|
To Listen To An Archive Of This Show, Click Here. To send a link to this document to a friend
|
|||||
|
LaRouche was the guest on the August 24, 2023 edition of EIR's "The LaRouche Show" with host Michelle Steinberg. Steinberg: This is Michele Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, speaking to you today from "The LaRouche Show," the weekly webcast brought to you every Saturday from 3 to 4 pm, Eastern Time, at www.larouchepub.com. Today is August 24, and you're listening to a live webcast dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche, the American Presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2004. I'd like to welcome Lyn to the webcast. In the past week, Mr. LaRouche has spoken before the Institute for Sino Strategic Studies in California. He addressed a seminar in Guadalajara, Mexico, on the questions of economics, and the unfolding strategic crisis. He addressed a cadre school of some 100 leaders of the National Youth Movement of the LaRouche movement. And as we're here speaking today, across the United States, political circles are being shaken up: 5 million copies of the leaflet called "The Electable LaRouche," are hitting the streets. So, let's immediately get to the point. Mr. LaRouche, what are you up to now? LaRouche: All right. After Labor Day, we shall release a new phase of the campaign. This phase will be in response to the utter failure of President Bush to deal with the reality in the so-called Waco Conference, in which he attended briefly, on about four times, I understand. At the time that he was speaking in Waco, we had two crises developing, which are of immediate significance, and require immediate action by him, and by other elements of our government. First of all, we are losing our rail system, the last vestige of it. We are also in the process of crippling, and virtually destroying, our air traffic system. Now, if we understand the effect of this, that if you continue this process, you have the following things to consider. The breakdown in the economy, the private economy of the air traffic system, means that we must shift from the less economical routes, which are the short-term routes, to concentrate only on the longer-term routes, which are essential air travel. Short-term routes are not essential for air travel. Quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, sometimes you have high-speed rail, say, between New York City, Pennsylvania Station, and Washington station, you could probably make the distance with high-speed rail in a shorter time in a shorter time than you could make it by using air. So, it obviously is foolish to rely upon air travel, between New York, and Washington, D.C. when you should have rail travel. Now. Also, more strategically, to get rail traffic, and to eliminate these kinds of problems with air travel, we would have to restore a true, interconnected, transcontinental rail system, which means you could get to every principal center in the United States -- whether freight, or passenger -- conveniently and efficiently, by rail. This, of course, means improvements in rail, over what we had before. But now we don't even have what we had before. The track is old. It's last century vintage, early last century, probably 1926, approximately, with some slight repairs in some cases, in between. If this were to occur, if you have a continued breakdown of the rail system, away from the idea of a transcontinental, interconnected system; if you have an accompanying crisis in air travel, then the United States ceases to be an integrated nation. What are you going to do? Drive by Tin Lizzy, from the East Coast to the West Coast. The United States is no longer efficiently connected. It is no longer a unified, efficient national economy. So, therefore, these areas are one of the first areas the President must act upon, in a Franklin Roosevelt fashion. First of all, for government intervention and regulation, to defend, and improve, the national rail system, as a high-priority investment project. Number two, we must save the air traffic system. Both of these are essential parts of our national economic security. So he must do that. He should forget the nonsense that was babbled out at Waco, and similar locations, and get down to business. And the Congress must be pushed into doing this. But it must be done now. Otherwise, no nation. This has to be made a key issue of the coming elections, the November elections. It should be clear by election time, for these state, senate, and so forth elections, that anyone who is not pushing for infrastructure, is not working in the national interest. Therefore, we have to have a weeding-out of those members of Congress, who, among their other faults, are not pushing for immediate restoration of rail service, and defense of air traffic. Now, that's only the beginning, but those are two areas, integrated areas, on which the President must act immediately, now! And the testing time is the November election. Nobody should vote for anybody who is not for this. Otherwise they're being silly. Now, that opens up a larger area. We are now in the greatest depression in more than 200 years, right? This means that we either have to make some fundamental changes, away from the policies of the past 35 odd years, back to the policies of Roosevelt, and the policies of the post-Roosevelt period, from 1946 through 1964. We have to go back to that kind of economic system, now! Which means a regulated system, end privatization, end deregulation, end the funny monetary policies, all these things -- get back to things that worked before, and do it immediately! The area in which we can employ people -- because we have many people who do not have the skills they had 35 years ago, the population had -- therefore they are unemployable for many high-grade jobs. The way we handled it with Roosevelt, the way we have to handle it now, we have to take areas of primary need, primary national need, in infrastructure, where people with poorer skill levels, can be efficiently employed in work which would be of national importance, and national economic significance. That work, which is in the area of infrastructure, will create the basis for the expansion of the private sector: in agriculture and industry. We must have policies with that goal. Now this covers several areas, which should be the basic policy of the United States for the coming 2 years, and longer, up to the run-up to the 2023 election. First of all, a national infrastructure policy. Air travel and rail represent aspects of the transportation sector of basic economic infrastructure, which is largely government-funded, government-controlled, government-regulated. You can have private sector in there, but they are regulated, the way we used to do it. So, air and rail are one of these areas. In transportation, we also have ports. We also have power and water, which are other areas of physical infrastructure which are necessary. We must end deregulation of power. We must have a policy of national support for a system of state-regulated utility systems, of utilities which have long-term investment with government backing, and regulation, for the generation and distribution of essential power. We must have a water system, which is not only to supply our water needs, for human and related consumption; We must have a water inland tranport system, like the Mississippi River, other rivers, the cheapest way of moving freight, which is of low value per ton, and therefore is not high priority in terms of time of delivery. We depend upon that for grain, for ores, things of that sort. Inland waterways are ideal for that purpose, much more efficient than rail for that purpose. For sensitive high-value freight, rails are indispensable. For the highest sensitivity, yes, we required international, and national, air travel. In addition to that, we have soft infrastructure. Public health. We have destroyed public health since 1973, the HMO. We no longer have a public health system. We are now faced with the increment of diseases, caused by economic conditions, caused by other conditions. We are not equipped with disease, epidemic disease. Therefore, we must rebuild the health care system now. Forget this HMO, repeal HMO, go back to Hill-Burton. That worked; HMO does not work. Education. Today, in universities, the price of tuition is in inverse proportion to the value of the education delivered. This is a scandal. Look at what's taught in universities. Frankly, it's garbage, and the students know it. They deeply resent. Many of these students who are more intelligent, or that student area, realize that they have to go outside the university to get a competent education. The case, as I've been emphasizing, the importance of Gauss' fundamental theorem of algebra, as presented in 1799, for the first time; to understand this is ABC of education. And I guarantee you that most college graduates today, have no comprehension of the actual significance of that 1799 discovery, on which the fundamentals of 19th century scientific achievement were based. So we need a revolution in education. Get away from the Howdy-Doody education. Get back to real teachers. Miss Marple is not our ideal for the educational system. And these are areas of national priority, which the strength of our population, the maintenance of our economic potential in general, depend. My campaign, for this period, will be a massive campaign, on a larger scale than the recent campaign of the past month; go