to go?
LAROUCHE: Just this one: Who's doing what to whom. Where's the problem.
STOCKWELL: All right: who's doing what to whomI love that one. Hold on.... [on air] My guest for the rest of this first hour this morning, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche out of Leesburg, Virginia, who is on the line with me right mewe're going to have traffic coming in here any second.
But, the subject I would like to bring up at this point, is, I would just like to name some names, here: who's behind who? Who's supporting whom? Where is this influence coming from? Is there any indication that this second Bush Presidency, could be an awful lot like the second Nixon Presidency? As the people start falling out of the woodwork. There's a lot of questions there, Lyn. Take whatever one you want.
LAROUCHE: [laughing] Well, first of all, you have to look at the international financier cartel, which was called, back in the 1920s, 1930s and beyond, the Synarchist International. These guys are the mothers of fascism.
STOCKWELL: Synarchist International? Okay.
LAROUCHE: Yeah. And these are banks like Lazard Frères, so forth, these kinds of banks in Europe, and in the United States. All right. So these are the guys who're behind it.
Now, you've got other factors: You've got a factor today, which is, the U.S. population of the past 40 years has undergone a cultural paradigm shift, from a producer-society orientation, to a post-industrial, utopian model. Most people who are now heading corporations, and key positions in government, are people who had not yet matured, or just about entered university or were about to, when this change came. This is the generation which took its clothes off on campus, took LSD, and had sex with trees.
They no longer have the kinds of values on which we relied, in Roosevelt's time, or in the post-war period, the value of our country as the leading producer society in the world. We are no longer the leading producer society in the world. We are the world's leading parasite.
STOCKWELL: Okay, Lyn, with that thought, just hold on a moment, I've got to get another traffic update, but we'll come back with the parasite.... [traffic break]
My guest Lyndon LaRouche, will be on here till 8 o'clock this morning Mountain Time. Now, the last thing you said, we have gone from being the greatest-producer nation on the planet, to the biggest parasite.
LAROUCHE: Yeah: It's called "globalization." It became worse over the course of the past 15 years. But already under Carter, which is really under Brzezinskiunder Kissinger, actually, even earlierwe went from being a nation which had the highest standard of productivity in the world, to becoming a nation, which used slave-labor internally, and which went to cheap-labor markets overseas, to produce what we had produced earlier.
We destroyed our schools; we destroyed our family farms; we destroyed our family industries, that is the closely held firms that had high productive power. We went into a counterculture. We're now collapsing, and our income, our physical income, as you see in malls, depends upon virtual slave labor overseas. We have the biggest current account deficit we ever had. The United States is financially bankrupt. Nearly every bank in the United States is, in principle, bankrupt, except for government protection. A similar situation exists in Western Europe.
The economy of the world is now based, on raw-materials speculation: that is, you take raw materials, including petroleum, and you will find that most of the income from markets is sustained by the income those markets are making on financial derivatives, of buying into possession of petroleum and other things.
For example, there is no petroleum shortage in the world. It's because of speculation in petroleum futures stocks, that the price of petroleum is headed toward $60 a barrel now, probably $75, probably $100. Any crisis will send the price of petroleum up to about $100 a barrel.
In the meantime, the U.S. dollar is now worththat is, the euro, is worth $1.29. The euro is headed toward $1.50, a collapse of the dollar.
We have an unpayable current account deficit. Our accounts of the Federal government have been strained to the limit, to try to win this election just over the past two years, and we no longer have the assets to cover it: We are about to go bankrupt.
We have a housing mortgage-securities bubble, through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other thingsand a worse situation in the United Kingdom. It's about to pop.
So, everything is about to collapse: This is far worse, in its potential than 1929-1933. What is going to hit George Bush, in the coming weeks, is that.
Now, this is dangerous: Because, the bankers out there, the ones who are behind this right-wing turn, the ones who put everything they could, into ensuring that Bush was elected in the United States, these guys want fascism. And their attitude is, "We'll sink everything, let everything go bankrupt. We'll own the joint. We'll put in dictatorship."
That's why I say, we are on the edge. We're not over the edge, yet, but we're on the edge, of losing our Republic.
