This is a transcript of the discussion period which followed Lyndon LaRouche's remarks to  the Washington, DC webcast event on July 2, 2023. (Click here to read a transcript of Mr. LaRouche's remarks.)

Debra Freeman: I'd like to begin by putting to Lyn a couple of questions that were submitted via the Internet, because I think that they are significant. I will generally identify the individuals who asked the questions.

Question: One question that has been submitted, has come from a gentleman in New York, who is currently on the staff of someone who served in a previous Democratic administration, who currently serves on the board of a major U.S. bank. And I know that this question is the product of some discussion that they have had, and they want Mr. LaRouche's comments on it. The question is the following:

On the subject of what we've come to refer to here as a potential financial "911,' there's very little doubt that the state of the international financial system, and in fact the state of international banking, is fragile. We are dealing with a system that is, without question, in a state of near collapse. However, even conceding that, the actions of this Administration cannot be explained as policy due to mere incompetence. Nobody is that incompetent. In fact, upon reflection of how indeed the policy toward the dollar is being conducted, as well as other related policies, including the setting of interest rates, it would seem that there is a conscious drive to exact maximum chaos, and to provoke the equivalent of a national state of emergency in the midst of financial collapse. This certainly would serve to abrogate any commitment to constitutional rule in the United States. This is something that is very hard to conceptualize, -- we don't see anything like that in the history of our nation, -- but it's very hard to ignore it as a possibility in the current circumstance. Would you please comment?

LaRouche: This is one of those 64 billion, or 64 trillion, dollar questions, which I shall answer. I think it's extremely appropriate. I've referred to it already.

The point is this. And I've been discussing this with leading bankers in Europe, and some in the United States recently, who ask me this same question, and I've given a qualified answer. Today, I shall give the same answer I gave them, but I shall add some names.

First of all, the way in which Alan Greenspan and the bankers associated with him are operating, makes no sense to people who are knowledgeable, unless you can prove that they're absolutely insane; that is, their brains don't function anymore, or unless they have some criminal intent, which may not be quite so obvious. Those of us who have discussed this -- and this includes international financial circles as well as those in the United States -- agreed with me that these fellows know exactly what they're doing, and that their intent is criminal beyond the belief of most citizens and politicians in the United States.

Who are these people? Well, without going into who I suspect, which little interesting group I know is involved, I would simply say it's a banking group, a private financial banking group, which was involved in France in setting up of the Banque Wurms operation, which gave us the Vichy government and those who invented Hitler, and those who were plotting the Nazi takeover of Europe during the 1940s. The same group, exactly the same group.

Who is behind it? Well, again, your neo-conservatives. Which neo-conservatives? Did you ever hear of Mundell? Did you ever hear of the Siena bank, which is having a meeting right now? Did you ever hear of Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal? He's a stooge for these guys, has been since 1971 at least, a long-standing enemy of mine. These are the guys to look at.

Look, you drop the interest, this is what they're referring to. You drop the discount rate, the way Greenspan is doing now, you're pumping up hyperinflation, which we're in right now. Don't believe anyone who tells you differently. That's the problem.

For example, the mortgage-backed security bubble, the credit insurance bubble, and so forth and so on. As well as the usual Wall Street bubbles, various kinds of bubbles. These are all being pumped up as hyperinflationary bubbles. The way they're being sustained is by dropping the discount rate, Japan-style, toward a zero overnight lending rate, which was used in Japan as a way of propping up the U.S. dollar and market for a long period of time. Now this means that you're coming to an end game, where at this point, we're close to the barrier at which there's a general blowout of the financial system. That's the day that your bank actually closes, that your firm shuts down, that the state government no longer pays salaries, the city government no longer pays, a breakdown.

How does that happen? The breakdown starts when Alan Greenspan sends the discount rate up, and all the suckers are wiped out! So, everybody who is buying into the financial markets now, being suckered by the promises of a recovery or a bounce-back, is being set up for the chop.

Now, the precedent for this is 1931. The collapse of the Versailles banking system, in about 1931, resulted in the meeting of a group of financiers who set up the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is based in Basel, Switzerland to the present day. This locked up international credit. To get credit, you had to go to the Basel BIS group, to get credit. When Hitler was brought into power, when Schacht was made the economics minister again, Schacht started the Nazi rearmament because he was able to get cooperation from the Bank for International Settlements to finance Germany, for its arms buildup, whereas Germany was previously collapsed from 1931 on, by being shut off from credit by the BIS group. So, this is one of those tricks.

And look at Mundell, among others, and the group associated with him, which is an integral part of the neo-con group. And you can look at various other officials, who could be agents of this type of thing inside government. But this is not a possibility, this is presently ongoing. This is a conspiracy against the United States, against the world! But especially the United States. And what the question reflects --  those in high places inside the United States, who know the game, who say, "Tell us it ain't so," to me. I say, "You're right, it is so. I know exactly how it's being done."

So, therefore, my saying it today, in the way I'm saying it, I may get shot for this, but nonetheless, the message is out. There is a game, and tell Robert Mundell and his friends, "We don't want 'em to do." And some others. They know who I'm referring to, whom I didn't name.

Question: Along the same lines, Senator Jones has submitted two questions. The first question is, Mr. LaRouche, you stated that the IMF and most of the American and European banking institutions are bankrupt due to failing policies. What specifically are those policies, and how shall we change them? The second question is, you indicated that actions by Alan Greenspan and others could be construed as either criminal or incompetent. Assuming that they do know what they're doing, what do you believe is the motivation behind these actions, and what ultimately is their goal?

LaRouche: Well, the game is very simple. You see, it's a big game. The problem that people have with this kind of question, and I think our questioner in New York had no problem understanding it, is that money is not real. That's the key.

Money is paper. Did you ever talk to a dollar bill? What kind of a conversation did you have? Money is what? At best, under our laws, which are no longer obeyed, money is currency issued by the Federal government, with the consent of Congress, by the executive branch with the consent of Congress, by the Treasurer especially, but under the President.

So, what is it? Why do we circulate money? What's its value? The value is the ability of the Federal government to control its value, by management. One of the main functions of the Treasury Department of the U.S. government, is to manage the currency: To manage its circulation, to manage it through taxation, to manage it through preferential interest rates, to manage it through legislation which is enacted by the Congress, and so forth and so on. And to get the money flowing in such a way, to do what?

Take what has happened, say, since 1966, in the U.S. economy, as opposed to what should have happened. You have three curves that tell you what the monetary system of the U.S. economy is. One is the so-called growth of financial assets; second, you have the rate of monetary emission; third, you have the growth or shrinking of the physical assets per capita and per square kilometer, net physical assets.

Over this period, since 1966, you have not a uniform, but a steady trend. Financial assets were running up, leading, until 1999. Monetary expansion was pumping the financial markets, but the physical value of U.S. output per capita, of consumption and output, was collapsing. Look at our families. Look at the lower 80% of family households, income. They've been collapsing. The lower 80% of family income brackets in the United States have been collapsing. Look at the conditions of life. Look at latch-key children. Look at schools. Look at health care. Look at everything. Look at basic economic infrastructure. All of these things that affect the typical person, in the lower 80% of family income brackets, is collapsing, including employment, factories, everything, places of employment.

So, what's wrong? It's, money is growing in nominal value, but the value actually received is collapsing. Now, one of the purposes of government in managing money, is to make sure that the value of things in prices does not go in one direction, contrary to the value of real goods, say income, and so forth. Standard of living, productivity. So, what has happened is that we've gone into a post-industrial, consumerist-oriented society, which is predatory, which lives by sucking on the rest of the world, like a blood-sucker, like Dracula. We have used our power, our control over the IMF system, to dictate the relative values of currencies. We've dictated the conditions of life in the world, and we loot the world for their cheap labor and their products for things we consume, and we don't even pay for what we import anymore, as our current account deficit shows.

What should be the case is, money should be regulated in such a way that the financial prices do not rise relative to physical values. In other words, an anti-inflationary policy. We do that in various ways. For example, we used to have an investment cash-credit program under Kennedy. The idea is, if a citizen will invest, instead of taking the profit out of a firm and distributing it, as per stockholder, shareholder values, will invest in improving the production of that firm by investing that capital back in the firm, better machine tools and so forth, or making a contribution to the community in donations to the community, for community benefits, that that person should get a benefit in tax treatment by the government, by state, Federal or local government, on that basis. And that's the way we normally manage the currency. It's by legislation, taxation, and so forth, with the purpose of saying, we are going to have a strong dollar policy. A strong dollar policy means the content of the dollar will be such that the person who saves the dollar, by saving it, will find that the dollar is worth more in purchasing power next year than it was this past year. That is a sane dollar policy.

The problem in this case, what they've done is they've run the dollar up. Now you know that when Bob Rubin and Bill Clinton were faced with the crisis in August-September of 1998, the so-called GKO crisis, the second major international crisis, Bill went to Wall Street, went to the Council of Foreign Relations, and made a speech about market reform. And then something came out of the basement of the White House, and threatened Bill with impeachment at about the time he talked about monetary reform. At that point, with the October Washington conferences on monetary policy, the United States moved with other nations towards what was called a "wall of money" policy, in which the drug pusher George Soros played a key part. George Soros was one of the advisors in this. They were looking immediately at a February 1999 threat of a Brazil crisis. So what they did to try to avert a Brazil crisis, was flood Brazil with George Soros' money, and George Soros' control over the treasury of Brazil.

At that point, in the Spring of 1999 through the Spring of 2000, it became apparent to us that the amount of money being poured out, to try to keep the dollar system from collapsing, exceeded the amount of financial values being rolled over: in other words, a hyperinflationary trend was already in place. It was obvious to us by Spring of the year 2000 that the hyperinflationary trend was systemic, not episodic. It was not a one-time shot, it was a systemic problem.

So, since that time, the U.S. has been bankrupt, which is how I made my forecast at the beginning, before Bush was actually inaugurated, of what would happen under Bush. I said, the man is stupid, therefore he will continue to follow these economic policies, therefore the economy is going to sink, and I'm afraid somebody's going to pull a "Reichstag Fire" to try to get a dictatorship in this country, and that's exactly what happened on September 11, 2023. That's been the trend.

Now we're at the point that the whole hyperinflationary system is about ready to disintegrate. These guys are not thinking about money. They're thinking, if you can control the world, if you're the world dictator, you can determine who has money, and what the value of it is. It's an old game. This is the same game that was played in Europe in the 14th century, which led to the collapse of the Lombard banking system, and led to the so-called New Dark Age of the 14th century. This kind of policy. This is what is the game now. These fellows are out to play a Hitler-like policy in economics and finance, the way they are in military policy, in nuclear weapons against the world. You just have to understand their wormy little minds, as I know them. This is exactly the way they think, and that's exactly the way they do it.

The point is, the citizen says, often, well, how do we deal with it? Very simple. Eliminate their power. If you're not ready to act, to eliminate the power of somebody who's about to destroy civilization, don't say, what's the solution? Eliminate their power! That's the power of representative government. Make it work. Use the power of government, mobilize to get government to use its legitimate authority to put these guys out of this business. Otherwise, you're going to get the worst.

Question: The next question comes from someone who is a well-known political consultant in the United States, and who resides here in Washington. He says, "You've called the Democratic Leadership Council a "Trojan Horse" designed to guarantee the re-election of George W. Bush. I have to tell you I disagree with you. He says, it's in the immediate interest of the DLC, and very particularly in their financial interest, to elect someone who is nominally a Democrat, whose policy they would control. It's my view that, in fact, it would be far more difficult to organize any kind of opposition to a Democratic President who is controlled by the DLC. I'd like your thoughts on this."

LaRouche: Well, first of all, I disagree. Let's talk about, where did the DLC come from? Well, down there someplace. But what's its content?

Go back to 1966, Biloxi, Mississippi. That's where it began, when Richard Nixon, running for president, met with the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and with Trent Lott. And that's where it started. This was the so-called Southern Strategy, and you had all these racist Democrats who were joining the Republican Party at various stages, along with the so-called Boll Weevils, who came out of the cotton.