up immediately after Labor Day, and it will continue, with the target being the immediate November elections. To begin the weed out the chaff. To get rid of those politicians, as much as possible, who will not support urgent infrastructure rebuilding measures. To go on from that, to deal with the larger issues. Steinberg: Lyn, you hit on so many things that are on people's minds. I already have half a dozen e-mails touching on some of the questions. But I'm going to take the prerogative to ask a question myself. At the same as we're going to the countdown of November, most of the world is worrying about the wacko Texas summit, from the standpoint of, are we going to be in a war by then? LaRouche: It's a race. It's a race. We're now, as of Friday, and what happened on the markets on Friday, are a reflection of the fact that the Plunge Protection Committee, and similar kinds of people, are beyond the point that they can continue to control the appearance of the market, the financial markets. The market is disintegrating. This has been going on at an accelerating rate over the past two months. September is going to be horror show, on the international financial markets. It's going to be a horror show for bankruptcies throughout the United States. We're looking at mass layoffs, with no return from them in sight, no recovery in sight. And therefore, that's the big pressure. Also, as a result of that, the United States does not have the economic basis for conducting a sustained war in the Middle East. It doesn't have it! Now, you've got people like former General Scowcroft, and others -- I commend them. They've stated what they should say. This idea of Richard Perle, and similar idiots, this is dangerous. This is lunacy. We cannot have Ariel Sharon, an accredited fascist, who's murdering people all over the Middle East, run U.S. foreign policy! Nor can we have his stooges in the United States, such as Perle and company, and this mole, Murawiec, running our national policy. We can't have it! We've got to have a sensible national security policy. And it's got to take into account our capability, and our national economic security, first of all. Now, we went through World War II. We were not the best fighters in the world. We didn't have the training. We scraped people off the streets, and farms, and gutters, and we put them into camps for 16 weeks of basic training, and we shipped them out with little more training, to become soldiers. They were not the best. Believe me, I know. All right. But we won the war. Why did we win the war? Because we had the most powerful logistical machine in the world, which Roosevelt built up, during the period from 1933, through the course of the war. We were the only power on this planet at the end of the war. This was based largely upon logistics, intelligent use of logistics, not killing. MacArthur was not a killer. He never fought a battle he didn't have to fight. But he won the war. And our policy on national security on every front, is to achieve peace. You do not bring peace by war, by killing. You try to bring the conditions under which willingness to develop peace occurs. So, the choice is now. Economics says we cannot launch a war, without incurring a national disaster we can't control. We are in a position where we can launch a war, but we can't win it. We can do terrible damage, but we can't win it. This is insanity, strategic insanity! And you have a bunch of these civilians over there, who think they're cowboys, or Indians, or something, who want to go on the warpath. They're totally incompetent. They should be kicked out of government! They're a danger. They're a menace to public health. So, the issue now is, is the President so brainwashed, that he's determined to go ahead with a war on Iraq, despite all the warnings, simply because his ego, and the fact he's a very shallow thinker -- or, are we going to have the sense to cut this nonsense out? And the economic issue, the financial crisis, against the war issue, is key. Steinberg: Okay. We have a lot of calls coming in. I'd like to welcome some people who are listening to this webcast. First of all, our guest is Lyndon LaRouche, presidential candidate for the Democratic Party nomination in 2004, and the most electable candidate in the Democratic Party. He's launching a national infrastructure mobilization now, especially after the international conference of the Schiller Institute on Labor Day, which he will be participating in. And he's outlined the economic crisis that is driving the world to war. Tune in to www.larouchepub.com for LaRouche's writings for a number of the issues he's addressed. In a moment, we're going to be going to our conference line, where, I understand, we have about 100 people, organizers in the LaRouche movement, listening to this webcast, and waiting with questions. But first, I want to a question from Africa. Lyn, what I have here, is, one of the questions that you've received in writing, because one of the most exciting things about your campaign is the website at LaRouche in 2004, particularly the "ask LaRouche" section. And, as I understand it, every week, dozens, sometimes hundreds, of questions come in to you, from the heart, where people really want to know how to get out of this crisis. This one comes from Africa, and I think it gives our listeners and our movement, an idea of how important your campaign is. This writer says, she's from Nigeria, I believe, and she says: "May I request that we establish a constant and consistent communication, because I will always need your advice and moral support toward realizing my ambition of being a renowned economist, like you? I'm in the first year in the university. I strongly believe that one day, I will have the opportunity to meet with you, and even work together with you, because you are one of my role models." Earlier, she talks about the conference "Peace through development in Africa's Great Lakes Region," and I think it's very similar to what you mentioned, that the nation state, of the United States, needs this infrastructure, this transcontinental railroad. Now, how's your Presidency going to affect the rest of the world, in that sense? LaRouche: Well, first of all, we have to start with two areas: the Americas, as such. Because the security, including the economic security, of sovereign states of the Americas, is the rock hard core of the national security, in all respects, economic and others. In other words, the stability and welfare of Mexico, Central America, Cuba included, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and South American nations -- these nations are essential, their security is essential, to the United States. As John Quincy Adams first articulated this concept. That's the first, rock bottom. We must restore our relationship, along the lines of Franklin Roosevelt, and the intention of Kennedy, had he lived; we must restore that now. And we must correct the errors that we have made, especially over the past 30 years, in this area. We've got to eliminate the floating exchange rate monetary system, go back to a fixed exchange rate monetary system, with a gold reserve basis, like that we had before. Now, gold will then be priced today at about $800 to $1000 an ounce! But that's all right. We need reserve system, which enables us to have a fixed exchange rate. Without that, we cannot solve the problem of long-term investment in South and Central America, rebuilding imperilled nations of South and Central America. Now, the next place you turn to is Eurasia. Eurasia has two characteristics. You have on the one side, you have the most densely populated, or heavily populated, nations of the world, India and China. You have in addition Southeast Asia, you have Central Asia, North Asia, and West Asia. These areas are underdeveloped, some in the extreme -- like Central Asia and North Asia, which are part of Russia, part of Kazakhstan and so forth. These areas contain, however, natural resources, large natural resource, these undeveloped areas, as the African shield does. The African shield is next to that. South America is crucial; it has these same kinds of natural resources, for development of the future of humanity. All right. Now, what we have to do is find a way to deal with the potential of Europe, which depends upon exports. The natural export market for Europe, potentially, including Russia, is South and East Asia. So therefore, with cooperation with Japan, which we hope would change its policy accordingly, we would have a policy of moving high-technology, from centers of high-technology, such as Western Europe, Russia, Japan, India, and so forth -- they have that also there -- into areas which are deficient in terms of their technology, in order to transform backward areas and low-productivity, into high-productivity and developed areas. And also to be able to develop, and utilize, the vast stores of natural resources which exist in these undeveloped areas. If we do that, we then have a general recovery in the Americas, and in Eurasia. If we do that, then we can solve the problem of Africa. Because Africa cannot afford anything. Africa has been looted too long, by the English-speaking nations, in particular, and therefore, Africa must have a leg-up, which means that the nations which can afford it, must contribute to Africa the basis for developing a national, or continental, basic economic infrastructural system, especially in mass transport, in water power, development of water