And Now, A Year Later
Discussion Period
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
January 24, 2023
 

FREEMAN: I'd like to start with some questions that were submitted by Dr. Mustafa Ali. He is the economics editor of Al-Arab International, which is a newspaper that is published in London. He says, "First and foremost, that he would like to send greetings and express the admiration of his Arab readers of Mr. LaRouche's daring and courageous positions. And also his thoughts, especially as they relate to the Palestinian cause, and all other issues regarding the Arab world." He says, "First, Mr. LaRouche, you talked about the Sept. 11th events, and their political-economic-strategic and historical background. But the question is still: What would have been the reaction of a Democratic U.S. administration, rather than a Republican one? Would it have taken the same path against terrorism, that you now call a suicidal policy?"

LAROUCHE: I think that if Al Gore had been President, the reaction would have been far worse than it has been under Bush. The DLC crowd, Lieberman and so forth, on record, would have gone whole-hog, where Bush has hesitated, and dragged his feet, and resisted. We would probably have today, a full-scale Clash of Civilizations war in progress.

Now, the problem with that, is, there's another side. If Bill Clinton had been President--but he wasn't eligible; he couldn't run for a third term, because of that amendment that was made, the anti-Roosevelt amendment made at the end of World War II. Bill Clinton, I think, would have been a different proposition, and would have been useful.

There are other, as I said, in the Democratic Party, there are many good people in it. The trouble is, they keep "going along to get along," and that's the way you get along to Hell. And Clinton's mistakes were, he kept capitulating. You know, Bill Clinton was probably among the most intelligent Presidents the United States has ever had. And that's not statement of admiration; that's a statement of protest, because he never lived up to what I thought was his potential. He would compromise at points I thought he shouldn't compromise.

As you may suspect, I'm strong on principle. Some people would like to do something with power for the good: I think Bill's one of them, but they would struggle to keep the power first, and serve the principle second. And I'm the kind of guy who would probably give up the power, risk the power for the sake of the principle. And I think that's what was needed.

I don't think--. I think it's moot now. I think the thing to learn from this is that the Democratic Party was a disaster. The reason that Bush was elected, was, that the Democratic Party candidate, and the coalition around him, was an unmitigated disaster. And people were not attracted--. The fact that people voted at all for the Democratic Party was because they somehow wished that, maybe, that would mean that Bill Clinton would still be there in Washington on the day after the next inauguration. But if Bill Clinton had not been, in a sense, behind the ticket of Al Gore, I think that Al Gore would have made Landon look like a winner.

So, I think that's--the Democratic Party is a mess. And I wouldn't put any confidence in the Democratic party at this time, except by scolding it. As I scold it. And say, if you're any good at all, change your ways! And do it now! Because you are the laziest, most good-for-nothing bums, collection of bums, I've seen in a long time. Unless I look over at DeLay and the other part of the Republican side--you've got a bigger bunch of bums over there. But these Democrats, by pretending to be something nice, they're worse than the worst Republicans. The worst Republicans at least admit they're dinosaurs! The Democrats pretend to be nice guys, and they're more evil than the dinosaurs.

So, I think my answer to the question's implicitly clear: It's not going to be a choice of existing institutions--on the Al Arab question. The question is: Can we in the United States and other countries organize a force to replace what is now that worthless collection of fools, called the "Democratic Party leadership"? A bunch of fools among whom there are many good people, but as along as they continue to work with one another the way that they do, they act like a bunch of fools. And it's terrible. So, I think, if the Democratic Party were to come to power now, under what is called the present leadership of the party, with people like Lieberman and Gore as leading contenders, and people who don't agree with them, but who are opportunists, supporting them, the Democratic Party would rush into war, where Bush, and Powell, and others would hesitate.

FREEMAN: Lyn, there's a follow-up from Dr. Ali. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, you always emphasize that the American violent policies have British political minds behind them. Do you expect that there will be American independence soon, from the British intellectual and political pressure?

LAROUCHE: Well, that's what the fight's about in the United States. Now, I represent not something unique or really strange, from the American standpoint. I represent probably one of the last, important representatives, intellectually, of the American Intellectual Tradition. And on the other side, the people who disagree with me in high places--like the major news media and so forth, the entertainment media, much of the banking community, and so forth--they represent something which I call, which President Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt called the "American Tories." So, we have a treasonous pack of American Tories, which dominate our mass media, which dominate our financial system, which dominate now, through the Utopians, the military arm of our power--but that group, that American Tory policy--has carried the United States down to destruction, through the crazy economic policies we've adopted, especially over the past 35 years.

So, we've come to a breaking point, where one of two things is going to happen: Either the United States is going to destroy itself, or it's going to dump that American Tory policy. Now I can not guarantee either result. I can only guarantee, that if we don't get rid of the American Tory policy, we're not going to have the United States to worry about. So therefore, I would say that if the United States is going to survive, it's going to change. And my function is to try to bring about that change, by setting an example and setting a pace for other people to join in on.

FREEMAN: I think the next question we'll take will be actually from our audience gathered here. I'd like to call to the microphone Mr. David Brode, who is a trade unionist, and the Western Maryland Central Council vice president.

BRODE: Mr. LaRouche, it's a pleasure, as always. I don't have a question for you. My question is for other union leaders out there listening, or who may hear this at a later time. I'll try to make this short.

In my opinion, there's a couple of different types of union leaders out there today: There's what a right-wing friend of mine calls "blue-collar aristocrats," and there's also true unionists. I believe that the rank and file out there is disenchanted with the union leadership, partly because we've been feeding the rank and file all the same old rhetoric: "We're gonna go with Gore"; "We're gonna go with Carter"; and we're gonna go with everybody in-between, and they see what it's done for us, which is nothing much.

I don't have much faith or much hope for the so-called "blue-collar aristocrats" within the AFL-CIO, and also within the various union internationals, but I do have hope for the others. And I personally don't have much faith in the national AFL-CIO at this time; I don't have a whole lot of faith in the individual international unions. I believe the only hope, is to look to the rank and file and the leadership one notch up from the rank and file. There are a lot of leaders out there, they are in their little warm, fuzzy place.

But, the question I have for all of them is to please look in the mirror and ask themselves: "Are you a blue-collar aristocrat, or are you a true unionist?" The rank and file is looking, they're going to be looking for answers, and I would hope that those out here, the unionists, the union leaders, would do as I've done, and go with LaRouche. I must say, it was uncomfortable at first--I've been on board for quite a while--but, you know, the more you do it, the easier it becomes, and then you get a feeling that you're actually doing the right thing.

I asked those leaders out there: When you die, what are they going to put on your tombstone? Are you going to be able to say that you actually made a difference? Or you made the world a better place, or potentially a better place? By fighting this fight, I think we make this world a better place, or potentially a better place. I want to appeal to the unionists: "Brothers and Sisters, do it at whatever level needs to be done. You can ask your rank and file, I mean, there's Republicans and Democrats both among them. Just ask them: `Do you think that the party of FDR and JFK still exists?'" Do you think the party of Lincoln and McKinley still exists? I think the answer is no.

I guess I'll close with that. I thank you.

LAROUCHE: Thank you.

FREEMAN: We have a question that was submitted by a retired Finance Ministry official from the nation of Japan. He says:

"Japan has severe problems with its own economy. However, it also appears to be under political attack from external forces, located at places like the American Enterprise Institute and Goldman Sachs, who are trying to organize a run on our banking system. Some people in Tokyo are beginning to realize that such a foreign political attack cannot be defended against using domestic monetary measures. We were alarmed to read in the interview by Dr. Makin of the American Enterprise Institute, that the `Washington Consensus' assumes that Japan has no guts. What are the measures that you recommend to Japan to resist this attack, both in the short term, and in the longer term?"

LAROUCHE: Well, Japan has to--I think there are senior people who would understand this. I think the problem is, that many of the younger leaders in Japan--under 65, under 70, under 55--but the younger leaders, because they've been educated in U.S. universities, have assimilated these ways of thinking, these Americanized ways of thinking, don't think the same way, and have a Japan version of the same kind of problem that we find commonly in the U.S. age groups, of the same type. And this is especially true of those in our own age groups of that age group, which are in the financial services or in similar kinds of occupations, and in the board rooms and whatnot. And in Japan, the same thing. Also among the politicians.

That, here you have: Japan faces an existential crisis. Japan's existence is on the edge, just as much as Argentina's is right now. Japan has been, for a long period of time--especially since the period of Kissinger, on the issue of Japan's Iran policy; Brzezinski on the issue of Japan's Mexico policy, and so forth--Japan has been destroyed in what has been its rich potential, emerging in the 1960s, when Japan was engaged in exporting technology to developing countries, and actually making a very important contribution.

As for example: You have Professor Nakajima of the Mitsubishi Research Institute, exemplified an entire strata in Japan that I knew in the 1980s, who still had those values: That Japan's mission was to find--especially among its neighbors in Asia--was to find the possibility of doing good. And going into these countries and working with these countries to develop them, not simply as markets for Japan exports, but as Japan's defeat in World War II exemplifies this: Japan is an island-nation, with very limited natural resources, which has developed an excellent industrial potential--or had. Japan, therefore, depends upon finding ways of securing the raw materials and so forth, that it requires from outside, by exporting to countries things that they need, that Japan can produce.

Now, Japan has available to it a vast amount of potential in northern Asia, in Russia. Japan has, throughout Eurasia, all kinds of opportunities to engage in long-term agreements of technology for processed raw materials and so forth, so, Japan could have a future. Japan's major role is actually, properly in Eurasia. And of course there are historical difficulties--a history of conflicts with neighboring countries, dating especially from 1894 on, as with China, Korea, and so forth. But these problems can be overcome; and they should be overcome.

Now, the system is coming down. Japan has been used, during the 1980s, especially since the middle of the 1980s, and beyond, has been used as a towel-boy for Wall Street and London. Japan has been printing money, and doing all the things that the United States and Britain told it to do, in order to subsidize the Anglo-American system. Now, when the pumping system occurred, that is, the financial pumping system occurred, in the 1990s, Japan began using the creation of its currency to subsidize the U.S. financial markets. This is their big problem!

Now, Japan has now reached the point, that it is technically bankrupt. The banking system of Japan: technically bankrupt. It is implicitly in the same kind of situation as Argentina. If Japan goes under--and it can go under momentarily--it is in default, which may not be declared, but is there. Don't wait for the official declaration of a default in Japan. The default is now in process. It is now inevitable. It is not something that might happen. It will happen, unless there's a fundamental reorganization of the world financial system quickly.

