Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. Discusses
"The Middle East Blow-Back Effect"
in Video Webcast

Dialogue With LaRouche

You Must Be Willing
To Tell the Truth!

May 1, 2002

Webcast Announcement

Biography of LaRouche

Opening Remarks by LaRouche

More Related Pages

Next Webcast- May 28, 2002

Lyndon LaRouche with Triple Curve

Dialogue With LaRouche
You Must Be Willing To Tell the Truth!

The following discussion took place between Lyndon LaRouche and the international webcast audience. The discussion was moderated by LaRouche's Presidential campaign spokeswoman, Debra Freeman, who read those questions that were submitted by e-mail.

Sharon's 'Peace' Conference

Dr. Mohammed Al-Sayid Selim, Cairo, Egypt: In Egypt, we have been following, with a great deal of interest, his comments on the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. And his voice has been, as a matter of fact, one of the few voices in the West that have been able to point out the basis of the conflict. And he was able to diagnose the Nazi tendencies of the government of Sharon in Israel.

Now, I want to ask a question, concerning the suggestion by Mr. Sharon, supported by Colin Powell, to hold a conference for peace in the Middle East, after the massacre that he has committed in the Palestinian occupied territories. This proposal is being widely suggested in the Middle East, and, as I said, it is being supported by the American administration. Also, I was surprised that the Japanese Foreign Minister came in support of this project. This project is widely perceived in Egypt, as an attempt to give Sharon an opportunity to get the political gains of the massacre that he has committed.

What are your views on this proposal, Mr. LaRouche?

LaRouche: Well, if Sharon were anything but Sharon—or maybe Netanyahu—he would have had the decency not to even suggest it. Because, if you wanted a Middle East agreement, if you took away one of the unreasonable demands, which was imposed upon President Clinton, which Clinton mistakenly accepted, by Barak—that the holy sites in the Middle East be tampered with—then, I think that Arafat agreed to about everything that the Israeli government wanted, at that point. Of course, the Israeli government, at that point, was not sincere. And, I think the reason that the question of Holy Mountain came into the discussion at that point it did, was to prevent it from being reached. And, the pressure was on the President to make the mistake, of falsely blaming, publicly, Arafat for the failure of the agreement. The problem with the failure, was that of Barak, whose extenuating circumstances were that probably, he was afraid that the people who had killed Rabin, would kill him, too, from the Likud. And, you have to remember that the murderers of Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel, were never really prosecuted. The people who arranged the possibility for the assassination to occur, were never prosecuted. They were the Likud!

So, the fascists killed the Prime Minister of Israel, and the policies of Israel were then under the control of the fascists, the Nazis. So, what is new? This is simply that, Sharon is under great pressure, from the United States, to give the United States some language, to convince the world that Sharon is something that Sharon would hate to be called: "a man of peace." I can't imagine Sharon desiring to be a man of peace: It's like telling Adolf Hitler, "You're a man of peace." There's no difference! What's the difference between Hitler and Sharon? They're really, in the scale of history, of all the different varieties of criminals that come into a court: One is this and one is that, but they commit the same crime, and they should be tried for the same crime. He's a Nazi like Hitler, and he behaves like Hitler. Maybe not as smart, but he behaves like Hitler, otherwise. And, that should be said.

If you want peace, there's only one basis for peace. The other mistake in Camp David—and we should go back to Camp David, because Camp David represented a point in time, at which the agenda was on the table; the opportunity was on the table, to actually bring about an agreement, at least among the parties represented. Maybe not with the Likud, as represented back in Israel, but the parties represented. The issue of economic development, including water development, should have been on the primary public agenda in those negotiations. Because, how can you have peace without water? Look at the operations of Israel against Syria, against the Golan Heights, against Lebanon: What were the causes of that war? Water! To steal the water, from the aquifers! Because there's not enough water in the present system in the Middle East, to sustain even the existing population. So, without desalination, there is no peace! Without economic development, there is no peace!

If you can't give the Palestinians, who have been brutalized, for decades, a sense of economic development, of opportunity for their children, what do the deaths of their children mean? Can you say to the Palestinian, "We'll give you something, in honor of your children, who were killed? To make their lives meaningful? That some outcome came from this, which makes their sacrifice worthwhile?" That's the condition of peace.

Sharon is incapable of offering anything, that any respectable human being, called a Palestinian, could decently accept; or any other human being in the same situation. It's up to the United States, not to say, "We want Sharon to make a gesture, to make Bush's stinking policy look good." We want to make Bush's continued present policy look bad; very bad. Bad enough, so that he wants to change it. That's the only chance.