resources, power, similar kinds of things. And a public health system, which can deal with disease problems in Africa. And then, give them a start, by their participation in these kinds of programs, which we should support -- Europe, Eurasia, we in the United States -- this will give them the basis for conquering the problems of Africa themselves, and thus achieving their true independence and sovereignty. Steinberg: Thank you, Lyn. Okay, we're going to go our conference line. Are we ready with that question? Question: Mr. LaRouche, if you were elected, would you regulate the price of oil, or other commodities, or would you leave it up to OPEC? And what about protective tariffs on foreign oil? LaRouche: I think that there are certain natural resources which are so essential universally, that a fair price ought to be established, not quite as tightly as we establish for gold, but a fair price level which we can agree upon, which the exporting nations, and the importing nations, can agree upon, which is equitable to the exporting nations. Under those conditions, it's not the price itself that counts, it's the stability of the price, and the kind of credit system we have. But yes, I would say, certain natural resources, which are essential to all humanity, which are abundant in some parts of the world, and not in others, as a part of a new monetary system, a new financial system, we should reach agreements, parity agreements, on price ranges for these kinds of natural resources, of which petroleum is one. Steinberg: Lyn, you said some pretty controversial things in your opening remarks, one of which is, get rid of those people in the Congress that are a threat to this infrastructure. And for people who can see this, this is third edition of a pamphlet, an EIR pamphlet, "LaRouche Says, To Save the Republic, Stop McCain and Lieberman." Well, this pertains to the Iraq war, but, as we're looking into this, it also pertains to organized crime, and the destruction of the U.S. economy with privatization, which is complete thievery. Just recently, McCain, I'm told by our economics desk director, Marcia Baker, that McCain has called for privatizing Amtrak, let it go, shut it down, sell it off. The last railroad in the United States. At the same time, you have an epidemic -- it looks like an epidemic -- is shaping up, of the West Nile fever from mosquitoes, all preventable. How are we going to get peopl -- well, McCain, I don't think is running this time, but what do you mean by getting these people out of office? LaRouche: Well, first of all, McCain and Lieberman are of special significance. Not only are they owned, lock, stock and barrel, by people such as Michael Steinhardt -- Michael Steinhardt, who represents those families which went from, as they described it themselves, "from racketeering, to riches, to respectability." This is called the "Mega group" in New York, which pretty much runs the United States, and controls people like Richard Perle, and similar scoundrels. Well, these gangsters -- and they still have gangster practices, like the Emprise operation, in Arizona, which was set up by organized crime, as we have defined organized crime -- not an allegation, this is organized crime. This is Meyer Lansky, this is the Bronfmans. It's organized crime. McCain is owned by organized crime. That is, his wealth came from marrying into an organized crime connection. Lieberman. Lieberman was elected with a real collection. You have this pseudo-Catholic, this Buckley, who, together with organized crime from Cuba, sitting in Florida, put him, the unlikely candidate, into the Congress in 1988, in the Senate. They're all tied into speculation against Indians. They all look at the Indian reservations as technicalities, with special tax privileges, and they've used these for organized crime takeovers, of these areas, for organized gambling, and other purposes. Arizona is virtually controlled, by interests which are tied into this speculation against Indian lands, which spills over into Nevada--into Las Vegas. Connecticut: you have Indian tribes which don't exist, which are now running these kinds of gambling syndicates, with the actual blessing of Lieberman--who says, on the one hand, “I don't think about that”; but he supports it. He receives his money from it. Now, the key connection to all of these things, is Michael Steinhardt. I created quite a ruckus in this country in 1976 and 1980, with two campaigns against Carter. One was in 1976, when I warned what Carter was going to be; not because of Carter, but because of Zbigniew Brzezinski, and other people who controlled Carter. Again, in 1979-80, I warned of the effects of continuing the Carter policies, of deregulation, ruining the farms, and so forth. And I was right. Steinberg: The Volcker interest rates. LaRouche: Exactly, that was part of it. So, at that point, Michael Steinhardt, from an organized crime pedigree--his father was a fence; not the kind you paint, but the other kind--he set up the Democratic Leadership Council. Now the Democratic Leadership Council was set up in order to prevent my continuing inroads into the nomination for the Presidency for the Democratic Party. Because I was recognized, in 1980, as such a threat, and they had to go to such extraordinary measures, to keep me from getting 25% or 30% of the New Hampshire primary vote, which would have put me on the scales. So they had been trying to get rid of me--organized crime. So then you come to this question of the war in the Middle East. What are the forces behind the war in the Middle East? Who is going to war with Iraq? Well, the same people! Who are the leaders? Wolfowitz, McCain, Lieberman, Perle. These thugs--all tied to what is known as organized crime, the “Mega” group, which controls much of the Democratic Party policy, as well as its influence on the Republicans. If we don't want war, we want recovery, we want freedom--get the gangsters out of government! Get these two out, and you win. Steinberg: You are listening to the LaRouche show ... Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, who is, as usual, busting axioms. (ID show). Mr. LaRouche has just told us about Lieberman and McCain, two candidates who are backed by organized crime. This story is documented in EIR.... 1-888-347-3258. We have about 100 organizers on the phone with us, and I see that we got a call from Lagos, Nigeria. So we know that this call is being listened to from around the world. Right now, we have Kenny, from Minnesota.... Kenny: Mr. LaRouche, what do you suppose the Russian response is going to be, if we tangle with Iraq? LaRouche: Well, the Russians and the Chinese, and the Europeans, and others are going to distance themselves from the United States greatly, as long as this policy continues. You have to look at the overall reality, not just the Russian reaction. In England, there is a likelihood that Blair is going to be overturned as Prime Minister unless he drops the Iraq policy. We have, on the Continent of Europe: Germany has announced that it will not support a war against Iraq under these conditions; Italy is of a similar disposition; France is probably of a similar disposition; Russia's attitude is not different, essentially, from that of most of Western Europe. The United States is virtually without allies, except for Sharon's Israel, on the Iraq war, throughout the world. So what is going to happen, if the United States decides to go to war with Iraq: the United States is going to find itself in serious trouble, isolated from the world politically, strategically, and with the greatest financial collapse in U.S. history coming down upon it. Don't underestimate what is going to happen in the coming month, September. What is already happening now. This system is in a terminal phase of collapse. What we face is a crisis worse than that of the 1929-32 period. So this is going to be a decisive factor. If the United States goes to war, it will lose the war, not necessarily at the first blow, but in terms of the unfolding of the consequences. Steinberg: I'm going to read the summary of the question of Victor, in Lagos, Nigeria. He called in as you were talking about the situation in Africa. “Why is the State Dept. castigating Nigeria? Is it OPEC-related? How is Nigeria being affected?” LaRouche: Well, first of all, Nigeria is significant, as it is traditionally the most influential nation in sub-Saharan Africa. Therefore, if you are going to destroy sub-Saharan Africa, you have to destroy Nigeria. And Nigeria, since the 1960s, has been, repeatedly, a target of these kinds of operations, especially over the course of the 1970s coups and so forth; one thing after the other. Nigeria was, by massive effort from London in particular, through corruption, prevented from developing its oil resources in a rational war. And it became a money operation, controlled by, primarily, British petroleum interests. But it's part of an Africa which is being looted. Africa is being destroyed. Look, the population of Africa--the view of the United States and Britain toward Africa, and clearly [that of] the United States, since Kissinger was the National Security Adviser--as attested by National Security Study Memorandum 200, issued in 1974--Kissinger argues that the natural resources of the world are intrinsically the property of the English-speaking financial powers. Therefore, the people of these countries must not be allowed to increase their population, must not be allowed to exploit technology or natural