All right. Now, in response to that, you had a shift, which occurred around a fellow called Scoop Jackson and Moynihan, these two creeps. Remember, Scoop Jackson was a war hawk, he was out for war. Against people generally. It's called a social democrat. But then you had Moynihan, who was a property of Averill Harriman. And Moynihan went into the Nixon Administration out of Harvard. He was the guy that really invented the Bell Curve. Some of you know what the Bell Curve is? He worked on social policy. He was the guy involved in the area of setting up the replacement of Hill-Burton as a health program, by the HMOs, which took away D.C. General Hospital, among other things.

All right, so what happened is, you had a right-wing evolution, centered around people who had been formerly Trotskyists, especially the Social Democrats of America, that type, some of them had been Zionists, or whatnot, and they became more and more right-wing all along. And this was the emergence of a process which led into a 1975 meeting in Kyoto, of the Trilateral Commission, under the auspices of the Trilateral Commission leader Zbigniew Brzezinski. This featured a Samuel Huntington paper on "Crisis in Democracy." Brzezinski used this in his administration, of Carter, to put through what became known as the Project Democracy, which was a fascist right-wing program. Averill Harriman's wife, Pam Harriman, put through a step in this thing. So, you had, under Reagan, the establishment of Project Democracy.

Now, both political parties from the top are controlled as party machines by Project Democracy, through the Congress. So, at that point, the right-wing, which had been coming into a takeover of the Democratic Party through Brzezinski and Company -- the Trilateral Commission operation of 1975-77 -- now took control. And both parties were controlled from the top, in terms of the party machine, that is, the party machine as opposed to the elected officials of the local states, were controlled from the top by these guys. And that's the Trojan Horse.

You see today. Look, take the policies of Donna Brazile. Look what happened. How did George Bush get non-elected? Donna Brazile was the manager -- she's part of this right-wing crowd -- she was the manager of the campaign for Gore and for Lieberman. What happened?

Now, if they had gone into Arkansas and had campaigned in Arkansas, they would have come out of there with the Electoral College vote, and the election would have been over. But instead, she and her crowd went down to Florida, and began stroking Joe Lieberman's right-wing Cubans, and the election got jammed up. Now, I don't think that Al Gore was any good. And Lieberman was worse. But the point is, that's the way the politics worked.

There is no honest politics in the Democratic Party from the top-down, now. Don't kid yourself. It doesn't exist. The only way you'll get honest leadership in the Democratic Party leadership, is to put it there! There are no smart deals that you can make with the present Democratic leadership around the DLC. They belong to the right-wing. They are of the same inhuman species as the neo-cons. They are neo-cons. They think like neo-cons. They're thugs, they're not even human most of the time, and the thing you have to do is, replace them.

And the way to replace them, is, you raise one issue: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The problem with some Democrats is they think there's a smart way to play the game. And this is the Hamlet problem I talked about.

Hamlet says, this is what makes cowards of us all. Because they're not willing to risk their neck, they're too much like draft-dodgers. They're not willing to risk their neck by deciding one way or the other what they stand for. They're trying to maneuver and handle the situation, and therefore, they say, "What's the smart way, the no-risk way, to deal with the problem?" And often in history, as in war, the real solutions are only risky ones. There are no no-risk solutions.

And I think the objection to my criticism of the Democratic leadership, from many people in the Democratic Party, is, they're looking for a no-risk solution, and they say of me, "Well, you take risks!" Sure, I took risks. I've taken many risks. My own government tried to kill me three times, at least the ones I know, officially. Yes, I've taken risks. The Soviet government wanted to kill me, Gorbachev wanted to kill me. His wife wanted to kill me. Officially. You should have seen what happened in 1986. Sure, I've taken risks. I'm still alive, but I took the risk.

The problem with the Baby Boomer generation, among leaders, is that they tend not to be risk-takers. They tend to be war resisters. They don't go to military service. "That's for dummies. There must be a better way to handle this situation." Now war is sometimes the wrong thing to do, often is. But if you're not willing to take the risk, you're not qualified to be a leader, and that's what our problem is. We have leaders who are often good people, people I regard as useful, intelligent, and so forth, but when it comes taking a risk for a principle, they fail. They say, we might lose. Yes, you might lose. But if don't take the risk, you won't win. And that's the problem.

Question: We have a couple of questions from among the elected officials who are here, along these same lines. Senator Wilkins asks, "What can those of us in small population states, do to reverse this trend of the Trojan Horse takeover of the Democratic Party? If we launch an effective response in our state, won't the national party people who seek to keep you on the sidelines, simply write us off and write our state off as a loss?"

LaRouche: Of course they'll try. That's the way they behave. They're thugs, they're Nazis. What do you expect from them? Once you understand that they're gangsters, no problem.

How do you defeat a gangster? Gang up on him. That's what we have to do. That's what I'm doing.

Yes, I stick my neck out. I have to. Somebody has to. If somebody doesn't stick their neck out and take the leadership, how are you going to get people together? You've got people who represent constituencies, who represent a smaller state, or a group in a smaller state, and you want them to take national leadership? No. Maybe one of them wants to. That's fine. But, in general, someone has to take this cause which involves a number of states, or most of the states, and take this cause and bring people together and spearhead the thing.

Someone has to take the lead. It's as in war. Someone has to take the lead. I'm taking the lead. It's the only way I know how to do it. It's the only way it's ever been done in history.

Politics is risk. Life is a risk. We're all mortal. What the problem of the Hamlet is, as I've emphasized repeatedly, is, people worry about the risk to their life.

You know, true religiosity has somehow gone out of the population, because they cannot cope with the idea that they're mortal. They have no sense of immortality. The person who has a sense of immortality, is worried not about how long their life is, but they're worried most of all about how they spend that life while they have it, and what comes out of it. People used to think about what they leave behind for their children and grandchildren, their community, and others. The Baby Boomer doesn't. Today's Baby Boomer doesn't do that. He thinks about his next change of lifestyle. The fact, if they have children, they say, "What did we do that for? It was a bad lifestyle. I want a different lifestyle."

So, we have, in the Baby Boomer Generation, people who are now in their fifties and sixties, people who are now running the United States in most institutions, are people who don't have intrinsic courage, because in older generations, our dedication was to what came out of our living for our grandchildren's generation. We thought about our grandparents' generation, and we thought about our grandchildren's generation. We said, "What does our life mean?" We said, "Can we be proud of being what we are? Are we pleased and happy to be what we are? Are we doing what we think we should do with our life, this mortal life we have?"

Most people today, in this culture, don't have that sense of commitment to previous and coming generations. That's the problem with youth. That's why I'm organizing a youth movement, because they know that their parents' generation really doesn't want them. And therefore, they know they are the no-future generation. Therefore, they're willing to fight for a future, for themselves and for coming generations. And maybe inspire their parents' generation to get back in the act, of mobilizing

The American people need a shake-up, also in Western Europe. They need a shake-up. They need to face the fact that there has been an economic crisis, there has been this kind of crisis, but there's been a moral crisis. Not a crisis of morals the way that some crazy fundamentalist would say, but a moral crisis in the sense of, what is the difference between man and a beast, between man and an animal? "Why am I different than an animal? What do I do, therefore, as a person who knows he's mortal? How do I spend that mortal life I have?" And that sense of mortality, that sense of immortality, is lacking, as a result of the pleasure-seeking generation, which came out of the post-1964 rock-drug-sex counterculture, and similar kinds of things. And that's our problem.

So in this circumstance, those of us who have the courage to fight, have the responsibility, because only we have the willingness to lead. The others might wish to consider themselves leaders, but they don't have the guts to do the job.

Debra Freeman: Lyn, along the same lines, I do have some more questions from some of the elected officials. I should also mention, Mr. LaRouche referred to the LaRouche Youth Movement. If you look at the composition of this audience, you'll see that a very large contingent here are young people; some of them still college students, some of them generally in that age bracket. It is, in fact, the case that across the United States, Mr. LaRouche's Presidential campaign is actually being carried by a small army of young people, who, without question, have, I think, changed already the shape of this Presidential campaign. I don't think we've seen anything like this in the United States since Eugene McCarthy sought the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1972. We will, in fact, be entertaining a number of questions from members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, but I did want to give priority to some of the elected officials here.

I have a question from Delegate Spruill of Virginia. Do you want me to ask this for you, sir? I should ask it. OK. Delegate Spruill asks, Lyn, number one, why have you not taken the DNC to court to challenge your exclusion from the debates; and two, what can we do to actually get you into these debates?

LaRouche: I really don't want to get into the debate. I mean, none of them can talk! They can't, there's nothing to debate. They're under constraints; they're not supposed to say anything. These guys are cowards! I mean, how can a person run, and say, "I want to be the next President of the United States," and be a stinking coward who's intimidated by Donna Brazile? That's not a leader. And, therefore, I'd like to talk to these guys under a circumstance where they're free to talk, not where their mouths are controlled by some Gestapo zombie sitting on their back. So, I wouldn't sue, any way. I don't need to.

My policy is very simple: the crisis is coming on fast; and fortunately so far, I've made no mistakes in forecasting or indications of what's happening. So, I've got the best credibility in the world. None of these guys is noticed by any foreign government. Nobody pays any attention to them. They're considered nothing. They consider the re-election of Bush virtually inevitable in the United States at this present time. These things don't amount to a hill of beans, as we used to say. So, I would like to have them become better than they behaved, but I wouldn't bother to waste my time and effort going to court over this kind of thing, to get into a fool's paradise.

What I'm doing instead, I'm organizing a youth movement. I'm putting most of my effort into organizing a youth movement. I guarantee you, a youth movement will take over the politics of this country in the coming six months to nine months. That's what's going to happen.

If you want life, go where life is.

Freeman: OK. Lyn, just actually as you were answering the question, Delegate Spruill was concerned, and said, "Well, this is just crazy. How else does the population get access to what he's saying?" And I think you did actually answer that at the end of your remarks. I thought I also should tell you that we did get a response from the consultant who had asked the initial question about the DNC and the DLC operating as a Trojan horse. He said, "So then what you're really saying is, they look like neo-cons, they talk like neo-cons, they think like neo-cons, they probably smell like neo-cons "

LaRouche: The last I'm sure of.

Freeman: "... so the bottom line is, they're neo-cons." He's very smart. OK. Just to take up some more questions from some of our elected representatives here. Delegate Towns.  Rep. Towns says, "Mr. LaRouche, what do we need to do to accelerate the impeachment of Dick Cheney?"

LaRouche: Well, I'm doing it; I think more of what I'm doing would do it. I'm doing it all over the world. And, we've got a fairly good audience for it, and a high degree of receptivity, because the world is very much concerned about these various things, like the spread of the worsening of the situation in Iraq. The spread of war to Iran. The nuclear bombing of North Korea, which some people would like to do real quick; things of that sort. They're concerned; in Europe especially, extreme concern about this kind of thing. In the United Nations circles, extreme concern about this thing. I mean, senior United Nations groups are concerned about it.

So, it's obvious that if you want to stop this, there is no way you can, in the short run, stop it, except by focussing so intensely on Cheney, that he has to resign, or the fact that he has not resigned becomes itself the big issue of the day. Because he's impeachable.

Remember, the evidence is very clear. In the forming of the U.S. Constitution, we gave great executive power to the executive branch, in the sense that no other constitutional government on this planet has that kind of power, that we concentrate in the executive branch. The Founders were concerned and expressed this concern, that would such power be used by an executive to carry the nation to war, in the manner that George III had carried the war against the American colonies. And therefore, checks and balances were built in among a number of places on the executive power, but especially on the issue of war; the power to make war.

As many of you know, there are two categories of major fraud against the government. One is the fraud by a citizen against the government, which can be five years for each count. Another is a fraud by a government official against the government. The kind of fraud, for example, which was charged by the Nixon Administration.

The highest degree of fraud, short of absolute treason, explicit treason as defined by the Constitution, are high crimes involving fraud to cause the United States to go to war. We have the precedent of this in Lincoln's famous address on the question of the Spot Resolution in 1848 on Polk's going to war against Mexico, where this thing was made explicit. That when an official of government uses their influence to lie, to induce the government to go to war, and it's shown that the war occurred, a wrong war on a false pretense, occurred because of that lie, this is a crime tantamount to treason. At this point, it is absolutely clear that Cheney committed that crime. And that his whole pack of accomplices, all the worms with him, belong in the same package. And that Rumsfeld and his dentures were equally guilty.

