LaRouche Addresses Nation on Sept 11, 2023

Lyndon LaRouche addressed a packed room in Washington, DC on the first anniversary of the events of September 11, 2023. This is a transcript of the question and answer period.
A transcript of his keynote address is also available.

Freeman: ... I'd like to start with some questions that we have gotten from some international journalists. I should actually say that we've been able to identify, approximately 200 gatherings that are currently tuned in to this webcast.

There is also a satellite gathering similar to this one, which is monitoring this webcast, and participating in it, via the Internet and a live hookup, at the UN in New York.

Lyn, the first question that we have, is from the London-based Arabic daily Al Arab International. The question was forwarded by Dr. Mustafa Ali al-Bazargan, who is the editor of the economics page, and he says: "Greetings to Mr. LaRouche. Before the 2023 elections that you are now participating in, where is the U.S. headed? Whether there's an attack on Iraq, or not. What will you do about the economy? What is the alternative for the U.S. internal situation, from your standpoint?"

LaRouche: I think I've already answered most of those questions in the address. But the question of where is the U.S. economy headed, and what are we going to do about it... Well, what I've done, I'll being presenting, and it's already being presented by the campaign, ... I'm also otherwise writing in another channel, my contribution to extensive proposals on infrastructure.

For example, in the United States, we need immediately -- and I want President Bush to do it right now, right now! -- I want him to go to the Congress, and get that collection of people of various qualities, and get them to sign on, to a re-regulation of the U.S. railway and airway system.

The reason is this, as I've indicated otherwise: That if we do not stop the disintegration of the airway system, and the rail system, as an integrated program, we are not going to have a national economy. If you at the map of where we have railway connections, and compare it to what we used to have, and you see whole parts of the country that are shut off from the possibility of production, you start to shut down some more of these lines, you're not going to have the possibility of a national economy. You won't be able to get from one part of the country to the other... by means other than “flivver,” or something. You'll get an old Model T out of the garage someplace, and make it work, -- it's the easiest one to repair -- and you may be able to get across the country, if you can get the tires to fit.

But, you're not going to be able to do it! We will not have a national economy.

If we were to allow the railway system to collapse, beyond the present point, it would take as many years to put it back together again. And we need it, otherwise we're not going to survive as an economy.

Now, we have to have a rational relationship between the railway system, and the air transport system. What we have to do, is improve the railroads, to take the pressure off the air transport system, so short-haul, inter-city hauls, should be done by rail, not by air. Then we can rationalize the airway system, and make it more economically sound. But we have to regulate, protect, de-privatize, these things. That doesn't mean we shut down the private airlines companies. We're going to have to bail them all out actually, right now. I don't think there's an airline company in the United States we don't have to bail out.

Now, if you want to fly by air, and you don't have a broom, then you'd better save this air traffic system, not for the benefit of the stockholders of the air companies, but for the benefit of the people of the United States, and our economy. We have to restore the rail system, immediately.

That is only the beginning, of the things we have to do. But that's on the President's plate right now. And get him, to take time out, from making speeches of the other type, which are not very fruitful, and let him pressure the Congress to say, he wants an immediate, emergency bill to re-regulate, and protect, the national railway, and airway system, as an integrated, national system. Not East Podunk to West Podunk, but a national system, so that you can board a train, in Boston or Bangor, and get to some place in California, or Oregon, on the rail system. On a regular, reliable, regulated rail system.

Rail systems are much more economical, than any other system, for moving freight. Because the cost per ton mile is less. The problem has been, as I faced this back in the 1950s, in the Penn Central negotiations then, is that, if you don't have an effective classification system, you are killed, even though the rails will carry the freight from New York to Chicago overnight, more cheaply than you can do by truck, they're not going to get there on time. Why? Because of the classification procedure. We could have a national classification procedure which would be efficient. We could have an even better one with magnetic levitation. That's another story, which I worked on. But we can build the most efficient transport system the world has ever seen, by rebuilding what we have lost in the United States, using modern technology. We have to get beyond 1926 rail-track technology. And friction rail technology. If we do that, we can build the system.

All right. The other thing is, the importance of this kind of action now. First of all, we have to do it now. The President must do it now; I challenge him: do it now! [applause]

And I'll support him, if that makes him happy.

But also, we have a problem. We have a vast unemployment problem. We have a breakdown of the whole economy. You're going to have mass foreclosure piling up in the whole D.C. area. You're going to have $400,000, million-dollar-mortgage, plastic-covered tarpaper shacks -- which is what I think they're going for now -- where the people in them, now longer have the jobs.

Take the corridor from Washington to Dulles Airport. You see, "for lease," "for lease," "for lease," "for lease," "for lease." Look at the area around Dulles itself. They're collapsing. More is going to collapse. They're hopelessly bankrupt!

Well, their jobs are gone. Now, some of these jobs will never be brought back, because the bubble of the so-called dot.coms, that was insanity from the beginning. That was done to create the illusion of prosperity, during the difficult Clinton years. It should never have been done. It was a piece of folly. Along with the so-called Y2K nonsense. It's a fraud. They put billions into this thing, built up this bubble, to create an impression.

Now, when somebody has to pay the bill? They never really made money. Somebody comes along, and says, you have to pay the bill. "We have no money." "Oh..." Now, you've got these people, living in these expensive shacks, who've been living on the appreciation of the mortgage value of the shack, because the real estate swindlers have been jacking up the estimated value of the shacks. And now, they're losing their jobs. They're not qualified for any available employment in sight! At least not in any significant numbers.

They're trying to absorb it with government employees, with all these government bureaus out there, trying to absorb some of the unemployment. You have other parts of the country like that. We have to create jobs!

So, therefore, we have to take an area, as Roosevelt did, an area in which the government can efficiently operate, to create jobs, which is infrastructure! Therefore, we have to have infrastructure projects, which are basic national infrastructure. Transportation, power, water management, and so forth. We've got to build up around that, as Roosevelt did. We've got to rebuild general hospitals. We don't have a health care system. You'll never have a health care system, until we restore the Hill-Burton standard for medical care. That every county is covered, and you have general hospitals, including teaching hospitals, which are full service, in every part of the United States. Otherwise, you don't have health care!

You've got to end this medical insurance racket, which was started, of driving physicians out of practice, with this health insurance, liability insurance policy.

So, there are things we have to build, urgently. Which are basic economic infrastructure, traditionally the responsibility of the Federal, state, or local governments. Therefore, we have to mobilize credit -- which only the Federal government can do -- not handouts, credit -- in order to get some money channeled into these programs, which can be partly private (that is, they can go as investment in the utility cover) to get some production going. So, we have to take areas of need, where we need the operation, to rebuild and protect the economy, we've got to take these areas, and do a job-building program, both in the public sector, and private sector, with these kinds of stimulations. The way Roosevelt had to do it, back in the middle 1930s.

