Open Discussion Panel At The Labor Day 2023 ICLC/Schiller Institute Conference

This panel took place during the afternoon of September 1, 2023. It was moderated by Tony Papert, Executive Committee member of the ICLC.

Papert: Let me just make one quick, relevant news announcement, before our discussion begins: Lyndon LaRouche was the surprise guest speaker, today, at the 30th anniversary celebration of the National Association for Chinese Unification. Over 200 top Chinese leaders from around the world were in attendance. The first speaker was the second in command of the Chinese Embassy in Washington, followed by Lyndon LaRouche, whom you will hear in just a moment.

So, this session is discussion. In substance, it's a continuation of previous discussions. We're getting questions in from around the world via the internet and other means.

Let me begin with this one, from Levante Somersol [ph] (many of you know her, I think). She says, "This question is directed to Lyn, Helga, or anyone else who can answer it thoroughly. When I tell people about Lyn, the biggest objection I hear, over and over again, is: ‘Well, that's interesting, but that's your opinion.' My question is: What's at the root of people's denial that there is such thing as truth, and that truth is knowable to man. Where did this view come from, and why is it shared by people from all walks of life? What is the best way to overcome this objection?

"Levante Somersol, [ph] Columbus, Ohio"

LaRouche: The origin of this is fascism, especially as radiated from Germany, in the form of the followers of Friedrich Nietzsche, who included the members of the Frankfurt School, so- called, which had two divisions, in the course of its history. All were fascists. But they divided, because some were Jewish. And the Jewish members found they were not qualified to join the Nazi Party. And they had to be told that; it had to be explained to Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, for example, that they were not qualified for membership in the Nazi Party.

Remember now, this is not surprising, entirely. Because, remember that Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was a joint British and Russian Okhrana agent, was the founder of the fascist movement in Zionism, which is typified today by the Likud, and which is represented by the group of war-makers in New York and elsewhere, such as Max Fisher and so forth, who are called "Mega." They used to call themselves the "Billionaires Club," but they got too much money, so they had to call themselves "Mega." These are the people who brought [in] Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and so forth and so on--all relevant.

Now, remember that Jabotinsky was a Russian agent, but also a British agent: That is, he went to Paris. He worked for the guy in the Okhrana, who issued the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from Paris. He was attached then, to a British intelligence operation, a Foreign Office operation, called the "Young Turks," which was based in Saloniki, in then Turkey; and this was the group that formed the Young Turk rebellion. Jabotinsky was the editor of a publication, the official publication of the Young Turk organization called Jeune Turque.

Another famous person of this group, who was not technically a fascist, was a guy called "Parvus," born Alexander Helphand: a close associate of Jabotinsky, who played all kinds of games in the Russian Revolution; and played a very interesting game in terms of working as a British agent, primarily; also an Okhrana agent of the Jabotinsky-type; also an agent of German intelligence, at a certain point, who funded Lenin's trip to Moscow, and arranged for it--just as a troublemaker, not because he had any sympathies for Lenin.

But, anyway, Jabotinsky was moved from his position as Jeune Turque editor, back to Italy. In Italy, he became the founder of a movement, called the Betar. The Betar was an avowedly fascist organization, a fascist-Zionist organization, backed by Mussolini. As a matter of fact, an element of the Betar was actually a naval unit for the Mussolini naval forces, during the relevant period.

Jabotinsky also made several applications to Hitler for an alliance. Hitler turned him down. But he didn't give up fascism on that count.

Now go back to Germany. Reality is interesting, here--real history. Truth is interesting. Opinions are generally worthless. All right, so, the truth: Hannah Arendt, who was very influential in this country at a certain point, had a very intimate relationship with a leading fascist in Germany [Martin Heidegger], a member of this same group. The same fascist who created Jean-Paul Sartre in France, as a protégé. But, he was German, and he could get by with it. So he became the leading anti-Semite, purging the Jews from the University of Freiburg. She, who admired him to the day she died, went over to the United States, after discovering she could not qualify for Nazi Party membership.

In the United States, she and Adorno, in the last 1940s, produced a book called The Authoritarian Personality. And this book was based on the common ideas of Martin Heidegger, her boyfriend, and anti-Semitic purger of Jews; [making a joke about feedback from the mike] her agent--she's now dead, but under the floorboards, you can probably find still wandering around.