So, therefore, we have to, the key thing here, first of all, is to establish the principle of law. Do we think the Founders were right? Do we think the relevant law is correct, in saying that a high official of government who uses his influence improperly, fraudulently, to induce the government to go to war, is guilty of high crime and misdemeanors? Our first job is to make that point.

It's not to say, how do we get Cheney impeached. That's the way to go about getting Cheney impeached. In due process, it's how you go about due process, which is even more important than the process itself. Because people who care about Constitutional government, will always fight to preserve the integrity of the process of Constitutional government. Therefore, our first responsibility is not to say what would work, or might not work; that's not the point. Our first responsibility is to uphold the principle of Constitutional government.

 When we know, that an official of government has committed a fraud, tantamount to high crimes on the issue of the powers of war of the United States, we must speak. We must speak persistently; we must demand the enforcement of the law, and say the least that can happen to this poor, unfortunate is, he simply resigns, and we're so happy to get rid of him that we don't do anything more to him. Just git, git. That's what we did with Nixon. We said, "Nixon, git!" And he got. And this is much worse than anything that Nixon actually did, what Cheney did.

Therefore, our problem is not to say, is it going to work? That's Baby Boomer talk. Our problem is to say, what should we do? How should we act to preserve the Constitutional principle of government? And that's what I'm doing.

And I believe that acting according to principle will work, because in the political process, what is needed most of all is to get our people in the United States, back into thinking in terms of the principles of government; to act according to principles of government. To act according to principle, not expediency, not opportunism. Because when we win by fighting for principle, we win more than just the fight; we win government. The kind of government we want to leave to our posterity. And also, really, it's the best way to fight, the best way to win.

Freeman: When I spoke earlier of the LaRouche Youth Movement, I referenced the Presidential campaign of former Senator Eugene McCarthy. Senator McCarthy has sent a question in to the gathering, which I'd like Lyn to answer. He says, "First of all, Lyn, I'm really sorry I couldn't be with you, and with the Youth Movement today. I applaud your intention to expose and obliterate the DLC. I agree from experience, that the so-called neo-conservatives, these actually reactionary characters, were hiding out in the moist recesses of Scoop Jackson's office, hiding there like mushrooms, or a fungi. They were Dixiecrats, they were Republicans, and in fact, Scoop Jackson wanted nuclear war so much, I used to tell him he glowed. But, I really wonder, how can we save this Democratic Party? And I have to ask you, can this party be saved?"

LaRouche: I think it can be saved in only one way: because people are frightened enough of what's happening to us, that they will recall the similarity which I've emphasized today, as I have on other occasions: the similarity, despite the differences, the similarity between the crisis that threatens us today, and that which Franklin Roosevelt faced in the beginning of the 1930s.

When people are frightened enough to recognize the problem, they will look for a comparable part of past experience to look for a solution. The people in general will not care what the Democratic Party was before Franklin Roosevelt ran for President; they just won't care, and I don't blame them, because the Democrat Party before Roosevelt was the party of racism, and I don't want to think about that. It was a party of racism and some other things, all the way through from Andy Jackson on in.

But, what they'll think about is Franklin Roosevelt, because there was a time when the United States was a hero. The United States led the world out of the Great Depression, took the world through a war, took a broken nation, the United States, and made it the most powerful, productive force on this planet, and left to the rest of the world, or much of it, the post-war system which Franklin Roosevelt created, the Bretton Woods, which resulted in a great increase in wealth in other parts of the world; recovery in Europe; the growth of wealth in Central and South America, at least many parts of it; an improvement in many parts of the world as the result of what the United States represented during the period of that war.

That was a great period, and therefore, when I say Democratic Party, I mean Franklin Roosevelt, and his legacy. Not everything he did, not what he failed to do, but the fact that in our history as a nation, there came a time when the nation was in great danger, and the world was in great danger, and there came a man who ran for President, and won. He led the country out of a terrible depression, saved the world from Nazism, from Nazi conquest, and left a legacy which in the main part was of benefit to mankind, until people began to make a mess of it about 1964 with the launching of the Indo-China war.

Therefore, today, I tell people, you're in a similar situation. The Nazis are loose again; Cheney's only one of them, or maybe it's his wife, maybe he's just a dummy. But we face the same kind of problem, maybe worse. Therefore, what are you going to go by? Do you want an example from experience, a proven example that will work under today's conditions? Here it is. And Franklin Roosevelt is an example of what it's possible to do, that was proven in the past, that we can do now, to begin to get ourselves away from this hell, and get ourselves moving up again. And get better relations around the world.

Remember, and some of you aren't old enough to remember that, but you should remember the love that the United States attracted from around the world, especially from people in the so-called former colonial nations, who looked to the United States and Roosevelt, as an example of their hope for enjoying also economic progress, for enjoying freedom. And that was a great period; not perfect, there are many things I can criticize about it, but today, for starters, if you want to find an identity of the United States, that you would prefer to associate with, rather than what's happened in the past 40 years, you say, OK, let's call that the Democratic Party, or why not just call it the Franklin Roosevelt Party?

Freeman: Lyn, I have a question from Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, how much risk are you willing to take with the Israeli lobby? It is in fact the case that the Zionist lobby runs U.S. policy and government."

LaRouche: Well, I have a little more sophisticated view of that. The Israeli lobby is highly exaggerated. You mean gangsters? Organized crime? That's what people usually mean when they talk about the Israeli lobby; organized crime. Now, what happened is this.

 Let me just get this because this comes up. Brother McKinney has raised the question; let's get it out of the way.

What is the Zionist lobby? Well, it started with a guy called Zubatov, Colonel Zubatov, who was a special operative for the Okhrana, who lost his position as chief for the Okhrana operations, when he ran a 1905 revolution attempting to overthrow the Czar. And the Czar had him fired.

The Okhrana under him had a special mission of persecuting the Jews, especially the Jews. And the major target was the Bund, which is known in the United States, was known as the labor federation. And what he would do, he would capture people, Jews, and he would torture them, with police methods. And he would recruit them to become agents. Now among the agents he recruited were two; one is a very famous fellow called Helphand, later called Parvus, Alexander Parvus, who played a key role on the behalf of the Okhrana and other agencies, and also British intelligence. Another one was a guy called Jabotinsky, who was a friend of Parvus, and a collaborator of Parvus, who went to Paris and elsewhere, and so forth.

Now, in the immediate period after the formation of the Soviet Union, the Nazis, the fascists around Jabotinsky, that is, Jews who had been recruited by the Okhrana largely, who were fascists. And many of them tried to become Nazi Party members, like Jabotinsky himself, tried to get an alliance with Adolf Hitler, with the Nazi Party. Now, this movement concentrated itself in Poland; why?

In the aftermath of World War I, Poland was given its new freedom against Russia, under Pilsudski, and in there, under Pilsudski, who was a kind of fascist of that time, this group of Jews from Poland became the hardcore of a pro-fascist movement associated strictly with Jabotinsky. This became known at the Betar in France and Italy. It was an openly fascist movement in Italy, sponsored by Mussolini, with a large base in France. This group then went into Israel, and became a factor in Israel, which is known today as the Likud. Now the Likud has split into factions and so forth, but it's still the same thing.

Now, back inside the United States and Canada, we had organized crime. Organized crime is run by the British royal family, with names like Bronfman. So, organized crime was used largely, before World War I, was used largely for rackets, labor rackets. After World War I, it became a key part of Prohibition. So, the Prohibition-labor-rackets business, run by the British intelligence service, through the British monarchy, out of Canada, into the United States, became known as what is now called the Zionist Lobby. And the same thing was spread into Australia, where a similar phenomenon, rackets and drugs and so forth, were run.

So therefore, you have a right-wing group of pro-fascist to fascist interests, which is called largely the Israeli Lobby in the United States. This obscures the fact of the traditions of Judaism, such as the traditions of Moses to Moses to Moses. From Moses to Moses Maimonides, to Moses Mendelssohn, which is a typical Jew. Or the Jew of the Polish Renaissance. The largest single Jewish immigration into the United States came from Poland, from Russia, from the Jewish liberation movement, the Jewish Renaissance. Most of the people who played a key part, for example, in the civil rights movement, came out of that faction of Judaism. You have even among Zionists, you have the people of Ben-Gurion, who were rough thugs in many respects, but they had certain moral values, and the transition from an Israel controlled by Labor Zionists, with the pro-peace traditional Jewish view in it, to the takeover by the right-wing thugs controlled from New York, by gangster money of labor racketeers, or things like the Social Democrats of America, who are fascists in fact, the hardcore of the neo-con group, this crowd.

So, yes, we do have something which is called the Zionist Lobby, which is a bunch of fascist thugs in the United States, but I get, my stomach turns when this is equated to ‘Jew.' I get upset, because these are not Jews. Everyone has, everybody from every part of the world, has their thugs; everyone. And when you want to talk about these guys, it's them.

Now, the role of the Zionist Lobby is what? What is the role of Israel under Sharon in the Middle East? Or Netanyahu, or Shamir earlier? What is the role of Israel? Israel is a hand grenade being thrown at the Arab world. It's a nuclear hand grenade. The Third World's third nuclear power; a nuclear hand grenade, thrown against the Arab world. What happens to a hand grenade when it's thrown? What's its future? So, therefore, you're looking at an instrument of something. This goes back, there's a long history of this kind of thing, of the use of Jews and other minority groups as captives, or recruiting for this kind of role. And that's what it is.

The key issue here is, is the United States, which is the one power which could sit on, and step on, the Likud right wing; will the United States, which allowed this country to have nuclear weapons, and helped it to have nuclear weapons, will it step on this crowd, and say, "No more, you're committing crimes against humanity. You stop this now."

So, therefore, the problem is not the Zionist Lobby. The problem is the United States. We are the only nation on this planet, the only government on this planet, that has the power to step on Sharon, and make it stick. We have to do it. My major concern is to get this poor President, poor schmo, to get him to carry out his commitment to Middle East peace now, by stepping, using the power of the United States to convince Sharon he's got to stop it. And in the meantime, to recognize, that what is called the Zionist Lobby in the Democratic Party, is nothing but these fascists and gangster.

And the problem is, people don't say that. They won't say that Michael Steinhardt is a son of a member of organized crime. He made his money, his father gave him the money. That organized crime is a key factor in the Democratic Leadership Council. That organized crime is a key factor controlling the Democratic National Committee. It's not that they have such power; it's the fact that Democrats won't stand up and say, we're not going to put up with it anymore. We're going to count people on the basis of what they are.

So, when people complain about the Z-lobby, I say, I understand what you're talking about, but the way it's usually discussed is a mistake. First of all, you take in too many people, and accuse too many people implicitly of being part of it, which is unfair; it's wrong. Secondly, the problem is, you guys haven't got the guts -- I'm not talking about our friend McKinney, he certainly fights hard enough -- but Democrats as a whole, haven't got the guts to take this thing on and say, it's wrong. That organized crime is wrong. Everyone's talking about cleaning up crime. Why not clean up organized crime? It's wrong; get rid of it. Then you won't have a Zionist Lobby.

Freeman: Lyn, I have a question for you from Sen. Joe Neal: Lyn, many states are having special sessions right now to fund the simple operations in their states. At last count, we have up to 16 states who are currently in special session. In your judgment, what's happening? And why do we have so many states, at the same time, with apparently the same problem?

LaRouche: Well, you look at things the way I look at it. Look at the state budget, as a total state budget, not just a state budget, but the total income of the state. Look at it from a physical standpoint, first, rather than money first. And say, on the basis of assigning prices to the physical shares of income and expenses of that state, can you find a way to tax enough to pay the bills, without lowering the income of the state, so that you were defeating your own purpose?

So now you're in a situation where you can not possibly balance the budget of these states. It can't be done. And I think probably, about 46 to 47 of the states are actually in that condition. Take the case of California: It's way beyond that. And that's one of the largest states in the Union.

So, what does it amount to? How do you deal with it? There's only one way to deal with it. The Federal government has the power to create credit. No other agency in the United States has the legal, constitutional power to create credit; that is, you can not manufacture credit, except by the consent of Congress, through the Executive. It cannot be done.

