| |
|
|
Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche is interviewed by J. Conti of Bankindex.com (to contact J. send an email to . To view the original of this interview on the www.bankindex.com site, click here.
LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR. emerged, over the course of the 1970s and 1980s, to rank among the most controversial international political figures of his time. This controversy, which also features such related issues as his
efforts to destroy the international drug traffic and his initiating role in formulating what President Ronald Reagan announced on March 23, 1983 as the "Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)," is principally rooted in not only domestic U.S., but
also, global political-economic issues.
The recent, fresh demonstration of his exceptional qualifications as a long-range economic forecaster, has placed him at the center of the presently erupting, global systemic crisis of the world's economy. Thus, the relevant resume is that which helps to situate his career in terms of his actual and prospective role in dealing
with that present global crisis.
INTERVIEW
J. Conti: Mr. LaRouche, tell me why are you the one who can help this country? The critical thinkers are not buying into the two party system any more.
The current illusion presents our government at the apex; banking, industry, media and military, as separate entities, beneath; and the people beneath this. However, a basic independent examination of the history of the current power structure's development is more likely to reveal the following arrangement: extended family elite groups controlling seemingly separate fields of banking and industry at the apex; government beneath facilitating the wishes of this hierarchy; the military or police enforcing those wishes where necessary; the media beneath portraying the work of the government to the people as "democracy in action," and the people beneath this. Is this how things are supposed to be?
Lyndon LaRouche: As I have indicated in sundry locations, such as "Science & Infrastructure," the U.S.A. has entered the terminal phase of collapse of a political-economic system which has grown up as a fundamental change in U.S. and global cultural paradigms since the succession of the launching of the U.S.A.'s Indo-China War and President Nixon's August 15, 1971 scrapping of the post-war world monetary system.
During the recent thirty-eight years, the U.S. has been transformed from the world's leading producer society, into today's decadent consumer society. Successive, cumulatively sweeping changes in economy, law, and custom, were forcefully injected during the successive, 1969-1981 tenures of National Security Advisors Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, as complemented by the reigns, over the shaping of U.S. economic, social, and foreign policies, by Federal Reserve Chairmen Paul Volcker and his immediate successor Alan Greenspan. This was the same Volcker who, in concert with Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, induced President Richard Nixon's action of August 15, 1971. This succession of axiomatic-like changes from the policies and cultural paradigms of the preceding 1933-1964 interval, constitutes the entirety of the adult experience of those born after Dec. 7, 1941, and, in most instances, their adolescent experience, too. The systemic indoctrination of that so-called "Baby Boomer" generation, has been the most significant factor in promoting widespread acceptance of the self-destructive trends among those who have risen to positions of leading influence in governmental and other U.S. institutions during a period of more than a decade to date.
Under these economic and related ideological trends, there has been a continuing collapse of the standard of living of persons in the lower eighty percentile of family-income brackets, and a more recent collapse, since approximately Spring 2000, in the net-of-debt-calculated, relative welfare of households among the lower half of the upper twenty percentile. During the first half of 2023, the fact of an ongoing, growing, global monetary-financial crisis and economic collapse became evident to all those not seized by an hysterical state of wishful denial.
Since most of the leading positions in government and financial life have recently fallen, by attrition, into the hands of the "Baby Boomer" generation, the present situation has produced a multi-faceted social crisis within the population as a whole. The principal lines of division presently, are the difference in world-outlook among three age-groups: those born prior to 1941, the "Baby Boomers," and the "emerging adult" stratum centered in the age-group 18-25. The first group, sense themselves "The Abandoned People," and the latter the leading edge of a "No-Future Generation." The "Baby Boomers," in the main, are reacting to the crisis with hysterical attempts at denial, as the President, does, as the leadership of each of both major parties does, and as most of the Congress does, thus far.
The effect is, as if the Titanic were sinking and the Captain and his crew had locked down the increasingly restive passengers, our people, in the hold.
J. Conti: In your essays, you speak of the enormous debt burden of the people of the, a debt incurred by our "leaders" to be paid by the people to the private owners of the Federal Reserve, because that's what it boils down to. Do you agree with the current situation; that is to say, do you think it is acceptable that FOREIGNERS and INTERNATIONAL BANKERS own the FEDERAL RESERVE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
What are your thoughts on "Fractional Reserve Banking?"
Do you agree with thousands and soon-to-be millions of Americans that the Federal Reserve Act should be repealed, thereby returning the Federal Reserve back to the American Government?