Anyway, the theory which she is responsible for, and a number of other fascists worked on it, including--well, Heideggger was on the same theory--was based on a study of Kant. Now, these people were called "existentialists," who were in this group. This group adopted this argument of Kant's saying, there is no truth in the universe; there is only opinion. They praised it, and set forth a doctrine, which was published as an influential book, in the late 1940s in the United States, called The Authoritarian Personality. Now, this doctrine is now a prevalent doctrine in secondary schools and universities and elsewhere, in the United States today. That is, teachers and other kinds of enforces--the Ritalin-pushers for example, in the schools, will say, "There is no truth. There is only opinion." If you say there is truth, then you are an authoritarian. And this was the definition of this.

Now, it happens, that this crowd is backed by the other crowd, the crowd which is behind the attack for the war on Iraq, the crowd that's pushing that war, the crowd that's supporting Sharon. Sharon is a fascist. That is the truth. He's a member of the Likud. Netanyahu is a fascist--a Jabotinsky fascist. Shamir, a fascist. The hard core of the leadership of Likud is fascist. What these fascists are doing in Israel-Palestine today, is, they're doing the same kind of thing that the Nazis under General Stroop did in Warsaw, against the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto. The same methods, with the same kind of results.

"There is no truth": You can't say that a Jew can be a fascist. Why not? Jabotinsky said he was a fascist. Jews can be fascists. And most Zionist gangster types in the United States are. And that's the core of the thing.

So, what you have is, you have the biggest circulator of rumors, which targets us, with a certain friends who will do it for them; target every place we organize and spread the word, that therefore, "LaRouche is wrong, because there is no truth! There is only opinion. He says, that Sharon is a fascist. That's his opinion. There is no truth." Jabotinsky who was the founder of Likud, said he was a fascist. He said he tried to make an alliance with Hitler, on the basis of fascism, to get Hitler to give up anti-Semitism, and have one, big fascist movement, a unity soup of fascists. That's the truth!

So, what can you say about this? That people who believe, there is no truth, belong to a society which has lost the moral fitness to survive. And, under present conditions, a society which accepts the doctrine, that there is no truth, but only opinion, such a society will die--including the United States.

I would add to that, that, today, it was pointed out to me by Helga, that [Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage was quoted in the front pages of the local rag--the local Washington rag--as saying that the problem is people abroad: We're more powerful than ever before, and people abroad envy the United States. Now, the attitude of people around the world, toward the United States, and particularly toward the Bush Administration today, is not envy! It's contempt! And even hatred, growing hatred. So, that is a matter of truth, not a matter of opinion.

So, the point is, the whole thing is, that the whole that Delante [ph] is referring to, is simply, she found herself being targetted by somebody who repeats this stuff. And we have some people in Chicago, some young ladies in Chicago--one young lady, still young--was also directly targetted in her school on this issue; and by a sociologist-fascist enforcer type, in that school, who says, "We don't allow truth in this school." "So, what are we paying them to teach for?" [applause]

Papert: Krishna Mungur from Cincinnati, Ohio has a question.

Krishna Mungur: Hi, Lyn. I'm Krishna from aboutsudan.com. My question for you is, especially at the January webcast, but also over the years, you've referenced FDR and how the United Nations as we know it is a tragic mess, perhaps? Compared to what he intended it to be. We don't have a One and the Many, I think, in the way that you would prefer. But, what I'm interested in knowing is, how would you see the United Nations as a perfect instrument to have, if you were to design it? I know we have the Bretton Woods idea and the Eurasian Land-Bridge, but the UN as an institution specifically. How would you see it, dealing with, say Iraq, or Sept. 11? I think that's my question.

LaRouche: I would keep it out of that whole business. The United Nations should never become a government. It should Become--. It's most useful function, is as a diplomatic forum, which is especially useful in cases in which direct diplomacy otherwise is difficult to accomplish. To bring a number of different people together.

Generally, for example, the United Nations is an abomination. The "no-good organizations," the so-called NGOs, are an example of that. NGOs generally, around the world, are a disease. They're like syphilis: You don't want it in your home.

Remember, the United Nations was taken over, and given a different quality than Roosevelt intended, immediately after his death. Roosevelt's intention was very simple, and people have to understand this, and take the historical facts into account. It's difficult for people these days, because the schools are worthless, and they don't teach anything of any worth, and therefore people have "explanations"; they look it up on the Internet, and they think they've got some information. Have they got the truth? Aha, that's a different question.

