This is a transcript of the discussion period which followed Lyndon LaRouche's address to  the conference “Eurasia: New Key for Global Development and Peace.” This event was co-sponsored by Yarin monthly and the Cultural Affairs Department of the Istanbul Municipality. It was held in Istanbul, Turkey on June 14, 2023. LaRouche's keynote was introduced by A. Altay Unaltay of the Yarin Editorial Board. (Click here to read a transcript of Dr. Unaltay's introduction and Lyndon LaRouche's address.)

Question: I am a CPA. The real problem with the United States is the fear in the world, fear used to rule the world. In order the eliminate this fear, can other countries do something against the United States? Or should it occur from inside the United States? What about the militia movement: what is it?

LaRouche:: There is no movement, as such, in the United States, which could deal with this problem.

The U.S. system is, Constitutionally, a Presidential system. Which means the power to act--executive action, and immediate action--comes only from within the Executive Branch of government, as a part of the Presidency.

Now, many of us are a part of the Presidency. Some are officially employees or officials of the Federal government. Others of us are associated with the Presidency--not that we're paid by the Presidency--but that we walk in and out, and discuss with people, policy making; and we play a part in shaping the policy thinking of the institutions of the Presidency.

Now the way it works is this. We have a political process, in which the aspirations of the people, as expressed by the people, should get response from, chiefly, two places. From the Presidency, as an institution--not just the President himself, but the Presidency, the larger body--secondly, from the Legislative branch, especially of the Federal government, which makes the laws.

Generally, what has to happen, is that the Executive must act, often under temporary, immediate, emergency action; but the Presidency must not continue that action without the approval of the Legislature. For example: in war. The war powers of the Presidency are very limited by the Constitution. However, if the United States is attacked, the military of the United States, under the President's order, can act on the basis of so-called rules of engagement--short-term actions to deal with the immediate problem. But any longer-term military action, as in a declaration of war, to continue conducting it, must be approved by the Legislature.

So therefore, now we have a situation. Take the concrete reality. The militia movement is not significant. It was actually a government-planted operation. But there are people revolting against the conditions of life in the United States, which is why I have the support I have; which, relative to the other fellows, is fairly large.

But the way it happens is: Here we are. Those of us who are associated with the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch of government, partisans. The people are expressing a problem. It is our job to try to communicate back to the people, what the problem is, and to solicit their understanding in the process, of what the problem is. Then our problem is to initiate an action around which the people can rally, indicating their pleasure or displeasure. We then act. We act in the Executive Branch; or we act in the Legislative Branch for the necessary laws.

That's generally the way our system works, and that's the way it will work now. What we're doing right now, is that some of us associated with the Executive Branch--with the support, recently, of some from the Legislative Branch, especially the Senate--have acted to launch a process aimed at the impeachment of the neo-con apparatus presently inside the U.S. government. That is the only thing existing in the world today, which could prevent Hell. Because there is no combination of nations in the world otherwise, at the present time, which is willing to act in ways--or could act effectively in ways--which would prevent a neo-con-dominated U.S. government from plunging this world, presently, into Hell.

We have already crossed the Rubicon. We are already in Hell. World War III in Eurasia is already ongoing. There was not an Iraq war. There is a continuing Iraq war. There was not an Afghanistan war. There is a continuing Afghanistan war. There's already an onset of a war with Iran, being run covertly, as a covert operation, from the United States, in Iran right now! You see it on the television screens here. That is not a spontaneous student movement. That is a U.S.-run destabilization of Iran, trying to set up the conditions for a war. The situation in North Korea; other situations I know of; we are now inside World War III. It is not something that we could prevent from happening. We're there.

Now that it has started, can we stop it now? Only from inside the United States. Only by persuading the government of the United States to stop the war. Nothing else will work.

