Question: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I'm Jason from the Baltimore area. My question is about the group you aptly described as those "draft-dodgers" trying to bring on World War III. Because, it seems to me, in order to carry forth this projected Clash of Civilizations, and to consolidate their world government, as they see it, they're going to have to nip Russia and China in the bud. Now typically, they've tried to play one against the other, prevent a sort of collaboration, like between Stalin or von Schleicher that could happen; so you put in Hitler. Or, try to play one off against the other, like Kissinger did, in the early '70s. But, now, with Putin and Jiang, they don't seem to be playing our game any more.

So, Sam Huntington, with the phrase "the West versus the rest," and all those people of that mind-set, are clearly gearing themselves up for that sort of confrontation. But it would just seem suicidal. And, you're not dealing with Arab countries, say, like Iraq--you know, they have a certain military strength, but not to hurt us, in a way that, say China or Russia could, if we came into a confrontation with them.

So, the question I want to pose to you is: How do you think the Utopians, based on their patterns of thought and what they've done already; how are they going to deal with, specifically, Russia and China, since they able to--? And, again, how does the financial collapse play into this? Because Russia and China are also taking steps to insulate themselves, financially, and their economies in general, from that, so how do you think--?

LaRouche: They're not going to be able to do that, and besides, you have to understand one thing: The Utopians are insane. Which means that, don't look for rational solutions, or capability of rational solutions, for their problem, emanating from them: They're utterly insane.

What are the Utopians? Utopians were a creation of Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, and other people, but that's the core. And Aleister Crowley, the official Satanist of the 20th Century, who created Aldous Huxley; who create Julian Huxley; who created George Orwell,and so forth. The entire apparatus--we've gone through this; you have access to it, so I won't have to repeat it here--but, the entire apparatus, from the top down, of Utopian world empire, today, was created, from the top down, by Bertrand Russell, who was the biggest war-monger of the 20th Century, and the biggest pacifist!

Now, most of these guys, today, are typified, by being ex-Trotskyists! Your biggest war-mongers, are draft-dodging ex-Trotskyists. Who were avid pacifists, who avoided Selective Service, who avoided war--or, like George Bush, the President--did useless duty in the National Guard, to avoid being sent to Vietnam. I don't think he ever learned to fly a plane. They tried to get a plane to fly him, and that wouldn't work!

So, this is the reality. These guys are Utopians. Now, what does that mean? That means, that they're like typical Trotskyists, of the worst type. They draw up a list, like a typical professor of sociology. They draw up a list of dos and don'ts--as Wells did, in his Open Conspiracy. If we do this, then this mechanic, this policy will play against this (in a Hobbesian way); this policy will play against another; and this will force people to come into this perfect society, this perfect perpetual society, based on conflict-relations.

So therefore, what you have do: You have to have two movements, which are the same movement. One is a war movement, a perpetual war movement, like the Roman Empire, run on the basis of studies of the Roman Empire! One the side, you're out to kill everybody all the time; on the other side, you have people begging for peace. So, what you have is a game, where you have your peace on this side--like the Reverend Moon; that is, the pro-Satanic, sex-crime theorist of the world; then, you have, on the other side, you have "We are the killers." And you find out, the Killers and the Pacifists are the same people.

Take Noam Chomsky, perfect example. Here is the case with Noam Chomsky, which explains this problem: Noam Chomsky was the son of two Communists, who were persecuted by McCarthyism, at the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s. Noam Chomsky was a pig. I don't know if he got a curly tail or not, but he's a pig. Chomsky studied at the University of Pennsylvania, under Professor Harris, a professor of linquistics. Linguistics was invented by Russell, through two guys, Karl Korsch, a former head of the Communist Party of Germany, Rudolf Carnap, a real idiot, a real blackboard nut. So, they invented this theory of linguistics.

