Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 36, Number 48 ... · Executive Intelligence Review December...

EIRExecutive Intelligence ReviewDecember 11, 2009 Vol. 36 No. 48 www.larouchepub.com $10.00

Congress Driven to Action by Mass Strike AngerLaRouches Address Moscow Anti-Globalist ConferenceBritish Empire Cracking on March to Copenhagen

LaRouche Dec. 3 WebcastThe Real Change Is Coming

A special reportfrom

Executive Intelligence

Review

260 pages $50

EIR News ServiceP.O. Box 17390 Washington, D.C. 20041-0390 Phone (toll-free): 1 800-278-3135

ORDER ONLINE at www.larouchepub.com

The Anglo-American financier oligarchy is trying to unleash a“Clash of Civilizations,” to block the vast potential for Eurasiandevelopment. Instead, the Western powers should join in thegreat project of the new millennium, the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

EIRNS

Helga Zepp-LaRouche known as “the SilkRoad Lady,” has played a major role inorganizing worldwide support for theEurasian Land-Bridge. She is shown here atLianyungang Port in China, October 1998.

The EurasianLand-BridgeThe ‘New Silk Road’—locomotive forworldwide economic developmentincluding studies of:• High-technology infrastructure development corridors• China and Europe as Eurasia’s development poles• Crucial infrastructure projects in China• The Eurasian Land-Bridge and development around the great ocean basins• Financing an economic miracle: Hamiltonian credit generation• The Eurasian Land-Bridge and the economic reconstruction of the

United States

No to the‘Clash of Civilizations’!

Founder and Contributing Editor: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Antony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, Edward Spannaus, Nancy Spannaus, Jeffrey Steinberg, William Wertz

Editor: Nancy SpannausManaging Editors: Bonnie James, Susan WelshScience Editor: Marjorie Mazel HechtTechnology Editor: Marsha FreemanBook Editor: Katherine NotleyGraphics Editor: Alan YuePhoto Editor: Stuart LewisCirculation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORSCounterintelligence: Jeffrey Steinberg, Michele

SteinbergEconomics: John Hoefle, Marcia Merry Baker,

Paul GallagherHistory: Anton ChaitkinIbero-America: Dennis SmallLaw: Edward SpannausRussia and Eastern Europe: Rachel DouglasUnited States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUSBogotá: Javier AlmarioBerlin: Rainer ApelCopenhagen: Tom GillesbergHouston: Harley SchlangerLima: Sara MadueñoMelbourne: Robert BarwickMexico City: Rubén Cota MezaNew Delhi: Ramtanu MaitraParis: Christine BierreStockholm: Hussein AskaryUnited Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni RubinsteinWashington, D.C.: William JonesWiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEBe-mail: [email protected]/eiwWebmaster: John SigersonAssistant Webmaster: George HollisEditor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly (50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc., 729 15th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.(703) 777-9451

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach 1611, D-65006 Wiesbaden, Germany; Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, GermanyTel: 49-611-73650Homepage: http://www.eirna.come-mail: [email protected]: Georg Neudekker

Montreal, Canada: 514-855-1699

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: [email protected].

Mexico: EIR, Manual Ma. Contreras #100, Despacho 8, Col. San Rafael, CP 06470, Mexico, DF. Tel.: 2453-2852, 2453-2853.

Copyright: ©2009 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

EI RFrom the Managing Editor

As all the world knows, Barack Obama campaigned with the promise of “change.” But it has become clearer with every passing week that what we were getting was warmed-over George W. Bush: continuing the bailout of the banks, rejecting calls for a return to the FDR-era Glass-Steagall policy, a troop “surge” for the war in Afghanistan, and a health-care “reform” that is even worse than Bush’s defeated plan to privatize Social Security.

The American people are getting so disgusted that even Congress-men are beginning to get the message (see National).

LaRouche’s Dec. 3 webcast, our Feature, was titled “The Real Change Is Coming.” Developments since October give reason for opti-mism on this score, notably the agreements between Russian Prime Minister Putin and Chinese Prime Minister Wen, for the joint develop-ment of eastern Siberia and neighboring regions. LaRouche discusses this both in his webcast, and in his videotaped address to a Moscow con-ference (in International). Could this be the first step toward the Four-Power alliance that LaRouche is calling for, to inaugurate a new global credit system, junking British monetarism? That depends, of course, on what happens in the United States.

Speaking to associates on Dec. 5, LaRouche was hopeful, but cau-tious. The webcast itself sparked some highly interesting developments. “A new political formation is about to be born in the United States,” he said. “And it will be worldwide. The British Empire is on the verge of crumbling, right now. All of our enemies look like fools. Will the Four-Power agreement that I’ve been working for, come into being? No one can say. It happens to be likely—no guarantee. The world has changed. The British Empire is probably going to be broken up. We’re going to have one helluva ride in the coming days and weeks. What’s going to happen, either way, are things you would never have dreamed of.”

And what about Obama? LaRouche said in his webcast that Obama “can sit in the White House, or he can sit outside. . . . We take care of our Presidents, even when they’re bums. We have respect for our Presi-dents; not because of them, but because of the institution they repre-sent.”

We’re coming down to the wire now, and we ask every reader of EIR to join this “helluva ride,” to make sure the train moves in the right di-rection.

4 LaRouche Webcast: The Real Change Is ComingIn his Dec. 3 webcast, Lyndon LaRouche provided the world audience with the way out of this crisis: the Four-Power agreement to be led by Russia, India, China, and the United States, as the only force powerful enough to declare the currently failed British imperial monetary system dead, and to replace it with an international credit system. The three great Eurasian powers have shown a strong inclination to move in the direction that LaRouche has outlined. Now, the U.S. must be brought into line. To accomplish this, three LaRouche PAC candidates announced national campaigns for Congress. These, and other topics were raised in the wide-ranging discussion that followed.

National

48 Congress Is Driven To Take Action by Mass Strike AngerAfter running into the buzzsaw of the mass-strike process from their constituents, again, during the Thanksgiving recess, some Members of Congress are waking up to the fact that, outside the Beltway, reality is becoming hellish for most Americans. Some lawmakers are beginning to revolt against the insanity of the Obama Administration.

50 Kill the HMO System! Med-Malpractice Rates Are Killing DoctorsA protection racket for the HMOs, know as ERISA, has permitted skyrocketing malpractice insurance rates, driving out physicians and other health-care providers, and leading to the shutdown of medical services in hundreds of U.S. towns and cities.

EI R Contents www.larouchepub.com Volume36,Number48,December11,2009

STS-41B, NASA

Cover This Week

Astronaut Bruce McCandless, guided by a Manned Maneuvering Unit, floats free in space, during a Space Shuttle mission in 1984.

EI R Contents www.larouchepub.com Volume36,Number48,December11,2009

International

52 British Empire Cracking on March to CopenhagenThe Queen’s address to the Commonwealth nations in Trinidad & Tobago tipped the Empire’s hand, by demonstrating that the realm is tottering, and that it probably has already lost the battle for Copenhagen.

55 LaRouches Address Moscow Anti-Globalist ConferenceLyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered addresses by video recording to a Dec. 3-4 conference in Moscow, Russia, under the title “Let the Earth Live! From the Clash of Civilizations to Their Cooperation.”

56 Agreement Among Four Powers Can Avert Total CollapseThe world has shifted from the former domination by the Atlantic powers, to the Pacific-Indian Ocean basins, Lyndon LaRouche stated, in a video presentation to the Moscow anti-globalist conference.

59 Europe Must Reject Empire, Choose National SovereigntyIn Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s videotaped speech to the anti-globalist conference, she discussed Europe’s role in the context of the Four-Power alliance.

62 Norwegian H1N1 Mutation: Why Specialists Are Missing the PointA tiny mutation detected in one of the RNA strands of the AH1N1 virus has led to worldwide speculation as to whether this means the virus is about to turn into another 1918 pandemic.

Departments

63 Africa ReportWhy Are the British Planning More Wars?

Editorial

64 The Era of Sovereign Defaults Has Begun

� Feature EIR December 11, 2009

Lyndon LaRouche gave this webcast address on Dec. 3, the 11th and final one of 2009. The event was moderated by Harley Schlanger, LaRouche’s West Coast spokesman, and Debra Freeman, his national spokeswoman. The webcast video is archived at www.larouchepac.com.

Harley Schlanger: Good afternoon. On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I’d like to welcome the people who are here in our au-dience today, and those who are listening on the web. I’m Harley Sch-langer, the Western States spokesman for Lyndon LaRouche.

This is one in a series of webcasts presented by Lyndon LaRouche, economist and statesman, who’s been presenting, consistently, over the last decade, webcasts that have provided in-depth analysis and forecasts on the economy. And throughout this period, there’s not a single forecast that’s been made by Mr. LaRouche, which has not proven to be deadly accurate. And up to this point, the fight has been to develop the potential in the United States, to move the country behind this idea of the Four Powers agreement that Mr. LaRouche has been presenting and organizing for, not just in the recent period, but over the last decades. And so today, we’re going to hear from Mr. LaRouche on the progress that’s been made towards the Four Powers agreement, and further elaboration of the economic crisis that we’re facing. So, without further ado, let me introduce Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you, very much.We have three people present I shall cause to be introduced later in the

course of events, who will be running as Democratic candidates, for selec-tion as members of Congress.

I’ll just explain what this is about: The three candidates are located re-spectively from the Boston area, from Texas (that is in the United States,

EIR Feature

LAROUCHE WEBCAST

The Real Change Is Coming

December 11, 2009 EIR Feature �

you know), and from the West Coast. And the purpose of their function is to coordinate and create a national campaign around three initial, pivotal Democratic can-didates for nomination and election in the coming year, in order to create a pivot around which to begin to mo-bilize the population now, for what it must do now. And we have to give the American people a perspective, and the Democratic Party, which is presently a shambles, a perspective, for—we’re going to create something new.

We’re not going to wait until November of next year, for new candidates to be elected, or for January, for these candidates to enter office. We’re going to or-ganize now, to get the people ready to clean the mess out in Washington, to replace a lot of key people. But the campaign now, is essentially, creating the three points of reference, for creating a national organization to straighten out the Democratic Party, by setting forth and defining a policy, a national policy.

This is unusual in one respect, but not unusual for the United States. Unlike the parliamentary systems of Europe, which have never been cured of certain dis-eases, the United States Constitution created a Presi-dential system, not a parliamentary system. The weak-ness in much of the candidacy of representatives to the

Congress, is that they get the delusion that they’re part of a parliamentary system, a European-style parliamen-tary system, and our Constitutional system is not parlia-mentary. Their function is as representatives, and they’re representatives to a national government, to a Presidential system.

And more than ever, now, we need a Presidential system, because we’ve got to engage in agreements, solemn agreements with selected governments of the world, either the present governments or their suitable replacements, in order to change the way the world is going as a whole. We have to make that change now, but we have to get the juggernaut in motion, now, to make changes, now, which will be consolidated once the next generation in Congress is in place. The next generation in Congress will not initiate the changes. They will con-solidate the changes, as our system of Congressional government is supposed to do.

But we’re going to have to make Presidential changes now, which means there’s going to have to be some change, of some kind, around the White House. As the recent folly, of the greatest silliness I’ve ever heard of—more troops into Afghanistan—comes forth, we need some changes in the Presidential department. Because if we don’t, we’re not going to exist.

Lyndon LaRouche addresses the webcast audience in Washington, D.C. Seated are the LaRouche PAC’S three just-announced candidates for Congress (from left): Rachel Brown of Massachusetts, Summer Shields of California, and Kesha Rogers of Texas.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

� Feature EIR December 11, 2009

And before we get into the question period, I’ll ask to have these three candidates presented, who represent New England, Texas, and the West Coast: Three points of reference to define a national perspective for the Democratic Party campaigns of the coming year. They’re not candidates rep-resenting three points on the map. They’re candidates repre-senting what must become an avalanche of candidacies, which are going to transform our gov-ernment in detail.

Our Constitutional SystemAnyway, two years ago, on

July 2�, 2007, I had a webcast, in which I announced that, within a matter of days, the United States would plunge into a deep financial col-lapse. Three days later, it did. I had warned that the col-lapse would begin in the area of real estate speculation. It did. I warned what this would lead to, and I made cer-tain specifications.

First of all, that we must have an act, which I pre-scribed; it was called the Homeowners and Bank Pro-tection Act of 2007. This act would have frozen those real estate properties, which were in jeopardy of fore-closure in the coming period, in order to have a general reorganization of the field. It would also, in effect, put the banking system as a whole, under a commercial bank standard, under Glass-Steagall; that is, restore Glass-Steagall, which is already really in the Constitu-tion: The Glass-Steagall Act was an implementation of a provision of the Constitution; it was not a change in policy of the United States. Which has to do with the nature of the United States, which unfortunately many Presidents and others have not understood. They think we’re some kind of European freak show—we’re not. We’re the United States.

Columbus’s MissionWe were created by the initiative, or the attempted

initiative, of Christopher Columbus, who was follow-ing the inspiration of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who had died before that time. But Columbus had consulted with close confederates of Cusa, and Cusa had said, be-cause of the crisis in Europe, due to what we call today, the oligarchical features of European society, that it was

necessary to take the best contributions of European culture, and take them across the great oceans of the world, to other shores, in order to create the kind of system of government of nations that was needed.

Columbus was inspired to undertake this project, about 1�80 A.D., and as we know, a dozen years later, having received a good deal of advice from the survi-vors of the associates of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, set forth. This colonization, the exploration and coloniza-tion by Columbus, failed, not because it was his fault, but because by 1�92, we had entered a period of reli-gious warfare in Europe, which had broken out. It was to break out more seriously around Henry VIII. So Europe, from that period, from 1�92, with the Expul-sion of the Jews from Spain, which was the beginning of this great horror-show, until the 1��8 Peace of West-phalia, Europe was torn apart by a bloody mess.

So, in this period, while the Habsburgs were still a great power, Europe was unable to realize the objec-tives which Cusa and others had had for European civi-lization. And the Hispanic and Portuguese settlements in America had failed, because they were under Habsburg influence. So the beginning of what became the United States, in terms of policy, came with the

Library of Congress

The French Navy fights on the side of the American Revolution, September 1781. Above: The Marquis de Lafayette gets his “baptism by fire” in a Revolutionary battle. Russia assisted the United States through the League of Armed Neutrality.

U.S. Naval Historic Center

December 11, 2009 EIR Feature 7

Plymouth settlement in 1�20, and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

And so, this—the constitutional features, including those of economy, developed in Massachusetts, up until about 1�90—was the basis for what later became the United States. The United States was a mission, to take the best of European civilization, to bring it across the waters—at a relatively safe distance, one would hope, from Europe, which was a sinkhole of corruption—and to establish here a place for the best of European civili-zation in the American continent, and thus, to set a beacon for humanity as a whole. This was in jeopardy at that time, because of James II of England and then, William of Orange.

But at a later point, Leibniz personally had a great influence in England, in a faction which was opposed to this degeneration. And his influence as transmitted back into the United States, by the way of a German scientist, Abraham Kästner, who called attention to the earlier work of Leibniz on this question, came to Benjamin Franklin and Company. And Franklin, as a leader in the United States, set into motion what became the United States Constitutional system. We went through two phases: First of all, the Declaration of Independence, and secondly, the formation of a Federal Constitution.

Now, the Declaration of Independence was won, be-cause, at that time, in Europe, nations of Europe were opposed to the British Empire. Now the British Empire was not an empire of the English people. It was an empire of a certain Venetian interest, a financial interest which controlled the Anglo-Dutch system, especially since the accession of William of Orange. And so, the fight was, by Europe, which supported the United States’ struggle for independence—Russia, France, other countries in Continental Europe, rallied to assist the United States through the League of Armed Neu-trality—to assist the United States in securing its right to our Presidency.

A Struggle for U.S. SurvivalWhat happened, then, later, of course, because of

the French Revolution, which was a complicated mess of corruption, was the destruction of France, and the greatest asset that Britain ever had, Napoleon Bonaparte, fought wars on the continent of Europe, which de-stroyed Europe, to the point that the British Empire was consolidated in 1812-181�. And from that point on, the United States was engaged in a great struggle for its own survival, not only from outside forces, but from

corruption which spread within: Like the founding of the Bank of Manhattan by Aaron Burr, an agent of the British and a traitor to the United States, who should have been hung.

So, up until the victory of the Civil War, when we defeated the British who created the Confederacy, we were established. Then Lincoln was shot! And the as-sassination of our Presidents, and of some Presidents in particular, has been a crucial part of our history. We got into World War I, because of the assassination of McKinley, without which it would not have been pos-sible. We got into World War II, for similar kinds of reasons—the Harding problem was also part of this reason, because it brought the real scum into place in the United States.

We were saved by the Franklin Roosevelt election and what he did. We were ruined by Truman. And we’ve been ruined, more and more, with a few exceptions, all the way down since that time. Instead of patriots, we have people who admire the British Queen, even Presi-dents who admire the British Queen—the force of im-perialism, the enemy of the United States!

So, this is a continuous struggle, by a nation—our nation—which has a philosophical intent, a Constitu-tional intent, which is the greatest on this planet. Our Constitution is a true Constitution. It is not a catch-all of odds and ends, rules which are voted up. We’re a mission-oriented nation, a mission-oriented nation to be a republic, but also be a factor for world civilization as a whole, as Franklin Roosevelt understood this. And what he would have done, and attempted to do, had he not been replaced by a successor, Truman, who was a skunk. Eisenhower was a good President, but his ad-ministration was a skunk—not as bad as Truman, per-haps, but still a skunk.

Then, you had Kennedy: Now, I didn’t really admire the Kennedy family at that time. I didn’t think they were the best thing for the United States, but John did a fairly good job. And he listened to Douglas MacArthur, which is what got him killed: Because MacArthur advised him, to the effect that the United States must not become involved in any extended land war in Asia. And Ken-nedy was committed to that. And the only way they were going to get that policy turned around, was to kill him! And they did. And it wasn’t some “Oswald” char-acter. It was three other guys, associated with the at-tempted assassination of de Gaulle, from France and Spain, who walked in and did the job.

But the killing of Kennedy meant that we were

8 Feature EIR December 11, 2009

going to war. It took us a decade, after the killing of Kennedy, before we fully got into the war, but the steps were made. Since that time, we’ve been in extended land wars in Asia, and other places! Wars that never should have been fought. Wars we could have won, without a war! If you have enough strength, where people have to listen to you, and they can’t make war against you, and you’ve got a good case, by diplomacy and by imaginative approaches, you can usually resolve a problem of that nature, which might lead to war, with-out actually fighting it.

The point is, to be able to defend one’s nation if nec-essary, but to use that capability to prevent your having to be drawn into wars. What has ruined the world? How have empires, repeatedly, since the time of the Pelopon-nesian War, how have empires in European civilization, been able to rule over nations? By extended war. The Peloponnesian War, for example! Greece had prevailed

over the Persian Empire, and the Peloponnesian War—the Greeks destroyed themselves! Between three finan-cial groups, one in Athens, one in Corinth, and one in Syracuse. The whole history of the Roman Empire was an empire ruled by what? By killing off, wars among subordinate groups, by organizing wars among its in-tended victims.

How was civilization destroyed in the 1�th Cen-tury? When the Venetians organized wars in the 1�th Century, which became the New Dark Age. How was Europe weakened and destroyed in the 1�th Century, in the 17th Century? By war! 1�92, with the Expulsion of the Jews, to 1��8 with the Peace of Westphalia. How was an empire created by the British? By the Seven Years War! The nations of Europe got into a quarrel, and the British and Dutch sat there, and waited to col-lect the empire. They didn’t get an empire of the British monarchy, but they got an empire of the British East

“The assassination of our Presidents, and of some Presidents in particular, has been a crucial part of our history,” said LaRouche.

Above left: Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, April 14, 1865.

Above right: Warren G. Harding’s body lies in state at the White House. His death on Aug. 2, 1923, from a heart attack, brought in the unsavory Calvin Coolidge as President.

Right: William McKinley’s assassination, Sept. 6, 1901. Presidential Library and Museum, Boston

John F. Kennedy’s funeral procession, Nov. 25, 1963.

Library of Congress

Library of Congress


India Company, which was the empire at that time.So, how was Europe managed? As Bismarck said in

the 1890s, after he’d been discharged: We’re going to have another Seven Years War! A general war in Europe, a Seven Years War, to ruin Europe in the interest of the British Empire! And that’s what happened.

They killed McKinley. And the United States, which was committed to opposing the British Empire, switched, because a nephew of a traitor, Teddy Roos-evelt, became President, and we switched sides! Wood-row Wilson, the great leader of the Ku Klux Klan, the man who reorganized the Ku Klux Klan in the postwar period. Again, we went into World War I, like idiots! We had no business there. We were destroyed, and weakened, and the killing of McKinley made that pos-sible, just as the killing of Kennedy made possible what has happened to us since his death. Johnson was scared: He was convinced those three rifles were aimed at the back of his neck, if he should oppose their policy. He backed off. He let us be ruined—because he was scared! And, not without some justification, considering the record of things. Presidents get killed.

The way they got World War I going: It started with Bismarck. Bismarck was fired under British influence. The British ordered his being fired as Chancellor of Germany, and we got into war. How did it happen? First, they killed the President of France, Sadi Carnot. And they do similar things. Now, how did they get the whole thing going? By killing McKinley! It never would have happened if McKinley hadn’t been killed. We were turned around.

We Do Not Need Wars!We were ruined by getting involved in that war in

Indochina, which we had no business getting into. We’re now being ruined in a similar way, by the British, in Afghanistan! Idiocy! Insanity! We don’t really need to make wars! We may have to use military force, but actually, today—the way it stands today, if we do the right thing, we do not need wars. We may need certain special actions, short-term special actions, but we won’t need wars. You want to fight a general war? You want to fight a nuclear war? You want to fight a thermonuclear war? You want a war of diseases, plagues? You want a call for all-out war, in the world? No!

You may have to discipline a certain part of the world, and bring peace—but you’re in there to bring peace, and enforce the peace. Not to fight general wars. And we’re used by the British Empire, or what the real

empire is, to get us to do foolish things, to get into fool-ish quarrels, with people who may be problematic, but there’s a better way to deal with the thing.

And people are ambitious, to fight these wars—and sometimes the folly is McChrystal clear. It’s a piece of insanity, and the President makes it even worse than McChrystal did, and his crowd.

So that’s our problem.We are a nation, based on a European cultural basis,

a basis which was defined by the circles of Nicholas of Cusa, who was the central figure and the architect of modern European science and culture. And the effort was, when what happened with Constantinople and fol-lowing that, when Europe was going back into disgust-ing conditions again, after the Renaissance, they said: “Go across the oceans. Meet people across the oceans. And take our cultural achievements with us to these people, but don’t take our diseases, our political dis-eases with you.” And that, in effect, was done. And we, with this picture which I’ve given some general outline to, we in a sense, produced a nation. Which is the only possible rallying point, still today, to save this planet from Hell. Without this nation, you can not organize the world to avoid the Hell that’s coming down on it now, without this United States.

And we have to deal with our United States as an instrument, for that purpose. We have to have a Presi-dency, a Presidential system—and we don’t have a Congressional system, we have a Presidential system! And the Congressional function is a part of the Presi-dential system; it’s not an independent factor. We need a Presidential system that functions. And we’re going to have put this President, either in a cage inside the Oval Office, probably with rubber walls, and somehow get a Presidency. And if he can’t do that, we’re going to have to replace him. Because, without a functioning Presi-dency of the United States, I don’t see much of a chance for civilization in the period today. I don’t believe in making promises that are not feasible: I don’t see a pos-sibility, under this President and his present behavior, I don’t see any chance for the United States, or the world.

A Mission for All MankindNow, what has happened is this: Europe has been

destroyed. Western and Central Europe have no func-tional value today. I think that France and Germany, if they were freed of British control, under the present Eu-ropean system, would tend to go back to sensible ap-


proaches and would cooperate with us, and others. But as long as they’re stuck in the euro system, Western and Central Europe is not going to go anywhere, anywhere good. And since what happened this past weekend, as you now see, the entire financial system of the world is disintegrating. Whole nations are bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt! We’re in a general breakdown crisis, a chain-reaction breakdown crisis, of the entire international monetary-financial system, and economic system.

Now, what I’ve done, is to propose, some time ago, that we get certain people in Russia, China, and India, and the United States, as a bloc of nations, around which to combine our sufficiently powerful bloc, as a combi-nation, to force the needed changes on a planetary level. In other words, by changes, I don’t mean “jobs.” You know, the idea of giving somebody a job to rake leaves, is not exactly an economic development program.

What we need is production jobs! We need nuclear power. We need a national rail system. We need a space program, a real space program, revived! Because we don’t have factories of any significance any more—we shut them down! Especially under George W. Bush, Jr., and this thing in there—they shut it down! What hap-pened to the automobile industry? What’s happened to the aircraft industry? Go on, through all the high-tech industries we had: What happened to them? They’re gone! We still have the knowledge of that technology, but we are losing the people who are able to practice it.

We have “jobs”—yes! What are “jobs” worth? Raking leaves? You build a world by raking leaves, or doing social work? No, you build industries.

Today, that means, for example, nuclear power. Technologically, it’s impossible to develop the popula-tion of this planet without nuclear power, on an exten-sive basis—and that’s not enough. What you have to count on, is higher energy-flux density. You have to in-crease the energy-flux density of the power in the hands of labor. If you can’t do that, you can not achieve the productivity necessary to save this nation and save the world.