We inside the United States, who are committed to stop the war, are now enjoying some modest degree of success. We have not won. But we are enjoying enough success to encourage us to do more. We're not telling you, “Go home, go hide.” We're saying, “The war is ongoing; we think we can stop it; by the impeachment process or things like that, we can bring it to a halt.”

That's your only hope. Because World War III has already started. The question is: Can we stop it after it's started? And can we persuade the United States' President to stop it? That's the only way it will stop. Or, you have to impeach him. And we're doing it. We're not aiming for the impeachment of President Bush; we're aiming for the impeachment of those advisors whose influence upon him has induced him to start this war. And we hope that our pressures, and his success in putting a lid on Sharon and Sharon's war, that we can shift the world correlation of forces, and thus bring about a resolution of these things, and call the war off.

Question: As you said, the United States and Europe are bankrupt, so much so, that it is having an impact on all of humanity. These [wars of] conquest want to impoverish other countries. This is demeaning and leads to a reaction. Inside the United States, there appears to be a religious ascendancy. Can the United States use the religious factor, or is there a secret policy here? What about the Catholics?

LaRouche: Well, the Pope is not a problem. The fear that the Pope is organizing anything inside the United States in this direction, is a mistake--not true.

You have some very dangerous religious cults in the world. And in the United States, we have one, which originates in Britain; it's Protestant in nature; it's called Evangelical Protestant. And it was started by these strange revivalist cults. These people believe that God was standing in the northern part of Mesopotamia when He created the universe. They believe that they have a God-instructed right to bring about the establishment of a Zionist world government. They hate Jews, but they like Zionism. And these people are crazy.

There's a famous American novel by Sinclair Lewis, called Elmer Gantry, which describes rather precisely what this mentality is. This fellow Delay of Texas, the Congressman, is typical of this. These people are the hard-core base of the Zionist operation in the United States. That is, the Zionist operations in the United States on behalf of the Sharon faction in Israel, are run through U.S. gangsters--who finance it--but they're supported by anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, Protestant religious cults of this lunatic variety.

The thing you emphasized which is true, is that Nazis, like Leo Strauss--a Jew himself, but who was a Nazi; who had to leave Germany, because he couldn't make a career in the German Nazi Party; so he went to the United States. And he is the leader, the intellectual leader, of the neo-cons. He's dead now; but he is the spiritual father of the neo-cons.

This fellow emphasized in his writings, the teaching that religion should be used as an instrument of terror and warfare, as a way of manipulating populations. That is going on. It is going on, largely, from a small minority inside the United States, who are supporters of Zionism, but who are themselves anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. These crazy so-called Zionist Armageddon cults. And that is what's going on.

Otherwise, no; this is not the problem. The problem is a purely political: Let me remind you what the neo-cons are. Most of them are ex-Trotskyists; or recruited by ex-Trotskyists. Trotskyist fascists, and so forth, mixed up with all this stuff, in this very small group of people. You don't have mass movement, a mass-based attempt to take over the U.S. government. You have a small group of people, who by maneuvering in a very special way, having taken control, temporarily, of the U.S. government; and are controlling it like a small Nazi gang. And that's what the problem is.

If you eliminate this small minority, there is no mass movement behind them. You eliminate this small minority, and you have no problem. And what we're going to do, is eliminate the power of that very small minority which is controlling the U.S. government today.

Question: Before the Iraq war, there were mass protests worldwide. There was an impact also on the American population, against American imperialism. [Professor] Kaynak said Turkey should help the Americans. I think this is a very dangerous idea--to have imperialism continue and let Turkey feed on it.

LaRouche: Well actually, I didn't imply that. Remember, the United States was created by Europeans at a time that Europe could not create a sovereign nation-state of a modern form. Many Europeans collaborated, and the United States was intended to be the model republic for establishing a series of republics in Europe. That was prevented by the French Jacobin insurrection in France, which was organized from London, to prevent France from becoming a republic under the constitution designed, specifically, by Bailly and Lafayette. But, from that time on, the United States was considered the model republic to establish a community of sovereign nation-state republics on this planet. That was the function.