Lyndon LaRouche: I elaborate the highlights of the matter in "Science & Infrastructure." The Federal Reserve System, which was introduced to the U.S.A. from London, by Cassell's New York agent Jacob Schiff, has been intended to function, increasingly, as a disguise for that European style in central banking which was introduced to the Netherlands and England as an Anglo-Dutch clone of the Venice model of a financier-controlled imperial maritime power.
Reforms within the axiomatic bounds of the present form of the Federal Reserve System are now only moot. The survival of the U.S. as a constitutional republic, now requires that the Federal Reserve System be put into bankruptcy reorganization, by the relevant agency, the Federal government. This emergency action, if successful, would produce a U.S. national bank, in fact, if not in name. Since there will be no survival of our republic in its present form, without aid of return to the principles implicit in the 1945-1964 phase of the original Bretton Woods system, a set of fixed parities among leading currencies, matched by a gold-reserve system priced at $800-1,000 per Troy ounce, or higher, would become the basis for a form of national-banking consistent with those explicit provisions the U.S. Constitution which the existence of the Federal Reserve System had always violated.
The actual inflation of the U.S. economy over the course of the recent forty years, can be estimated with crude but useful approximation, by comparing the ratio between incomes and content of essential elements of household existence, among the lower eighty percentiles of family-income brackets over the 1964-1966/1996-2002 interval: housing, household utilities, food, health-care, transportation. Looking similarly over the 1946-2002 interval as a whole, we have a basis for crude, but useful indications of what the fixed-exchange price of monetary-reserve gold should be today, to be at a level comparable to 1946-1957.
J. Conti: To what extent do you think the Council on Foreign Relations influences who the American people get to "choose" as a President?
Are any of the members or founders of the Council on Foreign Relations members of any banking dynasties? If so, how do you think this affects the true spirit of democracy?
Lyndon LaRouche: "CFR" was crafted from London, as a post-World War I concoction, intended to function as a club-like forum of both financial oligarchic families and their influential lackeys, for exerting concerted influence over government through press and political parties. It appeared during the 1920s, as a retooling of London-directed, Round Table-connected kindred groupings which had been dominant during the Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson period. This reflected the post-Versailles setting, as typified by the circumstances of the Coolidge Presidency and Andrew Mellon's reign. It was therefore a reflection of what was termed the "BAC: British-American-Canadian" collation of those financier/law-firm circles, which had been built up for the post-McKinley preparation for Edward VII's plan for what become known as World War I.
The sponsorship of E.H. Harriman's influence by the Jacob Schiff, who was the representative of Edward VII's banker, Sir Ernst Cassell, and the 1920s alliance of Harriman with London's Montague in backing Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany, are typical of the political complexion of the BAC prior to the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency.
For clear understanding of my knowledge on this matter, one must take into account the distinction between what I describe as a merely "ad hoc" conspiracy from a "systemic conspiracy."
Ordinarily, when the term "conspiracy" is employed among even our putatively educated strata, it references conscious participation in a scheme, or plot, usually involving intentional deception of other parties, even the population in general. By "systemic conspiracy," I signify the adoption of a set of assumptions as virtually axiomatic characteristics of the universe in general, society in general, or a particular society or social stratum within society. In the case of a systemic conspiracy, the participants may not think of those virtual axioms as having the character of willful assumptions; they represent a combination of both known and implied, interacting assumptions, which they have taken for granted as "our way of thinking."
As my wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has emphasized, in comparing the strategic policies of the current U.S. Bush administration to the plunge, under successive leadership by Pericles and Alcibiades, into that Peloponnesian war which produced the self-ruin of the "Golden Age" of Athens, the collapse of great powers, and often the cultures associated with them, occurs as the lawful outcome of a systemic conspiracy, within which numerous, relatively petty ad hoc conspiracies are rife, as in the government of the U.S.A. today. It is the systemic conspiracy, rather than merely the ad hoc plotting, which represents the principal, essential, willful element of causality in a self-induced collapse of a great power, such as the threatened, self-inflicted doom menacing the U.S.A. today.
Like the original, banker-led American Tory opposition to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, their intellectual heirs of today's "Baby Boomer" generation, constitute, predominantly, a systemic conspiracy, in the most precise, scientific significance of the term. CFR is a outlet for the expression of an organized form of the currently prevalent fads of that systemic conspiracy among those oligarchs, lackeys, and hangers-on socially accepted in the salons of ruling opinion today. It has the character of a "club," a forum used by figures from behind the scenes, for crafting proposed perceptions and policy-orientations which might serve for a time as a major-view of at least most of that social set.