So, Japan has really nothing to lose-really--by facing that reality. There is no possibility for recovery or survival of Japan under present conditions. When Japan goes, the U.S. dollar goes. Because without the support of Japan, the U.S. dollar would collapse very soon. Whether in weeks or months is not important. It would collapse. It would be doomed. And you get two or three more countries, like Japan and Argentina, going under, such as Poland or Turkey, a few others that are highly eligible on the list--they go under: The whole system is gone!

So, what we have to do, I think, then, is those of us who understand the situation, including especially senior people in Japan, who have a long experience in the institutions in Japan--places like the Bank of Japan, the Finance Ministry, the Foreign Ministry and so forth--the people like that, who really know what used to work, and what doesn't. They know that the younger people in Japan, by following the American bullying, are making a terrible mistake. But they are not fighting.

I think the only solution is, that we have to have outside of, and parallel to government relations, we have to reach a closer understanding among people of influence in various countries, who can then jointly operate to bring their nations that they also represent, together around these things.

See, the problem is: the people in the United States don't understand Japan. They don't understand Japan's problem, as I just summarized it. They don't understand the problems of China; they don't understand the problems of Korea; they don't understand the problems of Southeast Asia; they don't understand what happened to Indonesia; they don't understand it at all. They have no understanding! They sit there; they copy opinions from these fools, like the American Enterprise Institute and others--these babblers, these idiots, the State Department mouthpieces, mimeograph machines! They don't understand anything about it.

We have to make clear to the American people what the problem is. Because, I'll tell you--and there are other who can tell you: If Japan goes down, as it's on the edge of doing, right now, with these idiots, like the American Enterprise Institute, pushing it--if it goes down, tell me how many major banks in the United States are going to go down, and right away? And who's going to fix that, with O'Neill at Treasury, and an ideologue like Lindsey as the economic adviser to the President--and the Democratic Party, the pack of fools that it is in the Senate, and the pack of fools that is, largely, in the House of Representatives?

So, I think the key thing we have to do is, raise our voices in clarity to make clear to people what the problem is. I've said what it is. And I think my questioner knows. I've said what it is: More of us must say it jointly together, what the problem is. And maybe some of my foolish fellow Americans will wake up, to realize that what we're saying is real: You keep pushing Japan the way it's being pushed now, with no discussion about options for avoiding this catastrophe, and you're going to find out--somebody sitting in New York or Washington, saying: "Look Mama, America has, not no pants, but no banks"-or maybe, no pants, too.

FREEMAN: I have a question from a former member of the Clinton administration. This is a question from Washington, D.C. The question is:

"Mr. LaRouche, shortly after President Clinton began a discussion of a new financial architecture, his Presidency was destabilized. Was the apparatus that you've identified as behind the ongoing coup d'etat against the Presidency, the same apparatus that was involved in the assault on the Clinton Presidency? What are your thoughts on this?

LAROUCHE: Absolutely, there's no question of that. For example, the major operations against President Clinton, from even before he was President--I think it dates from about August of 1992. But he was immediately targetted by circles associated with the Mellon Scaife Foundation. Now the Mellon Scaife Foundation is the same thing as the H. Smith Richardson Foundation, which is on record as one of my enemies; the Olin Institute, and so forth and so on. So this pack--and also if you look at the Israeli side--the same people on the Israeli side, who are operating against the President, are also an integral part, and allies of the same crowd that Smith Richardson, Olin, etc., Mellon Scaife, are part of. So, there's no question of that.

Look, what happened? Take the sequence of events: 1996, I Warned: "Look, we're in the end-phase of the system--the collapse I've been talking about--we're in the end-phase, the last period." And there was a lot of talk in the Democratic Party, at the time, about what I said. And people saying, "Well, no. Maybe you're exaggerating." Or they were saying, "Maybe there are ways to fix it. Maybe we don't have to do it your way. Maybe we can do it our way."

Then, you had what was falsely called the "Asia crisis," which was not an Asia crisis: When somebody comes up and shoots a guy with a bullet, the crisis is not caused by the guy who's taken the bullet, but rather by the guy who shot the bullet. And that was the nature of the Asia crisis. The Asians didn't cause it. The people like George Soros caused it.

All right, so, this kind of thing.

So then you had a follow-on: You had a swindle which was pulled by friends of Al Gore, which is the GKO crisis of 1998, or the LTCM crisis, which almost blew up the entire U.S. financial system right then and there, with the hedge-fund collapse.

Now, at that point, is the point that the President had indicated in September in New York his indications about looking at a new financial architecture for the international system. And I believed at the time that he meant it. I believed that his Secretary of the Treasury was capable of dealing with that kind of issue in his official capacity. That that was the way to go. That simply, the U.S. Treasury Department, under the authority of its President, incumbent President, meeting with people in other countries, should enter into the kind of discussion which had been avoided in the 1975 meeting of the international leadership, G-7 group. And that we could start something then.

The President backed down. I don't know why he backed down. I rather suspect that he was frightened by some of the information he had about how serious the LTCM crisis really was. Then when it came to October, the President, after walking into Wall Street, the jungle, where lions and snakes and things roam, had gone in there and said, "Gentlemen, I'm going to change your system." And then he walked away and said "I didn't mean it." That is the worst thing you can do in the face of that kind of enemy. If you threaten them, and then run away scared, they're gonna come and kill you! Particularly, if you're in a powerful position. And they did. They had the operation already set up, already in place, and they went ahead with this Lewinsky scandal. And the reason they did that--and the people who did that--look at the agency, in the White House, which controlled the White House internal communications. Who is that agency? What foreign power controls it? And what is the political interest behind that foreign power? And there's your answer.

Then you take the same thing with the question of the President's dealing with the Camp David negotiations. Now, that was a good idea. I think the President made a mistake in the way he handled the concluding part of the thing. I was afraid of the way the thing was going, because if you don't have an economic angle to this, the Oslo Accords could not work. And then, when Barak came in with his threat: "You give me," in effect, "you give Israel the site of the third holiest place in Islam, as a place for a new temple, or else!" Arafat had no choice but to say, "No, I can't buy that." I think the rest of the package was a good package. It was a good negotiation. It may not have been adequate, but it was a good negotiation, and could have been a step toward another, a follow-up implementation which might have provided the real solution.

But then, remember, what happened? You had, in the period of the Clinton administration, you had Rabin, who had been key in the Oslo Accords--he was assassinated and nobody did anything about it. President Clinton tries to do this now with Barak, which I think turned out to be a mistake (but I wasn't really aware of how much of a mistake that was, so I can't take credit for that). But then, he was suckered by Barak. And in what he said, he made a mistake. The President should have said, "We had a good agreement, but the Israelis made an unreasonable demand, and therefore, that's why it sunk." If the President said that, I think we would have been able to manage the situation, and we would not have the present Sharon phenomenon in the Middle East.

But this Sharon phenomenon, and the friends of Sharon in New York, who are the financial angels behind Amdocs, are part of the same thing. Exactly the same thing as this Sept. 11, the same thing as this present Israeli operation in the Middle East, and the Clash of Civilizations warfare. Look at the list of people who want a bombing of Iraq, who want a bombing of Iran, who want to go into Somalia, who want to do this, who want to do that, who want a Clash of Civilizations. So, what the President was faced with is the fact that he constituted a potential threat to these Utopians' scheme, for their Utopian future.

And as I know them--I've been there--remember, I did a couple of things in my life, on the SDI and so forth. I stuck my neck out on that and a few other questions, against exactly the same enemy: Smith Richardson, Mellon Scaife, Heritage Foundation, Mont Pelerin Society, Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski--the same mob. And the same mob came after me, that went after Clinton. And they'll always do it. They were going to kill me; they didn't kill me; they threw me into prison instead. But that's the way the American political system works, under the influence of these thugs. And under our present mass media. And they did the same thing to Clinton. And I was happy that I was able to make some contribution to preventing them from succeeding in the impeachment effort they planned. They wanted to get Gore in there real quick. If they'd gotten Gore in there real quick in 1999, then you would have had Hell on Earth right away.

But Clinton's Presidency was saved; he did some good things. He prevented Gore from becoming President, by still being President, and that was a wonderfully good thing. But he shouldn't have backed Gore for the nomination and election in 2000.

But, no, I just cite this, to make a more complete answer, but my view is: The evidence shows that there is no doubt that the President was victimized, because he did take these guys on, and the guys he took on is the same nest of snakes, which we're discussing under the Clash of Civilizations and the Sept. 11th category.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. I'd like to take another question from the United States. This one is from Sen. Hank Wilkins, from the Arkansas State Legislature. He says:

"First of all, Mr. LaRouche, I want to thank you for the help that you've given to America, and to the world.

"What would you say, is the best course for elected officials, in order to help get the word out, to legislatures and other bodies around the nation?"

LAROUCHE: Well, I think, what we have to do, is, we have to get our guts together. And, we have to--those of us who agree, with this kind of mission--should be working together. Now, that doesn't mean, you work together, in terms of, necessarily, always a formal organization; we have formal and informal arrangements, that we can work through. But, in a sense, we should be in consultation, every week. Just consultation. And, we have to [do] two things: We have to clear our own heads, on what we think should be done, and what can be done. We also have to make clear to the American people: "Yes. Okay! The Democratic Party's a mess; the Republican Party's a mess. Don't give up the ship! The incumbent President has certain--shall we say?--limitations. But, don't give up the ship, and abandon the nation, because you see these `downsides' to the problem." If the American people realize, that we have, in the United States, something like that which was typified by the Henry Clay-John Quincy Adams circles, during the period of the 1930s, 1840s, and 1850s, we can keep the spark of the American Intellectual Tradition alive. We can keep the American Revolution alive. And, if the American people know that we are keeping the Revolution alive, just as Henry Clay, and Henry C. Carey, and John Quincy Adams, and, later, Abraham Lincoln did--during the terrible times of the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s--then there will come a time, when we can get our nation back.

And, I think, under the present conditions, where the threat is so immediate, and most intelligent Americans can recognize it quickly--that it is immediate, and events will show it, very quickly--the problem the American faces: We have to think about the little guy, the fellow out there, a citizen, a student, thinks they're very little. They think they have no power. They think there's nothing they can do about the situation. Well, there is something they can do about it. But, they can only do it, on two conditions: First of all, that they sense that they're part of something big, that can do something. Secondly, that they have a kind of leading layer, with whom they associate themselves, who will represent them, as a leading group of people, in these issues.

So, the important thing, is to meet, to discuss, to share, to debate, to argue--but argue as legislators should, for example: to argue the issues; argue the policies. But, let the people out there know: That, outside the mess in the Democratic Party, outside the mess in the Republican Party, in our institutions, there are people, of substance, often who have been elected to positions, who are respected; who are meeting; who care about the nation; and who want to do something about it! The American people will respond to that.