For historical reasons, in most cases that has not succeeded. We do not have a single true republic in Europe today. What we have are parliamentary systems which are modified or reformed feudal systems, which are controlled by central banking systems. So that's where the misunderstanding is.

The problem is this: The United States functions--in my conception, in my intention--the United States President has a sacred responsibility to defend the cause for which it was created. That was, to set up a global system, in which mankind was finally freed from the condition in which most people were treated as human cattle, in virtually every society and every culture to date. It is to get the freedom and development of the human individual in the form of states that can do that.

My sacred responsibility is to take the power that the United States has--not as a military power, not as an imperial financial power, but as a political leadership power--to tell the rest of the nations to stop being slaves, and to stand up, and be sovereign republics, and join me in creating a new order of a system of perfectly sovereign nation-state republics, united and governed by only one common principle: the principle of the general welfare of nations.

Therefore, my task as President is to free other nations from imperialism, not to perpetuate a new one. What you're referring to, or describing, is the British liberal imperialist method--I abhor that. Though we have a lot of liberal imperialists inside the United States.

Professor Kaynak [to the questioner]: Your question seems to indicate that you prefer war. What if the United States goes against Iran? Do you think you can stop it?

Question: What are the conditions in the United States? Are they revolutionary?

LaRouche: Well, that question has occurred. I think it's one I shouldn't answer--

Question: I think you should!

LaRouche: There are certain cases in history, under which that kind of action has to be taken by somebody. Those are highly exceptional conditions. And now, I think it's moot, because it's not necessary.

We have, now, we have the support from those forces for what I'm proposing--that is, their action, our joint action, which I think is sufficient to change the situation, as I've indicated today. That is, to end the danger, to end this war, right now.

We have the forces to do that. It's going to be a political fight to get these forces to act, within the framework of the Constitution, as they should, now. I don't think we'll get to the point that we have to even consider the other alternative, which would be hell. But I think we're close to it. I think people here tend--as I get from the feel of the discussion--people are much too pessimistic about this. We are much closer to victory than most of you believe, on this issue of stopping this war, and stopping this war process. I can assure you of that, because I'm close to it. I can't guarantee the success, and I will do whatever is necessary in the process. But we're close to it. Join me in helping to bring that result about. To realize the benefit of that result.

We're close to success in stopping the war. What we need help on is the following: We need help on the basis of discussion, largely discussion. There has to be open international discussion on the kinds of issues I've posed here today. These can not be simply implemented. They must be discussed. My job is to get the discussion, force the discussion, and get that discussion. But we're going to have to quickly come to some kind of agreement on the agenda I indicated. But it will have to be a voluntary agreement; not one imposed by the United States.

Question: After World War I, Turkey fought a war of liberation against United Kingdom policies. You should start a war of liberation [against British policy]. Thank you.

LaRouche: The point is, I have studied over years the case of Kemal Atatürk, who is one of the figures of that period I admire. And his policy of strategic defense, which is not just military; it's also diplomatic: What he did in respect to Syria; what he did in respect to the Soviet Union--these actions were the actions of a true leader. And Turkey was created, had the good fortune to be created under the leadership of a genius, who was a courageous soldier, a great statesman, who created the republic, in a sense--not by himself, but by leading it properly. And Sykes-Picot, which was a French-British scheme for scrambling the Middle East, failed in large degree because of his genius, in the way he responded, using the concept of strategic defense, not just killing. He was a fierce fighter, and he demanded fierce fighting qualities of his troops. But he was not a blind killer. He was a man who said, "We must win this war," as he demonstrated against the British expeditionary forces, Australians, in the battle he fought during the previous war.