STOCKWELL: Lyn, let me ask this questionwe're going to go to break in just a few seconds; let me ask this question, and maybe you can address it when you get back: With what you just said in mind, and how easily the German people, because of their desperate economic conditions, were lured into and finally trapped by fascism; and then you talked about the evangelicals in Ohio, not necessarily the fundamentalist variety, but those people caught up in desperate situations, especially the low guy on the financial totem poll, are the ones most easily seduced by fascist government design, when push comes to shove. Let's talk a little bit more about what might have to happen, in order for us to give up the rest of what liberty we have left. We'll be right back.... [break]
It is 30 minutes past the hour, you're listening to Jack Stockwell radio talk show program this morning. Lyndon LaRouche from Leesburg, Virginia, my guest for about another 30 minutes. Kind of, his take on what has happened as a result of Tuesday's election.
And then, the question I was asking you there, before the break Lyn, I think it's kind of more like: When you consider the lack of national outrage with the passage of the Patriot Act, with the further incursion of Homeland Security and FEMA into our private liberties, our God-given liberties, what's left, before they just finally step in and, say, blow the whistle: "Get out of the pool. Your former life is over with. Here is your new life as a good citizen of the state"?
LAROUCHE: Well, let me give you two pictures, because there are two pictures, not just one.
Now, what's happened to the American people, lower 80% of family-income brackets, as you look, 1977 to the present, what's happened is, as in the state of Ohio, which was once the most prosperous state in the Union, which has been transformed into one of the poorer ones. Now, in that state, all the people who were farmers, who were employed in industry, who've lost those jobs, they've lost the security, what's happened is, they've fled into the status of seeing themselves as a lost generation, as the forgotten people. Therefore, their attitude toward religion is, everything has failed them; nobody cares about them; maybe God cares about them. Or, maybe other thingsit may be witchcraft. You'll find all kinds of things going on there. It may be gambling. Look at gambling psychosis in states around the country. When communities are investing in gambling, "taking in each others' laundry" so to speak, and losing on it, this shows you a state, a mentality, which has been induced in a proud people of the United States, or in the lower 80%, largely, no longer a proud people. They can be cheaply bought, with a promise, or moneyeven a promise.
All right, now, that's our situation, and that's where the danger comes, now. That's why people voted for Bush. Because of that factor. And because the Democratic Party wouldn't tell them the truth. Or, did start to tell them the truth, too late.
Now, the positive side is this: Our Republic, which was created actually, by a process out of Europe, and which began to take shape in 1763, after the British became an empire with the Treaty of Paris in 1763, we were about to be crushed. And the best minds of Europe, as well as the people here, put everything possible into Benjamin Franklin's effort to prepare a republic. We formed one. But, then we were betrayed by the French Revolution, which turned Europe into a nightmareunder British direction, incidentally.
So, out of that, our Constitution, our Constitutional system, which is deeply embedded in our people as their cultureeven though it may not be obvious on the surface, is therethis nation is the only nation on this planet, which, faced with the threat of fascism, under a George W. Bush, is capable of resisting it. And therefore, my bet is to put everything I have into my confidence, in that cultural factor, in our Republic, in our people: We can, as Roosevelt did at a time when the world situation was hopeless for mankind, we can, once again, lead this world from this nation, into options which can deal with even these present problems. It's our only chance. And therefore, being an older man, and having nothing to worry about except the future of mankind, I bet everything on that.
STOCKWELL: Well, I don't hear a whole lot of statements of faith like that, about the ability of the American spirit to revive itself from many other sources, as I do hear from you. I've always heard that attitude and spirit from you, in the several years that I've personally known you, is your constant faith in the American spirit to get back on track and do what it needs to do.
Maybe you have more faith in that, than I do. I was born in '50. I came out of an education in the Washington, D.C. area, that was kind ofI think it was more after the old cult of Rome, in the sense, of "make hay while the getting's good, and if you do better than somebody else so much the better; and fortune favors a few, and don't worry about the rest." Rather than seeing something as an entire community, born of the same spirit, the same resilient spirit that came together under Roosevelt, and was able to defeat this horrible enemy in Europe, and then propel America on to become the strongest, greatest, most productive nation on the planet. I guess that momentum carried us into a period of insensibility, because the people of my generation laid around and enjoyed the benefits of the generation that created it for us [LaRouche chuckles], to the point where it's just like sand falling through our fingers.