Siege of the Church of the Nativity

Freeman: I have a statement here, from a prominent Roman Catholic official, which also asks Mr. LaRouche for a comment. The person writes:

"We continue to be in a terrible time in the Middle East. This can be exemplified by the Calvary of Bethlehem—the siege of the Church of the Nativity. We are in constant touch with Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the papal nuncio in Israel, who is also Apostolic Delegate to Jerusalem and Palestine. The Pope is informed constantly and is most concerned. He called into the church, as you know, to express his solidarity with them and thank them for their 'Christian witness.' On Sunday the Pope asked those who came to St. Peter's Square for a 'chorus of uninterrupted prayer' for peace in the Holy Land. He seeks to affirm, he said, 'the initiatives of dis-tension and dialogue in the Land of Christ and in every other place on the planet marked by violence and pain.' Today, the Pope dispatched Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to Jerusalem to try to effect a change in the situation, employing all the weight of the moral authority and international credibility of the Catholic Church for peace. The situation is very cloudy. John Paul II prays that there will be cooperation with his Papal Envoy to end the siege and 24-hour-a-day curfew. The people in the cities and surrounding refugee camps are desperate. They can not stand it much longer. They are sick and starving. The elderly are dying. The collective punishment is unacceptable.

"The place where the Baby Jesus was born is a horrible example of this. Life there, at the Church of the Nativity, has been called by the Franciscans trapped inside, a slow death. The vocation of their order is to keep this place holy. but the Basilica has been under siege since April 2, when Palestinians took sanctuary in this holy place—as churches for centuries have been the places of sanctuary. Twenty-seven Palestinians were allowed to leave the church yesterday, but the friars do not see this as progress, since about 40 Franciscan and Greek and Armenian Orthodox friars, monks, and sisters, and about 200 Palestinians are still inside the church, with hardly any food or water or electricity or medical supplies. And they stay with dead bodies of those who have been shot by the Israelis, still inside. Special forces units of the Israeli YAMAM have been used against this holy place. The General Curia of the Friars Minor today 'expresses its bitter disbelief at the incapacity of the civilized world to induce the parties to accept and carry out a greatly longed-for pacific solution.' Their words are borne out by the experience of Khaled Girashi, a Palestinian civilian, who was released, only to be beaten by Israeli troops as they questioned him last night. He lost 33 pounds during the standoff at the church, because the supplies of food supplies are so very low.

"The Church of the Nativity is one Calvary. Ramallah, Jenin, and other places of sorrow are under siege. We pray for cooperation between the Palestinians and Israelis, of course, who must concentrate all efforts to find a peaceful solution—but the Israelis are the ones who must withdraw and end their siege.

"The few Christians who inhabit the holy land are wondering where are the other 2 billion Christians in the world, thinking? What are they doing?"

Mr. LaRouche, would you please comment on this.

LaRouche: First of all, when you look at the Nativity Church, what you're looking at—think in terms of another place: al-Haram al-Sharif, the Holy Mountain. Remember that when Sharon started his last campaign for Prime Minister, he unleashed an attempted assault on one of the holy places of Islam, on the top of this mountain in Jerusalem. That this issue, of this particular location, was the crucial breaking point in the attempt to get a Camp David agreement, where Barak, under pressure of this crowd—the Likud crowd—remember, he used to work for Sharon, Barak did, in the Israeli military—that, that was a breaking point. This issue of this particular holy site, al-Haram al-Sharif, this is what is on the mind of the butchers, who are going at the Church of the Nativity. Because, remember that one of the conditions for Middle East peace, for avoiding a Clash of Civilizations war, for avoiding a Thirty Years' War scenario, is that the holy sites—those of Islam, various confessions of Christianity, and Judaism—are sacred: They are sanctuaries. That nobody can tamper with them.

The condition of religious peace is a policy of sanctuary, which means that, in whatever agreement is reached, the sites of the holy places must be assured, of being able to function and be intact. And, whatever governments exist, they must respect that law. Without that, there is no peace. Anyone who attacks this, the Church of the Nativity, in this way—which is not really an issue; it's not a military issue; not a police issue—means that they want religious war.

Now, the thing to put the pressure on, that's obvious to everybody in the area. It's obvious to people in Rome. What's wrong with the American Catholic Church? Why has the American Catholic Church allowed itself to be shut up, under intimidation of an orchestrated scandal against Cardinal Law in Boston, who would normally be the person speaking out on this issue, on behalf of the American Catholics? Why are the American Protestant churches not speaking out on this thing? Because they're afraid of some of their Protestants of the Bush variety? Of the Attorney General of the United States, perhaps, and his particular religious persuasion? Why is no one speaking out, in the United States? Where's this pack of cowards, called "Christians" in the United States—they call them "the Cowardly Lions," not the "Christians?"

