LaRouche Discussion: The Lessons Of Wartime For Statecraft Today

The following is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's discussion with the audience at a Washington, D.C. seminar and international webcast on May 28, 2023 :

Question (A member of the staff of the Democratic Congressional campaign Committee): “Mr. LaRouche, Joe Lieberman has emerged as the leading Democratic contender for the Presidential nomination in 2004. Over the past few weeks, Senator Lieberman has emerged with a strident defense of the ‘New Economy.' It's very hard for those of us who are preparing for the mid-term elections, to explain why it is that the leading Democratic contender for the Presidential nomination is doing that. It has left us somewhat outside the circle of reality. Do you have any idea what Lieberman is doing, and why he is doing it?”

LaRouche: Lieberman is a very strange animal. He's a very intelligent person, and I don't think he has quite as many short circuits as McCain does, but his ties to McCain are intricate and extremely exotic. We have to look at this--you know, Arizona has some very strange things in it, apart from gila monsters. And it has organized-crime connections, like the Joe Bonano connection, who used to be a drug pusher, sitting up for the mob, in Canada, tied with Sam Bronfman. And, there was a big scandal up there in the 1950s about Bonano and drugs, and John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and so forth, which caused the fall of the government up there, the Canadian government. So the thing is rotten.

You have the Emprise thing--the murder of the [investigative reporter Don] Bolles in Arizona. You have scandals about Indian reservations' gambling concessions; you have big questions raised about John Irwin III there, the biggest landowner, or one of the biggest landowners in the state, the grandson of a former Governor of the state, and also a member of the IBM family, of the Watson family, who runs some very nasty operations under his American Family Foundation and other things. This is a very messy thing.

Now, when you look at this closely, you find that John McCain says he's a Bull Moose, and all we're getting is a lot of flap, eh? He says he is a Republican, or he's not a Republican, or whatnot. And Lieberman and McCain are almost like twins. So you have a faction: McCain says he's a loyal Republican; Lieberman says he's a loyal Democrat, but we find both of them are hybrids--we don't know what party they belong to, when you look at their issues and you look at their connections. And some of their connections really worry me. They really worry me from a standpoint of ethics, shall we say.

But also, Lieberman is something else. In a case like this, you have to look at a person by their policy, and what their hands and feet do. And Joe is bad. For example, Joe's intelligent enough to know what he's doing, and that's bad. Because what he's doing, is, he's a supporter of a fascist movement in the United States. This fascist movement is associated with people like Wolfowitz and so forth; it's associated with Samuel P. Huntington, with Zbigniew Brzezinski, and people like that. It's a movement which, in the postwar period, proposed a military reform, called the “utopian” reform, which is based on the model, in fact, of the Nazi international Waffen-SS: That is, to produce a professional army, no longer a citizen army, but a professional army, which would do the enforcing, like the Roman legions, or the Waffen-SS, for the command. And this is well known.

As soon as they could get rid of MacArthur, which they did fairly quickly, in the postwar period, then they got rid of Eisenhower, when he retired from office. And you know what happened when Eisenhower retired: All the cats and dogs, and squirrels and gila monsters, and so forth, that had been hiding in the cages, came loose in 1961. Eisenhower steps out of office. All over the world: assassinations, coups d'état, all sorts of things, usually pointing toward Allen Dulles, as one of the perpetrators in these things, or Colonel Lansdale.

We had an assassination attempt against de Gaulle in France in 1962. We had a very suspicious overthrow of the Macmillan government in England, in the so-called Profumo scandal, in the same period. We had the early ouster of Adenauer, in Germany. We had other assassinations. We had the Kennedy assassination, Mattei assassination. And certainly by 1965, with the ouster of Erhard in Germany, by another kind of coup d'état, you had a change in the world. The United States had gone into the Indochina War, which is the kind of war--the no-win, perpetual war, prescribed by the Brzezinski-Kissinger-Huntington and so forth types. The world had changed.

In the middle of the 1960s, we stopped being a producer society, and we went to--by recruiting our youth into what was called “post-industrial society,” or, sometimes it was known as the “rock-drug-sex counterculture,” and this strictly concentrated upon the most vulnerable part of the youth: the university-educated youth. If you corrupt the students in the leading universities of a country, by this kind of a program, you will do grave damage to the existence of the nation as a whole, because these are the guys who are going to move into the secondary positions in professions and in management. And if you destroy the people who are going to run the country by tradition, you are going to ruin the country. And it worked. It worked just fine.

We destroyed the country with the aid of the Baby Boomer generation, those that came into maturity, or semi-maturity, or immaturity (whatever the case may be), in the middle of the 1960s. We destroyed them: We put them on drugs; we made them crazy; we told them industrial society was no good; and we used the threat of the draft over their heads to scare them, bring out their native cowardice, and get them into the kinds of things they did.

So we destroyed the United States. We became a consumer society. In 1966-1967, we shut down a lot of the space program, which was the major technology-driver for the United States at that time. By 1969, we could no longer have built the space shot! We had destroyed so much of the industry essential to the space shot, we couldn't have replicated the man on the Moon.

That's what we did to ourselves.

So we became a consumer society, which, as I've described it before: It's like Rome, like ancient Rome. During the period of the Second Punic War and afterward, Rome underwent a change in character, from a Roman society into a consumer society, an imperial consumer society: extensive use of slavery; they turned the people into pigs, the citizens turned to bread and circuses; that is, mass entertainment very much like our television entertainment today, but they didn't have television screens, so they used stadiums, to get Christians to eat lions, or something, eh? That sort of thing. And this kind of mass entertainment destroyed the morality of the Roman people, who no longer worked for a living; they lived on bread and circuses, on entertainment and the dole. They destroyed the civilization. Rome lived by looting other countries!

How do you think the United States lived, over the period from 1966? We destroyed our industries, and with the help of the floating-exchange-rate system, and reforms introduced under Carter, we became the greatest looter of other nations on this planet. The United States has been living--like the Romans--by looting countries that are afraid not to concede to its demands. That's how currencies were rigged. That's how runs on currencies were created. That's how the Latin American debt was created: by stealing, by fraud! Fraud, practiced largely by the United States, with the help of Britain. They make a run on a currency; the IMF would come in like the shock troops, like the Nazi SS, tell the country to devalue its currency, but increase its debts, to make up for the devaluation. And they looted South America.

What they did to Africa, since 1966, is unconscionable. We have mass murder and genocide all over Africa, run by the British, United States, and certain Israeli operations, including Barrick Gold, which is an investment of the father of the present President of the United States! Genocide all over Africa.

We're doing the same thing in other parts of the world. We've been looting the world. We looted Japan, with the “Big Bang.” We got the Japanese to print currency to bail out our financial markets, and they're going bankrupt as a result of it. And the Japanese are afraid to say no. We're destroying the world with this system. And we're trying to set up a military system, based on an American people who are uneducated, highly opinionated, but ignorant, with no particular skills for any kind of skilled work; we've lost the skills; the jobs have run overseas; the farm area is a disaster area, psychologically and morally, because of what's been done to the farmers. Industrial centers in the United States have been destroyed; and the people in them have been largely destroyed; we don't have families any more; we don't even have latchkey children--our children are being destroyed by the social system which is being developed: We took away people's health care; we stole it from them. We're condemning them to death because we want to get rid of excess population--the best way to do it, is to cut back through the HMO program--you'll increase the death rate quite nicely. The shutting down of D.C. General Hospital is a typical example of this kind of process.

So, you have a policy, centered in the Democratic Leadership Council, which Joe Lieberman represents, as Al Gore did, and this crew is behind this policy! They're behind the so-called New Economy policy, which has just blown out. This country is no longer the nation that produced a Martin Luther King. It's a different kind of a nation. And Lieberman represents that. So what we're dealing with here is, you're dealing with the inertia of a guy who was an ambitious, savagely ambitious person, completely untrustworthy and slimy, controlled by you-know-not-whom; this guy is running for the top position in the Democratic Party in the United States; and effectively, ever since Jeffords resigned from the Republican Party, the Congress doesn't work, because you have an alliance in the Congress, typified by the McCain-Lieberman alliance, with Daschle going along with it, and the Congress can't get through a decent piece of legislation. Oh, a couple of things get through there, if the President of the United States wants them, at the time. But you have a system that doesn't work.

