Lyndon LaRouche Returns to Arkansas Radio:
'My Job, And Our Job, Is To Create a Volcanic Eruption'
March 30, 2023

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed live on Lee Tibler's The Front Porch talk show on KXOW radio in Hot Springs, Arkansas. This is a transcript of that interview. MP3 Audio of this interview is also available.

Tibler: Thank you for being here, Mr. LaRouche. About three years ago we did this, on another radio station.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure, it was fun!

Tibler: Yes, and I appreciate it, because when you put the transcript on the internet, I got some good press play for about two years, out of it. So, I sure do appreciate that greatly.

LaRouche: [laughing] We'll try to do something for you now!

Tibler: I'm on the Hollywood side of all this--but, I do take this very seriously. I was sitting here, trying to kill some time while we were making the connection, and I trying to remind the audience, that you are indeed a candidate, here in Arkansas, heading into the May 18 primaries. And, again, I don't want to set the stage so much--I'd rather cue off of you this morning-- but, I just want to say, in passing, that it looks like, on the heels of what happened last time in Arkansas, with your votes being stolen, I would venture a guess to say, that we're probably heading into the same situation: And here's why I'm saying that, Mr. LaRouche, because, this morning, in our statewide paper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, they have written an article, which summarizes all the candidates, so far, for Congressional races, Supreme Court, as well as the Presidential ticket; and you are glaringly missing! By deliberate omission, once again.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure.

Tibler: And I know that you applied, it was a week ago Monday, and you're a bona fide candidate here in Arkansas. So, do you anticipate another fight like this, coming up here in Arkansas?

LaRouche: There's going to be a fight. The question is, what the outcome is going to be. Because, if the Democratic Party excludes me, they probably will lose the general election. For example, you've got several things going--I'll speak frankly; I've spoken frankly: The President we have is, in perception, the dumbest President on record. And, he hasn't done anything, really right.

But, the Democratic Party is rivaling him, in heading toward the bottom. Kerry is personally a quality candidate. And under normal conditions, you'd say, he would carry it. But, he's got on his back, he's got the Democratic machine, the Democratic National Committee, and people who are saying, "Don't get mixed up with me, because you won't get financing, because your enemies are all in the financial crowd." And, we're in an international financial crisis, and the bankers don't want me around, anywhere near the Presidency, during a crisis like 1932-33.

So, he's being advised that way. But, it won't work.

The problem is, he has no independent competence in economics. He's a good-hearted fellow on economics, but he'll tend to make mistakes out of his lack of knowledge of the subject-matter.

I'm actually uniquely qualified, under such conditions. Under other conditions, I'm qualified, but this time, I'm really uniquely qualified! We're right up against it; the system is about to blow; the banking system is about to go under any time, now. You can never predict the exact time this'll happen, but you know you're in the territory where it's going to happen. And it's going to happen, soon. It's a real mess.

So therefore, they're playing the game. And they've got Nader coming out there. And Nader's pulling significant, single-digit--maybe higher--polls in California. If they get the voters angry at them, because of their stupidity--and, believe me, the DNC is stupid, right now!--

Tibler: Okay!

LaRouche: Then, the voters will go, not to a vote for a candidate, but to a hate vote against the candidates, who are ignoring what is of concern to the citizens.

Tibler: You have addressed, sir, what has been one of my--I'm going to call it "radio shtick," because I am just, again, a talk-show host, here in the local market; but we do cover about half the state of Arkansas. And I've been saying for a long time, that the Democratic Party, to me, has dropped the ball, incredibly! In a bigtime way. They had an opportunity here, during this election cycle, to address the quintessential problems, that are right now playing this nation, as well as we, the voters, as individuals.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Tibler: They've had a tremendous opportunity, by bringing these issues up, to the forefront. I've been a student of Executive Intelligence Review, for, oh, about a decade, I think. And, I've said this many times publicly, that your prognostications, your analyses, have been virtually right on the money, each time. And again, as you said, any date to nail, is hit-or-miss, but you can get real close with the trend lines. But, with in your estimation, is it safe to say--and I think you just said, the international financial system is essentially finished?

LaRouche: It is worse than bankrupt. Everyone in leading banking circles, and as you know, I'm in touch regularly, with people in Europe, and some in the United States, on this issue. What they're saying publicly, the intelligent ones, and what they're refraining from saying publicly, are two distinct things. But, the point is, they don't want to take the blame, for causing lack of confidence in the system, and therefore, taking the blame for its blowing out. But, they know it's going to blow out anyway! The real-estate market, that is, the mortgage-based securities market, is on the edge. The financial derivatives market is a worse situation, by far, than we had in August-September of 1998. This system is bankrupt. It's going bankrupt.

Now, you've got a couple of problems here: One is, it comes with the parties. Now, the smart vote, among the so-called "anti-people" faction in the Democratic Party, is, "let's keep the vote as small as possible." In other words, "let's stay within the upper 20% of family-income brackets; let's stay with the suburban voters." They're not even counting, in their public estimates, they're not counting the ordinary voters.

So therefore, they say, "If we keep the thing to the upper voters, and if we get enough money, then we can beat Bush. But, if we bring the lower income-brackets of the voters into the campaign, who would give us a straight Democratic victory, then they wouldn't like us, and we would get the kind of Democrat, or Democratic administration which we wouldn't like."

Now, that has two points: Kerry is not competent for the job, that is, for the crisis we face now. He does not understand the security problems internationally--even despite his military background; he does not understand the economic situation, or its cure. He's a good-hearted President. If I'm in the picture, with a team of the type that I would bring into the picture, even not as President--that is, if I got Kerry to agree to bring certain factors into the team, on decision-making, and some general outline of what the policy should be, we might make it. If I were President, we would make it--

Tibler: Now, just let me--go ahead, sir.

LaRouche: If I'm not in the picture, Kerry can't handle the job.

Tibler: Now, again, when you say "the picture," this is still quite nasty, what I was saying before I got you on the air, here: My biggest regret, as a staunch defender of the First Amendment--this is my business; it's what I do on radio--that we, as Americans, as voters, we have not been able to capture the necessary dialogue, because you're not there. The same thing can be said for Dennis Kucinich and a few others; there are a few of you that have been cast out, and consequently, our learning curve, in America, is very, very poor, in many regards: not just scientifically, but as well as what's happening politically and economically. And my contention has been, and many people agree with me, is that, had you been there, then the dialogue would have been created, and Americans' learning curve would have been sky-high. Finally!

LaRouche: That's exactly what my opponents knew: Therefore, keep me out, not merely because of my candidacy. Because, I would shift the agenda, by being there. They would have this item on the agenda, which the poorer section, that is, the lower 80% of our voters, would be responsive to, I would bring that into play. And, bring it into play with some answers. And the voters would then say, "Okay. Whether we like this guy or not, he's sayin' something we want to hear!"

Tibler: Right. Right.

LaRouche: And that is exactly what you're talking about. You're absolutely correct.

Tibler: And that is what you experience, particularly with the youth movement, along the campaign trail, so far this year. That, within individual communities, you have gotten distinct attention, as evidenced by the fact that you have a very large amount of private campaign contributors, and the fact that you are now receiving matching funds, from the government--correct?

LaRouche: Yeah. I'm right after Kerry--and sometimes I'm ahead of Kerry, in states, in terms of support. In terms of popular support. And that's what's important.

Tibler: Now, setting the stage, once again, here in Arkansas, because, again, May 18 is quickly upon us, I've been told that the magic number for you would be 15%. I'm anticipating that you'll get more than that, based on the returns last time, when the votes were stolen from you, by the Democratic Party here.

LaRouche: Yeah. Also, with any more sign of crisis.

Democrats are idiots, by going--if you want to have a President who can handle the job, he's got to have the support of the majority of the people. You can't go into a crisis, and imagine you could handle a global and national crisis, without having the majority of the American people behind the President. It can't be done! Radical changes can not be made, without the people behind the President.

Now therefore, if you go into a suburban-oriented emphasis on campaigning for the Democratic Party, if you got the Presidency, you'd be a slave to the same people that run Bush. He'd be a slave. And he wouldn't be capable of doing anything.

That's what the big issue is, here. The issue is: Do we have a mobilization of the average citizen, the lower 80%, who have been thrown into the junk-heap on all kinds of policy questions--health care, everything else; on tax questions. You know, we could balance the Social Security System, if we would take the cap off the Social Security contribution. The upper income-brackets don't pay their share of Social Security--things like that.

So therefore, the measures that would be taken, reorganize the banking system, things of that sort, require the support of the people. People are going to say, "What's going to happen to our savings?" Well, I know how to deal with that. Others don't like what I would do about that, but it would work. And what they would say, wouldn't work, but they still like it. That's the kind of the thing. And without the backing of the people, without bringing the average person into the election process, convinced in their on part, that they're fighting for themselves--not for "their boy," their favorite movie star, but for themselves--we don't have a chance.

Tibler: One of my favorite historian economists is Ravi Batra, you've probably heard of him. I became a fan of his several years ago. And he has been saying for a long time, that we go through these cycles in history, where too few people get most of the marbles. And it seems that's where we're at right now. This present administration seems to be suffering from a high dose of greed, such that this upper 2% or 5% you're talking about, they are getting the best tax breaks, you mentioned the caps being taken off of their earnings. Most recently, in fact, on Friday's show, with Harley Schlanger here, on "The Front Porch," one of the key issues for about half an hour, was the cut-backs to our veterans--major cut-backs!

LaRouche: Yeah. You want to go into wars, and you want to cut back on our veterans. What kinda--!

Tibler: Yeah, Mr. LaRouche, this is stupid!

LaRouche: That's what I'm saying! This is the most stupid President, in the eyes of the American people, already.

Tibler: But, you would think that he has all these policy people behind him, that would stray away from this type of strategy.

LaRouche: Well, look, his leading policy people are actually insane. The group around Dick Cheney, for example. They're insane. Look, they got into a war, they got into a war by fraud. By a fraud upon the Congress and others--admittedly, the Congress was weak on this, but it was fraud.

They got into a war--we were warned by all of the competent military people, not to do it! That it was stupid. It worked out just as the competent military people, opponents of the Secretary of Defense, warned. But, we did it anyway. Now, we've got a mess which is impossible. It's getting worse by the day. They're sticking to their guns--they don't want to make the President look foolish, or make it appear that, maybe, the great genius, Dick Cheney, was not the great genius he pretended to be. They don't want to admit that.

So, you have a factor of stupidity and incompetence, among people who are the so-called "experts," which is the factor. But, if the people are looking at this, as a sports event--election as a sports event--and they're looking at it, because they don't think they're involved; they think they're in the grandstand. They don't think they have any voice in it. They're just going to cheer for the guy they like to cheer for. As long as they're in that state of mind, they don't respond on the basis, really, of their self-interest. They think about one or two issues. But, they don't think about their overall self-interest. And therefore, they say, "We-e-l-l, he's the President. He's must know what he's talkin' about." And then, they say, he's stupid!

The veterans say, "He's stupid. Look what he's doing to us"--the ones who are just coming back from the war, with their wounds not getting healed. Hmm?