So, I think what is needed around the world, is the same approach. We can rebuild the world economy on the basis of what: large-scale infrastructure programs.

You can do nothing in Africa of any significance, without building basic economic infrastructure. Transportation, water management, power transmission, things related to that -- without that, you can nothing. Give it up. You're wasting your time. You're clomping your chops.

All right. In Asia. We have the greatest opportunity in the world right now. We are going to have, we're on the edge of it, we're now going to have from Pusan, to China, through Russia, to Rotterdam -- we're going to have continuous rail transport, across Eurasia . This transport will be tied, with connections to Japan, will be tied to the production of technology, in areas where technology can be produced, to deliver on long-term credit, 25-year credit and so forth, for investment in areas which are technology-deficient. Such as the interior of China.

We will build a new trade system across Eurasia, which will be the most powerful motor of economic growth in the world, if we continue with it, on this basis, of these rails. We have rail plans going from China, through Burma, into India. We have rail plans running from Egypt, across the south of Asia, down to Jakarta. We have a bridge, across the Suez Canal, a high bridge, which will link us into a rail system along the main trunk lines, throughout North and South in Africa.

We are prepared, with the aid of programs such as desalination, mass desalination, and economic development of the Middle East , we have plans, which we can go ahead with. Which will rebuild this world, and make garden spots of some of the areas of poverty in the world today.

So, we must think that way. If we think that way, and we have the brains and ability mobilized to carry out the projects, we can change this world for the better.

Freeman: The next question is from Yarin magazine in Turkey. The question has been submitted by Taha Ozan: "Mr. LaRouche, I'm asking this question on behalf of Yarin magazine, where we cover your articles on a regular basis, in Turkish. Sir, a possible war against Iraq will directly affect Turkey's geopolitical and geostrategic position in the region. Last week, in several Turkish media, including some mainstream, and entertainment mass media, news came out that the Zionist Lobby is what is behind the war lobby. That it has nothing to do with terrorism. Especially, to ignore Turkey's demand and opposition, for a possible war in the Middle East. What is your picture of what the world will look like after such a war?"

LaRouche: Nobody wants to think about it. Because the world is like a bomb right now. It's a social, economic, monetary, financial bomb. The world has been looted, and ruined, over the past 35 years, to the extent that you start a war, which you can't win, but it becomes a perpetual war.

For example, you talk about things like, how would you like $50 to $60 to $100 a barrel petroleum? Put that in your tank. Where are you going to drive to then?

For example, the Gulf area has probably an 80-year world supply, of petroleum reserves. It's the cheapest oil in the world. It's not just a question of price, it's production. They can produce it more cheaply in the Gulf, than any other part of the world. There is no possibility of substituting Russian oil, for Middle East oil. You can't do it. It doesn't exist. The cocentration of petroleum is in the Gulf. It happens to run up the Gulf, up toward the northern part of Iraq, in that area. One of the richest areas of petroleum production.

Now, we've made the world petroleum-dependent. You want to start a war there? You want to set flames to the world economy? It's idiocy.

Now, take back one step. I said the "glove" and the "hand," or the glove and the paw, as it may be. Israel, or certain Zionist circles, have been used as a glove, by a certain paw. So it is not a Jewish question. It's a question for Jews, but it's not a Jewish question. I mean, if you like Naham Goldmann, and you look at what's in Israel now, you're not too happy. That's a question for Jews.

If you think what this mean, what Sharon means, you're not happy. And a lot of courageous Jews inside Israel, are standing up, more and more. So, it's not a Jewish question, except for Jews. It's a question of who is wearing the glove. I know who's wearing the glove. It's the legacy of Bertrand Russell, the legacy of H.G. Wells, the legacy of Thomas Huxley, from the last century, and it goes way back.

But obviously, Jews have been used, because they're a minority group with large connections around the world. They've been used. And they've been used as expendables.

You look at the history of Jewry. What has been the payment to Jews, for doing these kinds of services? They usually get it in the neck as a result. So, it is not a Jewish question, and we should never think of it as a Jewish question. They're are issues, which are Jewish, but this is not a Jewish question, as such. It's a question of the international establishment, that's behind this. And they're insane.

As I said before, I used the analogy of the man with a sawed-off shotgun, holding a family hostage. And he's got an agenda in his head, which has no correspondence to the map of the real world, or the people in it, around him. Therefore, his response....

It's like these kids, who, after being brainwashed on video games, go in and kill their schoolmates and teachers. It's the same kind of phenomenon. It's a well-defined phenomenon. Video games are killers. They were developed by the military, for a point-and-kill shoot training. They were intended to condition young people to kill. And young people go out and kill? That was the intention of the video games in the first place.

Don't say, "Well, the children want their pleasure." Their pleasure turns out to be, they want to kill. And any child who has been conditioned by video games, is a danger to the community. A potential danger at least. Right?

So, you think of this guy. Then you look at our establishment. We used to be a productive society, a producer society. We're not a producer society now. We're a consumer services society. Most of the services people are employed in, are useless. They were invented back, as a policy, back in the early 1960s, when they decided to go to a consumer society. They said, we're going to have so few people, so many unemployed, what are we going to do with them? We're going to put them on welfare? No. We're going to invent new forms of services employment, to convince them they're actually working, and getting paid for working. And we'll control them in that way.

We have a services society. So, people you talk to, they're not real.

Take the case of today, right now, West Nile virus. We have a cure for that. It's called DDT. [applause]

One of the most effective insecticide agents we ever developed. Because it is not toxic. The argument that DDT is dangerous to human beings, or bird shells, or whatever, is a complete fraud. There was never any truth to it. Yet, we banned DDT.

That's an example of a population which has gone clinically insane. Like the man holding the shotgun, on the hostages in the apartment. And the problem today is that we have people in government, in the generation now, Baby Boomer generation, born after World War II, and some of them had draft-dodging to match, who now want to make war. Like the man sitting with sawed-off shotgun, holding the family hostage. They're not responsive to reality.

And therefore, the point we have to understand, is we have to control these lunatics. We have to get the combination of forces together, to control these lunatics. We have to give them a more appropriate institution than the government of the United States, to contain them. Not to hurt them, but to save them from themselves.

Therefore, the problem is, are there enough people in the nation, or nations, around the world, willing to join with me, in bringing together the coalition among nations which I'm bringing, personally, with my associates, of people who are committed to prevent this horror show from happening, even at this late date.

The problem, as I said when I started today, I look down the street there. The Senate, the House, the White House. I look at the State Department. I look at the Defense Department; well, they're doing a little bit better, in the sense that, minus Rumsfeld, the generals are doing not too badly. I look, and I say, there's nobody who's willing to raise a voice of leadership, to tell the truth about this situation. And the fact that we're sitting back intimidated, by a lunatic with a sawed-off shotgun, this bunch of draft-dodgers playing with shotguns, whose fault is it? Theirs, or ours?