The CFR's often reputed character as an "ad hoc" conspiracy, is often greatly exaggerated among so-called "conspiracy buffs." Yet, it is a reflection of a very real systemic conspiracy, that in the specific sense that its principal role continues to be that of a propaganda-instrumentality of that same tradition which is the hard-core American Tory tradition associated, since 1763, with Judge Lowell and bankers Aaron Burr, Albert Gallatin, and Martin van Buren. Today's evolved form of that tradition is symptomized by the babble heard from CFR and kindred orifices. Only the glassy-eyed, knee-jerk dupes of Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, would insist on the ritual babble, "I don't believe in conspiracy theories." It is, like the set of the brainwashed cult-followers of Adorno and Arendt, a systemic conspiracy.
J. Conti: Mr. LaRouche, you do realize that the overall effects of what Americans are "conditioned" to follow through the colossal propaganda machine of the elite equals to slavery and death? Are you willing to take these people on? Are you willing to face such a foe? If so, how do you propose that the "real" root of the evil that has infected this country be ousted? It's not the "corporations;" it's their owners who are responsible. What should be done with them?
Lyndon LaRouche: For the best historical insights into the origins of current U.S. practice of mass mind-control, compare Walter Lippman's doctrine for proposed use of mass-media for mind-control of "popular opinion" with the practices of such sundry precedents as the Babylonian Magicians, the Cult of Apollo, and the practices of the Roman Empire's doctrine of pantheistic mind-control over popular opinion (vox populi) through mechanisms such as "bread and circuses."
Insight into the common features of such mind-control practices is accessible through comparing study of the role of the ancient sophists with the modern, radical-positivist denial of the existence of truth by existentialists such as Nazi philosopher, and virulent anti-Semite Martin Heidegger, and by such of his philosophical co-thinkers and cronies as the Theodor Adorno, and Karl Jaspers follower Hannah Arendt. Notably, it was solely the Jewish credentials of Adorno and Arendt that prevented them, like professed fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky, from being admitted, like their crony Heidegger, into the Nazi Party. The ironies of the case of the latter pair, like Jabotinsky, typify the ironies which often present themselves, in comparing ad hoc conspiracy with its relevant basis in an underlying systemic conspiracy.
To gain an actually scientific understanding of such methods of mass mind-control, as practiced in the U.S.A., for example, today, one should look at the relevant phenomena from the standpoint of that branch of science known as epistemology. That means, to compare systems of thought from a standpoint of comparison afforded by the case of the set of definitions, axioms, and postulates of a Euclidean textbook geometry. Just as such a geometry excludes all theorems which are inconsistent with the axiomatic assumptions of such an "ivory tower" variety of textbook mathematics, so the often hidden definitions, axioms, and postulates of popular opinion control agreement among students and public debate. Control the axiomatic assumptions which a people believe, and control over their choices of decisions follows.
Thus, only a population which employs the Socratic method of Plato's dialogues, is equipped to discover, and thus remove the shackles of sophistry by which most of today's popular opinion is controlled. It is by the control over classroom, textbook, and mass entertainment forms such as our so-called "news" media, that today's reigning circles of sophistry usually control the minds of most of the population. Such methods of the practice of sophistry may not predetermine exactly what sundry sections of the population are misled to believe, but they do tend to control the range of choices from which those victims will select their seemingly willful response to ongoing experience.
Thus, it is usually the case, throughout known history, as today, that free and rational choices take over large portions of public opinion, only when severe, perceived, and usually painful crises bring generally accepted, long-conditioned axiomatic presumptions of popular opinion into question. For this reason, actual history is dominated by cycles of one, two, or more successive generations, until accumulated effects of reality generate the preconditions for a popular revolt of the mind against continued control by longstanding axiomatic sophistries.
If we compare the cases of Germany and the U.S.A. during 1932-1934, the crucial difference in the outcome of the 1929-1933 crisis for these respective nations, was the successful installation of Adolf Hitler in power, by Anglo-American financier circles represented by Montague Norman and his partner Averell Harriman, in London and Manhattan, and the election of Franklin Roosevelt in the U.S.A. Had the coup, as reported to the U.S. Congress by Gen. Smedley Butler succeeded, the London-Wall Street crowd which brought Hitler to power in Germany, would have succeeded, to similar effect, in the U.S.A.