All right. Remember--let's go back one step, because these and other questions come up in this form, about the United States. I'm going to reference this in more detail, in an EIR Special Report, which will be forthcoming very soon, on the question of infrastructure, as a passing business. I've mentioned it in other connections, about Europe and the United States, on why is the American Revolution, an absolute exception, in history: That there is no other state, that was created in this way. And there is no other nation which could have played that role. And the American Constitution, in its original intent, as expressed by the Preamble, and expressed also by the Declaration of Independence, expresses an intent, which has never been realized by any form of government in Europe; or any other part of the Americas, except as a spillover from the United States.

For example, people say this: That the world is divided between capitalism and socialism. That is absolute nonsense! Because, when they say that the American System of political-economy, is like the British system, or that our economics comes from Adam Smith: That is a lie! It's not a mistake. It's not an opinion. It's a lie!

Let me explain what happened: The rise of the Roman Empire, which began to become an empire (as opposed to the formal establishment of an empire) about 200 B.C. This corresponded with the murder of Archimedes in Syracuse by the Roman soldiers; it corresponded to the invasion of Greece, and so forth. At that point, Rome, which was never a very good culture--Roman culture was never good; and that's another story--but, in any case, it began to acquire this great power over Italy, and moved out to conquer other countries. It destroyed the existing highest level of culture, which had existed, which was the Classical Greek culture, which had internal problems; but, Classical Greek culture, as such, is the foundation of all modern European civilization. The Classical Greek culture was spread, in a somewhat imperfect form, but an important form, as Hellenistic culture: That is, Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, which was a good thing, and then he was murdered by the admirers of Aristotle, and therefore, the whole system was weakened. But Hellenistic culture and the Greek language, with a Classical influence, became the predominant culture of the Eastern Mediterranean, and spread into other parts of the world, as in the case of Cicero, the great Roman orator. Who was influenced very much by the Greek Classical culture, and particularly by Plato.

But, by 212 B.C. approximately, this changed. And civilization was going to Hell, in the form of the Roman Empire. Everything was hellish. In this moment, Christ appeared, late in the reign of the first Roman Emperor Augustus. And Christ was murdered by the successor, Tiberias, by Tiberias's legal son-in-law, Pontius Pilate, on order from above. The Jewish element in this murder, was a bunch of people who were oppressors of the Jews, who were the local occupier force, the local Quislings. And there was a general revolt among the Jewish population, in particular, of that area of Palestine at that time, of this group, which was responsible for the murder of Christ, under the direction of their master, Pontius Pilate. They were simply that: They were the oppressors of everyone.

In the process of the emergence of Christianity, you had a turning point in history, with the birth, and especially the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ--a change in human history, of the whole European area. But, it took a long time for that to begin to take hold. It first took the form of the Classical Greek culture: The Apostles John and Paul, epitomized Greek culture. There was no Hebrew language spoken at that time. There were forms of Arabic spoken at that time; there was a written Hebrew, which nobody could quite agree on how to speak. And it was often spoken with elements of Greek mixed in, and other languages were mixed in, in trying to interpret, because the indicatives of the Hebrew--you know, there were point indicatives, which are characteristic of those kinds of languages, were often missing. And the Hebrew belief, the original Hebrew belief, had been destroyed extensively, in two periods in the first Babylonian occupation; and second, where the Jewish books, or the Hebrew books were re-written and some other things stuck in there, by the conquering, occupying party. And a second period, under the Persian Empire, the Achemaenid Empire, in which the magi-priests again went to work, and rewrote what people call the Old Testament. And out of this, you had these two divisions, which divided Europe in terms of the Old Testament: You had the Catholic Old Testament, which came from what was called the "Egyptian Talmud"; and then you had the Protestant Old Testament, in terms of the Lutheran version, which was given by three rabbis from Padua, who did the translation. This was from the "Babylonian Talmud."

So, there's a lot of confusion in this area. But, in any case, Hebrew was not the language spoken in Palestine, at that time. The dominant language in the Hellenistic world, was Greek. And people who were ignorant, spoke ignorant Greek. And also some other languages. But the lingua franca of the Hellenistic region, was Greek. And the best-educated people spoke, as a lingua franca, they spoke Classical Greek, like the Greek of Plato. For example, in the New Testament, the Gospel of John, and the Epistles of Paul, epitomize, in their original version, Platonic Greek. Not only is the Platonic Greek, Platonic in form, as a language. But it's in content, that the idea of the Socratic dialogue, the idea of the Platonic method of the discovery of principles, is the basis of Christian theology in the John-Paul tradition.