My belief is, that if we had enough governments who would line up with me, personally, right now, around the world, we could stop this war. Otherwise, it's a war which is going on its own dynamic. Not because of this, or because of that, it's going on the dynamic: They want the war. The war has become a self-sufficient existence. They want the war. They don't care about anything . They don't care about the Middle East. They don't care about what the results are. They don't care about the price of oil, as Rumsfeld expressed it. They don't care!

You've got lunatics, or effectively, functionally lunatics, are controlling the Presidency of the United States as a hostage. And the hostage can't seem to free himself from being a hostage. We have to free him. Nobody around the world has the guts to do the job, except me. [applause]

But, if we get together, and convince some people who should be leaders in the United States, and there are some, to act in concert with me, we have the ability to bring together, on a global basis, the kind of combination of forces that can deal with, and solve this problem.

Freeman: ....(reads first paragraph of Pollard leaflet)

I would like to take a couple of questions from people who are gathered here. We have with us a distinguished Washington, D.C. citizen, and a member of the Democratic National Committee, Barbara Lett Simmons. Barbara, do you want to ask your question?

Simmons: Thank you. My question, of course, to Mr. LaRouche, who has a worldview, and who has a depth of understanding of history, that makes him uniquely, uniquely qualified to execute what is needed for an harmonious continuation of life on the planet Earth.

Now, my question is, are there any kindred souls, any place, sitting presently among those 535 people in our United States Congress, and high posts in terms of our respective positions of our government, that are certainly ruling? Now, we know good and well that the Presidents come and go, and that those folks who are at high levels, in agencies, they're grinding on and on. So, Mr. LaRouche, I greatly admire your mentality, your history, your suggestions and solutions. My question is, can you have more than a bamboo switch to turn this elephant around?

LaRouche: I don't know whether I want the tail, rather than the trunk, you know.

History provides... The point is about humanity, humanity has been on this planet for a very long time, and most of the history involves collapsed cultures, or collapsed civilizations. And foolish people.

Now, somehow, despite that, humanity has survived. And has even, in some degree, progressed. It has not yet reached by expectations, but it's progressed. And I have to take that into account. So therefore, I'm generally optimistic. My view is, when I study history, the crucial factor in history is leadership.

We have in society today a false conception of democracy, which means a coward can run for Senate, because he can blame his constituents for what he's not willing to do, or say. We have too many cowards in leadership, in history, and that's our problem now.

Therefore, as I said, I think the key thing is leadership. Now, I'm prepared to be a leader. I have been for some time. I've got a record now, and I think it can stand up against anybody else's record as a presumed leader in the United States, or in many parts of the world. So I don't have to worry about that. I've got the qualification. And also the emotional qualifications. The emotional qualifications, not just of passion in the ordinary sense, is what's crucial. I've got a bunch of guys out there who are behaving very, very foolishly. I could go through their names, but you know them all. You probably have your own list. There are people who are institutional people, of influence inside the United States, many of them senior, who understand the kind of thing I'm talking about. Some of them I'm cooperating with in discussions, to make sure that we have some kind of sounding board, some kind of cooperation. We're doing our homework. We're preparing to assume a leadership role as a group. Not all are coming (out in?) public, but people who I trust from various kinds of institutions, who know what they're talking about, who give me an assessment of what the situation is in this country, as I get it from abroad.

I know the American people are a bunch of cowards, but they're my cowards. Therefore, I have to provide the leadership, which will encourage them as the crisis hits them, to stop being cowards. It's like war. You know the training routine in a war: You've got a bunch of guys who have been swept off the street, whether volunteers or draftees, and they're brought into training camp for the first 16 weeks of boot camp. And they're scared. There's bravado, but they're scared. So, you have to provide the leadership that gives them confidence, not just in you but in themselves. You have to give them a sense of belonging, a sense of identity, a sense of purpose. That's my job. I'll do the job. The rest is up to the American people. Are they fit to save themselves. If they are, we can save them.

Freeman: A question from a distinguished resident of the District: "Mr. LaRouche, why not fully develop Africa now, instead of destroying it? It has rich resources--oil, minerals, diamonds, land, potentially great waterways. Can we juxtapose Israel with Africa? What are your views of this?"

LaRouche: What are plans are, is that we've got maps on this, and they'll be published. I developed, back in the 1970s, a program for the development of Africa, which at that time was in much better condition than it is today. The basic line is, Africa requires mainly--it has the one of the largest food-growing areas of any continent; it has farmers in place, not all white. Now, there are diseases and other problems. The productivity of the agriculture is very poor, for technological and related reasons. The other problem is that if you get into an area in Africa, you don't have the logistical access to provide the kind of support that they require.

For example, we have techniques. We can use radioactive isotopes. We can take, say, a grain product which would normally rot away in most parts of Africa before anybody gets to eat it. We can package it, irradiate it, eliminate the bugs and diseases, preserve it, we can move it to a place where it's protected, and we will--even by that simple measure--increase the productivity of the average African farmer. They don't have any technology to speak of, in most areas. Adequate technology support of the type which we use to give with the Extension Service here in the United States. The problem is, we don't have a logistical system to bring this kind of technology into range of their use.

So therefore, we have to think in terms of transportation systems, as a whole, we have to think of creating new small population centers which are distribution points for technology and support for these people. At the same time, there's lots of water in West Africa, not too much, but a lot. There's a lot of water in Central Africa. We have a desert area in Chad, which is one of the most desert areas in the world, but which used to be fertile. Lake Chad is shrinking. We can build that up. We have a natural communication line in Cairo and Alexandria down to Cape Town. We have other coastal arrangements of that type available.

So, we provide Africa with foreign assistance, a so-called technology transfer program. An infrastructure program which includes corridors, as from the French plans in the 1870s, from Dakar to Djibouti, the Sub-Sahara route. We control that area, for purposes of development. But we don't make it a rail line, we make it a development corridor. We run beside it, power generation and distribution, we run water management, pipelines and other things. By producing this kind of approach of development corridors, which we from Europe, the United States and Asia are capable of helping Africa to do, if we give them a reorganized financial system, if we give them some assistance in terms of long-term credit, they can do the rest.

What's happening today? The murderers of Africa from the United States' side are, chiefly, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, because it was under programs which Henry Kissinger--both as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State--imposed upon his puppet Richard Nixon, and which Brzezinski, who was a bigger and more dangerous lunatic than Kissinger, imposed upon Carter, such as Global 2000, Global Futures, or Kissinger's National Security Study Memorandum 200. These guys have proposed, explicitly, genocide against Africa, and there are certain people in Europe and elsewhere, the Club of Rome types, the so-called environmentalist types, the NGOs--sometimes called “no good organizations”--have imposed upon Africa, as they have imposed them on Central and South America; Brazil, for example, and other parts of the world.