resources, because they will be using up natural resources which the English-speaking financial interests require for the future. Therefore, the population of Africa must be lowered; the sovereignty of the countries must be destroyed; and you see what's happening now. You have mercenary gangs of ex-soldiers, by ex-intelligence services, deployed--usually English-speaking, but some others--all over Africa, seizing (like Barrick Gold, in Congo) areas of resources, turning the adjoining areas into a wilderness of death, as is being done in the Great Lakes Area. And this is the destiny of Africa under present policy. An intentional destruction of all of Africa. A similar policy is now aimed at all of Central and South America--including Mexico. That's the policy of Kissinger and company. That's a policy which has been carried out by the U.S. government, together with the British government, and with Israeli and other participation, since Kissinger and Brzezinski. That policy has been ongoing. It has never been stopped. And that's what the problem is. If we can stop that, and can re-establish the principle of the sovereignty of the nation-state, then Nigeria could develop. Nigeria has the potential. It needs some assistance now, after the damage that has been done to it. But it can develop. Look, for example, at just one thing: water. We have a tremendous amount of water in Congo, in the basin of the Congo River. We have an immense water shortage in Chad, in the region of Lake Chad. We have large water resources, which are poorly developed and managed, in West Africa. If we develop a transportation system, as the French proposed back in the 1870s, from Djibouti to Dakar, a rail-based system; if we accompany that with power lines, and water management; we can transform lots of Africa into a development area. Chad, of course, is a good example of a nation which is in terrible condition, but which does have potential under those conditions. So therefore, if we have these kinds of policies, development policies; if we get rid of this evil which is merely typified by Kissinger, by Brzezinski, those sorts of people; then, Africa will have a chance. We, in the United States, and in Europe, must support Africa in that. Northern Africa, as well as sub-Saharan Africa. We must give Africa justice, and its freedom at last. Steinberg: In that regard, it seems like the State Department, this past week... [tape turn here]. ...comes from the ‘Feith and Bum Corps' that we were talking about. That's the Defense Policy Board, for those who have not yet read the EIR. It looks like they have joined in the campaign to kick President Mugabe out of office in Zimbabwe. LaRouche: Well the philosophy of many--not only of these clowns--in the United States, is that of--well, organized crime had a lawyer in Arizona. He's now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He has a crony who came out of the Justice Department, who's a little slyer than the Chief Justice--Antonin Scalia. And he is a real bum. He believes in what is called “shareholder value.” And that means that you have no rights. That property owners have all the rights. And their decisions show that. These are the kinds of problems we face in this area. And unless we can overcome these kinds of problems, we don't have much chance. Steinberg: I think we have another question, from Carlos in Los Angeles, on our organizers' conference line. Carlos: [I think it is clear that we]...live in a dark age. How do you change yourself, to not just stop for a while, with something that keeps you blocked or out of commission; but how do you keep changing yourself, and other people? [very rough, phone connection breaking up]. LaRouche: First of all, this is almost a religious question; but it's more than a religious question; it's also a question of Constitutional law, as the Preamble to the Constitution defines Constitutional law. What is man? Is man an animal? Or is man something special? The difference is, that no animal is capable of willfully increasing its species' potential relative population density. That is: if mankind had been an ape, with the qualities of an animal, the human population would never have exceeded--under the conditions of the past 2 million years--several million individuals. Today we have over 5 billion, going on to 6 billion human beings. This is entirely the result of special powers of the human being, to discover, transmit, and apply the discovery of universal physical principles, by which we increase our power to master nature. Now, the other aspect of that is, that we not only discover things, as individuals; but we are able to transmit the experience of discovery from one generation to the next, and throughout the contemporary population. Therefore, we as human beings have a peculiar kind of immortality, even from the standpoint of the scientists. Our ability to discover universal principles--like gravitation, for example, discovered by Kepler originally, as reported in 1609--this discovery can be transmitted, as a re-experience, to successive generations. By the transmission of culture, of such discoveries in science or Classical art, from one generation to another, the human species, and society generally, is able to improve itself. And thus we live as a part of a process of self-improvement of the human species; or, potentially that, if we continue at it. And in point of fact, we've made a great deal of progress, despite all the mistakes, and terrible governments we've had. So you are a part of humanity. You're a part of the past, and you're part of the future. No animal is consciously a part of the past or the future of its species, or life in general. Only man is that. Therefore, corruption consists, in my view, essentially, of ignoring that fact. As Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teach, man is made in the image of the Creator of the universe, and is empowered and able to increase his control in that universe. That is morality. That is truth. That is beauty. If we have those ideas, then we shall not be corrupt. It's the lack of those ideas, which is the root of corruption. And it's the lack of those ideas in the present educational system, in the present culture, in the present entertainment culture as well as the present educational programs at universities, which is the essential source of the corruption which is pervading the United States. Steinberg: You are listening to the electable Lyndon LaRouche, Presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2004. I'm Michele Steinberg with EIR, on “The LaRouche Show,” Aug. 24, Saturday. Lyn, what you just said about this question of identity: I'll just tell the listeners, some 29 years ago, you wrote a piece called Beyond Psychoanalysis, and I was at one of the opening lectures at which you discussed Percy Bysshe Shelley's In Defense of Poetry, and the question of when our human minds reach the point that they can absorb profound ideas. Another question like that of Carlos, comes from Dave, a national center contact. He had asked you a question some time ago, about the “no future generation.” And he sent a follow up question. “It would seem that to the degree that one succeeds, in thought, speech, and action, towards the general welfare, one cannot avoid becoming a gadfly in the marketplace. Does it become necessary to become a gadfly? How does one survive and triumph as a gadfly, against great and small forces that misunderstand, harass, discredit, and even arrest? How does one survive and triumph as a gadfly, against the impulses to draw back from that? LaRouche: You don't try to get the idea of an individual superman. There is no model for an individual superman. In reality, achievement and power lies not in oneself. It emanates from a power within us; the power to discover universal scientific principles, universal physical principles. That's a power that no animal has. That's a distinction of man from the animal. A Classical artistic composition, as distinct from other forms of art, is an example of the same thing. But you don't achieve that as an isolated individual, as a gadfly. You achieve that as Leonardo da Vinci did: by discovering a principle--of painting, of plastic arts, and revolutionizing plastic arts. Now, how do we know Leonardo da Vinci? Because he was a gadfly? No, he was no gadfly! He left an imprint upon society which is integral to all decent European culture to this day. So it is our relationship to a social process, based on those kinds of ideas, which make us powerful. For example, as I'm sure the caller recognizes, when I was asked a question a couple of years ago, about “How can young people today get an education, since universities, which they pay for education, don't give one?” They give junk. They give them training courses in professions that are about to go extinct, like the telecom industry. And I said, “Take Gauss.” Take Gauss' 1799 Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, which contains within it, if you understand it--in that 1799 version--the essential distinction between at-the-blackboard mathematics, which is for dummies, and real science, which is based on physical principle. And Gauss shows that mathematics is nothing, until you recognize that it is a reflection of physical principles--as Plato emphasized earlier. So, it's by communicating--as Plato describes this process in his various dialogues, such as the “Thaetetus,” in which he raises the question of the doubling of the square, or the case