Therefore, what is needed, is a Federal funding, which would then-- the states would participate in for infrastructure projects, just like the European Investment Bank that I mentioned today, earlier. A special fund outside the regular budget, which is a source of funding, for infrastructure projects: water projects, transportation projects, things of that sort, which are long term--15, 25-year investments. Which will create employment; which will create production. So the trick here is to increase the total employment level, to the level that the income of the population is now able to pay the bills of the state.

So what people are doing: They're going into these sessions. They're faced with an impossible situation, as California situation is an impossible situation -- believe me, the would-be governor of California -- Superman -- will not solve the problem that's around Gray Davis's neck! He may think he's Superman, but he's on a high! He can't do it. He may be a good weight-lifter, but he's not a good accountant.

They can't do it without Federal intervention. That's our problem. What Roosevelt did. We could create, with the Federal government. We could do what Roosevelt did with reforming the Reconstruction Finance Corporation but it will require Federal credit, Federal backing to do it. We can get the money out; we can make an allocation--one Federal bill would do it. One Federal bill on financing by listing the types of projects, which are either Federal projects, or state projects. And what the Federal government can deal with essentially,is Federal projects or state projects. The Federal government can not officially deal with municipal projects. It's too remote. But they can deal through the state, with a statewide project -the financing, credit, security, for say, a 25-year period. Water projects--look, we've got the whole NAWAPA scheme, from the Arctic Ocean, down between the--in the upper plateau, between the two Sierra Madres, and northern Mexico. This is one big area of project: the whole section of the Western states can all go in one thing.

California needs water projects. The land is sinking because the aquifers are being drained, and it won't work any more. They need the projects.

We need a power distribution, power-generation and distribution, throughout the country. We've lost it! California's crisis was largely caused by this Enron operation, and similar kinds of operations. That's what rose the debt so big. Therefore, we need to rebuild our transportation system; we need to rebuild our power generation and distribution system; we need to expand our water management, our water projects. We need, we have a loss of hospitals, hospital care in the United States. We need to put the system back in place; we need to repeal the HMO bill; go back to Hill-Burton; get the thing working again. We have plenty of things to spend on, from the Federal government, which are sound investments, over a 25-year period. The Federal government can create the credit. We can create the employment; we can give out the contracts; we can stimulate growth, so the total income of the states is above the break-even point. At that point the problem is solvable.

What we see now, is states are simply begging, desperately saying, "We've got to do something." And most of the projects that I've seen that they list, are projects which, by type, are legitimate projects. But there's no funding agency to get the funds in place, on the long term, to do the job. Therefore, it's a Federal government responsibility. And it would take one thing; one good imitation of what Roosevelt did with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, with a mission orientation, and Federal legislation behind it: I think a five-page piece of legislation, through the Congress, signed by the President, would be enough to get the job done.

Freeman: Lyn, I have a related question that was submitted by Clarence Murray from the Virginia Democratic Party: Mr. LaRouche, the questions and responses that I've heard, seem most focussed on very sophisticated international banking and financial policies and practices, many of which have historic roots in Europe, and have been adopted by the United States leadership. Well, my question is this: If you were speaking to an American audience, in middle America, say Iowa farmers, how would you describe your first 30 days in the office of the U.S. President? Please explain to us, in country-simple terms, what your top three agenda items would be, to give Americans an understanding of what they can expect from a LaRouche Administration.

LaRouche: I tell you, the smartest people in the country, when it comes to practical economics, are the typical American farmers, the most sophisticated, and machine-tool operators, and certain classes of construction contractors. These guys know how to break the cookie, or how the cookie crumbles. So, don't talk about being unsophisticated with farmers! They're very sophisticated.

You just have to think of what goes into agriculture. You see, the outsider, who doesn't know farming, doesn't know modern American agriculture, thinks that this is simple. They don't know what goes into running a modern farm, say a 200-400-acre farm of modern technology, or several-thousand-acre ranch operation, a full-tilt ranching operation. Do you know how much steel it takes to run a farm these days--just to pump water, to distribute it? Power? All the things that go into farming? This guy, this farmer--you want to talk about economics? Don't get simplistic with him. That's only when he's drunk! When he's dead serious, this man knows how to think about economy in physical terms, and he's the one who's done it in the past.

The problem is, these guys who understood how to do it, have been put out of business, to a large degree, in the United States today.

So, I don't have any problem with them; nor with a machine-tool specialist, nor with a smart contractor, a really high-performance contractor. They know what they're doing. All I have to say to them, is, lay out the project, lay out the program, lay out what I intend to do, they'll understand, what they want to hear from me, really, is, what's my commitment, what"s the term of my commitment--because they're going to think in terms of investment terms: How many years?

For example, a farmer's going to look at you: "Well, what kind of crop program can I have? How many years?" "Who's gonna protect the prices? Who's going to protect the costs?" He's going to raise all these questions, and he's going to want detailed answers on this kind of question. People who've dealt with these people in legislatures know what this is. They know how they talk. And the problem is, we have not had the serious intention of talking to these guys, the way we used to, say, before the middle-1960s. We don't talk that way any more. Especially since the middle-1970s. We don't care! This country doesn't care about our farmers. We think we've got too many of them.

Take one example of this, a very simple one: Mexico. The United States cut a water deal with Mexico, on Rio Grande water. We shipped the jobs, the agriculture jobs, out of the United States, into northern Mexico, into the maquiladoras area. So now Mexicans, cheap labor, grow food, which is put back into the United States, to supply food to us in the United States, more cheaply than we can get it from the United States. Now we're sending a bill to Mexico for the water which they use, to produce our food more cheaply for us than we could produce it ourselves. This is the kind of lunacy we're living in now.

So, I don't think there's any problem with the farmer. I think people underestimate, they underestimate the intelligence of people who know how to farm, who know how to produce. The problem we have, is not with farmers, it's not with skilled industrial operatives. The problem we have is with all these Baby Boomers, these white-collar workers, who think in yearly terms; who don't think in five-year terms; who don't think in six-year terms. They don't understand what capital is, what productive capital is. They think of a quick return on investment in the short term.

And my biggest problem in politics, in dealing with people in politics, is the Baby Boomers. They don't understand what production is! Because we went from being formerly the world's leading producer society--the highest rate of production of any nation on this planet--in agriculture and other things, as well. We went into a consumer society. We turned against production! We shut down everything that had to do with production. We're now a predatory consumer society, which depends for our existence on things which are imported cheaply, from cheap-labor markets abroad. And we don't even pay for them, as our current account deficit shows.

So the problem is: Most Americans think in terms of so-called service industries. They think about playing with a computer. They don't think about a physical product. They don't understand what a physical product is. My problem is not the farmers. My problem is not the producers. My problem is to convince the Baby Boomers, and others who are oriented to service industries, not productive industries, to understand what production is. That's our problem.

Freeman: I'd like to actually announce today, something that we're very pleased to have been able to accomplish. Really, since the last Presidential campaign, when Mr. LaRouche's webpage was set up, we have always provided Spanish language translations of most of Mr. LaRouche's major statements. But now, we are very happy to be able to announce that we do have a full Spanish-language website. The address of that site is www.larouchein2004.com/spanish and we'd like to invite our Spanish speakers to utilize that site.

I also should say, that after the sixth time that Lyn attacked Baby Boomers, I'm not stupid, and I think it's time to actually start entertaining at least a few questions from the LaRouche Youth Movement.

Lyn, we have one question that was submitted from Los Angeles, and then a related question that was asked by Heather Detwiller from Philadelphia who is here. I'll ask them together, because we have so many questions, I think we have to start coupling them.

From the West Coast, Brendan says, "Hi, Lyn. This is Brendan. I'm a member of your third team, the Youth Movement. We here in Los Angeles, and really throughout the United States, have a very good sense of what our mission is, and we want our country back. My question is the following: You said many times that the current crisis can only be avoided and addressed with a movement from within the United States. What role does the international youth movement play within the current political situation, given this context, and what's our special role here in America in relationship to our friends overseas? P.S. The weather in LA is wonderful, it's a good time for a visit.

Heather says, similarly, I think, with a sense of knowing what the mission of the Youth Movement is right now, she says, Lyn, you've talked about putting together your government. My question is, what's the role of the youth movement after you win the White House?

LaRouche:  Let me take them in reverse order, because the answers follow better and more quickly in that order. First of all, the youth movement -- I don't think all of you know what it is. The Youth Movement is based on a group of people, largely, 18-25 years of age, which means that they are emotionally adults, young adults, not adolescents. It means they are of university age, and by being under 27, they have not yet gone brain-dead.

This is a very significant phenomena, because the youth movement is based on a certain kind of educational program, and in our university life today-- there is a famous fellow Kubie, I referred to back years ago, who did a study of this, and it's my experience also in management consulting, and so forth, where I did similar studies. There's a tendency in the United States for people in their last years of university life, or professional life, or slightly afterward, to go brain dead. That is, they continue to mouth what they've been trained in, and add new techniques to what they know, but their creativity is finished. They no longer really make profound discoveries. Kubie referred to this as "the neurotic distortion of the creative process," and it hits scientific productivity, especially. If people are not creative by the time they're 27, 28, they'll never make it, scientifically, typically.

Now, the educational program I've worked on with the youth, is based on principles of what I know to this effect, and therefore I started with a particular work by Carl Gauss, which has pregnant implications for education; with the idea that with their engaging largely in self-education, like a university on wheels, in this way, they would develop, more rapidly, intellectual powers far superior to typical guy in university today. It worked. And don't worry. The Democratic Party's all upset about it, because these hacks find that our youth, who've just come into politics for, within two years, say, or more recently, are more intelligent than the Democratic Party officials, on practically any subject.

So, what I'm trying to do, is not only to have a youth movement, but it has a purpose. I'm trying to revive the United States, and revive the world. I'm trying to reverse the Baby Boomer syndrome, of the decadence which took over the population of the United States, especially from 1964 until the recent time. Because we don't have, as you see with the leadership of industry, politics, and so forth today, these guys-we have to work with them, but I'm telling you, relative to my generation, they aren't there. They're stumblebums when it comes to managing things. And most of you who are older know it. They're not worth much. Sometimes they try to do well, but they simply don't have the ability to judge a situation effectively, to provide good leadership.

What I'm concerned about is the future leadership of the United States. People who are now in the 18-25 age group, ten years from now will be the new leaders, the new layer of leadership in the United States and other parts of the world. And therefore what we're dealing with here, we're dealing with a process of regenerating the people of the United States, regenerating the political process again, by putting some new blood into it. Because these young people, if they continue to do what they're doing, will be sharp. They will be the new leadership of the United States. They're not going to take the other people and put them into a concentration camp, or something, or retirement home or something, but they will be the new vitality. They will be the people who will take responsibility for leadership.

For example, look in the Congress, or the state legislatures today. You look at the aides of the Congressmen. How old are the congressmen's aides, typically? How old are the legislative aides? They're under 25, under 27. So that's the generation which is the normal political future, of the Democratic Party in particular. And my concern is to create, or have them create themselves, the new leadership which the political process needs. Not only in politics, but also in other spheres. Some of them are gifted as potential future scientists. I'm very pleased with that. So, this is a movement to regenerate the people of the United States, to get back to becoming good again.

Freeman: One of the members of the youth movement has a question about what's wrong with rock and roll, which I'll let you answer later, but I can tell you one thing wrong with it, which is that it was invented by a Baby Boomer.

We have a question from Peru, which I think is an important one, and relates to some of what you've been discussing. It also relates to a number of questions that we have gotten in from Democrats around the United States. It says, "Mr. LaRouche, recently a big debate has begun about the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Former Peruvian President Alan Garcia has just published a book calling for a return to the policies of FDR. However, Garcia incorrectly asserts that the New Deal policies were Keynesian policies, and this confusion of identifying FDR with John Maynard Keynes is also being presented in both Brazil and in Argentina. I'd really like you to explain, in whatever detail you decide, the difference between FDR's recovery policies, and those of Keynes."

LaRouche: This shows that he's not really an American, not a Western Hemisphere man. I know Alan Garcia.