If we get those guys under control, we would not have the genocide continuing that we have now. There's deliberate genocide against Africa, like the case of Rwanda-Burundi. It was done by Uganda, under Anglo-American control. They did it. They took the Ape Protection Society, an NGO operation which had taken control of the border area of Rwanda. They took troops which had been trained and deployed by the President of Uganda. They deployed these troops through this preservation area, this Prince Philip/World Wildlife Fund-type preservation area, and moved the troops through this uncontrolled territory, controlled by them, and they infiltrated Rwanda and they started the war. Now we have a crazy, lying UN court which says it's going to try these cases for genocide in Rwanda, but they're not putting Musseveni, the President of Uganda, on trial. They're not putting on trial the Leavenworth-trained people who fired those missiles and brought down a plane with a bunch of heads of government and so forth. They're not doing that.

So the problem is that we do have mercenary armies supporting private operations like "Diamond Pat" Robertson, the great evangelist. Diamond Pat likes diamonds. He's the kind of guy who'd steal a diamond out of Britney Spear's belly-button. You have these people who engage mercenary areas in military types of special warfare operations, like Barrick Gold, which Daddy Bush is involved in, with the former Prime Minister of Canada. Taking the gold out of the country. There are drug operations. All these kinds of operations. So these operations are destroying the African population, intentionally, as a matter of population reduction. That's the policy of Kissinger, that's the policy of Brzezinski. Population reduction! Of Africans, in particular. That's why it's happening.

And the United States is supporting it. We tried to get Clinton to do something about this, but Clinton's afraid of the military-industrial complex, and wouldn't take it on, at least not effectively. We could have stopped the genocide, but we didn't do it, because there are powerful forces inside the United States that don't want it stopped, and the forces are typified by the people behind Brzezinski and Kissinger. So, if we were to face these realities, and deal with them, we might not be able to produce a miracle, but we could produce a fundamental change in direction.

Freeman: This question was submitted by someone from the staff of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation: "Mr. LaRouche, I have had responsibility for the past five years for putting together the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's youth leadership initiative, and the job fairs that are associated with it. This is going on in D.C. starting tomorrow, and I'd like to invite all of the participants here to come. For the past five years that I've been involved, our job fairs have been focussed on directing young men and women of African descent into careers in the New Economy--communications and computer technology. I feel really bad that we did that, because that doesn't seem to be a very lucrative prospect any more. In your opinion, what shall we tell the young men and women of African descent to do?"

LaRouche: First of all, we've got to take this racial tinge off this business. It's perfectly fine, when people need jobs and people are specially oppressed, to organize, assemble themselves to become an effective force, but you're not going to win on that basis. You've got to win the way Martin Luther King won. And if we've seen it. Martin Luther King won because he was a national leader of the United States, and essentially a world leader. Therefore, people supported him and rallied to him from every part of life and the world at large. They supported him because he was a true leader, and those who killed him knew exactly what they were doing. They said, we can divide, control, and ruin the cause of equality and justice in the United States if we kill him, because there will be nobody there who can reproduce what he was, from the kind of position he occupied.

So, we have to understand that we must take causes like this, and make them matters of national and world leadership, not of special interest leadership. That does not mean that you ignore the special case, not try to remedy it, but you're not going to succeed unless you take it from the highest level down, and not from the bottom up.

Take a practical case. This industry is dead. Some of the skills that may have been acquired in the process of preparing for it may be useful, but in general, again, where are we going to create an increase in employment in the United States, where employment levels are collapsing? How are you going to add something to minus one? Thus, we have to have a job creation orientation, which means we have to the Federal government. The Federal government must sponsor programs, as Roosevelt did, which will take into account needs. You create a program which addresses a need. Now you adjust the program to go at spot areas of need, and to absorb and deal with the need in those areas of the program. What we used to do.

For example, we developed the National Defense Highway System, which is now our superhighway system. That was developed on the idea, or the pretext that under nuclear war air power conditions, our railroads were vulnerable, and therefore we would create a national defense highway system which would be an alternative to the railway system, in the case of warfare. And then some boys took it over, and began using it to develop suburbia, as an operation. But, what we used to do is that we had a master plan for the Defense Highway System, and then, when a county in the United States needed employment, we would then push a further leg of a project for developing the highway system, in order to stimulate the project.

So, what you need is two things: First of all, you have to have a national policy which is going to create jobs. Then you have to have an earmark policy under this policy, where you would take areas of need of employment, and you would focus on these areas of need, and develop projects in a way to absorb people into new jobs, in the places they're located. And in this case, this kind of appeal is perfectly consistent with that. The organization of your effort is fine. But how are we going to make it work? How are we going to increase employment under conditions of a collapse in employment? You're not going to find some scheme that's going to bail you out. You have to go to the top. We have to take over the policy-making of this country, and make an anti-depression policy.

My role in producing this paper, which many of you have seen, on infrastructure, is to set out some of the major outlines of exactly what that means. So therefore, an effort like this of our friend who sent me this question, is, how do we integrate what I'm talking about in infrastructure, with this kind of program that's he got? We should do it, but that's only one of many similar kinds of situations which we should address. It's an important one, and I think it's important to take that particular constituency group around the Congress, and reinvigorate it. Everything is being done recently for understandable reasons, to try to destroy it. They're trying to buy it up, they're trying to corrupt it, they're trying to neutralize it, make it impotent, helpless. We have to strengthen them, politically, apart from what the objective is. We must help them, because they're an important part of the constituency. We must give them back their confidence. We must do it on a realistic basis, by having a program that will work, and finding a way that they can fit their work into that.

Freeman: From Rebecca Thomas, an organizer from Baltimore who has been doing a lot of work on the campus:

Thomas: Mr. LaRouche, I know that they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I wanted to let you know that Delanza (?) and I attended an event at ?? University on Monday, where Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke. He was definitely doing an imitation of you, ‘beyond the future after funerals' line. He gave them a strategic briefing, everything from the chicken hawks, to Iraq as a diversion, to the financial crisis. What I really wanted to ask is, when will Rev. Jesse Jackson come clean and endorse you as the only qualified person who can actually run the country, as Amelia [Boynton Robinson] has?

LaRouche: He once had a certain degree of support for Martin Luther King, and when Martin was killed, he went in a different direction. There are many people with his combination of certain strengths and weaknesses in society. So, what you have to do, is keep a framework in which they can find a place that is a useful place to go, and give them some kind of direction and sense of purpose. And they become useful, like in the army. But then, when the leadership goes away and the organization disintegrates, they tend to become relatively useless. It's a question of leadership. They're not true leaders. They may be in influential positions, but they're not leaders in the sense of stand-alones. They're not people who can stand up for themselves, and who will say, "I'm going to fight this thing, even if everyone else deserts." That's leadershp: To be willing to stand up all by yourself and take a position, without fear or favor. "It's got to be said, and I'm going to do it."

Jesse hasn't got that quality. Jesse can play, because of the influence he's acquired, a very useful, contributing role in the process of trying to move things in this society. And I would welcome that.