So, the importance is, that the Greek Classical culture was preserved, largely in the Christian world, to some degree among Jews, such as Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, who attacked Aristotle, devastatingly, as a fraud. And also, then, later, in Islam, especially typified by the Abbassid dynasty, the Fatimids of Egypt, and so forth. This culture, the Greek Classical culture, spread through Islam and through Jews, through North Africa, into Italy through Sicily; into the court of Frederick II Hohenstaufen; into southern Spain, and so forth; and became an integral part--you can not find, the basis for the viable culture in Spain, without looking at the rich contribution of Islamic and Jewish contributors. Take Moses Maimonides, for example, who typifies European Jewry, in terms of the roots of European Jewry.

So, this was the history of the business. So then, we come along, with all the troubles in civilization: with the Roman Empire persists; the Byzantine Empire was a Roman empire; the struggle among Popes, inside Western Christianity, was a struggle between the pro-Byzantine tendency, the so-called fake, Donation of Constantine wing, who had the idea that the Pope was an emperor, in the Pontifex Maximus tradition of the Roman emperors, and therefore, the world was run as an empire. The Empire of the East; the Empire of the West. And in the Western Empire, the Church was often treated as a Western Empire, under an emperor. That is, kings had no authority to make law. They could make statutes; they could make rulings; they could make decisions; they could kill; they could fight war. But they couldn't make what was accepted as law. Only the Pontifex Maximus, the Emperor, could make law.

Now, the struggle in Europe, was a struggle to revive the Classical Greek view, of the nation-state. That is, that there exists an implicit natural law, which all men are capable of recognizing: That they have intellectual powers to become capable of discovering the truth of this law, recognizing and be governed by it. That each people, no matter what the difference in culture, has the ability to know natural law, as a commonality of law among nations, rather than being sent by some emperor, who runs a Pantheon, and says, “Each of these religions will do as I tell them. I'll appoint the bishops; I'll appoint the priests. And if they don't agree with me, I'll kill 'em.” Like Constantine, for example.

So, this was the history.

Only in the 15th Century, with the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance, did we get the possibility, the actually possibility, of reviving civilization, from the legacy of Roman and Babylonian traditions. That occurred, then, and it was fought, hard, by the enemies of this movement. The enemies were led, by the imperial maritime power of that period, the Venetian financier oligarchy, which actually ran much of the world, from behind the scenes; and otherwise, as a bunch of bankers, who controlled the politics and the wars and the religion of the period, of the whole region. So Venice fought back, against the great Golden Renaissance, and tried to destroy it.

In 1511, when Venice was on the point of being destroyed, by an alliance of the nations of Europe, including Spain, England, France, and others, suddenly the tide turned: Venice survived; Spain joined Venice; and Europe, from 1511, 1513 on, was subjected to the horror of religious war, and went into what is called a little "New Dark Age," from 1511 to 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. In which Urban III, a Pope, had a diplomat, who was trying to stop this religious war. The diplomat was named Jules Mazzarini, who was known in France as Cardinal Mazarin. Cardinal Mazarin organized, in France, the effort to create, what became the Treaty of Westphalia. Mazzarin had a protégé, a powerful protégé, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. And Jean-Baptiste Colbert began to organize France in a magnificent way, as a great power.

Then, this effort was destroyed: Europe was plunged, again, into a series of wars--now dynastic wars, the Wars of the Spanish Succession, and so forth. So, a situation existed, with the accession of George I in England, in which Europe was dominated by two forces: One, the reactionary Habsburgs, including the legacy in Spain and Portugal. The reactionary Habsburgs in Central Europe. And rubbish of this type.

But, the impact of the Classical tradition, the impact of the Golden Renaissance, had not died. So, you have two forces: The forces who were for the Renaissance, the Classical Greek Renaissance; and the others, the Romantics, that is, those who adhered to the anti-Classical conceptions of ancient Rome. These included the Aristoteleans and the Empiricists, who are very similar, but they had big fights with each other.

