Question: Hi, I'm from Washington, D.C. I have a lot of problems with the statements you're making. First of all, I agree that the interior continents must be developed, but if we tried to do the Eurasian Land-Bridge today, we'd have it administered by corrupt Western and Japanese businessmen, Middle Eastern Wahabis, Central Asian warlords, corrupt Chinese bureaucrats, and the Russian mafia. Each would take the resources entrusted to him, for the development of the Land-Bridge, and use it to line his own pockets.

Second, you equate budget cuts with genocide. That assumes that the increase in government spending during the '90s actually saved lives. Which of course is not true. Most government spending today is wasteful, and should be cut. Your fallacies, Mr. LaRouche, spring from your failure to apprehend the real problem, the sin enthroned in every human heart, and the only solution, personal faith in the blood of Jesus, shed to atone for our sins.

LaRouche: Well, actually, you can't complain about the morals of other countries, because the worst morals I know in the world are found in the United States, in the U.S. government. And it is not -- it was misspending, not excessive spending that was the problem. That's not the problem. The problem was that not enough spending in the right way, and raising prices without producing goods. And these other countries do not have as much corruption as we have. They don't have the luxury of being quite as corrupt. So, we're in a sense better off with them, than otherwise.

Besides, man is not naturally evil. That's a wrong conception. Man is not intrinsically evil. Man is intrinsically good. However, there's a little problem here, of getting a person from a newborn condition, into realization of their true human potential. And so far, in society, very few people really make it. But I know, from long experience, that if you do as I do, and accept the frustration that occurs sometimes, you appeal to that within people which is good, naturally good, the best thing in the universe.

And this idea that Christianity deals with man as being intrinsically evil, that is a false belief which has nothing to do with Christ. Has nothing to do with Christianity -- the conception of Christ. Just think about the ludicrousness of the argument, about this, Christ came to rescue the evil. This is a Jonathan Edwards type of crazy idea, which spread among some Protestant cults, and others. You're saying that God, the Creator of the universe, has bad taste, that He would send His Son to die, for a bunch of creatures which are the lousiest most evil things slithering across the planet. I would propose to you that God does not have bad taste. And that Christ's sacrifice for the redemption of mankind as a whole, expresses God's confidence in the essential goodness of the human individual. And as Christ and many of the apostles, and others, sacrificed their lives, willingly -- not that they desired to sacrifice their lives, but they did it when they had to -- did it on behalf of that intrinsic goodness, which lurks in all mankind.

Our job is to bring forth in man, to inspire them, to recognize that goodness. And to recognize it in themselves, and to cling to it, and not to slip into some kind of degenerate kind of behavior. Which is typical of people today, including many so-called fundamentalists.

A fundamentalist, for example, who supports a John McCain or a Lieberman, or some of these crazy cults that support George Bush, is actually doing evil. Now, how can they say that their kind of Christianity is what I should be listening to, when what I see them doing, is evil. Whereas I know that mankind, who often does commit evil, is intrinsically good, and that God, through Christ, in particular, has expressed His confidence in the essential goodness of mankind. And it's my job, as anyone else who follows that, to bring forth in people, to the degree possible, the essential goodness which lives within them; not to write them off, assuming that if they get down and crawl, and say what a dirty little boy they are before the altar, at an altar call -- I don't have any confidence in altar calls. I've seen many of them, and I don't believe them. An altar call is a habit which is expressed by an inveterate sinner, who has an altar call, and then goes out and commits a sin, and then has another altar call. And I haven't seen it doing much good lately.

Particularly in the case of the President of the United States, who has two defects. One defect is his former drug habit. The other is, he got off the drugs through one of these fundamentalist things, which turned him into a beast. And that's the problem.

We have to believe, if you want to defend Christianity, you have to believe in the essential goodness of man. You have to believe in the redemption of mankind. You have to believe in the cause of trying to get other people to participate in that process of redemption of mankind, not out of fear, not out of hate, not out of [the desire to] combat against evil as such. You want to fight evil? Fight Bush. But in the sense of the goodness -- that you have one life, and don't waste it. Spend it wisely. Spend it, to do good.

And most of humanity's like that. They're reachable. It's our job, especially those who become leaders, it's our job, constantly, to reach out, to bring forth the goodness which is innate to all people.

-30-