The problem is this. The United States was the first nation to create a sound form of government, a modern government. That is, in our system, the power to create debt and to create money resides in the federal government. This is a power that is exercised by the Executive branch, with the consent of the Legislative branch. This applies to every aspect of our financial system. Therefore, our system is one of national banking. Now, the Federal Reserve system is national bunking, and not national banking. But nonetheless, our constitutional system is national banking. That is, the Federal Treasury creates credit under constitutional authority. It works together with national banking, to handle the way in which the money running through the United States, or emitted from it, is all organized and controlled. It regulates, with the Treasury, the private banking system. So the government is now responsible for credit.

In Europe, this is not the case, except for a few exceptions here and there where national banking was tried. Europe has never become civilized on this question. Europe has inherited to the present day, the Venetian system of banking, under which there were certain reforms in feudalism which took the old monarchical system -- the monarchy, which was the state authority, which was a permanent apparatus of government, was one department; the other was a parliamentary system, which was a reform, a democratization, in part, of simply the old feudal parliament. The third arm of government i an independent central banking system, which is controlled by private bankers, by a syndicate of private bankers. Called a central banking system.

Now, the European system is based on central banking. Under the U.S. system, which is Roosevelt's conception, even though he compromised with the Federal Reserve System, as an instrument of doing it, under the U.S. system of national banking, the source of national credit, the generator of national credit, is the federal government. We operate on the basis of the principle of national banking. We create our own credit. Whereas in a European country, the central banking system has independent authority, with some influence by the government, but nonetheless has independent authority, to create credit. Therefore, in a central banking system, such as that under the Bank of England, the generation of credit occurs by a so-called Keynesian multiplier factor, which is the Keynesian system.

The American System has nothing to do with that. And when Roosevelt designed the Bretton Woods System, or it was designed under his direction, it was designed on the basis of national banking. It applied the principles of national banking to the creation of a fixed exchange rate, gold reserve-denominated international monetary system, which had nothing to do with Keynesianism.

What happens is, those who are educated in the so-called liberal tradition of Europe, or its importation here, who think like Venetian bankers, think that the multiplier system -- they'll often describe the Federal Reserve System that way, and try to make it look that way. A Keynesian multiplier factor. Six to one, ten to one, etc., is the way the Venetians generate credit. Well, we see what the result is, with Alan Greenspan's discount rate! We're generating monetary aggregate at a rate faster than space can expand. It's insane. The multiplier factor has gone into its cancerous extreme, whereas under our system, the responsibility is for the Federal government, through national banking or related practices, to control the relationship between credit, currency, and value. In other words, what we call a hard dollar system, under which money is always worth more; the longer you keep it, because of technological progress in the economy as such.

And that's the function of the system, and that's where the problem is.

In these countries the influence from Europe and from the soft-headed, squishy-headed people in universities in the States, they get this mis-education and they go by and it's like a guy who says, "I went to a house of prostitution and I learned how to make syphilis and I'm going to show you how to do it, too."

Councilman O. Mays from Cleveland: It's been so long, I almost forgot my question.

First of all, I would like to felicitate you, Mr. LaRouche, especially for involving the youth into your candidacy. You're wise for doing so.

My question is, I would like for you to articulate -- and you hit on it briefly during some of your answering some of the questions -- with regard to constitutional rights, in reference to 9-11, whereas now, we are under these restraints, and all under this guise of terrorism. I know you alluded earlier to the fact that sometimes, it takes fear to get people to do some things, or to respond, but this fear, the delusion that we are under in reference to terrorism and our vulnerability, could you address that from a Constitutional rights, that has infringed upon our constitutional rights, our mobility in this country? Also, the second question, because I know I won't get this chance again: please elucidate a little further in reference to the war and reference to mass destruction that led us there.

LaRouche: First of all, this mass destruction is a hoax. What nation has the greatest power of mass destruction on the planet today? The United States. What are we doing about it? Did you see the new weapon that was announced,? How many tons, 22 tons, or whatever? And the use of mini-nukes, which is policy?

The policy of the United States under Cheney, is to use nuclear weapons against nations which have no nuclear weapons. The policy is simply, terror. Russell stated it. The doctrine of preventive war, which Cheney and company have introduced, was introduced first by Bertrand Russell, in concert with H.G. Wells. This was the adopted policy of the Rand Corporation and the Utopians at the end of the war. This is why the bombs were dropped on Japan. There was no military reason for dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Eisenhower said it was stupid, and told them so. McArthur said it was unnecessary, without even being asked about it. There was never a reason for dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was done for terror. To terrify the world into submission. The proponent of the policy was Bertrand Russell, the so-called pacifist. If you kill everybody, I guess they're peaceful.

This whole "weapons of mass destruction" -- it's crap. All it is, is a pretext for killing anybody you want to kill, and using nuclear weapons against them. That's all. It's a Utopian policy. It's part of the revolution in military affairs. Of Gore, Al Gore? Remember, Al Gore was in on this in the 1970s, along with Newt Gingrich and Al Toffler, who were sponsored by the Utopian faction in the US defense establishment. Neo-cons, all. There were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance. There was no reason to go to a war against Iraq. They wanted to go to a war against Iraq, not just against Iraq. They wanted a war policy to bring about an empire, a fascist world empire, under conditions of financial crisis. As I said, this is pure Nazism!

Now, on Constitutional rights, there is no reason for what Ashcroft has done. Your can try to find a reason why normal jurisprudence should not apply to any case. Why shouldn't prisoners have rights to attorneys? Rights are being taken away. You --in the name of "oh yeah, we got war, we got terrorism, gotta fight against terrorism" -- we've got to go into concentration camps? Who's next? We've terrified the Arab population of the United States. We've terrified sections of the Islamic population in the United States. We're terrifying everybody. Nobody knows who's going to be next. You've got yellow alert, green alert, pink alert, blue alert, and it's idiotic.

As I said at a webcast, earlier this past year, this policy of homeland defense is a cock-up. What they've done is they've stripped down law enforcement. Now, some of you are involved in government, and because you're in government, you know something about law enforcement. The first line of defense against terrorism, is ordinary law enforcement.

For example, if you want to do dirties in some area, you've got to find a niche you can operate through. Now, if you've got a bunch of drug dealers in your neighborhood, they are criminals, and they will become a niche you can use for something. What happened with George Bush, Sr. in terms of the Middle East? They used Iran-Contra, using drug operations to run terrorist operations. So, the first thing you need is, you need normal security. The normal cop, the normal law enforcement person, on the beat or on duty, is the guy who's simply looking at what is normal, and what is abnormal. By that kind of differentiation is your first line of defense against terrorism. If someone wants to do dirty, find the dirty guy in the neighborhood, and work with him. He's the way you can do it.

So, all of this is unnecessary, we've accomplished nothing. First of all, it wasn't done by outsiders anyway, it was done by insiders. Sept. 11. It was done by insiders. Just think! Think! See, this is a great problem. Somebody said, "Oh, gee, it had to be from abroad, it had to be Osama bin-Laden." I said at the time it happened, I hope some idiot doesn't try to blame Osama bin-Laden for this. And some idiot did. He's called the President of the United States.

Look, you have four planes involved, three of which actually hit targets. Now look at the record. What was the behavior of those planes? Do you think somebody took over and piloted those planes to do that? Uh-uh. How about automatic pilot directing? All you have to do is knock the pilots out who are in there, and let the automatic control process go on.

What happened? First of all, you have the first plane goes into the tower. The second plane's in the air. The third is going to come into the air. When the first plane makes the turn to go into the tower the first time, and hits, then at that point the second plane makes a turn to make the second attack on the tower. Coordination. The same thing happens to the third plane, the one that went into the Pentagon. It made its turn, under control, to go into the Pentagon.

What does that tell you? The pilots of the planes are doing this? No. It's a coordinated operation. Probably took a year and a half to two years to set it up. Someone had to know that it would work, because certain elements of the security apparatus of the United States should have been in place, which would have prevented that from happening in all three cases. They weren't there. The security wasn't there. Somebody had to know the security wouldn't be there.

It was an inside job. It was a Reichstag Fire, to allow Dick Cheney to put his program through which otherwise would never have happened. So then, when you talk about constitutional rights, you have to talk about the Congress and the others, all of whom had these questions. There was never an investigation of this. There was never an investigative determination of the probable cause, or the probable circumstances. Some liar from the Justice Department said, we have the Arabs. Half of these guys weren't even there, that they named. We have the proof. We have the proof it's Osama bin-Laden. There was never any proof submitted And the only thing Osama bin-Laden had been an American agent!

So the problem on constitutional rights is that we, the American people, sat back, with clear indications that somebody had conspired to do a dirty to the United States, for the purpose of getting Cheney's operation in place, which he'd been trying to get in place since when? Since 1991. All that happened was what Cheney had said he intended to do in 1991, and Scowcroft and President Bush then said ‘no.' Suddenly, on Sept. 11, 2023, they said ‘yes.' And then you turn around, and suddenly you have this Ashcroft--

Now, you look back another step. Who is Ashcroft? Is he a neo-con too? Absolutely. The Crisco Kid. Another neo-con.

So, what you have is a fascist, which I warned about before he was confirmed. He was nominated for Attorney General, and I warned, "You must not let this man have that position. You're in danger of having a fascist take over the United States." And they put the guy in. Al Gore organized the defense of Ashcroft against people who were going to protest against it. There was no protest against it. Al Gore organized, as Vice-President, the outgoing Vice-president, organized it. So, therefore, the whole issue here is, that there was a deliberate intent to establish a fascist dictatorship in the United States. It's still in progress, and if we want to survive, we're going to get rid of it.

Freeman: A number of the members of the youth movement have submitted a very similar question, which I'll read one of them, which generally characterizes it: This question is from Brad McCoy, who is originally from West Virginia and organizing in Baltimore right now. He says, "Lyn, I'd like to know, if we actually do achieve the Landbridge policy, what comes next, or what comes after for the U.S. economy? How do we deal with the people in the U.S. right now, who have no homes or who have been in jail, and are completely unemployable? What about those people? I know you're about the people, but please tell me what you think, because they seem to be otherwise ignored."

LaRouche: I've got a couple of programs, one of which is  -- like Charlie Rangel, I'm going to bring the draft back. Selective service, bring it back.

About this employment question, what do we have? Now look, I was training troops, inductees, for a time during World War II. And we were scraping people up from the back alleys and the bushes, where we didn't even know there were bushes, and putting them into sixteen weeks. And as I've said many times, when they're lined up on the company street, I'd try to line them up -- a platoon-worth of these guys, inductees -- and I would think to myself, "We've just lost the war."

But what happened is we didn't lose the war. We took people from destitute conditions, who we were scraping out of the streets of a poverty-stricken America, and we turned them into an effective force, who not only did their job in the war -- they weren't too skilled, but they did their job. And afterward , they fit into society as a more-or-less normal part of society, as functioning citizens. We actually upgraded the quality of the population, through this aspect of the war.

Now, we have now a lot of people we've destroyed, or semi-destroyed, uneducated and so forth. What do we have to offer these guys quickly, quickly? Well, we had the CCC back during the 1930s. We had the military at a later point. Obviously, there are major projects, whose characteristic is essentially engineering, civil and other engineering, which are required for large-scale projects throughout the United States. We can, in a sense, by having that kind of program, as we did with the CCC, as we did also in a sense with the military, with selective service, we can assimilate a lot of people under the name of selective service, or volunteer programs, like a Peace Corps-type of program. We could assimilate a lot of people into that, who otherwise are not generally employable. We can organize people to provide the special circumstances which they require, to adapt to a track to a future.

We can also review, through the court system, we can review many of the cases of people who were convicted and imprisoned. We can, in a sense, set up a way of rehabilitating their status in society. And we're going to have to do it.

So, therefore, we need a program, which is going to take a large section of the unemployed, especially young unemployed, or people under 40; we're going to have to assimilate them into large-scale programs, engineering programs, and use them not only for engineering, but for upgrading, for qualifying them for an upgraded place in the normal course of life. We don't know how many, or how large a part of the present population fits in that category of people who need that kind of opportunity. We know it's very large. We're talking probably about 5-10 million people in the United States, at least, who desperately need that kind of opportunity, so let's provide it for them. It's not really going to cost us anything. It's going to cost us something if we don't. So we're going to do it. Therefore, let's get the programs going, but let's get them going under sane conditions, and therefore, what I would tend to do...