So, in this period, the question is: How do we get--Europeans said--how do we a nation-state? This is about 1714--before then, but about that time: 1714, when George I rises to the throne of the United Kingdom, the first throne of the United Kingdom. Before that, you had separate kingdoms. So, this became the British monarchy. At that point, "How do we get a nation-state?" they said. "How do we get back to the idea of the nation-state based on natural law?" And, they turned to the Americas, in which refugees and others, from decaying, decadent Europe--from decadent Spain, from decadent other parts of Europe--fled into the Americas, to try to build up nation-states, at a distance from the corruption in Europe. Because of the Spanish problem, the corruption spread from the Spanish tradition, the Spanish influences, the so-called latifundista tendency, English-speaking North America was the only place left, in which to initiate the establishment of a true modern nation-state.

The leading forces of Europe, including the circles of Gottfried Leibniz, concentrated on North America, around the kernel represented by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Logan's role in Pennsylvania: to build a force, which was built around a young man, Benjamin Franklin, to establish a true republic in North America. And this was done, thoroughly, with participation of the greatest minds of Europe. This was never an idea that sprang from the mud and forests of the United States: This was a conception that came from Europe. That came from Classical Greece, by way of Hellenistic developments, by way of Christ and Christianity, the Christianity of John and Paul; which finally emerged after great struggles in the 15th-Century Renaissance--the birth of modern European civilization. That frustrated birth, then, focussed upon building a republic in North America, which is the American exception, the American historical exception, which everybody who is good, of importance in Europe, helped to make possible.

Now, this is our trust. So, that's the way to understand these problems.

Out of this came two tendencies in North America: One, the tendency associated with Franklin--the Leibniz-influenced tendency. The American patriots, which I represent; and which Roosevelt, with his imperfections, represented. And so forth, and so on. Others: John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln represented that; Alexander Hamilton. All the greatest thinkers of the United States, the greatest heroes, represented that same tradition that I represent, that I'm trying to keep alive, and defend, today! And bring to the triumph that it deserves today. [applause]

Now, starting 1763, there was another tradition: Called the American Tories. And we've documented a good deal of this. Chaitkin's done a lot; others have done a lot. 1763, Judge Lowell: The French wars had stopped. The American colonists had been allies of the British monarchy, against the French operations in North America. Immediately the British monarchy turned on America, which became the United States, to destroy North America. So, at that point the population of North America went into a clear division: Between the patriots, who were determined to defend the freedom and the rights of the North American colonists; against the Tories, who were determined to suppress those rights.

And that's what the division is. So [Teddy] Roosevelt, coming after the assassination--successful assassination, I may say--of McKinley: An assassination conducted by the friends of Teddy Roosevelt, to make him President. Then, after Taft, Teddy Roosevelt brought in a Ku Klux Klan fanatic, the co-refounder of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, Woodrow Wilson, as President! Wilson was followed, after a short "Harding times" (shall we say), by Coolidge. Now, Calvin Coolidge was not silent: He just was smart enough to keep his mouth shut in public! Because of what he said in public, me might have gotten lynched!

So, then came the Great Depression, the Great Depression as a result of this process. And in this, here's the United States, which is in the mud, doomed, wrecked, about to go into fascism, or something--just like Hitler Germany. And Franklin Roosevelt captured the American people, with an appeal, not to those in power and privilege, but to the Forgotten Man. Nineteen thirty-two: West Virginia--the Forgotten Man. And, Roosevelt was not some kind of bungling political fool, picking up slogans. Roosevelt had a deep, personal, and knowledgeable commitment to the American System of political-economy. And knew what and American Tory was, and said it often enough, as President: "The American Tories are our problem." They are still our problem, inside the United States. They're still the same scoundrels; they've gotten worse and more stupid. They're like certain snakes, that degenerate: They get more poisonous as they get mentally more stupid.

So, that's the background. So, Roosevelt now--here's Europe: Europe has never had a good government. The closest they got to it, was de Gaulle, and that was almost an accident, with the Fifth Republic. Without de Gaulle, without an effective de Gaulle, the Fifth Republican was nothing, because it began to degenerate, as he was isolated. So, Europe has never had a republican government. Never! What Europe had, was two kinds of governments: One, which was controlled by Venice--the Habsburg model; imperial model; feudalis, in modern garb. But, not always in modern garb: Sometimes, they stuck to the old stuff, like the Spanish court, garb, which Helga and I met one time, in the Castle of Thurn und Taxis, at a dinner we unfortunately went to. All these poor slaves were dressed in Spanish court garb, because Thurn und Taxis is a European family, which associates itself as being the dominant family--the lead family, of the princely organization of all Europe. And they associate themselves as being of the Spanish Hapsburg origin. The very worst. The lowest of the low. They work from the bottom up, as you know, if you knew more about Johannes [von Thurn und Taxis].