You know, because of a better industry out here in Utah, we haven't been hit here in this state, like some states have. There's a lot of people out here hurting, and Geneva Steel's all closed up, and turning to rust. But we haven't been hurt like some states have been hurt. And so, I don't think that is as real, what's happening especially in northern and eastern Ohio, is not as real in Utah, as it is to people back there.
LAROUCHE: Yeah right. Well, the key problem we have, is the 30 to 50 age group. These are people who come immediately after the Baby-Boomer generation proper, who have lived in a world of unreality, which is more unreal than what the Baby-Boomers were exposed to over the past 40 years. They live in a withdrawal world. They live in a world of fantasy, media-oriented fantasy. You look at their entertainment habits, you look at their behavior; they're not in the real world.
Now therefore, you have people who arewe found in the election campaign process, that people over 50, especially over 60, would tend to vote against Bush, because they had a sense of reality. People between 30 and 50 predominantly, did not have a sense of reality. Then, a younger generation, under 29, which had a preference for Kerry as high as 65%, but is even stronger in the 18 to 25 age bracket, which I'm dealing with.
Now, these young guys, especially 18 to 25, but also the 18 to 29, these are young adults, not adolescents.
STOCKWELL: Yeah, let's hold on, hold that thought. We've got to go to a break just for a minute. We'll be back with my guest Lyndon LaRouche.... [break] My guest Lyndon LaRouche, only going to be on here for about 20 more minutes. I want you to go ahead and finish that last idea.
I have a couple of people who want to ask a question of you, as well, Lyn.
LAROUCHE: Okay!
STOCKWELL: And a greatyou were talking about that last group, the 18 to 26, and how they came back out in heavy support for Kerry. And I think you were trying to isolate that middle-age group, you know, 30s to 50s, that were definitely in support of Bush. Let's finish that idea, and then I have another good question here to ask, and a couple of people who are off the air.
LAROUCHE: Okay, good. Well, what I found is this: First of all, young people, about four years ago or five years ago, now, that polls indicated that the young adult generation, that's particularly the 18 to 25, sometimes higher, age group: They think as adults, not as adolescents. Their emotions are adult, not adolescent. For example, the suicide factor which is higher among adolescents; if people get through adolescence, they have a lesser suicide potential for their condition when they become young adults.
All right, now, these young adults recognize, and have recognized for the past four years or so, that their parents are crazy; their parents' generation is crazy: That they can no longer talk to these parents, because the parents are living in a withdrawal in fantasy-land. And therefore, the young people don't hate their parents, they just realize there's no sense talking to them, because there's no reality there.
The young people, however, see, estimate themselves as having 40 years of life yet before them, or maybe more perhaps, say, "We've got no future. We're in a society which has been given to us, which has no future in it."
Now, I've worked with these young guys, and I've demonstrated, in my limited way, with my limited resources, these guys are smarter in general, than the ones who are going to college. Because, we go through a program which is cognitive, not textbook. And they are smarter. They also are more optimistic.
Now, my building of a young movement around these kinds of ideas, internationally, as well as here in the United States, is to try to overcome the pessimism, which hits these young guys, if they're convinced, "Yes, there is no future, there is no option." As long as these guys think there is a future, they will not give up their optimism; they will fight for a future. They will also inspire the older generation, to join their ranks: That's our only chance.
STOCKWELL: That's what happened back in the '60s. Hold on a second here, and let me get another traffic update.... [break]
All right. Let me get this off-air call out of the way, first. A fellow called in wanting your opinion on what might the Federal Reserve demand of the United States government, in place of our default on those loans with the collapse of the dollar, should that occur?
LAROUCHE: Well, here we are, we're up against the situation. There's no way, in which that can happen, except by the installation of an absolute fascist government, in the United States. The minute that happened, you're under a fascist regime.
The alternative is, the fact is, the major banks are bankrupt. Therefore, the task is, of the government, is to put the banking system, as Roosevelt did, or the direction he went input it into bankruptcy, into receivership by government, to prevent the banks from folding, and to put the financial system under reorganization to protect the country against chaos.
This kind of thing that he's talking about, is actually panic-time. This is not 1933, this is panic-time. There is no bottom to this thing. You're going into a period of disintegration. You're may go into wars; certainly Cheney will try to go to wars. He's got some already in mind. They're somewhat restrained because they're trying to rescramble the government real fast, now.