It's an example of what happens in a real crisis, where the question is, the people feel impotent; they feel they don't have power; they think they're small, and they hope that something good will happen to them. They try to vote for some guy they think might be kind-hearted and do something for them. But, they don't have a sense that they run the show.

You have to have--. Especially in a time of crisis, the Presidential candidate must give the people back the feeling that they're running the show. When he's able to convince them, that they're responsible, by their participation, for what the next President does in a crisis, and that the crisis is coming on, you will get an intelligent response from the American people, even these, as poorly educated as they are today. The problem is, they don't think they really are involved in making the decision.

Tibler: That's true.

LaRouche: Therefore, they're behaving accordingly.

Tibler: Right, we've been alienated, we really have been.

LaRouche: Yeah.

Tibler: But yet, within this radio market here, because I do try to keep my fingers on the pulse of what is happening around here--feelings and attitudes, that is--certain issues are now beginning to affect our pocketbooks, and the reality check is setting in, most definitely.

It's hard to determine where we got into this imperial era. But, can I ask you this? What is the bottom line, in your estimation, for our incursion into Iraq? What is the bottom line for this?

LaRouche: The bottom line is, we should be out of there, now. We can't handle it--

Tibler: What was our impetus, initially? What was the Cheney gang doing?

LaRouche: It had nothing to do with Iraq, as such. It had an emotional commitment to getting into Iraq, because Cheney and company were committed to continuing the war in Iraq at the time that the elder Bush pulled out. The elder Bush pulled out, because it would have been stupid to stay in there, and we'd have lost half our allies. So, he said, "Okay, we did the job. We knocked Saddam Hussein back; he's under restrictions. Let's get out! Let's not stay in here, and get into a complicated mess." He understood that, or he was convinced to understand that.

Now, these guys, such as Cheney, who are ideologues--they're fanatics; they're not in the real world--they said, as Cheney, as Defense Secretary, insisted we have to go back in there! Continue the war.

Now, Cheney is part of a bunch of nuts--I mean, I say that advisedly. Who are fanatics. And, what they want is, they want a series of wars, around the world, in order to establish the United States as an empire. And they believe that using nuclear weapons, such as the mini-nuke program, is the way to bully the world into accepting our having imperial power to do whatever we please with the world. Their targets include, not only Iraq; not only Afghanistan. They include Syria; they include Lebanon; they include Iran; they include China, and so forth and so on. So therefore, these guys have a policy, as a policy, which is a policy of using nuclear power to intimidate the world into accepting world government. They are determined to use nuclear weapons at the first opportunity, in order to terrify the world into fear, and submission. Now, that's the policy.

But, at the same time, they have a fetish: "We have reassert our authority, in the United States, by forcing the American people to go to a war in Iraq." There was no reason to go to the war in Iraq. But they needed the war in Iraq, for purely, special ideological reasons. And that's why they did it.

But, the issue is not the war in Iraq. The issue is--that shouldn't have been done--the issue is, they view this, as North Korea, Iran, Syria, and so forth, are next on the chopping block. And that's the policy. That is the danger.

Tibler: And those movements would be made--what? After the election? Assuming that--

LaRouche: Right now, they decided to postpone all further adventures until after the election. But I can't guarantee anything! Because, what they've done is, they're part of an international group, which was responsible for the waves of terror in the 1970s in Europe. And, we've seen this, now, in Spain. This group, a fascist group, tied with this Blas Piñar--this whole fascist, actually a pro-Nazi in Spain, is behind the group that did this recent stunt.

This is part of a targetting of the United States and the Americas, for a Hispanic-North American, Anglo-Gringo/Spanish war, inside the United States and on its borders--as Huntington is pushing! This operation from Spain, is aimed to get a Spanish hatred against the United States, Hispanic hatred, both outside the United States, and among the Spanish-speaking population. For example, under Gingrich's influence, we had a break in a growing cooperation between the Hispanic political minority groups, and the African-American minority groups. That split. Now, you've got conflict, has been developing between the Hispanic political factions, and the, sort of retreating, Americans of African descent faction.

So, you've got a very dangerous social chemistry in the world, and in the Americas, and in the United States, potentially. So, this thing is not controllable. Don't try to set fire to a forest, in order to embarrass your neighbors: You may not be able to control the forest fire.

Tibler: Absolutely. And, you're correct. All those things are in place, right around us, as we speak: on our borders, and elsewhere.

Apparently, they must be listening to you--"they," the elite, I guess-- because, this came in off the wire, just a little while ago; I'm not sure if you're aware of this, sir, so bear with me, okay?

LaRouche: Yeah, sure.

Tibler: This is from Madrid, and Spanish authorities are focussing their probe into the Madrid train bombings, obviously. Spain's Interior Minister has named a Moroccan extremist group, as the main focus of the investigation. And he says, the authorities will investigate ties between some of the suspects in custody and extremist groups--and he names a new one--especially, the "Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group."

LaRouche: [laughing heartily]

Tibler: They've been listening to you, sir, haven't they?

LaRouche: No, they were already doing--.

What they're doing, is they--remember, what there was, there was an attempted coup against the Spanish monarchy! I had this from high-level people in Europe, whom I'm in touch with--I don't always agree with them--but, on certain matters we agree, we share some things: And, what happened is, according to these sources, that this terrorist group, which is associated with Blas Piñar, which is a group based in Spain, in Italy, and France; extreme right-wing, these are the legacy of the deal that Allen Dulles cut with the Nazi SD leadership of Schellenberg, and Schacht, and Skorzeny, back during his negotiation with a fellow called Genoud, back in 1944-45--

Tibler: Amazing!

LaRouche: We brought these Nazis into the system. We then planted the Nazi allies--a lot of them--in Spain, under Franco. We then used this Nazi group, in Mexico and South America: That is, we actually ran members of the Nazi security apparatus, of Schellenberg, Wolf, and so forth, into Mexico and especially into South America, through the so-called "rat line" operation.

So, now what's happened is, this group, which was responsible for the bombing between 1969 and 1980--the terrorism in Europe at that time--it was not left-wing; it was this bunch--this bunch is tied to Blas Piñar now. This style of the Madrid bombing is characteristic of only one terrorist group in the world today: that group. They did the train bombings. The train bombings in Madrid are a copy-cat of the kind of operations cooked up by that crowd in Italy and elsewhere, back during the 1969-1980 period.

Tibler: It must be an awful powerful group, if they're going to sit here and spin this story about the "Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group"!

LaRouche: Yeah. They're trying to get everything off the agenda, that is not the way they want it.

Tibler: Uh-huh. Also, just so I make sure you're apprised of all this, too. Another breaking story this morning, originates from London, sir. They conducted numerous raids this morning, in London, involving 700 officers or more. And the bottom line of the story is, that they've arrested, I guess. about a dozen men, ranging in age from 17 to 32; and they recovered, they say, about a half-ton of ammonium nitrate.

LaRouche: Ha-ha!

Tibler: Okay, so, a lot of things are coming together, as we speak this morning. I could tell, by the way that this copy's written, that they're going to blame Muslims. Because the police say the suspects are British citizens. A police official didn't give details on their religious affiliations, but he added, quote, "The overwhelming majority of the Muslim community are law-abiding." So, they added that line to it!

So, I see a trend developing here, overseas, as we speak.

LaRouche: Absolutely! There are people in Britain, the United Kingdom, who are actually sincerely serious about this problem. They know what it is, they are security specialists. They've committed some of the nasties in the world, and they understand how the nasties are committed! But, sometimes, they're on the right side. And some of them there are on the right side, on this question, as a practical matter--like the Spanish question. I mean, they know--everyone knows, in the intelligence business, that Allen Dulles brought Nazis into the CIA and elsewhere, or around them.

Tibler: I've always believed that. It makes sense.

LaRouche: Of course they did! I had a friend of mine, who died some years ago, Max Corvo, who was head of the OSS operations in Italy. And, the minute that Roosevelt was dead, Donovan, who was head of OSS, was essentially out of the picture, and Allen Dulles and James J. Angleton, and so forth, came in, and brought the Nazi apparatus from the Salò Republic, under the Nazi SS man Wolf, who was controlling the Mussolini government at that time--brought them back into power. They got rid of Mussolini--they dumped him; they killed him. It wasn't the Communists that killed him. They killed him, because he was trying to blackmail his way into exposing Churchill, to get favored treatment out of Churchill. Because Churchill had been his backer, at one point. So, they killed him, to shut him up! Not an uncommon practice.

Tibler: No, apparently not.

LaRouche: So, this crowd--the British know this. Everyone in the intelligence business, knows something about this. And therefore, when they know that this thing is loose again, people say, "Hey, wait a minute! Our friends, our conservative friends have gone nuts again!"

Tibler: I just love hearing you say these things. It's so refreshing, because it verifies things that I thought I've learned over the years myself. And it's so hard to bring it out sometimes. So I admire your chutzpah, in doing that. [they both laugh].

In regard to 9/11, our Sept. 11 attack here, within a day or two, all fingers were pointing at Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda. Are we, in fact, chasing shadows here? Or is that another cover story?

LaRouche: It is a cover story, essentially. First of all, the use of the term "al-Qaeda," the way it's being thrown around now, as some homogeneous organization, which has masterminds which plans attacks, is highly exaggerated. Al-Qaeda is an outgrowth of a phenomenon, which was called al-Afghani, was a freemasonic organization called the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by a fellow called al-Afghani. Now, this became a toy, taken over by a section of the British imperial intelligence services. It became known as the Muslim Brotherhood as a played asset of the British intelligence services, trying to control something.

During the recent period, as we went into the operations of the 1980s, where people like Vice President George Bush decided to learn how to practice vice, and they cut a deal with these guys for a so-called war in Afghanistan. They recruited, in religious defense of Islam, against the Communists of Russia, to defend Afghanistan, a Muslim nation; they got these guys and recruited them, en masse. They got mullahs and others to join this thing, religious figures.

So then, after a while, after the operations against Iraq, the first time around, then they decided to dump them. Because they didn't want them around any more. Or, they wanted to turn them loose, as something they could play, but not take responsibility for. So, this thing exists as the veterans of the Muslim Brotherhood. And people who are recruited to things like that, under George Bush and others, during the period of this Afghanistan war. So, that's what it was.

Now, this is now, therefore, a generic capability. And the significance, to me, of al-Qaeda, is as a generic name, for a phenomenon. There are elements of it, which are still played in this way, and they may turn up in this or that operation. But, the capability of doing something like 9/11 does not exist with an organization called al-Qaeda.

The problem was, twofold: First of all, our fellow who's now causing all the fun--he was a competent guy in his own way; he's a right-winger, and he got onto this al-Qaeda idea--it's wrong. He was wrong on that. But, he was sincere, and he meant business. The other guys were, first of all, concerned to get this thing to go the way they wanted it to go, which is to go at Iraq, "get Saddam Hussein at all costs," an ego-trip. And so, they played it up. And then, when this thing struck, 9/11, they used that as their way of saying, "Ah! We got the culprit!" And then, what did they do? They said, "Okay, now we go to war against Iraq (which is what we wanted to do all the time)."

So, the thing is largely a myth. It is not capable of doing what it's alleged to be capable of doing. It is, however, a nuisance. It has implications. It should be cleaned up. But this is not the way to do it.