The problem is, the American people have been denied the visibility of an influential institution to which they can turn, when they want to get a job done. I know Americans; I've been one for a long time, myself, and therefore I have some inside knowledge of them. Americans are always looking for some guy to talk to, who they can get to do something, that they think needs to be done, but which they can't do themselves. And, what you have do is, give the American that person he's looking for--not one person, that's always useful--but give them a group of people they think they can turn to, and have an interchange with, so we can get this thing on the level of discussion, from the standpoint of reason, not from the standpoint of just, plain lobbying. But from the standpoint of reason.

And, I think that this kind of semi-formal/formal associations, committees, groups, discussion circles, and so forth, among political figures, can create a force in the United States that the parties can not ignore.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. I have a question (at least, I think that that's what this is; but if it's not, I'll correct myself). This is a question from somebody who is in the gathering at the United Nations, in New York. His name is Mr. Hussein. He is a correspondent with the Magrev Times, [ph] which is a newspaper in Lahore, Pakistan. His question is the following:

"Mr. LaRouche, what do you think, in these circumstances that have been created by the peace-makers, that the future of countries like Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, where, still, Osama bin Laden appears to be alive and travelling--what type of solutions, either social or economic, can we put together, in the future, to address our problems, and to address things like the current conflict between India and Pakistan?"

LAROUCHE: I can say, from my experience--and I was just in India, for about two weeks, where I discussed some of these kinds of problems, among others. I was in Russia, for about a week, with important discussions with people there. I was in Italy, recently, for discussions there. I've had discussions in other locations in Europe, and so forth. And, there is a possibility in the world, which I find in the way people are reacting to me: And, when people react to me, that means that I've got, implicitly, some responsibility to act in response. I think that, if we can pull together, around the world--not just on government-to-government level; government-to-government is important, but there's also another level, on which the options of government are defined. They're defined informally, in the shaping of opinion, across borders and within borders, among groups of people who meet and discuss precisely these kinds of questions--the kind of question you just posed.

The obvious thing, to me: You have to pick an objective--not just a negative one. Don't say, what would be, from a negative standpoint, desirable: What from a positive standpoint will give us a solution? My solution is the same one, which President Franklin Roosevelt, in his own way, envisaged for the postwar world.

One of the reasons that I'm well-received in some circles in India, is because I was in India, in 1946; I was in Calcutta, during a famous period, where there was a virtual revolution--an actual revolution--which did not quite take power, but could have. And, I am associated, in the minds of Indians who know about me, with my views, and attitudes, and activities, from those months, in 1946; when I was an American soldier, returning from Burma, into India, and was (shall we say?) seen and known on the streets of Calcutta, and in lots of circles in Calcutta. At that time, I was witness, in Calcutta--I was standing on the Maidan, in particular, one evening, in which there were millions of people marching in protest against an atrocity by the British police in India, which could have brought independence to India, then. And, as I was walking the street, I heard this crowd, this mass, and the Chowringhee was the street they were marching down, by the Maidan--it was a fairly wide street, for the times. Packed. With queues, running for miles--3 to 4 million Indians, marching--maybe more. And, the cries from the crowd were consistent: "Jai Hind! Pakistan Zindabad! Jai Hind! Pakistan Zindabad": They were brothers. They were brothers, with a common culture, and a common history.

My view is that, if we create the idea, not of imperial power--get away from the ideas of Hobbes and Locke, and other butchers--and go back to what Nicholas of Cusa proposed in his Condordantia Catholica--a community of perfectly sovereign nation-states, based on a common principle of dedication to the Common Good, the General Welfare--that, if we get that idea, of that kind of multi-polar world, then we will get the possibility of the kind of discussion that can go with it. Because the question of peace, involving Pakistan and India, is not a formal question. And, the Indians are right in saying that the United States and nobody else, should [not] go in there and try to negotiate the Kashmir thing: It's between Pakistan and India, if it's ever going to be solved. No one else is going to come in with a master plan, and solve that problem. Only India and Pakistan can come to a solution, on this question-get together, of course, with the Kashmiri people.

Keep out of it! Don't try to administer a solution. What you have to do, is: Bring about an understanding, that we, for the sake of the future of humanity, must at last establish a system, a multi-polar system, over this planet, which consists of a community, united in principle, of sovereign nation-states. If we have that idea, and if we, as private citizens, say, "Our governments are committed to this idea. We are going to meet together, to try to make it work." I think we can succeed. It's the best hope we have.

FREEMAN: We have a question from a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, here in Washington. The question is:

"Mr. LaRouche, what would you say, is the appropriate course of action for African-American elected officials, in speaking out against the Clash of Civilizations, as well as the increasing abandonment of any commitment to the principle of the General Welfare, without appearing to be soft on the question of terrorism?"

LAROUCHE: Well, see, this is a typical problem. We just have celebrated, presumably (those of us, who are in a position to do so)--just celebrated the anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King.

Now, what happened, is that, when Martin died, the Civil Rights movement almost died. The veterans existed; but the Civil Rights movement existed as an organization of veterans of the civil rights struggle. Other issues took over. Why? Because the leaders around King, were not like King: King was really a Christian! You have a lot of preachers in this country, but not so many real Christians. [laughing] King believed in mankind. He believed, as he said in the speech on the mountain top, the question of the mountain top. He believed, that he had to put his life on the line, for the sake of a purpose for humanity, and that the African-American leader must struggle for humanity, not so-called "black interests" first. Because, when you struggle for humanity, you become a representative of humanity, and you have the power of being a spokesman for humanity. Not of special interests. And, when you come from an oppressed group, and you represent all humanity, you are more powerful than otherwise. Because you are capable of rising above the littleness, the piggishness, which most people have about the idea of self-interest.

King had that! King united and inspired people, with love, in his policy, his works. Those who tried to succeed him could not do that: They were too selfish; they were too small, in their minds; they were too concerned about things that were small, that King kept them from spoiling the job, while he was still there. He would bring them to a higher level.  And, there were a few people around King, who represented that--as my friend, Amelia Boynton Robinson says: The key to the Civil Rights movement, in its hardest struggles in the South, were some of the have-nots. The people who thought they had something, thought their interest was in what they had. The have-nots thought their interest was in what nobody had: real freedom. A decent society. And, they fought. And, the people who wouldn't fight for Civil Rights, were the people who didn't want to put at risk what they thought was their special interest. And, that's the key to this problem.

The problem with the Congressional Black Caucus--it comes under tremendous pressure, from an African-American community which is morally demoralized. It does not believe in what Martin Luther King represented; it's very nice that they celebrate his memory, once a year. But they do not believe in what he represented in point of fact, as I know it! And, as other people know it! And, African-American leaders of conscience know that! They know that's true!

And, sometimes, I feel like the real Africa-American leader: Why? Because I believe in what King believed in. That's the way you have to be. And, if you're that, you represent everybody! You care about everybody! You care about what is in our common interest. And, the most beautiful thing, is to have someone who comes from a stratum, which is oppressed, who stands up, and says, "Well, I'm oppressed. I know about oppression: I'm one of the oppressed. I'm not the most oppressed, but I'm one of the oppressed. And, I constantly have to watch out that I'm going to be victimized, because there are racists around, who hate us. But, I'm not going to play that game. I'm not going to wear that bag. I'm going to be a leader! And, then people will have to respect what I am! And they will have to respect the people, from whom I come; because I'm that kind of leader."

I mean, one of the greatest things, that happened with King, was King himself. King was the movement. Now, every great leader of a true social movement, has that character: They become the personification of the movement. And the love and respect that they evoke, inspires people; and the movement succeeds. Think of Johnson! Think of Johnson in 1964, with the Civil Rights Act--including the Voting Rights Act, which the Democratic Party crushed! And, some African-American Black Caucus leaders went along with that! Tolerated it! How did that happen? How did Johnson, President Johnson (he was not the worst guy in the world), but how did Johnson come to that hard decision, not only for the Civil Rights Act, but for the Voting Rights Act? How'd he come to that decision, that year? For which he was bitterly hated! And for which, denied him the chance of being reelected President--if truth be known. Because King inspired love. King represented the best quality of the American, and a President had to recognize, that someone who could take oppressed Americans, and lead them, the way King had done--and inspire others: You can't deny that, because that's like denying everything good in yourself. So, that's the difference.

You know, I've had my fight with the Black Caucus people, on just this issue. I've had fights again, with Civil Rights organizations, repeatedly, on this issue: Don't become small-minded! Look at the world: Look at what's happening in Indonesia; look what's happening, all over the world! Don't tell me how bad your problems are. I know how bad they are, better than you, perhaps, because I'm an economist. Let's talk about what we have to do to change it! And to build the kind of system, in which this oppression no longer exists. And, above all: To build the kind of society, in which people love one another, in which this kind of thing doesn't go on!  And, that's where the problem lies. And, you guys, in the Caucus, you've got to come up to that level! You've got to think about King, with tears in your eyes! And say, "Have we lived up to that standard? And, do we turn to the people who tell us we're their leaders; do we turn to those people, and say, "You want to lose? Play the game of `My Little Community' and `My Little Special Interest.' Be the kind of guy, who says, `I don't want freedom: I just want reparations!' And you lose!" And that's how the losses have occurred.

So, I'm tough on African-American leaders for that reason. Because, what King gave us, like Frederick Douglass, earlier--in a different way, but a similar way: What they gave to the United States, by their courage, by their accomplishment, brought us closer to becoming our true selves, than we, as a nation, could have become otherwise. We've just got to stick to that program! [applause]

FREEMAN: Let me just say, that we are having some technical difficulties--as you can see! We are having some technical difficulties with hooking up with some of our listeners in Armenia, Egypt, and that other center of the developing sector: New York City. I will probably be reading those questions, because we can't seem to do a live hook-up. I do understand that we're ready to go to Buenos Aires, is that true?

BUENOS AIRES:Hola!

FREEMAN: We have a question from Buenos Aires.

BUENOS AIRES: [translator] Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is Judge Héctor Carlos Acuñata, from the Criminal Economic Court, in Buenos Aires. Thank you for listening to me today, and hearing my question, that I would like to ask you. I'm interested in asking you the following: Since you know about the crisis situation, which my country is going through, at this time, where we are facing a great moral crisis, as a result of the lack of credibility of the political and other institutions of the country. And another crisis--an economic crisis--as a result of the greed of the international and national bankers. I see you know about this, because I've been listening very carefully to your words today. This situation has placed us at the edge of a national explosion, and is threatening the very national traquillity, the national peace, in our country. I would like to ask you the following, based on your vast world experience, in the following sense: What are the economic measures that could be implemented today, so that the present government of our country can manage to calm the state of excitation in the country? Because the freedom and the tranquillity of my country is greatly endangered at this time.