of the “Meno,” a similar kind of thing, in which he demonstrates the way in which even poorly-educated children can assimilate important ideas and even make original discoveries of great validity--it's by our communicating and collaborating with one another, in the sharing of the development and application of ideas of this quality, that we become truly human and truly powerful. That is why a couple of thousand young people working with me, probably typify one of the most powerful political forces in North America. Steinberg: [ID of show]. We have now an email from the LaRouche Society in the Philippines. “Mr. LaRouche, in countries such as ours, where a prolonged period of dependency has caused the existence of a government that's financially bankrupt, with its prime industries dismantled in favor of multi-national corporations, its democratic politics slowly being hacked, through legal maneuverings and manipulations by the active business sectors' entrenchment in policy formulation, and a recent threat of having amendments to the constitution to the effect of selling the nation's patrimonies, by allowing ownership of properties such as privatization--what are our peaceful options, when the global [community] provide clout to our local [politicians]? LaRouche: What you are describing, is what is being done to the United States by people by McCain and Lieberman, and people who are like-minded, or like-unminded, as in the case of McCain in particular. The answer lies not in individual national solutions. Each nation must come to a conception of its self-interest and its sovereignty. But its ability to resist and deal with powerful international forces, depends upon partnership with a group of people who, in total, represent a strong partnership. For example, in proposing the development of a large infrastructure development in Eurasia, which essentially is from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It's not railroad--we have proposed, essentially, magnetic-levitation systems, high-speed, from places like Rotterdam to Pusan in South Korea, places like that. This would change Asia. Now, to get that kind of system, in Asia, which it needs, would mean you would have to have an agreement among Russia, China, and India--not as exclusive partners, but as keystone partners. The Koreas--the unification of the Koreas--the development of a railroad from Pusan into China, into the Russian transcontinental system, up to Rotterdam and places like that--that would transform that continent. This then becomes a powerful force, not as a military force, as such, but a powerful logistical force; because it represents a grouping of nations around a power-bloc, which gives them mutual security. It gives them a regional security system, and a regional economic security system, above all. Now, what happened to the Philippines, especially from about 1980 on, was--in the overthrow of Marcos, by a coup run by people backed by Hank Greenburg, the American International Group in the United States--a business operation formed a coup against a government, overthrew the government, put in a tyranny through a special forces-type operation which we observed closely on the scene; and the Philippines has never recovered from the effects of that coup against Marcos. It has no longer had independence. It has been deprived of that. So therefore, what is required is to create a coalition of forces in Asia, in Eurasia, hopefully with the support of an intelligent President of the United States, or a President with intelligent advisers, not having an intelligent President. We would simply say, it is our responsibility to restore the dignity and rights of the Philippines to itself. Because the Philippines is a very special nation in our nation's history. We made a commitment to the Philippines, to its development and freedom. Therefore, we are obliged, rightly so, to honor that, and put back what we made wrong. Steinberg: You are listening to Lyndon LaRouche present some very heavy ideas. I'd like to go to our conference line in a moment, where I think we have some of the representatives of the student brigades and the national student movement, if they're not out organizing. One question that comes immediately to mind, from what you just said. The United States is losing allies around the world. We face that all of the time. I'd like to welcome some listeners over in Oberwesel, Germany, where a conference is taking place; there are representatives from 16 nations, including in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, the United States, and a youth brigade from the United States working on the campaign [in Germany] of your wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The biggest question is, can we really expect to change anything with this President, who just demonstrated how out-to-lunch he is, at the “Wacko, Texas” economic forum. LaRouche: Well, David Koresh wasn't there. It probably lowered the intellectual level. Yes, we can. Remember, as in science, how do you discover a principle? You discover a principle usually--the human mind--not because it wants to discover a principle, but because it's frightened into discovering a principle, or something similar. It finds a paradox in what it assumes to be true; a paradox which it finds threatening. For example, in the United States. Every idiot in the United States knows with absolute certainty, that free trade is good for your health. Now, they discover they're idiots, that free trade is the worst thing you can have for your health, especially if you depend on health care. So therefore, they are faced with a paradox. They are taught to believe that free trade is good for their health. They are taught that privatization is good for their health, that globalization is good for their health, eh? It's not true. So now they find the market, which they worshipped as god--this is our god, the Market, the Market, the Market!--like the god of the cult of Delphi, this is god. The Market, the Market, the Market. Congressmen, who are otherwise sane individuals, say, “But what does the Market say! What will the Market say?” They're crazy! But it comes to the point, where what's happened to the market? Telecom is dead. There never was a recovery, and never was net economic growth in the United States during the 1990s! That's a fact. But Clinton doesn't want to admit it, even now, because he was President while this was going on. So he doesn't want to admit it. It's not his style to admit that he might have made a mistake. He wants to blame George Bush. But George Bush hasn't got the mental skills to create a crisis! Don't blame him. It's not his fault. He's like Hoover, he inherited it from his predecessors, including his Daddy, who made this mess; and before that, Volcker and Greenspan made this mess. All right. So we come to the point that the system doesn't work. Therefore, it is in crises of this type, that suddenly the American people awaken, as they are awakening now, at a rapid rate, an explosive rate. “How much money did you lose on the stock market?” Ask people who are in the lower part of the upper 20% of family income brackets. Ask them, “How much have you lost on the stock market.” They'll turn away, they'll frown, they'll say, “I lost... a lot. None of your business.” Things like that. And everybody knows it. Layoffs are increasing. Plants are closing. Top executives are going to prison, or threatened with going to prison. But there's not a top executive of any of these financial firms, who is not part of a criminal system. So why are they putting these guys in prison that way? Why don't they just build a concentration camp, and put all top financial executives in prison. Get the thing over with! Because they're all equally guilty. Also the politicians are guilty. You have this Wendy and Phil Gramm. Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy, who are key for Enron. You had a firm, organized by a 2-gram brain, eh? And this thing has tumbled; other things of the same type are tumbling; deregulation and privatization are failures; and people are being ruined. Do you realize that we are bankrupt as a nation? And the President is trying to cut taxes, and doing nothing to increase income? Is that intelligent? No. It's times like this, where people lose confidence in public opinion. And public opinion suddenly changes. And people recognize, first, not a solution; they recognize a paradox. “This was supposed to have worked for us. We saved for this pension, as god. We were fools, we invested in 401(k)'s, we were warned not to do it. But we were greedy, and we invested in them. Now looks what's happened to our pensions.” So suddenly the shock hits. The firms are closed. The country is going backward, bankrupt. The stock markets are collapsing. All firms, generally, are crooked. All publicly-held firms. Banks are going bankrupt. The talk is that JP Morgan Chase is going under, that Citigroup may go under, and so forth. Banks all over the world are insolvent. The Japanese banking system is bankrupt. We're in a paradox. The great system of the past 35 years is disintegrating! And some people are still saying we must stay with the system. It's like saying, “I got to take a ride in the sewer system; still with the system.” And under times like this, as we're seeing now, more and more people are changing at an accelerating rate in the population. I've seen this particularly in the past two months. The U.S. population is undergoing a radical