This is a transcript of the discussion period which followed Lyndon LaRouche's remarks to  the Ankara Chamber of Commerce. (Click here to read a transcript of Mr. LaRouche's remarks.)

LaRouche: [begins in mid-sentence, reading the question] about the intentions of the United States in Iran. The questioner has a strong belief that the United States will attempt to establish a military route, to be followed by a petroleum route, between the Basra Gulf and the Caspian area. To establish this route, Iran must somehow be aligned in the direction of petroleum politics in the Middle East. Is it possible for you to share the above opinion?

No, one has to understand a central character of this junta in the United States. You have to understand, that they are clinically insane. People keep trying to find rational explanations for their behavior. They're not rational; they're mad. Madder than Hitler. Their one intention is [interrupted by applause, among those listening to translation]--. Their intention is, to crush all opposition, to their personal, perpetual world rule. This is just like the Nazis at the end phase.

This is the concept--this military policy--these are only lackeys. These are fools. Wolfowitz is a fool! He was recruited by a Trotskyist, to become a fascist [applause]. That's his history! Albert Wohlstetter, a Trotskyist follower of a person who used to work for the Wall Street Journal, trained Wolfowitz in the school of a fascist, Leo Strauss, at the University of Chicago. The whole kit and caboodle of these guys are a pack of ex-Trotskyists and other things, who have become fascists! These people are not the power; they are the pawns of power. And what they represent, as lackeys, is a group of financial interests, who are not thinking in terms of profit: They're thinking in terms of stealing! If you can steal well enough, you don't need a profit! And, they're out to steal everything in sight, every asset in the world. But, it is not a profit motive. This [question?] is spent trying to think of a profit motive. This is not a profit motive: This is a stealing motive! You don't have to earn a profit--you steal it!

So, what are they out to do? They're out to terrify the world, and to destroy the world, to the point, that--as we were talking about this earlier, about this idea of: Why is Alan Greenspan, of the Federal Reserve System, dropping the interest rate of monetary emission now, the way he is? Greenspan is going toward a 0% overnight lending rate, of monetary emission, as Japan was when it was printing yen, which were then being converted overnight to dollars, to flood the U.S. market. It's hyper-inflationary monetary emission!

Now, what would happen, because suckers believe in the stock market. I don't believe in the stock market. No thinking businessman believes in the stock market. He worries about it, but he doesn't believe in it. He knows it's a swindle [applause]. What happens: The stock market is a so-called "shareholder market"; it's a John Law bubble (I think some of you know what a "John Law bubble" was, in the early 18th Century). So, Greenspan, and Sandy Weill of Citigroup, and so forth, are out to create a gigantic John Law bubble, in the short term! What is the purpose of the John Law bubble? You have a lot of people who are afraid of losing money, losing financial assets. If you drive the markets up in some things, if they're foolish, simple stock market investors, they will rush to invest their money in those markets that they think are going up.

Now, what happens, then, if you turn around, after lending money at between 0 and 1%, to flood the market with monetary aggregate? What happens, if you suddenly raise the interest rate, the discount rate, to 7%, or 10%? Who goes bankrupt? This is the greatest sucker-play in world history! Which is being played out of New York City, by places like Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase Manhattan--and, by the head of the Federal Reserve System.

So, this is the way they think. What happens in that case? In that case, if you're successful enough in that, without exposing it--that's the swindle; if you succeed in doing that, you will shut down most of the banks and businesses in the world! You will wipe out most of the insurance companies! Look at the credit-insurance risk factor: This would wipe out virtually every insurance company in the world. This would wipe out virtually every bank in the world. Most corporations, whose stock value depends, to some degree or other, upon these so-called stock market "shareholder" valuations. The biggest swindle ever dreamed of: a John Law bubble on a gigantic scale.

This is the way they think! That's the way, that the people behind the Wolfowitzes and Cheneys think. Look at Halliburton! What is Halliburton? It's not a corporation! It's a stealing enterprise! What is Bechtel? It used to be an engineering firm. It's now a thieving operation!

So, that's the point: They're trying to establish imperial world power. They will steal everything in sight. But, they're not trying to control shareholding investments: They're trying to control steal-holding investment! They'll steal every asset, every national asset, that they can find, if they think they can market it. They'll forfeit the future. They'll pay nothing for it.

So, this idea that they have a motivation, to get the oil--. Yes, they'll steal it, if they can, but that's not their motive. Their motive is to force Russia into a confrontation on Iran. This is happening right now, on the issue of the International Atomic Energy Agency's certifications of Iran's performance with the rules of the game. We now see, from the United States, operated by the usual types I know very well--the intelligence types--are orchestrating a limited student revolt, inside Iran. Now, I could talk about that, but that wouldn't go into the details, how that works. But, they're running it. Why? It's an operation; it's what we call, in the U.S., a "dog and pony show": It's being set up through the media, to try to create the pretext, for a U.S. intervention in Iran! What's the purpose? It's a showdown with Russia. What's the purpose? A showdown with India. What's the purpose? A showdown with China.