We’re talking about a vast program of this! We have to go to space! We have to undertake the industrializa-tion of the Moon, because if we don’t do industrializa-tion of the Moon, we can’t get to Mars. And if we can’t get to Mars—which may take several generations to do that, with human beings; we can get there already with slow craft in 300 days, or something like that. But if you’re going to bring human beings there, you’ve got to talk about a mere few days, between Moon orbit and

Mars orbit. And that involves some problems. But we pretty much shut down NASA, which was the mission-orientation for that sort of thing.

Now, the Mars project is necessary for humanity, in the sense that humanity functions on the basis of some-thing about human beings which animals don’t have. The animal world has creativity in the development of species, new species, varieties, and so forth. Even the non-living world undergoes development. The universe, the physical universe, is undergoing development all the time. But it has no will to develop! It has no knowledge-able will to choose to develop. It develops because the creativity is built into the universe. Man is different. Man has the willful creativity, to shape the universe. And therefore, man can not function without having the inspiration, to use that ability, that creative power, to achieve higher goals, than are currently practiced.

For example, we have a planet of very poor people, in Asia, in particular, and in Africa—a terrible mass of poor people! We’re running short of many resources. We have to create new resources. We have to increase the productive powers of labor of the existing popula-tion. We have �.7 billion people now on this planet—we’re headed towards 7. We have to progress, to meet that challenge. We have to inspire our people, each in their own culture, to take this mission-orientation for mankind as their responsibility.

A Challenge to Mankind’s Creative PowersIn order to challenge people, what do you do? You

educate them, and you adopt missions, which make goals, higher goals, clear to those people. And children say, “I want to do this.” We had, back in the 19�0s, even into the beginning of the ’70s, we had children who would say, “I want to go into space.” The Moon landing program of NASA was an inspiration. The Russian Soviet program was also an inspiration to the planet! You have to have these kinds of goals, of missions for mankind, for mankind to use his creative powers, to raise humanity to a higher level of existence. You have to talk to your children and your grandchildren about this kind of goal. And it’s only when you get their imag-ination stirred that they become creative. And without bestirring that creativity, mankind does not progress. Hmm?

And that’s what we used to say about the United States; we were a nation that was committed to that sort of thing. What we did under Franklin Roosevelt was an example of the nation which had been crushed, under a


legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, and Wilson, and similar types of scoundrels. We were almost destroyed. But we rebuilt. And facing the challenge of the war in Europe, and the challenge of unemployment, the chal-lenges here, we mobilized our people, to create a machine, which was the most powerful machine the world had ever seen: the machinery of the United States which was deployed for World War II.

The intention was to continue the development of that machine in the post-war period, not for war pur-poses, but for construction of the planet. Roosevelt had a clear plan for this thing. Truman had a different idea: Truman kissed the butt of Winston Churchill—and we’ve been getting backlash from that ever since. We destroyed most of our capability. We destroyed our in-dustries, we just shut them down! We had all kinds of projects, for post-war projects, which would have led to great achievements, and we shut them down.

Nuclear power was one example of this thing. It was feasible in prin-ciple. Sometimes, it takes a couple of generations; once an idea is clear and feasible, it may take you two or three generations to actually bring it online, as effective.

But the way in which you organize mankind—two questions: First, we have to understand culture. We have to understand national cultures, in particular, because national cultures embody—within the use of language and other things—embody the inher-

ited bits of knowledge and experience of past genera-tions of that people. There-fore, you can not go into a country and say—you can’t create a Tower of Babel, a one-world econ-omy. You have to use the culture, the various cul-tures of the people, as your mobilizing force: Because it’s in their imagination, the powers of imagina-tion, which is associated with their culture, in which they are able to mobilize creativity. So you want to create the opportunity, for upgrading them, through fostering the benefits of their own creativity, and inform them of the objec-

tives that other people were achieving, which they may copy and build upon.

So you need a system of sovereign nation-states, of sovereign people, different cultures, each with its own sovereign expression. And the unity of these people for a common purpose, the purpose of humanity. To do that you must stir the imagination, the powers of the imagi-nation of the people. And that means: Reach to space! We’re going to Mars. It will probably take us three to four generations to do that, to solve the scientific prob-lems that are involved in overcoming very high speeds or rates of acceleration in interplanetary travel, which is required for moving mankind around. And this is not

NASA

“The Moon landing program of NASA was an inspiration. The Russian Soviet program was also an inspiration to the planet!” Shown: Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space (April 1961), meets U.S. Gemini 4 astronauts in Paris in June 1965. Also shown are U.S. Vice President Hubert Humphrey (seated) and French Premier Georges Pompidou (standing).

NASA

The Apollo 11 Moon landing inspired people all over the world, to look to a future of exploration and discovery. Here, Apollo 11 astronauts in Mexico City, on a world tour that took them to 24 countries in 45 days.


easy, but we know we can solve the problem. We just have to go through the steps of solving it. It will take us two or three generations or more, but we’ll get there.

But as long as we inspire our young people, especially younger people, to look at their adulthood—we’ve got people in their twen-ties; they’re going to be functioning, probably, for �0 years to come, if we can get Obama out of office; he doesn’t seem to be in favor of that sort of thing—and they should be looking for-ward to what they’re going to produce, within their own lifetime, as benefits for humanity, of which they will be proud. It’s a span of about �0 years, ap-proximately, that they think in terms of. Most people think that way, if they live that long. And when people can find a purpose in their life, in the sense that what they are doing now, what they are preparing themselves to accomplish, will lead, within their own lifetime, to the foundations of something much better than they have today, that’s when you can capture and sustain the imagination of a people, in its own culture. And when people are united, even if they have different cultures, if they’re united by a common purpose, to do this!, to co-operate to do this!—then we have peace among nations on this planet. And that should be our goal. It should be our goal, now.

What seems impossible to small-minded people, are the ideas that are necessary, to get out the pit we’re in today.

We Don’t Need Wall Street!So, we’re in a very interesting crisis, right now. And

it started in a sense—the present crisis, in its present form—started back then, back in 2007, when I pro-posed the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. Now, this act was not adopted, because of people like Barney Frank, who was up front on this sort of thing. And Bar-ney’s a funny guy: We’ve never been able to determine exactly what language he speaks, but we know he’s there—and we’re not too pleased by it.

Anyway, so they led the charge, in opposing the in-stallation of my Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007. And there were many people in leading posi-tions, including governors of states, in the United States, who were prepared to move, to push that act forward. And it could have been implemented by the Autumn of 2007. What Barney Frank and his cohorts did was ex-actly the opposite. They wrecked that. And what became

“We have to understand national cultures, in particular, because national cultures embody . . . the inherited bits of knowledge and experience of past generations of that people. . . . You have to use the culture, the various cultures of the people, as your mobilizing force.”

EIRNS

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talks with Prof. R.N. Dandekar in Pune, India, during a visit to the Deccan College in April 1982. Professor Dandekar (d. 2001) was one of India’s most influential scholars of Sanscrit and ancient Indian language and culture.

EIRNS

Painting of Indian nationalist and scientist Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) in Pune, India. His work on ancient astronomy is often cited by LaRouche.

EIRNS

18th-Century astronomical instruments at Jaipur, India.


the process of bailout, in its early phases—bailing out corrupt banks, bail-ing the swindlers of Wall Street and sim-ilar kinds of things—became the objec-tive. They did nothing to stop the loss of homes of American citizens. They did nothing to save jobs, industrial jobs. They did nothing to maintain education. They did nothing to maintain and im-prove health care. But they went in ex-actly the opposite direction. And they became slaves of the British Empire, the little tiny Queen of the British Empire.

And so, we built up—we have tril-lions of dollars, tens of trillions of dol-lars, right on the books in the United States of worthless debt! Which was im-posed upon us, by bailout of things which we should let go bankrupt! We don’t need Wall Street! This economy doesn’t need it!

We need a Constitutional banking system, of the type, which Alexander Hamilton pre-scribed, and which is embedded in our Constitution. So, why don’t we just stick to our Constitution? We are sup-posed to be, not a monetary system—we’re not a mon-etary system, we’re a credit system! The government of the United States has a monopoly, Constitutionally, on the creation of credit, and of public credit! No other in-

stitution should be allowed, and should go to jail if they try, to inflate things by coining their own money, such as by a central bank! That’s a swindle. These people belong in jail. And they should have their ill-gotten gains taken away from them! But in this case, these people were able to bail out bankrupt institutions which were hopelessly corrupt, and wreck the United States!

What do we do about this? The solution is simple: You have to have the guts to do it. If you don’t have the guts to do it, you’re not going to have a United States; you’re not going to have a Europe. Have you got the guts to do it? Are you worth your salt? Are you going to do it? Put this thing through bankruptcy reorganization: We have the precedent with the former Glass-Steagall Act, which was ac-tually nothing but an implementation of a provision of the U.S. Federal Constitution. We are a credit system, not a monetary system! Monetary systems are illegal, with respect to our Constitution. They were practicing an illegal practice, an un-Constitu-tional practice.

Sorry, buddy! We found an honest judge, and you’re about to lose all these ill-gotten gains you had. We don’t need Goldman Sachs. We don’t need these kinds of things that Roosevelt tried to free us from. We don’t need them!

What we need is a good, sound system, a com-

NASA

The Apollo 11 Mission Control Center on July 24, 1969 celebrates the success of the first manned mission to the Moon. From left foreground: Dr. Maxime A. Fateg, Director of Engineering and Development; George S. Trimble, Deputy Director; Dr. Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., Director of Flight Operations.

Chinese Academy of Space Technology

China is working to master the challenge of space flight and other high-technology development, even as it struggles to deal with a vast rural population sunk in poverty. Here: an artist’s rendition of China’s Chang’e spacecraft, in lunar orbit. The craft was launched in October 2007, China’s first deep space mission.

1� Feature EIR December 11, 2009

mercial banking system such as what we used to under-stand as a commercial banking standard. But we need to create a credit system under the U.S. Federal govern-ment and our Constitution, because we’re going to have to cancel this $23 trillion of waste paper, as debt—just wipe it off the books! And the Federal government then has to have a single act, rammed through the Congress, which creates a supply of credit for several purposes. One, we don’t create jobs. When these guys talk about “jobs” today, they’re talking about handouts, picking up paper, digging your fingers in your nostrils, and cleaning out your nostrils, or something like that! It’s worthless!

We mean, productive jobs! In certain categories: We don’t have an auto industry! We’re losing the aircraft industry! We’re losing the power industry! We’re losing everything that’s worthwhile. We’re taking people who have skills, but are aging, we’re throwing them out on the streets. We’re threatening to kill them, by health-

care policies which are as intentionally mass-murder-ous as Adolf Hitler’s! Which we have on the books, right now, that are being voted up or down. We don’t need this. What we need is real work!

Now, we’ve got a youth population, which is not ac-customed to real work. Well, there weren’t the jobs available to get it! We destroyed the auto industry; the apprentice program that went with that is gone. All our high-tech industries are virtually shattered—we have nothing. We’ve got to build it back again.

Therefore, we have to take a number of things, that we can do, which will re-create the kind of industrial-agricultural potential which we formerly had, which we’ve lost. And we find that we are in the same situa-tion in that respect that you find, in Russia, the largest national area in the world, and with some very impor-tant features; and China, and India, and other countries, where they have a very large part of the population which is exceedingly poor and unskilled.

FIGURE 1

Permafrost Regions in the Former Soviet Union

Perry-Castañeda Map Collection, http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/soviet_permafrost_84.jpg

December 11, 2009 EIR Feature 1�

Now therefore, if we’re going to have a future for humanity, we have to solve that problem. And we have to do it in our own country, as part of that.

Uniting the PlanetNow, I have some measures that

I’ve indicated to my friends, but I’ve also some measures which I’ve indi-cated to some governments around the world, and friends of govern-ments around the world: that we simply take four nations, the United States, Russia, China, and India, which, together with nations which are closely associated with them, represent the greatest power on this planet, in terms of people power. And that we create a new order of affairs among allied, cooperating, sovereign nation-states, to solve this problem; to solve the problem of underdevel-opment where it occurs with large populations like India, China, and so forth—large parts of the population are totally undevel-oped—and to develop it.

We have a shortage of development of sources of certain essential raw materials. We’re going to have to build a system of cooperation to solve that problem. Russia, for example: The north of Russia, in Siberia, has one of those areas of the world where there’s a great concentration of mineral wealth. But it’s a tundra area; it’s an Arctic area, like northern Canada, which is a sim-ilar kind of area; like Alaska. You can’t just go up there, as they do in Africa, and steal the raw materials and walk away with it, and put it on a boat and ship it some-place else! No! You have to develop the area, you have to develop the production, which means you have to put people there! You have to build residences there, under those kinds of conditions—we can do that! We have to build the industries, which will not only extract raw materials which are needed, but which will develop them, into a semi-finished product for application. We therefore, have to take the areas of the world, where we have dense populations, where there’s inadequate de-velopment—we’re going to have to produce the raw-materials development program, which will solve the problem for them.

So this kind of cooperation among nations, which means long-term capital investment—we’re talking about �0-year, 100-year kinds of investment—this is what we need. And this, in three or four generations, we can change this planet, to reach certain objectives which are within our reach, under those conditions.

And therefore, what we need to do, for example, I have one project: the United States. We’ve lost most of our industry. Well, we can do one thing. We can do one thing which was international: We can unite Eurasia, Africa, and the Americas. How? By a single rail system. If you build the railway tunnel/bridge system through the Bering Strait, which is a well-defined project and a feasible project, you take that area of Siberia, you link into Alaska, down through Canada, down through the Darien Strait in South America, and down to the tip of South America. You do the same thing in the other di-rection, in Eurasia, down into Africa. And therefore, you can effectively, for most of this planet, now create a high-speed system of mass transportation, for passen-gers and freight, which is more efficient than any short- or medium-term aircraft travel, and much more effi-cient than highway travel, in terms of cost and effectiveness.

Anchorage

Berlin

Chita EdmontonEl Paso

Fairbanks

Fort Nelson

Irkutsk

Istanbul

Khabarovsk

New York

Paris

Skovorodino

Seward

Tayshet

Tynda

Ulan-Ude

Vladivostok

Yakutsk

Uelen

Bratsk

RU

SS

IAN

FE

DE

RA

TI O

N

MO

NG

OL

I A

C

HI N A

Gr e

e n l an d

Alaska

C AN

AD

A

UN

IT

ED

ST

AT

ES

ME

XI

CO

NORTHPOLE

BeringStrait P A C I F I C O C E A N

N O R T H

A T L A N T I C

O C E A N

A

RC T I C O C E A N

FIGURE 2

Future Global Rail Connections, as Seen From North Pole

Redrawn from H.A. Cooper


We can do that. We can unite this mega-planet, or this mega-continent, composed of Africa, the Ameri-cas, and Eurasia. And the Australians are eager to coop-erate, because Australia has a great mass of such things as uranium and thorium, which are the fine ingredients of nuclear power, these days. So therefore, Australia will be invited to contribute its development of its rel-evant industries in this large area they have for them-selves as a nation, and they will have a future, in the world, by playing this kind of role of cooperation, as Australia, with Asia in particular. Hmm?

So we can unite the world, on the basis of the fact that we are going to have a division of labor, among respectively sovereign nation-states. And how are we going to do it?

Cancel the Monetary SystemsWell, we’re not going to have a monetary system.

Monetary systems have to be cancelled. And you do that by cancelling all the worthless debt around. Like you go into a bank, you go into a bank under Glass-Steagall: You find there are a lot of bad assets in that bank, a lot of bad obligations. And you have the orders come in, for reorganization under Glass-Steagall or similar law, the way Roosevelt did in the original Glass-Steagall operation. And you say, “That’s crap, pffftt!, forget it! It’s gone!” “This is solid, this meets a Glass-Steagall standard for commercial banking, or a savings bank, or similar kinds of banks. That stays!”

Now, when we clean that mess up, now you turn around, and now, you create a new debt, which is, the Federal government authorizes the creation of a mass of utterance of credit. And we invite other nations to do the same thing. Get rid of the monetary system—take the IMF and everything resembling it, and bury ’em! Take the City of London, and bury it! Get rid of it!

Then what you do, is, you now have a system of cur-rencies. Nations of currencies, their legal currencies. Well, you have to create a fixed-exchange-rate system. Do you have to figure out how you calculate that? No, you don’t. You take the existing relationships in terms of currencies among nation-states, with whatever ad-justments people think are necessary and equitable, and you simply say, “these are credit systems.” That is, the currency of that nation belongs to that nation, as its au-thority. The only legal currency is what that nation itself creates, as its credit, which then can be capitalized for production.

We now have to have a system of credit systems, as

what Roosevelt had intended in 19��, contrary to what happened under Truman. Eliminate the monetary system, entirely. Wipe it out! We now recognize, as money and credit, only national credit. And by creating a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, among cooperat-ing nations, you’re now ready to go.

Now, once you’ve created a credit system under a fixed-exchange rate, now you go to treaty-agreements on long-term credit agreements across nation borders, where nations contract, among themselves, terms of co-operation over the long term, under a fixed-exchange-rate system. Because the important thing is not what the relative value, nominal value, of a currency is. What’s important is maintaining a baseline of improvement. And the baseline improvement—you have to get credit. You have to satisfy the physical needs of national de-velopment of various nations. And you create a system of credit, denominated in terms of like 2� years, �0 years, 100 years, in certain long-term projects. And that way we can achieve what has to be achieved.

Mobilizing the ImaginationBut we have to do something else. We have to mo-

bilize the population and its imagination. Because only the desire for a better future, only goals for a better future, can mobilize a population to be motivated, to do what has to be done. When you put this Mars question: We have to industrialize the Moon, which is already a project that’s understood: Ten nations are actually con-cerned, with the idea of industrializing the Moon; ten nations that are Moon-landing oriented. We have to take the Moon, and make the Moon a baseline, for going into space.

In other words, you don’t want to build up tremen-dous weight in apparatus on Earth, and have to pump that stuff up to the Moon! What you do is, you take your technology to the Moon, and then you find the raw ma-terials on the Moon, which you use to build the craft. Now you build the craft which will actually take you, or take whatever you want to send, to Mars, in that direc-tion. So you have to build an industrialization of the Moon.

Remember, this is not a new idea! The space pio-neers, as early as the immediate post-war period, in the 19�0s in the United States, were already talking about that, as they were in the Soviet Union, and in other places. The Mars objective was the objective, the planet Mars. Getting there is going to be complicated; it’s going to take a lot of science, a lot of development, but


that’s our mission. We’re thinking ahead: We’re not thinking about what we’re going to get tomorrow; we’re thinking about what our people are going to have, two or three generations ahead.

And we’re thinking about the purpose in life, which we’re giving to young people today, who are coming out of adolescence—the purpose in life, for them! When they ask themselves, “To what purpose am I living? Am I living to my satisfaction? Am I an animal? Or am I living for the sake of my coming generations? Am I living for the joy of my old age? Am I living to do the things that will give me joy in my old age?” It will take a grandfather, who will tell his grandson, “I helped build that! And here’s what you’re going to do, in your time.”

It’s that force of imagination, when that becomes the policy of nations, to develop the imagination in this way, the scientific imagination, the cultural imagina-tion, where do we want to go? What do we want to promise to our grandchildren, and their grandchildren? What do we expect as goals that we think we can realize in this term of life? How do we have to educate our people, what do we have to do now, to give a meaning to life? I mean, are we animals? That we just eat, and have pleasure, from one moment to the other? Or, are we people, who are thinking about humanity, about future generations, are thinking about what we owe to past generations, and what we owe to future genera-tions? Do our lives have meaning? Do they have pur-pose? Or are we just silly pleasure-seekers, or some-thing? Entertainment-seekers?

And the problem we have today, is a cultural prob-lem, which is a moral problem: Is that under a zero-growth society, a zero technological growth society, a greenie society, mankind becomes less than an animal in moral value. That’s why we have this health-care program! What’s the health-care policy, that we’re get-ting in Europe? What’s the health-care policy now in the United States, under the Obama Administration? Kill people! Reduce the number of people! By cutting down the means of life! They’re too young, too many babies—they should die! They’re too old, we don’t want them—they should die! We don’t want jobs which require skills—which means we’ll be able to produce less, more people should die!

The goal that Prince Philip has described is to reduce the population from �.7 billion, to 2! Or less! A maxi-mum of 2: The official policy of the British monarchy, is to reduce the world’s population from a �.7 level,

today, of billions, to less than 2. That’s his policy. That’s what the Greenies are all about. That’s what the Copen-hagen thing is all about: Mass murder!

When we’re on the road, where the population re-quires that we must anticipate right now, a world level

of population of 7 billion. We have to anticipate that now, in this coming generation. And we have to prepare to be able to meet that challenge. And we can! The point is, as you make people creative, you inspire them to be creative. Inspire them to see objectives beyond what their habits are today, and they will be creative, and they will create the ability to satisfy these goals. And man-kind is not going to stick around as being just in the nook of this Earth, just some corner of the Solar System: Mankind is going out into the universe. If we can have a constantly accelerated flight within our galaxy, men, in their own lifetime, can explore some distant parts of this galaxy. We can do it.

‘We Are the Fire-Bringers’We’re not going to do this tomorrow, but our per-

spective has to be in that direction. It’s what we have to tell to our children, and our grandchildren: “This is what we must do.” And when you capture the imagina-tion of people, in a realistic way, this way, then they become moral, because they become inspired to do good.

And you see around us, people want to be enter-tained. What kind of entertainment do they want? They want to dull their sense with marijuana or some other drugs, or some crazy habit, all night, with some crazy dancing going on. Crazy, invented new sexes, or what-ever other kinds of entertainment they want. They don’t have a human purpose in life, they don’t have a mean-ing. They would stand ashamed in front of a court of humanity. You ask them, “What was your purpose in life?” “What’s that?” They don’t have a sense of a pur-pose in life!

We don’t need Wall Street! This economy doesn’t need it! We need a Constitutional banking system, of the type, which Alexander Hamilton prescribed, and which is embedded in our Constitution.


And we, as human beings all die: No one has in-vented a non-dying science. Human beings die. Well, what is important about human beings? Is it the fact that they die? Or the fact that they’re living? No, not that. It’s what human beings contribute in the course of their lifetime. And by capturing the imagination of young people in schools, for example, and inspiring them to realize that they can make discoveries, or they can begin by reenacting discoveries which people have made before them; and realize that this human power of cre-ativity, of discovery, is what makes them human, and is what gives meaning to their life. That’s where you get morality. There’s no other way to get it. Otherwise, you’re just an animal. If you’re not oriented to the future, and the development of mankind, what are you? You’re just an animal!

And how does mankind do that? With fire. You know, as I’ve emphasized repeatedly, contrary to the Greenies, the key evidence in ancient archaeology, be-tween a monkey or an ape, and a human being, is a fire-place. Human beings are the only creatures that use fire. And we not only have fire, the burning of wood, and coal, and so forth; we now have big fire: We have nu-clear fire. We have thermonuclear-power fire. We have hadron collider fire. All this kind of fire, ever-increas-ing higher order of energy-flux density.

And through this, we’re able to transform the planet, we’re able to use poorer natural resources, with the same effect as we once did with richer natural resources. We’re going to find that we’re able to master more and more of the vicinity of Earth and the Solar System, through the increase of fire: higher fire, nuclear fire, thermonuclear fire, antimatter/matter-reaction fire, always more dense. And with that, mankind can do almost anything.

So, we are that: We are the fire-bringers. And by doing that, we increase man’s power to exist.

A Pacific OrientationSo, that has to be our mission. Now, what I’ve pro-

posed, so far, of course, practically, is two areas I want to focus on: First of all, at present, as I said, Western and Central Europe is dead. It, by itself, presently has no ability to meet the challenge of its own future, because of this euro system, this British-imposed euro system, which was imposed beginning 1989-1990. However, there are other parts of the planet, which, as they’ve shown, are more open to development. The United States, because of our legacy, we have deeply embed-

ded in us, a commitment to this kind of thing, and we just have to reawaken it, based on our own culture.

We have Russia, which is a similar case. It’s the largest land-area nation in the world, with immense re-sources, and also, with a culture which has adapted it to operate effectively in an arctic or subarctic area, such as that of northern Siberia. And you’ve got a little, one place, in Moscow, the Vernadsky Institute, which has the knowledge of how to develop that. I’ve talked with our friends in the Vernadsky Institute repeatedly; we’ve talked about this. They know how to do it! How to get a population—and a Russian population would like to do that—how to do that, how to take these areas which are considered uninhabitable, make them habitable! And by making them habitable, and developing industries and transportation systems there, we can extract the raw materials which Asia as a whole requires. And by coop-eration with other places, we can do the same thing. By bringing these continents together, into a super-conti-nent, through mass transportation systems, we can do that! We can solve this problem.

And in the process, at the same time, space. Space is important, because we should do it. We should adopt it as a mission. But space is important in order to force people to see a future for mankind, beyond the limits of Earth itself. And that inspiration of the imagination of children, to that effect, is the most important thing we can do. Because, as we see, from degeneration of Europe, culturally and morally, in the United States, culturally and morally, recently, it’s the lack of inspira-tion to think in that direction, which is the source of our acceptance of degradation of our culture in recent times.

So, this means that the United States is crucial, be-cause we have an ingredient in us, if we awaken it, which is essential to the other cooperating nations. The other cooperating nations generally have a Pacific ori-entation, rather than an Atlantic orientation. The devel-opment of European civilization was to get away from Europe, toward the Americas; and once they filled up the Americas, then the direction was to get across the Pacific, to Asia, to get at that part of the world. And we have a Pacific orientation today. It happened with the recent developments in China and elsewhere. We have a Pacific orientation: We’re going across from the United States, from Europe to the United States, and from South America, to Asia. So the center of develop-ment now, the focal point of development now, is the relationship of the motion, from the United States, since


western Europe doesn’t function right now, to Asia, and beyond, across the Pacific.