Freeman: From a former Democratic official in New York City: "From where I sit in New York City, it is quite apparent that there's no way for us to avoid a U.S. banking crisis of enormous and potentially catastrophic proportions in the short term. Is there a way to understand the collapses of the U.S. banking sector outside of the general financial crisis? Is there something which is symptomatic within the U.S. banking system that could have been addressed, which would have made the banks safer, even given the general problems that we have now? And, given the current situation, how shall we address it?"

LaRouche: This is like a John Law bubble, is what we're dealing with, and the whole banking system is trapped into a bubble which has been supervised, not by our governments as such, but our government's complicity with the policies of Volcker and Greenspan. The Federal Reserve System has been running the United States, to all intents and purposes, over the past period since 1979, and even earlier. So it's a bubble. Nothing can be done to rebuild the bubble, to make it sound.

What we can and must do, which is an emergency action, is the President of the United States, under his emergency powers, and additional powers acquired with the consent of the Congress, must take immediate action in preparing for a general bankruptcy reorganization of the U.S. banking system. This requires a banking holiday. That means that we must know who we have to protect and what we have to protect with a banking reorganization act and implementation. We have to protect the savings of the small savers, we must ensure the flow of pension payments, we must ensure the flow of credit to keep local businesses functioning, especially essential businesses. We must prevent a chain-reaction bankruptcy collapse. In general, we must keep the bank in place, functioning even though it's bankrupt. We must have it doing regular business from day to day, as it was the day before. The way Roosevelt handled this was a national bank holiday. That will work now, although the problem is much more severe than it was in the 1930s, but it will work.

Our purpose must be, in dealing with crisis, is that we have a certain number of people employed, a certain number receiving pensions on which they depend, that sort of thing. We have production. We have essential services. We must keep these moving as if no crisis had ever occurred. That's the first standard. You must not contract! Then you must also grow, and credit going through the banking system, even if the banks have no money. We will create--just like the Jesse Jackson Reconstruction Finance Corporation--the mechanisms to get credit going, and programs whose intent is to ensure the preservation of present levels of employment and activity, and to ensure also growth, recovery. It will probably not be miraculous. It will go slowly at first, as it did under Roosevelt, but it will, first of all, save the nation. Secondly, it will save the morale of the nation. The most important thing in a crisis is not simply to get the job done. The most important thing is to give the people of the United States the confidence, that you are getting the job done; otherwise, they'll go crazy.

For example, what we're seeing now is young people between 18 and 25 years of age, who come from a generation which recognizes itself as the No-Future Generation. The way you're going to turn this country around, is you're going to have to get the No-Future Generation, or at least a part of it, mobilized to burn the tails of their parents' generation, who became prematurely senile at about the age of 35. At least morally senile, because in the history of mankind, it's when you get decadence affecting a population. The way the Baby Boomer generation as a whole has become, from stem to stern, decadent! Morally, intellectually decadent. It's like reviving corpses. The only way to revive a corpse in that particular situation, is that younger people, who are their children's generation, kick them in the butt, and say, "I have a right to a future, and don't tell me you're going to put up with this stuff, hoping that you become thoroughly senile and insensate before the real troubles hit, so you won't feel it." Because that's the Feeling Generation. If they don't feel it, it isn't real. And if it's real, and they don't feel it, everything's all right. People who want to live in a delusion. So, you have to take the parents' generation of the young people who are 18 to 25, and get enough of the young people who are intelligent and active, who don't know enough but they'll learn quickly, to kick their parents' generation in the butt, and say, "Wake up, mommy and daddy! Stop sleeping, and stop sleeping with the neighbors, above all!"

Freeman: This question was submitted by the Slovakian Mission of the United Nations, at the meeting which is currently taking place in New York. The question is: "Mr. LaRouche, the policies of the United States are currently hostile to Europe, and we don't understand why. What would you do, if you become President? What are your policies, overall, for Europe and Asia? Because, right now, there does not seem to be any defined positive policy coming from the United States."

LaRouche: That's one of my jobs. I'm a good guy. We've got people who've made themselves appear bums. [applause] Everybody thinks the United States President, and everybody around him, is a bum. And they're not too favorably impressed with Bill Clinton, even though they give him a lot of money. That's not because they like. I don't know what -- maybe they like him.

Anyway. The point is, the United States is a great nation, which has entered into virtually criminal ways. It's not much liked around the world. The arrogance is not liked. Also, it's not liked, because it's said it runs the world. But it's not doing anything good for the world. Therefore, you don't want to work for an employer who's not doing you any good, or not doing the world any good.

The problem is, we need two things, which I do. One, I emphasize, and as truthfully as I think anybody does, the actual history of the United States. What this nation is. What this nation is as a republic -- number one. That's my commitment, and that's my dedication. And here's what that means, in terms of practice. And that way, the world will immediately -- because it needs the United States, if the United States will play a positive role -- the world needs it. Because there's no other agency on this planet, which can so easily take on institutions like the IMF, and other international institutions, and challenge them, and say to the other nations, "Come, we're going to change this IMF."

The United States is capable of doing that. The President of the United States, if the Congress doesn't sabotage it, is capable of doing that. And therefore, the point is, we have to pin on George Bush, the incumbent occupant of the Presidency, the responsibility that his institution, the Presidency, recognizes what he must do! Not because I tell him to do so, but because God is telling him to do so. And under those circumstances, the United States may not be much liked much. They say, "You guys have developed some bad habits." You know, it's like your cousin the drunk. You don't want him staying over at night.

But, to say, when you're sober, you're useful. So we have to convince them, that we've made the United States government sober.

Freeman: We have a question that was submitted for Mr. LaRouche from Dr. Nino Galloni, who is an economist from Rome. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, given that the immense quantities of petroleum, of excellent quality, found in Kazakstan and nearby, may replace a good portion of Arab oil, and also given that within the next 10 to 20 years, the demand for energy sources will be satisfied by oil, to a lesser and lesser degree, don't you think that the Arabs should think from the standpoint of new economic perspectives? And in fact, move instead to finance infrastructure, and rediscover their role as a link between East and West. And can this, or should this, occur, in great autonomy and independence from the United States?"

LaRouche: Well, the oil question from Kazakstan is not that good, does not replace Middle East oil. The cost is higher, and the infrastructure does not exist at present, or will exist in the immediate future, to do that. I know that there's a lot of talk about that, but there is no such possibility at this time.

Now, in terms of such development, the change of Arab oil policy, that is already in discussion. You had the case...

Let me just speak briefly about the United Arab Emirates, where I visited recently, as a guest. This is an unusual place, which had a rather small population up until about 20 years ago. And you've seen the desert in blooming. You see Abu Dhabi, the city: It's amazing. You see, there's an island -- I didn't visit, but friends of mine have been there -- which is very important. It's a research island. Extremely important.