So, the Lieberman problem is very simple: Lieberman has to go. Let him sit in the Senate; if Connecticut wants to support him, let 'em support him. But he should not run the Democratic Party! We have to take over the Democratic Party! Because there are a lot of good people in there, but they believe that they have to go along with the leaders. Well, I don't know, I don't want to bring the guillotine in, or something like that, but I think we do have to have some change of leadership around there. And people like the questioner, know what I mean. We have to get our gumption up. And the people will support us. Don't kid yourself. They will support us. The American people--now that it's clear to them, that this whole “recovery” was a fraud, a big financial fraud: Don't trust an accountant; never believe an accountant! You gave up on lawyers; now you can give up on accountants too!

So, in this kind of situation, I think the American people, if they sense there's a movement--and I know the American people from a long time. I knew their grand-pappies. I know what's inside them. And if the American people see, with a sense that this is the crisis, that this is the time to start moving, we can make earthquakes, political earthquakes throughout the country. And the good Democrats inside the Democratic Party, can take over the Democratic Party, and they'll find cooperation from any good Republicans they find loose on the landscape. We can change this. The world is ready to accept a certain kind of leadership initiative from the United States. And if we show the gumption to our people inside the United States, and to the world, that we're ready to take that step, you'll find that people who have been spitting at us, will suddenly come to like us, and cooperate with us.

Question (U.S. correspondent for the Macedonian daily, Vecer): I would like to ask you, Mr. LaRouche, actually, to turn your attention on the issue of war and peace, actually, the security in the Balkans: Because over the past 10 years, we did have three wars in the Balkans--in Bosnia, in Croatia, and in Kosovo, and actually in Macedonia last year.

So, we do have three peace agreements there, but we do not have peace, in the sense that there will be no more extremism there, and attacks. So, last week, we did have a Kosovo Parliament resolution which does not recognize the border agreement between two sovereign nations, as Serbia and Macedonia are. Do you think that the role of the international community, actually, the role of the United States and NATO, which are involved, deeply involved in this crisis in the Balkans, and soldiers are there also--do you think that they're trying to stabilize the region, or they're doing just the opposite?

LaRouche: The policy involves someone who's very close to Brzezinski: Madeleine Albright, who also has a connection to Condoleezza Rice, of course, who is now the President's teacher, or something, schoolmarm. And they all have this common feature, through the teacher of Condoleezza Rice, Josef Korbel, who's the father of Madeleine Albright. They all have a common feature, and if you look at the common feature, then you understand exactly what's going on.

These people are followers of a policy which was pulled together in 1928 around a book by H.G. Wells, called The Open Conspiracy. The Open Conspiracy, which was joined immediately by Bertrand Russell, has been the basis, the center, of the creation internationally, of a proposal for a new Roman Empire, a new kind of Roman Empire, which you can find detailed in The Open Conspiracy, what the issues are. It was this group, Russell and Wells--Wells, from 1913, was the first political figure, then as an official of the Fabian Society, and an intelligence operative for the British government at the time, wrote a book in which he added a preface--the book was fiction, but the preface was not--and what he proposed was that radioactive weapons, which were now possible, and he referred to Frederick Soddy's proposal on radium, radium bombs--that these should be used as a weapon so terrible, that governments would give up their sovereignty to world government, in order to avoid national wars.

This was the continued policy of Wells and of Russell. It was Russell and Wells and their group, including the Unification of the Sciences group of the United States, the development of cybernetics, the development of all these things, by the same group. The development of the drug programs of the United States; all these things came from this group. To destroy the sovereign nation-state, to create, in effect, a new world government, a new Roman Empire, of a new style, in which an elite, typified by Wells and Russell themselves, would actually run the world as an elite.

Now, this was the kind of thing you would see in a film that was done in the 1930s, composed by Wells, called “The Shape of Things to Come,” in which this kind of world empire, postwar world empire, was proposed, with super-weapons.

Now, what this means is, in designing a new Roman Empire: It means that you declare certain areas of the world, as border areas, or what the Romans called “limes”, the boundaries. What has been designated, is to take the former Yugoslavia, with some adjoining states, and destroy it, to turn it into a no-man's land, a limes. (CHECK) Now, what they've done, is they've gone in, and run, after the conclusion of the Desert Storm operation--the reason the United States pulled out of Iraq in Desert Storm, is because they wanted to get the Balkan wars started. That's why it happened. You want to know why they stopped the war in Iraq? They wanted to get the Balkan wars started. And Powell, who was then in charge of the operation, said no. We can not overextend ourselves. So they decided to go into the Balkan wars.

So the Balkan war is the intention to destroy the Balkans--a limes principle. Just as the declaration by Brzezinski, who is also a follower of this H. G. Wells philosophy--he's a fascist, just like the rest of them--is to destroy Islam, and to make Islam a limes area; by declaring Islam as an outlaw, a free-fire zone, you can destroy and control the countries which border on Islam. You can control Central Asia. You can destroy China, and one of the long-term objectives of this, is to destroy China. But the way you do it, is the way the Romans did it, with their limes policy--the Roman Empire--is you use military forces, as legionnaires of the professional army of the type described by Huntington and company; use that kind of army, which is our special-warfare army, deployed in every part of the world, using naval power and air power, over the territory--just the way navies used to be used in the old days--and troops going in, hit-and-run troops, operations, guerrilla warfare, and so forth, playing one side against the other.

So the intention here, on the part of this faction in Britain, and in the United States, a faction typified by Madeleine Albright, her father Josef Korbel, and Brzezinski, is to destroy the Balkans.

So, what happened is, as you know, the Kosovo destabilization, in the case of Albania--was organized by the British, and by Madeleine Albright, to create precisely the problems which Macedonia faces now.

And the best thing I can say, practically, of course, my attitude about this is obvious. What I think should be done is obvious. My answer is that we should be developing the Balkans, with large-scale projects, because the Balkans is an essential part of the underbelly of Europe as a whole. If you wish to develop Europe effectively, if you wish to develop the connections, the trade connections, the economic connections, to the Middle East and other parts of Asia, you develop the Balkans. [Freeman interrupts here.]

Freeman: We have on the phone right now, Col. Mohamad Seineldin, who is a distinguished military hero [applause], who led his nation's troops during the Malvinas War. He is speaking to us today from a prison in Argentina.

Col. Seineldin: My great brother, friend of humanity, my good friend, Lyndon LaRouche.

This is Col. Mohamad Ali Seineldin, speaking to you from the military prison camp of Campo de Mayo, in the Republic of Argentina. Who sends you a very warm embrace, and my tremendous joy in being able to share in your orders, this hard, but marvelous struggle, for the good of humanity, and for a better world.

You can be absolutely certain that from Ibero-America, together with our common friends Marivilia Carrasco, Lorenzo Carrasco, Gerardo Teran, and many others, we are struggling for a triumph of your ideas, and your projects, which are now being accepted, and propagated throughout all circles.

One of the most evident facts of this is the integration we have achieved between Argentina and Brazil, which is advancing with a lot of strength, and a lot of faith. And the other one is the acceptance, without a doubt, of your economic proposal, which is the only lifesaver for those nations of Ibero-America that are currently being destroyed.

Finally, so as not to extend myself too much, be aware of the fact that we are working with the message, your message, for unity. Either we hang together, or we will be hung together. The alternative we face in this crucial moment: Either we continue with the destruction of the world that has been carried out by the international establishment, the Bushes, Soroses, the Kissingers, etc.--or, we raise the standard of the reconstruction of the world with the gentleman, and patriarch, Lyndon LaRouche.

I pray to God and to Mary of Mercy, for the good that you represent to triumph, and we can save humanity, and the human species from the danger which it faces today.

For God and the great Ibero-American Fatherland, Mohamad Ali Seineldin, former colonel. [applause]

Freeman: Colonel Seineldin, we look forward to the day when we can host you here in Washington.

Col. Seineldin: With my entire pleasure, I am looking forward to that opportunity, and thank you very much for having given me the opportunity to speak to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

LaRouche: Thank you very much, Colonel Seineldin.

Freeman: Lyn, would you like to say anything?

LaRouche: Well, it speaks for itself. What can I say? Can you top this?

Freeman: That was certainly a treat.

Before I take our next question, Lyn, before I interrupted you, do you have anything that you want to go back to, on that previous question, or shall we move ahead?

LaRouche: Just one final point. It's that, what is needed is a contrary policy to the present policy. I think Europeans would tend to support it, without U.S. pressure to the contrary. And that is the idea, that there should be a development project with the idea that the whole region below the Danube, to the Mediterranean, and to the Black Sea, should be a development area with large-scale projects, linked with the idea that this is a natural underbelly of Europe, and therefore it should be developed, with its economic potential, as the underbelly, and I think the nonsense would stop. I think the military nonsense could be controlled. There are forces who would very much love to control this mess, but the United States and Britain won't let them. If the United States and Britain would let these forces act, the mess would be cleaned up. You would have stability, and if there was a commitment to an economic development program, it would work. And that's what the area needs.