LAROUCHE: Okay. Well, first of all, we have a bankrupt system. The bankruptcy was imposed by the IMF and related institutions. So, the person who caused the bankruptcy is largely the IMF system, in its post-1971 form; that can be easily documented; that's fact.

The bankruptcy was aggravated by putting in a man with the curious name of Cavallo, which I would translate as Cabala, who played in key role in aggravating the damage beyond belief, with his administration and similar administrations. But essentially, the guilty party, is, essentially, the IMF system, in the way the floating-exchange-rate system was administered in respect to the countries of Central and South America. And, Argentina was a special target for destruction, because Argentina was, in the last century, at various points, third- and fourth-ranking in the world in standard of living, productivity, and so forth. Despite all smears. It was a great economy. And, therefore, that is an insult to those in North America, who think that South Americans have to be stupid and incapable. Therefore, Argentina is a striking example of what a country in South America is, potentially. And it's hated for that reason.

But, the essential thing comes back. The same, basic problem: The IMF caused the bankruptcy of Argentina: A bankruptcy, which presently, if the present conditions are enforced, Argentina will be biologically destroyed, as a nation! And, maybe in a horrible way.

So, therefore, if there is any perception, of a principle of natural law, operating in the minds of the people of the United States--in the Presidents, and so forth--the point is: Argentina must be given the liberty to reorganize itself in bankruptcy, in the necessary way. That would mean: Number one, the creation of a new currency, outside the existing system, and with no ties, or obligations to the existing system. The currency would be largely used, to ensure domestic security, economic security, and so forth. You would have to accompany this, with a series of very strict, protectionist measures. And you would have to get into a complex of trading agreements--long term and medium term--with adjoining countries, such as Brazil (you have some facilities for this, already); and others.

And there must be a general understanding, that Argentina must be given the opportunity to work through such an agreement. We can no longer be concerned, with those who are responsible for administering the destruction of a nation. That is a crime! A moral crime! If you impose upon a nation, policies which bankrupt it, which threaten its people biologically, which threaten genocidal effects, then your financial claims, on account of that system, have no moral authority, per se. Therefore, your claims are subject to reexamination, from the standpoint of bankruptcy proceeding, under the principle of the General Welfare.

So, nations must take a view that the principle of the General Welfare must be applied to the bankruptcy of Argentina. That Argentina must declare itself bankrupt, and declare that its government is taking, as a sovereign agency, responsibility for reorganizing its affairs. And seeks the cooperation of other sovereign countries; and bringing things into a durable order, on the medium to long term. As part of that, Argentina requires a new, independent currency, not contaminated by the corruption of any of the previous currencies. And, therefore, things should stand at that.

But: The context in which that decision should be made, also, has to be considered. The entire system is bankrupt! Argentina is not an isolated case: The entire system--including the United States!--is bankrupt! Including Europe, is bankrupt! Including Africa, is more than bankrupt! The only non-bankrupt nations are a few in Asia, like China, and India, and so forth. They're not bankrupt. But, the rest of the world, is, actually, essentially, bankrupt. As a Japan bankruptcy would show, in terms of the United States. So, therefore, since we're all in a bankrupt system, what we have to think about is the set of rules, under which we reorganize ourselves in bankruptcy, in order to create a recovery from this bankrupt condition. Any bankruptcy. In the case of Argentina, we must apply that general policy-perception to Argentina, and say, "Go ahead, Argentina: We will now cooperate with you, in your bankruptcy reorganization. Go ahead: Create a new currency; manage it well; take whatever protectionist measures you have to do; discuss it with us; and we will try to work out ways to cooperate with you, in the recovery of your economy."

That is the only way, in which this thing can be approached.

FREEMAN: Thank you Lyn. The question that I asked you, from the Pakistani journalist, was not the Pakistani journalist, from the United Nations. He was actually from Lahore.

We do have a question from the United Nations.

Q [from New York audience]: My name is Mohsen Zahir [ph]. I am editor of a Pakistani newspaper weekly, Sudai Pakistan [ph]. My question to Mr. LaRouche is: Mr. LaRouche, would you like to comment on the role the American Taliban, John Walker, who fought in Afghanistan? Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I think the case of John Walker is a human tragedy; the case of this U.S. national, who joined the Taliban, who was, I understand, captured, in one of those groups which was rather brutally treated. And, this is the immediate question in my mind, is the question in the way in which these captives, who were taken prisoner--as the world is upset about this Guantanamo camp exhibition: That this is not just. And, the key thing in law, is: The law itself must be just. The law must never seek vengeance. And, what is being done, in the case of these accused--. This poor idiot, for example, for Reid, the shoe stamper, huh? This poor fool, who was obviously used by somebody. He's not a big case. He's not the story: He's a diversion. He's a mental case; he's a defective personality. Somebody used him.

Walker, in a sense, is a victim of process. He got drawn into a process--who created the process? that Walker was drawn into. Zbigniew Brzezinski!! What prison is he sitting in, today? No, John Walker is not important. He's just like a prisoner of War, a poor fellow, who got caught in this process. And, what's important, is the way we treat those captives. If we enforce a law of vengeance, the way this fascist crew that's running Israel does, where's our morality? Will we do that to ourselves, tomorrow? And, John Walker's interesting, because he is an American! How many Americans are we going to do that to, tomorrow? The same thing we're doing to Talibans from other parts of the world, in Guantanamo, as I've seen these things on television.

Now, that's the issue. It's a very simple issue, of what is the standard of international justice and law, which applies to such cases. And, the basic thing that we always look for, is: We don't try to find final answers. I don't believe in the death penalty. I think it's immoral. We don't accomplish anything by it. I know all the reasons; I've heard all the reasons; I don't believe any of them: They're all nonsense.

So, we don't try to get an "ultimate punishment," ultimate retribution, from an individual. We act to defend society. We act to try to bring about a better condition in society. We try to redeem the sinner, as the Christian does--not destroy them. And, that's the case with John Walker.

And, the world is going to look at this John Walker case, that you've mentioned--they are looking at it, in Europe; even in England, they're a little bit disgusted by it, in Britain. And, the way  we treat an American, who happens to have been part of the Taliban, is going to be remembered and looked at, as a matter of judgment upon American law and American practice. I think it's wrong: Take people prisoners? Protect society? Fine. But don't be an animal, when you do it.

FREEMAN: Lyn we have a question from Wall Street. The question is: "Mr. LaRouche: Today, Alan Greenspan said that the U.S. economy is no longer in decline." [general laughter]. I'm glad you're all relieved to hear that. I was actually getting worried. That's good news! "Mr. Greenspan said that, although unemployment is increasing, the rate of increase in unemployment is decreasing. Therefore, the Federal Reserve will no longer decrease interest rates. Nokia has reported earnings increases. My question is: Is the economy on the mend? Is Alan Greenspan lying? Or is he incompetent? Or both?"

LAROUCHE: Well, I think Alan Greenspan is, frankly, insane! But, he also is lying, and he's also telling the truth. But, this is what you expect from an insane person, this combination of things; you have to sort it out.

In terms of, is he going to stop the decline in interest rates? I think that's true. I think the statement was issued, as a package, in order to make that announcement. Why? Well, you know what happened in Germany? What happened in Europe? On the first of the year, the German deutschemark went out of existence--according to law, permanently. Germany no longer has a currency. It has a share--or maybe so--in a currency called the "euro," or in Germany the "euro" [using German pronunciation]. The thing is sinking in value, by the day. The taxes have gone up, and prices are shooting up throughout Germany, simply as a coincidence of this change in the currency. If this process continues, Germany's going to be destroyed.

Now, recently, another fact: in the case of the German budget. The Eichel cut in the German government budget, was reported as causing a greater loss of tax revenue, than the amount conserved by the cuts in the budget.

We are in a situation, globally, since the Summer of the year 2000, approximately--2000-2001; 2000--in which the use of monetary aggregate to try to pump up financial markets, has reached a critical crossover point, corresponding to that reached in Weimar Germany in June-July of 1923: The point at which the attempt to bail out a financial market, by monetary pumping, costs more money, in monetary emission, than you conserve in the debt you're protecting by that bailout. Now, that's the situation the U.S. is in. What has been demonstrated, is that the Greenspan policy of monetary pumping, to bail out a sinking U.S. economy, with this succession of cuts, has utterly failed. Not only has it utterly failed, but we're now entering a period of a potential hyperinflation--monetary hyperinflation--and a demand for increased tax rates, contrary to previous trends.

So, what we're looking at, is a point at which the interest rates will tend not to be cut--not because Greenspan had a stroke of genius--but because, his fault, his policy of cutting interest rates, has proven itself cumulatively, to be a disaster! It's also a period, in which the pressure will be on, in a period of tax cuts, to increase taxes greatly.

I have answers for that, but that goes into a longer kind of question, as to what should be done. But, the point is, I think the answer is: No, the economy is collapsing. That's a lie: It's not rebounding back. It will never bounce--dead bankers don't bounce. The Federal Reserve decision on interest rates, not to cut them any more? I think that's understandable; it's understandable, because we're now entering a period in which the hyperinflationary danger--monetary hyperinflation--is now a very major danger. Is there any sign of growth, in the economy? None whatsoever.

Bush has, admittedly, promised to use the U.S. government, and the Treasury, as a vehicle for trying to pump the economy up. So that's a change: He no longer believes in the free market. He now knows that the government is the only thing that can save the economy. So, that's also a change. But, so far, Bush has not been able to find out how the government should pump, by what means, and what would work. His present policies are unworkable.

So, we're in a situation, where the policies--there are possibilities for reviving the U.S. economy. But, none have been proposed so far, by government, or by Alan Greenspan. And, Alan Greenspan is, as I say--he's an interesting kind of nut; he's a follower, a disciple of Ayn Rand, and you know what kind of a nut that means. But, what is true, is, he's made a decision not to cut interest rates any more, because it was a bunch of foolishness in the first place.

FREEMAN: Okay. Our next question is from Cairo, Egypt, from Prof. Mohammed Selim.

Q: My name is Mohammed Selim.  I'm extremely glad to be on the webcast with you, Mr. LaRouche. Good evening. I had the pleasure of meeting you in Germany, last year, during the conference of the Schiller Institute. And, we have just hosted Muriel Mirak for a lecture in our Center for International Studies in Cairo, two weeks ago. And, we are still basking in the afterglow of that great lecture. We also received literature from the Schiller Institute, which has been extremely useful for us.