In Germany, the failure of the German military leaders to act, to prevent President Hindenburg from replacing Chancellor Schleicher with Hitler, was decisive. The "Tonkin Gulf"-like, Nazi-orchestrated Reichstag fire did the rest. The U.S.A. Constitutional system, and the deeply-rooted anti-American Tory tradition of Benjamin Franklin, Lincoln, et al., produced the conditions under which a leader such a Franklin Roosevelt would be chosen in a time of crisis, whereas the German parliamentary system and the moral defects inhering in the monarchical system, were the chief voluntary features of Germany's life which, given the effects of Versailles, caused the crucial German institutions, especially the military, to fail to prevent the Hitler coup d'etat in a timely fashion.
We in the U.S.A. have inherited the world's best system of government, if we use its constitutional and related institutional features wisely. To bring that result about, we require that most lacking among today's generally acknowledged political leaders at the top in government and the political parties. We require at least one national leader who is sufficiently knowledgeable, and efficiently committed to truth, even at great personal risk, to perform now the kind of function which FDR provided in 1932-1933. For precisely that reason, I have taken, and maintained a knowledgeably risky personal commitment of opposition to the prankish impulses of the American Tory oligarchy, over the recent thirty-odd years.
J. Conti: Is globalization, the dynastic banker's dream, worth all the death and suffering we have seen for decades now? What's your take on the media and the fact they are owned for the most part by the banking families--who continue to seek more power, more control and ultimately presume to take total control of the entire planet?
Lyndon LaRouche: The problem with the question itself, it that its choice of language implies an ad-hoc conspiracy of all-knowing predators, rather than accepting the necessary understanding that this has been a systemic conspiracy. Any ad-hoc conspiratorial features actually involved have been incidental by-products of the essential, underlying systemic influences. "Bankers" is a misleading over-simplification of the actual problem. Today's leading bankers, in Europe and the U.S.A., for example, are a contemptibly pitiable set of ignorance-ridden wretches, once compared with real bankers, such as those typified by, for example, the Juergen Ponto of Germany's Dresdner Bank, or the Hermann Abs and Alfred Herrhausen of Deutsche Bank, or the former head of the Swiss National Bank. For the most part, today's leading bankers, insofar as I have actual knowledge of them, are as artful as the Dickens character, "the Artful Dodger," but of about the same degree of morality or competence respecting the ABCs of real economy. They know how to pick pockets, as recent corporate scandals attest, but have little regard for the consequences of their conduct for either the world, or economy as a whole. In future history, they will be looked upon with Rabelaisian contempt. Wise men today, will already view them so.
One must look at them, individual by individual, as we look at those leading specimens of organized crime, which have been successively transmogrified "from rackets, to riches, to respectability," as if they were a variety of slime-mold. The behavior of the slime is not essentially a matter of the will of the briefly recurring individuality, but a product of the genetic principle which defines a slime-mold as a sociological phenomenon. To understand today's specimens, one must proceed from the standpoint of socio-economical "genetics." We must recognize them as expressions of a systemic process.
As I have frequently elaborated these historical roots of both modern Anglo-Dutch and American Tory styles in finance, those traditions of finance are rooted in the Venetian system of financier-oligarchical, imperial maritime power, which emerged, as the late Seventeenth-Century successor to Byzantine imperial hegemony, over the interval of the rising and declining power of Venice, circa 800-1800 A.D. The emergence of the India Companies of William of Orange, in the Netherlands and England, assumed the form of a political system in which a head of state and his (or, her) privy council reigned in the interest of a financier oligarchy imitating that of Venice. In that respect, the Anglo-Dutch model of central banking echoing Venice, succeeded in subverting and crushing the Mazarin-Colbert model of economic development in France. The French Revolution and the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte, created a situation, consolidated at the post-Napoleon Congress of Vienna, from which the Anglo-Dutch parody of Venetian imperial maritime power emerged by 1848, as hegemonic, strategically, throughout Europe.
Thus, excepting such deviations as the Russian revolution of 1917 and the emergence, briefly, of France's Fifth Republic as it functioned, until the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, under de Gaulle, the political systems of Europe continued to be premised on the supremacy of the Venetian style in central-banking interest over the weak, parliamentary form of government. The only notable exception to this pattern was the case of the Constitutional form of Federal republic which Benjamin Franklin's personal leadership established in the U.S.A. Ours is today's only leading model of constitutional republic whose constitution is derived from the subsuming principle embodied in its Preamble, and free, inherently, from the evils of control over the state by a central banking system.