Freeman: Okay. The next question is one that was submitted by the youth committee of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. That question is as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, we are rapidly approaching the summer, and we are doing so in a period not only of economic collapse, but also of social collapse. There are almost no jobs available for inner-city youth, and we are faced with large numbers of idle youth, during hot weather, under very bad conditions. We are extremely concerned as to what the plight of American cities will be during these summer months, particularly given the fact that we fear that current Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the people around him, will use this situation to consolidate top-down control.

“We are not convinced, that the situation in America's cities will not become the equivalent of the kind of treatment that is currently being meted out to Palestinians in the Middle East.

“We are not sure, whether or not Homeland Security, or the policy that you've referred to as the U.S. Northcom operation, is relevant to this or not, but, either way, we believe that we face a significant problem this summer. Do you have any thoughts on this?”

LaRouche: It's all true.

First of all--but you have to look at this historically; you have to look at this in a strategic, historic way, not just an issue way. Because it's much bigger than any issue in the particular sense.

What the U.S. government is tending to do now, under present economic and strategic policies, particularly since the reaction to Sept. 11, especially since the beginning of this year, the United States is embarked on a course which cannot be maintained, unless the United States becomes a fascist state, in the full sense of the term “Nazi.” The elements are there. The tendencies are there.

You had, for example, in Germany, you had the comparison of 1931 to 1932, before 1933, you had these movements which were all moving already in a direction toward establishing a totalitarian state. The British, and certain people in New York, decided to make Hitler, and his movement, the choice. Hitler was bankrupt, he was about ready to fold up, in December of 1932. And money from New York, from Harriman, that great Democrat, and his circles, through the British circles, went to bail out the Nazi Party, and kept it alive, and through those same influences, with von Papen and others, they got the President of Germany to put Hitler into the Chancellery on Jan. 30, in '33, just shortly before the time that Roosevelt was going to be inaugurated in the United States.

Now, if that had not happened, Germany would have adopted the same policy, or similar policies, to those of Franklin Roosevelt, for recovery. In that case, no war would have ever occurred. No Nazism would have ever occurred.

Now, we're facing a similar situation in the United States itself. If this were to continue, unabated, the United States would become a fascist, terror state in the full sense of the word. And the Homeland Defense, and other measures, would be instruments used to bring that into place. Ashcroft has already made moves in that direction, whether he understands it or not.

The irony of the situation is this: The United States is now embarked, under the current President--I don't think he knows what's happening to him, but he's going along with it, because, I guess, Condoleezza tells him it's all right--but he's embarked on the Roman model, to set up a Roman Empire, based on English-speaking interests who rule the world as a Roman Empire. The problem here is, that when the Roman Empire was established, Rome was at the height of its power in the Mediterranean region. This empire is attempting to be established at a time that the United States is at its weakest internally, worldwide. It is ready to collapse.

We are in an economic crisis, a monetary-financial crisis, which can mean a total collapse. A physical collapse. The United States is trying to run wars all over the world. It does not have the capability of mobilizing for wars all over the world! It has nuclear bombs, thermonuclear bombs; it has bombers, which are aging somewhat. It is producing some new hardware in factories which need a bailout, because Bush's friends have interests, stock, in those factories. But for the economy itself, there is no basis, there is no war economy. So, the idea that the United States could repeat the Hitler war-economy model--it's not true. The United States is in worse condition, today, as an economy, than Germany was in the beginning of the 1930s. It can not do what the Nazis did.

So, under these conditions, with the breakdown of the system, and more and more of the world not only frightened, but hating the United States, and these policies, we're at a point where nothing is a foregone conclusion.

If we decide, if enough people around the world decide, this is not going to happen, it will not happen. But if we don't decide that, it will happen. If we do not decide to change the present economic system, back to the kind of model that Franklin Roosevelt represented, over 1933, through the continuation of his policies, in partial form, through 1965, there is no hope for the United States. Nor is there any hope for any of these problems. We are not going to solve any of these problems unless we have a change in the general economic policy of the United States--a fundamental swing, away from the policies of the past 35 years, to the policies more in keeping with the Roosevelt Administration, and postwar reconstruction. Without that, there's not a chance for the United States. That's why I spoke of courage today. Because there is no middle ground. There is no compromise. You can not compromise with Satan, when Hell's under siege. And that's the problem.

We have to move forth positively, not just negatively. Not against things that are bad--that won't work. You've got to move for things that are good; you must in a time of crisis not run around screaming how bad it is: You must inspire confidence by coming forth with programs which actually will give you the new kind of system which will deal with the problems. And that's what's needed.

We must take over the Democratic Party right now!

And as many Republicans who want to come along, they're welcome. [applause]

Freeman: On that note, before I take the next question, I'd like to just introduce someone whom I think everybody may already know, but we have Nancy Spannaus, who is the editor of New Federalist, but who also is seeking the Democratic nomination for Senate from the state of Virginia. [applause]

I think Nancy is accepting volunteer labor, and I know that she has a table out back, which I would invite all of you to visit....

Lyn, the next question, which is kind of a statement and a question--it was submitted by Msgr. Robert Hupp, who is the director emeritus of Boys Town in Omaha, Nebraska. He writes:

“Dear Lyn,

“It is useful in times like these to have a life span, as you and I do, and as does our beloved friend Pope John Paul II, of just short of a century. It also helps to be punching a time clock that reads Eternity, rather than any particular day or hour, so then, you are looking at any event with a vision of the eternal, rather than just reacting to things.

“It also helps to have a lot of guts. Look at the Holy Father: He's apologized for everything from the Crusades to the Inquisition, and for the abuse of any child--whether by abortion, starvation, or sex. We should be spreading his example; his apologies have been some of the most important additions to the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

“Look around and see that all our major institutions, from the White House to St. Peter's, are under attack; then ask, as I do, and as the Bishops meeting in Dallas next week must do: Who benefits from this mob mentality, screaming against the institution of the Catholic Church: ‘Crucify him! Crucify him!'?

“Now, you know that I am no newcomer to uncovering cover-ups. In 1973, after observing the goings-on of a new assistant assigned to me one week before, I went to the then-Archbishop and told him to do something about this guy. Anyone who could face up to what was going on could see it. But it was only last year, after decades of blinders-wearing bureaucracies, that anyone took this guy on. Today, he is sitting in a jail cell in Lincoln, Nebraska. I was ready to deal with it after one week. And, of course, you know that when I went to Boys Town, and had to have a 24-hour-a-day police guard, because I was cleaning up that mess, some people chose to use me for target practice. On one hand, you can roll up your sleeves, wade into the pig pen and clean it up; or on the other hand, you start letting the wildlife manage the humans.

“In Wisconsin this week, the TV news was going after some priest's, allegedly, miserable sins. He died 12 years ago and the TV news went out to the cemetery and broadcast pictures of his grave! I'd say they're really working hard to dig something up.

“So, in light of our combined ages, experiences and courage, I think a couple of things are worth bringing up before those young fellows meet in Dallas next week.

“One, is the interesting article that appeared in EIR magazine about some really big sinners on the Pentagon side of the Beltway--in what some people have been calling the ‘Robert Hanssen diocese,' sometimes known as Utopia.

“The other, is some things that Mother Teresa spoke to some of us about, which we should think about at a time like this. Among one of the useful things I did, was to have introduced one of your ‘female officer corps' to Mother Teresa while that saint was still walking this Earth. Many of us had recognized the difference in quality of religious vocations when the '60s rolled around. It was quite a bit different than what we had dealt with before, and we're seeing some of the fruits and nuts of it now.

“Your lieutenant talked with Mother Teresa, as she also did with me, about how at the very beginning of these roaring '60s, while these kids were still wearing beards and beads, you developed an inoculation so that they could walk through Sodom and its sister cities and not be infected or afraid. Mother Teresa spoke of what you taught these kids as being like the sign of the Cross drawn with the living ashes of repentance, which would allow these young people to spread to others your inoculation against the moral decay surrounding them. This is preparation to live in eternal reality, instead of, what they call these days, ‘virtual reality.' This is how these young people continue to fend off the ravages of the terrible disease ‘baby boomeritis' and lead their generation today.

“When Mother Teresa talked about how you did this, one could not forget it, since she was very funny, very blunt, and often very embarrassing.