From the use of oil resources, by this U.A.E., there's an actual transformation of the territory of the U.A.E. going on. At the same time, the population of the U.A.E. has been changed; many immigrants, who have become either citizens of the U.A.E., or are permanent employees of the U.A.E. So, a very large part of the population, comes from all parts of the Arab world in particular, and represents -- it's a sense of freedom, and beauty, among these people, because they're usually very skilled people, and they come from all parts of the Arab world. So you have a sense of the Arab nation there. Because they come from all parts of the Arab world. They're immigrants. It's an immigrant nation.

It's a very interesting phenomenon, an immigrant nation. They have a development perspective, of converting petroleum reserves into actual consistent development of their country, as relatively few other oil-exporting, -producing countries do. They're an example of that. The [Zayed] Center which is there, which is a center of discussions of the Arab League, is discussing these kinds of policies.

Now, my proposal to them has been, that the long-term view.... Now the price of oil from the Gulf is going to remain, the cost of producing oil in the Gulf, is going to remain the lowest in the world. And transporting oil, great distances even by pipelines from Central Asia, into the world market, is not the best thing you could think of. It's much more important to use the resources in Central Asia, not as primary commodities for export, but rather as raw materials for development of the economies in those regions, and neighboring regions. Such as China.

China needs oil. China needs oil not merely on its coasts, where it can be delivered by ship. China needs oil in its interior, where the development is going to occur. So, my plans -- my plans, mind you -- which are shared by some of my great Russian friends, scientific friends, especially, is to take the Central Asia region, which includes Kazakhstan, and the tundra regions of North Asia, which represent combined, one of the greatest raw materials resources of the entire planet, which are now not utilizable because we don't have the infrastructure, to utilize them efficiently. And through the aid of large-scale development corridors, the Eurasian Land-Bridge type corridors, to bring these into development, with new technologies, new researches, to transform the character of the world.

So, therefore, I think our long-term plans should not be based on trying to say, "What do we do with oil?" (Although I do think about such things.) My concern is, to get countries involved in using their resources intelligently. preferably as much as possible, close to home, to transform the planet, in ways that are needed in these times.

We should realize now, if you look across the United States. You fly from Dulles, if you're still able to fly from there, to Los Angeles. And you look across what I've seen before, but I saw again recently, the Great American Desert. Now, we pioneered under, especially with Lincoln, in developing transcontinental railway systems. These took and transformed large areas of the United States, and the West, which were not economically very useful at that time, because you couldn't use them effectively. We transformed these into areas of agricultural, and other development.

The power, the great power, of the United States, the increase, over the period from 1861 to 1876, it was tremendous. It was awesome. The significant contribution to that was the development of the transcontinental railway system, as planned by many people beforehand, like Friedrich List and others, and pushed by Henry C. Carey, and by Lincoln. Lincoln actually worked on this extensively, before he became President.

So, this kind of development, we come to a time, where this great area, which was once opened up for development, by Abraham Lincoln and his associates, is sitting there, rotting away, in its desert-like barrenness. When we have built since 1911 approximately (except for Las Vegas, which I don't consider a great boon to humanity), we have built essentially no new cities in the United States. We have developed no new resources of any significance in this area. It's still a desert. And I prefer people to horned toads!

But we should develop it. You look around the world. The Sahara Desert. You mean we can't develop that? Of course we can develop that. We know how to approach the development of the Sahara. We know how. We have vast areas of Brazil, which need to be developed. Tremendous potential. The entirety of South America, especially Brazil, Argentina, down, Patagonia , tremendous potential for development, in poor areas. Africa, there's tremendous potential. Africa's number two in terms of natural resources, mineral resources, in this planet, in terms of the shield. We can make that developable--by the people there.

So, we have to think in new terms. Not of how to get by! Of how to manage; of smug, stupid, stick-in-the-mud views. We have to look, have a vision, of what kind of a planet are we giving to the future of humanity, three, four generations down the line. We have to think in century terms. We have to open our imagination, and give those who are going to work now, and into the next generation, the perspective of doing something, for which future mankind will remember us.

Think of things in those terms. Don't think in terms of block terms. This is a beautiful opportunity before us. Think of the opportunity, not just the problems.

Freeman: This question is from a group that's listening from Nigeria. It says, "Dear Mr. LaRouche. My name is Victor Benn. I am a Nigerian, and I'm a LaRouchist. Your ideas are real, profound, and very revealing, and I find it sad and unfortunate that none of the world leaders today, has been willing to step forward, and adopt and implement them publicly, because I believe that they are the answers to the problems that we face. I do wish to extend my condolences to you, and to the American people, and the families of last year's Sept. 11 tragedy, and please accept my heartfelt sympathy.

"However, now, the Presidency of George W. Bush seems about ready to go to war with Iraq. This is a nation that does not pose any security threat to American sovereignty. My question is one that I ask from the standpoint of American history. In this present circumstance, what would the late President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, do? Please comment."

LaRouche: Exactly what I would do.

It's a question of simple leadership. Look, I've got this guy in the White House. He's the elected President. I'm obliged to make sure that his life isn't taken away. I'm obliged to ensure that the Presidency is kept intact. Well, that's what I got there. That's a little bit of a problem, a little bit of a burden to deal with.

But, nonetheless, given that circumstance, my concern is what has to be, what I must induce people to do, to make that work. To achieve what must be done, right now. To avoid irreversible damage. With this President sitting in that Presidency. But I feel very strongly that there could be many improvement in the ranks of his advisers.

So, with that thought, if he gets the right bunch of advisers, and they recognize the crisis, I'm convinced that, even before I become President, we can induce the United States to move in the right direction. But this is an urgent thing, that must need high priority. I'm not flapping my lips about a future campaign, a future election now. I'm worried about now, and we're looking at the brink of Hell. And only such measures will work.

As Abraham Lincoln was looking at the brink of hell, when the British and French and Spanish and others, conspired to build the Confederacy to destroy the United States. And we beat them. It was tough. We beat them. I'm convinced we can do it again.

----- Other questions will be filled in here -----
[more to come]

LaRouche On The Events Of Sept 11th, 2023

[Prior to this question, moderator Debra Freeman had summarized a combination of approximately 7 questions on the matter of September 11 itself, which she proposed to Lyn, be answered as a group, when he answered Mrs. Soukhari.]

Soukhari: Mr. LaRouche, I think the best word that always rings a bell in my ears, is empowerment. I think the words are empowering words. And I am one who felt so empowered by what you said, especially after we had the interview together over the telephone, before I wrote my article in al-Ahram, and you said that you wanted to be like an umbrella, and all those who felt afraid, or unable to work alone, would work under your umbrella. And definitely, I am one.