So, you're dealing with someone, who's prepared to use nuclear warheads for preventive war, to teach you a lesson of obedience! Look, Wolfowitz came here, and said, "You're going to learn a terrible lesson, for not going along into the Iraq War, when we demanded that you do it." That's their mentality! And they are only the dogs, reflecting whistling of their master, who're these financial interests.

So, that's my opinion. [loud applause]

Question: You talk about the world going bankrupt, and other aspects of the strategic crisis. Have you received threats for what you say and do? Do you think you could end up like Christ?

LaRouche: Look, I've been through this kind of thing many times. I've been faced with threats, really serious threats, before. For example, in 1973, the Department of Justice of the United States employed the Communist Party USA to have me assassinated, and I have the document. In 1986, friends of George Bush, Sr. sent 400 people to the place where I lived, and was prepared to assassinate me. And only President Reagan's orders, "Get that thing shut down!" saved my life. During the same period, Gorbachov ordered my assassination, publicly, in the Soviet press. And, he meant it!

I've been there many times.

You know, you have to think like a soldier. When you talk about Ataturk--I understand, because of my own experience, not only the trivial military experience I had during the last world war; but, I understood what he went through. That he was sitting on a situation, first in the Dardenelles war, where the Australians were climbing the cliffs, afterward, and he showed a certain quality of command. Then, he was in a situation after that, with the Sykes-Picot forces about to destroy Turkey, with operations involving the British going into--aimed at Iraq; with the question of Syria; with the question of the Soviet Union, being formed on the border, in the Caucasus area. And he made certain decisions.

Now, one can admire these decisions from the outside, as a Turkish patriot. I can admire them from the inside, of the kind of person who has been through analogous situations, of historic decisions, when you knew your life was on the line, because you were saying what you thought had to be said.

Now, my view is, a view which I think, that any person who has a spiritual insight, would understand: We are all mortal. We will all die, sooner or later. Therefore, we have to think of our mortal life, as a gift given to us, temporarily. The question is: What do we do with that mortal life, for the sake of our immortality? Therefore, if we put our life on the line at risk, if we think that we have to, because we would defame our immortality by not making that decision, we will make that decision.

And, that's my view of Ataturk: Is that, I've lived through, because of my own experience, I can see, in studying his life, particularly in these crises, and knowing what was going on with Sykes-Picot, that he made crucial decisions of courage, which created the modern Turkey as an institution, because the people associated with him participated in that decision, that courageous decision; and that gave Turkey the ability to withstand what it's had to live through, in ups and downs over the years since.

Yes, I can get killed. But, my best defense, is to make sure that is costs them a great deal. [applause]

Question: Thank you for your defense of the nation-state. The Republican Robert Strausz-Hupé who was Ambassador to Turkey, wants to divide the nation-state. How can we prevent this?

LaRouche: Well, I can only share with you, the fact that we--Let's take the case of Turkey and the United States. Let's take the case of you and me, Turkey and the United States--to make it concrete. All right. Now, why should Turkey be sovereign? Why shouldn't Turkey join the United States? For a very simple reason. It's a reason which many people don't understand, or they haven't thought about it. What's the importance of Turkey? I know, with my friends, with whom I've been visiting here, we've discussed this philosophically, in terms of the--and I know some of the history of the region; and they have also studied their part of the region. All right, what do we have?

We have a history of the region, which, in a sense, goes back to the Hittites; goes back earlier, to other things of a similar nature. It goes back to the influence of the culture we came into, in Persia. It has to do with the Seljuk, in southern Persia, moving in through the Arab world; moving up and becoming the Seljuk Turks, and the Persian culture influence. So, embodied this, as typified by the influence of Persian poetry, on the language, on the thought of the people. A language can not be understood by a dictionary. A language is the way that's used to communicate ideas, which lie beyond sense-perception. If a people is to be sovereign, and not animals, not cattle, they must share that language-culture, with its embedded connotations, the ironies, as typified by poetic imagery. It is through that language, that the people can deliberate, and decide what they, as a people, really believe, and intend to do.

Therefore, we must have nations, which are constituted, on the basis of culture, and think of language, not just as a language--not a dictionary language--but as embodied in expressing a culture. And Turkey is an example of one of many kinds of cultures, which are developed out of this complex of influences, which have defined a culture, called "Turkish culture" today.

The United States, similarly. We're a melting-pot country, and therefore I'm very conscious of its principles. There is no typical American. There are Turkish-Americans; there are Spanish-Americans from all parts of the world; there are African-Americans: We're an immigrant nation. We have no typical American. The typical American is an atypical American, who is a product of many different kinds of national influxes into our country.