Tibler: So, am I hearing, then--the conclusion is that, the 9/11 terror attack here, was in many respects equivalent to Nazi Reichstag Fire?

LaRouche: Absolutely.

Tibler: Absolutely.

LaRouche: It was done by an apparatus. And the methods of operations tell you a lot about it. First thing, in an investigation, is what the police used to do: You have a crime. You look for the people who engage in that kind of business. How do you know who to look for? Well, you look for the guys you have on the list, the ones who do this kind of thing. And you will find, that often, in these kinds of things, that's the right way. It may not always pay off. But, that's where you normally go. And my approach on this, is, say, "Well, who had the methods of operation, which are capable of doing a very complicated operation, of this type that this was?" This was extremely complicated.

Tibler: Uh-huh, sure.

LaRouche: And therefore, it could not have been al-Qaeda. As I said on the radio, with my dear friend out there in Salt Lake City, when we were on the radio while this was going on, I said, "I hope that some idiot doesn't blame al-Qaeda for this!" And they did!

Tibler: Well, it's a matter of record, that just a brief time before Sept. 11, that you, in fact, that we were about to succumb to some major attacks.

LaRouche: Well, that's in January of 2023. I said, because the President is stupid, and is faced with a major monetary-financial crisis hitting the nation, under these circumstances, you've got to expect that somebody's going to get the bright idea of orchestrating politics with terrorism. As the way that Hermann Goering did, when he set fire to the Reichstag, back in 1933, in order to get Hitler dictatorial powers.

That's what I was afraid of. And that is what they tried. That's what Ashcroft tried--use a horrifying event, to scare people, and get them to sign on to anything, out of their fear.

Tibler: In your estimation, this dog-and-pony show that I referred to, these hearings, where Mr. Clarke has made the headlines for a week and half now--oh! By the way, Condoleezza's going to testify. Did you catch that? That's another story they're breaking this morning: She will testify under oath.

LaRouche: Isn't that nice?

I think the Republicans have pushed that. There are a lot of Republicans who--you know, not all Republicans are evil. We've got Democrats who are also evil.

Tibler: I thought it was Democrats! [laughing]

LaRouche: No! We don't let them have a monopoly on that: We have criminal Democrats, as well. But anyway, some of the Republicans have said, "This is too much. This is too much."

Tibler: Yeah, yeah. That was the conjecture. And now it's a reality. So, again, now it's official this morning: She'll be testifying, under oath. So again, it could be just good public relations.

If we are truly living at the end of an era, sir, could you begin laying out for us--for example: I know your feelings on infrastructure, and even this has struck a nerve with people in this audience, and we're talking about 50,000 people right now, according to what Arbitron tells me. And that's pretty respectable; that's active participation and listenership.

That being the case, most folks in this audience have become well apprised, of the importance of where you spend your tax dollars.

LaRouche: Yeah, I would think so!

Tibler: Yes. And so, it's becoming blatantly clear, to many voters, you know, men in the street, just like myself, that, "Well, $150 billion or $87 billion for this little incursion in Iraq, versus, let's say the redevelopment of infrastructure and the creation of jobs, à la FDR?" That's beginning to make a lot of sense to people, especially those who are losing their homes, or are upside-down in mortgages, can't get a job. This is reality-check time.

Now, if we're indeed living at the end of an era, what is step number 1? Because for me, I find it laughable--my whole problem, for the last two years-plus, with this administration, has been: It's unbelievable. With the things you've talked about this morning, so far, this setup--number 1, our military. Well, it's still a good military, I guess. But, we don't have the same kind of punch we used to have, apparently. The military has kind of fallen backwards. It seems that Mr. Cheney and his cabal really are guilty of an error in judgment, blatantly so--

LaRouche: [laughing] I think they're probably in the wrong universe!

Tibler: Well, that's what I mean: Maybe there is a little bit of mental defect here. I don't know. At the same time, to go into this imperialistic mode, knowing full well that the American dollar was at the precipice, seems foolish at best, particularly with the euro poised to attack us; right now, I'm seeing the Japanese being quite active. Apparently they're instrumental right now in helping to prop up our markets, I guess--is that what's happening?

LaRouche: Well, it's been happening for some time: They're printing yen, at zero interest rates, approximately; these yen, overnight, are then used to purchase dollars; the dollars are then dumped on the New York market, for example, to prop up the stock market--

Tibler: Which we're seeing. Right now, it's a roller coaster, up and down. It was down this morning about 100 points, I think.

LaRouche: There're problems; there're lots of problems.

Tibler: Now, in terms of getting us back on track: What's step number 1 for Lyndon LaRouche, say you become President?

LaRouche: Well, step number 1, is to put the IMF, including also the Federal Reserve System, into receivership by government, under the provisions of the Preamble of the Constitution: defend the general welfare, and sovereignty, of course, and our posterity. And, under those conditions of emergency, the Presidential system, under our Constitutional system, must respond. The responsible action, is to put the whole shebang into receivership by government, for financial reorganization, to protect the economy and the people.

Now, that means that we take the banks into receivership to protect them. We take other financial institutions, such as the insurance companies, into receivership, to protect them. In other words, you give them the equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Now, under those conditions, you will then go back to the Constitution, as Roosevelt did, and the answer is this: The states, under our Constitution, can not use debt a method of growth. They can only use the debt they can pay for, for growth; but they can not incur a net debt, for growth. Therefore, we look to the Federal government and its powers, to create currency, guaranteed by the Constitution, with the consent of the Congress--specifically the House of Representatives.

Now, we say: We have a commitment, an emergency bill, for long-term capital improvements in the United States, modelled on models like the Tennessee Valley Authority proposition. Okay, we get that started. Now, we use the fact that we have the authorization, to utter U.S. currency. We don't necessarily utter it right away. But, we have the authority, given to us by the Congress.

We then go to a method of national banking, having taken the Federal Reserve System into receivership--we now make it a national banking asset of the United States government. We now use that authority, to be able to move credit, into both Federal projects, infrastructure building, and also into private ventures, which we think are worthy of capital financing. We do that largely through the banking system. We may do it under the guidance of special legislation, which earmarks certain kinds of things, as the things which we want done.

We also have a list of major national projects, in the infrastructure areas. Because, in my view, basically, the Federal government should not go into the private business. The Federal government should stick to its territory, as the states should, which is public infrastructure. Leave the private area to the entrepreneurs. But, if we organize a sufficient increase in employment, in large-scale infrastructure projects; in power generation and distribution; mass transportation; water management and environmental management; into health-care systems, which are collapsing; to other things, which are the legitimate area of the state or Federal government, in terms of management, get Federal stakes to set up laws, again, which give us the ability to have regulated public utilities--as we used to have them: On that mechanism, we aim, then, for a 10 million-person net increase in total employment. If you generate that kind of increase, or direction of increase, in employment, you will then bring the state budgets back into balance: because the income generated within the state, will match what the tax revenue can provide in terms of maintaining essential functions.

Then, you have growth.

Now, what you're doing, then you have to have a science-driver program, which is aimed to get technology into place, and put the technology through every sector, both public and private, to get real, net growth. We also have to go, to a repeal of globalization and NAFTA: We have to go back to a regulated trade system. It's actually what our people would it, a protectionist system. We must ensure, that where employment occurs, where production occurs, that the price of what is produced, allows us to pay a sufficient wage to the households of the people who are employed in production; and to allow for the formation and protection of capital investment in that production. We can not let the price fall to the lowest level, trying to compete with virtually slave-labor levels of employment, around the world. We protect our economy.

Tibler: Now, is that done through tariffs?

LaRouche: Yeah. It's done through tariffs and other forms of regulation.

Tibler: Just as we've done--that's how we got here!

LaRouche: That's how Roosevelt got us out of the last Depression. Same thing.

Tibler: Weren't tariffs one of the primary funding means, there for our government, all those years, too?

LaRouche: Yeah. It was originally. Originally, the tariffs were the primary source. We got into other forms of taxation, as we became more complicated, and as internal requirements required that.

Tibler: Now, the plan you just laid out for us, makes brilliant sense to me, and I know a lot of people in this audience right now are going, "Yes! Yes!" Because we've been talking about aspects of this for many, many years, on this old Front Porch. Is this officially your pronouncement of the death of the Federal Reserve note? Would that be it?

LaRouche: Absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, it was un-Constitutional in the first place. It was run through by the King of England, before he died--Edward VII. It was put through his agent in New York, his banking agent, sub-agent, Jacob Schiff, who designed the package. And Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and some other people, rammed the thing through, after Edward VII had died. And the income tax law, that was never passed, and it was never Constitutional, this thing was put together as a package.

The Federal income tax was put in, to ensure the financing of the Federal Reserve System--the debt of the Federal Reserve System. So, we set up an English-style, or an American-modified flavor, of an English-style of a private central banking system: We call it the Federal Reserve System.

Tibler: This is amazing. It's amazing.

Listen, I think we need to take a quick break, if we could, okay? How long can I keep you this morning, sir?

LaRouche: Oh, you can keep me now. You can go ahead.

Tibler: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please stick around. Our guest this morning on The Front Porch is Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, he will be on the ballot here, come May 18, giving you a chance to vote on him.

I'll tell you what? I'd sure like to make a big splash down here, this time, Mr. LaRouche--I really would.... [commercial break]

[off-air] Mr. LaRouche!

LaRouche: Yes...

Tibler: You're not pulling your punches today: I love it, sir!

LaRouche: I don't believe in pulling 'em. [they laugh]

Tibler: Oh gosh, it's been a long three years, but--I'm tickled pink right now, because I'm hearing many things I've already said. One of my best devices I use for putting on a good show (we're number one, here, by the way; in our market here, for a talk show). But, I would be nothing without EIR. I've just used that all these years.

At some point, do you want to take a few calls?

LaRouche: Why sure.

Tibler: Okay, I'll screen 'em through.

LaRouche: You probably got a couple of guys who have got something important to ask.

Tibler: Okay, standby, please.

[back on air] ...I'm getting my courage, here, because I have Lyndon LaRouche, Democratic Presidential candidate. You will see his name on the ballot for the May 18 primary here in Arkansas. Mr. LaRouche, thank you for, as usual, a brilliant portrayal of the true state of mankind, and our governmental affairs at this point.

Now, in many respects--and I've had a few complaints--Harley was pretty tough on the President. You've been pretty tough. You said he's an idiot, and a dummy, and all that stuff. Okay, some people, kind of, take offense to that. But, I know you've always called it like you see it, so I'm not going to ask you to change your ways, okay? Not I, sir. Not after all these years, and all the fights that you've been in.

But, in many respects, George Bush walked into this situation, economically, correct? I mean, he inherited--this was--you were already talking about this, and EIR was, for many, many years. The trend line was definitely there.

LaRouche: He didn't create the crisis. He just was inherited a bankrupt store and wasn't qualified to fix it!

Tibler: Let us just suppose that Bush pulls it off, and the gang wins again. And just around the corner, post-election, we're looking at more warfare; we know that we have two bills pending right now to institute the draft--including women--so, the handwriting's on the wall, in terms of our imperialist stance. We know that we're going to continue to go out there, and try to conquer, instead of being conquered.