But, the United States will not win any wars! The United States is losing the war in Iraq! And that's going to have to be admitted pretty soonlosing it to asymmetric warfare. We're going to lose every war we go into! We may destroy a lot of people, but we won't win any wars.
So therefore, in that kind of situation, we are at the fag end of the Roman Empire, before the Roman Empire actually started. And that's the situation.
So therefore, these kinds of things are possible: They mean the death of the nation, the death of civilization. But, because they are the death of civilization, you may find, in the United States in particular, even among Republicans and other institutions, you'll find resistance to destroying this Republic.
STOCKWELL: Yes. I put some faith and hope in that, myself.
Helen, my dear, you have a question for Mr. LaRouche?
CALLER: Yes, yes, I do. Let me say something to Mr. LaRouche. I supported you with many dollars, Mr. LaRouche, along with Dr. Stockwell. I want to say that this coming crisis, this economic crisis that's about to hit us, was unleashed by Richard Nixon, Aug. 15, 1971, when he broke the Bretton Woods agreement. Now, you said something today, that was terribly important: There will be no Mr. Roosevelt, to save you this time. That's just my point. They have vilified the name of Mr. Roosevelt in history, so that people today that I know are enlightened, who have not known him and what he did with this country, despise him. This man needs to have his reputation redeemed. And in doing so, if you would do it, they might see you in his light. And that would help tremendously, so we have someone to save us from these men. In a crisis, they will take everything from the people.
LAROUCHE: Well, Helen, I'm optimistic. I think it can be done. I'm trying to do it. I think the lever here, is the youth movement. You know, for example, when you getwe're going to do this webcast on Tuesday: And it will begin with a performance of Bach's motet Jesu meine Freude, done by a youth chorus, because I want to set the right tone. I want people, now, coming out of this crisis, to have an image of beauty, an image of what our civilization is. Not to start out by wallowing in the mess, the mire we're in now. You have to start up.
You know, the whole history of tragedy, the history of tragedy in drama: In ancient Greece, they started with tragedy, which showed how bad things could get, and they got worse. But also, Plato and others brought in the concept of what's called the Sublime: Do not start, from how bad things are, to try to win support for hating the badness, or for joining it. Start from the beauty, which is inherent in the nature of mankind. Appeal to the sense of beauty in mankind. And then say, "How can we apply this concept of beauty to the problem that threatens our beautiful mankind?"
That is the only way it works, and that is what I'm doing. It's the only thing that'll save this civilization.
STOCKWELL: Thanks for your call, Helen.
There were a couple of moments in the Kerry campaign, where I thought he was going to bring some real economic alert in what he had to say, when he referred to Roosevelt a couple of times, but I never heard it after that.
LAROUCHE: Well, what happened is this, essentially. You had, in the campaign you had a lot of good peopleas opposed to those who were out of the campaign. But, among the good people, you had people who had a big streak of pessimism. The issue is this, the leadership of the campaign, as merely typified by James Carville and Joel so forth, that crowd The leadership was for optimism, saying, "We have a problem in the country. The challenge is to fix the problem. The challenge is to show people how we can solve the problem. The challenge is to define the policy which the nation needs, whether the majority is for it, or not, at this moment. Stick to that."
Others would say, "Yes, well, we will have the right policy. We agree the policy is right. But, should we support the policy, if it goes against what the majority of people are feeling?" And the problem here, the weakness in the Democratic Party, through all these decades of decadencethey've given decadence its true meaningas a result of that, they no longer have a sense of policy. They have a sense of tactics, of short-term tactics; of how to get ahead, how to get by. They're like the guy who buys a house he can never pay for, and says, "But, I'll live in it this week anyway."
STOCKWELL: All right, we'll be right back with my guest, Mr. LaRouche in just a moment.... [break] Another off-air question, Lyn, and then I'll get a last question on the phone: I had Al Martin out of Florida on the show a couple of weeks ago, and in fact he's going to be on again next week, and he made the comment, that the Bush family already has in store, during this second term, efforts and attempts to pick up all the gold, again. Only a little different reason than Roosevelt did. So, and your feelings on that. And also, what do you see happening to the price of gold and silver during the next four years?