Let me ask you, Mr. LaRouche, about the situation in the Middle East. Because, I think you will agree with me, that the situation in the Middle East is deteriorating rapidly. And, for the first time, you know, George W. Bush has given Ariel Sharon the green light, to go ahead and finish off the Palestinian Authority, destroy the Palestinian society, and so on. We are witnessing the entire collapse of the peace process in the Middle East. And, the impression here in Egypt is, that we are about to witness a very ugly era, in the history of the Middle East. Now, how do you assess this situation, Mr. LaRouche, in the Middle East, from the angle of the American administration? And, what could be done, in order to prevent the eventual collapse of the political situation in the Middle East?

LAROUCHE:  Well, I'm rather pessimistic; that doesn't mean I'm, in a sense, predicting doom, in the Middle East, but I'm very pessimistic about the immediate situation. And exactly, because of the way the current President of the United States has shifted his position somewhat, recently; obviously the pressures are tremendous.

But, the point, is; the issue is, the way Europe and the United States are treating the role of the present government of Israel. Look at the facts: Just as in the United States, we have this fascist conception of warfare, in our Utopians. That is, those who were, like Brzezinski, those who follow Brzezinski, Huntington, Kissinger, and so forth; and military types of the same type. This is a copy of the Waffen-SS theory of warfare. It's a new kind of Roman imperial legion conception, which is the same thing that the Hitler regime concocted, when they made their own Waffen-SS operation.

What you have in Israel, in a certain section of the military, and you have a running-dog who goes along with it--Sharon--who are also Utopians, of the same type; who have the same fascist mentality as Brzezinski, or Kissinger--especially Brzezinski and Huntington, who are part of this package. Now, if you let these fascists run loose, if you try to negotiate with them, in the sense, you assume they're going to be rational, you're wrong! But, then you have the other condition, of the policy of strategy, of justified war: Do you suggest that somebody go to war with these fascists? Well, under justified war, you say, "No," because, from most sources, war against these fascists, would be a hopeless war--if it were conducted, say, by Arab countries, at the present time. Why? Because Israel has a nuclear arsenal! And, don't kid yourself, that the IDF leaders, behind this present fascist guy, against the poor Palestinians, would use those weapons! They would use them against countries in the Middle East--don't kid yourself. You have to understand their minds.

Therefore, who can stop them? Well, the United States government could stop them. The Europeans would support the United States government, on such a policy. And, serious pressure--not this token pressure--but serious pressure could be brought to bear on this.

Our big problem in the United States, is in the Republican and Democratic Party. More so, in the Democratic Party, right now, than the Republican Party! Lieberman! Lantos! Gore! And what they represent: They are all for a Middle East war; they're for a Clash of Civilizations war. And, this is not new to them. The Republican Party--you've got some idiots on that side: the so-called Protestant fundamentalists; the Temple Mount crowd--they're extremely dangerous.

But, only if the United States government, in my estimation, through  the President: If the President of the United States would tell the Europeans, "We've got to stop it now, before we have a general Middle East war." Because, they're reaching the point of no-return, as I'm sure many people in Egypt share that view; that estimation. And, therefore, the President of the United States must be the President. Forget what he is in the Congress. He's the executive officer, under our system of government. He has the ability of advice and consent, by the Congress, but he is the President. The executive responsibility lies with him, and with his relevant offices. And, he tells the European governments--the French, (I don't think the Germans want to hear it, but--except privately); the Italians, and so forth--that: "We are going to stop this thing--now!" It would be stopped. I think that's the only chance.

I would think that someone could try to give President Bush--I  understand--my reading, as he went through a slight epiphany, on Sept. 11. You know, when you're the President of the United States, and you realize that you, and your defense minister, and your vice president, all might have been killed on that day; and that some of your own military were involved in doing it, you'd have little bit of an epiphany! You realize that you're a very fragile person, despite being the President of the United States. And, you being to think, and to react accordingly.

And, then, you get the call from President Putin of Russia. And, when the President of Russia, who is the other relevant thermonuclear power on this planet, calls the President of the United States, and says, "I'm trying to bail you out of this coup you're going through,"--the President of the United States does experience a certain epiphany.

I think that George Bush needs a second epiphany; the first one was good, but he needs another injection. The effect of the first one is wearing off.

And, it's up to him: I mean, we're actually at a crucial point. Maybe other forces could intervene.  I would hope that's the case. But, at the moment, from where I sit right now, my bets are on: Will the President of the United States, be advised, and perceive, that his personal intervention, with his friends in Europe and elsewhere, to say, "We've got to stop this thing, now." That's the best chance; I think anything else will tend to fail.

FREEMAN: Okay, Lyn. I have a question from Moscow. This is a question from Tatyana Koryagina, who is an economist, and who has functioned as the Schiller Institute's representative there. Her question for you, Lyn, is the following. She says:

"Dear Lyn, my question is about the future of Russia, after a world economic and financial crash. Is it possible for Russia to survive? What should we do to avoid a financial whirlpool? Also, what do you forecast for the Japanese banking system? Could their way of development, too, become a trigger for the worldwide financial crash?"

LAROUCHE: In the Autumn of 1998, immediately the following the collapse of the GKO system, and the collapse of the LTCM hedge fund in New York City, there was a change in Russian politics, and a senior figure of the Russian foreign policy establishment, Yevgeni Primakov, became the Prime Minister of Russia. In the course of his ministry, as Prime Minister,  he adopted a policy, which I'd been pushing--the policy of a strategic triangle of cooperation, among Russia, China, and India, as a baseline for bringing together other nations of Eurasia, for cooperation with Western Europe and others, in a general revival of the world economy, as a basis--economic revival. In November of 1998, Prime Minister Primakov delivered a message proposing such a strategic triangle, in India--in the capital, New Delhi. Immediately, the relevant fascists in the United States--including the Cato Institute, and others--immediately launched an attack on Primakov, denouncing him since the worst thing since Hitler, and so forth, and so on. (I think they would have liked Hitler better.)

As a result of that, tremendous pressure was put on Russia, to have Primakov expelled from his position of Prime Minister. He was.

Recently, under President Putin, elements of that policy have been revived. The concrete measures of cooperation in technology, among Russia, China, and others--India, and so forth--have proceeded. Also, there have been some efforts--some of it has been aborted--for cooperation with Japan, and so forth.

Now, the situation of Western Europe as such, is the following: Western Europe, at present, has no chance of surviving economically under present conditions. It's bankrupt. Germany is shrinking. Germany is dying, economically. Germany will recover, and Western Europe will recover, only if it develops production for markets in various parts of Eurasia, including Russia. As a matter of fact, the only growth in German exports, recently, has been to Russia and to China, and with continued significant exports to India. So, without these exports to Asia, of technology--and Russia--there's no hope for any part of Western Europe.  On the other hand, the development of Eurasia, requires cooperation among Western Europe--with Russia, China, India, and other countries; as well as with Japan, Korea, and so forth.

My view is, the United States must have a policy of participation in that cooperation. That is: If Eurasian countries--Russia, China, India, and others--form a policy of economic development cooperation; if Japan can be brought into that, fully, with its industrial potential; if Western Europe can be integrated with that, as a supplier of technology to this area; and, if the United States would adopt a policy of participation and cooperation, in that agreement, we would have the nucleus of a basis for a worldwide economic recovery program. That's the best shot I think we have.

So, if the crash occurs, the future depends not upon the condition, as such, that exists, but how we respond to the condition, which already exists. And, that is: Can we come to our senses in time, to realize that the President of the United States, and other relevant parties, must immediately move to establish an emergency, international monetary reform meeting, to the intent of making those reforms in the international monetary system--the so-called G-7/G-8 system--those reforms, which are necessary to cope with the present world crisis. Not only to handle the crisis, but to facilitate, through long-term agreements--25-year agreements, essentially--means by which the United States and other countries, can participate in a Eurasian revival, of the type I've indicated. That, to me, is the only shot, I see in sight: It's what I'm working for.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. We have another question, from a former member of the Clinton Administration. That question is: "Mr. LaRouche: Right now, we are  facing the real possibility of either a state default by the nation of Japan, or a significant failure of the Japanese banking system. If either of these two things occurs, it could potentiallly result in secondary failures of key U.S. banking institutions. That would include the possibility of disruptions of commercial functions, as well as the provision of services to ordinary citizens. Are there any protective measures, short of actual Executive action by the President of the United States, to protect the interests of the nation, and its people? Or is that the only possible course of action, that would be efficient and effective?"

LAROUCHE: Well, the action that would taken in that case, is obvious: We're talking about, probably three or four, key, New York-centered banks--and, maybe some outside New York--going into potential default situation. Now, that means that the policy we require, is a special kind of bank-holiday policy, which, in a sense, guarantees the continued functioning of those banks, as banks, even though they may be bankrupt.

And, I think that our former member of the Clinton Administration knows what that means, in terms of concretely.

So, therefore, you would have to have emergency action, which I don't think the Federal Reserve System could take, but would have to be run in cooperation with it. I think it would have to come from the President of the United States. I think the President would have to, in a sense, be willing to go over the heads of his Treasury Secretary, O'Neill, and over the ideological impulses of Lindsey, and just be the President of the United States, and pull together a bunch of people, and find out exactly what the measures are that have to be taken. Because, obviously, we can not have a chain-reaction of collapse of banks in the U.S. system.

Therefore, the Federal government must act, under the General Welfare clause of the Preamble of the Constitution, to ensure that the essential function of banking continues, even though the bank may be in bankruptcy, or potential bankruptcy. And, therefore, you have to have an Emergency Bank Act, for that purpose--whatever you want to call it.

The other side of the thing, which may make this possible, is, if enough people, in New York and elsewhere, are looking at the load in their pants, and are scared enough, they may even demand--contrary to all prior instinct--demand that such action be taken. We can not have the leading nation of the world--the United States--going into a state of disorder; disorderly bankruptcy. Bankruptcy we can endure; disorderly bankruptcy, we can not tolerate.

The authority lies largely with the President of the United States, in my opinion, under our Constitution. Without his cooperation, it could not be durable. Though I think that, other initiatives, from within the financial community and the political community--from individuals--could create a climate, under which the President might be induced to be able to respond, in that way. Of course, if I were President, I would do it, immediately. I would be taking action, right now--as fast as I could get the thing through the Congress, to get the emergency measures in place, to go into effect, to deal with precisely these problems. And, I would be bring the relevant people in Japan, into Washington, for a confidental discussion, among us, of exactly what we have to do, to deal with bringing order--not by bailout--but bringing order, into the bankrupt condition, of both the Japan and  U.S. banks.