But, now, economically speaking, what do these boys have in mind? The derivatives are starting to blow out now, from what I understand--beginning to, the way they're moving money around. And the commodities market is a shambles; it's up and down. The stock market is inconsistent. You've already the housing bubble: It's reality in some places.

What do these boys have in mind?

LaRouche: Well, in some degree, they don't have anything relevant in mind. They have a conception--I don't think the President has a conception. I think some of the people around him don't. When I say that he's probably viewed as the dumbest President in American history, I'm not speaking as a Democrat, I'm speaking as an American, whose views are shared on this point, with a number of leading Republicans who say, "What am I going to do?! I can't vote for that dummy twice!" So, that's the situation.

So, I say, the most endearing quality, of the President, is the fact that he's stupid. And from there on, his qualities go downhill. But, he's honestly, sincerely, stupid! When it comes to anything about policy questions.

So, he's going in with a certain blindness. You have people around him, like Karl Rove. You have idiots, like this DeLay, in Texas. You know, I'd say, "You can improve the Congress without DeLay, immediately." These idiots, they don't reality. They care about power.

Tibler: They don't care about a Great Depression?

LaRouche: Nope!

Tibler: A Great Depression doesn't faze 'em?

LaRouche: No! What they believe, what they choose to believe--I mean, they are religious fanatics, in that sense. What religion it is, I'm not sure. But, it's religious fanaticism--it ain't Christianity! It's something else. Cause Christianity's a religion of love, not of hate.

Tibler: So I understand, yes.

LaRouche: That's what it's supposed to be! I mean, Christ lays his life down for all humanity, that's an act of love. That is not an act of hate, sort of, hate of the sinner. And I think that people who hate the sinners, are a little bit on the wrong side there.

But, their attitude is that, if we have the power, the absolute power, and if the human race is terrified into submission to our will, somehow, we'll win. That's the mentality. It's not the mentality of the Republican Party; certainly, not of the farm-state Republicans, who are much more traditional. As a matter of fact, there's a good deal of Whig still left in some of the Republicans of that time.

Tibler: Yes, yes! I'm finding that out, yes. I'm hearing from so many Republicans, I'd never hear from before.

LaRouche: Oh sure! It's there! I mean, they're looking at reality--

Tibler: They're heart-broken!

LaRouche: Also, they have state attachments. They're looking at the condition in the states: We have 48 states which are bankrupt! That is, you can not, under present conditions, raise the money from taxes, in good conscience, which are needed to maintain essential functions and responsibilities of the state, and the communities dependent upon the state government. They're sitting there, looking at a situation, where they would like to do the right thing, simply as good neighbors, and they are denied the possibility of doing it. So, that has really brought the Whig out, in a lot of good Republicans.

Tibler: I saw that this weekend, and starting on last Friday's show, when Harley was here, I had been reviewing the fine points of the so-called Republican budget, for 2005. And, we've got essentially trillions of dollars over the next few years, that will be being lopped off the tax liabilities of the top 2% richest, wealthiest people in this country. What in gosh's name is the motivation for that? You're not going to win friends and influence voters, in a positive way, with that kind of attitude!

LaRouche: Karl Rove typifies people who want to win the next election. Period. And they assume, that if they win the next election, they'll be able to stumble through whatever comes next. That's the way they behave.

This is the other side, this is the dumb side, of the Bush Presidency. The understandable, small-minded--and remember, Karl Rove is essentially a small-minded person. What he tried to do in Texas, which he carried over to the national election, is to appeal to small-mindedness, in the U.S. population; and find people whom he could get out to the polls, who would be small-minded and fanatical about it. He did not care about the consequences of the policies. He said, "Get elected! Don't worry about what the consequences of the policies are. Get elected." And that's our key problem here.

Now, the point is, the whole thing is a sham. It's worse than what you described, Lee. We are now--what has happened, over the past period, especially since the 1987, with the 1987 crash in the stock market: We've gone into a mode, under which we induced Japan and other countries, to print money for our use, in our economy. We, at the same time, destroyed, since the Brzezinski Administration (I wouldn't call it the "Carter Administration"), we have destroyed the domestic production; infrastructure; we destroyed regulation of transportation, everything else. We destroyed regulation, on which the stability of the economy is based.

So, now we go into cheap labor from abroad, increasingly, as a substitute for employment and production in our own country. We destroyed our industries.

What has happened now: To maintain ourselves, by borrowed money, which we can never be able to repay--what we get into, is something like Germany in 1923. We are running on printed money, emitted by the Federal Treasury, by the government of Japan, and others, who are funding the United States' debt. If you look at the cost of food in grocery stores, and the price of gasoline, and other such indicators, over the past 12 months, you will recognize that the government is a liar; the Federal Reserve System is a liar. We are in a state of accelerating, hyperinflation. We are at the point, that the existing dollar bill, is going to be like the reichsmark of November 1923: We're headed in that direction. That's where this administration is carrying us.

So, it's not a matter, "can we balance our budget?" Is our currency, against these debts, worth anything? Can it pay off anything? And, that's our problem.

We've got to get it back, to a stable economy, and a stable dollar again. And that means that some people, who are a little bit too rich, who didn't exactly earn their riches, are going to have to get on the hard side a bit, like the lower 80% of our income brackets have been on the hard side, for over a quarter-century.

Tibler: Absolutely. And, again, I think that many of us are seeing that the handwriting's on the wall, in that regard.

If I may, just an aside here: Harley brought up something Friday, which I think I might have planted a seed in his head, on a previous outing: Arkansas, and this radio show here, were instrumental--and I mean instrumental, sometimes, we'll take a bow--in bringing to the mainstream in this country, the ramifications of electronic voting. Now, we know that Dick Cheney is brazen enough to go golfing with one of the people on the Supreme Court--

LaRouche: One of our "Scaly" people.

Tibler: Yeah. And, we all remember what happened down in Florida, during the 2000 election.

But, I've heard Harley bring up the dreaded electronic voting machine. I don't know if he told you, but, you've been blessed here, for the primary in Arkansas, because we effectively put that on hold, for the implementation of the new machines, at least temporarily. So, your election down here, in May, will be the old-fashioned way.

I'm expecting that we're going to have a pretty fair election, and I would expect to see your numbers probably double from what they were last time, based on the momentum you have here. But, could you apprise us, of your feelings of the role that these electronic voting machines are playing? Is this an overt attempt to steal an election?

LaRouche: Absolutely.

Tibler: Tell us more, please.

LaRouche: Fine. So, this is a Republican deal, and the Republicans won a vote to push this. They have a legislation, and they're determined not to allow any modification in the bill to occur.

My response is: Well, elections under our Constitution, are a responsibility of the state. The conducting of elections. It's still our Constitutional system. Therefore, my view is to go to the states, and to get support for what the states must do, from within the Federal government.

There is a very active effort, among a number of members of the Congress, to take action, coordinated action, on this issue. What we've determined, between that and what some secretaries of state have pulled together, is that there is no possible way that you can have an honest election with computer-based voting. Impossible.

Tibler: That's the consensus of the experts, yes.

LaRouche: Yeah. So therefore, you have to have a paper ballot system. Don't talk to me about efficiency. Don't talk to me about this garbage: This is the way in which one person writes down, in their own handwriting, a decision! They put it on a piece of paper, and that has to be counted. Now, whether it's counted fairly or not, that's another question. But, if you don't have it there--

Now, how do you protect the paper ballot? We have proposed--others have proposed, and I support it--I said: Let's supplement the paper ballot, just as it was, by having a carbon copy. And the voter gets a carbon copy. Therefore, if the voters find that they think they've been swindled, and a significant part of the constituencies are convinced they've been swindled, and if they can take a number of paper ballots, their copies, and show that the vote they cast for something is greater than the vote registered, then, you open the question. It's the only way we can approximately have it.

Otherwise, now, if you have computerized voting, it would be possible, with the case of the Diebold machine and similar kinds of devices, in which 20% of the vote for a national Presidential election was fake. Therefore, this has to be stopped.

Tibler: It has to be stopped. And, again, want the audience here to take a bow, because we were instrumental here. In fact, the woman from Hot Springs, named Lisa Burks, she has thrown her hat in the ring, and she is going to run for the U.S. Senate against Blanche Lambert Lincoln here. So, she probably doesn't have much of a chance, but you never know, because the issues, I think are what's driving this current election process. So you never know what kind of results--. But, that shot was fired, right here in Hot Springs, Arkansas, sir.

LaRouche: That nice! I like that.

Tibler: Had a little help from my friends--guys like Harley, Harley Schlanger, so.

LaRouche: Good.

Tibler: He inspires us to try greater heights, at times.

So okay. So, those machines are questionable at this point. What effect, do you think that will have on this current election, seeing that not every state has got that?

LaRouche: I think, if we raise enough stink about it, that you can get pressure on the states, the secretaries of state.

Tibler: That's what we did here.

LaRouche: Yeah. The secretaries of state is a very interesting organization. It's much underrated. But it fills a hole in our whole system, is to have some degree of continuity in the institutions of government of states, from election to election; in areas which are legitimate things: the ordinary, routine business of the functioning of the state apparatus, in a state. It's very good to have a secretary of state organization, which is there from election to election, to keep this going. And these fellows, who are serious about their job, do do serious work in trying to look ahead and see what the problems are, that the country's going to face, as they see it; and to make recommendations to political forces, as to what their findings are.

Tibler: Now, the bankers--I like to call them "the elitists"--again, as you verified for me earlier, they are throwing money, hand over fist right now, into trying to prop this so-called economy, broken economy, prop it up.

Can they make it to the election, with this? I mean, I read a very, very ominous paper, yesterday regarding the Chase Bank, and their derivatives holdings? They outnumber actual dollar holdings, by what?

LaRouche: Yeah, J.P. Morgan Chase.

Tibler: J.P. Morgan Chase--the actual derivatives holdings are something approaching 1,000 to 1, in real money.

LaRouche: Well, what you're talking about, is, for example, you had this $8.7 trillion turnover of financial derivatives reported by the Bank for International Settlements, for the year 2023. And obviously, the thing has accelerated greatly. We're talking about a $40 trillion-plus world economy, at best, net, against this amount. We're bankrupt.

There is a barrier here--it's a front, a front of extreme turbulence, which is coming up. We're now in an accelerating rate of hyperinflation, in reality. Despite Federal Reserve System, and Federal government lies, we are in a hyperinflationary mode, as anybody who's been to the grocery store recently, or been to a gas pump, knows. All right?

So, this rate is accelerating, as everybody knows, who's been thinking about what the grocery prices were, similar things, over the recent period. This rate of hyperinflation, is like a wall; it's a barrier, it's like a sound barrier. And, we're cracking against that sound barrier. So, at a certain point, the way I'm able to forecast the problem--you can't predict the time or place, but you can forecast the situation: We're headed toward the equivalent of a sound barrier in terms of hyperinflation. When the rate of hyperinflation takes off, as it did in October-November of 1923 in Germany, you can not argue with that: You're going to have to reorganize the system. And we're up at that point, now.

Tibler: I was just thinking this the other day, and had a wonderful conversation with a local, he's a banker. He was saying essentially the same thing, that you just said. And our perceptions as Americans are skewed right now, because we don't understand the effect that the diminishing of the dollar's value has, right now. We're used to inflation; we're used to seeing the prices go up, overtly. And this time, we're having a hard time as Americans, understanding what the mechanism is behind it, but it is, in fact, the collapse of the dollar, isn't it?