So, we mobilize in that direction: the United States, China, Russia, India. That’s the center, that’s your base-line. That is sufficient to do this. Because if you have those nations united, we can push it through; we can push it through, now! Not two years from now, not after the next election next year, but now! Because we’re now in a breakdown crisis of the entire international fi-nancial-monetary system! Which happened last week-end.

As I said, back in July, the 2�th of July of 2007, I said this system is crashing. It’s now crashed. It’s fin-ished. Its collapse will be a process ongoing, but it’s collapsing. And therefore, we need an immediate treaty-agreement, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries which are relevant in that area, first. We have to do what was done, in a limited way, in the agreement between China and Russia, most recently, in October. Because that’s the beginning, that’s the pattern. India must be included; Southwest Asia must be included; Southeast Asia, particularly, must be included.

So, now, we start a development program. The United States must subscribe to this and become a part-ner in its operation. Then we have enough power, to

change the direction of the planet. And that is the way we’ll solve the problem of the United States.

A New CCCNow, inside the United States,

what do we have to do? As I men-tioned, we have a labor force of young people which is not qualified to do much more than pick their nose—and that’s better than drugs. So therefore, we’re going to have to create in the United States, a peculiar kind of re-vival of what Roosevelt created as the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps. We’re going to have to take these young people, who have very little chance of developing modern skills, and we’re going to have to open an academic type of alternative to military service, or it may include people in military service; but like a Corps of Engineers, in an extended

sense. And taking young people into this, and giving them an orientation to begin to develop themselves as becoming a productive force in society, a meaningful force.

We are actually going to move people, as we did with the CCCs before, we’re going to have to move many of these young people out of the cities, into spe-cial encampments, as their residence, as they’re quali-fying. We’re going to have to have a special educational program. We’re going to try to turn as many as possible, into qualified engineers and things of that sort. We did that before—we can do it. But it has to take patience, and you have to have some art. We have some experi-ence in this from the past. We’ll do it again.

Create a civilian corps, which is dedicated to this general purpose of taking the labor force of young people, coming out of high school age, in their 20s, and moving them in a direction where they begin to de-velop—with some self-discipline as well as disci-pline—to learn how to be productive people. That will be a source of strength. We did that: Remember, we had a famous division from Michigan, which fought in World War II, and it came from this kind of source; a lot of it came right out of the CCC camps, and they marched into war.

Then, from that, you have the branching opportuni-

www.derekerdman.com

This energetic young man is part of the labor force of young Americans who lack skills, but could be quickly upgraded, were the appropriate actions taken by government.


ties, in kinds of employment, or kinds of employment careers—aerospace, building railway systems, other kinds of things—so you actually are developing people, while they’re being educated in this way, into a produc-tive force. And we know enough in our own culture in the United States how to do that. What’s needed is the will to do it, if the will to do it is there. What we need is, people in productive jobs.

Then we have to have productive programs. Well, we’ve lost most of our industrial potential. It’s there la-tently, but we shut down the auto industry, essentially; we’ve been shutting down the aircraft industry now. We’re shutting down almost everything of any impor-tance, now. We’ll stop that. So, let’s build an interna-tional, modern, rail, magnetic-levitation system, among these continents, as a mission-orientation.

Now, you put the pieces in, one by one, as you choose, but that’s your orientation. You’re going to take people off the highway. Instead of commuting two hours or more a day, each way, from one place to an-other just to do work, and destroying family life, you’re going to decentralize the relationship of place or loca-tion of residence, to work. People should not have to travel an hour to two hours a day, each way, to and from their work. It destroys family life.

How do we do that? Well, there are two ways of

doing this: Regrouping the habitation; or, you can regroup the orientation of habita-tion. The other way is high-speed transport. People on the highways in great numbers, in flocks, in automobiles, travelling an hour to two hours each way, each day, to and from work, is not good for family life! Not good for any kind of life, not good for social life; it disorients people, corrupts them. Therefore, you need high-speed transportation, which can get people safely to and from the place between where they work and where they live. And you restore family life, which almost does not exist in the United States, these days. So we need this kind of motion.

Greening the DesertsWe need a space program! We need

water-management programs. We need to turn whole areas of desert areas into rich areas of growth. And we’re not going to have solar reflectors, we’re going to have

chlorophyll! You take an area—I’ve described this before—you have these giant arrays of solar reflec-tors—what idiocy! What insanity dreamed this one up!

You have a certain density of sunlight radiation that hits the surface of the Earth, like a desert area—no green. Or you clear an area of shrubbery and growth, to put solar collectors out there! Now, the solar collector collects power at the incident level of energy-flux den-sity, of sunlight hitting the surface of the Earth. But, if you didn’t use a solar collector, or the silly idea of wind-mills to generate electricity (which is even worse than a solar collector)—as a matter of fact, windmills, if you take them down and liquidate them when they wear out, the net contribution of the existence of a windmill as a source of power, is zero, or less! Because the cost of building the damned thing, operating it, handling, and then taking it down, combined, is greater than all the benefit you get in terms of electrical power! Windmills are for nuts.

All right, now, solar collectors: What’s the best solar collector? Well, you have solar collectors in the sea, and you have them elsewhere, but the most familiar solar collector, which most people know, is called “chloro-phyll.”

Now chlorophyll is a molecule which looks like a pollywog; it has a tail. But that tail is actually an an-

National Archives

A Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp in Marsing, Idaho, in 1941. The crew is laying concrete pipe. Roosevelt’s CCC program should be revived today, to give young people the opportunity to become productive members of society.


tenna. And it has a head, with a big atom in the middle of it. And what the tail does—the tail collects power from the Sun, and the power is accumulated, as in a ca-pacitance effect, in the head. And you have several of these molecules, or a number of them, working together. So one of the molecules gets pregnant, and is ready to give a spurt of power. Now the spurt of power is actu-ally amplified, in what we call energy-flux density, over the incident energy-flux density of sunlight hitting the soil.

So what happens then, is, you get several effects from the chlorophyll: First of all, you get a higher level of power; it’s much more efficient and it’s not wasted. Secondly, chlorophyll develops the land area, by turning a desert area, or a barren area, and getting growth, trees. It creates rainfall patterns, where rain is recycled from one part of an area to another. Incident rainfall!

How do you get rainfall? Well, the rainfall starts from the ocean, largely, it comes across the land, it falls on the ground. It then is evaporated again, be-cause of the respiration of plants, and moves on, to start another rainstorm down the road! So the same water in this rainfall is being used time and time again, between the time it originates in the ocean, and the time it gets back into the ocean again, by flowing downstream.

Now, this creates, what? This has the effect of cooling the environment. Grasses do a fairly decent job; trees are much better. Trees will take up to 10% of the incident solar radiation, and absorb it and convert it into bio-mass—and will cool the environ-ment! The way you get rid of a desert, is you grow a forest. And you have to go through these cycles to do it.

So therefore, we don’t want this nonsense any more. What we need is high energy-flux density power, and high energy-flux density is the mea-surement of effectiveness of produc-tion. The higher the energy-flux den-sity—and this means you go from incident sunlight, you go up the scale toward nuclear power, and then to thermonuclear power, and beyond that.

A Filling Station on the MoonWell, for example: If you wanted to take a ship, and

you wanted the ship to take you from Earth-orbit, as in, from the Moon to Mars orbit, with people in it—if you wanted to have that ship travel at a speed which gives a gravitational effect for the inhabitants of the capsule, you will have a tank attached to it, as big as the Moon, just to contain the fuel. It’s not a very good idea.

So therefore, what you need, is you need a much higher energy-flux density thing; you need fusion thrust. And where do you get the fusion thrust? Well, you go to the Moon. That’s your filling station. You’ll find at the filling station on the Moon, there’s helium-3, an isotope of helium. Helium-3 is the best fuel for thermonuclear fusion, it’s the most efficient. So if you wanted to have a ship go, so the one-gravity effect on the passengers and the crew, between Earth orbit and Mars orbit, you would want to have thermonuclear fusion as your pro-pellant. And it would come from helium-3, picked up from the gas station on the Moon. And most of the equipment you would fly in, would also be built on the Moon, from raw materials which are present on the Moon. And once we get into that racket, we find that we’re not limited to the Moon. Once we become gath-erers of raw materials and so forth, in various parts of the Solar System, then, we find that we have many more kinds of resources to deal with.

JUWI Group

These solar panels covering the landscape in Waldpolenz, Germany, are taking up the space that a much more efficient energy-producing mechanism could be using: chlorophyll! “What insanity dreamed this one up?” LaRouche exclaimed.


So, in general, the point is, we have to go to this kind of development. Therefore, we want a space orienta-tion. We want a power/space orientation combined, to complement the development of a railway system. Now, in this process, when you start to build the railway system, of the type we’re talking about, you’re going to have to recreate the machine-tool production, and so forth, that you need.

So essentially, in my view, in the United States, what we would do by tradition: We would take a large-scale project, like the Tennessee Valley program, or our de-veloping a railway system, the transcontinental railway system—you would take that project, and you would assign Federal responsibility for creating the credit, and authorizing this, to build this system. You would then go to private contractors, along the way, who would pick up on filling out subcontractors on these projects, which is the way things always work in the United States, when they worked. And thus, you take a driver, some scientific project, like a space program, or a rail-way program, a water program, building power plants—these things now become the stimulus, which spin off the subcontracts and opportunities for expanding in-dustry again.

So now we want to increase the productive powers of labor, per capita and per square kilometer. We take the large projects as drivers. We take the offshoots of the large projects, which are largely national projects, as stimulants for the smaller level, for people who do the things that are necessary to support the major proj-ects out there. Now, you can expand, raise the level, with aid of education, which is stimulated by this, to increase the productive powers of labor per capita in physical terms.

And that’s what we used to do, in our best time! That’s what we did under Roosevelt, with a lot of im-provisation. Do it again! That’s the solution for Asia, as well! You have to have the process of self-develop-ment of a population, through the kinds of goals and stimulants which will enable that to occur in a lawful way. And you have to have a people-carry orienta-tion—that’s to say, when you’ve got little kids out there, young people, who have no future, who are ex-tremely poor, with no significant prospect of getting a better life—this is the way you approach that problem. You transform people who have no future, and you give them a future, by creating this process, where they’re assimilated to the process of the general growth of the society.

A Credit System Now!Now, so therefore, what we need right now—im-

mediately—is, we need this program: We need to eliminate the present world monetary system, by a credit system. We create such a credit system by—be-cause the United States is crucial, we have to have the United States cooperate as a part of this, as an initiat-ing part.

The United States, Russia, China, and India are the base of doing that. If the United States, Russia, China, and India begin to cooperate, in the way we see sig-nalled by the recent, past months’ development of co-operation between Russian and China on certain proj-ects, we see the pathway which can be extended to a larger part of the globe. And by making people con-scious of what this means, in these countries and other countries, which will admire this, we’re going to change the moral point of view, among nations generally. If your neighbor is beneficial to your existence, then you like your neighbor, and you will not have war. You will solve the problem without having war.

We will not have this terrible thing.The problem we have now, is, the Americans have

this generation that’s dominant in the United States, which has lost that perspective. I represent one of the old fossils, who are still running around functioning, who represents this tradition which was once known as the Franklin Roosevelt tradition, and even earlier gen-erations. But my view is this: Right now, right now: the entire world financial-monetary system is collapsing! Right now! It’s not going to collapse, it is now collaps-ing! It has a date where it collapsed: It collapsed on the day that the Little Queen of England, in her capacity as Emperor of the World—which she described herself as being, virtually!—she said: “We represent one-third of the world, you know. And we’re going to reach out fur-ther! We are going to run the world!” From places such as Dubai, no doubt!

Now Dubai is what? When China assimilated Hong Kong, the tradition of Hong Kong under the British Raj went by! And what did the British do? They picked Dubai! “Goodbye, Hong Kong. Dubai, we come!”

Dubai is the worst, filthiest center of corruption on this planet. For example, in places like nearby coun-tries, if you want to have a crooked transaction, you go to Dubai. They talk about a certain amount of money. Well, what was Dubai, essentially? What was Hong Kong? How did Hong Kong exist? How did it come into existence? Drugs! What’s Dubai represent? Drugs!


Where are the drugs? Well, all over the place, if you want to ask for them, in the right way.

But the drugs come from—Afghanistan! They come from the southern part of Afghanistan—Oh! Aren’t we fighting a war over there, or something?—from the southern part of Afghanistan, which is occupied by the British military, which is in there supervising the drug business. And the drug business is done by natives of the country, who are told, if they don’t want to get shot, they will grow opium, and hashish, and other things. And produce heroin. And the heroin market of the world is now centered on this part of Afghanistan. And the British, by occupying it with their troops, are managing it!

So, all the drug trafficking in the world is now cen-tered, as in Hong Kong, the same way, now, in Dubai! It’s a center of intellectual filth and other kinds of filth of the planet! And the other Arab states around there are very embarrassed, when you start talking about Dubai these days, because it’s a very dirty place—evil.

So this is the problem: The British Empire, which is Prince Philip, this crazy thing, the Copenhagen Confer-ence, all these things are part of the intended destruc-tion of humanity. This is worse than Adolf Hitler, what

this amounts to in its effect. It has to be destroyed.

And the present world mon-etary-financial system is now disintegrating. Under present conditions, the present mone-tary system can not be saved! You can’t save it—don’t try. You have to shut it down. You shut it down, by putting it through a bankruptcy reorgani-zation. You already have a step in that direction, in the agree-ment between Russia and China.

That agreement is a step in that direction: To take an asset—China using an asset, which is the debt of the United States to China. Instead of sitting there as an asset, waiting for it to be repaid, they now use it, as an in-vestment capital, and use it to develop the economy of Asia, and other places. If this thing

goes further, Japan will jump on it immediately, because Japan has no future, except as a partner of that region of the world. Korea, essentially, immediately. Other parts of South Asia, immediately; they will orient immedi-ately in that direction. If India enters this, and India has to, because it has no rational choice but to do that, and a lot of people in India are inclined to go in that direction, then you’ll have this whole section of Asia, which can now be involved in a development perspective.

And the way to make it work: The United States must join it.

And the present direction of policy of the U.S. Pres-idency must cease! And the United States must go away from the British-oriented policy, toward this policy, toward a Pacific policy. That is, the United States, as across the Pacific, to China, Russia, and these countries. And we have to push it through. And we have to use a weapon, and the weapon is a true weapon, it’s not a fic-tion: The entire, present world system is going into the form of a collapse, which mimics what happened in Europe in the 1�th Century, which was called a Dark Age, or a new Dark Age. Mankind has no choice: It must do this, or mankind, as a whole, goes into a Dark Age.

CHOGM

The “little Queen Elizabeth” (with handbag) at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, Nov. 27-29, 2009. She told the assembled colonials: “It is not enough to look within the boundaries of the Commonwealth. In a world where political, economic and environmental problems and opportunities cross continents, the Commonwealth will also need to prove its relevance beyond its own borders and develop a truly global perspective.”


And there’s no reason not to do it. There are imped-iments to doing it, and that means that serious people in the United States, have to use the potential for bringing key forces in the United States, into cooperation with what is going on, as a process between Russia and China, and what should be, also, India. Once we do that—and I know it’s possible—we’re talking to people

in the United States, with whom we’re discussing this. It is possible to do this, and it’s possible to do this, very soon. I’m thinking in terms of months, or weeks, that something like this could be done. It’s our chance.

Purify the PresidencyThat means that this President—look, the Congress

is not worth much; the President is worth less. We have some people in the government, in the United States, who are good people, intelligent people, who are capa-ble of understanding this, and would tend to go with it. With a very slight adjustment in the composition of the present Presidency of the United States, eliminating the fruitcakes, like Rahm Emanuel, whose tutu is getting too tight for him! He screams a lot—it’s that tutu squeez-ing in on him, you know. It’s shrinking—he’s getting fat, and his tutu is getting tighter and tighter; he’s an-grier and angrier! And what he has to do, is have this tutu removed. He probably should be sent to a health-care center where the tutu is removed—he’s getting fat! You know, and the tutu doesn’t fit any more. He doesn’t dance well.

Anyway, but by eliminating this factor, the so-called behaviorist factor, in the present Administration, the part that’s hated the most and increasingly hated, out, you have a U.S. Federal system, with people who are loyal to the system. You know, our system is of that character, as some people know. Our system is a Presi-dential system; it’s not a parliamentary system. You have people who are—like me! I’m not part of the gov-ernment. But I’ve been associated with the government for a long time. As a matter of fact, ever since I was in

service, in military service in India, where I became sort of self-involved in the cause of Indians, at that point, against the British Raj, back in 19��.

So, and over that period, many of us are loyal to our sense of our government, our nation, our republic. And we tend to gather around the idea of our republic, as a republic; and we gather around the idea of the Presi-dency, as the key to our republic. The Congress has a very definite function. Our state representative system has a very important function. But the thing that holds the country together, that gives it a direction, is the Fed-eral Executive; and the Federal Executive is a very large organization of people who are members of govern-ment, and people who are not members of government. Some were formerly members of government; they’re not members of government anymore. But we all have our attachment, our emotional attachment, patriotic at-tachment, to the idea that this is our government, and this belongs to a government according to our Constitu-tion. And our primary concern is our nation as a repub-lic, and the role of the Presidency of this republic and the Executive branch in steering the policies of the nation as a whole, diplomatically and otherwise.

And therefore, if you purify this government of ours—which can be done—you can have very rapidly a very serious change in policy from a very bad policy, which we have now, to a very good policy, with some of the same members of government who are in position right now. And that’s what I’m talking about. There are people in government or around government, associated with government right now, who understand some of the things I’m talking about, and who can very quickly learn to come to an accommodation around what I’m talking about. There are people in government, in this govern-ment, even the Obama government, who understand something of what I’m talking about, about this U.S.-Russia-China-India cooperation. They understand it; not perfectly, but they understand it. It’s an idea that’s there! And if you get the Obama situation under control, with the weight of this crisis now coming down, which is going to be more and more obvious as the days pass—we’re in a breakdown crisis in the entire planet.

Under these conditions, under this condition of shock, you can make sudden changes. But you have to have clear, correct ideas, or you make a mess, not a change. And the time has come for the action to occur, to purify and strengthen our Federal Executive, in terms of its historic, Constitutional mission orientation, and tell Mr. Obama he has to be re-educated, one way or the

You’re in a period of revolution, and history says, if you don’t make the right revolution, you get the wrong one. We’re in one of those times, and that’s what this is all about.


other—in the White House or out—but he will be re-educated in either case. He will have a different orienta-tion, and this clown, Rahm Emanuel, this silly fellow, will have to find another place; take his tutu someplace else. And that is a very feasible thing, right now. It’s real, and it’s necessary.

You’re in a period of revolution, and history says, if you don’t make the right revolution, you get the wrong one. We’re in one of those times, and that’s what this is all about.

A Real ChangeThe time has come for a real change! And the real

change, the ingredients of a real change, as far as the United States are concerned, are really here. What are the changes?

The changes are: We’re going back to a productive economy. We’re going to a high-technology economy again. We’re going to repair what we destroyed, in terms of the auto industry’s potential, other industries’ potential. We’re going to repair, we’re going to end this slavery to foreign control of food supply. We’re going to insure food sovereignty for every nation.

Nations don’t have national security now, because they don’t have food sovereignty. The food on which they depend, is grown in another country, and it’s inter-

national forces, not any of the coun-tries, that control the food supply. And the food supply is being de-stroyed, deliberately, by the interna-tional cartels, the financial interests. Those cartels must be broken, their rights taken away, because every nation has a right to food security.

So anyway, this is the kind of thing we must do; we’re at the point we must do it. And I say, from my knowledge, the potential ingredients to be put together inside the United States, for cooperation with Russia, China, India, and other countries, around a Pacific orientation, exist. It’s just going to take the guts from a few people to make it happen.

And Obama can sit in the White House, or he can sit outside. He can do what we tell him, inside, or he can do something else, outside. And he will be nicely protected, he won’t be

hurt—his feelings may be hurt, but he’ll have a good life. We take care of our Presidents, even when they’re bums. We have respect for our Presidents; not because of them, but because of the institution they represent.

So, that’s what our situation is. Anyway, I think we’ll clarify some of this material in discussion, which is now, I presume, proceeding. And I would like to have Harley introduce our three candidates.

The Three CandidatesSchlanger: Well, as Lyn mentioned at the begin-

ning, we’re launching a new phase in American politi-cal life, with the announcement today of three cam-paigns in three very different parts of the country, but which will provide a national focus for the ideas that you’ve just heard presented by Mr. LaRouche. So we have our three candidates here, and I’d like to introduce them to you. These are members of the LaRouche Youth Movement, who have played an active role in recruiting young people into politics, and who represent individu-als who have developed both intellectual capabilities and emotional capacity to inspire the desire in others to act for the future. And that’s what these campaigns will be. So, the three candidates we have:

First of all, someone who became a little bit famous earlier this year, during the town meeting brawls that

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Moderator Harley Schlanger introduced the LaRouche PAC candidates running in the next Democratic primaries. From left: Rachel Brown (running against Barney “Bailout” Frank of Massachusetts); Summer Justice Shields (challenging Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in California); and Lakesha Rogers (running for the Texas seat now held by Republican Pete Olson).


were taking place—Rachel Brown, who will be run-ning against “Bailout Barney” Frank. And Rachel will be telling anyone who will listen, that if you’ve lost your job, you’ve lost your house, if your grandmother is being carted off to be killed, blame “Bailout Barney”! And this is a national campaign, because Barney Frank is at the center of this corrupt and immoral policy of bailing out the banks, while ignoring the welfare of the American people.

Now, secondly, we would be remiss if we didn’t take on the poor woman who sometimes appears like a jack-in-the-box when she’s sitting behind the President at his speeches, namely the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. So, we have a candidate who will be running in her district in San Francisco, who will be bringing this Pacific ori-entation, and I assure you that once his campaign starts, we probably will see some sign of emotion on her face. So, Summer Justice Shields will be running against Nancy Pelosi.

And then, there’s a part of the country which I have inhabited for the last 30-something years. It’s a tough part of the country; it’s one of Lyn’s favorite parts, be-cause it has so much potential and needs so much work. Namely, Texas. Now, in Texas, we had a character a few years back, who some of you may remember, Tom DeLay. And we ran a campaign to save Texas and save America “without DeLay,” and it finally worked. Only, the person who came in last time, is another bum who worked with DeLay, and he worked with Phil Gramm, in pushing through the elimination of the Glass-Stea-gall standard.

And so, we have a candidate who’s going to be run-ning in that district, to once again restore dignity to that district. But there’s another very important aspect to that district. That’s the district where NASA is located. And as you’ve heard Lyn, in his discussion today, a cen-tral part of changing this country is going to be inspir-ing youth to drop their computers and their cell phones and their XBoxes, and to actually take on the challenge of going into space. And so we’re going to running a campaign in the district of NASA, which will have, as one of its ideas, to take the troops out of Afghanistan and put them in space. And the candidate there will be Kesha Rogers.

So this will be a national campaign to make sure the Presidential system functions in the United States. And we’re going to need your support for these campaigns. We’re going to run, not campaigns on a shoestring, but serious campaigns, with websites, and the websites will

be launched within the next days. You will be able to go onto the websites, and see the latest developments in these campaigns, and also crossfired on LaRouche PAC. But we’re going to need your support for them, so as soon as you can, go on these websites for Rachel Brown, Summer Shields, and Kesha Rogers, and write checks for them. You can write checks for all three of them, or one big check for one of them, however you want to do it. But this will be one of the ways that you can partici-pate in this fight that Lyndon LaRouche identified today. Thank you.

Dialogue with LaRouche

Freeman: Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Debra Freeman.

We have a number of questions for Lyn, some of which have come in from some institutions around the world, and I’m going to give priority to those questions, particularly, because they come from institutions that are the parties to the Four-Power Agreement that Lyn has authored.

The first question comes from Russia. Actually, it’s two questions. This comes from an editor at a leading Russian weekly newspaper, which, in the recent period, has drawn tremendous attention to the Four-Power per-spective that Mr. LaRouche has put forward. His first question is about the Lisbon Treaty, on the ceremony that just took place, as well as the meaning of the nomi-nation and confirmation of the new European Union leadership. He asks: “What are the consequences of this, especially for Russia?”

“My second question concerns the second phase of the financial crisis. Some people are saying that it has ended, and that a recovery is going on. What are the near-term prospects?”

The Four Powers and the End of MonetarismLaRouche: Well, on the second question, I would

say that the reports of the undeath of the dead is not yet well established. This system is dead; there is no pos-sibility of recovery of this system. The only recovery possible, first of all, is, you take the dirty laundry to the laundry. And you wash all the monetarism out of it. And you come up with a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, which, in point of fact, was actually what Franklin Roosevelt had intended in 19��, when he rejected and denounced John Keynes’ swindle.


The problem was, that in the entire postwar period, with the death of Roosevelt, the first thing Truman did—and Truman was a fascist: That’s not an exaggera-tion. He was a Wall Street-pro-moted fascist from Missouri, and thus, he was a Churchill supporter. The reason he got in there was because Roosevelt had trouble getting re-elected for his fourth term, because of a right-wing turn in the United States at the time. And therefore, Truman, who was acceptable, because he was a pig, let Roos-evelt be re-elected. And then Roosevelt died.

And you had the experience of the head of the OSS at that time, who went in to see Roosevelt, after he had been re-elected, re-installed in office, re-sworn in. And he came out of the meeting with Roosevelt, and he had gone into the anteroom. He was the head of OSS, and there was a friend of his, who was the head of the OSS operating in Italy, who was my friend, who was sitting in the hallway. And so, he came out, his face was ashen. “It’s over; it’s over.” The right wing had taken over, be-cause Roosevelt’s death was the last bastion for what we were committed to. And so therefore, we got into this process under Truman, which was dictated, really, by Churchill and company.