And, that's what has to be done. A combination of both is required. Ultimately, you must have a law. You must have an Executive Order, at least; backed up by a subsequent law, which assures stability. You must also have a constituency, which is clamoring for exactly those measures, and you must induce a certain willingness within the banking community, to cooperate, rather than try to sabotage, these kinds of measures.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn.

We have a question from Sen. Joe Neal, who is a senior member of the Nevada State Legislature; he is a Democrat. His question is the following:

"Mr. LaRouche: How does the collapse of Enron display the position that you've taken on the U.S. economy and what should be done about it? Could you talk a little bit about what we face, as a result of the crash of Enron, and what caused it?"

LAROUCHE: I would go backwards, and go from the end-result of the crash of Enron, rather than trying to, say, re-write the history of what Enron's history should have been. First of all, we face a major energy crisis in the United States. The severity of this crisis is hidden by the fact of the collapse of our industries. If we were to attempt to restore the parity of electrical service, energy service, we had earlier, now, we would be pulling into production forces  we couldn't support.

People don't realize that we have-in exporting our industries, in shutting down whole sections of the functions of our economy--we have lowered the requirement of energy! If we were to try to restore the economy, to what it was at, say, 1980 or earlier, we would have to have a large amount of new energy.

So, therefore, we have the need for a national energy recovery program, which would cover, inclusively, the problems which are illustrated by and posed by Enron, and similar institutions. That means that we have to repeal deregulation; go back to the system of regulation, we use to have: I think we'd just go back to that; that's adequate, because it would work: There're are precedents; the machinery is all understood--it would work; just do it.

But, see President Bush is trying to find out ways of stimulating the economy, and he doesn't know how to do it. Well, this is one of the ways of doing it. If you take Federal money, and use it--not just as Federal printed money, but Federal credit; and you put it into a national energy program, which is going to fix the national energy grid system, to make it more usable and to improve its performance: That, in itself, is a good way to make the economy grow. And, it's typical of the various measures, which government can take, which are largely in the area of infrastructure and special projects; not in the private sector, as such, but in those areas alone, which will cause the economy to grow.

And, therefore, I think that what we need, at this point, is a conception, of going back--. Let me just shift gear, Joe, on this one. Look, one of the problems here, is this word "capitalism," which was almost invented by Karl Marx, ironically.  Now, the United States is not, in inception, a capitalist economy. The United States was founded as the kind of economy described the first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in a series of reports, on credit, debt, banking, and on manufactures. And, the model of the U.S. economy, as intended under our Constitution, is that described by Hamilton, in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures. That kind of economy defines a relationship between a public sector, which includes--today, in modern times, a government-backed sector, which is infrastructure; basic economic infrastructure, soft and hard: transportation, power generation and distribution, water management, education, health care systems in support of the general health care. One area.

The other area, is the relationship between the urban and rural areas, the development, through the aid of infrastructure, of the means of promoting entrepreneurship in ingenuity of people--he called it, "artificial labor," essentially. This is the American System. It is not a capitalist system--that's a British idea; that's Marx's idea--that's not ours. The American System, as an American System: the conception that, we're a nation. We're committed to the promotion of the General Welfare, which requires several things: We promote public infrastructure, as necessary to develop and maintain the land-area and the population. At the same time, we promote and encourage entrepreneurial investment in applied ingenuities, to give us greater productivity and greater benefit in progress.

That's the American System. We construct laws, protectionist measures, which protect and support that policy.

So, if we look at it from that standpoint, we say, "We're going away from capitalism, as Marx defined it, back to the American System." And, I think, if Americans get that idea, of what the American System is, what the United States represents, historically, in terms of the way it was created; what its achievements were; what its betrayal of its own character has been;  and how, every time we betrayed our natural inclination as a nation, we've suffered. And how we've come out of these crises, by returning to our national inclination, as typified by what Alexander Hamilton described as the "American System of political-economy."

So, I would say that, probably, what is needed, philosophically, is a discussion, of the distinction  between capitalism, as defined by Karl Marx; and the American System of political-economy, as described by, among others, Alexander Hamilton.

In that case, we get our heads sorted out, and we don't get involved in this thing about: "free enterprise"; "free trade"; and all this other nonsense.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. I have a question from Armenia, from the newspaper Iravunk, which is from our friend Hrant [Khachatrian]. The question is:

"Mr. LaRouche: Several Arabian newspapers recently published articles, which confirm that Israel secretly delivers military technology to Azerbaijan. In the Maraoui [ph] weekly, which is published in Beirut, under the title, "Strategic Alliance of Turkey and Israel Broadens at the Expense of Azerbaijan," this was preceded by information, infiltrated in the Turkish press, saying that, during the visit of the Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon to Ankara, both sides discussed the issue of rendering joint assistance to Azerbaijan. Turkey, also, is going to put its military bases in Azerbaijan, under the flag of NATO. Please comment on this situation."

LAROUCHE: First of all, on a certain level, the Utopian crowd, in Israel--that is, the fascist gang, as opposed to the civilized people, who are stressed by this--are deeply involved with the U.S. Utopians and some British interests, at the same time. They are also involved in the Clash of Civilizations aspect of this: Remember, the way that Brzezinski and others, were orchestrating wars--that is, the first war and how they created the Taliban; how they created this whole mess, there--involved oil deals, involved other kinds of basing operations, raw materials looting operations.

In other words, they were proposing to do to Central Asia, exactly what Anglo-American mercenaries have done to Sub-Saharan Africa. If you look at Sub-Saharan Africa, if you look Congo; you look at other parts--Sierra Leone, etc. What do you see? You're seeing mass murder: Conducted by whom? By the people of the region? No, not really. It's conducted by Anglo-American mercenary forces, who are tied into sections of the military--of the British military and the U.S. military; and the Israeli military--who represent the same interest, the same Utopian interest I discussed earlier.

The Israelis are part of that. They show up as parts of this operation. It is not an Israeli conspiracy, nor an Israeli-Turkish conspiracy. For example, take the case of Turkey, as our friends in Armenia know: Turkey is bankrupt. Turkey is riper than Argentina, for a general collapse. Turkey is not collapsing, because they want to use Turkey, in Central Asia, for various fun and games. And, therefore, Turkey is allowed to exist, where Argentina is being crushed, because Turkey is considered to have a useful role in playing dirty games, against Northern Iraq (which the Turks don't like too much, because that means you're going to have a Kurdish state, coming out of that area; they don't like that); but, in other areas, in Azerbaijan, and so forth.

So, therefore, you have a Turkish-Israeli involvement in Central Asia, which should be looked at as an Israeli conspiracy, or a Turkish-Israeli conspiracy, but as a reflection, through these two entities, of a more general operation, of the type which is the Clash of Civilizations type.

One has to remember: What we're dealing with here, is a conception of geopolitics, which is aimed at everything--against China, everything else in Asia. This conception is an extension of geopolitics as developed under the Prince of Wales, later Edward VII, as geopolitics, which led to World War I. Hitler, himself, was a geopolitical project, to get a second war in Europe, which would complete the job that the first war didn't finish. Now, what Brzezinski has proposed, and others, as a Clash of Civilizations war, or the "Arc of Crisis" policy of the 1970s, is the same thing! It's a proposal to have a geopolitical war, in Asia, which will destroy the countries of Eurasia; eliminate the nation-states of Eurasia; create entities, which are run by gangs, armed gangs, mercenary gangs; and conserve the natural resources of Central Asia, for the future of use of the Anglo-American interest. That's what the policy is. And, therefore, when you're dealing with this kind of phenomenon, don't say, "Well, obviously, the Israelis and the Turks have conspired." Well, they didn't really conspire; they were induced to conspire. They are simply auxiliaries of this Anglo-American, Utopian interest--the thing that I have to fight inside the United States.

And, when looked at that way, yes, this is dirty; it's dangerous; it shows the creeping threat of World War  III--a new kind of World War III. And, it should stop, because it is a threat of war, not because we're against people contributing to development. It's dangerous. And its significance should not be underestimated, however, should it be exaggerated as being merely a Turkish-Israeli operation, when behind the Israeli operations, and behind the Turkish operations, there are larger forces, which are using these as cat's-paws.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. I have a series of questions for you, from the press in the Middle East. I will not be able to ask all of them, but I will ask you some of them.

The first question comes from the newspaper, Al-Bayan, which is published in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. One of the questions that they ask is: "Mr. LaRouche, what are the expected potential effects of the euro, on the efforts to recover the American economy? Will there be any effects of the calls for removing the peg to the dollar, of different international currencies, on the U.S. economy?"

LAROUCHE: Well, the purpose of the euro, was to wreck European economies. It was imposed by a euro policy; the Maastricht policy, was imposed as a result of agreements, which were initiated by Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, when she was still Prime Minister, supported by Francois Mitterrand of France, and then, joined, in part, by President George Bush, in this same period. Now, the key factor here, is: The British were concerned, and the French were concerned, that the reunification of Germany either not occur--which is what the British and French were opposed to; Mitterrand, under the influence of Vernon Walters, decided that was not a good idea, that unification should occur. But, that Germany should not be allowed to benefit from reunification, economically; that Germany would not be allowed to develop its natural potential for cooperation with countries of Eastern Europe. That, in point of fact, these countries of Eastern Europe, such as Poland, should be destroyed. And, Poland has been destroyed, economically. Poland is one of the economies, which is about to go into the bucket, like Argentina, because it has been destroyed by the Anglo-Americans. The Poland, which was still a powerful nation, by the time it came out from under the Soviet system, has now been ruined, by this kind of operation.

So, the euro--what the Maastricht policy was intended to do, was to prevent Europe, as a whole, from being able to recover from a depression. Because, to recover from a depression, a country has to be able to create state credit, which is loaned largely for purposes of infrastructure and stimulus through infrastructure, to cause an adequate level of employment in productive activity to restart the economy on a self-sustaining basis. The Stability Pact, and the Maastricht agreements, ensure that no country in Europe, which is a member of euro, will be able to survive the onrushing depression. It's that simple.

So, that's the policy: The idea of a conflict between the dollar and the euro, as such, is a children's fable. It is not the truth of the matter. The point is, the euro is intended to be an instrument for destroying Europe! Because it denies Europeans the right to create the credit, on which the survival of their economies--which are now in deep trouble--depends. And, you're going to find a revolt against the euro. How strong it will be, is not certain. But a revolt against the Maastricht conditions and the Stability Pact, is obviously going to be coming on, rather fast during the coming six months, at the latest. That's inevitable.