You see, the long-term function of the military -- we shouldn't be thinking about wars. There's no reason for us to have wars. We might be forced into some military action. All right, we're going to have a strategic defense capability, par none. But,  the function of a military under strategic defense is that laid down essentially by Lazare Carnot, who was the author, essentially, of modern strategic defense, with his 1792-1794 defense of France. And then, secondly, in a sense his follower Gerhard Scharnhorst in Germany, with the Landwehr program, that we can use engineering programs, of the type which are relevant to logistics in warfare. We can use those programs for civil work, as we used to, with the Civil Corps of Engineers.

Take the case right now in Iraq. We have a few Corps of Engineers people in Iraq. What are they doing with them? Traffic cops! Here you're occupying a country, The place is falling apart. We're not fighting people in a war, as a result of an invasion. No, the invasion's over. We did the invasion. Now, we're making a new issue. It's not the invasion that's now the issue. It's the continued occupation which is the issue. And now they're shooting back because of the occupation.

Why? Because we're not doing our job. We're not taking care of them. When you're in charge of somebody, you control their lives, and you're not taking care of them. They say, what good are you? Let's get you out of here. We don't like you anyway. So therefore, what we needed was a Corps of Engineers capability to fix things that are broken. To get the Iraqis to organize themselves to fix things that were broken. To get the water working, to get the power working, to get things functioning that have to function. And to get the country functioning on its own feet. We're not doing that.

So, therefore, this kind of capability in the military, and in something like a CCC, or some kind of a civil engineering program, which is educational as well as work, that kind of thing, is what we've got to go for with this. Otherwise, we have plenty of things beyond the Landbridge. The Landbridge will give us working, in the United States, will keep us going for fifty years. So fifty years from now, ask me the question, if I'm still around.

Freeman: This is a question that came up in terms of remarks that you made regarding the alliance between Winston Churchill and FDR. It was raised actually shortly after your speech in New York City on Sunday, and was submitted again when you referenced it in today's presentation. It's actually from a former member of the Clinton Administration.

He says, "In NYC, you said that Churchill approached FDR for help in countering the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in Europe, and that it was in fact that approach that led to an alliance between these two men to fight WWII. We face a different situation today. The situation today is not that these forces are operating in Europe, but that they're operating here in the United States, and that seems to me to create a very different situation. Could you please comment on this a little bit more, both from the standpoint of FDR and Churchill, and from the standpoint of the shift in the situation we face today?"

LaRouche: Well, really, it's the same. The point is, what happened is then... There are two aspects to this thing, from military policy. First of all, the initial intent of those in Britain who were associated with King Edward VIII, who was sort of one of the pigs in the question. And one of the reason that Edward VIII resigned, had nothing to do with Wallace Windsor; it had to do with the fact that he was too close to Hitler. and the British needed the help of the United States, and the United States Jewish community was not too happy with Adolf Hitler at the time. Others were not too happy with Adolf Hitler. Bernard Baruch was a key figure in this operation. Remember Baruch was the guy who bailed out Winston Churchill. Winston Churchill went bankrupt in 1929, and Baruch bailed him out. And Baruch was very key in the relationship, later, between Roosevelt and Churchill.

But in any case, so... Initially, the intent was to have, if a war was fought in Europe, to have the United States excluded from that war. So therefore, the British and others organized the peace movement in the United States against war, for that reason. Because the conclusion was in Europe, that if a war broke out in Europe, say, between Britain and France on the one side, and Germany, and the United States were drawn in, the United States would dominate the world at the end of the war. So therefore, the initial intent was, the United States to be kept out of the war, and let whoever predominated in Europe, take over Eurasia as a base, and then challenge the power of the United States, because the objective was, to bring down the power of the United States, in that form that existed then.

When they found out what was happening, the shift occurred when Halifax and company in Britain, and Edward VII and the whole group, like a guy I once knew, Kenneth DeCourcy, now dead, was part of this; they cut a deal with the Synarchists, with Goering and others, through Banque Wurms, they cut a deal with the Vichy French, also the French opposition to Vichy, and with British circles, to unite Germany, France, and Britain, together with Italy and Spain, as a united force against Russia, and against the United States.

Churchill disagreed with this, and in the process, went the other way and appealed to the United States, for various reasons.

The alliance between Roosevelt and Churchill was a very difficult one. For example, I give the case of Egypt. The British were about to win the war against Rommel in Egypt. Oh, Churchill couldn't have that! He didn't want the war over too soon. So therefore, he put in Montgomery, an incompetent. Montgomery stopped the attack on Rommel, who would have been defeated and routed immediately if the attack had come. So The attack was held off while this stupid Montgomery lined up everything that looked like artillery from El Alamein to the Qatara Depression, and just a few roadways in between. And when he had that thing packed with everything, including anti-aircraft rifles as artillery, lined up, boom! everybody shot at once and Rommel git, right then, gone!

Again, in Normandy, the conclusion of the war was postponed for probably six months because of what Montgomery did. So, Churchill was playing a game against Roosevelt and company, at the same time he was an ally. So it was a very difficult alliance. It was an alliance based on considerations, larger, higher considerations. It was not really a buddy-buddy kind of relationship.

And the key thing are the synarchists. The synarchists are the same. Lazard Bros. in France was part of the Nazi operation during WWII. Lazard Bros in New York today is related to the operation inside the United States. Same kind of thing. Mundell, etc., etc., all the same kind of crap.

So therefore, the enemy is the same. The difference is that in the post-war period, these guys immediately, because of U.S. supremacy at the end of WWII, moved in with Bertrand Russell and HG Wells, to take over the United States, which they did through RAND Corporation and similar operations which are called the preventive war freaks. Truman was practically a fascist! People think Truman was a great Democrat. Eisenhower saved the United States from Trumanism! Truman represented the problem.

What do you think happened, 1945-46, after Roosevelt died, until Eisenhower got in. Truman brought in the right-wing. Truman brought in terror into the United States. Truman turned J. Edgar Hoover loose. Truman created McCarthy. Who got rid of it? Eisenhower. So things are not always quite what they seem.

So, they took over the United States. Once Eisenhower was gone -- Eisenhower said very clearly, in his own language, he called it the "military-industrial complex." Eisenhower fought that. Eisenhower was a military traditionalist, as McArthur was. These represented the American military tradition. They were opposed to Truman. They were opposed to this guy That's why Truman got rid of McArthur. It was a fight between the funny funny guys, the pro-Nazi types today, and the traditionalists. The traditionalists didn't believe in killing! Yes, they shoot. McArthur fought some hard battles. But the American military does not believe the purpose of war is killing. The purpose of war is winning peace! The purpose of war-fighting is strategic defense, to defend the nation in ways which will lead to peace, and to avoidance of war.

Look at what McArthur did, for example. Look at the case of the Pacific war, the most efficient war imaginable. Yes, there were hard fights in a couple of locations. The Navy did go for Iwo Jima and other unnecessary battles, because they wanted the stripes, and they wasted a lot of Marines in the process. But McArthur said, we take the territory, we control the logistics. We have the power, the logistical power. They can't move, why go in and fight them? They're sitting on those islands, they're not going to anyplace. We control the territory.

How did we win the war against Japan? By shooting Japanese? No. Yeah, there was a lot of shooting, but that was not how we won the war. We won the war by a naval and aerial blockade which was effective, which brought Japan economically to its knees. And that's the way we fight wars. We lose a total effect, of total economy, to try to achieve the necessary effect with the great economy of loss of life, to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible, and to make the former enemy a partner, through the effort of peace. That was U.S. policy. Eisenhower represented that tradition, whatever vacillation he had, and he was tied to Bernie Baruch also.

So, when Eisenhower's gone, what do you have? You had the Bay of Pigs, an operation by the funny, funny boys. You had the Missile Crisis of 1962. You had a whole series of things. You had the 1963, the assassination of Kennedy, other things like that. Johnson was terrified, and you had the starting of the Vietnam War at the end of 1964, and from there on, it's been all downhill, with a few - Clinton did a good job in postponing hell. He didn't exactly get rid of it, but he postponed it a little bit, for which people may be grateful to him, today.

So, this is the situation. The situation has shifted. But the problem is still the same. There's no difference between now and then, in one sense. The problem is, the objective of the United States, from the beginning, at least in the mind of people who understood what we were doing, was to build in this nation a republic, a true republic, which when it was created, was the only one in the world. The purpose of this republic, in the minds of Europeans and the minds of our leaders here, the Europeans who helped us create this republic, was to create a model for similar republics throughout the world, especially throughout Europe. It didn't work, because of what happened in France in 1789 and thereafter. But the purpose was to create nation states, which were republics, based on the same kind of principle that our nation is based on. And to bring about a world which is free of the old types of problems, a world, a fraternity, a community of sovereign nation-states, which would work out common principles and common objectives, and solve common problems. That was our objective.

This should still be our objective today. What I have now in my hands, in the world, in India, in China, in South Korea, in the Arab world, where people are looking to me to help get them out of the mess -- in the Islamic world, or Turkey, where they wanted me to help get them out of the mess, when I was just there. In Europe, where key figures in Europe are counting upon me as a U.S. candidate here, to somehow be the lever that brings the United States into cooperation with them, for this kind of cooperation among sovereign nation-states.

That's our purpose. The purpose is not to play a game, to win a game. Our purpose should be, as it always was and should be, our purpose should be to create a world in which nation-states are sovereign, where people through their own culture, can express their will, which can only be done through their own culture. We may come to the same end result in policy, but each people has to work through its own culture, otherwise it cannot be represented.

And you can not have republics without representative government. To have representative government, you must use the culture that people have. You may help develop it, but you have to use the culture they have. Otherwise how can they participate?

And therefore, we must have participation of people, in confidence, in their own states. They must understand the agreements their governments have to make. On that basis, and only that basis, can we bring governments together to collaborate. Because they can not collaborate with us unless our people and theirs can come to an understanding of a common interest. And that's our objective.

The problem is, the enemy is determined to prevent that from happening. Whether the enemy is in the United States, or outside the United States, makes no difference: It's the same enemy. And we all have to fight it together. We just each have to recognize what terrain we're fighting on.

We in the United States are responsible for our terrain. We're fighting the battle on our terrain. Others will fight it on theirs. Our friends in Europe, our friends in Asia, our friends in South and Central America, they're our friends. They're my friends. In many cases, personally my friends.

We can work together to solve these problems. And the idea of a playing a smart game, no, forget the smart games. Does sophisticated work? Yes. Smart games? No, they don't work. We have too many smart games.

Freeman: We still have a very large number of questions that have been submitted by various institutions. But I'm going to do something a little bit different than we normally do at these events. And I'm going to do it for a couple of reasons.

I had mentioned earlier that you see a very large contingent of members of the LaRouche Youth Movement in the audience. They have a lot of questions. And because, in fact, they make up the bulk of the army that is fighting to put Mr. LaRouche in the White House, and really are the heart and soul of this campaign, I think it's important that they have the opportunity to ask those questions.

I also know that this Presidential candidate does very uniquely belong to them. So what I'm going to do, is I'm going to yield the podium to David Nance, who is a leader of the LaRouche Youth Movement from Baltimore. And I'm going to ask the young people who actually have submitted questions, to just line up the microphone, and David will chair this segment of the presentation. David.

David Nance: All right. So, for what will now hopefully become an institution, you know, at these webcasts, you know, we're going to have the Youth Movement line up, and, you know, let it rip, as Lyn puts it.

Bill: Hi, Lyn. Bill from Philadelphia. We've been having a lot of fun up in Michigan, organizing with the Youth Movement up there. There are probably a lot of people in the Democratic Party who would rather we were not up there.

But my question is actually about the automobile industry. And just looking at -- I'm trying to situate certain things within this thing you've brought up about Synarchism. Because you look at the automobile industry, and, you know, it's certainly an essential part of productive industry in this nation.

But you look at what they have been doing over the last 50 years, there has been a looting policy, you know. Well, you look at the product that comes offline now. You know, 15, 20 types of SUVs. You know, but it's just ridiculous, you know.