For example, Roosevelt was concerned immedi-

ately with the elimination of all colonialism, all imperi-alism. And to create a system of free nation-states; so the idea of the United Nations was to have a repository, and take all the parts of the world which were colo-nies—especially British colonies, but other colonies, or semi-colonies, and to free them from colonial status. And to have a vehicle, which was the United Nations, which was supposed to be an entry-point for each of these countries to have national sovereign status pro-vided to them as a vehicle by the United Nations.

Well, that didn’t happen. The first thing that hap-pened, is, in the case of Indo-China, the British went in there, with the backing of Truman, and the Japanese prisoners of war were released from the camps, and told by the British to resume their arms and occupy Indo-China until the British could get the French in there to resume the government. And this policy of Truman and of Churchill and company, was the policy of the United States, which was reflected, say, in the 1970s, by Henry Kissinger and company, who proposed that Africa’s

The American System has deep roots, LaRouche said: Remember that Franklin Roosevelt was a descendant of Isaac Roosevelt, “who had worked with Alexander Hamilton in the establishment of the Bank of New York, which was the enemy of the British-controlled Bank of Manhattan, who were a bunch of traitors.”

President Franklin D. Roosevelt

A detail of a mural painted for the post office in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., at the request of President Roosevelt. It shows his ancestor Isaac, with other leaders of revolutionary America. Left to right: Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Bancker, John Jay, James Clinton, Isaac Roosevelt, and John Hobart.

FDR Library

Alexander Hamilton


population should be kept poor—not grow, not in-crease—and should be prevented from consuming the raw materials which Britain and the United States re-served for their own future.

So, this Anglo-American tradition, which it became under Truman, was prevalent. And the basis was this, the key basis: Roosevelt had understood—as his an-cestor [Isaac Roosevelt] had understood, who founded the Bank of New York and was an ally of Hamilton—that we are a credit system, not a monetary system. And what happened was, we were turned into a mone-tary system, which meant we became a part, in effect, of the Empire, the British Empire. The real British Empire, which is a monetary system, not a physical system; it’s a monetary system. Where we, by Consti-tution, by commitment, are a credit system. And our policy, as Roosevelt defined it, was a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, which was actually the intention at the beginning, at the founding of our republic. Hamil-ton’s role in establishing this policy of national bank-ing, and then it was embedded in the Constitution, and still remains in the Constitution, as a principle. Under our Constitution, financial systems, monetary systems are illegal for the United States. And therefore, that has to be the change.

It is the free-trade system, and this globalization process, which have created the vulnerability, where the nations of Europe, central Europe, have no sover-eignty anymore. No nation on the continent of Europe, western and central Europe, has any sovereignty today. They’re colonies of the British Empire. That’s what the Queen was referring to the other day, last week, when talking about, that the British Empire, what’s called the Commonwealth, controls one-third of the world, and is out to control more, which is what she said. The Queen, the Little Queen, said that.

So, the point is, we have to eliminate globalization. To eliminate globalization, we have to eliminate mon-etarism. It’s easy to do now, legally, because, as you see, after Friday and Saturday of this week, and yester-day, too, every part of the world is on the verge of bank-ruptcy, except Russia and China. Because the Russia and China agreement made just last month, that treaty agreement, establishes the relationship between them as that of credit system to credit system. The Chinese took their credit which they had, which was money owed by the United States to China, and said we’re going to invest it. We’re not going to sit there just with a bank account; we’re going to invest it. We’re going to

get something good out of it. And the Russians said, we’ll get something good out of it; we’ll work together. And other nations in Asia, through Chinese negotiation and Russian negotiation, are pushing this with other countries. “We must cooperate.” At least the present Putin-Yakunin-Medvedev government—they’re push-ing this.

And we want India in on it. We want the countries of South Asia to be involved in this, because with that combination, and the resources we have, we know that great good can be done there. If the United States is a partner in this, we know that we can secure the planet. And that’s my goal. Other things may be beneficial, but that’s my goal.

We must do that! We must secure the planet for that kind of alliance, that kind of cooperation. For a credit system, which is a fixed-exchange-rate credit system; that is, each of these nations must establish fixed-exchange-rate agreements among themselves. That way, with between 1.�% to 2% interest rates, we can create credit for long-term physical investments, which is what’s needed. And we’re talking about 2� years, �0 years, 100 years. We’re talking about stirring up the imagination of the people of the world for what we can do, so that every child, when they become conscious of what they are, can say, “There is a better world waiting for me �0 years from now, or �0 years from now.” And that’s the bond that must tie people together, and peo-ples together, in that kind of thing.

So, the financial system is dead; it’s hopelessly bankrupt. It could not be saved; no one can save it. Be-cause the explanation is simple: It’s my Triple Curve. Actually, back in the 19�0s, when I was an executive with a consulting firm, one of my specialties was to take a number of industries, including the auto industry in general, and I was on top of this, in consulting activity. And I knew that the entire system of Detroit was one big fraud. And some of you are probably old enough to have remembered something about this, but it really was a fraud.

You had a system of automobile manufacturers and dealerships, and that’s where the fraud was. The con-tract of the automobile dealer, who was an independent operative, but under the control, contract control, of au-tomobile manufacturing firms, and by Wall Street, agreed that when they sold a new car, they would show on their books, the price of the new car at list price. Then, if a trade-in occurred, where a used car was used as part of the payment for a new car, you would take the


shortfall, and you would charge that to the value of the used car taken in trade, in inven-tory. That was the contract, and all of these auto companies had this contract.

This not only happened in the automobile industry; under the Eisenhower period, from ’�2 on, ’�3 on, it had spread throughout all kinds of industries. So, the economy was based on a very large margin of these kinds of franchise arrangements, where products were sold, and the contract was that the list price, a manufacturer’s list price, would always be shown as the income. And on a trade-in, the trade-in would be priced at what was needed to cover the full-cash-plus-trade-in value. So, in the Summer of that year, 19��, I said to my associates, colleagues, and so forth, “We’re going to have a very serious recession. The most serious recession of the postwar period is going to occur about February or March of this coming year.” Because that’s the way the structure of the financial system of the United States was at the time. And it happened.

Now, since that success of my experience in that time, I’ve always done forecasting, not based on so-called market statistical forecasting, which is bunk! No person who engages market-based statistical forecast-ing is any good at forecasting. They may be good at something else, but they’re no good at forecasting. They’ve never hit the button on this one; none of them! And there’ve been some big arguments. But the method I used then, back later in 199�, I codified it. I codified

it because I was involved in a Vatican event on health care, and one of my contributions was to try to make clear what the principle was here; and it became known as the “Triple Curve,” which I put out prominently in January of 199�. And the Triple Curve breaks down the most essential feature of an economic process into three elements, commercial elements. One, is the utterance of money—mone-tarism. The second, is the use of money as a finan-cial instrument for trade and manufacturing. Thirdly, is the physical activity required to produce the prod-uct on which a nation depends. Three curves.

The model we referred to, was the model de-fined by the one 1923 hyperinflation in Germany, which was, then, occupied Germany. And the oc-

cupation, which was determined by the British and French principally, with American collaboration—what they did was, they took Germany and put it under reparations conditions. The Germans had to pay the reparations in a timely fashion. When the French oc-cupied the Ruhr, the pressure of this operation became unbearable.

So, from the Spring of that year on, a hyperinflation-ary process began in Germany, in occupied Germany, postwar Germany. And so, they began to print money by the state in order to pay the debt to their Versailles

FIGURE 3

LaRouche’s Triple Curve: The System Disintegrates

Ford Motor Co.

The Ford Dearborn Assembly Plant, 1957, producing the Fairlane 500 Skyliner. LaRouche figured out in the early 1950s that “the entire system of Detroit was one big fraud.” His forecasts are based on the “Triple Curve,” which charts the relationship between the physical economy and money.


creditors, the nations. The result was a three-fold effect: You had the hyperinflationary growth in the emission of money. You had a decline, as a result of this, of actual trade, as denominated in financial terms. Thirdly, you had a sharp decline in actual production, physical pro-duction. So, by November of that year, the German economy blew out in the famous hyperinflation of 1923.

What we’re now experiencing, is what I warned of during the entire period of the 19�0s to the 1990s and the present decade, is that we were going in that direc-tion. My first indication or communication with the new Administration of Bill Clinton, was that the danger was, under present policies, as I indicated to the Clinton Administration, that we were going to go in that direc-tion. In 199�, I made this explicit by presenting this so-called Triple Curve function, which illustrates exactly how this kind of economy works. We are now experi-encing, since September 2007, we’re experiencing what I said was going to happen then: that the Weimar syn-drome, the Weimar hyperinflationary syndrome, was now going to begin to hit the United States. And that’s what happened with the breakout of the so-called mort-gage crisis, which broke out a few days after my July 2� webcast, where I announced this.

Since that time, everything done by the U.S. gov-ernment and by international agencies has been to feed that process. In Germany, in 1923, you had a country which was encased by its own borders, because the pro-cess was imposed on Germany by the Versailles powers. Now you have it where the entire world is under the same kind of process, which is not so legally precisely controlled, but the process is the same. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, it’s not a depres-sion. We’re experiencing a global breakdown crisis with the characteristics of Weimar Germany in 1923. The utterance of so-called money, as monetary emis-sion, is skyrocketing, relative to the physical output of the economy. In the meantime, the physical output and the so-called financial turnover of goods is collapsing, but there’s inflation in that sector. So these three factors are working. There’s no other way you can describe, actually competently describe, what is happening to the

FIGURE 4

Weimar Hyperinflation in 1923: Wholesale Prices (1913 = 1)(logarithmic scale)

Jan. March May July Sept. Nov.1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

10,000,000,000

100,000,000,000

1,000,000,000,000

A worthless 50 million mark note.

The German Reichsmarks became so worthless by the Winter of 1923 that it was more efficient to use them to heat your home than to spend them.


U.S. and world economy today, except that. That’s what’s operating.

So I know this. I’m the only scientific authority on this, and I know this. There are other people in the United States who have studied this, and know what I’m saying, and agree with what I’m saying, scientifi-cally and professionally. But what I’ve proposed is the only way you can understand what’s happening to the world now. And if you want to cure the problems of the world, you’ve got to start here. That’s what you’ve got to fix. The Triple Curve is the only competent represen-tation of what the crisis is we’re dealing with. And by that standard, this system is now bankrupt, and is about to go into a steep Weimar-style collapse, unless we in-tervene to stop it. The only thing that has happened of any significance to tend to stop that, is what happened in the agreement between Russia and China, both on the Presidency, and the government levels, in setting up the recent agreement. That’s the only thing that will work!

You can’t do it in Europe, because Europe’s a slave state, western and central Europe. They have no sover-eignty anymore. They’re part of the euro system. They’re slaves! We would like to free those slaves, and then they’d behave better. But right now they’re slaves. And we want to free them.

But the only way you can free them is an alliance of Russia, China, India, and the United States. If Russia, China, India, and the United States agree on this, we can save the planet. If we can not agree on this, we’re not going to save the planet. And that’s what the issue is. And I’m the authority on this, because no one else has ever understood this thing this way, except there are people in the United States now, who in their present study, have made the comparison of what I did before, and realize that I’ve been right all along. And that’s the only way you can understand this crisis. And what I’m proposing is the only possible way, because you can not get Western Europe into this right now. They don’t have the sovereignty to do it. They can’t vote on it! There-fore, we have to free them. We free them by the Russia-China-India-United States policy.

The ‘G-2’ ConceptFreeman: The next question comes from the Amer-

ican Studies division of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He says, “Dear Mr. LaRouche, I would be very pleased to hear your views on the so-called Group of Two. This is the idea being promoted by Fred Berg-

sten, which says that the Chinese and the U.S. econo-mies are so closely interdependent, that they are one economy. And this G-2 is the dominant economy in the world. The G-2 idea is also being used to put pressure on China to take more so-called “responsibility” in the current financial system. However, Chinese Prime Min-ister Wen [Jiabao] has said several times, including to President Obama, that there is no such G-2, that China has a long way to go to become a developed nation, and wants to keep its independent policy for international cooperation with many other nations. What is your view?”

LaRouche: China, in my view, is a civilized nation, at a time that Europe is not, especially the British. I don’t know who’s going to teach who the lesson! And what China and Russia did—I was in the area of this discussion as this approached and was very much for it. At the time when I was in Rhodes [World Public Forum: Dialogue of Civilizations, Oct. 8-12, 2009], and we had much discussion of this, with some relevant people there, and we had people from India and other parts of the world who were also there who were also involved in this discussion. And I was very optimistic about China’s coming up with a treaty agreement of this type. I thought from my discussions with people who repre-sent China here, and so forth, that my conclusion was that they understood their problem very well, and it was a matter of a production problem.

China has been used as a cheap labor market, and allowed to have certain industries, generously, but not allowed to have the technology it needed. China was cut off for various reasons from access to certain tech-nologies which China should have, and that was a prob-lem. And that is one of the things we’re trying to fix now.

So, it was obvious to me that this kind of change should be made, and I was optimistic because of my estimation of what China had manifested as its own un-derstanding of its problem, that if the Russians would make a certain kind of approach, that China would probably accept it. And so, when I talked to the Rus-sians and others there in Rhodes, I assured them that my belief was that China would make such an agreement. And it did make such an agreement. And therefore, I’m rather enthusiastic about the fact that it worked out.

But the problem is, that China needs protection, of a fixed-exchange-system type of protection, and now that we have the agreement between China and Russia, what is really needed is the United States to quickly embrace


that treaty agreement, that kind of treaty agreement, and join it. And to make it work, you must bring India in. However, I know that if Russia, China and the United States agree on this, India will be in, because India’s problem is the British problem, on this. So, if the three countries—and the important thing is not the order in which these things occur, although that’s significant—the point is, a com-mitment from leading circles inside the United States to bring about a Four-Power agreement of that type, com-parable to what was struck between Russia and China, in this recent agreement between the Presidents and the state, the government, will force—the Indians will come along.

We also have all other kinds of problems, including

this idiocy in Afghanistan. We have to break that! The Afghanistan problem is a British problem. The British are running a drug operation in Afghanistan. Every-thing is being run—the military operation is a drug op-eration. And this Dubai thing was a key to it. We have to break the British Empire.

And you know, England will survive nicely. A lot of people in England will be happy to get rid of the Empire, because of their sexual proclivities, among other things.

But, we need this kind of agreement, because in that

LaRouche commented on President Obama’s deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan: “I thought McChrystal was bad enough, but this thing from Obama is beyond belief. It’s insane!” More than one foreign power has had its nose bloodied in Afghanistan.

The British waged three wars in Afghanistan, not including the current one, but none was ultimately successful. Shown here is the 1879 war.

U.S. Government Photo

Soviet troops in Afghanistan during the 1980s; the final withdrawal of soldiers occurred in 1989, having achieved nothing, except further destruction of the country.

White House Photo/Peter Souza

President Obama with Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander for Afghanistan, May 19, 2009. Both are ignoring the injunction of the distinguished war hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur (d. 1964), that America should avoid at all costs a prolonged land war in Asia.


strategic area alone, we’ve got an idiot who wants to put troops in there. I thought McChrystal was bad enough, but this thing from Obama is beyond belief. It’s insane! We’ve got to break it. We’ve got to get it out of there. Because we know what the problems are.

For example, let me suggest something to you: Did you ever hear of Osama bin Laden? Do you know what part of Pakistan he’s living in now? Do you know why he’s never been caught? Certain British and Saudis and Americans are protecting him, that’s why!

But he’s not the guilty party. The guilty party was the British BAE, to-gether with the Saudi influences which financed that operation called 9/11. And all of our people would like to have certain forces go in there and take them out, and bring them back to expose what they really are, and clear up this mess of what really happened in 9/11. Not the usual nonsense. But this is still there. It’s a British-Saudi operation: 9/11. An orchestration of an operation against the United States, with complicity of certain elements as-sociated with government, political elements, interna-tional elements, associated with government.

That’s the kind of thing we have to deal with. So why not?

So therefore, what you have to understand is, the Afghanistan operation, like many organized wars which engage the United States—especially since the Ken-nedy assassination—were operations against us, the United States, by the British! The British have wanted to destroy us, and they’ve done a damned good job of doing it, by getting us involved in silly wars.

What about Indochina? Why did we get into that thing? MacArthur said no, and he was right. Kennedy said no, and he was right. You don’t need to have these kinds of wars, so-called “revenge wars” or “special op-erations wars.” You don’t need them. We destroyed our military. We had a case of our friends in Germany when I was working on this SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative] project, and we had a lot of German military, senior ones, who were working with us, as well as others, on the idea of trying to avoid, to deal with, the disintegra-

tion of the Soviet Union at that time. To deal with it in a way, by simply going to this SDI proposal, as an alter-native. Because the Russians were disintegrating. We knew it! And therefore, why not make this kind of agreement to develop a system which eliminates this nuclear warfare system, and use that as a way of getting some economic cooperation and development?

And, of course, we had some of the people in the CIA leadership, and national security operations gener-ally, and in the Presidency itself at that time, who ac-cepted my proposal as a project, and tested it out, and the President agreed to it in January of that year [1983]. So, we know this kind of area, and we know who’s against it. We had Brits who were for it, also, but the British monarchy, the British Foreign Office was against it. You should take the names of the people who were living then, general officers, the outstanding veterans of the German military establishment of that time, the leaders of the French military establishment, the Ital-ians. There was serious consideration of cooperation from the government of India, because Indira Gandhi was still alive then. We had the ability to create the kind of arrangement which Roosevelt had intended. The cards were in our hands. I gave an address on the 12th of October in 1988, in which I laid out exactly this situ-ation. It was in our hands. But, you had skunks inside

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

LaRouche was the intellectual author of President Reagan’s SDI, which would have encouraged cooperation between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in their mutual interest—had it been implemented as designed. Shown is a “Beam the Bomb” rally by the LaRouche movement on the steps of the Capitol, May 13, 1983. Debra Freeman, who today is LaRouche’s spokeswoman, is at the microphone.


the Soviet system, like Gorbachov and people like that, who were a complication. Andropov was also a big problem in this matter, a major problem.

What we’re dealing with, is when you think of war as some kind of an institution all by itself. When you look at the history of warfare in Western Civilization, since the Peloponnesian war, you realize that warfare is often not an act of courage but of desperation and folly, because people use wars as the Roman Empire did: To control the Empire, they would use wars between peo-ples within the Empire, and play them against one an-other in order to win. You should read this in Machia-velli, for example, which is supposed to be the basic military education for a lot of people: Read it. The use of war as an enterprise in folly. You don’t start from trying to win wars, you don’t start from trying to run the world. You try to orchestrate events which lead to an event which should be desired by all parties. Peace is the objective. Peace, by the definition of history, since the Peloponnesian War.

Greece was a leading culture of that period, together with the Egyptian culture, the leading culture. Greece was about to, in a sense, defeat the Persian Empire, which was the greatest empire of that period, and the most repressive. They did, but then what they did is, they turned around, and Athens made war on Corinth, Corinth made war on Athens, and then they both made war against Syracuse. And out of this, the culture of Greece was still around, but it has never been the same since. So, war is more often a case of folly than of cour-age. And that’s the way we have to look at this thing.

We have to understand that our objective is to bring the relations among the sovereign peoples of the planet into a cooperative order. Sometimes, military force is necessary to check something that needs to be checked. But the idea of a long war, unless you’re forced to fight it, is the greatest folly I can imagine, at least from my knowledge of history.

And what really happened to us—you see it in the 9/11 thing. You see that! What happened? When did I say we were going to have a 9/11? I didn’t call it 9/11. I said, in the beginning of January, that year, I said we had to expect a major terrorist operation inside the United States, used for the purpose of installing the au-thority of the George W. Bush Administration. We were looking all over the place. We had an operation in Northern Virginia, around Washington, very serious. We had this little event in Italy. Suddenly, we had this event in New York. I knew immediately what it was. It

was what I knew was going to happen! Somebody on the British side, with complicity inside the United States, was going to pull a stunt like this, because you had a totally incompetent, intolerable President, George W. Bush, Jr. A piece of crap! How did this thing ever slide into the Presidency?

So, how do the British do things like that? And it’s the British that do it, along with the Wall Street crowd and so forth. Why do they do that? Because the crisis was on. The situation was, by current standards of the time, uncontrollable. The Clinton Administration, with all its weaknesses, especially after the impeachment in-dictment, was weak. But nonetheless, we had made cer-tain progress under Clinton. He was a two-term Presi-dent. Now that’s a very significant institutional fact. A two-term President tends to have a great influence on what follows his two terms. And we had a great crisis: The great financial swindle that was pulled under Bush and company, was now dead; we had a collapse of the great bundle. And I knew that they were going to pull a crisis, and that it had to be an act of terrorism. Either war or terrorism. We got the terrorism. And I know that the evidence exists that the BAE and certain high-level Saudi influences, ran part of the operation, and, there-fore, probably all of it. It was run to ensure and install a relative dictatorship on behalf of the George W. Bush Administration.

To some people, that’s a shocking thing to say. To me, it’s not. Because that’s the way I read history. That’s what happened to us. And then we got this President as the result of the George W. Bush Administration.

What we have also in the Presidency and in the in-stitutions, we have people with an understanding of this, though most people don’t have the temperament to bring it out publicly, as I do. But, as is known to other people, my job is to say the “unsayable,” especially when it’s necessary. And they’re afraid to shoot me, be-cause I might get credit for it. It’s my best protection.

But anyway, it’s the case. It’s a fact. And that’s what we have to understand in this particular case: that we’re dealing with that kind of problem.

China and the Dubai CrisisFreeman: The next question is from somebody who

operates in high-level diplomatic and academic circles in China, and he says, “Mr. LaRouche, this is on the question of the Dubai crisis. There are currently many warnings in China that we should take heed of the Dubai crisis for China’s own economy, and that it is a much


more dangerous speculative bubble than some Western analysts are admitting, certainly as you referred to in your remarks. My question is: Since it does appear that the Dubai crisis does mark a new stage in the current global financial crisis, how do you think that China

should react?”LaRouche: Well, the first thing we need—and

China needs it as well as the rest of us—is a clear plan of what we’re going to do, because the plan will define what our circumstances are. The first thing we have to

9/11 and the Reichstag Fire

Lyndon LaRouche warned, during a Jan. 3, 2001 webcast, that the incoming Bush Administration would seek a justi-fication for dictatorship, just as Adolf Hitler arranged the 1933 Reichstag fire to provide the pretext for assuming dic-tatorial powers.

“We’re going into a period,” LaRouche said, “in which either we do the kinds of things I indicated in summary to you today, or else, what you’re going to have, is not a gov-ernment; you’re going to have something like a Nazi regime. Maybe not initially, on the surface. What you’re going to have is a government which can not pass meaning-ful legislation. . . . How does a government which can not pass meaningful legislation, under conditions of crisis, govern? They govern, in every case in known history, by what’s known as crisis-management.

“In other words, just like the Reichstag fire in Ger-

many. . . . With a frustrated Bush Administration, if it’s determined to prevent itself from being op-posed, you’re going to get crisis-management. Where the special warfare types, the secret govern-ment, the secret police teams will set off provocations, which will be used to bring about dictatorial powers, in the name of crisis-man-agement.

“You will have small wars set off in various parts of the world, which the Bush Administration will respond to, with crisis-management methods of provocation.”

The Reichstag building in Berlin, February 1933.

FEMA/Michael Rieger

The World Trade Center in New York City, Sept. 18, 2001


do is get enough power together where we can actually define some policy which will stick. My view is that the agreement of Russia, China, India, and the United States is enough power to make policy.

Then we have to just simply be practical, scientifi-cally practical. We have to work and have a discussion, because we know that one of the key problems here is that the openness to China, of shipping U.S. production to China, for example, without all the technology needed, was a device in which China never was paid enough for the development of China as a whole. So you suddenly have a collapse of the China external market for these goods, but you have left China with less—probably two-thirds of China has not really been developed.

Now, a country functions on the basis of the devel-opment of its entire people. You have to have a develop-ment process which is moving the entire population. And you have a lot of China which is not developed. The approach to the development of the railway system, which has become a China characteristic, is essentially an example of trying to deal with that problem. But ob-viously, we have to have a fixed-exchange-rate system, where China has some protection on the prices of its exports.

At the same time, the credit is being generated among nations, in which the amount of credit required will be generated. In other words, you’ve got 1.� billion people, and they have to develop. Therefore, you start

from a discussion with China’s representatives, and with others: China has 1.� billion people, and they’re going to have more people. How do we generate a rate of net growth of the pro-ductivity of China itself, so that China is an integrated nation, in the sense that we understand an integrated nation?

Therefore, this has to be an agreement among nations, as parties to an agreement, which come to the effect of a contract among nations, to say we’re going to have price regulation and technology rights regula-tion, under which China will be able to solve its own problems,

within its own borders. And we have to do the same thing with the other countries.

We’ve got a problem in India: India’s got a different kind of problem, but it’s also got the same Asian prob-lem of a vast percentage of the population which is ter-ribly poor. Whole parts of India don’t even know what electricity is, in the sense of having it available. You have the Asian problem, which is largely that. The Afri-can problem is another case of this. Africa’s been treated as a slave, all of Africa. And China’s behavior in Africa is one of the great embarrassments to London—because China honors its agreements. London never does. So, we need to have enough power, concentrated in enough hands, a few hands, so that these conditions can be re-duced to contract agreements among nations, medium- to long-term contracts.

In other words, we have to sit back with the Chinese and others and say, what do we want to do? Let’s figure out what we should do. It can be flexible and adjustable, but we have to have a working agreement on policy, on tariff and trade agreements. And we have to have enough power sitting at the table to make it stick.