All right, here we are. So, Europe is otherwise governed by what? Well, the governments in Europe, the reforms in Europe, liberalism in Europe, came in the form of Venetian influence on the Dutch and the English. The Venetians, who were a financial oligarchy, were losing power at the second half of the 17th Century, particularly after the Treaty of Westphalia, they lost tremendously in power. They made one effort to establish another physical empire in Greece, in Euboeia [ph] and so forth. And that failed. So, in this process, the Venetian apparatus, which was spread throughout Europe, organized the Dutch to become an imperial, maritime power, based on financier oligarchy. This became known as the Dutch East India Company, whose most notorious figure was: William of Orange. The guy who killed the Irish, and establish a dictatorship in England. Through William of Orange, a process was set into motion, which established the British East India Companies, as the power in England. The systems were based on control, Venetian-style control. Venetian-style control is what is called, a "central bank": A central bank is a private organization, a coalition of private organizations, which exacts from government, the control over credit, finance, and banking, from the government. So therefore, you have the currency, and the finances, of a nation are controlled by a foreign body! A central bank, which is a corporation, of a group of wealthy families, who control the central bank. And the government agrees to lay down, and put up with this nonsense!

We have one in the United States: It's called the "Federal Reserve System." The Federal Reserve System, was introduced by the King of England: Edward VII, who had a banker. The banker had a man in New York. The King of England had a vast amount of money he wanted to invest in taking over the Union Pacific Railroad. But he wanted to do it through a nominee, not have his name on the stock ownership. So, he used Jacob Schiff, in New York, an agent of his banker in London, to take over the Union Pacific. And Jacob Schiff got a sucker, E.H. Harriman, to take over the Union Pacific--for the King of England! That's the Harriman family, in the United States; the ones that worked, later, to bring Hitler into power in Germany! They funded Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

All right. Jacob Schiff also organized, with the same group of bankers, organized the Federal Reserve System. They didn't get it through, immediately under Roosevelt; but when Roosevelt ran the Bull Moose campaign, it was run for the included purpose, of ensuring that the United States would ally with Britain, for the war in Europe, and also establish the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal income tax. The Federal income tax was originally created to get the funds, to pay the central bank, for the costs of running the Federal Reserve System. And under Wilson, we got all of it: We got World War I; we got the Federal Reserve System; we got the income tax; and every other thing, that people like to complain about, these days.

So, at that point, we ceased to be a true republic! We had lost our Constitution. We no longer had sovereignty over our own credit, currency, and related banking affairs. This system: This Anglo-American system, this Venetian-model system, which infected us like syphilis, called the Federal Reserve System--this brought us into a Great Depression.

From this, Europe, which had no brains, at the top--you know, Kaiser Wilhelm; Franz Joseph, the Tsar, the Kings of England, with this idiot, this maniac in France: These fools, who made that war, were relics of the system. It was the European system; it was a parliamentary system, based on these relics, of an old, quasi-feudal parliamentary system. And these governments were incapable of avoiding this mutual warfare, which slaughtered Europe. Only in the United States, did we have the potential, in terms of our Constitution, and power to be able to deal with this war. We went through World War I, and we were a failure: We didn't stop the war; we built the new one. And the crash. Then, we came to the Second Depression. And Franklin Roosevelt went to the people of the United States, appealed to the Forgotten Man, made drastic reforms, fought the Supreme Court (which was a corrupt institution), and prepared for the war, he knew was coming, at least in 1936. Hitler made the war inevitable, and we knew it. So, the process of recovering from the Depression, and preparation for war, the logistics for war, were already full under way, when he was running for first re-election in 1936.

As a result of all this nonsense, at the end of the war, the United States was the only nation on this planet, which was qualified as a natural world power. It didn't work. Why? Because Roosevelt died. Only a living, powerful Roosevelt could have mobilized the American people to chuck out what Truman and so forth represented. And the scoundrels represented.