Question: You have come to Istanbul as a herald of peace. As a human being, and as a Turk, I am pleased to hear what you have to say. Ankara may be the capital of Turkey, but Istanbul is the capital for Eurasia, it is the connecting link between Europe, Asia and Africa. The future lies in Eurasia. As heirs of the [Ottoman] empire, we have a responsibility to help people.

My question is: In the 19th Century, De Toqueville, in a book, wrote that the United States would never be able to solve the problem with the black population. But I see Colin Powell in office. Was the writer wrong? Or is something changing? In the 1960s, the administrations were WASP, but now they are being replaced by the new Americans. Are there Catholics in the Administration? If it is not politically incorrect to ask, may I ask if you are Catholic?

LaRouche: Well no, I don't happen to be a Catholic. I happen to be an admirer of this Pope, but not a Catholic.

But, on the other thing: de Toqueville was completely wrong. He is much talked about, but he didn't understand the United States. We have, in the United States history, we have two currents, through 1763. That is, remember, in 1763, the British monarchy moved to crush the 13 colonies in North America. At that point, under the leadership of Benjamin Franklin, with support from Europe, the United States started a war of resistance, in effect, a mobilization against the British monarchy, and for the independence of a new republic. This, the division occurred between those in the United States who were close to the British East India Company--they became known as the American Tories--and a group of patriots.

So the United States has always been divided between two traditionally relatively powerful factions. One: the American patriotic tradition, for which I speak, which you don't hear much about in Europe these days. The other: the American Tory tradition, typified by the New York Times; typified by the Washington Post, and so forth and so on. And by the neo-cons, the worst type of this sort.

So, we fought hard to be free of slavery. We have won the fight against slavery, under the leadership of one of my great predecessors, Abraham Lincoln. I've associated with the fight against the continuation of that today. For example, the black legislators' group and related groups are one of my principal constituencies. You're right that there is a change in the social composition of the United States. We now have more of Hispanic origin, combined with African-American origins, than others, essentially. One of the largest single groups, ethnically, in the United States.

However, the United States must be understood as principally a melting-pot nation. It is not a nation founded by one group of people. It was, from the beginning, from many nationalities; no one. It represents the Americas; it represents the world--the Asian population is immense. We are a true melting-pot nation, and in general, we are happy to be a melting-pot nation. We have a large Islamic minority in the United States--a very large one--coming from the Arab world, and other parts of the Islamic world.

So that's our character.

We still, however, have the American Tory tradition, which, like the British, tends to be racist. And we do not generally have, as a nation, we do not have these kinds of chauvinistic tendencies. The Catholic faction is not really a problem. Catholics are a small minority in the United States--they're divided. There're two groups of Catholics in the United States: One, which supports the Pope; and one which opposes him. Both pretend to be, equally, Catholics. And they're completely opposite. The Pope is against the war. The others, who belong to this other crazy group of nominal Catholics, are for the war. And they attack the Pope openly, with the help of John Bolton of the State Department, in Rome itself, on that issue.

So, we are not, essentially, as a people--I would just refer, just to conclude this: I wrote a paper--as an appendix to my paper on foreign policy, United States foreign policy, my foreign policy --on the question of church and state. I do not believe that the United States government, or any concert of governments, should intervene on religious questions, as such.

However, there is one basis on which we do have to intervene on a moral basis. The question is: Do we accept the fact that man is not an ape, that man is not a beast? Do we accept the fact that what we call the "soul"--we mean the power of man which no animal has, to recognize universal principles, which are provable, which exist beyond the power of sense perception. And on that accountability, on that account, man is different from the beasts. Man is sacred. The human individual is sacred, and therefore, rather than trying to deal with the ecumenical issue by dictating solutions among Muslim, Jew, and Christian, for example, my view is: We have to agree on what we agree upon. We agree on the notion of spirituality, as the nature of man. That's man's essential spiritual immortality in the mortal life. Therefore, we must treat our fellow creatures as spiritual creatures, primarily, and mortal creatures, second, as the best people treat themselves.