Russell brought these guys--not Chomsky, but these two guys--to Philadelphia, to the University of Pennsylvania, in 1938, in an operation, run in conjunction with Robert Hutchins, who was then president of the University of Chicago. Hutchins and Russell built up, in the United States, an organization, called the "Unification of the Sciences," which had two components: A right-wing fascist element, and a left-wing socialist element, called the Vienna Circle. Both were the same thing: One was socialist; one was fascist--they're both fascist. They brought them into the United States, as nesting pairs, from Vienna--two nestlings, to each philosophy department of universities throughout the United States.

And that's what you have as philosophy--philosophy of science, philosophy of history, and so forth, in these universities today. It all came from the breeding of the eggs laid by these nesting pairs, who were brought in from the Vienna Circle and similar types, like Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss, one of the leading fascists of the world, professor of Platonic studies at the Chicago university, one of the two leading schools of Platonic studies, in the United States, today. The other is Jowett. The other is the barber school, which Leo Strauss certainly represents. Leo Strauss is a fascist. Leo Strauss is one of the educators of most of the leading fascists, inside this operation in the Bush Administration today. The American Enterprise Institute, all these kinds of people, come from that.

So, these guys were assembled. Also, the nuclear warriors, Szilard, Wigner, the other people who were nuclear warriors, in science, were Russell appointees, based at Princeton Advanced Institute, in the New Jersey--these guys. They made the bomb, they planned the nuclear policy for Russell; they worked for Russell. The peace movement under Russell worked at the same time. Both the same people. Russell demanded nuclear war, as preventive nuclear war--and got it, in Hiroshima! Launched the Cold War, himself, and ran it from the top down, by his circle.

So therefore, they start this Unification of the Sciences project in Philadelphia. That is, that part of. Harris, linguistics teacher. Chomsky comes in, as a young victim of McCarthyite persecution of his parents, full of hate. Goes into Harris's program in linguistics. Becomes a vegetable. Goes to MIT to play a key part in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Laboratory Electronics program. Karl Korsch is sent up there as his monitor, who was his political monitor at MIT. Chomsky endorses everything that Russell said about preventive nuclear war. He is considered, in the United States today, by fools, as the leader of the peace movement.

He was confronted by one of our people, at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and he admitted both of these things. He said, "What's the difference? Russell's a great man."

The man's a fascist. He typifies those who represent both sides of the issue.

That's what our problem is. We're blind to the reality, which threatens us. These guys are insane. If you look from the standpoint of epistemology, at the way these guys thinks--just take Chomsky: Chomsky says, yes, he admits, "Russell pushed for preventive nuclear war, in 1946 and thereafter. But Russell is a great pacifist. Russell [audio loss]... which the Roman Empire is a typification of fascism, in this respect. They have a policy, a will, to act. A Nietzschean, destructive will to act. They are determined to act for that will, for that stated purposes, whatever it results in! All right?

They're the ones, who started out in Germany, in the 1930s, under Hitler's "terminate the lives of useless eaters," which became, under U.S. sponsorship, from people like the Harriman family in the United States, became the death camp policy at Auschwitz. This is the policy you're dealing with: You're dealing with a true fascist mentality. Insane. Their ideas are insane, by any scientific standpoint--no consistency. They have an attitude. I guess that's what we call it these days, "an attitude." They're determined to act upon that attitude, and no consideration of consequence will deter them from acting on that attitude.

The only way you can deal with these cruds, is, take the power away from them. You have to take the power from Adolf Hitler; take the power from Chomsky; take the power from Russell; take the power from these chowder-heads. Hmm? And that's our problem.

Now, how do we do that? How do you do that? I'm a vulnerable old geezer. How do you do it? Maybe it's just sufficient for me to transmit a bit of knowledge to you, so, in case I expire, or something, that you can carry on. Well, what you do is: You have a lot a power, if you function as a movement. As I said, earlier, you have the power to shift. When you guys go into the Congress, or similar places, and make a good--shall we say--series of lightning raids, intellectual raids, huh? You shake up the whole area! You frighten them, not because you're threat: You frighten them, because you shake them up, that the youth are moving! And, anybody who's in politics, who is not an idiot, knows, that when a youth movement goes into motion, they are the only force that can move a whole population.