So therefore, but we have developed, in a sense, a core culture, which is based, not only on a fixed culture, but on a sense of adaptation to an immigrant population. The idea of assimilating people from all over the world, into our culture. We sometimes do a bad job of it. But, those of us who understand, understand it. That's our culture.

France has a culture. I find it difficult to deal with sometimes, but it's a culture I deal with. Italy has a culture. Germany has a culture. Russia has a culture. China, India. We are dealing with these cultures in various parts of the world--because I am sort of an international traveller, international thinker.

Therefore, my concern is, we are different peoples of different cultures, but we ultimately must find a common purpose. But, we must find the common purpose through the expression of each with the culture we have. We must present our ideas, from our culture, to other people, in their own culture. And, we must come to an agreement: The basic agreement, I think is the essential one, is the conception of man. We live in a heathen world, a heathen world, in the sense that the idea of man in the image of the Creator is not a popular idea in most of the planet--not at least a clear idea. Therefore, we do not value man, as different from the animal. The problem in humanity, is that for too long, most people have been treated as virtual human cattle, by other people.

Therefore, we have to fight, if we're going to have peace and progress on this planet, we have to fight for the rights--the human quality of the individual. We can only do that, by addressing that part of the individual, which is not merely ideas expressed by dictionary words. But, who has a mind, which is associated with poetic creation of ideas, concerning things beyond sight, beyond vision. And therefore, we are going to perfect humanity, and bring it to maturity. When we establish this kind of relation among peoples--my function, as a figure of the United States, is to fight for that kind of world, in which that is the relation among states. [applause]

Question: Wolfowitz wanted Turkey to apologize for its behavior in the Iraq war. What is your view?

LaRouche:--a broadcast, which came from here, at night. A two- or three-hour broadcast, which was relayed from here--it's all over the world. Everyone knows what I say. Everyone in Washington is having fits about it, or laughing about it. The military are probably laughing. The Defense Department higher officials are probably screaming. Cheney is extremely upset.

Now, my view is, in this matter: I don't think the Turkish government has to say anything to Mr. Wolfowitz. I think, as an American in Turkey, I have said it, and the Turks can laugh--I mean, laugh to the degree that they think they should laugh. Because it's been said: This was a crime. It's a shame of the United States, what this guy did here. It's shameful! It's an embarrassment to the United States, and therefore-- [interrupted by applause].

Question: Thank you for your speech. I am a student. The American system is based on stealing, but what is the motivation for the stealing? Is it that, after 9-11, as Bush said, this is a new crusade? From our viewpoint we see it this way.

LaRouche: Oh, I'd be very happy to. I could on at length on this.

There is a quality in mankind, which is legitimately called "Satanic." And, I'm referring to Wolfowitz and the people associated with him--I have used explicitly the term "Satanic." For example, there is a certain nature of man, and some people fail as human beings. That is, they do things that are bad, but they still remain human in their orientation. There're certain people, who act out of hatred of mankind. For example, an axe-murderer, who goes around slaughtering children for the pleasure of slaughtering children. This man is Satanic.

What you have in this crowd--I know them. I know them, psychologically very well, the Wolfowitzes and so forth: They are explicitly Satanic. They have a professor, who died in 1973: Leo Strauss, who was a Jew in Germany, who was a fascist, a Nazi, but he could not join the Nazi Party, because he was Jewish. Therefore, he went to the United States and practiced Nazism from the University of Chicago, and he gave you Wolfowitz; he gave you similar people.

I know their mentality. They've written books about this. This mentality is explicitly Satanic. Their idea of stealing, has nothing to do with the typical American. It's a junta. It's a small group of people, uncharacteristic of the American people--bad or good. And, that's our problem.

The problem is, we as a nation--here we are, supposedly the most powerful nation on the planet in military power: And we are taken over by a few dozen people, forming a junta, running the U.S. government with an idiot President!? And I say "idiot President" advisedly: The poor man's an idiot! I'm there to defend and protect him--because he is the President. But, I have to know he's an idiot, in order to protect professionally. You have to know what the idiot's going to do, in order to protect him.

These people are Satanic! And, once you recognize that, then you have a clearer image of what we have to do about it. It's not an American problem. It is an American problem, because somebody stuck him on us! These people came from Europe. The influences came from Europe. So, it's a European culture problem--like Nazism. We have to deal with it. And, I have found myself appointed to deal with it. It's my job! I've done the best I could. I need help in the United States; I'm getting some. I'm getting help from people who used to be my adversaries--like Brent Scowcroft--used to be my adversary. But, Brent Scowcroft, right now, is in a sense, allied with me; we don't happen to have any formal alliance. He's doing something I approve of; and I'm doing something he approves of. We're out to get this thing uprooted from the government. If we do, we'll have different roles.