But they've looted. There's been a looting of the machine tool industry. You've got this benchmarking. The way in which the highway system was destroyed -- I'm sorry, the railroad system was destroyed in place of this highway system -- I'm just wondering how we go about dealing with this, and restoring what we can. And if there are links to Synarchism? If you could comment on that.

LaRouche: Well, there is, in a sense, because they're against people. The key thing about Synarchism is, it's motivated by the idea of reducing people in large to human cattle. And the struggle for civilization is to free people from the status of human cattle. You know? You go out in the field, eat, go back to the barn, be milked. Well, you're getting old. We're going to cull you. You didn't give milk last week, cow. Unemployment line sort of thing, short unemployment line.

You know, that's Synarchism. That's what it's a reflection of.

What are we going to do about this? Well, very simply. First of all, the automobile industry produces less and less of what it produces. It outsources. So we don't really have much left inside the United States, that's produced inside the United States.

You have assemblies. You want to order a part? In the old days, you could order a part. You could repair your own vehicle. Now, you can't find the part. The manufacturer doesn't know where the part is, because the manufacturer imported an assembly, and doesn't know what's inside the assembly. That sort of situation exists.

So, we don't have that problem. What we have before us, is the following:

First of all, the automobile industry internationally is insane. Why is it insane? Well, they have a policy, as you saw GM did in Los Angeles. They shut down a commuter railroad in order to promote the sale of automobiles. So therefore, everything was oriented toward milking the American cow, by making it buy automobiles, and milking them through the automobiles, designing the whole system to destroy the society as it existed, in order to sell automobiles. And this became the game.

All right, it's dead. It's finished. What are we going to do? Well, we don't have to worry too much about the old stuff. It's being scrapped anyway, it's being outsourced anyway.

What we have to do is build what? We have to build mass transit systems. We don't have a railroad system in this country any more. We don't have decent mass transit systems.

We don't have cities that function. We used to have a city. The idea of a city was, you'd have neighborhoods and so forth, and a city would have everything in it that you needed. You would have mass transit, you would have various places of employment for the different levels to specialize in. You didn't want to over-specialize, because there's not enough diversification. You wanted people to be able to walk to work in many cases, or get to their local schools. You wanted integrated neighborhoods, in the sense that people would help each other.

We took the grandparents away from the children and the grandchildren. In former times, the relationship of the grandparents to the parents and the children, in the same communities, or both generations in the same communities, was part of the security of the system. If a catastrophe happened, the neighbors worked together. You had neighborhoods that really functioned.

We destroyed that. We destroyed family structure. We destroyed the relationship -- the idea of communities as places where people worked, lived, studied, so forth, lived out their lives, and so forth.

Now, we have commuting. We have, for example, in Germany, I see areas where people commute for up to two hours a day each way to work. It's insane. On highways, in traffic jams. We used to have, the industries would be in the area, and people would work at a nearby industry. The commuting time was minimal. They had a family life. Today, we've destroyed family life.

So, these kinds of things have to change. And what we have, very simply, is, we have a lot of things have collapsed. We're producing a lot of junk. We're importing a lot of junk. We're going to have to take and shift the U.S. economy to about 50 to 60 percent of employment will be in basic economic infrastructure in the immediate period. The first change.

We'll be building power systems. We'll be building mass transit systems of all kinds, that is, long distance, regional and so forth. We'll be rebuilding communities, which are junk now. We'll be putting water systems, sanitary systems, school systems, medical systems -- all this, 50-60 percent of the total national budget, the national activity, will be spent on physical work of this type. Infrastructure work.

This infrastructure work will then be the contracting base, the subcontracting for infrastructure projects, which stimulates the so-called private sector. So we're going to have to go back to an integrated society, where we use national goals and national projects as a way of stimulating local development, and to build communities again. Because we're going psychotic. This nation is going psychotic, because we have a loss of a sense of community.

We have to get back to a sense of community. We have to build it in, in our economic policy, to have an idea of community once again.

Nance: All right. So, you all heard the man. We're going to have to put on our hardhats pretty soon. So, next question.

Fan: It's an honor to be here, Dr. Lyndon LaRouche. How are you doing?

LaRouche: Good. Sort of alive.

Fan: Remember me from last time? I was asking for a refund, $60,000, for my education, college education.

LaRouche: (Laughs.) I know, I know.

Fan: And so I was sitting down here, I had an idea pop through my head. And I was, like, how about if we open up the anti-Euclidean movement against organized university crime.

LaRouche: Against what?

Fan: Anti-Euclidean movement against organized university crime.

LaRouche: I like that.

Fan: With a subcommittee of reparations for electrical engineers.

LaRouche: (Laughs.) That sounds like fun.

Fan: But that's not my question, you know. I was just --

LaRouche: That's good. It sounds like fun.

Fan: Maybe we need to write -- what's it called? A petition? Or I don't know what it is. But rather than bother your mind with that, let's get to the question.

I have three questions. I usually have four or five. But let's make it three now.

Mr. President, we know you are a man of historical perspective, and of great knowledge. And the question here comes -- I always like to think on a global scale. But thanks for your economic approach, system and everything. But I always like to use the Bible as a historic point of reference for all initial discoveries. That's my belief. And I stand solely on it.

LaRouche: Okay.

Fan: And if you know anything about empires and kingdoms, you know about a great king, Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned, you know, the Babylonian Empire.

LaRouche: Yes.

Fan: And he was supposed to be the greatest man -- I mean, the greatest king who ever lived, and still is. And he had a second man in command, Daniel, you know. He was a Hebrew kid. And he rose to be the second highest man in command. And we all know, if we read that reference, that he had a lot of predictions to make about future governments and future worlds. And he predicted the Syrian government, the Roman Empire, the Greek empire, the Persian Empire, and the revival of an empire, which I believe is the European Union.

And he also predicted the final kingdom that is coming, which will be the kingdom of God. So, Mr. LaRouche, the question is, with this in perspective, you know, where does your kingdom fit into all this, you know? And your ideas about world kingdoms? Because we do know that the European Union is building up, and soon is going to take control of the world.

So the question is, how do you propose that we integrate these ideas that you have, into the final kingdom? And what place do these ideas have in the last kingdom that we know is going to reign forever and ever, which is the kingdom of God?

My second question is about the youth movement. There's a lot of young people out here with passion, and they were running around trying to make change in the government, and everything. And that's good. And I'm one of them. And I appreciate, you know, the things that you've been doing with the discoveries, and the Gauss and the Riemann, and all the Classical things you've been doing.

But the question I have is this, Lyndon. You being a leader, what advice do you have for us, about how we can -- you know. I mean, it's not just only having wisdom. I was reading in the Book of Proverbs, and that King Solomon was said to be the wisest man that ever lived. And there's proof of that.

And he said, “Wisdom is the principal thing, but therefore, get wisdom, but in all you're getting, get understanding,” you know. A lot of youth are running around here and there, you know, and they have all this wisdom about how to double the square and double the line, which all good, you know.

But how do we get understanding to deal with the real-life issues we're facing against evil out there? You know, how do you prepare yourself? Because any man that's going to war, has to equip himself, and know who his enemy is.

Now, my last question is based on the job migration and job immigration. We know that a lot of companies are moving overseas. And a lot of foreign people are coming to America, and taking our jobs. But in the engineering school and in the science fields. So, how do you propose that we reverse this? Thank you.

LaRouche: Well, I'm not much on Biblical prophecy. I was well-exposed to it as a youth, and I sort of got overdosed, and decided not to get involved much in that. I don't think there are any such kingdoms. I think the prophecy is overdone.

But there is a process in history. It's a fairly simple process, as far as we know. It's a struggle to free man from the condition in which most people were either hunted down as wild cattle are hunted, or herded and exploited as cattle as human beings. And that's been the condition of society.

Empires under emperors are intrinsically evil. We've developed the modern nation-state, which is based on certain principles, the principle of sovereignty of a people, the unity of a people in terms of a culture, the question of the general welfare of all of the people, and judging the general welfare of all of the people in terms of what we're providing for posterity to come.

We should be, in this sense, not trying to create an empire or a kingdom. There should be no empires and kingdoms. There should be a society which is based on these principles, which are a principle of ongoing development of people.

A youth movement -- that's the same thing. What we need, is a concept of continuous, unbroken development.

The best way to get that, for me, has been my emphasis on looking at physical science and Classical culture as two sides of the same process. I see this as an endless process of development. And people who are committed to that idea of this endless process of development of mankind, not merely their own knowledge, but development of mankind, will tend to become leaders. Because we're trying to progress.

And those people who can present ideas which enable us to progress, are, in a sense, leaders. And if they have the guts to fight for this kind of progress, they're really leaders.

Don't worry about job migration. There's no -- we're not losing jobs to foreign countries. Jobs are being exported to abroad, because people work cheaper than we do. They're being treated more as human cattle, than we are. We don't work cheap enough. They're going to try to fix that, and make you work cheap enough to compete with foreign, cheap labor.

So the problem there is to create the additional employment, which will absorb the potential employment among us. We have the work to do. We have lots of work to do. There is no shortage of work. We just have to simply organize the work. Everybody will be busy. Nobody's going to steal anybody's job, under those conditions.

In other words, you live in an insane society, under insane conditions. None of this nonsense is necessary, as far as I'm concerned. And I'm simply trying to deal with one aspect of it in my time, which is to bring about a community of sovereign nation-states, which is committed to these principles, which are enshrined in the Preamble of our Constitution: the notion of the sovereignty of a nation, the notion of the General Welfare as a principle which is an obligation of government. The notion of the commitment to posterity as greater than even the commitment to our existing generation.

And progress is necessary to accomplish that. I don't look for anything more complicated than that.

Nance: All right. Next question.

Daniel: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. My name is Daniel. I have three questions, they're all pretty much related. Here we go. What, exactly, are the causes that led up to my generation being overwhelmed by existentialism? And what are the historical consequences going to be of having such a self-centered, no-future generation? You know. And what would be the most efficient method for inspiring a generation? You know, getting some of my peers to step up, become leaders, creating this cultural renaissance that we're trying to instigate right now?

LaRouche: Okay. In part, existentialism was created for a very simple reason -- or promoted: To destroy you. Because somebody wanted to destroy you. Why?

Because if you -- you have people like these bankers, who think -- whose life consists of playing with people, playing with society. It's like playing a game. They become habituated to the game, and the game is intrinsically evil, because it is a game.

Like, for example, let's take the case of population control. People said, well, let's reduce the human population. Why? For utopian purposes. We wish to create a society which conforms with our special desires. We have a plan. We have a game we want to play. The game is called society. We have a plan. Our utopia. If only -- if society were like this, or this, or this, everything would be fine, as far as we're concerned.

Now, how do we manipulate the society to form this utopia, which is the game we wish to play with people's heads? Bertrand Russell is an example of that. H.G. Wells is an example of that. H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell agreed: We must use nuclear weapons as weapons of terror, to accept people to accept not only world government, but to begin to play "the game of life," according to the kinds of rules we want to enforce. That's the evil.

And you'll find that, while Russell and Wells and people like them were, in a sense, were very explicit on this, you'll find the history of mankind is the imposition of systems created by small numbers of people, who believed that if we could manipulate society around these rules, or these induced rules, that's what we want. And they would do anything to achieve that result. It's that simple. And that's how the game is played.

In the case of existentialism, we had a society in the United States -- it was the most powerful society in the world, at the beginning of the 1940s, 1950s. People wished to destroy it. They wished to destroy, similarly, German society. So, existentialism was spread in Germany. It was spread against the movement of the Classical movement in the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. It spread. It came here.

It was introduced here to destroy the impulse toward a republican form of society, which is what we've described. And it was simply that kind of process: a utopian conception, which was introduced with the idea that if we can brainwash people into accepting these rules of behavior, then we will have the kind of society we want.

And it's playing with people, playing with their heads, and so forth. The consequences? Look at the people around you. Look at how much the people in our society have been destroyed as a result of this influence. They've been destroyed, relative to what they could have been, or were before.

We're getting to more and more suicides, and so forth, as a result of this kind of thing.

Inspiring a young generation? It comes from the inside. Creativity. When you -- that's why I've emphasized the Gauss, for example. The Gauss 1799 paper introduces you to the principle of creativity in a kind of a formal way. If you work it out, you really begin to know what creativity is, what the experience of creativity is.