Therefore, we must agree that our laws must always be in accord with that principle of the sacredness of human life, and the spirituality of the human individual as having its practical significance in the way we honor those who came before us, who gave us our existence, and we honor and benefit those who come after us.

Therefore, we must, in that sense, as Plato puts it in the mouth of Socrates, in The Republic--the term agapé--which is translated in Christianity, variously, as "general welfare, common good," today. We must, therefore, accept the principle of that common good, defined by the spirituality of the essence of the individual, as being natural law. And therefore, all governments must agree, in their internal affairs, in their affairs with one another: We respect the the sacredness, the spiritual sacredness of the human individual. And we do nothing which violates our respect for that sacredness.

Question: I am a student. I wanted to go to the United States to take my masters degree, but postponed it because of Bush. If you get elected, I may reconsider.

Regarding the economic bomb about to explode, what is your solution, as President? When Clinton was in Istanbul, he said Turkey had an important role. What is your view?

LaRouche: Bill Clinton is a very nice person. He's probably the most intelligent President we've had for some time in the United States. I have had a certain kind of association with him during the period of his Presidency and since. And I like the fellow. But, I don't always like his taste in women. But that's a different matter. It's not important to me. But he tends to compromise too much, politically. I hope he would improve on that now that he's out of the Presidency; I would hope that he would play a contributing role, and I think he will, in the effort we're making to deal with this Neo-con problem. He is actually making a contribution and an effort in that direction.

But, on understanding economics, Bill is not too sharp. He may be learning something from me eventually, but he's a slow learner, when it comes to economics. He's too tied to his liberal friends sometimes, doesn't want to understand economics.

The solution is here. The solution--again, I've written a great deal on this. Economics, the way I go at it, is not a simple subject. You really have to re-learn everything you thought you knew in university economics in order to understand a real economy.

A real economy, as I indicated in reply to a question earlier this afternoon here, is physical; it is not money. You see the problem is, you have a problem: The individual who contributes to progress--that individual is a sovereign mind. Did you ever think the thoughts directly that someone was thinking next to you? You can't. You can express your thought, and find ways to confirm that what you think is what they think. But you can not simply communicate what's going on inside a human mind, directly.

And the same thing is true of great discoveries, inventions, ingenuity. We rely, as much as possible, on the freedom of the individual to make contributions to society. This includes economic contributions, such as the sovereign farmer, running a farm; economic contributions such as, especially, small business which is privately owned. We try to encourage it as much as possible.

Therefore, we do not try to run the government in some kind of super-Soviet system, where the government runs everything. Rather, we try to create the conditions, the pre-conditions under which those who are producing can prosper, whether economically, in ideas, or whatever else they contribute to society. To do that, we have to create a medium of exchange, of economic value, by which these minds can collaborate in a common way. For that purpose, we create and regulate money. We take taxes. We give subsidies. We regulate trade, to give a fair chance to every individual to contribute to society, and to protect those things which are valuable to us.

So therefore, we have to start from the physical process, and the physical process is little understood. It's my specialty, but it's little understood still today. Even though many people admire what I do, they don't replicate what I do. And that is: to understand what we mean by the ability of the human mind to generate an increased physical power over the universe, in the sense of a universal physical principle.

Therefore, economics has to be understood that way.

For example, let's take the case of technology-sharing. There is no such thing as natural profit in an economy. It doesn't exist. There's no way in which human beings, if they were animals--there's no way in which monkeys create profit; there's no way in which gorillas create profit. I've never seen a horse generate a profit. Someone has taken a profit out of a horse, but never put one in. Only a human being, by discovering principles, and applying them, and cooperating in applying them, can increase the productive powers of labor, beyond the cost of producing the individual who does that.

Therefore, it is the improvement of the mind, the development of the mind of the individual which should be the center of the economy: the ability of the mind to generate ideas, and use ideas which increase the productive powers of people generally, by which we increase our power over nature. That must be economy. That's where we put the solution.