So, how do you deal with the problem? [dropping to a near-whisper] Organize! Organize. And, that's how you deal with it. Understand the problem, have no illusions; don't try to deal with them on their own terms; understand that you're dealing with a clinical psychotic, who's determined to act upon his will, or his thing--whatever it is, that he acts on! He will not be deterred, unless the power to do it, is taken away from him.

Now, what we're doing now, in Russia, China--and I'm peculiarly in the middle of this stuff--and in South and Central America, as well: We're moving to take the power away from 'em. We, in a very funny way--. Of course, what I do, it's all over the world, is all over the international Arab press, and other places, more and more all the time. That's not a problem. But, what happens is, ideas are funny things. It's not somebody going to somebody, and shoving a policy down their throat, that changes history. Certainly not for the better. What changes history, is spreading ideas, which have an infectious quality, which take hold, under the appropriate circumstances.

The world is in a situation, in which, here I am; I've been forecasting this collapse of the system, publicly, in written areas, for 35 year. For 35 years, I've been publishing exactly, blow by blow, what was going to happen in the long term about this world economy: It has all happened. Except the final act, the very final act, closing scene. [laughter] It's happened according to script! [growling] People say, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, not true! This system's gonna last forever! Rrryyyaaa, rrryyyaaa, rrryyyaaa! The system is impervious! Yer wrong! Free trade is everything! This system'll work! Yer wrong! Public opinion will never accept it!" Say: "Public opinion will have nothing to do with it. The system will collapse of its own weight, and public opinion will have to explain why." [laughter] Right?

So therefore, we've come to the point, that the influence of ideas, function in the way that science would suggest they work: When you have a paradoxical situation, which, what the other guys teach doesn't work, and you've been saying, it isn't going to work, and that there's a solution to that. Now saying, it isn't going to work, is not going to solve your problem. Because they say, "Okay, we'll go out and shoot ourselves. The system is going down, we have to die. We have to accept it. It's inevitable." I say, "No, it's not inevitable. If you make a decision of this type, we have a perfectly workable alternative, to the collapse of the system."

Now, that's a kind of an infectious statement: That's called the sublime--the highest art-form: the sublime. It's to take a tragic situation, and to propose a solution to that. Let the tragedy come on stage, and then, show that what you showed on stage of ideas, is what is happening!

"You mean, it's not a stage-play? It's what's happening?" "Absolutely!"

"They're all gonna die."

"Noooo! That's not necessary! You don't have to die. I've provided for that. Here's what you have to do."

And, in that way, I've had a delightful amount of success, in spreading ideas around this planet, and we have a lot of governments and others, who are operating on the basis of those ideas. And, you have the advantage of those ideas, understanding them, and using them to change things. We are now in a situation, where the planet has to change, if it's going to survive. Now, the human race has been on this planet for about 2 million years or so, at least. And over this period of time, the population of the planet has increased from several million potential--which is what the apes have a potential of; don't monkey around with humanity, you'll end up with an ecological disaster. We now have 6.2 billion people on this planet, according to the latest reports. We've increased the potential population-density of this planet, tremendously, by the human will, by science, and by the application of science. And we have not not begun to realize what we could do, in terms of the power to improve things on this planet.

So therefore, we have reason to be optimistic about humanity, despite all disasters. In net effect, humanity has succeeded. Humanity is not a failure. The greatest success in the universe, is humanity. It has the capacity, despite all its shortcomings, to succeed. And, under conditions of crisis, people tend to survive. Cultures tend to survive, if they have any viability. And therefore, I think humanity's going to survive.

But, it has to have a little help, and our job is to provide it. [applause]

-30-