My view is, if we have this power, the United States, China, Russia, and India, and other countries which would readily join them, as in Asia.

You know, the conflict with Japan is well known. But Japan and Korea will operate in the area of Russia and China. Therefore, their existence depends now, not on the British anymore, but on Russia and China, and

Alex Needham

China’s construction of the maglev high-speed rail between Shanghai and its airport is the way to go—but only with a fixed-exchange-rate system globally will China have some protection for the price of its exports.


on their relations with Russia and China. And we’re in a period where Japan has a certain nuclear building ca-pability, and we need all the nuclear power we can get in Asia. The development of northern Asia, in terms of the Russian part, is extremely important. We need all the technology we can get, to solve that problem. We can get it, if we have an agreement among these na-tions, because we have enough power to write a con-tract, a diplomatic contract, long-term.

And that’s what China needs. It’s got a big problem of its population, its poverty. All of Asia has this prob-lem. Terrible poverty throughout nearly all of Asia, and we need a contract among nations which says we have a plan as to how we adjust things so we can solve this problem. I don’t think we can do it on an individual nation basis, because it involves cooperation.

And essentially, we’re going to have to create a fixed-exchange-rate international credit system, among nations. Get rid of this monetary system, and we’ll create the credit to do the job. I’m convinced we can, but we need that contract.

The Next 100 DaysFreeman: Okay, moving to the United States: The

next couple of questions came during the course of the discussion you conducted yesterday, in a dialogue with some institutional layers at a gathering in New York.

“Lyn, it’s become increasingly apparent that Obama’s policies are authored in London, and although the general assessment of those of us who have func-tioned institutionally as part of the Executive branch for quite some time, is that much will be decided over the next 100 days, and that those days will be decisive for this Presidency and for the nation. As of now, Obama has shown himself to be largely incapable—no matter how willing he may be—of delivering these policies into practice. And we have to assume that London is acutely aware of this. How, in your view, will they re-spond to this reality?”

LaRouche: Well, I think it lies with the American people. What we’ve had recently: We’ve had a mass strike phenomenon inside the United States, which came to the surface at the time in August when the Congress-men had fled back to their home districts, and wished they hadn’t, because of the reception they got. The as-sumption has been, in Washington, that that mood in the population has waned since that time. Not true. What happened was—it’s an understandable phenomenon if

you understand dynamics in history, that this should happen. What the people did, the Members of Congress were going back to their constituencies, to do a routine re-election campaign kind of operation. And what they found were two things: the turnout for these meetings that they called was unprecedented, was enormous by their standards. And the people in these meetings, the constituents, would turn upon their representative, and say, “You shut up! We want to tell you something about you, right now.” And that’s what they did.

But these are citizens; this is a mass-strike phenom-enon in the technical terms of the thing. Strategically, it’s a mass-strike phenomenon. It’s not a strike of masses; it’s a mass-strike. That is, a popular uprising of emotion and ideas among the people, who feel that they have rights, and they’ve been subjected to a great injus-tice. And they go to their representatives: “Hey, you bum! We want to tell you that we think you’re a bum, and we want you to do something about this.”

But that’s not the way you get the job done. That’s the first step of getting the job done. What you’ve done, now you’ve said “Do it!” And they’re not going to do it. They’re going to go back to their masters in Washing-ton and Wall Street, and they’re going to do what they’re told to do. Go along to get along! The usual song and dance. So, they got back there, and they gave them the treatment.

Now, the people were getting more and more angry! Now, in a case like this, you get to a very dangerous point, where the people who despair of a lack of compe-tent response by their elected representatives and other officials, no longer say, “You do it for us.” They begin to say, “We’ll do it to you!” And you’re getting into that kind of a period. And when you get into that kind of period, you get a very dangerous development, in which those in power will tend to resort to dictatorial methods to resist those who they represent. That’s where you’re at now! About that point; about Christmas time; right now.

So, it never went away. Every reading I have is that that is intensified. The hatred against the Congress has increased. Because, you see, the people, the citizens, don’t really hate Obama so much, because they never thought he was worth much anyway. He was just a sort of Hollywood character who came on stage. They had no deep emotional attachment to him. But they did have a deep emotional attachment to the people they voted for. These were not strangers; Obama was a stranger


who came in, a Hollywood figure. So, like a Hollywood figure, they had no feeling about him. How can you feel anything about Obama? I mean, that’s sort of a mastur-bation toy, that’s what that is, there’s no involvement.

But they do have a great feeling about the people whom they thought they elected; because you’re saying to them, not that this stranger Obama has come in to haunt you. They’re saying, “You have betrayed us! We trusted you, and you betrayed us! You sold us out. You’re sending us to be killed by this health-care policy. You’re sending us to be killed by losing all our jobs, or losing our things, we’re being junked, like junk on the horizon.”

And the people come to a point in a mass-strike phe-nomenon, at which there is a turning point. At which

they say, “No! You do what we tell you. No.” It gets dangerous. And when you get a stupid and arrogant government, which is what Obama rep-resents with his crazy behaviorist types, and when he’s strutting with a Hitler-style health policy—and it is Hitler style. That mustache be-longs on his upper lip. He may not have put it there, but it grew there anyway. It knew where to land. It’s dangerous. And such times as this, with the breakdown of the system, is a time that you get chaos, you get riots, you get repressive re-gimes, dictatorships, and so forth.

And therefore, those who are not showing courage, to give proper representation to the people, when the people can no longer tolerate the government they’re getting—it’s a more dangerous point than any point in history. And a government, government forces, who refuse to recognize the lesson before them, are the cause of that.

This is what happened in the French Revolu-tion. Take the case of Lafayette, as an example of this problem. Lafayette was a hero of the United States, but he was never quite the same as a hero in France. And even when he went back to France, in the company, with one of our great naval fellows, a great author—James Fenimore Cooper—and with the great man from New York and elsewhere [Washington Irving]. So, again, in dealing with the question of the French gov-ernment in the 1820s, Lafayette goofed again, as he had goofed again, earlier in June, prior to the famous July 1�th [1789]. And so, therefore, this is typical: when you face a change in govern-

ment, or a change in government policy, which has reached a critical point, and you don’t respond with good government, you create a vacuum in which all hell can bust loose.

And of course, this thing started in 1782, when the British dictatorship under Lord Shelburne made a sepa-rate peace negotiation process with the three allies—the United States, Spain, and France. And by making a sep-arate agreement through the newly founded British Foreign Office, which was founded by Shelburne, they played France, Spain, and the United States against each other, in this process. And this led to a great crisis, where you had this great alliance, the League of Armed Neutrality, which had made possible the freedom of the United States—that condition was destroyed systemati-

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

LaRouche PAC organizers with the famous Obama mustache poster, outside a town meeting held by Rep. James Moran (D) in Reston, Va., Aug. 26, 2009.


cally by the British East India Company, by the same intellectual method that was used by the same people to organize the Seven Years War. And the Seven Years War just destroyed it.

And similarly, later, you had Napoleon. Well, Napo-leon was the greatest hero that Britain ever had, because without Napoleon’s warfare, modelled on the Seven Years War, Europe would never have been crushed and submitted at Vienna to the conditions that ensued. And so forth.

So, this is the kind of process we’re looking at right now. And only what I’m proposing we do, will prevent this.

We must deliver, in the United States. We must de-liver to the American people, the Great Majority, and the Great Majority is out there. The Great Majority is typified by what we saw in August in the streets, and so forth in these meetings. We must deliver a result—now! Not bargain about it; we must deliver! Obama is de-stroying the United States with his current policies. He didn’t start this thing, but he’s continuing it. We have to reverse those trends. We have to eliminate, entirely, his health-care policy—Obama’s.

What we do instead, is, we go to a lesson, a health-care lesson. The health-care lesson is, that under Nixon, we destroyed our health-care system. We introduced the HMO [Health Maintenance Organization] system. Private insurance companies got control over medical care. Then later, we had a new thing which occurred in the courts: malpractice insurance cases. Tremendous fees, grants for malpractice injuries, by the courts, by the court system. The result was the insurance, which had to be paid by medical institutions, and by physi-cians for the practice of medicine, drove them essen-tially out of the business, and drove up the cost of med-ical care.

You look at it from, say, the drug policies, for ex-ample: what it costs to get a certain prescription drug in the United States, as opposed to Canada or places in Europe. Why? It’s a swindle of what? Of the insurance companies. Shall we say, A-I-G? We bailed it out, and the bailout is now part of it.

Then we get the bright idea on top of that with Obama, to cut the right to medical care. We’ve got to kill you in order to save money to balance the budget. I would say, cancel the HMOs; go back to Hill-Burton, cancel the HMO system. It’s a swindle from the begin-ning. We bailed these guys out; they shouldn’t have been bailed out; they should have been bankrupted!

We’ve got a Social Security system. Build up the Social Security system as an insurance system for the popula-tion. You don’t have to rely upon these swindling insur-ance companies. But we didn’t do that.

Now they say, “We are agreed. We’re not going to allow modern technology. We’re going green. We’re going to have solar panels. We’re going to have wind-mills. We’re going to make gas, ourselves, and we’re going to burn it.” We’ll feed ourselves beans, or some-thing.

So, what has happened is that we’re at a point where we have an existential conflict between the vital inter-ests of the people of the United States and the nation of the United States, and the interests which Obama is serving. This is happening with an oppressive action, this insult to the American people, of putting �0,000 troops of war into Afghanistan. Absolutely criminally insane! Well, the President is insane in my view; or he’s so stupid it amounts to the same thing.

But the point is, when we take our government, and put our government and even our own members of the legislature, you put them as threats to the very lives of our citizens! While you’re destroying their homes, evic-tions are rising up; destroying the price of food, creat-ing a food scarcity; everything imaginable! Everything that Louis XVI did in France, as economic policy, from 1782, 1789, that led to the great conflict between the French people and its monarchy, its government, and led to this horror show, is being done now inside the United States, under British direction.

And therefore, what you have to understand is that. We have to get this President under control! We have to get those policies out of the Congress! Otherwise, we’re going to Hell! We’ve got our choice.

Now, how do you deal with that? People who are politically active and influential have to pull together, and make sure the changes are made; and the changes are forcibly put upon the relevant institutions of gov-ernment, so we don’t have the kind of thing that hap-pened in France under Louis XVI. We’re very close to that now.

The American people are instinctively a proud people. They’re confident of themselves, and they’ve been degraded. There’s a limit to what the American people can tolerate in degradation. I think the American people will tolerate all kinds of suffering if they believe that is necessary and warranted. It’s happened before. But when the suffering is incurred, imposed upon them by either their own government, or when their own gov-

�0 Feature EIR December 11, 2009

ernment is complicit with a foreign one in doing that to them, you are creating a very dangerous situation. And no patriot will encourage or tolerate what the Obama Administration is doing to the people of the United States right now. This guy has to be put under control;

and he can be put under control, with people who have the intelligence and guts to know how to do it.

Copenhagen: The End of the Commonwealth?Freeman: This is another question from yesterday’s

gathering. “Mr. LaRouche, one of the lead climate ne-gotiators for India told us yesterday, after your remarks, that India would never accept any legally binding emis-sions cuts, that they said as much at the recent Com-monwealth meetings in Trinidad. This led to an exten-sive discussion of India’s role in a Four Power agreement, and it suddenly dawned on us, that India is, indeed, a Commonwealth country. Since you were un-doubtedly aware of that when you included India in the Four Power arrangement, I was wondering if you would say a little bit about what this implies for the Common-wealth overall. Would India be forced to withdraw from the Commonwealth in order to participate? And what would that do to the prospects of the continued exis-tence of the Commonwealth?”

LaRouche: This is precisely why I have talked about the Four Power agreement. You have to get India involved in it, and you can’t do it unless Russia and China first agree, and the United States supports it. Under those conditions, yes. And you’re talking about breaking up the Commonwealth? Of course, you’re

talking about breaking up the Commonwealth. I don’t like to make wars, but I do like to break up common-wealths, particularly of that sort. And if the United States supports Russia and China on the policy I have outlined, the Indians will come along, because it’s in their interest.

Now, let’s take another case. It’s not just India. How about Canada? How about Australia? The key thing is to look at the Copenhagen program. Who’s for the Co-penhagen program, and who’s against it? India’s against it; India can not tolerate it. It is Commonwealth policy; India can not tolerate Commonwealth policy. Australia can not tolerate this policy of the Commonwealth. Canada can not tolerate it.

Let’s look at Canada. What is Canada? Canada has an Arctic region which is comparable, in some re-spects, to Alaska and Siberia. It has large resources. I mean, look at the map of the world. Where is the landed area of the planet located? It concentrates, gathers around the North Pole, where it looks out to the universe. And down in the southern part, you’ve got all this watery area, which trickles down to this little thing in Argentina, Tierra del Fuego. And except for the fine mineral deposits in the southern part of Argentina, there’s not too much down there, not much population and so forth; maybe some Indians and a few other people. So, we have a common syndrome in terms of potential.

We now are at a point where the planet depends on our better management of the raw material resources which are left behind by animal and plant life which died a long time ago, above the Lithosphere. And there-fore, we have come to the point where we have to in-crease our energy flux-density in production, and we have to look more to the development of the raw mate-rial resources, mineral types and so forth, which are lo-cated in these areas. Areas which tend to be toward the North Pole and toward the South, like the Southern Shield of Africa.

So therefore, we now have these countries, which have this territory within them, which have a vital inter-est in the development of these resources. Resources which they need, and which they must develop in aid of their neighboring countries—like China needs these re-sources coming from northern Asia.

So therefore, the natural cooperation in develop-ment between the country which needs the raw materi-als, and that which is using it, is an obvious thing. And

The American people will tolerate all kinds of suffering if they believe that is necessary and warranted. But when the suffering is imposed upon them by either their own government, or when their own government is complicit with a foreign one in doing that to them, you are creating a very dangerous situation.

December 11, 2009 EIR Feature �1

that’s the way this needs to be approached. India, for example, is very scant on some resources, very scant. India can not succeed without cooperation with nations which are going to supply a certain kind of large re-sources for them, or development of that.

So therefore, it’s the vital interest of India, as of Australia, for complementary reasons, not the same reasons, complementary reasons, and Canada, not to be put under what the Queen has proposed: this environ-mental nonsense. And, since it’s all a lie anyway, that has to be taken into account.

So, therefore, if the United States is induced to do what it should do, and must do, in concert with China and Russia, I say it’s a fairly easy run to solve the rest of the problem. I don’t think any government in the world could long withstand—if I have a hand in it—what I would suggest our friends in Russia, China, India, and others should do. I don’t think anybody could stand up to it. And I’m determined, if I’m still alive, to make sure that happens.

A Keynesian Is Not an American PatriotFreeman: Lyn, the next question comes from some-

one who is a rather well-known Roosevelt historian, and who is something of an economist in his own right. I guess you’d call him really an economic historian. He says: “Mr. LaRouche, I know you’ve addressed this before, but it continues to come up as an issue in our discussions, and I wish you would settle it for people, once and for all. Of course, what I am referring to, is the question of John Maynard Keynes. I continue to be as-tounded by the number of patriotic Americans who still refer to themselves as Keynesians. And this occurs, de-spite the fact that, as Robert Skidelsky stressed through-out the final volume of Keynes, Keynes spent much of his energies during the war fighting for Britain, not against the Axis, but against the ascending economic power of the United States.

“It is also the case that Harry [Dexter] White was well aware of this. As a matter of fact, one of the things that was found among White’s personal papers at Princ-eton, was a yellowing piece of paper, salvaged from the first Anglo-American discussions, that said, ‘In Wash-ington, Lord Halifax once whispered to Lord Keynes, “It’s true they have the money bags, but we have all the brains.” Although White’s personal papers did not name the author, it is widely thought that Dennis Robertson was the most likely candidate. But the fact of the matter

is that the entire British approach to the talks that re-sulted in the formation of Bretton Woods, were directed toward preserving and continuing the imperial system. As a matter of fact, he envisioned the Clearing Union primarily as an agreement between the two founder states—i.e., the United States and Britain, with the United States included only because we were ‘the money bags.’

“I’d really like you to address specifically, because any idea that key American patriots are Keynesian, is absurd. And it is in fact the case that, although White was forced to make certain compromises with Keynes, he did in fact see Keynes as an adversary. Would you please comment?”

LaRouche: Well, there’s a lot of literature on this which comes from the Roosevelt circles as such. And Roosevelt was the determiner of U.S. policy, not Dexter White. Roosevelt understood what the British were. There’s no question of this, and people just mystify themselves by not doing the relevant research, which is readily available on this thing.

Remember, that Roosevelt was a descendant of the [Isaac] Roosevelt who had worked with Alexander Hamilton in the establishment of the Bank of New York, which was the enemy of the British-controlled Bank of Manhattan, who were a bunch of traitors, that bank, and they were literally traitors. Aaron Burr’s bank was the Bank of Manhattan, and Aaron Burr was an agent of the British Foreign Office since its founding, as well as being an assassin, and a punk, and everything else.

So, Roosevelt’s understanding, and he documented this in a Harvard paper he wrote on this subject, when he was graduating from Harvard, that he always under-stood this clearly. He understood the American System, and he understood it better, especially after he had polio, where in his recovery from polio, he did extensive stud-ies, and reaffirmed and deepened his understanding of history; and he already had a family understanding of what his family background was. He also knew what his cousin [Theodore Roosevelt] was; whose uncle [James Bulloch] was a real traitor.

So, in the case of the 19�� Bretton Woods proceed-ings, Roosevelt, for various reasons, was not there physically, but his messages were delivered there. And Roosevelt’s purpose was, as was made clear, as he told Winston Churchill: “Winston, when this war is over, there isn’t going to be a British Empire. I’m going to free these people. We’re going to give them their free-

�2 Feature EIR December 11, 2009

dom. There are not going to be any more colonies. We in the United States have had this too long—you, with your ways. And that man!”—pointing to an uncle of the present Consort of the Queen.

I was in India, you know, at the end of my military service in the postwar period, and I was involved in Calcutta. And, being in Calcutta, as I have told people a number of times, having time on my hands, I went to all these offices—I took the Calcutta telephone book, looked up all the political parties. And I made appoint-ments to meet all the political parties in their offices in Calcutta. It was in my own private interest to do so. I just had the time there; they were there; let’s find out what was going on here. So, I met and became knowl-edgeable very quickly with all these political parties. And I was beginning to operate, because I had a sense of what we as Americans wanted to do with India.

Particularly, I had one experience on the Maidan, of a couple of people who were coolie status. At that time, their income was annas-a-day pay for doing digging and so forth for the British Raj. And they, two of these guys, came up with a student, and the student said, “Will you talk with these guys?” They spoke just Hindi; they didn’t speak English, and I didn’t speak their lan-guage.

So, we had a conversation, nevertheless, by cour-tesy of this Indian student, and they said “What I want to know is, when you go back to the United States, are you going to send us machinery so we can develop our own weaving industries, and not be slaves like this?” That was typical of the question I was getting—well, Bengalis are noted for this kind of thing—but from my Bengali friends. This is the area where Chandra Gupta Bos was involved, and so forth, and so this is the kind of mood.

So, I was there, and on a day I was not in Calcutta, some friends of mine nonetheless, had a demonstration at the governor general’s palace. It was a routine dem-onstration; they happened all the time, usually without consequence. But there was then a lathi charge, ordered by the British, by the guards, on these people. Now, these lathis are bamboo sticks with a metal tip to the thing, and they’re quite nasty weapons in dealing with crowd control. And so, a number of people were killed, in simply an ordinary demonstration.

So, two days later, there was on Dharmatala, which is a street leading across Chowringhee, to the Maidan, the big area there. And a large crowd—I wasn’t there

that day—came down protesting against this atrocity by the British guards, or the hired guards, against kill-ing these people, these students. And so the British police, who patrolled the area, took two heavy machine guns, and stuck them in the middle of the street, in the intersection of Dharmatala and Chowringhee, and as the crowd approached, they opened up with full fire, and kept firing. The following day, when I was there on the scene, the residue of blood on the street was unbe-lievable.

Now, the result was that, the Indian population crawled on tops of trains and every other way to go into Calcutta in response to this atrocity. And I saw a situa-tion, which I was standing there in the middle of, at the time, and seeing this vast crowd of millions of people, marching day and night, for more than three days. And they were mixed, and the crowd—one section of the crowd—would emit: “Jai Hind” (“Up With India!”). And the echo would be in the same crowd: “Pakistan Zindabad” And you’d hear this resonating, and it was going on for these days. And the power of independence was in the hands of India at that moment.

And what happened is, Lord Mountbatten went to the Indian leaders and said, “We will promise you inde-pendent status next year. Stop it now.” It rose, and it died. The next year, what did they get? The next year, the British organized religious riots, vast religious riots, which resulted in the partition of India, into India and Pakistan.

This is the kind of thing you’re dealing with, in deal-ing with the British Empire and so forth. This is what we’re against. And if we don’t have the sense of this, we get into this problem.

Now, Keynes was a part of this. Keynes was an evil bastard. Look, in the 1930s, he wrote the first edition of his General Theory. This is in the 1930s. The first edi-tion of his General Theory had a German translation, had a preface written by Keynes, saying that the reason he had published his General Theory in Hitler’s Ger-many, was he thought Germany, at that time, had eco-nomic tendencies more favorable to his book than Eng-lish-language audiences would have. Keynes was a fascist.

Now Roosevelt knew this, and understood it, and Roosevelt campaigned at the Bretton Woods confer-ence in New Hampshire, to eliminate Keynes as a factor. So Keynes, essentially, was out of it, and White and company were actually following the instructions and


opinion of President Franklin Roosevelt, who made clear what his postwar intentions were.

But, unfortunately, conveniently for the enemy, Roosevelt had died in the meantime. So that Spring, on April 12 [19��], when Roosevelt died, things changed. On April 13, Truman was President, and the British were running the joint under Winston Churchill. And the first sign, clear sign of this, was, Keynes was rees-tablished immediately. What Roosevelt had proposed distinctly was a fixed-exchange-rate credit system, not a monetary system. So what we got again was a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, which then became Keynesian. And everybody who’s an economist, who likes to get fed as an economist, will generally kiss butt and praise Keynes, because that’s still fashionable. But Keynes was a fascist. He was a very evil fellow, sharp but evil. And to this day, that’s a problem.

Now, the reason that’s a problem is because of the ignorance in our universities. We have, in our univer-sity system, a certain toleration for garbage. It’s an aca-

demic disease. And therefore, if your colleagues in uni-versity feel very strongly about something, and if the people who fund the universities are inclined to the Wall Street persuasion, then, anyone who knows that Keynes is a bum, is going to hesitate to say so. They may say so in a very roundabout way—you know, the usual kind of academic gibberish—but they’re not going to say it straight up. And the problem is, I find people in Europe, the same thing: the Keynesian system. They all believe in this Keynesian system, which is nothing but imperialism.

It means, it always has meant, and it’s meant in European maritime culture, ever since the Pelopon-nesian War, that you have a power—and this was true of the Persian Empire, in the same way—an empire is based on what’s called the oligarchical principle. It’s what it was called by the Greeks, and that means that a financial oligarchy, or a financially powerful oligar-chy, runs society. It runs society by controlling the valuation of what is called money. Governments do not control money—not governments in the sense of republics. Self-governments by people are not allowed to control money. Money is controlled by an agency which is imperial. The meaning of empire is that. It’s the control of a monetary system which is tyranny over trade.

Now, what happened that was peculiar about Euro-pean culture, is that the defeat of the Persian Empire, at least its defeated attempt to take over the Mediterra-nean, meant that the Greeks were in the position to define a maritime culture as a hegemonic culture, to-gether with Egypt. But what happened essentially was that Darius started the Peloponnesian War, so the Greeks got into a war with each other over who’s going to con-trol the value of money, between the mercantile cities of Athens, Corinth, and of Syracuse. And they destroyed themselves. And then, gradually, you get an empire by an agreement between this cult of Mithra and the candi-date for the Emperor of Rome, and the Roman system which is an empire.

What is the empire? The empire is the control over the system of money! That’s what it really was, and the empire will take different peoples, which are called dif-ferent national groups, and they will pit them against each other in wars, local wars and killing.

For example, the Romans killed off a German pop-ulation, as it was known as the German population of that period. They conducted wars among peoples as a

John Maynard Keynes wrote, in the 1937 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money:

“[T]he theory of production as a whole, which is the object of this book, can be much better adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than the theory of production and distribution of wealth under circumstances of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.” This endorsement of Nazism was deleted from English editions.

�� Feature EIR December 11, 2009

way of controlling society. What happened in the Seven Years War, when the British got themselves an empire; what happened in the Napoleonic Wars, is, wars among nations on the continent of Europe, were means by which an empire was created. Not just by military force, but by use of warfare and similar kinds of conflict, among people; and they would weaken themselves by fighting each other, and the Empire would rule them.

And the money system works the same way: Who controls the value of trade? Look what’s happened to us now! No nation on this planet, no large nation on this planet, has food sovereignty. What has happened through globalization is that every nation on this planet—if you have food, you sell it to your neighbor. If you want to eat food, you buy your neighbor’s product; and the middleman, the monetarist, in the meantime, like Monsanto, controls the trade.

No longer do we have food security of any nation on this planet. We are the victims now of an international financial cartel, which controls the supply of food for every nation. You produce food, you produce it for an-other nation, sold through a middleman. You will find that the policies are to reduce every element of food sufficiency of every nation on this planet. And that is the Keynesian system.