“I'm bringing these things up right now, because I think we older fellows might be able to give some younger ones, who are preparing for their meeting in Dallas, some good advice. They sure could use it.”

You got any advice, Lyn?

LaRouche: Well, I would just say that there is a comment on this thing, because of the problem he refers to, is: There's a movement which is centered around the British royal family, to create a world religion; to dissolve existing religious, into a world religion, as a part of an empire.

Now, recall that the way that the Romans set up their control, they set up this system of Pontifex Maximus, in which the emperor was the head of the religion. You had some people who had similar ideas in later times. You had, for example, Louis XIV of France, made himself the Sun-King; he made himself the head of an organized religion. And the French religion was then to worship the Sun-King.

You had, in the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, imitated Louis XIV, and made himself again a Sun-King. He was a real--and he was the first fascist, so you get the idea.

So, what is afoot today is the attempt to destroy what might be called traditional religious bodies, and to grind them up, as in a blender, and come out with a kind of soup. For example, the typical form of this, which is typical in the United States, you have a pro-fascist group, associated with the Hanssen case in Northern Virginia--Robert Hanssen, the FBI man with a funny sex life. And this group is closely affiliated around the so-called single-issuism, with the right-wing thunder boys like Robertson and Falwell.

So what you have, is you have the extreme, almost Satanic quality of fundamentalist, complete fakers and frauds and so forth, “Diamond Pat” Robertson--these guys are in bed, politically, in what originally was called the Christian Coalition (they then discreetly changed that) with these so-called Catholics, who have exactly the same fundamental politics, but they have it in a different variety. What you've got then, is a pantheonic formation. You have different religious cults, but they're all controlled by a mother cult, a world religion. And this is no good. This is the substitute for ecumenicism, and I say, sometimes I think we have every priest wants to dictate catechism, and not enough of them are missionaries, who want to nourish and save souls, and help people save themselves.

The missionary impulse, which I think is the recommended one, is, we should look at every human being as made in the image of the Creator, and we should try to, as a good missionary does, try to say what we have to say, to that person on that basis. And view every person as precious. And if they believe that man is made in the image of the Creator, and has certain responsibilities thereby, we already have a pretty good start. We don't need any pantheon. We don't need some world dictator, specifying what are and what are not approved religions. We simply have to have an ecumenical fraternity, of the type that Moses Mendelssohn, who was an Orthodox Jew to the day he died, represented in his time. And which actually Philo Judaeus, earlier, represented for Jews. We need that ecumenical view, of mankind, particularly Jews, Muslims, and Christians, who have to set the example, for the believers in this common principle of God and man.

And whatever differences we have, fine. But let us deal with each other only on that basis. And this kind of corruption that we're being subjected to now, would fade away. We start to get into single-issue debates, and fights over this, and agreements on this, and so forth, this is when the enemy comes in. And you think Mephistopheles has come in, and taken over the whole joint, the whole operation. And everybody's a Faust.

So, I think this is an important issue. I think more people should be aware of it. You saw the protests against the Middle East atrocities. Most of the basic churches, the established churches, religious bodies in the United States, protested against it. But only the nuts, who were for Sharon, were heard by the press. The honest Christians, the honest Muslims, the honest Jews, were not heard. Only the nuts were heard. And that's frightening.

And that's what I think is the message that should go to Dallas.

Freeman: Before we start taking some more questions from the live audience, we have a question that's been submitted by several former members of the Clinton Administration, who are listening to Mr. LaRouche's broadcast. And, I'd like to ask it, because I'd like them to be able to hear his answer directly.

Their question is: “Mr. LaRouche, there's no doubt that the challenge of the moment poses a question of courage. But, it also poses a question of what will work, and what is effective. And, since none of us are inclined to sacrifice ourselves for the mere sake of it” (which is an understatement--I'm sorry; I couldn't help myself), “it's useful, when there is an historic precedent to lean on. You spoke often of the example of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his actions that brought us out of the Great Depression. What, in your mind, is key, from FDR's '33-'45 recovery strategy, for us to look to today?”

LaRouche: I don't think there's anything in particular you should look to. I think everything should be looked at--because, we've done this report, which Richard Freeman has pulled together, in large part, on what the lessons are of the recovery programs of Franklin Roosevelt, particularly during the 1930s. And, we've also done earlier studies, which we've published on the same matter, of what the effect was, the relationship between the economic potential, which was developed in the United States under the recovery program, which made possible the mobilization for strategic victory in World War II, in the way it was done.

We emerged from World War II as the only world power. And, we could have done a lot of good, if Roosevelt had lived.

So, you have to look at the whole man, and his knowledge, to see what the precedent is. Now we have, you know, like Harold Ickes, each of them did their part. Each of them did a mission for Roosevelt. They were good people. They did an excellent job. But, there's something behind it: Look for the driving force, not just for the detail. Don't try to get the package. You get the image, of Roosevelt's way of thinking, applied to the problems as they presented themselves to him, concretely, at the time. That's what we have to do, now.

Now, Roosevelt's thinking--what is it? And, people know it, especially of my generation, and earlier--they know it. I represent, though a different individual, as Franklin Roosevelt represented, and Abraham Lincoln represented before me, and John Quincy Adams represented before him--I represent an embodiment of the American intellectual tradition, which I referred to at the beginning, of my remarks today: That I had a contemporary, the Rev. Daniel Wood, a Quaker minister, who started his career in the Carolinas fighting slavery, and he had to get out of there. He went up to Ohio, and just north of Columbus, Ohio, he set up shop, married into one of the families up there; and, he set up his own operation there. And he ran the Underground Railroad in Delaware County, north of Columbus, during that relevant period, of the escaped slaves running to Canada. And, he had the stop of his church, and barn, and school--which he set up--were all used to house the slaves as they were being moved north, toward Canada. Now, he was a contemporary of Lincoln. He was also a contemporary of Henry Clay, with whom he had an encounter on one occasion. And, you had this American Whig tradition, which emerged around President Monroe, John Quincy Adams, the Careys--Mathew and his son, Henry C. Carey; to some degree Friedrich List (though he was somewhat of a different case, even though he was important to the Congress).

And, they had a protegé. And, their key protegé was Abraham Lincoln, who was the spokesman used by John Quincy Adams, in delivering the Spot Resolution, in the Congress, against Polk's fraud in starting the Mexican-American War. And it was that Lincoln, who was a highly educated man--he was no dummy--one of the most brilliant men in all American history, part of the process.

So, we have, those of us who remember, who studied, who lived, who know what the American Revolution was, who know the tradition [inaud], in a certain way, as opposed to those who have what was called the American Tory tradition, which is hegemonic in the United States today. And, what [inaud] has to understand, is that Roosevelt--read Roosevelt's graduation paper, or his final paper at Harvard, on this tradition: Look at his studies, while he was fighting poliomyelitis, studies of his legacy. Look at his ancestor, Isaac Roosevelt, the collaborator of Alexander Hamilton.

And, the point was, that Franklin Roosevelt had two things: He represented a family tradition, an embodiment of the American intellectual tradition, the tradition on which this nation was founded, the tradition of Benjamin Franklin. He also represented a man of extreme courage. And, those are the two qualities that are needed. You need a person like a great general. MacArthur had that same quality in a completely different dimension. The quality of a true leader, who knows something needs to be done. And, if he knows it needs to be done, he will seize the opportunity, to do it, with resolution. He will seek out collaborators, who want to take a chunk of the job. And he will give them backing to do the job, as he did Harry Hopkins, for example.

And, that's the way you do it. You get the essence of the American tradition. The American economic tradition: You have to have, above all, for example, to understand the distinction between the roots of the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence, which are found in Leibniz, in such writings as “New Essays on Human Understanding”: This was the doctrine, which was posed by Leibniz, in opposition to that fascist scum, John Locke, who is the patron saint of slavery in the United States. The Confederate Constitution contains in the preamble the affirmation of “life, liberty, and property,” the doctrine of John Locke: the constitution of slavery. The constitution of degradation; the constitution of treason against the United States. Whereas the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Federal Constitution, uphold two principles: The sovereignty of the United States must be defended, and that sovereign power used, under all circumstances; secondly, the general welfare of present and future generations' posterity must be promoted. That is the fundamental constitutional law of the United States (which is not exactly being observed these days!). And those two principles, which express this legacy, the whole legacy of the struggle against conditions under which some people are treated as human cattle, to create a society in which we have a society fit for men, women; a society in which people are all equally human; in which they participate, equally in society; in which we do not make a differentiation between the rulers, who behave like beasts, toward the ruled, who are treated like human cattle.