Once you discover, in yourself, the power of creativity, you discover something about yourself, which is more beautiful than you thought was there beforehand. And once you discover that in yourself which is beautiful, you will do anything for it, and you become self-motivated.

For example. You know, like, take a great physician, an honest physician. He takes up his practice in medicine. He loves it. He's practicing it with people. He loves to do it. He does it. Yes, he's paid. But he doesn't do it because he's paid. He does it because that's what he loves to do.

A great artist does it not because they're paid. Yes, they need to be paid. But they love to do it.

Many people with their profession -- they do it because they love to do it. They know it's important. they know it's good. It makes them happy, because they're doing something with their lives that makes them happy.

And I think that inspiring a young generation is just that simple. My view is the common denominator is creativity. And I've used this Gauss example as a lever for education, because that enables people to tap into, most quickly, what is meant by actually -- by scientific creativity, and leads them most easily to discovering creativity in other areas.

Nance: Next up. Let's take a creative question from Magnus from Sweden.

Magnus: Hi, Lyn. How are you doing?

LaRouche: Good.

Magnus: You once said that if Sweden would have been a religion, it would be one of the worst ever being created.

And I mean, as always, you are right. So because, Nietzsche. You know his quote, that God doesn't exist This is very big in Sweden among the academics.

So, my question is, how do you get people in that kind of sick environment to actually get an understanding of what Christianity and the outcome of the leadership, because there apparently has not existed something like that in Sweden? So, thank you.

LaRouche: A very cogent question. The essential thing is, when you live in a bad society, the first step toward wisdom is recognizing that it's bad. The second step is realizing why it's bad. And the third thing, is to realize what lesson you must learn from those first two lessons.

In the case of -- I think creativity is the only answer. I think that the destructive thing I find in Sweden, and to that effect, is a sense of relying upon midsummer passion as a substitute for creativity. You just passed through that dangerous period in Swedish life.

Now, the existentialists fight for animal-type feeling, or animal-type sensuous experience, or negation of animal-type -- like Strindberg at his worst, eh? This kind of thing. This kind of problem.

Whereas, creativity is the answer. True creativity is the answer. We're human beings. What's the difference between man and the animal? Man is creative. No animal could be creative. Animals live -- have no time. A dog knows you. You're away for a long time. You come back. The dog looks at you, sniffs you, recognizes you immediately, and reacts, as they react as if you had never left, essentially.

The animal has no sense of time. The animal has no sense of coming generations. They may be concerned about their puppies, their young, and so forth, that kind of thing. But they have no future.

Human beings are aware of ancestors, and what we've gotten from ancestors. Human beings are -- think about what they're giving to coming generations. Human beings have a sense of that kind of immortality, of practical immortality. No animal does.

Immortality exists for man, only through creativity. Otherwise, we're merely animals. We're merely beasts, reacting like -- as if instinctively, the same from one generation to the other, like the one dog to another.

What makes us human, is creativity. The discovery, rediscovery of past discoveries, experiencing a transmission to us from the past, the discovery that we transmit and generate for others in the future.

Discovery. This is the sense of our immortality. If we don't have that, if we think, well, you know, like Strindberg, one of his dramas, the case is hopeless.

Nance: Next question.

Cy: Hi. My name is Cy. I'm from Philadelphia. Why is rock'n'roll degenerative music? And what does that phrase mean?

LaRouche: Well, what is music? Music is old. And we associate it with poetry, Classical poetry, in all kinds of cultures. It is also highly intellectual, because poetry used in that fashion was a way of communicating ideas.

Example? For example, let's take the ancient Vedic calendars. The ancient Vedic calendars, which date from probably 4 to 6,000 B.C., if not earlier, but at least they're dated in that period by calendar content.

Transmission by spoken, uttered poetry in Vedic, which is related to Sanskrit, passed down to present generations, down to existing chanters in the Sanskrit. And in my work with a fellow in Poona, one of the great scholars of this area, he said that -- he reported that their study showed the viability of the transmission over many generations as such, the divergency among the chants, even though the chanters did not often know what they were saying. They were simply memorizing the chants as chants. They didn't know what the words were.

And also, not only with this great degree of consistency over many generations of chanting, but the content, insofar as calendars were concerned, was highly accurate, and especially these calendar ones.

Thus you show that a Classical form of prosody, which is what they are, a Classical form of prosody is a method of communicating the words or expressions in ways which transmit ideas and transmit creative, even scientific ideas.

Now, what the rock does, in respect to -- there's all kinds of art which contain that same principle, is to destroy the possibility of that kind of development and transmission of ideas. What it is, essentially -- rock is essentially a form of masturbation. That's where it comes from.

Did you ever see -- rock, where does it come from? Did you ever see a child, which is called a rocker, a child, say, a year old or less, who's up on all fours in the crib, banging his head against the head of the crib? That is rock music. And usually, the wet, stinking diaper which badly needs to be changed, and you have this thump, thump, thump, and you think the poor little thing is going to beat its brains out, and you get in there and intervene.

That's rock. You look at these guys on stage. You look at the state of mind they express by rock. They are bed-rockers, on stage.

Nance: All right. So we're going to take -- we're going to try to take two more questions. And you know, the question you should bear in mind is that we have to keep them short, because we obviously have time limitations. So, next questioner.

Travis: Hi, Lyn. My name is Travis. I'm from southern Indiana. And first off, I'd like to say thank you for launching this Renaissance. And you've changed the lives and the minds of people all over the world. And for that, I would like to thank you for giving us that opportunity.

Down to business. You referenced the first 30 days after a President is inaugurated, and how important and crucial it is. My question to you is, what specific thing are you going to be doing first, after you are inaugurated as President? And what programs are at the top of the list to be done first? Thank you.

LaRouche: Okay. It's a fair question. Well, what I have is, essentially, is a -- first of all, I intend to do as much of my program now, before I'm elected, as possible. As I said, we have this two-phase kind of government. That is, there are people who are in government now, or in various positions where they should be in government or influencing government.

And my venture is, if we get Cheney and company out, and hope that institutions like the military and others are able to influence the existing government, and take care of the poor child called the President, eh? And keep him from mischief, and keep him from danger, right? Mr. President, who is about to leave.

So that we would manage certain things, the crises that come up, and have a response to crises which would be positive.

Now, the first thing, of course, in my mind, is that since the system is collapsing, is we need to call an international monetary conference under which the governments will agree to put the existing IMF system into bankruptcy reorganization. Once we've done that, we have -- we've crossed the first bridge. That's the most important bridge.

Because if we can organize credit in sufficient volumes, in the right way, to begin to move the world upward so that the world is not bankrupt any more -- that is, the amount that is being generated in the world, is more or less sufficient to meet current needs -- we've solved the first major problem. We're now moving upward.

So my first concern is to move upward. I would hope we can do as much as possible immediately. The news from this week, from Europe, from yesterday, and what's going on today, I would hope that the Berlusconi initiative, which is something that's already been worked on, that this will begin to move, and move in that specific direction.

Look. Concretely, I have responses from all over the world on this issue. People in Russia, in other parts of the world, are studying exactly what I'm saying and considering very seriously what I'm proposing. So I'm not waiting until January of 2005 to make that measure. I'm trying to push it through now.

Then, you know what I've said in general, about infrastructure projects, about these kinds of changes, to get them into place as fast as possible.

What I need, is to build the team, the prospective government, the team of people inside and outside of government, who represent a leading force who will make these things happen once they're given the power to do it.

And so, it won't be much different. It won't be much different once I'm in, except I will do -- I probably will have by that time, if we do a good job, I'll probably have some new objectives.

I also have a big space exploration program, you know. I have things of that nature which I'm dedicated to. Lots of things. I'm full of things I would like to have done. I don't have enough lifetimes-- I can't even imagine enough lifetimes to do all the things I wish to do. So I'll never run out of chores.

But in the meantime, that, I think, is the answer.

On this now, I have two sets of people who are available now, who are in positions of government or influence, who I try to make them into a team, a national team, international teamwork -- try to get teams of people working on common solutions to common problems, and just do it.

And the transition to the actual process of governing as a president, will come naturally.

Nance: All right. Lawrence?

Lawrence: My name is Lawrence. I have a few things. First of all, before Friday, I had no hope for the future of this country or my generation until I saw you in Philadelphia. I'm dead serious. I had none at all.

A few things. A few questions. I'd like to know why we've been reduced to cattle. Why people are sheep, and like it that way? They're pacified, fed, and happy. How do we wake them up?

Like my mother says, like, some things just aren't about logic? And people do crazy things, and are crazy. And how do we reach them and wake them up? How do you save people who don't want to be saved?

And the second thing is, I know the system was designed to put people again each other so we couldn't get anything accomplished. Like, it's -- like, I'm working on myself, like getting over the whole, you know, we need to stop being black people and white people, and just be people.

But, you know, things like that go deep. And how do you intend to -- I don't know, work on that, help people with that? We have a lot of people who are very emotionally scarred. How do you intend to heal their wounds? I mean, I know you're like the President, and not a social worker or whatever. But...

But I think all these things are important, because until you get down to people's issues, they really can't do anything, I think. Yeah.

LaRouche: It's the same -- it's always the same thing. Look. See, the problem is, you have two kinds of religious problems in the United States. You have too much of it, and not enough.

You have too much of people with prescriptions. You know, like Jerry Falwell, or something like that. And you have not enough people who understand what it's all about.

The conception of religion, the proper conception of religion, is a recognition that the human being, the human species, is different than any animal. This difference lies in the ability to discover laws of the universe which exist outside the scope of sense perception, to prove these laws experimentally, and to apply them to change the universe, to exert control over the universe.

Now, this signifies that man is different than any animal, that only man is capable of knowing laws of the universe, of discovering them, knowing them, and using them. This quality of man shows that man has within him, a quality which is not present in any other living form.

And therefore, man is not merely a living form. You cannot adduce this quality from life as such. You may be alive, but you can't adduce this form from life. It exists only in the individual human mind, the possibility of discovering principles which lie beyond, outside, the range of sense-perception, and applying these principles to control the universe of sense-perception.

Only man can do that. This signifies that this creative power, which is vested only in the human individual, is really called spiritual. It's called a soul.

When man recognizes this, man's conception of himself as a part of creation, a creative part of creation, is the idea of God, a spiritual quality, the quality of creativity.

Now, when you recognize that, and you look at the skin color or something else of somebody else, or hear a different accent, it doesn't mean a damn thing. Because you recognize that you and they have the same special quality which no animal has. And therefore you say, human life is sacred. And the valuable thing about any person, is the fact that they're human and have this quality. It's when you don't recognize that, is when you think, "Well, I got big muscles," or, "I got a big sex urge," or something of that kind. When you reduce it to that kind of thing, of animalistic, the qualities of the beast -- "I'm a gladiator (he growls)." If you reduce man to a beast, then people behave to one another as dogs behave to each other. Some dogs will fight other dogs -- nobody knows why, they just will. At first scent, they'll fight. And they'll always fight. And they will never cease to fight. Why?

Well, human beings behave like that. You say, "You dumb dog! What's wrong with you, you dog? You're not a man, you're a dog."

No, this is the answer. This is what life is about. Your mission is, when you think of yourself as a creative person, or a person who transmits and uses these things as only human beings can do, you say, "That's what I am. That is my interest. That's what I pass on. That's what's immortal about me. That's what's important about the next guy."

Then you feel, you talk about the brotherhood of mankind. It's there, then. Not as an animal brotherhood, but a spiritual quality you recognize, that's distinct from that of any animal. That also, that quality, is what we call creativity. Why do you want to do great poetry? Why do you want great art? To express this quality, which is creativity. Because it is characteristically human. And that's how we will solve the problem.

You love mankind, and the love of mankind is not some kind of animal-sniffing thing, rear-end sniffing job. Loving mankind is recognizing this quality in a human being. And when you see a pair of human eyes in front of you, that's what you look for. You look behind the eyes, and see the soul behind the eyes. And establish a relationship, not with the flesh, but with the soul.

And that solves everything. It simplifies the whole problem. There is no problem. Everything else is just plain working it out.                             - 30 -

- 30 -