And the fact that you get a fair trade, so-called, from an arbiter who says who lives and dies—well, we have an arbiter. We have a fair system. We have an arbiter who makes sure that we don’t cheat on each other. But the arbiter cheats on both, like Monsanto, on food supply. And that’s what the Keynesian system amounts to. It’s an imperial system. We understood this when our republic was founded. Our Constitution prescribes we have a credit system. No credit can be issued except by the Federal government, by an act of Congress. The Federal government, except emergency grants which can be passed by some resolution by the Congress. We do not allow an international money system to control us.

What we do is, by treaty agreements among nations, we let each nation have its own credit system, but we make agreements among nations, among credit sys-tems, for a fixed-exchange-rate credit system. We make treaty agreements by the sovereign power of the Fed-eral government, by the Presidency. We make sover-eign agreements with other sovereigns on trade agree-ments, on credit agreements. But the power over the

society never passes to any agency above the rank of government, of sovereign government.

And what we have, is we have an un-sovereign system, which Keynes represents, an un-sovereign system of swindles, by which we’re deprived of our sovereignty. We say we’re free and independent people. We aren’t. You don’t even control the food you eat. Your own country doesn’t control whether you live or die of starvation, because of what has happened in the recent period. That’s what the problem is.

Blue-Collar Workers: The Real IntellectualsFreeman: The next question comes from a member

of Congress; you’ll recognize who the question is from. He says, “Lyn, after your last webcast, I took up your proposal—which you mentioned again today—for job training for young people, and the particular way that you situated it. I thought it was a brilliant proposal, and one that directly addressed what has been in the ongo-ing discussion, both in the Democratic and Congressio-nal Black Caucus, on job creation. So I happily raised it after a detailed discussion preparing for that, and I have to tell you, I was completely astounded to find that there was tremendous opposition. The argument being”—and what he says is that the opposition came especially from the Black Caucus, which said that we don’t want those kinds of jobs. The Congressman says:

“I don’t know what kind of jobs they want. Is the proposal to take young people and stick them in broker-age seats? But I wanted to make sure you were aware of this, and I was wondering if you would comment on it, because I’m at a loss as to what would provoke this, and of how I should address it.”

LaRouche: You’ve got a certain kind of cultishness that goes on, and especially—it’s just exactly that. Some people will say “I feel degraded, if I have to do work with my hands. I’m an intellectual.” Now, a person who would say that is not much of an intellectual, be-cause one should know that the wealth of the world de-pends upon production, which is largely physical pro-duction, or services such as health care. That the only thing, intellectually, which is of much value, is those ideas, the development of those professional and simi-lar ideas, of discovery, which enable us to improve physical production.

For example, you have a hierarchy in manufactur-ing. You have people who come in on the lower end in manufacturing, and in a decent society, they will ad-

December 11, 2009 EIR Feature ��

vance by pushing themselves to advance, through greater skill and greater authority. They will eventually become in a supervisory position, and the best supervi-sory position from the standpoint of productivity, is the scientist, or a skilled machine-tool-design specialist. That’s the highest level.

All the things, the miracles, that we have done, in terms of building our own economy, have been based on physical science, to some degree intellectual things that pertain to physical science or health care, and to the things that go into machine-tool design. The superiority of the United States and to some degree Germany, in economy, has always been based on that consideration. On physical production, of food, improvement of food, improvement of production, increase in the productive powers of labor, breakthroughs in chemistry, in physi-cal chemistry, these kinds of things. And that’s what we need.

Therefore, the question is: What’s the priority? The priority has to be people who are relevant to this process. We have a world full of hungry people. We have a nation full of desperately hungry people who don’t have physical employment. They don’t have it. They’re thrown out of their homes. They’re on the

streets, the country’s going to hell, we’re running short-ages of all kinds. We need more physicians in practice, we need more nurses in practice, and they’re cutting it. They’re cutting off the access to it. There is no pos-sible way one can deprecate the importance of a scientif-ically trained or otherwise highly skilled blue-collar worker. The best people in the world, the most produc-tive people in the world, are blue-collar workers, such as astronauts.

A National Campaign for the Congress

Freeman: The last ques-tion that I’m going to ask is a kind of composite question, that has come in from both

supporters around the country, and also from many people who are full-time organizers. Everyone is ex-tremely happy about the three Congressional candi-dates that Harley introduced this afternoon, but the question that comes up, is basically this: Our organizers say, Lyn, over the course of the last immediate period, especially since the last webcast, we get more and more questions from our supporters—and they’re serious questions—from people who are saying, specifically, what does Lyn want us to do, what does Lyn want me to do?

Several supporters have written in saying, while I understand that LPAC’s resources may be limited, there are Congressional seats all over the country, as well as Senate seats, where citizens simply have to file to run. There are no petition requirements, and there are only minimal filing fees. The question that is coming in is: “Should we put out a call for citizen candidates to chal-lenge these jokers in Washington, number one, using your program and policy as a platform; and, if not, can you please tell us specifically what it is we should do in the immediate days ahead?”

LaRouche: Mankind is distinguished from the ani-mals by ideas. Animals do not have ideas. Men and

U.S. Navy/Spc. Oliver Cole

In reply to Congressmen who say their constituents don’t want blue-collar jobs, LaRouche said that by working up from one skill level to the next, miracles are accomplished. Without physical production and physical science, a country is nothing! Shown: a U.S. Navy machine-tool operator manufactures a pump shaft in the machine shop aboard the USS Ronald Reagan.

�� Feature EIR December 11, 2009

women should. It’s too bad our President doesn’t have any ideas. He should.

Now, the campaign policy, our policy, as I’ve tried to emphasize to people who have gone into this busi-ness, the first thing is the quality of the way you orga-nize your campaign. That’s the first thing. Quality means, first of all, principle.

Now, the mistake in U.S. politics, particularly in a time of crisis, is the tendency to look at mass organizing as being something different in each area. Now, it’s de-sirable to have something in each area, of course. But the crucial thing is, not to have everybody have their opinion, but to try to achieve—which is the goal of hu-manity, I presume?—is to have useful ideas and ideas that are coherent, and that are going to be effective. So you want to sort out the idea policy. That’s the first thing, the first problem that comes to mind, especially, in a time of crisis like this, in having everybody run, which is good, but it’s not necessarily very good.

The question is to decide on what kind of concep-tion we’re going to present, and is it going to be a na-tional conception, or is it going to be a heterogeneous collection of various conceptions? What we did in the case of the three candidacies which were presented to you today, was to define a national campaign for the Congress. The idea is what should take over the Con-gress in terms of thinking about national policy and pri-orities, now. Therefore, what we want to have and must have, is a body of people elected, either as a majority, or a very large minority speaking, which is able to walk into the Congress and say, “Here is our faction’s na-tional policy.”

Now, some people say we have that in the form of party organization, but I can tell you there’s no such thing as coherence in the Democratic Party or the Re-publican Party. The reason they make such lousy agree-ments is because they’re intrinsically disagreements: “I’ll support you on this if you’ll support me on that. I’ll swindle guys out of this and you’ll swindle them out of that.” Go along to get along. Which means no principles are involved. Just “go along to get along.” We all know how one hand rubs another. That’s the way it’s gone.

What we need is actually a sense, a consensus sense, of what is required for this nation, as a nation, at this time. The Congress must be regarded as an institution which informs the Presidency, and sometimes informs the Presidency in very strong terms, very influential terms. And that’s right. That’s the way the Constitution is designed.

But both parties, the Houses of the Congress, and the Presidency otherwise, are part of the Presidential institution. And the object is to come to a conclusion on what we’re going to do now, or at least a good approxi-mation, to deal with what the national problem is.

And therefore, if we’re going to deliberate on selec-tion of candidates, shouldn’t we deliberate on that? Don’t deliberate on how to go along to go along, to get along! Let’s say the issue is, we want to make the right choice for our Presidency in this current Congressional election period. We’re concerned about the issue for the nation, and we consider the relationship between the Presidency and the Congress—and the Supreme Court hopefully is all right—which is going to converge on this question.

And the vote, whatever happens, should therefore be posed, what does this nation need? And the Congress and the Executive branch must deliberate that question. It’s not sharing—“you get a bit of this and you get a bit of that”—that’s the idea that’s used, but that’s what de-stroys us. Because what happens is, we get into a situa-tion as we do often: The Congress is a mess. There’s no clear idea carried into action by the Congress. The Ex-ecutive branch is a mess. And the problem is there. And none of this stuff that we’re discussing in these terms corresponds with the national issue.

The problem of government is essentially equiva-lent to a scientific problem, and solving a scientific problem. We have a challenge before us: The next step. Where are we going from here? What’s the right choice?

So, we have to achieve a national consensus. We achieve it in our system, essentially, by the population gathered around people who are running for office, or in office, in the Executive branch, in the Legislative branch, in the Judicial branch, and we’re trying to solve a common problem by debating it among ourselves. We’re trying to define interests which will meet and raise this issue of conflict. What is the right policy for our nation? And our system will work when it’s treated that way. But when you treat it as a sea of confusion—“I’m running on this issue, I’m running on that issue,” and so forth. No. There has to be a principled issue.

The principled issue is: What does this nation need? And you have a lot of other issues to discuss, some of them in particular. But the particular issues should be discussed from the standpoint of first defining what the national purpose is. The national purpose first, then the subsidiary issues. Not the other way around. When you


get the other way around, you get the wheeling and dealing, and you’re sold out.

How many times have people voted for a candidate and looked at the result of the election, and said they were sold out? Why? Because we have to, as individu-als—if you want to be a politician, a good politician, a good statesman, you have to take the concern of the world and of our nation into heart. You have to be con-cerned about our nation and the world first! What’s good for the world? What’s good for our nation? Then, what should we do about that? And reach a consensus on what’s good for this nation, what’s good for the world, what do we do about that? And having decided that that’s what is good, how do we implement that?

Now everybody chimes in—you each get your turn. You each make your own proposal—well, I’ve got a problem in this area. I’ve got a problem in this area. Now that we’re agreed that the national issue is this, or the regional issue is this, how do we handle this particu-lar problem? And then a candidate has to deal with that particular problem, representing the people in that area.

But the primary thing is the national policy. The candidate must think about the nation, first. And then

apply, once there’s a policy for the nation, now, given that fact, that that’s what the nation needs, how do I deal, then, with what’s needed here? How do I deal with even a simple thing like the question of justice, of a Con-gressman intervening, to try to have an injustice corrected? That simple.

But you have to start from the top, not from the bottom up. And we’re told that we have de-mocracy as long as we stick to bottom-up approaches. You know, “The firemen in this dis-trict have a problem. The fire-plug was put in the wrong place. We’re running on the issue of where that fireplug belongs.” That’s the kind of problem I see, and I see that in our political problem. We think small. We think stupid. And the people, who aren’t actually stupid, think

stupid when they go into politics. They say, “We’re small, we think about the individual”—this kind of thing. “We like anarchy.” And they do. But they don’t like the result of it! And therefore, we have to remind them, that anarchy is not a good idea.

There is such a thing as individual right, individual preference, individual opportunity. But you can not provide them those things, unless you are concerned with the mother of all good things, which is the national and global policy; of relationship among nations, how should nations relate to each other, now? That should determine how you define national policy. How you define national policy comes down the layers. How do you now deal with this problem, and that problem? And the general idea of what is justice, and the idea of what is justice, is what do you think a human being is? What do you think the difference between a human being and an animal is? Or the requirements of a human being, as opposed to an animal?

We think small. We don’t think scientifically. We don’t think artistically. Our art stinks, and our thinking stinks, and our science stinks! And these are things we’ve got to fix.

Thank you.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Addressing the issue of a candidates’ movement, LaRouche said, “We’re told that we have democracy as long as we stick to bottom-up approaches. You know, ‘The firemen in this district have a problem. The fireplug was put in the wrong place. We’re running on the issue of where that fireplug belongs.’ That’s the kind of problem I see: We think small. We think stupid!” Here, “single issue” demonstrators at a town meeting in Reston, Va., Aug. 26, 2009.

48 National EIR December 11, 2009

Dec. 5—Returning from Thanksgiving recess, where they once again experienced, up close, the wrath of their constituents, some Members of Congress are fi-nally waking up to the fact that, outside the Washington Beltway, the American people are going through Hell, and will hold every elected official in Washington ac-countable for their collective failure to act effectively on the economic crisis and war policy.

The shift in mood on Capitol Hill was palpable this past week, as a small, but growing bipartisan group of legislators took on the White House and the Federal Re-serve, for their abysmal failures and refusal to change.

Two events during the week provided the lightning rods for the Congressional revolt, which still has a very long way to go, but which is a welcome change from decades of “go along to get along” complicity.

The first event was President Barack Obama’s Dec. 1 nationally televised speech at the U.S. Military Acad-emy at West Point, where he delivered his belated an-nouncement of a 30,000-troop “surge” in Afghanistan. The second event was the Senate Banking Committee’s confirmation hearings on the re-nomination of Ben Ber-nanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

The two issues combined—the escalation of the Afghan War and the continuing Wall Street bailout—encapsulate everything that is wrong with the Obama Presidency. This is driving a mass strike process among the American people, which broke out during the August Congressional recess, and has not abated since.

Fire Bernanke!As syndicated columnist Mark Shields noted on the

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour on Dec. 4, “I will say this, Jim, that this administration will live or die on jobs.” Shields echoed Lyndon LaRouche, in describing the popular upsurge, stating that the vast majority of Amer-icans believe that “the major financial institutions of the country, the highest and most powerful and most privi-leged, brought this country to the edge of financial chaos, and caused the economic crisis that has resulted in soaring unemployment, and that the only govern-ment action that people can really see that has made a difference in the last year is the bailout of these same financial institutions.

“The only island of prosperity in this sea of discon-tent and suffering is that—New York financial institu-tions. And I think that is it. And they see Washington and New York scratching each other’s back.”

That issue exploded on Capitol Hill at the Bernanke confirmation hearings, where four members of the Senate Banking Committee announced that they would move to put a hold on his nomination or force a 60-vote Senate majority to get his nomination approved.

The stop-Bernanke effort was launched on Dec. 1, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced that he was placing a hold on the nomination. Sanders said: “The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities, to put the inter-ests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall

EIR National

Congress Is Driven To Take Action by Mass Strike Angerby Jeffrey Steinberg

December 11, 2009 EIR National 49

Street and the wealthy few. What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy. As head of the central bank since 2006, Bernanke could have de-manded that Wall Street provide adequate credit to small and medium-sized businesses to create decent-paying jobs in a productive economy, but he did not. He could have insisted that large, bailed-out banks end the usurious practice of charging interest rates of 30% or more on credit cards, but he did not. He could have broken up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that took Federal Reserve assistance, but he did not. He could have revealed which banks took more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed secret loans, but he did not.”

Sanders was joined on Dec. 3, once the hearings began, by Republican Sen. Jim Bunning (Ky.). In his opening remarks, with Bernanke seated just feet away, Bunning blasted away: “You are the definition of a moral hazard.” Bunning, who is the only Senator to have voted against Bernanke’s confirmation in 2006, stated: “I opposed you because I knew you would con-tinue the legacy of Alan Greenspan, and I was right.” After itemizing the crimes of Greenspan, Bunning zeroed in on Bernanke’s own abysmal record:

“You have created zombie banks that are only en-riching their traders and executives.

“Even if all that were not true, the AIG bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton.

“Your time as Fed chairman has been a failure. You stated time and again during the housing bubble that there was no bubble. After the bubble burst, you repeat-edly claimed the fallout would be small. And you clearly did not spot the systemic risks that you claim the Fed was supposed to be looking out for. Where I come from we punish failure, not reward it. Judging by the current Treasury Secretary, some may think Washington does reward failure, but that should not be the case. I will do everything I can to stop your nomination and drag out the process as long as possible. We must put an end to your and the Fed’s failures, and there is no better time than now.”

Before the end of the first day of the Bernanke hear-ing, two additional Senators, Jim DeMint (R-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-La.) added their names to the hold list, with Vitter insisting that no vote on the Bernanke re-nomination will occur until a full and transparent audit of the Fed has been completed.

A House bill for an annual audit of the Fed, intro-

duced by Ron Paul (R-Tex.) with over 300 co-sponsors, has been stalled by House Financial Services Commit-tee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

Black Caucus Hits FrankIn another sign of bipartisan revolt against the

Obama bailout, ten members of the Congressional Black Caucus stalled a vote on Barney Frank’s so-called banking re-regulation bill—a measure that would in-crease the power of the Fed—and subsequently boycot-ted the final committee vote, forcing Frank to squeeze by with an embarrassingly narrow 31-27 party-line vote to get the bill out of committee.

The vote was symbolic of a much deeper rift—be-tween the interests of Wall Street, promoted by Frank and the Obama White House, and the suffering of the African-American community all across the nation, where unemployment, home forclosures, and other economic catastrophies are the worst.

‘No’ to the Afghanistan WarIn another sign of the upsurge against Obama’s

“Bush Lite” policies, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) an-nounced that he would be forming a bipartisan Peace and Security in Afghanistan Caucus, to oppose the President’s announced troop surge. Already, a number of House Democrats and Republicans have voiced their opposition to the Administration’s policy, including such senior members as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Ap-propriations Subcommittee, and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), whose district includes Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune.

The question on the table for these members of Con-gress is whether they are going to stick to symbolic pro-tests, or whether they are going to actually use their Constitutional authority to check an Administration that is driving the country and the world deeper into war and economic depression. The Senate can deliver a powerful message to the world by defeating Bernanke’s confirmation to a second term. The House can block funding for the Afghanistan buildup. And Congress, above all, can take LaRouche’s warnings to heart: If there is not an immediate passage of a bill to restore Glass-Steagall standards of regulated commercial bank-ing, there is no hope for a recovery, for generations to come. We have reached the branching point, where either the entire system is put through a bankruptcy re-organization, or the entire system comes down.

50 National EIR December 11, 2009

Kill the HMO System!

Med-Malpractice Rates Are Killing Doctorsby Marcia Merry Baker

Dec. 5—In recent years, sky-high medical malpractice judgments and insurance rates have been the immedi-ate cause for driving thousands of U.S. physicians out of practice, and forcing hospitals to shut down whole categories of service, including obstetrics, neurosur-gery, and other vital functions. Many U.S. areas now lack natal units, or other community basics. Far from being an aberration of the health-care sector, this situ-ation stems from the insertion of privateer financial and insurance entities into the medical treatment, payment, and decision-making relations, which began in 1973 with the Health Maintenance Organization Act.

Over the decades, as HMOs—Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, etc.—grew dominant, their standard profitizing practices of curtailing, deny-ing, and delaying health care to their enrollees, resulted in more and more instances of harm to patients, and im-possible situations for physicians, hospitals, and nurs-ing facilities. It was estimated by a 1999 Institute of Medicine study that, at that time, between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year were dying because of HMO con-ditionalities.

However, the financial and political interests behind the HMOs and related branches of insurance—espe-cially malpractice—acted to protect the HMOs from lawsuits and settlements.

Key to the protection racket at the beginning was the Federal 1974 Employee Retirement Income Secu-rity Act (ERISA), under which, it was held that HMOs were providing interstate health-care services, and so, could not be sued under state law; and also, that HMOs could not be sued under Federal law, because under ERISA, the HMOs were just “administering benefits programs,” and not implementing medical treatment directly! This evil construction was upheld by the Su-preme Court, in a June 21, 2004 9-to-0 decision, at

which time, two Justices, Ginsberg and Breyer, ap-pealed to Congress to rectify what they called, “an unjust and increasingly tangled ERISA regime.”

Therefore, the typical recourse for an injured person under such an HMO-serving system, has been to sue the physician and/or care-institution directly, which, in turn has been augmented by phalanxes of attorneys, on the prowl to win a percentage of potential fat court settlements. The results have shown up in soaring malpractice insurance rates. But this is not the whole story. Over the same period, many insurers jacked up malpractice rates and other premiums, in response to their losses in all kinds of other speculative “invest-ments,” or just plain “corporate decisions” or misman-agement.

Insurers’ Rake-OffOne outstanding example is the St. Paul Insurance

Co. of Minnesota, which announced in December 2001, that it was withdrawing from the malpractice insurance business altogether, because it claimed $700 million in losses between 1997 and 2001, despite a 24% increase in premiums in 25 states. At the time, it was the second-largest U.S. medical insurer, covering 42,000 physi-cians, 73,000 health-care workers, and 750 hospitals nationwide. It began refusing renewals, as malpractice policies expired.

However, a year later, it was determined that St. Paul’s alleged losses from its malpractice business was a coverup for such blatant mismanagement, as distrib-uting $1.1 billion in dividends, from malpractice re-serves, to stockholders, instead of holding the funds for claims. Nevada authorities investigated the company. Over 1,200 West Virginia doctors filed charges against St. Paul for scamming them by taking their premiums and cutting coverage, etc.

During the 25-year period, 1975-2001, malpractice claims, payments, and settlements rose at a gradual rate, on average, along with medical inflation; but malprac-tice premiums fluctuated wildly during the same period.

In many states, malpractice suits have declined, but insurers have still hiked their rates. In New York, tort filings fell by 30% from 1998 to 2008, from a total of 81,952 cases, down to 57,023. But malpractice insur-ance costs are soaring.

The net result has been disastrous. Doctors and treatment facilities have been slammed from “both sides”—the HMO contract pressures and strictures,

December 11, 2009 EIR National 51

and the unaffordability, or even unavailability of mal-practice insurance. For example, whereas in Florida in the mid-1990s, there were more than 40 malpractice insurance carriers, by 2003, this dwindled to six pri-vate companies. In Pennsylvania, nine companies used to write such insurance, but by 2003, there were only two.

During the early George W. Bush Administration, the crisis point was reached where physicians in certain states faced malpractice insurance rates which had risen 70% during only a few years, and some faced premi-ums over 100% of the doctor’s annual income!

The rate of erosion of medical services escalated. In 2001, the American Hospital Association reported that malpractice rate hikes forced 20% of U.S. hospitals to scale back certain services. Nursing homes were like-wise hit hard.

In 2003, doctors in several states held demonstra-tions to bring the crisis home to the public. In January, in West Virginia, two dozen general, orthopedic, and heart surgeons at four West Virginia hopsitals started a 30-day leave of absence, hoping to locate workable insurance. The same year, several Philadelphia hospi-tals narrowly averted a job action over premium in-creases. Governor-elect Ed Rendell came into office urging the legislature to do something to at least get premiums reduced for the riskiest fields, such as ob-stetrics and neurosurgery. At that time, 250 physicians in five Pennsylvania counties were either leaving the state, limiting their practice, or retiring, due to mal-practice premium hikes; and 23 hospitals in the state faced a crisis of how to keep open their trauma centers, given that their physicians could either not find insur-ance, or faced personal premiums as high as $150,000 a year.

Today, it is impossible in northeastern Philadelphia for a woman to have a baby in a hospital. There are similar voids in cities and counties cross country.

In New York state, hospitals incur nearly $1.6 bil-lion a year in direct medical malpractice expenses, which amounts to 8% of their operating costs, other than personnel costs. This estimate is from the Greater New York Hospital Association’s testimony on Dec. 1, 2009 to the state Senate. At the same hearing, it was reported that annual malpractice insurance is expected to exceed $71 million next year for Columbia Univer-sity Medical Center and New York Presbyterian Hospi-tal. Some obstetricians in New York are paying $200,000 annually for malpractice coverage.

Talking the Talk, Protecting HMOsPresidents Bush, and now, Obama, have talked the

talk about the problem of unpayable malpractice in-surance, denouncing “frivolous” lawsuits as the prob-lem, but all the while they have done everything to protect the HMO system, even to the point now, of proposing Hitlerian cuts as Obamacare “reform.” The Bush Administration line was for “tort reform” as the solution.

This past Summer, President Obama was booed during his speech to the American Medical Association convention, when he said he did not favor capping mal-practice settlements; since then he speaks of “finding ways” to curb claims, supposedly to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. But above all, don’t touch HMOs.

On Dec. 3 Lyndon LaRouche addressed what must be done, as a “lesson.”

“Obama is destroying the United States with his current policies. He didn’t start this thing, but he’s continuing it. We have to reverse those trends. We have to eliminate, entirely, his health-care policy: Obama’s.

“What we do instead, is we go to a lesson, a health-care lesson. The health-care lesson is, that under Nixon, we destroyed our health-care system. We introduced the HMO system. Private insurance companies got con-trol over medical care. Then later, we had a new thing which occurred in the courts: malpractice insurance cases. Tremendous fees, grants for malpractice injuries, by the courts, by the court system. The result was, the insurance, which had to paid by medical institutions, and by physicians for the practice of medicine, drove them essentially out of the business, and drove up the cost of medical care. You look at it from, say, the drug policies, for example: what it costs to get a certain pre-scription drug in the United States, as opposed to Canada or places in Europe. Why? It’s a swindle of what? Of the insurance companies. Shall we say, AIG? We bailed it out, and the bailout is now part of it.

“Then we get the bright idea on top of that with Obama, to cut the right to medical care. We’ve got to kill you in order to save money to balance the budget. I would say, cancel the HMOs; go back to Hill-Burton, cancel the HMO system. . . .”

Linda Everett contributed to this article.

[email protected]

52 International EIR December 11, 2009

Dec. 4—Less than a week after the dowdy Queen was forced to step out front at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad & Tobago, to rally support for the failing effort, the genocidal Copenhagen climate summit (Dec. 7-18) hit new obstacles, both from within and without the global empire. Further exposure of the global warm-ing hoax could now prove a strategic blow to the totter-ing British Empire. Copenhagen is a battle it cannot afford to lose, but probably has already.

Key developments of the past week:• The scandal of the University of East Anglia cli-

mate e-mails has extended to professors at two univer-sities in the United States, as leading figures call for criminal investigations.