But, then, we will have a new set of problems: Instead of this mess, the threat of general war, we're going to have the threat of dealing with this financial-monetary crisis, which ultimately, is as dangerous as a war. But I believe that if we mobilize humanity around the task of solving, with positive measures, toward solving the world financial crisis, economic crisis, the positive motivation for good deeds, is the best way to debate policy. Sometimes, we have to fight about negative things, in a negative way. We regret that we have to do so, like going to war. We should always regret, having to go to war. Sometimes we have to.

What we prefer, is to solve problems, by presenting solutions, and organizing people around solutions, to problems which, if corrected, may lead to a brighter future for humanity to come.

Question: You talk about establishing a new world order. What is the role of the U.N. Security Council in this? Right now, it is running the world.

LaRouche: Well, the United Nations, recently, has not been the worst offender. And the United Nations Security Council didn't do too badly, if you got Blair out of there, and if Bush were not pushing the policy he was.

The United Nations, I think, should be limited in its function to a forum; especially on the question of war and peace, it's extremely useful to avoid war. The more we study war, the more we understand the importance of trying to avoid it, by finding solutions, which are not war.

The big problem in the UN, which you explicitly are talking about, is it has never been an efficient forum, for the nations in general. And there should be modifications and improvements, which make the UN a more efficient forum. I think of it, not as a world government, but as a diplomatic forum; a super-diplomatic forum, where any nation can go in, and have a hearing on its concerns. And, with the support of other nations, and their support, find some urgent diplomatic pressure for remedy of that problem.

Otherwise, I'm not too much worried about the UN. I think the tendency to make it a world government, which was intended by Bertrand Russell, was evil. That hasn't happened. I thought what was done in the Security Council to resist the proposal by the United States on war, was useful, and I commend them for it, especially the Foreign Minister of France, who I thought made a brilliant presentation on that subject in the Security Council proceedings.

But, I admit the other side.

I'll give you an example of this, concretely, which pertains to countries like Turkey. In 1975, I was instrumental, among a number of people, in pushing a proposed reform to be adopted at the Sri Lanka Non-Aligned Nations meeting in 1976, in Sri Lanka. That proposal, as presented by a friend of mine, Fred Wills, who was then the Foreign Minister of Guyana, was adopted by the entire Colombo conference. Fred went to New York, and presented a resolution. Nothing was done about it. Every country which subscribed to that resolution, was violently suppressed, by threats, at that time. That was the time we lost the opportunity, for reforms, for more equitable arrangement in response to the changes in the monetary system. And the world went down since then. And every country has suffered, to one  degree or another, from that.

So therefore, I would say, that is a case of the failure, of the United Nations Organization. And I would think that reforms which go to that purpose, where the United Nations should have become a forum, on the discussion of the Sri Lanka resolution, Colombo resolution, on a just, new world economic order--it w'tdit didn't. That, in my view, is the crime of omission of the United Nations. And I think the United Nations should be, shall we say, a much more democratic institution, with that kind of mission-orientation.

Question: I want to express my sincere wishes that you succeed in gaining the Presidency. My question is: Were the Afghan and Iraq wars petroleum wars?

LaRouche: No. No. It is not. These people will steal petroleum. To understand that, you've got to go back to the history of this tendency in European history. It goes back to Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte was a bandit and thief. After 1806, in particular, after winning the Jena-Auerstedt battle, he went through Europe to steal. Now, what he would steal, things he could cart off from all countries that he raided, like a bandit. He would then sell what he had stolen, at discount prices, to certain banking groups, who would buy what he had stolen, this stolen property. These bandit groups, which were associated with Napoleon, at the beginning of the 19th Century, are the core group of bankers, which gave you Napoleon III in France; which gave you Mussolini in Italy; which gave you Hitler in Germany; Franco in Spain; and the Vichy government in France. These are the same people. They're doing the same thing.

Yes. And I'm pressing hard to get to the Cheney, or Halliburton, stealing. For me, the fact that he's trying to steal oil (not too successfully right now), is another piece of evidence against him, to bring about either his impeachment or resignation. But, the purpose of the war was not to steal oil: It was to steal everything. Because the war is aimed at every part of Asia.

Look, we were talking privately, before coming out here; we were talking about a certain mineral resource in Turkey; and the plan by some people in the United States to steal that--that valuable mineral resource, which is of Turkish rights. They will steal everything! If they can. And we have to be alert. Don't worry so much about that oil, that is a problem, for Turkey, now. Because Turkey was getting oil from Iraq and so forth, and that was a problem. But, think about everything! They're out to steal everything, in every part of the world.

And, what we have to do is not oppose them for stealing oil: We have to eliminate them. Because, if you leave them, it's like putting a fox in the chicken coop. You're not going to have any chickens. And, they'll take anything else, as well. [applause]

[Moderator thanks LaRouche, closes session.]

- 30 -