And, the American intellectual tradition reflects the use of European philosophy, European accomplishments, to bring forth that kind of idea in this nation. And, those of us who understand that, and who understand how important it is, and who are prepared to fight and die for it, and to make ourselves competent in doing that, we can do the job. And, we have to see that side of Franklin Roosevelt, and look at his courage, look at his tradition, and really understand him from the inside, not from his externalities. And, then all his externalities and some of the questionable aspects of them, all fall neatly into place. This man was a great man. He was a man who tried to walk in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln, in restoring this nation to itself, after the Presidency of the pro-Confederacy Teddy Roosevelt, the Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and that all-round scoundrel Calvin Coolidge--together with Andrew Mellon--had ruined the United States, in the course of the earlier part of the 20th Century.

That's the picture we have to grasp. You can not design, you can not make a Laura Croft President. You can't fit together a “morph” of parts, and make it human. You have to touch the inner-most humanity of the individual, evoke it in the individual, and you will get out of that, a leader. But, that's why I said, at the beginning: In times like this, you have to ask, “Who am I? And, what am I? Where do I belong in the scheme of eternity? What is the meaning of my having had parents and grandparents, and so forth. What is the meaning of this nation? What are its accomplishments? What do I represent, for this nation? Not for what I get for my satisfaction, now, but what I am supposed to do? What did God put me here to do?” And do it! Then you find in yourself, the courage to do what's necessary.

Obviously, Franklin Roosevelt found that. But, while I can recommend and detail many things that Roosevelt did, which I would defend as models, but that is not the force, the mainspring that makes the clock tick. The mainspring lies in the character of the individual, and the development of that character. Franklin Roosevelt admired his great ancestor Isaac Roosevelt, and he worked to defend the United States for the American intellectual tradition--the actual tradition behind our Declaration of Independence, our struggle for freedom, and the Preamble of our Constitution. Once you've got that, and then you know the technicalities, you know what to do. Just a matter of training.

We've got plenty of people, among former Clinton people, who have the skills, or can get them from others--people they know--we can do the job. If you work for me, you get the job done.

Freeman: Sure, because if you work for him, and you don't, you get your butt kicked.

The special report Mr. LaRouche was referring to, is Economics: The End of a Delusion....

I'd like to take a couple of questions from the live audience, now. The first person I'm going to call to the microphone, is Mr. Muyideen Abasi from Baltimore.

Question: Greetings, Mr. LaRouche. Well, I've just been inundated with your perspective on New Violence, especially the component about video games. And I fundamentally disagree, sir. Well, I agree that it does desensitize the youth from violent acts, but unless it destroys your level rationale, I don't think it's really something to go after. So, I'd like to have your answer to that, here.

LaRouche: Okay. Well, I have done very careful study of this question of this New Violence. And, you have to take what I say very seriously, because I'm an expert, in this sense.

First of all, what you're dealing with here, is you're dealing with a game. Now, by definition, a game is not reality. A game is made up of artificial rules. Now, what happens with this is, these young people--and it has to do, also, with their generation: Remember, the key to the New Violence, is not simply the games themselves. The key to the New Violence is the so-called “punk” generation phenomenon; otherwise called the “no future” generation.

What has happened in the United States, to make this possible, is, that the older generation, the parents of those, who are now, say--or younger people, under 25, who have drifted into the “punk” generation, represent the betrayal of them, by their parents. That's the beginning of the problem. Most people in that bracket, sense themselves betrayed. Maybe not the in sense of active “you betrayed me.” But, a sense of estrangement from their parents, that the parents are the enemy.

If you look at the punk rock product, which I look to as little as possible, but the impression is very clear: This is a doctrine of hatred. It's especially a doctrine of hatred against society, and against their parents' generation. Now, some of that hatred has, in a sense, been earned, because the parents' generation has put up with a society, a philosophy, which, in a sense, has produced children, under 25 years of age, who essentially have no future in the United States, as it has gone, and as it is going today. That's your first basis, first principle. See, when people are happy, when people are educated--and you're not educated in American schools, today; the American public school system, the secondary school system, and, also, increasingly, the universities, are a complete farce. That is, the intellectual experience does not occur on the university campuses. You have high school students, graduating with honors from high school, weeping: “I don't know anything! I never came to know anything at this school.” You look at some of the samples of the test programs: You read it, you're disgusted. I'm disgusted, “Is that called education?” What we're doing to our children in our school systems--in the Washington, D.C. area, for example, the Beltway area--is disgusting! It's criminal! What do we give them?

We accept the society of the latchkey children phenomenon. We accept all these conditions. People accept a society where you commute tremendous--if you work, you commute, maybe among three jobs, in a week, not just one. There is no family life. There is no community life. There's no intellectual or spiritual activity within the family. The children are thrown on the streets, like it used to be, say, in the Harlem ghetto, among the poorest in the Harlem ghetto in New York. They're on the streets, they're street children. This is a variety of street children. Now, what do you do? Daddy says, “Aw, kid, don't bother me. I'll get you a game.” You have a child, who's rejected! Intellectually, emotionally rejected! He's given a game! The game becomes fashionable. The game is designed to be addictive. The games were designed to create killers. That is, the people who designed the core of these games, intended to create killers: “Terminator 2.” You get a little kit. You take it in, and you plug it in the wall, and you become “Terminator 2.”

Look, the kid who takes a point-and-shoot exercise--a little kid, point-and-shoot exercise--will become more skilled than a man who's been on a firing range for ten years. Because he can fire more times, with more precision, and lower cost, than the military could ever do for him. He can go from that game, having never touched a weapon in his life, and, on the basis of that training by that game, particularly if he plays it in a multi-person circle, where they're tied in, like a LAN network; he will become more skilled, as a killer, and more psychotic as a killer, than the worst Special Forces case. What we're training, in the United States today, is, we're training the new Special Forces: jobless, hopeless youth, under 18 and higher, who have developed point-and-shoot skills and reactions, which qualify them immediately to become stone killers, for an expanded U.S. military force of the type prescribed by Samuel P. Huntington. They exist.

Now. We have to look at the case of the state of the mind of the “punk” generation youngster, the “no future” generation youngster, who lives in conditions approximately like what I've described, the conditions of the New Economy--Joe Lieberman's great New Economy--with no social life, no redeeming social life, no cognitive development, who spends his time numbing his mind and being occupied, playing these games, particularly in group formats. You create what's called a subculture of game-players, and they're generally associated with certain types of games.

Now, what happens, then, under those conditions, with that load of hate, sitting in the belly of the youngster, you give him violent games: What does he do? It's not the game itself that's dangerous, it's the way it's done: What he becomes is, he becomes involved in that. He becomes schizophrenic. That is, he lives outside the real world, and lives in a world of games, video-game world; a world of fantasy and magic. Therefore, what he becomes, is a member of a killer-oriented, violence-oriented, sadism-oriented, expression of the built-up load of hate sitting in his gut. And this becomes a socially induced form of a mass schizophrenia.

Now, let's take the case of the guy in Erfurt, Germany, the shooter, who is one of these guys, who fits exactly the typical model of the American teenage video-game player. Typical of it; and I've had these guys write me, and what they write proves that I'm right. Because the way they write and the way they argue corresponds exactly to this schizophrenia. That is: How does the schizophrenia work? The game player is in a mind-set, the mind-set of the game; the rules of the game. So, therefore, he thinks like the rules of the game. Remember, it's a competitive game. You're either competing against yourself, against the machine, or other competitors. So, everything except the rules of the game are irrelevant to you, while you're locked up, for hours on end, with playing this game out. Now, if someone comes in, and raises a question of reality--”Your dinner's ready”--or eating dinner's important, you react against them, because they're bringing into your game-world, they're bringing in an element of reality, which, for you, does not exist in the game-world. That's why you're schizophrenic: You have divorced yourself from reacting to society in reality; you're now reacting primarily to a set of rules, childish rules, which you play by. So, the result, therefore, is, since the game you're playing is magic, it has no correspondence to the real world, you are now in a socially induced state of psychosis, a schizophrenic psychosis.

It is not like normal psychosis. Why? Take the case of what happened in Erfurt: This kid went through the school, killing teachers, and a couple of students who got in his way. One teacher called him by name, and said, “Look me in the eye.” The kid stopped. Went into the other room. The teacher locked him in, and the kid shot himself. What had happened? The kid was two people: One person was the guy who went into the room and shot himself. The other was the kid who was playing the game. He played the game as a mass murderer. But, the minute he was struck by reality, in an impressive way, when the teacher said “look in my eyes,” that was the change. He suddenly flipped back into his real, human personality, which is a pathetic, frightened, weak personality. He shot himself--to get out of the game.