So, the peg to the dollar? Forget it. The system is not going to last that long. That's a reference to a future history, which will never occur.

FREEMAN: Thank you, Lyn. I have a very long statement from Adalberto Rosas López, who is a pre-candidate for governor of the Mexican state of Sonora. He'll undoubtedly hate me for the rest of his life, but I'm going not to read the whole thing. What I will say, is that: He prefaces his question to you, by reflecting on the accuracy of your economic forecast, that he's come to know over the course of the last 20 years. He is asking his question, both as a candidate for governor, in Sonora, but also as someone who is a grower from what was a previously prosperous area. And, he reflects on the fact that, during the course of his campaign, he repeatedly finds himself in a situation, which you have addressed, in respect to other questions that have been asked. But, he says, he constantly finds himself in a situation, where people seek local solutions, to problems that are not caused locally. And, he says that, at the same time, you have many traditional political leaders, who are well-intentioned, who offer solutions that really are reducible to simple slogans, in favor of honesty and against corruption, none of which are sufficient, under the current circumstances. He says, that, while he wishes to state (and this is a quote from his statement), that "never before has the world so urgently needed the United States, to rediscover the universal principle of the Common Good, that gave it birth as a nation, so that it can, once again, become `a temple of liberty and a beacon of hope,'" that there are still questions that must be addressed.

And, what he is asking you, is: "What your thoughts are, on what should be the responsibility of a federated entity, like Sonora, which is part of a nation, that is subjected to the disastrous policies of the International Monetary Fund?"

And, I apologize to Adalberto Rosas López, for so condensing his statement. But, I know he'll understand, in the interests of time. Lyn?

LAROUCHE: First, there's one thing that should be emphasized in what he says, that you read to me. And, that is: The key thing we have to fight, constantly, in politics, is the small-mindedness of our own people. That people think about immediate family values, and local community interests. And they demand that solutions be posed in what they call "practical terms," of an immediate response to local family concerns, and immediate local interests. That has to be recognized as a form of immorality. That very demand is a form of immorality. And, it's by that demand, that people have destroyed themselves. If you can make people small, you can induce them to make them pitiful; to make themselves, pitiful. If you say, "I'm only a small person. I'm only concerned about what happens to my family and my community," don't think of yourself as being moral, when you think that way. Think of yourself as being bad; as being immoral. For reasons I stated earlier, in the early part of the discussion.

Morality consists in understanding that you have a mortal life, which is limited; that you're going to die. And, therefore, your local interests vanish: Your pleasure; your pain vanish, with that. What remains is, the question: Was your life worth living? Did it contribute something to the skein of humanity, which made it important for you to have lived?

People should fight for that. Not for little things. And, then, the little things will fall into place. If you fight, for the principle, that every human being should be free and able to discover, a role in their mortal life, which surpasses their mortality, in terms of its benefit for humanity, and its fulfillment of responsibility to future humanity, as well as contributions to the past--that is the essentials of moral politics. To get a people to rise above littleness, I think it is indispensable to address that specific problem of littleness, moral littleness; of being "practical"; of limiting oneself to those "little issues," which attract people's attention in the here and now.

And, failing to recognize that a human being, if they are indeed human, and not some kind of lower beast--that a human being ought to be concerned about that which distinguishes a man from a beast: the cognitive power to discover universal principles; to reexperience the thoughts, the acts of discovery, of people before us, which enrich our ability to exist; to transmit that knowledge, as cognitive knowledge, to coming generations; and to act to create the conditions, under which future generations can continue the general progress, of the moral uplifting of humanity as a whole. The interest is, to become an immortal person, by making a contribution with your mortal life, both to honor the past, in its best features, and to make possible the future.

If people have that attitude, they make the best soldiers. They're not killers. They're the best soldiers, because they know what they're fighting for. They're not fighting for their mortal life: They're fighting for its meaning! And, that's the most wonderful thing to fight for. That's the highest level of motivation.

And, the problem we have in politics, is trying to get these poor citizens, who think they're well-meaning--and probably are decent people--to get them out of the mud, of small-mindedness. And, that's what we face in Sonora.

FREEMAN: We have a series of questions that were submitted to Mr. LaRouche, by Islamonline.net, which is based in Qatar and Cairo. I will ask one of those questions, now. The question is:

"Mr. LaRouche, with reference to the memorandum that was published in the Jan. 21, 2000 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, entited `Put Great Britain on the List of States Sponsoring Terrorism,' how do you evaluate the role of the U.K. as an ally of the United States in the war against terrorism? Does the memo that was issued last year, still stand today?"

LAROUCHE: Yes, it does, but the qualification is very simple to make, and as short as possible, is: There is no such thing as international terrorism. It doesn't exist. Any private organization that tries to set up as a terrorist operation, will generally be eliminated by police action, in a fairly short period of time. All significant operations that I know of, that are called "terrorist," typified by the case of Italy, were run by governments. For example: At the close of the war in Italy--World War II--an organization was established by the Allies, which became known as "Gladio." Gladio had two official components: One was the veterans of the Communist resistance; and the second, were the Christian, non-Communist resistance. This was set up to be a potential resistance movement, in case of future need for a resistance movement inside Italy. It was never to become active in any way, unless the need for a resistance movement arose.  It was not to reveal its presence, in any way, but just wait. And if the case for the need of a resistance movement occurred, it would arise to defend the nation against a usurper.

Then, it was discovered, that the United States government, and the British, has incorporated into Gladio, a fascist element. The terrorist operations, which occurred in Italy, in the 1970s, were conducted by Gladio, which was then operating as an asset of NATO, against the Italian state--including the killing of Aldo Moro, a Moro who was targetted for assassination, personally, in the Washington, D.C. area, by Henry A. Kissinger, personally. And, was subsequently assassinated. That is, to his face--personally, Moro was targetted by Kissinger, at Georgetown University, at a CSIS meeting.

That is typical: Every terrorist movement, in the world, is run, either by governments; or is run by large financial organizations, which have the power of governments. No local terrorist organization could exist on its own feet. There is no international terrorism. There is the use of irregular warfare methods, by governments, using covert means, as Iran-Contra typifies the case for the United States--and Britain.

That's the secret of the thing. Don't look for international terrorists. They don't exist. They exist only as a guise, a costume, a mask, worn by governments, whose special forces do the actual dirty work--as in the case of Gladio in Italy.

FREEMAN: Lyn, I'm going to ask you another institutional question. And, then I'm going to go through a series of questions a little bit more quickly, that have been submitted largely by students and others. This question comes from Dr. Ahmed Kedidi, who is a professor at the University of Qatar. He is a former Tunisian diplomat. And he is a leading authority on the Dialogue of Civilizations. His question follows:

"To my dear friend, Lyndon LaRouche: I have known you for more than 20 years, and I have contributed to transmitting your ideas and your voice to the Arab world, over that time. Then come to me, time and again, the truth and the courage of your view of the world. And I'm very happy today, because the Arab world, both through intellectuals and the intelligentsia in general, believe that you are the only American, who could restore for the United States, its moral power, so that it could be commensurate with its military and economic power. America today needs a moral force, in order to lead the world toward more justice and democracy.

"My question to you, is this: Do you think that despotic dictatorships in the Arab and Islamic world, are contributing to the breeding of terrorism? And how can we resist them peacefully, in order to change them constructively?"

LAROUCHE: Essentially, what we have to do, is, we have to create a sense of a community of principle among nations. The problem is: The world as a whole, is immoral. Practically all governments are immoral. Practically all nations are highly immoral. So, how can you go around preaching morality to anyone? Who is going to throw the first stone?

The problem is, we don't have a positive standard of morality. And, instead, we substitute so-called "negative" do's and don't's--"you can do this; you can't do that." Single-issuism. And that is killing us. As I said before, the issue of morality is an issue of, essentially, how can a mortal individual, have an immortal interest? That is the essence of morality. So, if we make that idea of the General Welfare or the Common Good our basic motivation, our basic doctrine of government--a community of principle--then we have the authority and the ability to influence governments to change; and, influence their change to come about. But, that's the way it has to be done.

We can not go with this system of do's and don't's; "let's eliminate bad governments"--because most governments are bad. Most governments are immoral. The United States government is immoral--highly immoral. The center of the immorality is the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court majority. You want immorality? A second center of immorality, is the Justice Department bureaucracy; the Criminal Division especially. Who are we to preach morality, in that way, to other countries?

However, we can, despite the immorality of this government, of this nation. We can uphold a principle of morality, and say, "Let us all come to that principle of morality." That, we can do. And, I think that's the way to approach it.

Not saying, "We've got bad governments. They've got to be tamed; they've got to be convinced; they've got to be persuaded; they've got to be changed." No. Who are we, to dictate those changes? What right do we have, to dictate those changes? We do, however, have the right to assert a principle, for ourselves; and recommend it to others, and share it with others. Which does address the fundamental issue of morality: What is immortal, about a mortal human being?

FREEMAN: Lyn, I have a pile of questions, all of which, in one way or another, address the same issue. So, I will ask you if you would like to comment on it. Everybody wants to know, what you think about the killer pretzel?

LAROUCHE: The what?

FREEMAN: The killer pretzel, that rendered our President temporarily unconscious.

LAROUCHE: I don't believe a word of it. Something happened, obviously, but I don't even bother to respond to that. I don't believe it.

I don't think we should electrocute that pretzel!

FREEMAN: Okay. We have a question that's been submitted from a group of college students, from the University of Rochester, who are listening to your broadcast. They say:

"Mr. LaRouche, as students preparing for careers in our respective fields, and as citizens of the world, concerned for the economic downturn our own nation is facing, how can the United States become a consistent world force in economics and politics, if everything around us is so unstable, especially without the use of violence. Thank you very much, and we wish you good luck in all of your endeavors.

LAROUCHE: First of all, we have to have--. Anyone who's a student today, in a university, knows that the greatest problem in the university, today, is getting the university itself, to accept the idea of truth--or the idea of truthfulness. That, people take courses, and pass them, on the basis of trying to pass a multiple-choice examination or the equivalent. They do not consider themselves morally responsible for knowing what they're talking about, and knowing the answer. But, only giving a learned answer, which will win them approval, and give them certain opportunities in the future.

Therefore, the issue of the fight, for a better world, by a student today, has to be a fight within the student, and among the students--to begin with--to establish a standard of truthfulness, for themselves, and in themselves. Not to believe, or act upon things, that they don't know to be true, and to discover what the methods are of determining truth from falsehood. That's the basic question! If you got out in life, and you know, inside you--the little man inside you knows--that you really don't know a damned thing you're talking about; you're just saying it, because you learned it, and you passed your multiple-choice examination; or because you picked up the information from some guy on the street corner! People who do that, know they're doing it! They know that they're essentially dishonest! Can they really believe in themselves? Who is going to tell them the truth? Who is the little guy, inside them, who is going to tell them the truth? Can they believe what they say the truth is?