• China, India, South Africa, and Brazil signed a declaration that they would never accept legally bind-ing emission cuts or other measures damaging to their national interests, and threatened a unified walkout at Copenhagen if such measures are forced.

• The Australian Senate defeated a draconian carbon emissions bill by a vote of 41-33, amid a factional breakup in the traditional pro-monarchy Liberal Party.

These moves have enormous strategic significance, as the global warming hoax is the leading edge of the British Empire’s drive to stop scientific and technologi-cal development in order to maintain imperial rule over a genocidally reduced world population. Overturning the anti-science “green” paradigm of the past four decades is the necessary prerequisite to a world economic revival organized around Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Power pro-posal. The LaRouche Plan calls for a crash program for

nuclear power expansion, rail and maglev construction, and a Moon-Mars colonization program. India’s in-volvement in the Copenhagen opposition is especially important, LaRouche noted, if this involvement gets India to break from the British Queen’s Commonwealth.

The E-Mails ScandalThe stinking scandal of global warming broke out to

a new level of worldwide prominence less than three weeks ago, with the publication, thanks to so far un-identified hackers, of e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia. The 81 megabytes of data reveal that scientists at this leading center of global warming propaganda were tampering with historical data to make the case for man-made global warming, and suppressing opposition views.

On Dec. 1, the head of the East Anglia Climatic Re-search Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, was forced to resign, pend-ing an investigation into his manipulation of tempera-ture data to turn cooling into warming.

Penn State University’s Michael Mann, one of Jones’s leading collaborators in the data manufacturing business, also came under investigation by his univer-sity. A collaborator of Mann, Malcolm Hughes, a trans-plant from East Anglia to the University of Arizona, has been warned not to destroy any files, and an investiga-tion or inquiry is expected.

Mann is notorious as the inventor and arrogant de-fender of the “Hockey Stick” curve, a reconstruction of the North American mean temperature record, which attempted to eliminate the well-documented medieval

EIR International

British Empire Cracking On March to Copenhagenby Laurence Hecht

December 11, 2009 EIR International 53

warming of 800-1300 A.D. from the climate record. In Mann’s reconstruction, the temperature curve is rela-tively flat from 1000 to 1900 A.D., and then spikes upward like the bend in a hockey stick. The intent of the hoax is to show that human industrial activity caused the purported increase.

Mann and Jones were also involved in manipulating the recent temperature record, to try to hide the fact that the brief warming trend of the 1980s and 1990s had stopped over a decade ago. Once the statistical monkey business is taken out, it emerges that there is no signifi-cant warming trend for the past 15 years. Rather, a cool-ing trend of the past 8 years has wiped out the entire 0.6°C increase in global averaged temperature for the past century that formed the basis of the claim of “global warming.”

U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is pressing ag-gressively for Federal investigation of the e-mail dis-

closures. On Dec. 1, he requested Senate hearings on the “apparent attempts to manipulate data, vilify scien-tists with opposing viewpoints, and circumvent infor-mation disclosure laws” revealed in the e-mails.

Lord Christopher Monckton, the most outspoken among an influential group of global warming opponents in the United Kingdom, noted, in a Nov. 27 radio inter-view, that the relevant laws for dealing with such cases are the U.K. Fraud Law and the U.S. RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. British police have interviewed East Anglia professor Jones, according to the London tabloid, the Daily Mail. The university has now announced that it is conducting its own investiga-tion, headed by a physics professor from the University of Glasgow, who is not involved in climate research.

On Dec. 2, the Republican ranking members of two House and two Senate committees released a letter call-ing on Environmental Protection Agency Administra-tor Lisa Jackson to open an investigation into the East Anglia scandal. The latter also called for the agency to turn over all documents and communications with the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit to the respective Congressional committees! Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), one of the signers, characterized the e-mails as showing a pattern of “scientific fascism.” The EPA is also called upon to withdraw various findings related to greenhouse gases until the science can be proven.

China and India Fight BackLess well known, but of potentially even greater

strategic significance, is the resistance to Copenhagen emerging from an alliance of China and India with other developing nations. Reduction of world population by halting the application of scientific progress has been the aim of the global warming charade since the 1975 invention of the hoax.

The point is not lost on the leaders of the world’s two most populous nations. Resistance to the global warm-ing hoax is not new in India and China, but has reached a higher level in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen. The acceleration led to a previously unannounced meet-ing in Beijing Nov. 27, called by Chinese Prime Minis-ter Wen Jiabao. Present were the outspoken Indian Envi-ronment Minister Jairam Ramesh, Brazilian Presidential Advisor Marcel Fortuna Biato, South African Environ-ment Minister Buyelwa Sonjica, and the Sudanese rep-resentative of the G77 nations. China, India, South Africa, and Brazil signed a declaration, drafted by Bei-jing, which includes these nations’ non-negotiable de-

CHOGM

No sooner had the dowdy little Queen, shown here at the Trinidad & Tobago meeting, made her imperial pitch for the genocidal global warming hoax, than all hell broke loose, as opposition exploded, even among ranks of the Commonwealth nations.


mands for the Copenhagen climate summit.After the meeting, India’s Ramesh emphasized that

the draft declaration includes agreement for a united walkout of Copenhagen, if necessary, to protect their national interests. “We will not exit in isolation. We will co-ordinate our exit if any of our non-negotiable terms is violated.” The “non-negotiables,” he said, are that countries would never accept legally binding emis-sions cuts, unsupported mitigation actions, interna-tional measurement, reporting and verification of un-supported mitigation actions, or the use of climate change as a trade barrier, the Indian daily The Hindu reported Nov. 29.

India remains confident that China will stand by her on the issues of carbon emission reduction, according to Indian sources. The Manmohan Singh government has made it clear that it would not accept any commitment for a large-scale cut in emissions, but noted, with irony, that it is ready to assure the developed countries that the per capita emissions of India will remain lower than the average per capita emissions of the developed countries.

During the recent meeting of Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Xuren,

China gave assurance it would stick to its position of supporting India on this issue. “In our country, there are still 300 million people who don’t have access to elec-tricity,” Mukherjee said. Before talking about reduction in emissions in mega-power projects, we first have to ensure that this section of the population is provided with electricity, the Finance Minister and prominent leader of the Indian Congress party told Business Standard.

Australian RevoltThe breakaway of Australia, another member of the

British Commonwealth, from the Copenhagen forced march, portends more trouble for the empire. Australia sits atop vast natural resources, including large quanti-ties of thorium and uranium crucial for the next phase of world economic development. As Lyndon LaRouche noted, on being informed of the Australian Senate’s voting down of climate legislation: Australia’s real in-terest is that the nation be developed along with its re-sources, rather than raped like Africa. Similarly, Canada, also a Commonwealth member, along with Russia, sits atop the mineral wealth of the Arctic Shield. Its real in-terest is of the same sort which Russia and China evinced in their recent agreement for economic devel-opment of Russia’s Far East.

By a 41-33 vote on Dec. 2, the Australian Senate voted down the Emissions Trading Scheme, a Down-Under version of a carbon “cap and trade” scheme. The delicious irony of the victory was the role of LaRouche’s Australian political associates in the Citizens Electoral Council who had carried the message through print and television debate, that global warming was nothing but a Prince Philip-led plot for genocide. The vote reflected a deep-rooted shakeup in the Australian political scene, a mass strike process like that now occurring in the U.S.A. In Australia, popular rage against the climate change fraud had become a lightning rod for discontent over the whole array of worsening conditions of daily life brought on by the global economic collapse.

The reality of that collapse is what dooms the Queen’s expressed desire for continuation of her global imperium to a wishful fantasy. Neither the global warming hoax, nor any other tactic, can save this tottering monetary empire. However, neither is it guaranteed that the stated aim of global genocide will be avoided. Only a success-ful cooperation among the Four Powers in unleashing such vast and still untapped resources of creativity as now reside within the human soul can ensure that.

[email protected]

EIRNS/James Rea

Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted opponent of the global warming fraud, has proposed using laws, such as the U.S. RICO Act, against the East Anglia climate fraudsters. Here, he interviews greenies rallying outside the Berlin climate conference, Dec. 4, 2009.


Dec. 4—The LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) today released an address by Lyndon La-Rouche, which was delivered by video recording, to a Dec. 3-4 conference held in Moscow, Russia, under the title “Let the Earth Live! From the Clash of Civiliza-tions to Their Cooperation.” LaRouche’s presentation had top billing in today’s main proceedings, being scheduled for airing after introductory remarks from conference Organizing Committee chairman Sergei Baburin, rector of the Russian State University of Com-merce and Economics, and former deputy speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation.

Following LaRouche’s video, which was announced by the conference organizers under the title “Agree-ment Among Four Powers Can Avert Total Collapse,” scheduled speakers were Natalia Vitrenko, chairman of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, and Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former foreign relations head of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and current president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies. On the confer-ence as lead-off speaker in the afternoon session was Schiller Institute founder, and chairman of the German Civil Rights Solidarity Movement (BüSo), Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

The chief sponsors of this event are the Russian Anti-Globalist Resistance and Gen. Ivashov’s Academy of Geopolitical Studies. The conference invitation was titled, “Save Human Dignity for the Sake of Mankind!” Other listed speakers include Tatyana Shishova, a leader of the Anti-Globalist Resistance, who is a teacher and an expert on the drug/counterculture degradation of chil-dren and the family, Deputy Minister of Information from the Moldovan Transdniestr Republic V. Rykova-nova, and Borislav Milosevic, the younger brother of deceased Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

‘People of the Cosmos’The participants, among whom are representatives

of European “anti-globalist” layers who are virulently anti-American, were in for a shock from LaRouche’s speech, in which the U.S. economist posed the common tasks of mankind, with the horizon goal of a successful

Mars colonization, making the human species into “no longer Earthlings,” but “now people of the Universe or, as they say in Russia, the Cosmos.” This can only be accomplished, LaRouche said, through the utter defeat of imperialist monetarism by sovereign nation-states, led by the Four-Power combination of Russia, China, India and, without fail, the United States.

Likewise, Helga Zepp-LaRouche warned that Europe could do nothing effective in today’s world, and will not escape from the worsening financial and eco-nomic crisis, as long as it remains in the vise of the just-finalized EU Lisbon Treaty dictatorship.

A full transcript of LaRouche’s address (recorded Nov. 18) and translation of the transcript of Zepp-La-Rouche’s presentation (recorded Nov. 22) are provided here. The English and German originals, respectively, were voiced over in Russian for presentation to the con-ference and will be circulated on Russian-language In-ternet sites.

LaRouches Address Moscow Anti-Globalist Conference

vitrenko.org

Ukrainian political leader Natalia Vitrenko (left), joined Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, in addressing the Moscow anti-globalist conference. The three are shown here in Wiesbaden, Germany, last October.


Remarks of Lyndon LaRouche to the conference “Save Human Dignity for the Sake of Mankind,” Moscow, Russia, Dec. 3-4, 2009 (recorded Nov. 18, 2009).

Greetings!Since the developments of this Summer, there’s

been a great change in the situation in the world at large. Following the period of the Rhodes conference [Oct. 8-12, 2009], we had the effects of the negotiations be-tween China’s President and Russia’s President, setting the terms which were later followed up on, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the new agreement with China on the development, the shared development, of Siberia.

This has made a fundamental change in the direc-tion of history—this development, and its conse-quences. Now, the world has shifted from the former domination by the Atlantic Ocean, as the relationship between Europe and the Americas; and now, between the United States, and the Americas, across the Pacific, into the Indian Ocean, with the nations of Asia, and touching Africa.

This means that the great area of development in Siberia, especially in northern and eastern Siberia, is now opened for its realization: that the cooperation be-tween China and Russia, in the development of this area of Siberia, has produced a fundamental change in the strategic orientation of the planet as a whole. And, hope-fully, this is a more or less permanent change for gen-erations yet to come.

What we have on our hands, is the vast resources of countries such as Mongolia, and Russia—in Siberia, northern Siberia. This is a development which affects the populations of Africa, particularly on the Indian Ocean coast. It affects India, Southeast Asia, China, and Russia. It means that there’s a change in world his-tory from a trans-Atlantic orientation of modern civili-zation, which has been the case, essentially, since Chris-topher Columbus, to a new period, where the relationship

of the United States, across the Pacific, to Asia and also to the coast of Africa, and to Australia, will be the dom-inant feature.

Especially in Asia, we have large populations. Russia, for example, has not a large population, compa-rable to the scale of China or India, but it has a very special role, with the territory of Siberia. China and India: China, 1.4 billion people; India, 1.1 billion people; the comparably large populations of Indonesia, and so forth. This means that the combination of the realization of the development of the raw materials po-tential, and production potential, in Siberia, is now being combined with the large populations typified by those of China and India; to combine raw materials and the labor force together, not to loot a territory of its raw materials, but to develop that territory, and to develop the peoples participating in the development of that ter-ritory.

This is the new world economy, if we escape the dangers that exist now. And we have to shift our think-ing to that.

We also have to shift our thinking to something else.

A Trans-Pacific OrientationThe future of mankind, even though it’s some gen-

erations distant, now, depends upon the development of the colonization of the Moon, as a manufacturing center for building pieces of equipment which will convey man to the colonization of Mars. This will be a funda-mental change in the character of the apparent human destiny, over this period of time. And this program, which is now agreed upon, so far, by Russia and China, will be the starting point.

Those in the United States who know their history, who know their strategic history, realize this is a funda-mental change. The world is now going to have a trans-Pacific orientation, as opposed to a trans-Atlantic orien-tation. And that will be for a long time to come. Because

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Agreement Among Four PowersCan Avert Total Collapse


combining the populations, which are numerous, but underdeveloped, with a process of development of the raw-materials areas of Siberia and related places, is the solution for the present world problem. And we should look at these things in that way.

We also have to look ahead to Mars, the Mars colo-nization, which this will help to make possible. It will be several generations distant, before we do that. There are numerous problems, scientific problems, that have to be overcome, not so much in getting to Mars—we already know how to get to Mars—but to get men and women safely to Mars, and back, there are some prob-lems that have to be worked out, on that one.

So, therefore, this will be the character of the coming period of history, provided we get through the present crisis.

But, there are certain parts of the world, which are not willing to accept this. The British Empire, for ex-ample. (Australia—yes, Australia will tend to be very much interested in this. Australia has resources, such as large quantities of thorium and uranium, and these re-sources will be very useful, not only for Australia, but for its neighbors. Thorium nuclear reactors are a very special feature of a development program during this period, and for support of this.) But, in general, you’re

going to have opposition from what we call the British Empire, which is not the empire of the British people; it’s an empire which is based on London and the British interests, which is interna-tional. It’s the international monetarist system.

And what we’re going into, with this reform, with the Russia-China agreement, is the inception of an alternative to a monetarist system: a shift to a credit system. That is, instead of having an inter-national currency, which exerts imperial power, authority over the power of nation-states, and over their economy; instead of a globalized system, we’ll have a system of sovereign nation-states, in cooperation through their credit systems in the de-velopment of the planet. That’s the direction we should be going in. That’s what my purpose is in this.

However, in order to meet that mission—the mission not merely of starting this development, which the Russia-China cooperation begins, in-cluding Russia-China-India and other countries—we have to develop the science and technology which goes together with a Mars orientation.

A New Mission for MankindMankind is creative, instinctively. No animal is cre-

ative. Only mankind, only the human mind is creative. Living processes are creative; life is creative. But it’s not consciously creative. Even the inanimate world, so-called, is creative. The evolution of the stars, the evolu-tion of stellar systems is a creative process. But the dif-ference is: Man, individually, is creative. And it’s the willful creativity by Man, which is going to shape the future of the Solar System, and beyond.

We’re looking to that. In order to realize the objec-tives which stand before us now, we have to give man-kind a new mission—mankind as a whole. The mission is typified by the idea of the Mars colonization. This requires us to make the kinds of changes, in terms of scientific progress, which are needed for mankind’s future existence.

We have many problems on this planet. And we can not solve those problems, extensively, without going into a development of the Solar System as a habitat of mankind. We’re on the edge of doing that, scientifically. There are many scientific discoveries, yet to be made, which will make it possible to act for man’s coloniza-tion of Mars. That will be in some time to come. But we need now: We need the intention of accomplishing the

www.government.ru

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in Beijing on Oct. 13, 2009. Their agreements to jointly develop neighboring regions, including eastern Siberia, have shifted the world’s focus to the Pacific region.


Mars colonization. We need to educate and develop generations of young people, who will be oriented to that kind of mission. In the coming period, we will have the birth of young people, who will be part of the colo-nization of Mars, in one way or the other, before this century is out.

We need to give mankind a sense of purpose, devel-opmental purpose, not only throughout the planet, but through the influence of Earth on the adjoining regions of the Solar System, and beyond.

Those objectives are feasible. There are, admittedly, many problems to be solved, scientific problems, which are not yet resolved. We have many questions. But, es-sentially, we know this is feasible. We know this should be feasible within two or three generations. What we have to do, is give to people, who will be the grandchil-dren, born now, to give them something to realize. When we’re dead and gone, they will be there, three generations from now, four generations from now. They will be the people who actually colonize areas beyond Earth itself. We need to give them the opportunity to do so. We need to give society, in the meantime, the mis-sion-orientation of achieving that colonization, for our descendants, three generations or so down the line.

The End of the British EmpireSo, now we have a new situation. The

old imperial system—and, some people may disagree with this, but there’s only one empire on this planet. It’s the British Empire. It’s not the empire of the British people; it’s the empire of an international monetarist system. And it’s the monetarist system, which is the empire.

The advantage of the United States in this, is that the United States is not a mone-tarist nation. We do not believe, in our Con-stitutional system, in monetarism. We be-lieve in a credit system. It is a feature of our Constitution, which is lacking in Europe. And our crucial role, as was the case with Franklin Roosevelt, our crucial role in soci-ety, is to promote this kind of change, away from a monetarist system, which is the true form of imperialism. Many people talk about imperialism; they use the label for many things. Mostly, it’s nonsense, scientifically. There’s only one kind of imperialism we’ve known, in European experience during the

past 3,000 years, and that is monetarism, as such. And that’s what we have to destroy.

Yes, there is a British domination of the planet, con-trolling the monetary system, as such, in the tradition of Keynes, and so forth. We have to eliminate that. But, we have to replace it with something, and this means going to a credit system, like that of the United States under Franklin Roosevelt, in which each nation’s credit system is sovereign. And you have cooperation, on a fixed exchange rate, among sovereign economies. We can cooperate in long-term creation of credit, for the fulfillment of these kinds of projects, which the present treaty-agreement between Russia and China signifies. That’s what I’m committed to. I’m looking forward to it.

And I think that we, who are conscious of these goals, of these kinds of goals, we wish to defend the sovereignty of cultures, the sovereignty of nation-states. We wish a system of cooperation among sovereign nation-states, for common ends, without tampering with the culture of the respective nations.

We need to have a conception, a task-oriented con-ception, of the goals toward which we’re aimed, in the future—two or three generations. We have to have a conception of what are the steps we must take now, to

NASA

The colonization of Mars will be a new mission for mankind, drawing on the creative talents of many nations, providing a focus to inspire and educate youth. Shown is an artist’s rendering of a space traveller on Mars, collecting samples of Martian rock.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Europe Must Reject Empire, Choose National Sovereignty

realize those goals, three generations ahead.And I think we have the potential for doing that, just

now: what’s happened between China and Russia, which is not going to stop there. It’s oriented toward bringing India in more fully. It’s going mean trying to create a situation in which India cooperates with Paki-stan, in defending themselves, both, against what’s coming out of Afghanistan from European sources, in terms of drug-trafficking and so forth.

There are many challenges of that type. But we can achieve that. We can achieve that, provided we come to extend what has been agreed between China and Russia,

extend that on a broader scale, as the beginning of a Pa-cific-oriented development of the planet as a whole. And at the same time, with a mission orientation toward the development of an industrial base on the Moon, which is indispensable for the task of the colonization of Mars.

And when mankind has reached the point, that we have developed the launching of the colonization of Mars, and know it’s going to work, then mankind has gone to an entirely new phase of its existence. We are no longer Earthlings. We are now people of the Uni-verse or, as they say in Russia, the Cosmos.

Videotaped remarks to the conference “Save Human Dignity for the Sake of Mankind,” Moscow, Russia, Dec. 3-4, 2009.

Dear Friends,I believe that most of you will agree with me that the

system of globalization today is several orders of mag-nitude more bankrupt than was the Communist planned economy between 1989 and 1991. Those who say that the worst is already over, are lying. As you can see now, it is merely getting, what is called in English, a second wind—that is, a person is really already out of breath, but rouses himself for one final effort.

Twenty-eight months after the outbreak of the sys-temic crisis at the end of July 2007, the casino economy is more aggressive than ever before. We have bigger banks than we did, even prior to the collapse of Lehman Brothers, because of various mega-mergers. High-risk deals are in full swing. The only thing that has occurred is that unbelievable amounts of liquidity have been pumped in to rescue the banks—which will not succeed anyway, because they are hopelessly bankrupt. In America alone, over $23 trillion in liquidity has been pumped in. Similar sums in Europe—and yet the real economy is in free fall around the world.

A new bubble is taking shape; the commercial real

estate market is near collapse; the so-called credit de-fault swap market—i.e., the credit insurance market—is near collapse. A new, very big danger is the new dollar carry trade, which means that the next mega-crash is only a matter of time, and then—unless there is a tre-mendous change—there is the danger of plunging into chaos and the danger of hyperinflation, like in Weimar in 1923, only this time worldwide.

As my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, explained in his video address, the agreement reached in early October between Russia and China was potentially the begin-ning of a new credit system. And other sovereign na-tions should associate themselves with it. If Russia, China, India, and, hopefully soon, the U.S. work to-gether, this can certainly lead to a new credit system.

Europe’s RoleIn my remarks, I would like to discuss Europe’s role

in this context. As long as the European nations are trapped in the corset of the EU, Europe has no chance to overcome this crisis. Although, of course, the EU bu-reaucracy in Brussels says exactly the opposite: namely, that European integration is necessary so that Europe can assert itself as a regional power against other rising regional powers in the world.

This is a falsehood which is usually spread by the


proponents of the EU, saying that anyone who is criti-cal of the EU is anti-European. That is absolutely not the case; one can certainly be for Europe, but in the spirit of de Gaulle: a Europe of the Fatherlands.

The problem with the current EU is that, at least since the Maastricht Treaty, it has been on the road to becoming a true empire. If you consider developments after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the manipu-lation by Margaret Thatcher, with her “Fourth Reich” campaign; by Françcois Mitterrand, who even threat-ened war, if Germany would not give up the D-Mark; and by Bush Sr., who wanted to force Germany to con-tain itself, then you can see in retrospect that all these efforts to integrate Germany into the EU were essen-tially intended, at the very least, to severely restrict Germany’s role in the economic development, first, of the Soviet Union, and then, of Russia.

In 1991, the opportunity had existed to place East-West relations on a completely new footing, and to or-ganize real peace for the 21st Century, since there was no longer an enemy. But the problem was that precisely at that time, in the senior Bush’s administration, the neocons around Cheney, Bush, Shultz, and Rumsfeld wanted to establish the American Century doctrine, and to establish the special relationship between Britain and the United States as virtually the beginning of a new world government. The result was the first Gulf War.

The pursuit of this idea of a world empire was interrupted during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, but globalization spread rapidly, of course, in its economic and financial aspects. For example, in 1996, Rich-ard Perle placed the policy of the so-called “Clean Break” on the agenda, via then-Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu; this policy was, essentially, that all governments that were hostile to such a new world govern-ment would be eliminated by “regime change,” in one way or another.

In January 2001, Lyndon LaRouche warned that the new Bush Administration would be faced with so many economic prob-lems that there was a danger that it would stage a new Reichstag Fire. And it happened, exactly nine months later, on Sept. 11, 2001; and just one day later, Dick Cheney stood before the international press and claimed that it was clearly proven that Saddam Hus-sein and Iraq were to blame for Sept. 11. That

was later the pretext for the strike against Iraq, and, of course, for the Afghanistan War.

The Maastricht Treaty, which defines Europe in the form of the EU, must be seen against this background, because it was not just about the containment of the re-united Germany by EU integration, but also about the so-called reform of policy toward Russia, which in the ’90s had resulted in economic devastation.

Germany had to give up the deutschemark and accept monetary union and the euro. Chancellor Helmut Kohl said, at that time, that he knew for sure that a mon-etary union without political union could not work. But he was forced, by various very evil maneuvers—in-cluding the murder of Alfred Herrhausen, who was then the head of Deutsche Bank—to give up the D-mark; and one can only conclude that, since that time, the EU has actually become a substructure of globalization.

The behavior of Brussels and the EU Commission since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2007 proves that they have not deviated from the neo-liberal para-digm in any way. The new EU Foreign Minister, Mrs. Ashton, now has a staff of 7,000 people, who have po-tentially more power than any of the EU’s member gov-ernments, and who will have a very large role in foreign and defense policy. The EU has also made it clear that it wants to stick with “perfecting” free trade; they insist on concluding the WTO’s Doha Round. It has now been

DaD/Bundesbildstelle

French President Charles de Gaulle (left) and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer at the Bonn airport in 1961. They signed a historic treaty that reconciled the French and German peoples, after the horrors of war. De Gaulle’s “Europe of the Fatherlands” is the right concept for Europe today: an alliance of sovereign nations, for the general welfare.


admitted that the EU’s policy in the health sector is the same as the Brit-ish QALY—quality adjusted life years; i.e., prioritization of health care for people who can be quickly re-integrated into the workforce, while children and old people will fall through the cracks and receive less medical care. This goes in the di-rection of the policy that [the Nazis] called Tiergarten 4 (T4), and which at that time led to the definition of “a life not worth living.”