change, rapidly. The youth are the most sensitive to it. The reason is that they know they are a no-future generation. That their parents' generation, the baby-boomer generation, condemned them to die in a no-future society. They have no education, no employment, no security. They know there's nothing out there, ahead, for them under this system. And therefore, the no-future generation, faced with the fact that the illusion has been an illusion; that the promises of a recovery, the promises of something better out of this, are false; are now looking for answers. They want to survive. We face a situation which is roughly analogous, in our national history, to 1929-1933, where the Hoovers of the world--such as George Bush--are saying the recovery is right around the corner, but there is no recovery. It's time for a Franklin Roosevelt. And the poor, the disenfranchised, the lost generation, that Franklin Roosevelt referred to as “the forgotten man,” and our forgotten youth of today, are saying, “We want a future.” And the job of anyone who's serious about politics is to give the American people, and the nation, a future. It can be done, but they have to give up these crazy ideas. This is the character of history. Throughout history, nations make fools of themselves. Some go down like Balshazzar, in a great feast. Call the Waco economic conference “Balshazzar's Second Feast.” Sometimes they recover. But they recover because the people are shocked by the fact that they have discovered popular opinion was stupid. And they reject popular opinion, and look for better ideas. And they look for precedents in previous history, which may suggest what these better ideas are. We're in such a period now. Steinberg: Thank you, Lyn. We have a lot more questions. I asked you before the show, whether we could go an extra 30 minutes. LaRouche: Yes, sure. Steinberg: [ID show]. As some Washington insiders have commented, Lyndon LaRouche is the front-runner candidate, the most electable candidate in the Democratic Party. Right now, with this crisis before us, many among the population, especially young people in what was condemned to be the no-future generation, are fighting for their future. We have some more questions. I'd like to go to the conference line at this point. I'm going to ask the question about the Platonic dialogues; this is also from one of the LaRouche chapter members, who communicated it by e-mail: “Today, people regard the possibility of such deliberation about the oligarchy as conspiracy theories or paranoia. The question is, to what degree does the popular media today, function like the sophists of antiquity? And are the current methods of the oligarchy as fully developed as they were then? To what degree are your methods similar or different to Plato's? LaRouche: My methods are essentially those of Plato. Just as the Christianity of the Apostles was the same method as Plato's, as emphasized, particularly, by the Gospel of the John and the Epistles of Paul, which are the most clear, explicit expression of that. It's largely through Christianity, and through the influence of this, in part, on Judaism, such as that of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, who attacked Aristotle on the issue of God, and also Islam, as typified by the Baghdad Caliphate of the Abassids, and other movements of that type, the Fatimids in Egypt, that you've had interplay; and what happened in southern Spain, the influence of the Islamic renaissance in southern Spain, which is extremely important, and which conveyed some of these same ideas. There's a commonality of ideas, within actual Christianity, as opposed to Jonathan Edwards-style nutcases, eh? but real Christianity has this method. The method of dialogue: that man is special; that man can create discoveries; can make inventions in Classical discovery. Such as what Cardinal Ratzinger said today on the question of Bach. Man is capable of this. And when we recognize that, we should be optimistic; and we should recognize that that method has worked. Look at what the effect was, when the 15th Century Renaissance occurred. The population of the world has risen, in terms of its productive potential as well as its numbers, and life expectancy, as a result of the 15th Century Renaissance, which was a revival of the method of Plato. So, the nuts are those who don't believe in Plato. It's that simple. Or, we just say they're ignorant. A kinder term. They're ignorant, but we hope we can educate them. Steinberg: Mr. LaRouche has referenced Gauss' Fundamental Theorem a couple of times in this discussion, as the basis for real education. Call 1-888-347-3258 for literature on this subject. We have a question here about Iran. “Mr. LaRouche, how do you see the future relationship between Iran and the United States? Why does the government seem inclined to ignore all the positive roles that Iran has played, in Afghanistan?” This is from Faheed, in the United States. LaRouche: The problem with the United States is, you have people like Richard Perle and company, who are determined, like Sharon is, probably to drop some nuclear weapons, possibly launched from Israeli submarines as nuclear-armed cruise missiles, on nuclear energy sites in Iran. So therefore, since Perle is owned by the same people who own Sharon, in New York, and since these guys are bulldozing U.S. strategic policy, despite the objections of most of our generals and other competent people, we tend to adopt lunatic policies, such as those of Sharon, Perle, and their masters such as Steinhardt and his Mega friends in New York City. That's what the problem is. If we would recognize that our problem lies, as Cassius said to Brutus in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, “the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.” And when you look for a foreign policy of the United States, the first place to look for the source of that foreign problem, is inside the United States. And look, also, at the stupidity of much of popular opinion. People have got to think, and stop reciting what they think their neighbors are thinking. And instead, learn what they should be thinking for themselves. Steinberg: You mentioned Julius Caesar, and that's the famous play about vox populi as a disease. That populism that we were speaking of earlier this week, on the fallacies of the American population. What's wrong with populism? Let me get right to the point. LaRouche: A populist is an idiot, who thinks that the government is bad, and therefore, he wants to elect a government that he can hate, and which will do damage to him, and justify his hatred. And then protest, and propose another idiot--probably a fascist, this time--who he can hate even more, to replace the existing government. Populism is idiocy. It's an asocial tendency. It's one who doesn't care but about the neighbors. “I got to take care of my neighborhood, I got to take care of my family, I got to take care of my money, my money, my money, my money. I want honest money. I don't want a government money. I want gold, honest money. I want to own it myself. I want to control the world with honest money, which I own.” They're idiots! They are asocial creatures. And they have been, in European history, the source of strength for fascism movements and similar kinds of lunacy. Because they do not accept the idea that there is a social process, in which man is not enemy of man. And government shouldn't be our enemy. We shouldn't hate our government. We should control it. That was the purpose of our Constitution. They people can control it, not because of their personal whims, or the whims of some minority, but they control it because they demand accountability from government, from the process by which policy decisions are made. And the effects of those policies considered in terms, not of the benefit of this guy or that guy, or this group or that group, but the benefit of the general welfare. Populism is a disease. One of the biggest problems I have to fight, is exactly that: populism. You go to people who are otherwise sane, who have an intelligent view on this or that matter, or the other matter--like farmers, for example--and then you run across a glitch, on something on which they become absolutely insane, fanatically insane. “Government is bad. We want gold. We want the gold system.” Not a gold-reserve system. They want the gold system. They want honest money. They want something for them. It's an old problem; it's selfishness. It comes up among the type of guy who says, “Well, I'm a wretch; I'm a thief; I'm a pornographer; I'm a sexual fantasist; but God loves me.” How do you know God loves you? I think He abhors you. You think God is a fool, that he wants to love people like you? He's a God of good taste, above all, of Truth and Beauty. He doesn't love that! He despises that. Don't be a Jonathan Edwards. God did not come to give you a reward after Armageddon, to pay your rent for you, free, after Armageddon. To give you health care free, after Armageddon. God sent Christ to redeem man. Now stop begging, and demanding that God do this or that for you; why don't you just accept redemption? Become what a human being is supposed to become. Stop thinking you've got some kind of a system, where you've got a secret “in” under the floorboards, with some little thing under there, and you can manipulate that, and it's going to make the dice roll your way, rather than the other guy's. That's the problem we have with the American people. Gambling, one of