So, it was a mess. That's what we must understand in all of these questions--that general background, which I've summarized, that history, in one package, so to speak. So, Roosevelt was faced with the fact, coming through the war, he knew that the United States would emerge from the war as the only world power. He was determined to eliminate two things, which his son referred to in a book As He Saw It. 1) He told Churchill: “We're not going to tolerate your stinking, British 18th-Century methods in economics, any more. The end of Adam Smith. The end of everything that Adam Smith represents. We're going to stick to American methods: The Hamilton-Lincoln American System of political-economy.” He also said, "We're not going to tolerate empires any more. We're going to free all the colonies, and we're going to help them build!” And he laid out a specific program for Northern Africa, for building Africa.

Then, he died. And the people that had been pent up, while Roosevelt was still President, tore loose.

Now, among the things he did, was this idea of the United Nations. Why? What was the purpose of the United Nations? What was the purpose of the great power agreement in the Security Council? The purpose was, to make China and Soviet Union equal partners in a great power agreement with the United Kingdom and the United States. And thus, with the impetus of freeing people from colonial subjugation, and launching an international program of development to liberate people from the effects of this economic subjugation and colonial slavery, to destroy the remnants of the British Empire, and the Venetian system! So, the intention behind the United Nations, was not to find some utopian group, that would make “peace” in the world. The intention of the United Nations, was to do a job: To break up the British Empire, and everything like it! To break up the Dutch Empire! [applause] The French Empire! The Portuguese Empire! The relics of the Spanish Empire! To break these things up; to eliminate colonialism from this planet, forever. And, based the planet on a community of emerging, sovereign nation-states. And the United States, as the only world power, must put its power behind that mission, otherwise, it wouldn't happen.

So, Churchill and that fool, Truman, and other traitors, and idiots, and scoundrels, prevented it from working out that way. So, the United Nations we got, with Roosevelt's death, was different. It had no intention. It was like six actors, in search of a play. They were wandering around, saying “How're we going to make peace?” But the United Nations, so designed, was based on commitment to war. In 1945, the United States launched a totally unnecessary war against Japan, which had already been defeated--a nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And those two cities were hit, because we didn't have any more bombs. If we'd had three bombs, we'd have used them. We used two, because we only had two. A war to which MacArthur had objected, and Eisenhower had objected, as incompetent: An attack on a defeated nation, is a crime.

And the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Nagasaki was an attack on a defeated nation. To what purpose? To the purpose of doing what Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells had been proposing: H.G. Wells--. Bertrand Russell was, technically, the creator of nuclear warfare. Wells had proposed it, since 1913, but Russell actually did it. Russell was the guy that actually got the nuclear programs going. And Russell's policy was, that we would create world government, by using nuclear weapons, as weapons of terror--so terrifying that nobody would be willing to fight war to defend their national sovereignty again. And therefore, he intended to make the United Nations, an instrument, of world government through nuclear terror.

And that has been the history of the United Nations: It has been a sham. There have been honest people in it. Many of the discussions have been useful. The diplomacy is always useful, if it doesn't become silly; but people meeting and talking, having a dialogue, is always useful. But we can not have that kind of system, that is, where, now, we have what's called “international terrorism.” Next time, it will be "eliminate Islam." Whatever! The idea of having some international purpose, to establish world government--a new Roman Empire, in fact--is what the controlling force is, and has been, behind the United Nations. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and afterward.

We are dealing with a Satanic evil, of the type, that people would say, Christ died to prevent us from suffering. And that's the way to look at it. So, don't look for utopian schemes. What we need, is a system of sovereign nation-states, united around purposes, intentions, which are defined by natural law. No matter what culture you have, the people in any culture have one common feature: They're human. They have the power of reason, if you develop it. And therefore, they may express their intention differently, because of their cultural heritage, but they will express that difference in a common term: The term of natural law: knowable natural law. Not from a book! Not from a set of instructions! Not from a shopping list! But natural law, which is known to man, by study of human history, study of the difference of mankind and animal, and things of that sort.

So, if we have that kind of society, where we are committed to building, not by dictating to people what natural law should be, but by building. For example: Building the Land-Bridge! Connecting the railroad between South and North Korea, which is crucial! These kinds of things: Building! Giving hope to Africa! Building nations in Africa! Rebuilding nations in Central and South America! Rebuilding Europe! It's by engaging ourselves, together, as nations, to rebuild this planet, and improve it, that the reality of natural law, will emerge among the people. The cultures will still be different. The specifics of the cultures will be different. The religions may not all be the same. But we will agree on natural law, and we will agree, not because we sign a document to agree to it--a utopian prescription: We will agree, because we've come agreement through practice, the practice of doing good.

Thank you.

Return to the Home Page
Top