Here lies the intrinsic superiority of our constitutional system of self-government, on the condition that the systemic implications of Franklin's leading role in drafting the Declaration of Independence and 1787 draft Constitution, is recognized.
The systemic quality of perversion of U.S. banking practice, is typified by the overturning of the National Bank initiated by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and Martin van Buren stooge Andrew Jackson's shut down of the second U.S. National Bank, the latter done in aid of van Buren's treasonous land-bank swindle. Treasonous Aaron Burr, an agent of the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham, like Martin van Buren and August Belmont later, typify the treasonous character of their so-called American Tory allies. Today's trend in U.S. banking practices under Paul Volcker's and Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve System, is an increasingly degenerate expression of the long-term, recurring, destructive, American Tory influence superimposed over our political and economic system.
Now, truth be told, the leading banking systems of the U.S.A. are hopelessly bankrupt. The U.S. government must now save the essential functions of U.S. banks through emergency reorganization in bankruptcy, to ensure the continuity of functions essential to the institutions of Federal, state, and local government, to maintain and increase levels of employment, and to work our way back to sound economy, as was done under FDR. It is the systemic sickness in the banking system which must be uprooted.
Whether relevant bankers should be jailed, is a matter of secondary, even merely tertiary importance. The difficulty will be in finding suitable, even low-paid employment for cases of such manifestly outright or borderline insanity as these specimens today. Nonetheless, as Captain John Smith warned the wastrels, employment suited to their moral incapacitation must be found.
With the presently inevitable, early disintegration of the present IMF system, it will soon become clearer to all this side of lunacy, that that choice is between scrapping the Venetian monetarist model of central banking, or plunging the planet into a new dark age worse than that caused by the Fourteenth-Century collapse of the Venice-controlled Lombard banking system.
J. Conti: Do you think the media has been fair and honorable in reporting the truth to the American public about 911?
Speaking of 911, what's the word in your circle about who really did it? Nobody is buying the "official" story anyway.
As you know, the buzz on the Internet is not whether the government had "foreknowledge," but whether the government was "involved." What's your take on this extremely sensitive subject?
Lyndon LaRouche: As the attacks on New York's twin towers were ongoing, I addressed the live radio audience of that moment: "I hope some idiot is not going to blame Osama bin Laden for this." By the end of the day, those idiots had taken over. Exactly who did what, is not known by, or claimed by me, to the present day. "What did it?" is nonetheless clear. Since we know with certainty the role of Richard Perle, et al., in the July 1996 drafting of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "A Clean Break" doctrine, the answer "To what purpose?" is now clearest of all. It is known, that no honest evidence either has been supplied, or ever will be, in support of the Osama bin Laden allegation. Nonetheless, "Who did it?" has rightly been continued under serious consideration; it may be a long time before security wraps on such investigations are lifted.
In modern history, the detailed evidence concerning the authorship of plots such as that responsible for Sept. 11th has virtually never been documented to the point of certainty of truth. All we can be certain of showing is limited to three points of the investigation: 1.) What kind of relevant capability had a powerful relevant interest in the effect produced? 2.) What was the motive for a crime of this character and implications? Who benefited? 3.) How do we thwart the indicated purpose of such an attack?
Now, with the recent escalation of targeting of the entire Middle East for destruction, putatively in revenge for "9-11," the "9-11" attacks must be assessed as intended to impel an otherwise reluctant Bush administration into the state of perpetual warfare demanded, not only by the government of Israel and the "Vulcans," but by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, and, also, by both former British Arab Bureau official Bernard Lewis and his U.S. collaborators Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, and Henry A. Kissinger. We can not exclude, as if axiomatically, some Israeli complicity in "9-11" itself; putting aside McCain's and Lieberman's continuing links to notorious organized-crime "families," we know that the Israeli side of the currently rabid response to "9-11" expresses, chiefly, the present Israeli government's role as a nuclear-armed strategic hand grenade thrown against the Islamic world. The question is: who is throwing the hand grenade?
Putting all considerations together, one clear answer appears.