That's what these games are doing. But, the point is, as I said, you can not explain the games by the game itself. Yes, the people, who develop these games, who market the games, they know exactly what they're doing. The intention behind the production and marketing of these games, is to create mass-killers in the United States, through video games. One who accepts the games is going to play that role, because that's what they're programmed to do. And, that's the intention behind the people who make the money out of peddling, selling these games. But, the problem is, the reason why the person becomes a victim, is because we, with our consumer society, with our post-1966 society, the unreal society, in which what is real, is what you get, not what you produce; before 1966, what was real, was the opportunity to produce something, yourself. The right to produce, the right to have a job; the right to be productive; the right to be respected, because you're useful. After 1966, the shift came: It's not what you are or what you produce, or what you do, that's important. It's what you can get. Like, on a credit card. And we got a big credit card for the United States: It's called the current-account deficit--big credit card. You can buy any thing from any part of the world, but you don't have to pay for it--until the day you have to, and then it becomes painful.

So, that's the problem. So, the point is, we have destroyed our children! Our children are bodies of rage, and somebody comes along, like a prostitute, a pimp--comes along to the children, and pimps to them, and says, “You want to get your kicks? I can give you pleasure. Play the game!”

It's an ugly, evil story. But, what you have to do, to understand this thing, if you've been a video-game player, you have to see exactly what I just told you. You have to see why, what the load of hate is, in your belly, your sense of estrangement, of alienation from society, in your belly, which causes you to flee from reality, into the magic of electronic games. And, there, you release this load of hatred, of frustration, which comes from what is called “anomie,” in your belly; and it controls you. Therefore, you become two people: On the one hand, you're potentially a human being. That's your real self. But, on the other hand, you have a socially induced form of mass psychotic schizophrenia, which is inducing you, by conditioning, through the game. This is Pavlovian brainwashing, pure and simple; which produces a person, who's a real person on the one side, but has an artificial personality--a game-like personality--on the other side. And they flip back and forth between the two states.

Freeman: Thank you, Lyn.

We have a question submitted by Mr. Ismail El-Amin from NTV in Beirut, Lebanon. He says, “Mr. LaRouche, can you please connect the dots, that the FBI and CIA had during the Summer 2023, about a possible attack against the United States by al-Qaeda militants? And why Mr. Bush had his daily intelligence briefing, on Aug. 6, delivered by a low-level CIA officer, instead of his usual briefer, George Tenet?

LaRouche: The problem here is, that the real fraud in this story, is the way this thing was spun to say that the President had access, in this sense, to information that al-Qaeda was going to do an attack, in that period. That is a lie. That is not the information that the U.S. intelligence services had. I happen to have been involved in investigating some of these problems in the Washington, D.C. area, and put out a report on this subject.

What we had was, around the issue of the anti-globalization demonstrations, organized under Teddy Goldsmith, who is the brother of Jimmy Goldsmith (now deceased), and so forth, which had been organized partly out of places like Porto Allegre, Brazil; the thing that ran the Genoa riots; the thing that ran the riots in Seattle, so forth: That this thing was coming on much stronger, and was targetting Washington, D.C. And, what the FBI was doing, and others' response, was a bunch of incompetence, in terms of the security of Washington, D.C., for late September of 2023.

Now, I was involved, in a sort of consulting, oversight, and discussion capacity, with a lot of people on this problem, and I was concerned about it. That we had coming up, for the period of September, we had a multi-phase security threat to the security of the United States. Now, what has not been said, and probably will not be said--as a matter of fact, the Vice President, Cheney, which tend to concur with what I know on this subject: What we had is, we had a general security threat, but with the operation we're looking at, here, in terms of Sept. 11, is not something that al-Qaeda is capable of doing. I don't care how many times people have said, “al-Qaeda did it,” or “it came from Osama bin Laden,” it did not happen. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did not the capability of even beginning to do what happened to the United States on Sept. 11.

So, you say you had information they were going to do it, just because you now wish to say they did it, it doesn't mean it's true. There is no truth to the official story about Osama bin Laden's being the author of what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11. Nor has any government official, of any government ever presented the slightest whiff of credible evidence, or plausible evidence, to show that! No proof has ever been submitted! So, the government is around, bombing the world, and no proof has been submitted, that the alleged perpetrator actually did it! That's your FBI at work for you. “We're going to convict him anyway. Why bother with proof?” That kind of mentality.

So, the President did not have any such information. No one gave him such information. He didn't miss the boat on anything. What you have, is, you have a couple of Democratic fakers, who've gotten into the act, of the Joe Lieberman type, who're trying to spin this into a story of the incompetence of the President, who didn't know what was going on. Nobody knew what was going on, except the perpetrators! This was a highly sophisticated, military-type operation, which had been in preparation for a year to two years; highly planned; could not have been done by any of the so-called alleged perpetrators.

You have to ask yourself a question: All the planes were scheduled to go in the air, at the same time, about the same time. From Dulles and from Boston. Why didn't they hit Washington first? Look at the movements. Some of this on the Internet--reports of this stuff, in the declassified section, of the exact routes of these planes, and what time they were supposed to take off; how they maneuvered; how the maneuvers were coordinated. These planes each made a turn, after the previously assigned plane had made its hit! Why'd they hit New York towers? Because, whoever did it, intended to blame Arabs, tied to al-Qaeda, for it. See, what would have happened, if they had hit Washington first? They probably would have gotten the Vice President and probably the Secretary of Defense. What did they do, by hitting New York first? Well, remember in New York, there was a big agricultural fertilizer bomb, was put in the basement of one of the Twin Towers, in New York? There was a trial, up there; some people went to jail; this guy, who was tied to al-Qaeda--this sheikh, who had been a U.S. asset--tied to al-Qaeda, was indicted and convicted in the process? So, by hitting the Twin Towers first, you pin the tail on the donkey of al-Qaeda--at least in the minds of all paranoid Americans, of which there is an abundant supply; including, probably, the President, who is not exactly the sharpest intelligence agent in the world.

So, there was no basis for it. So, why does somebody come out and say they have evidence? The evidence is, a secret operation, which nobody expected hit. But, we had a great number of things, on which there were many reports floating around, and I was involved in some of this stuff: reports of security threats to New York and other places, associated with a terrorist component of the same people who ran Seattle, Genoa, and so forth. They were about to hit Washington in a way, which I said was a national security threat. So, I said, we have to look at this thing, when this kind of planning--and we looked at the way this thing was being covered up, the way this was being put in place: This was big. No responsible government would allow that to happen. An open plan for virtual insurrectionary state of affairs, in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital? What government in the world would let that happen? Would not intervene to head it off, before it happened? But they weren't doing it!

And, that was the big scandal. Sure, the President was briefed. Almost everyone, probably everybody in the Washington, D.C. police department was briefed on that one! Every police department and sheriff's department was briefed on that one! Of course there were reports all over the place. But, did it have anything to do with the story that's being told, about the claims made by the Democrats? Was there ever any proof that al-Qaeda was involved? Never. No proof has ever been submitted, and none could be submitted. Not conclusive: Because al-Qaeda couldn't have done it. It's not within their capability.

Freeman: The next question has been submitted by Amir Chaudhry [ph] from the weekly Mirror International and Radio Haya Alla Falla [ph] in Houston, Texas. He says, “Mr. LaRouche, India is on the verge of attacking Pakistan, the leading ally of the United States, in the ongoing war on terrorism. What do you have to say about this issue?”

LaRouche: Well, first of all, there is a high risk of an Indian military move in Kashmir. What is happening at the same time, is, there is something that is being said, which is highly improbable: That this state of tension could lead to a nuclear war attack by Pakistan, or a nuclear in the Subcontinent. That I do not believe is possible. Why are people saying that? Because people in the U.S. government and other governments know exactly what was done to prevent the Pakistan use of nuclear weapons. The Indians know about it, are fully informed about it. The agreement is, among the nations of the area, that Pakistan weapons are sealed, so a nuclear attack from Pakistan can not occur at this time. And Pakistan is operating under guarantees--implicit guarantees and actual guarantees, from the United States and other countries, which say, “There's nothing for you to worry about.”