Just what a monster the EU bu-reaucracy has become can be seen no-where better than in agriculture, where in Germany, for example, one-third of dairy farmers have lost their liveli-hoods, and many more are in danger of going bankrupt in the coming weeks and months, because the EU’s pricing policy is quite obviously in-tended to replace family farms with so-called agro-in-dustrial complexes.

I venture the forecast that if the EU maintains its current neo-liberal policies, the worsening of the crisis will lead to a revolt against the EU itself—not only by individual member states, but also by the vocational groups concerned, who, because of this policy, really cannot survive.

If Europe sticks with the current EU policy, then, there is no mechanism that could protect industry and the common good, because the EU Stability Pact and the madness of the so-called “debt brake,” which is also enshrined in the Basic Law in Germany now, has robbed governments of any means, such as state credit creation, to do what is necessary to overcome the economic crisis. And if Europe maintains this policy, Europe—no matter what happens in the rest of the world—would plunge into a new Dark Age.

The AlternativeOn the other hand, there is an alternative. If agree-

ment is reached among Russia, China, India, and, hope-fully, the U.S., then individual European nations, as sovereign states, could become part of this new credit system. In that case, I certainly see a very positive role for Germany, France, Italy, and the other European countries. For example, the German Mittelstand [small

and medium-sized enterprises] has industrial capabili-ties that are urgently needed for the development of Eurasia.

I think that’s the path we must take, because every nation in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America need to evolve as individual sovereign nations, in the best pos-sible way. That, moreover, is the idea that was devel-oped by Nikolai Kusansky [Nicolaus of Cusa]: that har-mony in the macrocosm is only possible if all microcosms develop in the best possible way.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization has just published in its annual report, that a total of 1.2 billion people go hungry every day. I think that shows the real scandal of the system of globalization. And therefore, one of the new tasks for cooperation among sovereign republics must be to put the elimination of hunger, of poverty—especially in Africa and Latin America—on the agenda.

We must pose to ourselves the common goal, as Mr. LaRouche has indicated, that manned spaceflight be the next stage, which can unite mankind on a higher level. This decision as to which direction we go—chaos and decline, or a new, just world economic order?—is a de-cision that, in all likelihood, we will face in the coming weeks and months. And I think we should confront this historic challenge with courage and confidence.

Thank you very much.

German leaders watch the opening of the Brandenburg Gate border crossing between East and West Berlin, Dec. 22, 1989. The great opportunity of that moment was lost, due to the manipulations of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and others. Shown here are, left to right foreground: East German President Hans Kodrow, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and West Berlin Mayor Walter Momper.


Norwegian H1N1 Mutation

Why Specialists Are Missing the Pointby Christine Craig

Nov. 28—A tiny mutation detected in one of the RNA strands of the AH1N1 virus has led to worldwide specu-lation as to whether this means the virus is about to turn into another 1918 pandemic.

The flaw in nearly all reported thinking on the sub-ject is the reductionist assumption, pervasive in modern molecular biology, that the behavior of an organism is completely determined by its genetic composition. Now, the eight strands of RNA in the H1N1 virus, with their strings of thousands of nucleotide base trios (which will ultimately code for amino acid building blocks of proteins), are being endlessly gone over by virologists like penitents counting prayer beads.

It began with the discovery recently of a mutation in the virus’s RNA strand coding for hemagglutinin (one of the two glycoproteins on the surface of the viral enve-lope responsible for the specificity of viral binding to host cell membrane surfaces) found in two dead flu vic-tims in Norway. In both, probably independently, there was a change at prayer bead number 225 from a D to a G (a change in coding from amino acid aspartic acid to amino acid glycine). Laboratory studies have given some evidence that this amino acid change can lead to a change of binding specificity from alpha2-6 to alpha2-3 sialic acid containing receptors in the human respiratory tissues. The fear is, that if this mutation proliferates and becomes widespread, it can lead to a new wave of more lethal flu outbreaks—similar to what happened in 1918, when an estimated 50 million people died worldwide.

It should be noted, however, that both forms of the gene have been found throughout the H1N1 virus’s his-tory, from 1918 to today. In 1918, both forms were found separately in dead soldiers’ tissues. Throughout the inter-vening years, both have been found. Therefore, it is not surprising that both exist today. In fact, a study has shown that in flu virus passed through egg—as is done in the lab to grow viruses, and also for vaccine production—the proportion of G to D variants at 225 grows. This is not

surprising, because eggs would have avian-type alpha2-3 sialic acid receptors, so there would be a selection for that variant in grooming the virus to grow on the eggs.

The point is, we still do not know what makes the H1N1 pandemic virus kill certain persons, and not others, and we certainly don’t know what genetic changes, if any, are necessary to turn the 2009 virus into a monster like the 1918 virus. It is very likely that it would take many factors totally outside of the virus’s control to lead to a 1918-like pandemic. In this sense, the virus is merely hitchhiking on the opportunities pre-sented through the large-scale actions of man upon the biosphere (just like HIV and, just like the bacterium causing bubonic plague). Large-scale war, famine, and social disruption in the 14th Century enabled the bu-bonic plague, a rodent disease, to begin spreading like wildfire among humans. It was not a random point mu-tation in the plague bacterium’s genome that caused the death of one-third of the people in Europe. It was man’s actions as society collapsed, and as the Noösphere con-tracted sharply, which brought on the horror.

The best thing societies can do to avoid a plague is to move forward in all scientific and social endeavors. It is through man’s reason that he gains control over the Biosphere, including those parts that we call diseases. Wherever human existence is degraded through pov-erty, ignorance, and lack of access to clean water, ade-quate living space, adequate food, and proper sanitary infrastructure, disease will advance. If such a collapse becomes widespread, a plague will be ignited, and even the rich will not be spared. If you force humans to live like rats, they will die like rats.

World Health Organization

Wherever human existence is degraded through poverty, ignorance, and lack of access to clean water, adequate living space, adequate food, and proper sanitary infrastructure, as in this slum in India, disease will advance.


Africa Report by Douglas DeGroot

A study was released in the United States on Nov. 23, timed to inter-

sect the Copenhagen climate confer-ence, which purports to scientifically prove that civil wars will increase in Africa by 50% over the next two de-cades, because of a projected 1°C tem-perature increase by 2030.

This thesis is one that British pub-lications, such as the City of London’s mouthpiece, The Economist, and the BBC, have been giving wide play. BBC published a release saying that research shows that “climate has been a major driver of armed conflict in Af-rica,” and that “future warming is like-ly to increase the number of deaths from war.”

The authors of this report, like the British monetarist empire, rule out water projects and other crucial infra-structural development projects. It is this rejection of development that will cause the wars that they are so smugly predicting.

By seeking to blame the horrific, worsening conditions in Africa on the “global warming” hoax, the British hope to create a seemingly “objective” factor to use as a smokescreen to hide the logical outcome of their anti-de-velopment policies for Africa, which are deliberately designed to limit pop-ulation growth.

The report, “Warming Increases the Risk of Civil War in Africa,” was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Re-searchers from Stanford University, the University of California-Berkeley, New York University, and Harvard contributed to the report.

Even on purely technical grounds, the study has no validity, since the au-thors acknowledge that the climate data that they ran through their com-puter models came from the now noto-rious and thoroughly discredited Cli-matic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain. Its director, Phil Jones, was forced to step down after e-mails were “hacked” showing that the CRU was lying about global warming.

On the more important, method-ological level, the report is also in-competent, since it ignores all politi-cal, social, and economic factors that create the conditions for conflict, such as IMF and World Bank anti-develop-ment interventions.

After IMF conditionalities and World Bank restructuring programs are implemented, which are designed to prevent an advanced development leading to higher levels of productivi-ty, African countries are locked into traditional, less productive means of subsistence, and, hence, are much more susceptible to the effects of cli-matic changes.

About 40% of Africa’s more mar-ginal land is used by semi-nomadic and nomadic herders. As long as Afri-can means of production have been forcibly retarded by lack of develop-ment, droughts will inevitably lead to competition for land and water be-tween herders and farmers.

In eastern Africa, successive poor rainy seasons have decimated the farmers’ crops and herders’ livestock, leading, in the case of Kenya, to in-creasing conflicts over diminishing

water and pasture-land resources. While only 10% of the population in Kenya consists of herders, 90% of this segment is extremely poor, compared to the national average of 50%, ac-cording to UN statistics. So the sus-ceptibilities to the vagaries of climate have been built into the present mon-etarist order, which the British ada-mantly refuse to change.

These conditions make it very easy to destabilize a country by ma-nipulating conflicts. Kenyan Parlia-ment member Mohamed Abdi Kuti said, according to a Nov. 27 Los Ange-les Times article, that climatic condi-tions, such as drought, make the popu-lation more susceptible to political manipulation: “Because of the drought, people are desperate and they’re will-ing to do anything.”

Global warming advocates, such as Kenya’s Prof. Richard Odingo, claim that conflict over water in the dry region of northern Kenya could lead to a repeat there, of the Darfur conflict in neighboring Sudan, because of the danger of escalation of ongoing drought-fueled clashes between no-mads and settled farmers. Odingo is the vice chairman of the the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up to propagate the idea fraud human activity is caus-ing “global warming.”

The highly subjective study is built on projections of effects of tempera-ture increase, estimates of historical response of conflict to climate in Afri-ca, an assumption of a linear increase in temperature until 2030 and a 1°C temperature change. It rules out the ef-fects that “any potentially offsetting effects of strong economic growth” could have, such as the revolution in policy proposed by Lyndon LaRouche to replace the IMF with a credit-based economic system, providing for di-rected investments in vital large infra-structure projects.

Why Are the British Planning More Wars?

British “technological apartheid” policy, not global warming, will cause more wars in Africa.

64 Editorial EIR December 11, 2009

Editorial

“These are the days when the world system of the International Monetary Fund is slipping into a chain-reaction pattern of sovereign fiscal defaults,” Lyndon LaRouche stated in the wake of the Nov. 25 announcement by Dubai World that it would be unable to make its debt payments. The Queen’s Nov. 27 speech to the Commonwealth summit, co-inciding with the announcement of Dubai World’s default, was the umbrella under which the coming sovereign defaults was heralded.

The system is gone.Nothing can be understood without consider-

ation of the Queen’s speech in Trinidad and Tobago, which was probably the most significant event over the recent period. With her declaration that the Commonwealth—in fact, the physical ex-tension of the British Empire’s monetarist global realm—must expand its international role, she de-clared the Empire’s intention for global genocide, and the end of nation-states, which are now to be liquidated in a wave of sovereign defaults.

The number of countries which are currently in jeopardy, due to their own bankruptcy and the conditions created by the Queen’s policy dominat-ing the bankrupt system, is extensive; among those mentioned Nov. 30: Ireland, Greece, Hungary, the Baltic States, Ukraine, Pakistan, Romania, Bul-garia, Spain—and the United Kingdom and the United States.

Over the course of the following week, attention was focussed primarily on Greece. A report by French investment bank Natixis addressed the im-possible debt situations of a number of European na-tions. The foreign debt of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland is, respectively, EU1,089 billion; EU166 billion; EU543 billion; and EU182 billion. As a per-centage of GDP, this amounts to, respectively, 155%;

110%; 155%; and 966%. In terms of foreign debt service, it represents EU172 billion for Spain (10.2% of GDP); EU16 billion (8.8% of GDP) for Portugal; EU92 billion for Greece (10.9% of GDP); and EU167 billion (9.5% of GDP) for Ireland; for a total of EU447 billion in debt service. Natixis economists arrive at the figure required to honor that debt: EU331 billion per year over 15 years.

“The challenge is thus posed immediately,” LaRouche said, “as to whether nations will act to survive by writing off a lot of that debt through re-organization in bankruptcy.

“If the United States would declare its inten-tion to join with China and Russia, in keeping with and building around their mid-October agree-ments, to establish a Bretton Woods-modelled credit-system, in place of the present world mon-etarist system, the world could make it. But the U.S. would have to agree to a fundamental change, and say to China and Russia that we, as a leading group among nations, should put the monetary system under bankruptcy reorganization, and es-tablish a new fixed-exchange-rate credit system, which, while beginning with a few powerful na-tions—the U.S., China, Russia, and India—could expand to form the basis of a new international credit system.

“By acting in this way, the United States and other nations can get off the Titanic, and onto the lifeboat which I have devised. The lifeboat won’t take them to paradise, but it will provide the means for survival, rather than the road to imperial hell.

“The immediate cancellation of the neo-mal-thusian Copenhagen conference, in rejection of the pro-genocidal lies of Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund atrocity, would be the initial step toward global sanity,” he concluded.

The Era of Sovereign Defaults Has Begun

See LaRouche on Cable TV INTERNET • BCAT.TV/BCAT Click BCAT-2

4th Fri: 10 am (Eastern Time) • LAROUCHEPUB.COM Click

LaRouche’s Writings. (Avail. 24/7) • LA36.ORG Click on The LaRouche

Connection. Select desired show. • MNN.ORG Click Watch Ch.57

Fri: 2:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) • QUOTE-UNQUOTE.COM

Click on Ch.27. Tue. 6 pm (Mtn.) • SCAN-TV.ORG Click Scan on the

Web (Pacific Time). Ch.23: Wed. 7 am Ch.77: Mon. 11 am

• WUWF.ORG Click Watch WUWF-TV. Last Mon 4:30-5 pm (Eastern)

INTERNATIONAL THE PHILIPPINES • MANILA Ch.3: Tue 9:30 pm ALABAMA • UNIONTOWN GY Ch.2: Mon-Fri

every 4 hours; Sun Afternoons ALASKA • ANCHORAGE

GCI Ch.9: Thu 10 pm CALIFORNIA • CONTRA COSTA

CC Ch.26: 2nd Tue 7 pm • COSTA MESA

TW Ch.35: Thu 5:30 pm • LANCASTER/PALMDALE TW

Ch.36: Sun 1 pm • ORANGE COUNTY (N)

TW Ch.95/97/98: Fri 4 pm COLORADO • DENVER CC Ch.56 Sun 10 am CONNECTICUT • GROTON CC Ch.12: Mon 5 pm • NEW HAVEN CC Ch.27: Sat 6 pm • NEWTOWN CH Ch.21:

Mon 12:30 pm; Fri 7 pm • NORWICH CC Ch.14: Thu 7:30 pm • SEYMOUR CC Ch.10: Tue 10 pm DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA • WASHINGTON

CC Ch.95 & RCN Ch.10: Irregular FLORIDA • ESCAMBIA COUNTY

CX Ch.4: Last Sat 4:30 pm ILLINOIS • CHICAGO

CC./RCN/WOW Ch.21: Irregular • PEORIA COUNTY

IN Ch.22: Sun 7:30 pm • QUAD CITIES

MC Ch.19: Thu 11 pm • ROCKFORD CC Ch.17 Wed 9 pm IOWA • QUAD CITIES

MC Ch.19: Thu 11 pm KENTUCKY • BOONE/KENTON COUNTIES

IN Ch.21: Sun 1 am; Fri Midnight • JEFFERSON COUNTY

IN Ch.98: Fri 2-2:30 pm LOUISIANA • ORLEANS PARISH

CX Ch.78: Tue 4 am & 4 pm

MAINE • PORTLAND

TW Ch.2: Mon 1 & 11 am; 5 pm MARYLAND • ANN ARUNDEL CC Ch.99; FIOS

Ch.42: Tue & Thu: 10 am; Fri & Sat: midnight

• P.G. COUNTY CC Ch.76 & FIOS Ch.42: Wed & Fri: 6 pm

• MONTGOMERY COUNTY CC/RCN/FIOS Ch.21: Tue 2 pm

MASSACHUSETTS • BROOKLINE CV & RCN Ch.3:

Mon 3:30 pm; Tue 3:30 am; Wed 9 am & 9 pm;

• CAMBRIDGE CC Ch.10: Tue 2:30 pm; Fri 10:30 am

• FRANKLIN COUNTY (NE) CC Ch.17: Sun 8 pm; Wed 9 pm; Sat 4 pm

• QUINCY CC Ch.8: Pop-ins. • WALPOLE CC Ch.8: Tue 1 pm MICHIGAN • BYRON CENTER

CC Ch.25: Mon 2 & 7 pm • DETROIT CC Ch.68: Irregular • GRAND RAPIDS CC Ch.25: Irreg. • KALAMAZOO

CH Ch.20: Tue 11 pm; Sat 10 am • KENT COUNTY (North)

CH Ch.22: Wed 3:30 & 11 pm • KENT COUNTY (South)

CC Ch.25: Wed 9:30 am • LAKE ORION

CC Ch.10: Mon/Tue 2 & 9 pm • LANSING CC Ch.16: Fri Noon • LIVONIA BH Ch.12: Thu 3 pm • MT. PLEASANT CH Ch.3:

Tue 5:30 pm; Wed 7 am • SHELBY TOWNSHIP CC Ch.20 &

WOW Ch.18: Mon/Wed 6:30 pm • WAYNE COUNTY

CC Ch.16/18: Mon 6-8 pm MINNESOTA • ALBANY AMTC Ch.13:

Tue & Thu: 7:30 pm • CAMBRIDGE

US Ch.10: Wed 6 pm • COLD SPRING

US Ch. 10: Wed 6 pm • COLUMBIA HEIGHTS

CC Ch.15: Tue 9 pm • DULUTH CH Ch.20: Mon 9 pm;

Wed 12 pm, Fri 1 pm • MARSHALL Prairie Wave & CH

Ch.35/8: Sat. 9 am • MINNEAPOLIS

TW Ch.16: Tue 11 pm • MINNEAPOLIS (N. Burbs)

CC Ch.15: Thu 3 & 9 pm • NEW ULM TW Ch. 14: Fri 5 pm • PROCTOR

MC Ch. 12: Tue 5 pm to 1 am • ST. CLOUD CH Ch.12: Mon 5 pm • ST. CROIX VALLEY

CC Ch.14: Thu 1 & 7 pm; Fri 9 am • ST. LOUIS PARK CC Ch.15:

Sat/Sun Midnite, 8 am, 4 pm • ST. PAUL CC Ch.15: Wed 9:30 pm • ST. PAUL (S&W Burbs) CC Ch.15:

Wed 10:30 am; Fri 7:30 pm • SAULK CENTRE

SCTV Ch.19: Sat 5 pm

• WASHINGTON COUNTY (South) CC Ch.14: Thu 8 pm

NEVADA • BOULDER CITY

CH Ch.2: 2x/day: am & pm • WASHOE COUNTY

CH Ch.16: Thu 9 pm NEW HAMPSHIRE • CHESTERFIELD

CC Ch.8: Wed 8 pm • MANCHESTER

CC Ch.23: Thu 4:30 pm NEW JERSEY • BERGEN CTY TW Ch.572: Mon &

Thu 11 am; Wed & Fri 10:30 pm • MERCER COUNTY CC

Trenton Ch.26: 3rd & 4th Fri 6 pm Windsors Ch.27: Mon 5:30 pm

• MONTVALE/MAHWAH CV Ch.76: Mon 5 pm

• PISCATAWAY CV Ch.15: Thu 11:30 pm

• UNION CC Ch.26: Irregular NEW MEXICO • BERNALILLO COUNTY

CC Ch.27: Tue 2 pm • LOS ALAMOS

CC Ch.8: Wed 10 pm • SANTA FE

CC Ch.16: Thu 9 pm; Sat 6:30 pm • SILVER CITY

CC Ch.17: Daily 8-10 pm • TAOS CC Ch.2: Thu 7 pm NEW YORK • ALBANY TW Ch.18: Wed 5 pm. • BETHLEHEM

TW Ch.18: Thu 9:30 pm • BRONX CV Ch.70: Wed 7:30 am • BROOKLYN 4th Friday

CV Ch.67: 10 am TW Ch.34: 10 am RCN Ch.82:10 am FIOS Ch.42:10 am

• BUFFALO TW Ch.20: Wed & Fri 10:30-11pm

• CHEMUNG/STEUBEN TW Ch.1/99: Tue 7:30 pm

• ERIE COUNTY TW Ch.20: Thu 10:35 pm

• IRONDEQUOIT TW Ch.15: Mon/Thu 7 pm

• JEFFERSON/LEWIS COUNTIES TW Ch.99: Irregular

• MANHATTAN TW & RCN Ch.57/85 Fri 2:30 am

• ONEIDA COUNTY TW Ch.99: Thu 8 or 9 pm

• PENFIELD TW Ch.15: Irregular • QUEENS

TW Ch.56: 4th Sat 2 pm RCN Ch.85: 4th Sat 2 pm

• QUEENSBURY TW Ch.71: Mon 7 pm

• ROCHESTER TW Ch.15: Sun 9 pm; Thu 8 pm

• ROCKLAND CV Ch.76: Tue 5 pm • SCHENECTADY

TW Ch.16: Fri 1 pm; Sat 1:30 am • STATEN ISLAND

TW Ch.35: Mon & Thu Midnite. TW Ch.34: Sat 8 am

• TOMPKINS COUNTY TW Ch.13: Sun 12:30 pm; Sat 6 pm

• TRI-LAKES TW Ch.2: Sun 7 am, 1 pm, 8 pm

• WEBSTER TW Ch.12: Wed 9 pm • WEST SENECA

TW Ch.20: Thu 10:35 pm NORTH CAROLINA • HICKORY CH Ch.6: Tue 10 pm • MECKLENBURG COUNTY

TW Ch.22: Sat/Sun 11 pm OHIO • AMHERST TW Ch.95: 3X Daily • CUYAHOGA COUNTY

TW Ch.21: Wed 3:30 pm • OBERLIN Cable Co-Op

Ch.9: Thu 8 pm OKLAHOMA • NORMAN CX Ch.20: Wed 9 pm PENNSYLVANIA • PITTSBURGH

CC Ch.21: Thu 6 am RHODE ISLAND • BRISTOL, BARRINGTON,

WARREN Full Channel Ch.49: Tue: 10 am

• EAST PROVIDENCE CX Ch.18; FIOS Ch.25: Tue: 6 pm

• STATEWIDE RI INTERCONNECT CX Ch.13; FIOS Ch.32 Tue 10 am

TEXAS • HOUSTON CC Ch.17 & TV Max

Ch.95: Wed 5:30 pm; Sat 9 am • KINGWOOD CB Ch.98:

Wed 5:30 pm; Sat 9 am VERMONT • BRATTLEBORO CC Ch.8:

Mon 6 pm, Tue 4:30 pm, Wed 8 pm • GREATER FALLS

CC Ch.10: Mon/Wed/Fri 1 pm • MONTPELIER CC Ch.15:

Tue 10 pm; Wed 3 am & 4 pm VIRGINIA • ALBEMARLE COUNTY

CC Ch.13: Sun 4 am; Fri 3 pm • ARLINGTON CC Ch.69 &

FIOS Ch.38: Tue 9 am • CHESTERFIELD COUNTY

CC Ch.17; FIOS Ch.28: Mon 1 pm • FAIRFAX CX & FIOS Ch.10:

1st & 2nd Wed 1 pm; Sun 4 am. FIOS Ch.41: Wed 6 pm

• LOUDOUN COUNTY CC Ch.98 & FIOS Ch.41: Wed 6 pm

• ROANOKE COUNTY CX Ch.78: Tue 7 pm; Thu 2 pm

WASHINGTON • KING COUNTY

CC Ch.77: Mon 11 am, Wed 7 am BS Ch.23: Mon 11 am, Wed 7 am

• TRI CITIES CH Ch.13/99: Mon 7 pm; Thu 9 pm

WISCONSIN • MARATHON CH Ch.10: Thu 9:30

pm; Fri 12 Noon • MUSKEGO

TW Ch.14: Sat 4 pm; Sun 7 am

WYOMING • GILLETTE BR Ch.31: Tue 7

MSO Codes: AS=Astound; BD=Beld; BR=Bresnan; BH=BrightHouse; BS = Broadstripe; CV=Cablevision; CB=Cebridge; CH=Charter; CC=Comcast; CX=Cox; GY=Galaxy; IN=Insight; MC=MediaCom; TW=TimeWarner; US=US Cable. FIOS=Verizon FIOS-TV. Get The LaRouche Connection on your local cable TV system! Call Charles Notley 703-777-9451, Ext. 322. Visit our Website: www.larouchepub.com/tv. [ updated Nov. 13, 2009]

http://www.larouchepub.com/tv�

SUBSCRIBE TO

Executive Intelligence ReviewEEIIRR EIROnline

EIR Online gives subscribers one of themost valuable publications for policymakers—the weekly journal that has established LyndonLaRouche as the most authoritative economicforecaster in the world today. Through thispublication and the sharp interventions of theLaRouche Youth Movement, we are changingpolitics in Washington, day by day.

EIR OnlineIssued every Tuesday, EIR Online includes theentire magazine in PDF form, plus up-to-the-minute world news.

I would like to subscribe to EIROnline

Name _______________________________________________________________________________

Company ____________________________________________________________________________

Address _____________________________________________________________________________

City __________________________ State _______ Zip ___________ Country ___________________

Phone ( _____________ ) ____________________________________

E-mail address _____________________________________________

I enclose $ _________ check or money orderMake checks payable to

EIR News Service Inc.P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390_______________________________________________

Please charge my ■■ MasterCard ■■ Visa

Card Number __________________________________________

Signature ____________________________________________

Expiration Date ______________________________________

—EIR Online can be reached at:www.larouchepub.com/eiw

e-mail: [email protected] 1-800-278-3135 (toll-free)

✃

(e-mail address must be provided.)■■ $360 for one year

■■ $180 for six months

■■ $120 for four months

■■ $90 for three months

■■ $60 for two months

■■ Send information onreceiving EIR bymail.

Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 36, Number 48 ... · Executive Intelligence Review December...

Documents

Transcript of Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 36, Number 48 ... · Executive Intelligence Review December...