And that's what Bill Clinton doesn't understand. Bill Clinton, other liberals, and so forth, think that random selections of ideas, or some guy under the floorboards of society--a little green man, who's casting dice, can determine whether one person is rich and the other person is poor. I don't believe it. And Bill does.

Question: Why do you say that it is necessary for the United States to be part of Eurasia? Do you mean in terms of technology transfer, or geopolitics, or because others cannot lead? The United States is outside Eurasia, and we saw the Afghan war.

LaRouche: The Afghanistan war was a project which was used as a pretext for inducing Europe, out of so-called sympathy for the United States after 9/11--to induce Europe to contribute its resources to putting in place, around Iraq, the material means needed for the war against Iraq. That was the only reason for the Afghanistan war.

Afghanistan, of course, is a much worse mess now, than it was before the United States went in. Iraq is a much worse mess today--and it will be under the continued administration of Bremer--than it was before the war. The worst thing that was done.

Now, the issue here is: The United States is, organically, an integral part of Asia. The United States orientation toward Asia began during the 19th Century. It was the United States which reformed Japan to make Japan an industrial power. It was made directly under the influence of Henry C. Carey, in the 1870s, when the great reform, economic reform of Japan occurred. Modern Japan is largely a reflection, since the Second World War, of what was put into place under MacArthur. New institutions of Japan were fostered by the United States, and these institutions have very close, integral relationships, economically and physical economy, and otherwise, with the United States.

Korea, especially South Korea, is an integral, an extension of cultural sharing and economic ties to the United States. China, is today, the single largest factor in U.S. foreign trade, even despite the collapse of the level of U.S. trade to China now. And it will continue to be.

India has always been associated closely with the United States, as well as with Britain, so that the United States is also integral to the Americas. The agro-industrial structure of every major part of the Americas, down to Cape Horn, are integral to the development of the United States.

So therefore, the United States--not everything is fake. The United States represents an estimated 25% of the world product, apart from its financial contribution. You can not ignore the United States. The world could not function isolated from the United States, under present conditions. Maybe under some future hypothetical conditions, it could, but not now. Therefore, the other countries of the world, as I've worked with them, can not come to an agreement without by which they could survive, without U.S. participation. They can't do it. There are many reasons for this--ideological and other reasons. There are habits, and other reasons.

I find that my intervention, for example, as in the question of Eurasia, my interventions, especially since the late/middle 1990s, in Eurasia, were key in the promotion of what Primakov proposed as the Strategic Triangle of Russian, China, and India. That operation is now in place. We recently had a conference again in Bangalore, in India, on that area, that subject. It's going forward. I'm dealing today, through my representative in Korea, I'm dealing with the Korean situation. And with the situation in Japan, the situation in China.

What I'm doing, I'm able to do, not only because I'm an individual intellect, but because I'm recognized as representing a side of the United States which people in these parts of the world want to deal with. And therefore, my job is to try to represent that, and to try to bring the United States into conformity with what they expect of the United States, through me. So when I say I'm committed to something for the United States, I intend to make it happen. When I talk about cooperation with the United States, I'm taking about what I intend, personally, shall happen. Not some abstract "what the United States must do." I'm out to defeat the faction in the United States which is responsible for these policies of which we've complained here. They're wrong. They're wrong for the United States; they're wrong for the world; they're wrong for the future of humanity. Therefore, they must be changed. I'm proposing that we make a peaceful revolution against the current war.

Question: I am from Zaman newspaper. We're talking about Eurasia, but we always return to America. With the mentality of Brzezinski and Kissinger taking hold, is there any mass basis for this? What can you say about the assassination of Kennedy? What is the level of support for LaRouche in the population?

LaRouche: Okay. Our level of support: Right now, I am, in terms of the number of financial supporters for my candidacy in the United States, as of the last official record, the leading [Democratic] candidate among ten. And that has caused some problems among some other people. But I think that'll work out fine.