the greatest diseases in the United States today is the spread of gambling. Gambling is the spread of psychosis. It's a deadly moral disease. It turns people into virtual vegetables, or beasts. Gambling ought not to exist. In a sane society, gambling would not exist, not gambling for money. It's one of the greatest sources of corruption. Look what people do on the stock market. They're gambling. Real estate. They're not buying, they're gambling. What do they want? They want short-term mortgages. Why? Because they think that if they get a three-year mortgage, that may be they'll be able to sell it at a profit, to some sucker who comes along and buys it from them down the line, and they don't want to be burdened with that mortgage. They're gamblers! They're not investors. They're fools, they're idiots. And my fellow Americans, whom I love dearly, like bad children, often, have got to cut this out. They've just got to cut it out, and realize that what they find in themselves, which would be considered the qualities of redemption, the qualities of humanity, they quality of being looked at by future generations as having made a contribution; that's what's important. That's where the problem lies. Steinberg: You mentioned the truth and beauty idea earlier, and what Cardinal Ratzinger had said about Bach's discoveries. Many people in our movement are working through Classical music, particularly, as you've identified, the work by Brahms, the Four Sacred Songs. Is there anything you could say briefly, to orient people who might feel intimidated against looking at this question. LaRouche: The point is this. When most people today, in the United States, recite a poem, even many professionals, or art college-educated arts specialists, they make me sick to my stomach, because they're reciting words, according to some kind of formula, or stylization. It's like, you know, people go to certain colleges, women go to certain colleges, and they speak like Sarah Lockjaw, you know, that style of speaking. So, they have this affectation, which is totally anti-artistic, and I find it disgusting. Whereas, you look at the great actors, for example, who are an example of this. The great actors, are like those in the tradition of the Greek classical stage. There'd be two or three persons, wearing masks, who were standing on the stage with a mask, with masks, and using them in different ways -- sometimes the same mask, sometimes different masks, using these masks on the great classical stage, would enrapture the audience, so the audience would not see the characters on stage; the audience would see, in its imagination, the action which the actors were representing on stage. The same thing is true in music, and Brahms is a perfect example of this. In music you do not follow rules. Rules are a generalization of certain principles which you discover about the way music works. But as Furtwaengler said, the secret of music lies not in the notes, but between them. It's the pauses, the changes in coloration, things of that sort. It's also changes in rhythmic characteristics, like the difference between the dactylic and so forth, meter. So, you get these changes. These changes startle the imagination, and force the mind to look at the paradoxical aspect of these changes, and see the idea behind the literal element. Now, in the case of the Brahms' Vier Ernste Gesaenge, the Four serious songs, four sacred songs, you have the epitome of this. You have one of the most mature, greatest composers in all history, a man who stood on the foundations of Bach, and Beethoven, and Mozart, and Schumann, in particular, who studied his art, and was a master of it, as the Fourth Symphony, for example, is one of the most thorough pieces, successors, to the 7th symphony of Beethoven, specifically in that form. But the Four Serious Songs are based on Biblical text. They're written at a time that Brahms was approaching what, in his idea, was the end of his life. So he wrote the music, and set these four hymns, including, especially the last two, the O Tod, and then the First Corinthians 13, which was set as the last of the four. This is effectively Brahms' Last Will and Testament. A living will and testament. It contains an idea of the nature of man, man's mortality, and agape, especially agape. So, therefore, when you perform this, as, for example, my favorite two performers of this, though I have a little criticisms here and there of them, is my dear recently departed friend Gertrud Pizzinger, the alto, a great master of her time, and then Fischer-Dieskau. Fischer-Dieskau, in particular, rehearsed this, was coached, by the great Furtwaengler. On one occasion, they spent the evening together, and Furtwaengler abandoned all the other guests to take this young baritone, and take him apart in the music room, and they worked through a good number of the hours on this particular thing, the Vier Ernste Gesaenge. So, in the performance, which startled me when I first heard it -- it was 1953 I first heard this pressing of Fischer-Dieskau -- I was startled by it, especially the very last part of the four songs. And I was not surprised later, to recognize that Furtwaengler had had his finger in the coaching of this performance. So, the importance of this is that, as in Bach, as in the Bach St. Matthew passion, when properly performed... By the way, Fischer-Dieskau was featured in that one at one point, very interesting performance he gave there. In great music, where the intent is clear, as in great sacred music. Like the Mozart theme, simple "Ave verum corpus," a very simple thing some times, but which have great power, and the power lies in the singer's and the audience's perception of the intention, not the interpretation of the score, not the interpretation of the words, but the intention of the composition, which lies on a higher level. And this is the same thing in life. People go around reciting words, and formulas, hoping that they persuade somebody with the magic of the right formulation, the magic of the right rhetoric, and it's all nonsense. What's important is to have a valid idea, and to be able to provoke the recreating of that idea in the mind of other people. And therefore your intention is, not to interpret the music; your intention is to use the music as it was intended to assist you in conveying an idea, to people who are not yet living, as Brahms did. Steinberg: I'm blown away. It's a lot to think about, and we have questions from some organizers, although I'd like to stay on this subject, but let's here from either Julian, or Julie, both from Texas. .. Go ahead, Julie Question: I have presented some of Mr. LaRouche's ideas to the Democratic Party, and they have been asking me, well, what is Mr. LaRouche? We're under the impression, either that he's a Republican, or he's independent, or he's a Libertarian. And they ask me two other times: is he a Democrat? And they're really wondering. How can this be countered? How can I address this? LaRouche: Very simple. Say, where you did get this false information? Because all these characterizations are false. There's no basis. The word is spread, I'm a Libertarian. There was never an incident in which I was a Libertarian. There was never an incident in which I was not opposed to Libertarians. So, how can I be a Libertarian, if I never was one, and I'm in opposition to the basic ideas of the Libertarians? I was never a Republican, as such. My father was, but that's a long time ago, and I had no part in that at the time. I was too young. I was few years -- this was back in the 1920s, so I cannot be blamed for that. I had a certain friendship with circles of Ronald Reagan, despite our disagreement on many other things, but it was human relationship, and not a political affiliation. We agreed on some things, which led to the launching of the SDI, by Reagan, on the basis of my initiative and my work. I was very grateful for that; I thought that was very useful, and I think it still is useful, because it's important in U.S.-Russian relations, still today. Because people in Russia who knew what I was doing, now understand me better, understand that I was right, and that makes a deep impression, after 20 years later. So, that sort of thing is good. But, I've been a Democrat. I was a Democrat in 1980, registered. I was denounced as a Democrat, through all the major news media. 