All of the components of the case reflect the "utopian" military-strategic policy set into motion in the run-up to the Democratic Party nominating convention of Summer 1944, which dumped Vice-President Wallace in favor of the American Tory right-wing's preferred Harry S. Truman. The U.S.'s post-Roosevelt, August 1945 dropping of two nuclear bombs on the civilian population of two cities of an already defeated Japan, shifted the world into the "utopian age" prescribed by the far-flung Anglo-American networks of H.G. Wells and "preventive nuclear warrior" Bertrand Russell. If one knows that Wells-Russell network, and its operations, in the detail I know it, there is no doubt of the ultimate, non-Jewish authorship of "9-11," just as in my certainty that Senators McCain and Lieberman, like the current, fascist regime in Israel, represent nothing but an expendable hand-grenade being deployed by a hand from behind the scenes.
There had to have been very high-level involvement from inside relevant circles of the U.S. official establishment; otherwise, the operation could not have been conducted as it was. So, we can know what the problem is, and how we must respond to it; anyone who might confess will almost certainly be dead before he could reveal anything.
J. Conti: How much of the debt this country "owes" do you think is actual profit for the owners of the Federal Reserve? Do you see a connection between these "owners" and the people behind the military industrial complex?
Lyndon LaRouche: For more than two thousand years of globally extended history of European civilization, Venice's financier oligarchy has been at the center of strategically crucial catastrophes such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, the expulsions of the Moors and Jews from Spain, the religious warfare of 1511-1648, and the Anglo-Dutch role behind the provocation of the wars of Louis XIV. Since the middle of the Eighteenth Century, especially since 1782, the American War of Independence has been the new development in European history most feared and hated by the neo-Venetian circles of the Anglo-Dutch philosophically liberal circles of rentier-financier power.
Three subsequent developments in U.S. history drove those Anglo-Dutch liberals, and their American Tory assets, into a frenzy.
A. The first was President Abraham Lincoln's victory, which prevented the combined forces of Palmerston's Britain, Napoleon III's France, the Spanish monarchy, and the extended Habsburg family generally, from succeeding in breaking up the U.S.A. into a balkanized collection of warring baronies. This Lincoln victory established the 1861-1876 U.S. as the world's leading agro-industrial economy. For that, the British and their accomplices are known to have assassinated Lincoln.
B. As Edward VII's plot for an Anglo-French-led World War I was under way, the timely assassination of U.S. President William McKinley brought the American Tory Vice-President Theodore Roosevelt and his family Confederacy roots into what TR renamed, triumphantly, "the White House," and after Taft, the Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson. U.S. alliances were shifted, from close friendship with Russia and Germany, to Britain. However, the U.S. emergence from World War I as a leading power, and challenge to Britain's global naval supremacy, made the U.S. as much feared as a potentially dominant world power as its support had been desired for the 1914-1917 war.
C. By 1944, it was clear that the U.S. would emerge from victory as the world's only great power. Although, without Roosevelt's U.S. leadership, Britain would have become Hitler's colony, Britain now feared that Roosevelt's fourth term, or Wallace as his successor, would mean the end of the Anglo-Dutch imperial power over the world at large.
So, as the 1939-1945 war drew to close, the utopian conception of warfare as a means to establish world government, took over with Roosevelt's death. From that time on, the Venetian oligarchical tradition, including its American Tory expression, moved to remove the axiomatic basis of the American patriotic tradition. With Eisenhower's retirement from office, the assassination of President Kennedy, and the launching of the Indo-China war, the utopian ideas set into motion around the circles of H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, moved to capture ideological control over that emerging, new, adult generation we have come to know as the "Baby Boomer" generation. The "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture" spearheaded by Russell's and Wells' protege Aldous "LSD" Huxley, combined with the 1964-1972 Indo-China war, virtually uprooted the American patriotic tradition from the leading, university-educated, political cutting-edge of that generation.
Yes, there is a connection. Not a simple connection, but one developed as an orchestrated, long-wave cultural paradigm-shift: a long- wave shift in the systemic characteristics of general social behavior, including political behavior, into an orchestrated intellectual and moral decadence echoing that of ancient imperial Rome.
J. Conti: In closing, Mr. LaRouche, what would you like to tell our readers?
Lyndon LaRouche: With the first step toward implementation of a transcontinental rail link from Pusan, Korea, to Rotterdam, and with the support of these and related efforts by Japan, China, India, and others, we are presented with an alternative to the global lunacy of the "Vulcans" and their supporters. The alternative is a world defined as a community of principle among sovereign nation-state republics. The bridging of that gap in the rail-link, could become recognized as the pathway to resumed economic growth, out of the morass of the presently onrushing, global monetary-financial collapse.
J. Conti: Thank you very much Mr. LaRouche, it has been a great pleasure!
- 30 -
Top
|