Now, there is a problem in Kashmir. And, the problem is this--and some people in the United States are making stupid errors on this thing: One thing you do not insist upon, in the Kashmir question, as an American or any outsider, you do not tell them, they must negotiate a settlement on the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. No such pressure from outsiders must be made. Leave the situation alone. The Kashmir issue is a long issue; the division goes back to 1946-47. It's been heated up since then. The only two parties, who should initiate any discussion on Kashmir as such, are India and Pakistan, as such on their own initiative. No outsider should stick his nose into it.

Now, if both parties want guarantees, for what they both want, then you should help them. But, if they don't invite you in, don't stick your snout in the situation. But, the problem is, is that there are elements which the Pakistan government does not efficiently control. The United States government and British are more responsible. The introduction of this kind of terrorism, which is talked about in Afghanistan and so forth, was introduced to the area by the United States and Britain, back under Brzezinski. Brzezinski was the guy who started the terrorism in Afghanistan, and operated, in a sense, through Pakistan to set up this thing, as a trap for the Soviet Union. Which worked.

Now, what they've done: They've gone in, and bombed Afghanistan--the worst, stupid thing they could do. But they did it! They said they had to do, for the war against terrorism, because of what happened in New York and Washington. It had nothing to do with what happened in New York and Washington! New York and Washington was used as a pretext, for this bombing of Afghanistan. There's a geopolitical operation, which is called the “Clash of Civilizations,” which is the controlling operation for this, as described by Huntington and others; the new Roman Empire operation, which is going into place, which might lead to a general war. But, neither Pakistan nor India wants a nuclear exchange, and they want a stable situation. However, the Kashmir situation is inherently unstable, and we just hope now, that we get through June without any war fighting.

There are no simple solutions! There's no simple right or wrong in this thing. This is an old, ugly wound. Our concern should be, to keep stability and peace in that area. That one of the big problems, is that, Pakistan's economy is in terrible shape. The condition of the people of Pakistan is desperate, in large part. The economy depends, to a large degree, upon Afghan drug-trafficking! Which is still going on, full force, bigger than ever from the area! The United States bombing of Afghanistan did not decrease the drug-trafficking, in increased it! You're going to have any government you try to set up in Afghanistan, is going to be less stable, than any previous government, since the last Afghan war started. The United States will never win the war in Afghanistan! Never! It will get worse, and worse, and worse. And the effects of continuing the war will spread, into the adjoining regions. The best thing the United States could do, is get out of there. Make that kind of decision: Get out of there. We made the mess. The best thing to do, is concern ourselves with helping Pakistan to build its economy up again, so it doesn't depend upon drug-trafficking, and so the drug traffickers in Pakistan do not have control in Pakistan politics. And, to find ways, with aid of other countries, such as China, and its discussion idea, to bring about some kind of equanimity in the situation.

Don't try to find solutions. Don't try to find the big thing: This thing is going to happen; this thing is to happen. What you want to do is, keep it quiet as possible. Prevent instability. The long-term solution is, Pakistan's economy must be re-built. And Pakistan is going to be an inherently unstable country, until that is done.

The issue with India, and operation which were run from outside, into India, are also dangerous. There are forces in India, which are dangerous. And, you have to think about what you are doing, when you meddle in Indian affairs. Do you want the extreme right wing turned loosed, in India? The people who killed Gandhi, or that type? You want them turned loose? You can have Hell on the Subcontinent. Do you want the operation that the British and others are running in Nepal? Do you want that operation?

We should not let the American press propaganda, and similar kinds of propaganda, fool us into saying, we must run in with instant solutions, and instant settlement, one way or the other. What we want is people to stop killing each other. We want the people involved in the situation, to have some degree of amity, and let them work out the problems, and our job is, to decide where we should--if invited--intervene, with the agreement of both parties. But we should not be sticking our snout in there.

This is likely the ugly Yankee, the “Ugly American” in Laos, years ago. We are bad! Get the picture clearly: The United States around the world today, is a bad guy! The U.S. military around the United States, and U.S. policy is a bad guy! Not liked; hated, and resented, and feared--in the Balkans! Increasingly hated in Europe, in Western Europe, in France, and Germany, and elsewhere! If they had their courage, in Germany, they'd speak up, but they don't. They've been through two wars with the United States; they don't want to have a third one. The hatred of what's happened in Poland, and Eastern Europe, the same. What the United States has done to Central and South America is hated! We're not the good guys! What the United States has done in Africa: We're not the good guys! Yes, the British have done things, too, of the same evil type. We're bad guys!

So, instead--I may be a good guy, but my government is not a good guy, right now. You want to me to intervene? Well, unfortunately, I don't have any means. But, I'll do anything to help these guys, if they want me, to help them get some peace; to have some amity. But our government is not of that disposition. Our government is trying to find “rogues.” It's trying to find bad guys to bomb! But, they're the bad guys.

And, therefore, yes: There is reason for concern about this danger of a clash in Kashmir. It could go out of control. It could be a controlled operation, where somebody makes a large-scale Indian operation, which is not intended to start a general war. It is simply a punch, to say, “Get your terrorist bases out of northern Kashmir, because we can't stand them right now. Get those terrorists out of northern Kashmir.” And that's the issue. If that thing were settled, and India and Pakistan could settle it themselves. So, we don't need to worry about this, in that way. We do have to worry about what might happen, but--no, the issue as you describe it, is not what the problem is. There's something similar to what you describe; it looks similar, but the issue is being played up by the U.S. press and the international press, is a misrepresentation of the situation on the ground, as I know it from firsthand sources.

Freeman: Thank you, Lyn.... I'd like to take another question, now, from the audience, which is gathered here, before I go back to some of the questions that are being submitted via the Internet. Mauro, did you want to ask a question? Why don't you come on up.

Question: Praise for you, Mr. LaRouche. The next question comes out, in terms of philosophy. It's known that the universe and I exist together, right? So, all the things and I are one. So, from that standpoint, I can say that we can not create or destroy things, just change them, right? So, we can make a discovery, with our human cognition, or we can change things that already exist. So, this comes in terms of the new Bush Administration policy, of the “axis of evil.” So, he's trying to destroy the evil, and he's creating more evil! Do you actually believe that we can destroy evil, or we can change it, in order to create good? Because, as I stated before, we are just one thing--we can not destroy or create things, just discover it, then, or change them. All right? Thanks.

LaRouche: Oh no, it's not quite so bad as that. There's a principle involved in this, to which your question has a certain relevance, but you got it side-wise. You have two types of Classical drama: One is called “tragedy.” Classical tragedies are based either on mythologies, like the Classical Greek tragedies, which refer to the Homeric Odysseys, which are partly historical, but partly they're other things. (They also contain a lot of truth in them, as shown by Schliemann.) Or, they're based on real history. Now, the Classical histories, the English histories of Shakespeare, are based on actual history. For example, Shakespeare based himself on a report, published by Sir Thomas More, on the History of the Kings of England from Henry II to Richard III, pertaining to the ascension to power of Henry VII. Now, these are actual histories, and they pertain to portraits of the actual issues, which defined that period. Then, also, as well as Shakespeare's tragedies, as well as Schiller's tragedies, all describe actual historical situations, or mythical ones. In Schiller's case, they're historical situations, and every Schiller play is based on history, and is an accurate account of the essence of history.

All right. So, you have the two kinds of Classics, however. One is the so-called “tragedy,” and the other is called the “Sublime.” Now, the difference is this: Every true tragedy is caused by the people themselves, not by a leader of a society. The fault of the leader is, that the people have selected that kind of leader. And the selection comes from popular opinion, and popular opinion is the root of all evil, in terms of tragedy. That is, if people can not change themselves, and the leader who should lead them to change themselves, fails to do so: That's typical tragedy.

Plato came up with a conception of tragedy, which is different, which is called the “Plato dialogues,” which is called the “Sublime.” Now, in every Plato dialogue, you have a problem, a contradiction, between failure and success. Or beliefs doesn't work. But, in each case, the Socratic dialogue develops a solution, the way the experience of discovering a solution, by which the people in the drama--in this case, the dialogue--are able to change the situation, to lift the people above themselves, and thus, to escape from the tragedy. The most famous case of the Sublime, in modern Classic, is the case of Schiller's portrayal of the case of Jeanne d'Arc, in France. Except for one change in detail, which was done by Schiller, for dramatic purposes--to make the thing work on stage--the account of Jeanne d'Arc's case by Schiller as a drama, corresponds historically to the actual case of Jeanne d'Arc--her actual history. So, in this case, you have a France, which is doomed, to go through a cycle of these same Plantagenet, etc. crises, they'd been through before--but it doesn't--because of the intervention of one person, who's determined to force a solution: the establishment of France as a nation, not as something controlled by contending feudal factions. And it works. This is real history. It really happened that way.