After 9-11, I stopped writing completely. To tell you honestly, being a Muslim, being an Arab, and being an American, I became really afraid, because the mob mentality started to grow very loud. It scared me stiff. After we had a chance, my family and myself and my friends, to read some of your articles, I felt there was more blood coming into my veins again, and I called your office, and I asked to speak with you, and we definitely did have this interview. And when I wrote this article, it was a new blood that came into my veins, as I said, and this article was just a tribute to whatever this umbrella is going to give every single one of us, to stand up and fight, for what is right. For what is needed now, for us to really not be afraid, and speak out.

My question, that I would like to ask, being at the United Nations, I've been watching a pattern. The whole world on a particular issue, that is very vital to humanity, on many, many counts. The whole world votes yes, only three countries vote no. It's the United States, the government of the United States, England, and Israel. Could it possibly be, that this triangle is the axis of evil? [applause]

Another related question to that, definitely the American people have to be aware of what's happening. Because I'm worried, that whoever speaks up, many, many ways and means are used to muzzle them. Now, if we see any representative who speaks up, money pours into their district, from outside the district, to vote them out of office, in order not to talk again. Has democracy in the United States changed into a democracy for sale?

Thank you.

LaRouche: Okay, I shall do as Debbie ordered me, by implication, to do.

The fact that this pattern you referred to in the United Nations, is not an accident. I know something about John Negroponte. I met his wife before she was his wife, in London, in 1976. When she was the shadow foreign minister for the Tory party. A very interesting encounter. Negroponte I also know, by pedigree. That is, his political, diplomatic pedigree.

So, that he probably is consistent with some of these aspects of this, but in general, one has to recognize that, as I said today, from about 1944, the summer of 1944 on, and especially after the untimely death of President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States began to undergo a very significant change, which, as Kissinger emphasized in his own way, in a speech given in London, at Chatham, on the 10th of May, 1982 , which he triumped over the fact that Churchill had prevailed over Roosevelt in the conflict between the two of them, and defended the philosophy of Hobbes, as being British philosophy, against the American intellectual tradition.

Roosevelt, as President, referred repeatedly to the American Tories, which is a terminus tecnicus of U.S. politics, as the problem inside the United States. These are people who, in 1763, were associated with people like Judge Lowell, the followers of Jonathan Edwards and others, who were the enemies of the formation of the United States. That's why the 1763, the end of the French and Indian war so-called, which the British turned against the American colonies, and were determined to crush them -- which was the inception of the American Revolution. That is, the preparations had occurred earlier for an independent, but the conflict, the war, which broke out in 1776, was actually decided in 1763. At that point the traitors to the Americas, became known at that point on, as the American Tories, as against American patriots.

Roosevelt referred to that. Teddy Roosevelt was an American Tory in the worst sense. His uncle, who had shaped his career, was the foreign intelligence chief for the confederacy, during the Civil War -- a man of traitorous inclinations, shall we say? The President that Teddy Roosevelt put into the White House after him, not Taft, but Woodrow Wilson, was a longstanding fanatic for the Ku Klux Klan, who, from the White House, as President, launched the second mobilization of the Ku Klux Klan. Of Coolidge, I will say nothing, except he was Coolidge, which is the same thing.

So, when Roosevelt took over, what he inherited was a transformation of the United States, in the preceding parts of the century, which had been brought into being by the assassination of President McKinley, an assassination which was done to bring Vice-President Teddy Roosevelt into the Presidency. These are the American Tories. These are the people who, on the orders of King Edward VII, from London, had his agent, through his banker, have Jacob Schiff organize the Federal Reserve system, which Teddy Roosevelt, with Wilson's help, put into operation.

Thus, typical of that, is the American Tories, from 1901 until 1932-33, had control, increasing control and corruption, of the U.S. institutions. As the result of that, New York bankers, not the bankers as such, but the financiers behind them, -- because they kill banks, they bankrupt the banks they own, and loot them! And then come by and buy them up again, after they've looted them in bankruptcy, reorganize them. They crated this process, this interest, with the New York law firms. They took over the Treasury Department. They created the FBI, as a political police force against the American patriots. They took over the Treasury Department. They took over increasing control in the State Department.

These entities still function, to this day, as a kind of interchangeable part. That is, you'll have someone who will go into the Treasury Dept., the Justice Dept., State Dept. They will rotate in and out. They will go in on the government payroll, at a certain level. They'll leave the government, and go to take a job in a private law firm, or similar kind of firm, or accounting firm. One of the big ones. They will then make a lot of money, and they'll go back into government at a higher level than they had left it before. They will sometimes go from Treasury -- usually, the Treasury people like to stay in Treasury. They'll go from Treasury to Justice. The State Department, the same thing. So have networks which control the United States.

For example, Washington , D.C. is controlled politically by a network, cabal, around the Washington Post. They run Washington! They buy and control the politicians. They manage Washington. When a man is elected to come as a Representative, or Senator, to Washington, he falls prey to these vultures, and they take over the initial management. The Mayor of Washington, for example, is an example of that. He's a complete creature of these fellows. Eleanor Holmes Norton is a complete creature of these fellows. She has no independent character whatsoever, and whatever she has, is probably reprehensible. At least according to some people I know.

So, you have this network. So, what is it? The American Tory interest, which is an extension of the Venetian-type, financier-oligarchical interest, which has represented the British monarchy since the British East India Company.

Israel has become, by various stages, more and more, especially since the middle of the 1970s, has become a completely controlled creature of the combination of these Anglo-American types.

For example. The biggest so-called Zionist fanatic in the United States is Murdoch, the Murdoch press. Murdoch is a Beaverbrook protege, from youth, who runs a racket from Australia. The New Zealanders are less well-known, but they're significant. Canada is more divided; they're closer to us, in more ways than one, and therefore they tend to have somewhat different values. But, therefore what you have, is you have an English-speaking, white English-speaking, racist (like Bertrand Russell was racist), this crowd, is a controlling influence inside the United States. They're not homogeneous. Remember, the Venetian families used to stab each other with stilettos. I have a gentleman here who will explain to you, if you need it. So they were not friendly people. They're not good neighbors to have, even in their own circles.

But they have a certain character. They're an oligarchy. They remind me, as I write often, they remind of a certain species of living animal; it's called a slime-mold. The slime-mold goes through various changes from individuals, into this slime. And the oligarchy form, as opposed to an individual personal dictatorship, is a slime-mold. But as you see with the case of William of Orange, who was a part of slime-mold mentality, he also was a bloody tyrant, as the dictator of England -- where he slaughtered the Irish, for which they have not yet forgiven him, to this day. And justly so. That's why the Orange men are so much detested by the Irish, because of what William of Orange did. And to be an Orange man, this is not a very appealing state.

So, that's the nature of the problem.

Out of this assembly, of which Bertrand is the most degenerate I know. I know of no man in the 20th century, who is a worse moral, intellectual degenerate than Bertrand Russell. Out of this crowd, you had the utopian crowd developed. They developed additionally around the South Africa British Establishment, with the formation of the Coefficients. They became, they control, the Fabian Society. They created the Roundtable. They created the New York Council on Foreign Relations. And so forth and so on.