LaRouche: Yes. And also, it's because the incumbent government lies. The point is, governments, which can not perform, as has been the case recently--that was the problem, that Bill Clinton had the problem. Unless he were willing to do certain things, which they'd would shoot him for trying to do--

Tibler: Probably, yeah!

LaRouche: You know, they came close to it! And the thing that really got him, the miraculous discovery of Monica Lewinsky, was prompted by the fact that Clinton was even thinking about calling for international monetary reform, and that's why he had this impeachment and the Monica Lewinsky case: It came from the bankers--who were terrified, that he might do something constructive! And, they haven't forgiven him, yet!

Tibler: Yeah, yeah. In some respects, I was hoping that that was happening in the early days of the Bush Administration, but at this juncture, I can't say that.

LaRouche: No. It's impossible.

Tibler: It is impossible that way.

Well, in terms of the near future, meaning our own defense here: All this posturing from the administration, our war on terror: We, as Americans, where should we be mentally, on this whole right now? Should we be fearful? Should we be prepping? Should we be getting ready for the last hurrah? What should we be doing here, in practical terms?

LaRouche: Think! What I try to do, of course, as you may have observed, I try to give people a sense of, not only the history of the United States--how it came into being, what the circumstances were, what the problems were; what we faced in our evolution over these decades, the centuries. But also, to situate the coming into being of the United States, within the larger scope of European civilization as a whole, from the time of ancient Greece, from the time of Thales and Pythagoras--to get a sense of, what is this thing we call "European civilization"? How is it different, say, from Asian civilizations? What's the difference? Why is suddenly Europe, from about the beginning of the 15th Century, suddenly emerges as really a great power, not only in our own opinion! But, as compared with the rest of the world. European civilization always had good qualities, as European civilization, but we became the leading force on the planet, only with the Renaissance of the 15th Century.

The United States is a distillation of that history. Now, if the American citizen, rather than thinking of a "little guy," as something like a marble in a box, being bounced around, and asking for justice, begins to think of himself and herself as a Christian should: That is, in a sense of immortality. We're all born. We're all going to die. And that's good, and that's not really bad: It's the way things are. But, our mortality is an opportunity for us to receive from preceding generations, their contributions to civilization, and to pass on to coming generations, the protection of what was good, and possibly some improvements.

When we locate ourselves as individuals, who we feel very small, as individuals, and see ourselves in the big picture, as something which is tied into, and is performing a necessary functioning in the big picture, and then stand up as if in the theater, looking at the drama on stage, and forced to think about what's happening on stage, the stage of our reality, and think about what he or she, as a citizen, might do, to improve what's happening on stage, then he thinks like a citizen. My concern is, to get our people to think like citizens.

That's why I did this thing--I've got this tape out on Talladega: I did a non-campaign event in Talladega, Alabama, on Martin Luther King's birthday--

Tibler: Yes, I've seen that. It's powerful.

LaRouche: I had the occasion to give a presentation, which I was satisfied was a fair, needed representation of Martin Luther King, which had not been made otherwise; a representation which should be presented to all the American people, not simply Americans of African descent. And, this attitude, which I addressed in that discussion, is what I would like to have--which is why I put the tape out, got my friends to put it out, as a DVD--I would like to have people think about themselves, in terms of what I say about Martin Luther King. I think that's what was needed, and that's what I tried to do.

Tibler: Yeah, I saw that two weeks ago, and you definitely did strike a nerve with me; so, I'm sure it had the same effect, the same impact on everyone who views that. Very moving, very poignant, and meaningful.

I see the spark of hope within the youth movement, that you're helping to create here.

LaRouche: Yeah, same thing.

Tibler: This will be one of your legacies, I see. But, I see an attitudinal shift in these young people, that's very refreshing to me. As we look around the vast landscape of this country, right now, we see many hopeless young people. They're giving up. And yet, what you're saying here is so true, that the historical background, historical base, of well-grounded science is so necessary and so vital for us to make any progress, and to obtain any hope, at all.

LaRouche: Well, being around an old geezer like me, being around, making a few discoveries, doing things, you do, once in a while, come up with an insight into what needs to be done.

This is what I struck upon four years ago. I saw, exactly, in the generational conflict shift, exactly that something like this was needed, and that the potential for that, was emerging from among people in that generation: the 18 to 25 group. So, I proceeded. I was very careful about it, watched it, nursed it along. And then, when I saw, "Okay. These young guys are doing what I thought they could do," I turned it loose! And, it works!

Tibler: Yeah, it does work. It does work. I've had several conversations here, privately as well--these kids are on fire. They really are. And they want to solve problems.

LaRouche: Yeah! They are good. They are doing what their parents already should have done.

Tibler: They want to create, you see, which I've always felt is the lifeblood of what it means to be human: to create, and to build, that which is good for all of us, in society.

LaRouche: I pulled one on them. You know, they always come to me. I don't run it. I'm too smart to try to run it. I know what do to; I mean, I have to be useful, that's the way you're effective. So, they came to me and they said, "What're we going to do? Apart from the science." I said, "You are going to learn the secrets of singing Bach's motet Jesu Meine Freude. [laughing] And, they took it on! And they recently did, in a conference we had in February, they did a fair presentation of the essence of the issue, in ways that many musicians would get an education! Of course, some of our young people are musicians, by profession, and trained. And they took a group of people--people who had not really sung before. And they put them with expert assistance, through a bel canto voice-training program--they're still novices at it, but they got the rudiments of it--and began to use this as a way of demonstrating the principles.

And they specialize in what are called "Negro spirituals," particularly of the Classical type, which are the Classical form of the Negro spiritual, which became established and identified during the 20th Century; and the regular Classical repertoire of Europe, especially the German repertoire. And they're good at it. They're not top-level performers, but they got the idea; they're doing the job; and they make people happy.

Tibler: Hmm! That's amazing. Well, again, like I say, I encourage that, and it's good to see that spark of life coming back to a whole segment of our population, which was really was lost for a while. So, I applaud you for that effort.

If I may shift the scenery of the conversation a little bit: in terms of your Presidency, whither the military? I was astounded to find out recently, what a large percentage--all of our military operations, including the incursion into Iraq, and about one or two other places, are now handled--more than 50%, I understand--by private companies, corporations. And, several months ago, one of our regular callers out here--we call him "Butch"--he's a military guy, Marine, fought in Vietnam, he came out here, and drew the ire of many of our listeners, by referring to many of our present military as a mercenary operation. Well, he got through that. He didn't care. He doesn't pull his punches.

That spurred me on to do some research--you know: Kellogg, Brown & Root; and Paul Bremer, what he did, and what he's involved with; just who's protecting Hamid Karzai, in Afghanistan. And, all of a sudden, I'm looking at a list of the Fortune 500 companies, that are running our war.

LaRouche: Yeah!

Tibler: So, the question is: Whither the military, under your administration, under your leadership?

LaRouche: Well, you got--first of all, on this thing, to identify the problem. I believe in classical military doctrine, that is, we have from the 18th Century and the 19th Century, calls for strategic defense. It was introduced under that name, codified in a sense, by Lazare Carnot, who led France to victory over invading armies in 1792-1794. It was the German military policy, which expressed itself, especially, in the Prussian advice to Russia on defeating Napoleon's invasion of Russia, which led to the fall of Napoleon.

This is an approach which was adopted in our military, in West Point, particularly in the time of Monroe and John Quincy Adams, and so forth. Or, at least a lot of it. And, we based our policy on the engineering approach, which was defined by Carnot et al., from the Carnot-Monge tradition. So, our military training at West Point, and later, when Annapolis was built, on the basis of having a Naval equivalent of West Point, on engineering. So, our military officers were largely trained as engineering officers, whose ability to deal with logistics was considered as the basic, ongoing day-to-day task, under which you get a high-quality military; intellectually high quality.

Now, the contrasting thing you have, is, we had, when Rome became an empire. They ended a system of population organized-defense, of its own military, and went to a mercenary-like system, which became the Roman legions under the Caesars. These were people recruited from all kinds of nationalities, and assigned as units to police the world, as an empire. And that empire destroyed itself.

This also happened with Hitler: When Hitler took over the Reichswehr, which he renamed the Wehrmacht, the Wehrmacht maintained the military tradition as such, in terms of training qualifications; this was the expertise, the excellence of the German military in World War II--and also, World War I--was this system. But, Hitler wanted to get rid of it--and Goering did. So, you had Goering, who represented the financier interests controlling Hitler: Hitler was an instrument, used by these financier interests, which was called the Synarchist International. What they did, is, they went through the process of destroying the Wehrmacht, to replace it with what became known as the Waffen SS.

The intent of this group, which is the group that Allen Dulles and company brought into the U.S., and into NATO, during the post-war period, was to set up a copy of the Roman legions: recruiting people from all kinds of nationalities into a kind of mercenary force, a killer mercenary force, used with imperial intent, to become what was called the "Allgemeine SS"--a universal SS, for world empire.

What has happened is, that since Cheney was Secretary of Defense, a transformation has occurred, and he became part of Kellogg, Brown and so forth, Halliburton, as a part of this process; in which he proposed demilitarizing the military, to farm out military functions into civilian corporations, so corporations could make money, at war. And this is the characteristic of the driver.

So, those who say that the U.S. Army is being turned mercenaries: They're right. That's what's happening. That's what the competent general officers have been resisting. That was the issue between Rumsfeld and the military, on the issue of going into Iraq--the key to that. They're saying, "You're stupid!" We did not have a military capable, of dealing with an Iraq operation, that is, the occupation of Iraq. We didn't have it. We still don't have it.

My view: Get our military out of there! Get them back to the States. Go through a reconstruction of our military, based on a classical, strategic-defense conception. Go back to integrate the development of our military, as some people in the Congress are also thinking, on the basis of something like the CCCs. Let's take our unemployables, as we did back under Roosevelt. Let's put them out in work, employ them in work, and training and education, to make them something. Remember, we had a division that came out of Michigan, for World War II: They were CCC kids, who were taken in, as practically right into the military, and became one of the important fighting divisions in World War II.

Tibler: Sure did.

LaRouche: My view is, let's go back to our tradition, of a high-grade, highly educated, scientifically oriented, military, where you train people; they're delighted to be in, say, two-year service, in training, as reservists; proud to be part of that, proud to be part of the National Guard; proud to be the people who have engineering capabilities, who turn out, when the governor has an emergency on his hand. That kind of people. We want people who are in military, not as against the population. We want the people to see the military as part of the population, and to be part of it. That way, the people, then, are implicitly, spiritually and otherwise, controlling their own military.

Tibler: And needless to say, the bottom line--for me, one of the major red flags in my own thinking, was the moment that we apply profit motives to warfare, we've totally lost it! We've transcended the need for military to solve and address social issues, as opposed to just simply going to war for a profit motive.