1984, 1986 -- you should have seen, from March 1986 on, through November, you never saw such a massive focus on any candidate as me! And I was being attacked as a Democrat! So, if someone says, "Well, some people are confused!", they're not confused -- they're brainwashed! And the way you deal with a brainwashed person, who's asked a question, or makes a charge which has no factual basis, you say, "Well, your information is false. Where'd you get this misinformation from?" Because only when you put it on that basis, you've created a paradox. You challenge them directly, rather than so-called respecting their opinion, and say, "That nonsense. There's no truth in it. Why do you say that? There's no factual basis for it." Now, your purpose in doing that, in making that kind of response, is not simply to insult them. They'll be unhappy, by being told their opinion is worthless. But that's all right; they should be told that. Better that they should be told that then die. It's like, you don't listen to the doctor; you don't like his opinion -- it might kill you, by rejecting it. What you want to get them to do is to think about the way they're manipulated. Because this view you report, is simply a result of manipulation, mass mind manipulation. Accepting this kind of manipulation is the characteristic of zombie. Who wants to be a zombie? How do you free yourself of zombie-like behavior, such as saying such things as these poor fellows to you? You get them to think about it. Get them to think about the way popular opinion in the United States, is fraudulently orchestrated. How they are victimized, not by travelling salesmen; we don't have those any more, they're too lazy to travel. But by swindlers, the P.T. Barnums of the mass media, and of the political establishment. And therefore, you do them a favor by challenging them. Because you force them to look within themselves for a higher quality of mental life, than they're showing by making these objections. Steinberg: Okay, we do have Julian from Austin, Texas, with a question. So, Julian, can you go ahead? Question: Yes, very good. Thank you, Mr. LaRouche, for doing this program, and the work you're doing. And my question is regarding, I have some of your resources before me, like the August 22, 1999 EIR about "How to Tell the Future" article, and some of your other... So, what I'm asking, wanted to ask, is, what do you include in your, the factors that you make your predictions, or your forecasts, for financial predictions you make? This is ... I'm wanting to counter, answer some people that are talking about these financial forecasts in a psychic fashion, so I wanted to understand your very scientific and cognitive fashion, factors that go into your financial forecasts. LaRouche: Well, first of all, society can be compared with systems, in the sense of physical systems. The difference is that, as the Vernadsky case implies, as I've described and dealt with Vernadsky phenomenon itself, and indicated where I differ from Vernadsky's approach, which I otherwise, is, systems of human beings are like physical systems, in the sense that the future of the system, can be forecast from the characteristics of the system itself, the so-called axiomatic characteristics of the system itself. As people do in mathematical forecasting, in physical science, for example. But in human behavior, you have another factor. You have the factor of the human free will. But the human free will cannot simply act. It is acting on the physical universe, and the physical universe will react to the way that human free will expresses itself. Therefore if human beings have a willful belief that is contrary to reality, this false belief is part of the system, and therefore the consequences which are built into the system by this false belief, will lead, if continued, to a point of crisis. And therefore, you cannot predict what's going to happen, but you can forecast it, if certain policies are introduced, or continued, or not changed; that, within a predictable period time, you may expect a certain kind of crisis. And that's all I've ever done. It's that simple. There are no... The other view, the psychic view, is based largely on two anti-Christian presumptions, specifically anti-Christian, pagan presumptions. One is, that the dice had been pre-cast. This is like some of the fundamentalists who say, "God has said that at a certain time, with a certain calculation, the battle of Armageddon is going to be re-enacted." Well, there's no such truth in that. Some people may try to bring that about, as about 2 million Americans are trying to bring that about, as a matter of belief, but it's not true. Others believe that if you could influence the little gods under the floor boards, you can get them to change the roll of the dice, and therefore you can predict that the roll of the dice will be in your favor, because you have a special deal with these gods under the floorboards. Or that you have a certain horoscope value, a certain date, and because of your horoscope, that certain things will happen to you that will not happen to others, and therefore you're confident that this date arrives, and you'll have a catastrophe, or a great joy, one of the two, as a result of that. Well, that's pure mysticism. There's no reason to it. There's nothing we can do about. It doesn't tell us what we should do. It doesn't tell us how to change the system. So, my approach is always based on understanding the social process as a system, but understanding that what we call free will, is an integral part of the system, and the way that free will works, functions with, or against, nature, and therefore we have consequences, as a result of failure to progress, or progressing in the wrong direction. Steinberg: Lyn, we have just over 5 minutes left. I'm going to ask you to give some summation. Here's a quick question, though, that comes up all the time. Given the unassailable gravity of the economic collapse, where even the Swiss banking community is running into liquidity problems, just what bank notes does one utilize for a measure of currency most likely to suffer the least erosion to purchase food, etc.? LaRouche: Well, I've indicated, people should be prudent. Don't try to make money in the financial system. That is rule number one: don't try to make money in the financial system. Try to minimize your insecurity. The actual physical ownership of gold, you may take a loss on it, but you're going to take less loss than if you owned Wall Street paper, Wall Street stocks. Stocks are the worst thing to own. Bonds aren's too good -- private bonds, corporate bonds, aren't too good these days -- they used to be better. Insurance company stuff is not good much any more. Utilities don't exist any more -- they've been privatized. So, therefore, the kinds of things that prudent people of modest means, would put in as savings, for their retirement and so forth, that doesn't exist; it's been taken away, it's been destroyed. Personal financial security has been destroyed. So, gold. Gamble on the government. You think the government might survive? Maybe government bonds will be worth at least something, somewhere down the line, whereas a stock at Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan Chase, may be worthless. So, that's the way to look at it. You have to minimize, you have keep the resources enough to survive from day to day, and your best security is not in the way you invest money. Security is the best way you invest in government, invest in changing government, in the political process. Because, I can guarantee you one thing: if I were President, with an accommodating Congress, I could save the system. Not this system. But I could save the economic system. I could save the American people their security -- I could do that -- in much the same way Roosevelt approached it. Now, if they want to save what they've got, get me in there. And get me the support I need. Or, anything approximating that, is not a bad move. Steinberg: You're listening to the LaRouche Show on August 24, Saturday. We're going to ask Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination, and leader of the most potent Democratic Party grass-roots and elite organization in the United States, to give us a summation of what we should do in the next few months. We're coming into Labor Day, coming into general elections for a new Congress. Lyn, you mentioned a mobilization bigger than the 5 million mobilization that we did this past month... LaRouche: I think we can triple, or quadruple, the amount of effort that was put into that, because of the changes in the situation, because of what we're doing now. Come Labor Day, we face a great crisis. The month of September's going to be a horror show in the financial markets. It may be a horror show in terms of international warfare. But what we must do, is we must take these two issues, because you've got to have a focal point, which is not a limit to what you're going to do, but you have to get the agenda on the table. You've got to pick the right starting point, to get the agenda on the table. My agenda is, we're going to rebuild the rail system as a modern rail system, as a complete intercity rail system. Now, we won't let it go down. The government will take care of it; we may have private utilities investing, with guarantees by the government, but we're going to have it done. We're also going to take the aircraft industry, we're going to save it, protect it and save, keep its integrity. In the process, between the two, we're going to take the development of rail, and the protection of the air industry, and we're going to take the inter-city travel -- we're going to have high-speed inter-city travel, instead of air travel between nearby city points. As I said in the case of New York to Washington, D.C., or New York to Philadelphia to Washington, DC. You don't want air travel down that corridor, or from Boston; you want a rail corridor, which is highspeed. We can run up to 300 miles an hour, with magnetic levitation-- we can put it up, why not? So, who needs air at that point? So, we can rationalize a division of labor between the rail system, and the air travel system, as a government regulated operation. We can invite people to form corporations, in which they can invest, with some degree of security, because they'll be government and state regulated. And these things can grow. And these will be the first secure investments of the coming period -- will be in rail and air. Steinberg: Lyndon LaRouche has given us the road to recovery. For more information, call the toll-free number 1-888-347-3258.
|
|||||