LAROUCHE: Well, you are now in a binge, on a world scale, there's nothing available on a large scale, for investment, except raw materials and related things. That's why you're seeing the plunge to get control of petroleum stocks, the plunge of various kinds of minerals. The effect on the gold price is obvious for this; the silver price will tend to follow.
So, people are going to flee into trying to create a physiocratic monopoly. You have four powers in the world: You have the United States; you have Western and Central Europe, including the United Kingdom; Russia; and China. China is the biggest bidder for raw materials, in northern Canada, in Brazil, now in Argentina, elsewhere. Russia is one of the large possessors of raw-materials potential. And the other part of the world is buying into raw-materials stocks all over the world.
So, what is happening, is, you're getting a shut-down of a productive economy, into an economy which could not support, perhaps a billion people on this planet, physically; into an economy, in which control over raw materials, an empire, imperial control over raw materials, is the name of the game.
So, I need gold, as a reserve currency, a reserve stock, in order to manage easily, an international monetary system, which we need, like the Bretton Woods system that we had from 1944 on. Others want the gold, as the British gold standard did, to get a control over the gold, internationally by a cartel, and to use that power over gold, as a monetary weapon to crush any part of the world, they want to crush.
STOCKWELL: By playing games with their currency?
LAROUCHE: Yeah. As they did with ours.
STOCKWELL: Okay, I gotcha. I gotcha. All right, let me squeeze in one last question. Bob, you have just about a minute for a question.
CALLER: Okay, I'm staring at the clock, knowing Helen's observation and a question.
Yes, Mr. LaRouche, good morning: I would like to say that talking about neo-cons and that sort of thing, I think you yourself might be a neo-con, and we'll get to the question, here, Jack, in just a second, at the end of the minute. [Lyn laughs] But, in any case, I would suggest that you are a born-again, or maybe a born-again sectarianbut whatever.
The question is this, we mentioned it before: John Maynard Keynes, a Marxist economist teaching at Harvard made the comment was that the quickest way to drop us into Marxism, was to debauch our currency, and I make the suggestion that your plan would do that; and also that your plan for the High Frontier protecting this country, is unilaterally disarming us, and that we're headed, considering the armaments of the Soviet Union remaining, we're headed toward a catastrophe, there.
LAROUCHE: Well, Bob, you're wrong on all counts. First, of all, John Maynard Keynes was not a socialist; he was a fascist. His most famous work, his General Theory, was published in Berlin in 1938, in German, with praise for the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. So, you miss it, on that.
On the other issues, you're missing the point: We are in a collapse of the system. This system is collapsing, nothing can prevent it from collapsing. The only thing that can happen, as Roosevelt indicated by his measures, in 1933: The power of the Constitution, and only the Constitution of the United States, gives our government the power to save us, and save our currency, in a way which other nations, if we did it, would follow. It's our only hope.
So, don't be such a pessimist. And don't buy into the buncombe. The neo-cons are all for your enemies, so, don't praise them.
STOCKWELL: The neo-cons are in there, controlling the White House in such a way, that they can use the power of the Presidency of the United States, to help better secure for the corporations that they represent, secretly or openly, to use the power of the United States, the armies of the United States, what financial power is left of the United States, to secure what they can possibly steal, that's left in the sense of raw materials from these defenseless countries.
LAROUCHE: I'll give you one historical parallel: In Germany, the character of the Nazi system was typified by the Goeringwerke, because the Hermann Goering, who was the bonzo of the Nazi regime and the agent of the bankers, began gobbling up industries and putting them into his firm, Goeringwerke. But: If you look at the paperwork, the Goeringwerke were actually owned by an international cartel, which was never touched, in the post-war period. It was the cartel that Truman knew all about. This cartel is the right wing. This cartel is here, today.
The Halliburton syndrome is a poor caricature of Hermann Goering. Cheney is a poor caricature of Hermann Goering, who works for George Shultz.
STOCKWELL: [laughs] Well, that about says it all. Lyn, we're out of time.
LAROUCHE: Okay! Have fun.
STOCKWELL: I deeply appreciate your comments as always. I have the greatest respect for you and your organization. You're welcome on this radio show any time.
LAROUCHE: Okay, thank you very much.
|