LaRouche: [laughs] We won World War II, not with our military capabilities--I was involved in training people at that time: We were taking people out of the swamps, and in 16 weeks trying to get them to be soldiers. These were not the best fighters in the world! They were no match, man for man, with the German soldier. But: We had logistics. We had logistics like nobody else had. This was Roosevelt's achievement. We had sheer tonnage per manpower of logistical capability, which overwhelm anything, any opposition. And we won it with that. The soldier went out, as an instrument of the logistical capability, he represented. He was able to do an impossible job, beyond the capability of better-trained opponent forces, because of that.

That's the way I think about military capabilities.

Tibler: Okay, so for those who had any doubts, that you want to negotiate your way through everything--because, I have heard that from people; you have detractors, as you are well aware. [LaRouche gives a hearty laugh] What I've heard here, is a return to the true basis of how we've gotten this far, in this nation, militarily. And I applaud you for it.

Sir, let's take another break, for another reason, because I've just received a message that there is someone from your office on line 5, wanting to talk. So, I'll talk to them off the air, and find out what's going on.

Well, stick around. Our guest on "The Front Porch" on this Tuesday morning: Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. I will stress again: He will be one of the choices you may select for President on the upcoming, May 18 primary, right here in Arkansas. And, as far as I'm concerned--I'm so offended by what the Democratic Party of Arkansas is trying to do, or is beginning to do, once again--for example, I mentioned the omission of Mr. LaRouche in the newspaper today, listing all the candidates--y'know: C'mon folks! That's deliberate! We need a dialogue. And, if we had been including people like Mr. LaRouche, Mr. Kucinich, and a few others in the dialogues, the past year or two, we'd all be the wiser. Because, that critical time in our lives, is fast approaching: election time. And look at how many different issues we've had to address, including the overt stealing of elections.

Stick around, don't touch that dial. More to come on as The Front Porch radio show continues on AM 1420 KXOW.... [commercial break]

...Our guest this morning--these are moments that I will cherish in my radio career; I was lucky to do this once before. I don't know how it's coming out this time, but Lyndon LaRouche, you're as eloquent as ever before. Thank you for being here on The Front Porch here this morning.

Yes, folks, our guest: Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. He will be, he is on the ballot, here in Arkansas, despite some of the things you may have heard, he's a choice you can make, on May 18 in the primary.

Mr. LaRouche, I just received word from your office: We have an incentive for our listenership, this morning. I've been advised that anyone who's interested in obtaining the Talladega speech--which I advise; everyone needs to see that, several times, actually--they are offering a free DVD of the Talladega speech. All they have to do, is just dial this number, if I may do so, here: 1-800-929-7566. Now, I repeat, that's for a free DVD of Mr. LaRouche's Talladega speech. I have that copy, myself. I've seen it several times already. It is going to inspire you; it's going to make you think; it's going to energize your brain cells. It's going to make you want to go out in directions you haven't gone in a while, because of media programming in this country. A free DVD of Mr. LaRouche's Talladega speech is available to you: Write this number down, one more time, 1-800-929-7566.

And I applaud the decision on your part, Mr. LaRouche: You need to get that out to people. Really do, it's inspiring.

If I may take us to a different, now, if you're willing--you're not getting tired on me, are ya? [laughs]

LaRouche: No. No, I maintain my friskiness.

Tibler: I can see that, yeah. Even I've begun a weight-lifting program. You've inspired me. I'm going through a bit of a middle-age crisis, so I'm getting by very well, thank you.

I mentioned red flags in my own mind. Another red flag, that popped up recently, very recently, was, the practically simultaneous attack in Madrid, and then we had Israel's Sharon government and the taking out of one of the religious clerics, with missiles, of all things. I know that, internationally, that was met with great dismay, from virtually every nation. It's also a matter of record now, that we, as a nation, the Untied States, more or less condoned that escalation, of, what to me, appears to be an assassination policy. Which has always been anathema to me, as an American. Just un-American. So, I have a little problem with that one.

But, now, in light of all the other crisis points, in the world today, and particularly in the Middle East, what is your view on this new philosophy of assassination policies, that we apparently condone with Israel? What's the ramifications of this?

LaRouche: We not only condone it, we're pushing it through some people in the Congress. The right wing of the Congress is pushing for the same thing. And the people behind it, in the administration, are pushing for a policy of using missiles, to take out people we don't like. Including the use of mini-nukes! In other words, if you can't get 'em otherwise, send a mini-nuke in a missile, and hit wherever they are with that nuclear warhead. That is a policy being pushed by some people in the establishment now, to be voted up, as an adopted policy. And would become the policy, if a George Bush were re-elected, with Dick Cheney as his Vice President. I can guarantee you, that would be the policy.

So, what Sharon did--and remember, Sharon is on the verge of going to prison. That's not a "done deal" yet, but his indictment is out there. Within 30 days, he's going to be facing the probability of trial for criminal behavior, with his son and himself. His son, who takes care of his sheep, has turned out to be one of the big bribers, in a sweet, swindly deal, in one of the Greek islands. And this thing has gotten Mr. Sharon in trouble.

Also, he's in trouble with the Israelis: Because the normal Jewish person, is just like the typical American. They tend to go along with things, which they really wouldn't do, if they had their druthers. But they think it's considered "smart" to go along with what they consider to be the current trend, like the current fashion or something. So, therefore, people in Israel, who are serious, also say, "Get rid of Sharon." Now, some people would like to bring back Benjamin Netanyahu, as Sharon's replacement--other things. But, there is a big thrust, among world Jewry to say, "This has gone too far." That Sharon will get more Jews killed, than even probably Hitler did, unless they stop this stuff.

Tibler: We do see that. All across Europe now, we're seeing the re-emergence of overt, blatant anti-Semitism, reminiscent of pre-World War II.

LaRouche: Well, you got two sources of it: One comes from the Nazis. Most of the anti-Semitic propaganda that you get in Europe, particularly the neo-Nazi variety, comes actually from the Nazi apparatus, that Allen Dulles, and James J. Angleton, and so forth brought into the Anglo-American system and NATO, at the end of World War II; and that is where a lot of it comes from.

A lot of our wild stuff, like the pro-Nazi operations inside the United States, which are sometimes run as intelligence covers, were actually created as an off-shoot of bringing in the Nazi apparatus, under Angleton and Dulles, into the U.S. institutions. This is what we always looked at, in terms of the Kennedy assassination.

Tibler: Yes, yes.

LaRouche: We're looking at the use of these off-shoots, of the international Nazi apparatus, the post-war Nazi apparatus, condoned and used by NATO and by a certain section of what Eisenhower referred to, euphemistically, as the "military-industrial complex." This is a danger.

Now, the other side, is you have anti-Semitism of a different type, which is a knee-jerk reaction against the sheer horror of what they see being done in Israel itself, in the Middle East.

And both are dangerous. Intelligent Jews, in the United States and elsewhere, are beginning to say, "Too much. This has gone too far. We've gone along. We've gone along. We were concerned about Israel. We were concerned about that ... this goes too far. We got to stop it now." And I think some of the Jews who were concerned about this, who are actual Jews--not some kind of fruitcake--that they are actually beginning to move, toward taking a much more active position in getting rid of what Sharon represents. And, maybe, they'll get around to saying, "Maybe we should get help rid of it from the United States, too."

Tibler: Hmm. Should John Kerry find himself in the seat of the Presidency, if that were to happen, do you believe there's enough wisdom there--with he and his--handlers, I guess--to bring us to an end of this imperialist stance we've taken?

LaRouche: Let me be frank, without disclosing things I shouldn't disclose: John Kerry and I share, in a very large degree, the number of people from the military intelligence background, on national policy. So, for me to be associated with John Kerry in an administration, would be for that crowd "Old Home Week"--they'd all be coming back together!

We share this. And Kerry does have a lot of my input, available to him, through these channels and other channels. The problem is, he also has another problem, and Ted Kennedy has got to get off this, he's got to get off this game he's playing--I don't know what the pressures are. I don't know whether it's his in-law, Schwarzenegger, or whatever the problem is. He's got a problem, hmm? Don't take a Beast-Man into your family! That's a mistake. I mean, don't have a monkey for an in-law!

Tibler: I thought he was the perfect Aryan. [both break out laughing]

LaRouche: Anyway, so. But, he's got to stop this nonsense. And we've got to pull the Democratic real people together, around Kerry, and they've got to get me in, in a key position, to make sure that my capabilities--which no one else in that network has--are a determining factor in the way the United States reacts, to the challenges which are going to hit it. If I'm in there, with that bunch of people, we will do a good job. Whether Kerry is capable of doing what I would advise him to do, I don't know. He has not shown that kind of capability so far. Perhaps, under crisis, with the right advice, and the right backing, we might enable him to rise above what he has been so far. That sometimes happens in history. If I'm not the President, that's the only option I know of: Is for me to be right in the center of the things, with, among others, people whom we share connections to.

Tibler: So, to help to shape policy.

LaRouche: Exactly. I mean, if he was smart, he'd have me--if I weren't Vice President--he'd have me as head of his National Security Council.

Tibler: Um-hmm. I believe that, see, but--because again, I have this funny feeling that history's about to change, because of the inevitability of the banking blowout. Economic blowout. As I said, I posed this question to you earlier: What comes after that? Certainly, they must have some game-plan in place, but, from what I've heard from you today, is that's probably not. Right with abandon, is what they're doing, here.

LaRouche: You know, they're off in "Dungeons and Dragons Land." And they're playing the game, with a passion. Like the kids, the adolescents who went out and shot up a high school: What was their game-plan? Their game-plan was to play the game. The game-plan of most of these shootings, of people who have been overdosed on computerized point-and-shoot games, is to play the game.

The tendency is, in childishness, when people become childish, is to go back to childhood, and play a game according to an adopted set of rules. Particularly a competitive game, according to an adopted set of rules. The rules don't conform to the real world--but they're playing the game, in the real world. And when they play that game, with real weapons, it gets nasty.

Tibler: Um-hmm, um-hmm. In terms of our re-emergence and reconstruction of a viable bricks and mortar society, that produces things, builds things, manufactures things, and creates hope, of course your game-plan is the only one that makes any sense, as far as I'm concerned. Over the years, you have expounded on the virtues of getting into things, like magnetic levitation trains--maglev, for short; particularly in light of the fact that the Chinese are now outdistancing us, incredibly, with that type of technology.

But, if I may make an aside here, it was just last week, tomorrow--one week ago tomorrow--that I engaged in a conversation I have, usually on a Wednesday mornings, early, with our Congressman, Mike Ross. And I was trying to get him fired up, to inspire me, also the listening audience, as to the potential for creating jobs and economic viability, through the proper expenditure of money on infrastructure. And I found out, after the conversation, that he was totally lacking--not just he, but apparently the majority of people in Congress--are lacking any idea or consciousness about future demographics. And I don't mean 50 years. I mean 10, 15, 5 years.

And, I mentioned the "graying of America" phenomenon. Well, to cut to the chase, Mr. Ross is going to be instrumental in bringing to the forefront, a massive spending bill to develop more highways; whereas, the demographics that I'm apprised of--and I've said this before, publicly, that because I'm in radio, we spend a lot of money on demographics, and studies, obviously. We are constantly changing our markets and targetting, and things like this. So we probably have more at our fingertips, in terms of capability and demographic understanding and changes, than the average person does. And what I've read, and what I've seen, indicates that, to heck with the highways, I'm going to need viable transportation, and jobs. Is that the motive behind your pushing for the magnetic levitation trains?