So, in a case like this, when you get a tragedy, that you get two sides who are about to kill each other: One says the other's evil, the other says the other's evil. You don't approach this by saying, “Well, which is the most evil. We're going to kill the most evil, and solve the problem.” You will not solve the problem. Because the conflict, which seems like a fight between evil and evil, is a result of a common failure of both. Therefore, you must introduce, not a choice between the two proposed options, but you must find a third choice, which actually works; which actually eliminates the evil by introducing the good. In other words, attacking the evil, trying to destroy that which bears evil, is not producing good. You have to introduce the good, per se.

For example: You go into a country, which is destroyed, as we went into Germany (in part, some of the things we did there, in the postwar period, were horrible; some were right). You go into a country. You defeated the people who rule the country. What do you do for the people? You try to do good for them. You help them rebuild their economy. You cooperate with them. You try to establish a stable, healthy society, where the one you just defeated, had existed. You express love toward the humanity of the people, by good deeds, by doing good. And thus, you will get the people, themselves, to accept you, because you come, after--. They hated you; and you come to people who have hated you, and you do good for them! They stop hating you. They may resent you, but they stop hating you, and they cooperate.

The point is: Our military policy in the United States, stinks. Our foreign policy stinks. Because, the way we should deal with the people of South and Central America; with Africa, with Eurasia: We should deal with these countries with love, not with hate. We should find ways, in which we can demonstrate to them, that we are committed to a good for them, as well as for ourselves. If we do that, from what I know of the world, most of the problems of the world today, among nations, could be solved. You have a few hard cases, that will not give up; they want to go on killing. But, in most of the world, most of the people want peace. They want security. They're human beings. They have human aspirations.

Yes, we should have a powerful army. We should have a powerful military, but not for purposes of killing. But for purposes of being able to defend ourselves, when we have to. But, the purpose of the military is not to kill--but to protect. It's the principle of strategic defense. Or, aggressive policy, must be a policy of doing good. Going into a country, and helping them, when they are willing to accept our help. If a country is down, we offer our help.

And, that's the way we should conduct our foreign policy. Bombing people, and saying, “China's going to be a rogue state. We're going to kill it. North Korea's a rogue state. Kill it. Iraq is a rogue state--kill it.” You're going to do this? This is evil itself! The very idea of revenge, the very idea of punitive enforcement of that type, is itself evil. When I say, the United States government, right now, is the bad guy! Our problem is to change our government, to make it stop being the bad guy, before somebody bombs the hell out of it!

Freeman: Thank you, Lyn.

Let me just say, for those individuals, who are submitting questions: As always, we have far more questions than we could possibly entertain during the course of today's proceedings. What I'm trying to do, is to select questions that are representative of groups of questions, that we are getting. If your question is not answered during the course of today's event, I will forward those questions to Mr. LaRouche, and he will answer, as he sees fit.

Lyn, the next question was submitted by Santiago Hileret, who is an Argentinean-Spanish citizen and a journalist. He submitted several questions. I'll ask you just one of them. He says, “Mr. LaRouche, given the fact that the utopians skillfully use currencies and trade to manipulate and conquer other people, shouldn't the so-called ‘poor countries' of the developing world, act more decisively to create their own strong currency, or currencies; and to greatly increase trade amongst themselves? If you see this as at all advisable, and feasible, is there an institution that could take the lead in doing this, maybe something like the Group of 77?”

LaRouche: Oh, we tried that in 1982, when Mexico was--. I had a meeting with the then-President of Mexico, Lopez Portillo, in the late Spring of 1982. And, he asked me, “What are they doing to us?” I said, “Well, they're going to try to destroy your country by September. They plan to hit you with a monetary crisis, by September, and they'll move in to crush you.” Which is exactly what happened, beginning August. So, as a result of that discussion with him, and some other discussions I had with Mexicans and others from the hemisphere, South and Central America, they jointly implored me to develop a proposal, for them, for dealing with the financial crisis, which was hitting all of these countries at that time. So, I did. It was called Operation Juarez. It was so called Operation Juarez, because of Abraham Lincoln and Juarez. Remember, Abraham Lincoln, who had allied himself with the cause of Juarez against the enemies of the United States: that fascist, Maximilian. And, when the Civil War had been one, the United States kicked the French out of Mexico, and under those conditions, Juarez was able to restore his country. Maximilian, of course, was executed, because he refused to leave. He should have left; but he insisted on staying there, and he got killed.

So, we called it Operation Juarez, which is the relationship of the United States, to Mexico in particular; but also to the other countries of South America and Central America, is such that, we must affirm the American intellectual tradition of John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt (who also tried to imitate that), toward these countries. And, therefore, in this crisis, we should approach these countries as what John Quincy Adams proposed: These are sovereign nation-states. We must, always, as the United States, act to protect their sovereignty, as nation-states. We must cooperate with them, around concerns which are community concerns--which is what Roosevelt tried to do, with the Rio Treaty, and that sort of thing that was done; and the good neighbor policy. So, therefore, I did that.

I laid out, in some considerable detail--it was a book-length report, which we published at the beginning of August--exactly what could be done, among a group of nations, and how the United States should cooperate with that, in order to turn debt into credit, for development, at that point. It would still work. The problem here is, is: Where do you find the partner, who can make it work? The United States, right now, will murder anybody who tries to do that. They'll bomb him! They'll call him a “rogue state,” and bomb them. Look what they're doing to Argentina: Argentina is being murdered by the United States. The IMF is the club that's doing it, but the United States is murdering Argentina, as a nation! It's practical genocide! The problem here is: There is no alternative, when you're in a condition, where the world is being ruled by a quasi-empire, already--a quasi-English-speaking empire; that all nation-state sovereignty is being crushed.

Therefore, you've got to stop the imperial drive. My view is, the United States has no choice, but to give it up. Because the United States can not survive with its present economic policies, and therefore, it must change those policies: It must abandon these economic policies, which are the root of its imperial thrust. And, therefore, if we work together, to the end of bringing about a global understanding, of what the world could accept, as a new order in monetary, financial, and economic affairs, then we can act. And, then, groups of countries can form partnerships.

For example: We have been involved in encouraging closer cooperation between Argentina and Brazil, which have had a long history of adversarial relations. Our view is that the interests of the Americas required that Argentina and Brazil have closer cooperation. The view was that other countries, in the hemisphere--South America, in particular--should form cooperating groups on regional interests, and these can be very useful. But the United States should either take a benign attitude, or actually help them. In that case, it'd work--you're right. It could work, but it has to work on those conditions: Either the United States takes a benign attitude toward such projects; or, the United States--better--actually offers to cooperate, and make them work.

It's what we should do--we, in the United States, should desire that, for United States. We should desire that the United States play that kind of role. And, the new Democratic Party, as reorganized, should take that as a fundamental plank of its platform.

Freeman: Lyn, I'm going to ask one final question. And, let me just say that the reason why I'm going to ask Mr. LaRouche to answer this question, although I'm not completely convinced the question was asked in good faith, I'd like to give him the opportunity to address it, since it has emerged as a rather pernicious line that has spread through certain circles in the United States.

This question is submitted by someone, who says her name is Emma Carlisle. She says, “Mr. LaRouche, I have a question. This may be too personal a question, and if you don't want to answer it, I understand, but my question is: Is there still support for your movement in America, as far as people coming to your meetings, and financial support is concerned? If so, how is it the case that you still exist?”

LaRouche: How is it the case I still exist?

Freeman: Yeah.

LaRouche: Well, maybe God loves me! I rather suspect He does.

But, the United States is a depression, economic depression. People are now beginning to recognize what was true all along. More and more people in the world recognize I was right. My personal influence in the world has increased tremendously, at an accelerating rate, both inside and outside the United States, in the recent period. So, on the political side, I have no problems.

We are, however, being in a depression, like any other association, we tend to have financial pressures on us, because people are poorer--the people who support me, are much poorer--much, much poorer--than they were before. There are difficulties of all kinds. Firms are collapsing all over the place. People we work with, are collapsing; their businesses are going out of existence. That sort of thing. So, there are problems of that type. But, these are the kinds of problems that would be normal for anyone, operating in a depression, which we're in right now.

But, around the world, we have growing support, including the United States. Reality takes over. And, why am I alive? Well, because some people think I'm important. And, perhaps they think I'm important, because God loves me.

Freeman: Well, Lyn, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for God. But we love you, and we thank you for being with us this afternoon.

Return to the Home Page
Top