The Kennedy assassination was the product of an operation done by a group which is tied to the Neo-cons. That's why you don't joke about Neo-cons. They're silly, but you don't joke about them. It's like if your brother-in-law gave birth to a crocodile, you wouldn't joke about it.

Kennedy was killed to make way for what became known as the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was the most notable effort to change the official U.S. military-strategic policy into the direction we see reflected in the Iraq war recently here, and in other wars. This was a fight by a group which was identified by Eisenhower, inadequately, as the "military-industrial complex." These are the Neo-cons. This is the group that's organized around what's called the "revolution in military affairs," which you operational in the policies of Rumsfeld & Company now. Rumsfeld was, from the 1970s on, together with Cheney, a key proponent of the revolution in military affairs, which is actually an attempt--which didn't start with Rumsfeld--to reform the U.S. military in the order of the Nazi International Waffen SS.

What you saw in Iraq, in terms of the incompetence of the troops--19-20-year-old troops--they were trained in video point-and-shoot games. They're not soldiers. They're video-game players doing it on the battlefield. That's why they're so incompetent in dealing with the situation they're dealing with. They're picked up off the streets and trained as point-and-shoot killers, on military video games, which get a high accuracy for point-and-shoot accuracy. The cheapest way to train someone to kill efficiently.

So, this is our situation. We have this element in the United States, which are called the Utopians. They've been there; they were brought into existence by H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell from England. Bertrand Russell was the inventor of preventive nuclear warfare. H.G. Wells was the author of the concept of using nuclear weapons as a weapon of terror to force nations to give up their national sovereignty, and become part of world government, or under world government. These are the ideas you're dealing with.

You had a degenerate from Tennessee who was, spiritually, a follower of H.G. Wells, and a representative of the tradition of the Confederacy--the pro-slavery tradition: William Yandell Elliott, Professor William Yandell Elliott of Harvard University, Department of Government. This man trained a great number of people, sort of like Leo Strauss in Chicago. He trained a great number of people, including Brzezinski and Kissinger, who were his trained puppets. And he and a group, including Rockefeller interests and other interests financed these people, stuck them into government. So that we had a transformation of our government under a Kissinger Administration, which is otherwise known as a Nixon-Bush Administration, which was a Kissinger Administration, followed by a Carter Administration, which was really a Brzezinski Administration.

Kissinger is personally the American who is most important in a connection with Ariel Sharon in Israel. Kissinger and Sharon steal together. Or they did steal together. We caught them at it.

So this is a special breed, which comes out of the British Commonwealth, the British monarchy. This is the imported part of the so-called American Tory faction in the United States, who represent those financier interests, such as Lazard Freres, and similar types of groups, which were connected to Vichy in France, they were connected to Adolf Hitler in Germany, to Franco in Spain, and so forth. These people, these financial interests, have used people like Kissinger, Brzezinski, as well as these Neo-cons we've referred to repeatedly here--have used them as instruments to represent the interests, or perceived interests of powerful, behind-the-scenes financier groups of the type like Conrad Black's press, or Rupert Murdoch's press, other kinds of media. And this is used as a social-control mechanism.

Kennedy was the last President who might have defeated this process. The problem is he came into government, and was killed so soon, that he did not fully yet understand what he was up against, until about the time he was killed. And then they killed him. And it's been assured that nobody would become a President after that who would return the United States to the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt. That's why I've had problems. [inaud] I've had up to 25% of the vote, supporting vote, at various times in my career, for President. But it never happened, because of the intervention.

Now the time has come! Now the time has come, in which these guys have shot their load. The system is coming down. The financial system is coming down. We potentially have these financier interests, behind the Kissingers, the Brzezinskis, the Neo-cons--we potentially have them by the throat. And, ladies and gentlemen, I propose that, now that we have them by the throat: Don't let them go!

- 30 -