LaRouche: Well, I go one step beyond, because, when you look at demographics, you have to look at what they are, and how they've been changing, and you have to think about how you would like to change them. Because, what happened is, our demographics stink. Because, what happened is, from the 1960s on, with becoming a post-industrial society, we broke up the family and the community. Now, you still have vestigial families and communities, but in areas which are very poor. Because they were oriented around agriculture, manufacturing, small business, that sort of thing.

But, the problem is, we have families don't meet together for dinner. They couldn't meet for dinner, because the adults in the family both have jobs, and some have two jobs. And because the way things are structured, the amount of travel they're engaged in, to drive to a job, involves so much time, especially in congested areas.

So, our demographics are wrong, because we've gone in the wrong direction. Now, the way you can cure that, is with high-speed mass transit. We can actually integrate a community: So, somebody can walk from their front door, and with a minimal amount of intervening operations, get to a mass transit facility, and get to a position proximate to their destination efficiently, and cheaply. Now, that will be a way of trying to integrate communities again, with the included objective of, ultimately getting to the point, where families have dinner together. Especially families with children; or things like.

Because, the problem is, we have broken up--social damage has been done to our population. Because, in former times, you know, you'd have a neighborhood. And, the neighbors would have a sense of sort joint responsibility for looking after the neighborhood, the children, so forth. You would have the parents, or grandparents of children, living in the vicinity; uncles, aunts, relatives, living in the vicinity. So you could raise children in an extended family environment, extended neighborhood environment. And that provided a certain kind of security, psychological and otherwise

Tibler: It sure did--we're talking the '50s and '60s!

LaRouche: What we have done, is, we have produced what this crazy Emile Durkheim called "anomie": We have created, in the individual, a sense of being thrown into a jungle, like a Martin Heidegger jungle. You're "thrown into" society, you're not part of. And you're struggling to cope with this dangerous thing, or this enemy thing, called "society." And we don't have the sense of integration, we don't think of ourselves, really, in real terms as social human beings. We don't think of ourselves as enjoying having responsibility for the welfare of our fellow man, including our descendants.

We say, of our parents, when they get past the age of 65, 70, say, "Hey, Grandma, you know, you had your run. You know, the medical bills are piling up. You know, Grandma, we can't afford this. Grandma why don't you just sort of say, `I've made my run,' and push on?" And this has become prevalent in our society. You see it in the "No Code" thing in the hospital: Doctors, nurses, and families saying, "Hey, Grandma, c'mon, give it up. Give it up! You're in pain, Grandma--move along, move along!" This kind of evil, this kind of disgusting, anti-human thing, is what we've produced with our demographics.

Tibler: Not to mention the detrimental effects on the overall ecology, as well.

LaRouche: Exactly.

Tibler: And lack of efficiency.

LaRouche: Oh, we don't use land intelligently, at all!

Tibler: Apparently not, I agree.

In terms of our emergency, or peak oil crisis--I guess it's real--and the fact that we're now sitting on record-high fuel prices, what are your feelings on alternative energy? Is that another viable infrastructure development, or work-creating situation, something akin to the space program?

LaRouche: No.

Tibler: Maglev transportation? We have things that will just take this country into the cutting edge of the future.

LaRouche: This idea of energy, the concept of energy among the Baby-Boomer generation, which was induced as a result of the '68er phenomenon, is absolutely insane. They don't understand anything. It's scientifically incompetent.

The term is not "energy," it's "power."

Tibler: Okay.

LaRouche: Energy is an effect, it is not a cause. You have to have power.

Now, the more high-density the power, that is, the higher the level of technology, the more efficient it is, and the cheaper it is, and the more effective. Therefore, we need, not so-called "alternative technologies." They actually--when you look at the impact, alternative technologies cost more power, than they provide.

Tibler: At this point, yeah.

LaRouche: That is: Windmills--except if you're in the Alps or someplace, where you have tremendous windfalls hitting the driver--the cost of creating, implacing, maintaining, and operating, a windmill, as a source of electric power, costs you more power, than you get out of it. So, the benefit to the society is, in effect, negative.

What you see is, in the demographics, again: You see whole parts of the United States, which were once productive sections of the United States are vanishing, they're evaporating. For example, Detroit has about half the population it used to have. The surrounding area. Whole parts of the country--as in Arkansas--are being depleted. While the concentrations of population is in areas, which are these high-gain areas. So, we are actually destroying, per square kilometer, we are destroying the United States, by these policies. And these alternative energy policies are part of that process of destruction.

So, we have to go to high-tech. We have to go to designs of the type we would have thought of earlier. And I say, especially, cheap generation, mass generation, of power and distribution. Regulate it, so there is cheap power for everyone, for all needs: mass transit, especially rail, light rail and so forth; enable people to move, without an expensive automobile.

And then, look at this oil price: The oil price is not caused by OPEC. It's caused by two things: It's caused by the fact of hyperinflation, the same reason costs more, is the reason why gasoline costs more. Secondly, the price of petroleum is being driven up by speculation in financial derivatives. It is not being driven up OPEC, it's being driven up by Wall Street.

Tibler: If I may, just as an aside, as part of my news duties here this morning, there was a statement that was issued by an OPEC honcho that said the very same thing, but only in one line. That's all they gave him credit for: he said, it's not being driven up by supply and demand, it's being driven up by speculation. That came out of OPEC, this morning.

LaRouche: All you need to do, is you go into the derivatives area, and you cut out derivatives, which are nothing but a form of gambling side-bets; not real production, not investment in anything useful--they're gambling side-bets, but played in a financial market: That is the major factor in this thing. And if people want to get rid of this stuff, they got to get rid of financial derivatives.

Tibler: Absolutely.

If we can go back to the scenario you were portraying for us, in terms of you being President, or even as a policymaker--and I'm glad to hear you say that, because I've always felt that this input was necessary, for us to get through these difficult times ahead. In terms of the energy problem, right now, what do you foresee for the near term? Is it going to be more hyperinflation, consistent with this? And the main engine being energy prices?

LaRouche: Well, the way the structure is now, we're at this sound barrier equivalent, in terms of hyperinflation. We're not going to go much further with this. There will be a collapse. What they will tend to do, is put a dictatorship in, and they will look at dictatorship, absolute dictatorship, as the alternative. But, that means mass death. That means they'll kill people.

You see this, already, in health care: We're killing people, with our health-care policies, with our HMO policy! Look at what's happening, for example, the veterans area: We have soldiers coming back from Iraq, we have former soldiers, who should be in the Veterans Hospital system, as one of their alternatives. What're we doing for them? We don't care!

Tibler: We're cutting back, by almost $3 billion bucks, in the next budget.

LaRouche: We don't care! We send people to die, and we don't care about them! We send people to die, and we don't train them properly. We send people to die, without thinking about what it is, we're doing! We send them to die in an unnecessary wars, for somebody's ego. Or somebody's policy. We don't care!

We don't think of a soldier, or a veteran, as a typical U.S. citizen, who has the rights of a U.S. citizen; who must be cared for, as we would care for anybody, under normal conditions. Therefore, this health-care policy, is criminal, mass murderous, pro-genocidal insanity! HMO must be cancelled. We must go back to Hill-Burton, and we must start re-building our health-care system. And we should start, right now, with those GIs who are being shipped back from Iraq, and make sure that every one of them is noticed, and being given the attention they require.

Tibler: You're so right! Some of the reports are so atrocious, I mean they're housing these guys in bunkers. In concrete bunkers and all that.

LaRouche: I know. Then, go to the Veterans Hospital, or where the Veterans Hospital was, and should be. Now, look at the veteran, of Vietnam, of the World War II generation (what's still left): who desperately need care, who are in what Joycelyn Elders emphasized are in the preventive health-care area. And the Veterans Hospital system should be, actually, an experimental driver for a preventive health-care orientation for the entire population. You've got these guys who've been through all kinds of things as veterans. They have problems. They should have consultation, as to what their preventive health-care problems may be. They should have testing, to help the physician determine, what their problem is, what it might become--and treat them now, before treatment becomes terminal and very expensive.

These kinds of things, we can do with government, with the Federal government, simply by meeting our responsibility to the military, the active-service military, and to the veterans. These two areas, as they were in founding Hill-Burton in the immediate post-war period, become the driver to give us a sense, of what we must do for the population as a whole.

Tibler: It's good to hear you say that, it really is. Because that's an emotion that's very strong in this community here. And a lot of folks are suffering from a broken-heart syndrome right now, living let-down, in that regard.

Mr. LaRouche, my personal philosophy is one that does believe that we are entering, have entered, the era of hyperinflation. It's difficult for us to understand, because of the devaluation of the dollar, but all the chickens are coming home to roost. Now, in terms of the day-to-day, logistical lifestyle of people like myself, everyone in this audience, it won't be one, fell swoop, will it? It will be a very gradual tightening of the noose, correct? But, should we come to that day, where banks are nationalized, for example, we're looking at a new, Constitutionally solid currency, what will be the immediate ramifications for the man in the street?

LaRouche: Well, what it will mean--the way it would happen, it would happen suddenly. For example, if I'm President, I'm going to take the first crack that hits the United States, and as President, I'm going to have--what I already have prepared. I'm completely mentally, totally prepared, to deal with this; I've been studying it for a long time!

Tibler: I understand! That's why I asked the question! What we're lacking here, is a day-to-day perspective. What's is this going to do to me? To my life?

LaRouche: The President of the United States is going to make a speech to the nation. And, he's going to tell the people what he's just done, and what he's going to do. He said, "I am now, as of now, taking the Federal Reserve System, into receivership for bankruptcy reorganization, to protect our financial institutions, and to ensure the continuity of essential functions of the economy, and care. Pensions are going to paid; they're going to be taken care of. Banks' doors are going to stay open. Businesses are going to stay at full employment, at their present levels. We are going to increase those levels of employment. We're going to put this back together again, the way that Franklin Roosevelt approached this in 1932, as a candidate, and in March 1933, as a President." And I would say that, in that effect, laying out some of the details. And I would say, "We're going to find out what this is all about. I'm going to take it up with the Congress. We've got the administration: You will know, exactly, there is nothing to fear. Nobody is going to be abused. Nobody's going to be killed. Nobody's going to lose their rights--on the contrary: We're going to protect you. We're going to do what you would like, in your situation, the President to do: to protect you, and to protect your children, and those who come after you. And we're going to do it, now."

Tibler: What about the outstanding debts, and the old FRNs? Federal Reserve notes?

LaRouche: This goes--the Federal debt, that is, the Federal government debt, must be honored, as Alexander Hamilton explained, in terms of the question of the war debt, of the United States. But, any other debt, will be sequestered. The management of the sequestered debt will be handled, according to national interests, and according to leading human interests. That is, if people have--for example: You got a local business. The local business requires financing, in order to keep going. It wants its financing through its regular banking institution. It wants to process its normal financial transactions, through that institution. Okay. That institution keeps its doors open, under Federal government protection, if necessary. If that institution doesn't have money, we will ask the Congress to create a fund, a new system of credit, so we will have money, going into that bank, available for designated purposes of this type; to make sure the level of employment, in each community, continues at that level, and increases. Because, we've got to get the level of employment up, otherwise, we're not going to bring the states back into balance.