So, within this ambience, while all of them are not consistent, being Venetian slimemold types. They have different individualities, but they're also a slime-mold. The slime-mold, came upon the idea of using Zionism, as a weapon, as a glove for their hand. The purpose was, that Israel would destroy itself, in the process of bringing into being, that great imperial institution, the global New Roman Empire, of nice, white English-speaking British types, or their American equivalent.

In this process, we have certain types inside the United States, who decided that they are better than the British. And they've taken off.

So, what we've created, we've created this Zionist-connected rightwing scoundrels, many of whom have specifically Trotskyist antecedents! That is, they were Trotskyists in their youth, or they were trained by Trotskyists. You can imagine what this means! It's going from rather extreme left, by all normal things, to extreme right. Very extreme. Embarrassing to Hitler's virus. So, this is the point. This is the glove, which has grafted itself onto the hand.

Now, what has happened? In the attempt to get this policy through -- because the American people do not represent, if they're given their druthers, they don't want this. They don't want these effects. But they feel themselves impotent. "We don't have any control. We don't control the parties. We do what the parties tell us. Or we try to get by, we're just trying to get by, don't ask us to do anything! We're just trying to get by!"

"We want to stick to local issues!"

That's how they defeat the African-American groups. They tell them to go with African-American issues. And the greatest advances in civil rights, were always based, as our dear friend, departed friend, said, showed, by uniting the nation, about justice! About removing an injustice! Not for just one group of people who were oppressed, but removing it for all!

And you know who the biggest supporters of the African-American cause under Martin Luther King were, from the North? Sons and daughters of the Jewish reform movement, the Yiddish Renaissance, from Eastern Europe! These were the biggest organizers of the fight for civil rights from the North.

Why did they do it? Because they were fighting for civil rights. And Martin won, because Martin made himself what he had to be, a leader of the United States! And I can think of nothing more salutory, in terms of people, for people of African descent, than to have someone of that descent, become a President of the United States, or similar kinds of positions. Because that says we are one people, one nation, one culture, and equal rights for all in that culture.

The point is, to give true equality. The equality of each as a human being, with human rights, which are intrinsic to each individual, because that individual is like every other individual, made in the image of the Creator! They have the same potentials, the same rights. That's what you have to fight for.

If you win that principle, you win everything! [applause]

Now, the great issue of humanity has been, for as long as we know, the issue posed by Christ, by Jesus Christ, and by his passion and his crucifixion. The issue of all humanity. Not the issue of providing a free admission ticket to heaven, for sinners who don't deserve it. You know, God is not stupid, and he's not tasteless. He does not prefer things that stink, and aren't good. God is a God of good taste. And if he wants to redeem somebody, and save them, so to speak, by redeeming them, it's because there's something exceptionally good about them. And that exceptional goodness is that they are made in his likeness, and should be so treated.

That's been the fight, isn't it? Whereas some people in society have it, in all parts of history, have tried to reduce other parts of humanity to the status of either wild cattle, which you shoot down and hunt for meat, or herded cattle, which you breed, you exploit, you lull, and you cull.

And what these guys are, is simply a modern manifestation of what we saw in Ancient Rome, in the tyranny of Tiberius, the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, and so forth. The romantic tradition, of some people have to be human cattle.

"Don't educate people above their station in life! Don't educate people for positions, for which there is no employment for them. Educate them only for the work we destine them to be employed in," -- including unemployment, the permanent poor.

So, that's the issue.

What we have now is, civilization became strong. The United States, in its achievement, became the greatest threat to this. Therefore, people have tried to destroy the United States from within, as from without. When, after Lincoln's victory, they could not destroy it from without, they concentrated on destroying it from within. And they came near to succeeding.

That was the issue of Roosevelt . Therefore, they want to destroy that, not only for the United States, but if the United States can be what it's supposed to be, and insist that every other part of the planet, has the same right, to a nation-state republic, with the same freedom, then there is no room, any more, for these oligarchical slime-molds, to run this planet.

What Russell came up with was simply that intention.

So, therefore, what's happened? With 9-11.

As I said, they wanted to get this through. Because if they could unleash a perpetual war, against Islam -- this is Brzezinski, this is Huntington... this is Bernard Lewis, who is a top official of the British Arab Bureau, under Glubb Pasha, who was a key controller, and designer, of the Iran-Iraq war, and of the present war. Not this dummy Brzezinski, this lunatic. Not this corrupt dummy Kissinger. Not Huntington. This shrewd old character, Bernard Lewis, top British intelligence, former real head of the Arab Bureau, the specialist in the Arab and Islamic world -- he designed this!

What for? To create an expendable instrument, to destroy humanity, in effect, by using the destruction of Islam, to perpetual war, as a means of ending the possibility of a system of nation states on this planet.

So, they come to the problem: they're not getting the program through. They try to do it with Clinton; it didn't work. They tried, they came close. Because the Principals Committee was the same thing as this bunch of clowns called the Vulcans. The same crowd. Part of the same crowd. Just as dirty, just as evil. Gore would have been worse than Bush. Don't think that Gore was any good; he was never any good. He was an empty vessel. They put things in it, but only bad things.

So, what happened on 9-11 is obvious to me. I didn't 9-11 was happening. Don't kid yourself! Nobody knew it was going to happen. No one had an intelligence warning, it was going to happen that way, except the people who were on the inside. You do not run a coup of that type against a major government, by sharing the information among your accomplices. You don't say, "What you're going to do on this day, is, help bomb the Pentagon. Bomb the Twin Towers in New York, with planes." You're not going to tell them that!

You're going to tell them: "This is what you're going to do." And they do. They don't know what they're doing. A very tiny group of people, at most, would know exactly what was coming down. Other people might have a smell of something, but they wouldn't know what it was, until after it happened. Nobody knew, except that small group of people, inside the United States, and possibly their friends in the Israeli intelligence services.

Remember this Mohammad Atta. Who was he an agent for? How about a Western intelligence agency? How many al-Qaeda agents are Western intelligence agents, assets? That's the way things work.

So, what happened is, an entity that had the power, and the plans, and the interest, used its "glove" -- the suckers, the throwaways, the discardables -- to do something to cause the United States to be willing to embark on a course of action, which would lead to a war with all Islam, and the destruction of civilization. That's what happened.

Many people can recognize this. Many people in this country will agree with facts, going fact by fact. They will balk at one thing! When I say publicly, what they know. They won't tell you the truth.

So, it's back to a question of leadership. I have to take the risk of telling the truth. I wouldn't do it any other way. Otherwise, what's my life mean? What do you write on my tombstone, if I don't tell the truth? Somebody has to tell the truth.

What I say is true. Anybody who criticizes is either a coward, or simply mistaken.

-30-
Return to the Home Page
Top