Now, a young person, going out in life, in a crazy world--and it is a crazy world--how can they judge? How can they have any hope, for themselves? They're going to inherit the Earth. They're going to run this Earth, if there's anybody around to run it, in the time to come. Will they do a better job, than the clowns that are teaching them now? The world that's running it now? There's no guarantee. The key thing, is: Everybody likes to gossip about everybody else! They should gossip about themselves once in a while! And that would a lot more good--I mean: How often do you lie? How often do you insist you know something, you don't know a damned thing you're saying? How often do you say something, simply because somebody told you, that you will be approved of, it you said it? How many times do you say, "Well, I read it in the Washington Post, and therefore, it must be true!" unless you prove it otherwise? I mean, that's a liar, for you. That's a man who has no self-respect!

So, the problem we have in the American population: It's a kind of syphilis, known, not as pox vopuli, but vox populi. And a syphilis of the mass media! Of popular opinion! Everybody wants to be on the inside, with popular opinion! They want to know the guy, who's got the "inside dope" on what popular opinion is today! And, whatever it is, they want to find it; and the minute they find out this information, they're going to rush out, and assert: They got the latest scoop is, on what popular opinion is really thinking--hmm? People pick up these so-called "fake reports," these statistical popular opinion reports. They're faked! You know how they work. You know how they're faked. But, everybody wants to get into line with popular opinion.

How can you have any morality, when you're like that? The essence of this life, is that people are not believable to themselves, because they did not establish a commitment to truthfulness, in the sense that Plato, with his dialogues, defines truthfulness. And, therefore, they can't trust themselves. And, since other people who share their opinions, also are not trustworthy, then how can they trust anybody? How can they have confidence in anyone?

The result is, utter pragmatism. It's the "Now Generation." What do you get your "kicks" out of, today? Who puts the cash in your pocket, this morning? Truth and morality vanish. And you see, you see these dumb Romans--you know, who invented democracy?--called "bread and circuses. You see these dumb Romans; do you know how primitive they were? Here, they marched into these large stadiums, and they sat in the arenas, and they got all excited about seeing people beat each other up, with blood all over the stadium--that kind of thing. And, they went out, and they felt good, and they liked the Emperor, the Caesar, because "he's given us all this wonderful sport." Do you think anybody in the United States is corrupt enough to go weekends into some stadium, and watch a bunch of people beat each other up, and come out and feel that that is morality? That is the American way of life?

That's the answer. It's to recognize the corruption, and stupidity, in the individual members of this society; and stop gossiping about other people, and start gossiping about yourself.

FREEMAN: I'm going to take just a couple of more questions for Mr. LaRouche. One is from Elias Hassan Choudhry [ph], who is the Houston bureau chief of the weekly, Mirror International. He says:

"Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I can't tell you what a pleasure it has been, listening to you. I have a question, regarding the role of American sports, and the Hollywood scene, on the U.S. economy. Players and performers earn millions upon millions of dollars, while common people, who do real jobs, are underpaid and overworked. What do you say about this?"

LAROUCHE: About Hollywood? [laughing] Hollywood! Well, actually, it's true. It's the lower 80% [of family-income brackets].

Now, there are two aspects to it. In the postwar period, you had the phenonenon among returning veterans' families, of one-and-a-half jobs in the family, or one-and-a-quarter jobs in the family. You'd either have one wage-earner in a new household; a couple people got married, one of them might support the family. There were many households of that type, where some adult member of the family was at home, most of the day. But, some people would work a second job, to try to get some extra money. Sometimes, the wife in the family would work a full-time job, sometimes a part-time job. To buy a washing machine, or to get this, or to get that. Buy the automobile--this is back in the 1940s, early 1950s.

That was typical of American life, and it got worse as things went along. But, then you came to the period after the 1960s--'68 period. It got bad. And, people no longer had family life. And, it wasn't because they didn't go to, you know, "family values school," that they didn't have family life: They didn't have family life, because nobody was home! And, because, suddenly, people began commuting, all kinds of hours, through traffic jams every day, to get to and from work, and they had no time for personal life. They broke up communities and neighborhoods. So, the friends and family you used to talk with conveniently, as part of your immediate circle, were no longer there. You might see them, once in a while. You didn't have an actual, active social life, within the family, or within the community. It was broken up. It went on a highway, in the form of commuting! You see all these people, out in the highway, getting angry--not thinking, just getting angry! Commuting, in traffic jams, every day; and breathing in smog. Children--latchkey children--going through all the various things that children go through, in trying to cope with this, and there's no adult, who's not exhausted, who will spend any time, having a decent conversation with them! Except once in a while: That was considered as "great family time," this "family hour" experience.

So, what has happened, is: We became a nation of virtual slaves. How many people, in America, especially in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, work how many jobs? How many hours a day of life in commuting--and similar things--are spent on the job? Out of 24 hours in a day? What is the week amount to? What does a child face in a school? What kind of schools do we have, for our children in schools? In primary and secondary schools today? College is almost a waste of time: The courses mostly fake! People don't learn anything. There's no education; there's no excitement; there's no intellectual excitement, of actually discovering things--learning; knowledge. There's no fun, on a campus, in wrestling with ideas, as people used to wrestle with ideas--going whole long sessions, of wrestling and fighting about ideas--as a byproduct of education. As a matter of fact, in good education, most of the education was acquired outside the classroom, not in it! But the classroom environment, the university environment, provided an environment, in which this kind of social interaction occurred among the students and others. It was exciting. It was interesting.

That doesn't exist, virtually, any more.

That's what our problem is. And, then, you have on top of it, these Hollywood values. And people are found in mass entertainment--especially in television: If you want to see how bad it is, look at a very simple test of entertainment: Take any Classical drama, and then, go back and look at (shall we say) movies from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, and now. What do you see? You see that there is no longer, even the semblance of an idea, in much of the drama. Or in much of the other forms of mass entertainment on television, or other ways. Rather, there is a sensation, a sensual experience, like a sexual orgy, or something--hm?--which is displayed. Or, killing; shooting; more violence, than ever before. There is no drama! There is no social process.

And, people just find themselves, that their attention spans are shorter. They don't have any work that's interesting. They have monotonous work. It's a destruction of our culture. And the people in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, are suffering the most. They're being turned into human cattle. And, that's wrong. It's a very serious issue, the question you pose.

FREEMAN: Lyn, we have, literally, scores of questions here. I will pull out the ones that you have not already answered, in one form or another, and forward them to you. What I would like to do, though, in closing, is to ask you one final question, which was submitted by a group of students, who are listening to this over the Internet, because I think it reflects a question that others ask, as well. It says:

"Mr. LaRouche: Hundreds, or maybe even thousands of college students around the United States are listening to you today. While many college students are only interested in partying, a lot of us are really actively pursuing the study of ideas. However, under current conditions, it just seems so useless. We don't even know, whether civilization is going to continue to exist. We don't know what to do. What do you think we should do? Should we drop our studies, and just organize full time? Is there any way, that we can do both?

LAROUCHE: My general policy is--and I would recommend it to many parents, and others, and students, as well--is: Don't let anybody tell you what to do with your life. Let people make suggestions, but you have to decide what you're going to do with your life. This is much more important--I think, even many ordinary psychiatrists would agree with me, on this kind of advice. But, it has a deeper importance, which is, I think, not recognized often enough.

The key thing in developing, particularly when you're coming out of adolescence and going into adulthood, is, by that time, you should have decided to take charge of your own life. And, the most important thing, is, by taking charge, means accepting the consequences, for deciding to do something, or deciding not to. That's a responsibility. Therefore, I think each person has to make that kind of decision, themselves. They may accept the suggestions, on this, advice, even strong recommendations from other people. But, they must make that decision, because they're going to have to live with it.

Now, on the one side, on the student side: Now, I'm certainly not against knowledge. As a matter of fact, if you want to know what my biggest frustration is, all you have to do, is read what I write; and when I'm writing, I'm writing against a wall of ignorance in the general population, especially in those under 30, under 40, who have been subjected to a no-education form of education, in which they've learned how to appear to pass as graduates in an education process, like a sausage that had been packed and wrapped in a machine; and they come out there, and they've got a label on them: "You Graduated"; "You Graduated"; "You Graduated." But, you're just a piece of salami. That's the kind of thing, all right.

The biggest problem I face, is I'm dealing with ideas, which I think are the ideas on which the future of humanity depends--knowing these ideas. But, then, I find that the level of knowledge--of grounding in knowledge, of essential things in the population, the student population, is so poor, that they say: "I don't understand what you're saying!" Things that an older generation, even a badly educated one, would have understood what the references were. And, therefore, in my efforts to educate these, with some long articles, where I have to try to anticipate, as much as possible, the unanswered questions, that I've got to take up, in order to get at the main thing I want to talk about--is that people just aren't well enough educated. So, therefore, my frustration is, that the students, who are students, aren't learning anything of importance! They're not getting an education.

Therefore, I would say: If they decide to stay on a campus, and expose themselves to a subject-matter, they have to recognize what they're up against: They're in a slime-pit. But, the fact that you're there, on the campus, for the purpose of studying, for the purpose of taking on a subject--that's your responsibility--whether the university accepts it or not. You are there, because you want to spend that time, concentrating on this matter. And, you're going to reach out, anywhere you can, in the facilities available to you, to get what you need, to do what you want to do! So, you may pick out something that is not your primary interest, because you've got the opportunity to pick up something you do want to have. For example: Say it's a language. Say, it's some aspect of some culture. You want to pick that up--you're there. You want to do that; it's not what you really want, but it's available to you. You're going to take that, rather than waste your time. [meaning unclear]. And, if people decide to do that, that's good.

But, the basic thing is: Fight for knowledge! People--young people--must fight for knowledge! And, whatever they do--on or off a university--they must fight for knowledge. Some people come out of university, much better educated, in terms of knowledge, than most of them went in to it. Because they fought for it. Some came out of universities, despite the fact that they mostly stunk, because they fought for knowledge. Despite professors, despite the textbooks, despite the environment. And that's the way it has to be.

So, as I say: I don't tell people, what to do about this, on case by case. I can discuss the problems, as I understand them. But, I tell them: "If you don't make your own decision; if you let somebody else make your decision for you, in the matter of knowledge, you'll regret it for the rest of your life, whether it's right or wrong." It's like the wrong marriage.

Return to the Main Page
Top