Tibler: Now, we're getting off the fiat dollar, correct?

LaRouche: Yeah!

Tibler: What is the ultimate backing for the new currency?

LaRouche: The will of the government!

Tibler: Okay.

LaRouche: As Roosevelt did. Roosevelt used the gold-reserve system. What he did, he took the gold--remember, in 1931, the British went off the gold system, the gold standard system. This was the system that had ruined us, beforehand.

Now, speculators were trying to use gold, against the U.S. dollar. That was their conspiracy. So, Roosevelt said, "Okay. I'm taking in the gold, for national security reasons. He bought the gold back, from the people at a fixed price, and pegged the gold at a fixed price. That process. In that way, he was able to defend the currency against operations by people who would speculate with gold. He did not use gold as a standard. But rather, he regulated gold, and used the dollar as a standard. And regulated gold for that purpose.

What Nixon did, was wrong! Nixon should have increased the price of gold, because of the inflation which had occurred during the 1960s. Instead of going off the gold-reserve standard.

We need to maintain a fixed-exchange-rate system of trade, in the world, because we have to be able to guarantee that we can issue credit, at 1-2% long-term interest rates, simple interest rates. Therefore, we have to ensure there is no inflation, in domestic or international trade.

Tibler: Okay.

LaRouche: Because, otherwise, the interest rates rise, in one way or the other. When the interest rates rise above 2% basic level, you begin to have a problem with long-term investment in basic economic infrastructure, and many parts of business. They can not afford, to expand the economy, because the interest rates' rise is too much for them; or, they got wiped out, because of a speculative fluctuation in currency values.

Tibler: Yes.

LaRouche: So therefore, the United States must create a dollar, which is a solid dollar, which people can rely upon, and the government is standing there with guns to protect it!

And we go back to a fixed-exchange monetary system, negotiated with other countries, like what we had in the 1950s. We operate essentially that way. And we use that, as we did in the late 1940s, especially the 1950s, to promote long-term capital improvements in public and private sector, internationally. That is the way we came, successfully, out of World War II, into the period of the Kennedy Administration. From there on, we started to go down. But, despite all the mistakes, what was left of Roosevelt's system, up through the time of Kennedy's assassination, worked. It worked for the economy. There were tremendous injustices, otherwise in society, and in the world. But it worked for the economy, and we have to go back to it. We have to go back to that, precisely, because that is a precedent, I, as President, can point to, to the American citizen, and say, "We are not gambling. We are not going off on some wild goose chase. This is what we did, as a nation in the last Depression. We are now in a depression. We made a mistake of going away from it. We're going to go back to it."

Tibler: It's that simple. It's a matter of record, that John Kennedy was moving us in the direction of Constitutionally sound money. Is that one of the things that got him killed, sir?

LaRouche: It was more than that. That was an expression of his evolving philosophy, under his advisors; and you have to include among Kennedy's advisors, relevant advisors, was retired General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur, who visited with Kennedy a number of times, on the issue of military policy, and related things, in Asia.

Remember, that MacArthur, in the 1930s, apart from his functions in the Philippines after ceasing to be Chief of Staff, was involved in the function of the military reserve, in the military, in terms of capital improvements in the economy. So, he studied these kinds of things, and therefore, his input, as he showed in his administration of Japan while he was the "Grand Kabu" of Japan--he understood the economics; he may not have been the best friend of trade unionism, but, he understood economics, and he understood warfare. I think his advice to President Kennedy, in his visit at the White House, and their meetings otherwise, that this was a very significant part.

This would have gotten Kennedy killed, by the people who I know, were behind his killing. I don't know the names of the individuals, but I know who the authorities were behind that. This was the same military-industrial complex, which was better called, as Allen Dulles and James J. Angleton's deal with the Nazis. This was the crowd. And Kennedy was going against the Vietnam War. He got Bundy to issue an Executive Order, in that direction. He took McNamara and humiliated him, publicly, on that issue. After Kennedy was killed, Bundy wrote reverse orders, reversing Kennedy's order. And, McNamara successfully terrorized Johnson, who thought he would be killed, too, into authorizing the Vietnam War.

Tibler: Amazing.

Last, but not least: How would you prevent these boys from lobbing a couple missiles your way, sir?

LaRouche: Well, I can't really prevent it, but I can create a tremendous penalty for doing it. My friends and I are not going to sit still, and say, "Aww, we don't know who did it." I know who my enemy is! [laughing] I got his names! I got a list of his names! Some of the leading financier organizations of the world: My enemies in the Democratic Party, apart from those who are officially part of organized crime, that is, the guys you know who say, "We got this here deal"; that type? You've got the other type, who are very similar, who are high-powered bankers; super-bankers, super-financiers: These are the guys who were behind Hitler. I know them by name. These are the guys who would be the authors of any killing of me.

Tibler: Mr. LaRouche: Seeing that its inevitable, that the demise of the dollar is here, the financial systems of the entire planet are here--what is preventing the Synarchists from allowing your views, and your policies to be integrated into a--I guess, a new type of order? I hate to use that term, but, we have to restore it.

LaRouche: What they're doing, is exactly what they are doing in their control, over the people who are controlling the Democratic National Committee's Terry McAuliffe: To whom I say, in honor of his father, "Nuts!"

Tibler: Yeah. I've always felt he was a planted spy, but that's a different show, I can do.

LaRouche: [laughing] He was planted somehow, or other!

Tibler: As I said, up front at the beginning of the show, the Democratic Party has missed the golden opportunities of the century, as far as I'm concerned. It's strictly my opinion.

We only have a few moments left, sir. What can the people of Arkansas expect and how can they contribute, right now, to your cause, sir? Again, I've said up front--I'm not even going to give you odds this time, as far as being President. I don't know. But, I'll tell you this--I'm going to say it again, I've been saying it for years, now: This dialogue is necessary for the betterment of our society. They need to hear these things. So far you've been excluded.

What can the people of Arkansas, the voters, particularly coming up to the May 18 primary, here. What can be their contribution to this?

LaRouche: Well, without naming names, let me give an example which is concrete on Arkansas: A distinguished gentleman, a patriot of Arkansas, invited me down there some short time ago, as a candidate. Now, his friends are implicitly my friends. That is, on issues, we really--in society, all other things considered, we would be working together. But, they're afraid of me, because of my enemies. They're afraid their funds will be shut off. They're afraid they'll be victimized politically, and so forth. And the threats are substantial, admittedly. There are also people in Arkansas, in the legislature, and other institutions, who know me, in one degree or another. They have no quarrel with me, on the level we're talking now. They have no quarrel with me, on the question of having a dialogue. They would like it. They would like to know things--they would like to know things that I know, for their own purposes!

So, I have no problem with the people of Arkansas, in general. I have a problem of their fear of my enemies.

Tibler: Well, that's what I mean. In light of the inevitability of the demise, on a global scale, of our economies? What is stopping them now, from including you? You gave me a ray of hope, a ray of sunshine, when you had mentioned that you think there's a chance that Mr. Kerry may pay attention here.

LaRouche: Oh sure, sure! Well, see, the question is, see, as I said, earlier on here. The problem is, in the recent process, the electoral process, the campaign process, the voters have acted like people sitting in the grandstand, betting on the gladiators in the ring below. The voters are not seriously thinking about candidates, as really incumbents. They're not thinking about that. They may think about, they want "this deal." And they hope that candidate will deliver, on "this deal." That's where the popularity of this misused concept of single-issues. You find Karl Rove does this; others do that--they play single-issue games. They try to divide voters from each other, on the basis of single issues. Then they "package" single issues--like financial derivatives! Or like bundling mortgages, for a mortgage-securities-based investment. And, they sucker voters into a state of being suckers, by making them single-issue fanatics, instead of being citizens.

The problem here, is to get the voter to think of themself as a citizen, who is like a President. In other words, the voters would think, "Now, if I were President, and I were using our conception of the responsibility of a President--for all of the people; and for our relation with other nations, as President--how would I look at politics, today?" Well, the citizen would say, "Well, first of all, I don't know enough about that, to give you an answer." Well, then you say, to the citizen: "How about getting into a dialogue, to discover what you should know, if you were President, to make these kinds of decisions?"

Tibler: Good point.

LaRouche: "Why not put people in there, who know what this is about? That you know, know what it's about? Make a decision on behalf of the nation, not on behalf of your reaction, on the basis of a single issue." The problem is, the citizens don't take themselves seriously as citizens, partly, because they know the lower 80% of the population is not considered as anything, but, shall we say, "electoral cannon fodder."

Tibler: "Fodder," yeah.

LaRouche: That's the problem. If I can get the citizen to see himself in his own, and her own dignity, as a part of the Presidency--the Presidency which is responsible for this nation--and take moral, intellectual responsibility for making sure we have a good President, who's going to do the job the country requires--not the job their prejudice wants done.

Tibler: Well, again, from our little standpoint here, in the western-central part of Arkansas, we're applying as much pressure as we can, to the Democratic Party, here in the state, to not fall into the same error that they did last time, in the last election cycle. However, should the inevitable occur once again--I see "the boys bein' the boys," just like they are; I mentioned the glaring omission of your name in today's Democratic Gazette: Do you foresee any type of legal procedure, in the event of this occurring once again in Arkansas?

LaRouche: No. No, look, you've got five fascists on the Supreme Court! Led by the Chief Monkey, or the Scaly Monkey, called Scalia. This guy is even worse, in his legal philosophy, than the legal leader of the Nazi system, Carl Schmitt. In a sense, he's a follower of Carl Schmitt--but a rather dumb one, on the philosophical level.

On the other side, his four flunkies, including Rehnquist, who is an authentic Arizona racist, by heredity--they are nothing! Essentially nothing. They don't know anything about law, they don't care about law! They're creatures of opportunism.

So therefore, then, you have the Fourth Circuit, which is the Washington/Virginia etc. circuit, is one of the most corrupt in the United States. Particularly on Federal issues. Are you going to get a legal case in the Federal system, on the rights of a citizen, the rights of a candidate? No! No.

That will happen only when the system is put through a volcanic eruption. And therefore my job, and our job is to create the volcanic eruption, using the fact, that the energy for the eruption is being supplied by the folly of the fools who are controlling the system right now.

Tibler: There you have it.

Ladies and gentlemen: This Tuesday morning, we've been blessed with the presence of Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche, you've been eloquent as ever. If I may take the time, right now, just to apprise people that if you would like more information, to somehow participate in this "volcanic" event, then by all means, call these numbers, as follows:

Information: 1-888-347-3258, I repeat 1-888-347-3258. And we also have the most gracious offer this morning: If you would like to see Mr. LaRouche's Talladega speech, they are offering you a free DVD--folks it's worth it. These things are going to be keepers. They are keepers, they're going classics. You'll need them in your archives. A free DVD of the Talladega speech: 1-800-929-7566, I repeat 1-800-929-7566.

Mr. LaRouche: Thank you, so much. I hope this is worth your while today.

LaRouche: Thank you. It is. Have fun!

Tibler: I know it has been for us. And good luck with your endeavors.

- 30 -