What are we doing? Have we looked the Catholic Bishop in the eye, and said, "What are you doing about this?" Have we looked at Christian figures in the eye, and said, "What are you doing about this? Do you believe in religious war? Because that's what you're promoting, if you don't do something about this. At least, if you don't take a stand against it. If you don't put moral condemnation on it. If you don't say, 'Anybody who says they're for peace, and tolerates this kind of thing, is a hypocrite—or worse.' " You know, sometimes, we can't do much. Sometimes, we can only make an appeal to conscience. And, that is particularly true of the religious profession: Often you have no authority; you have no power; you can't do anything, actually—you can't command, you can't write laws, you can't give orders, in that sense. But at least, you can appeal to conscience. And, if you don't appeal to conscience, what are you? You're nothing.

And, this is where the pressure has to go. It has to go on the American Catholic Bishops, and others, not to submit to a dirty operation, run by the people who targetted Cardinal Law in Boston at this particular time, when he would have been the normal channel, through which to issue a condemnation of what's being done against the Church of the Nativity. Realizing that what is being condoned, is not merely an insolence against that church: What is being condoned is a denial of the existence of the policy of sanctuary. And, if you deny the issue of policy of sanctuary, if you make holy, religious sites battlegrounds of religious warfare, you are going to have global, religious warfare. And, you won't have much left standing, in any part of the world, if you start that kind of a war.

The Tyranny of 'Popular Opinion'

Freeman: We have a question that was submitted in writing, by a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton. His question is the following: He says, "Mr. LaRouche, beginning in about 1998, there was a grouping within the [Clinton] Administration, that agreed with aspects of what you said, and was moving in a serious effort, with the support of the President, for a new financial architecture. Bluntly, things were too heavily stacked against it. The conditions now are far worse than they were then. Whether these policies are right or wrong, seems to be irrelevant, unless there is adequate support, for a move in the direction of a new financial architecture. I'd like you to address this issue.

LaRouche: That's a good question. It's a relevant question.

The point is, what is real politics like? People in the United States are brainwashed about popular opinion. They're brainwashed by the use of the word "democracy."

Now, I hate the word "democracy." You know why I hate the word "democracy"? Because I remember the name of the organization, a fascist-like organization, which tried and executed, or condemned to death, Socrates. That was called the Democratic Party of Greece, translated into modern English. And there are people in the United States who say they're for democracy, who represent exactly the policy. It's the policy of mob opinion.

Now, let's go back—another definition of the same term "democracy," according to the practice of today: Roman vox populi. Popular opinion. Another word for democracy, is a Southern Ku Klux Klan lynching. Popular opinion!

You see, the problem here is, with our people in the United States—I'll try to make this short, but it's a crucial question; because it's a question of principle; it's not a question of technique, or tactics; it's a question of principle.

The basis, ever since Plato, ever since Socrates, and since Solon, actually—earlier, before Socrates—Solon of Athens had a famous poem he wrote to the Athenians, warning them of how corrupt they were becoming, and what was going to happen to them, from their corruption. It's the principle of truth.

See, the point is, the purpose of government, of self-government, is to force, bring about, expression of truth, and to appeal to the conscience of those who rule, that they must conform to the truth. Now, we don't even have that in the Federal courts today. It's hard to get a judge to accept truth. Particularly if you've got a Justice Department liar up there dictating the policy.

We have gone away from the idea of truth, to popular opinion, which is what happened in Rome. Which is how Rome was destroyed, by its own citizens, sitting there, voting for popular opinion, not for truth.

So, therefore, what we must always do, the first thing we have to fight for, is the principle of truth.

Now, let's take this case of these guys, who opposed me on economic policy. You have to tell them what they really are. They're corrupt.

Look, why do the trade union leaders, often, take an insane, immoral policy on economic questions? Because they were bought off by the illusion of 401(k)s, that is, these special savings programs. Now the 401(k)s are being wiped out. But this then was a lure, to trap unions into giving up their defense of their pensions, their social security and other pensions. They would get riches in 401(k). And then came Enron. And what happened to their pensions? Corruption.

You have African-Americans today who should be fighting, are not fighting. Because somebody told them they should fight for reparations. Not for their rights. "Don't demand freedom! Get some money from the master!" And walk away, slave, but with a few things jingling in your pocket. That's how the African-American, who's an important force in U.S. politics, is being destroyed today, because of issues, local issues, or special issues, like reparations. He's corrupted by reparations!

Martin Luther King: The killing of Martin Luther King, was one of the smartest things that J. Edgar Hoover ever did, with the U.S. military. Why? Because King was effective, and none of the people who were left standing after he was killed, were capable of taking his place. Why? Because Martin Luther King believed in the truth.

And Martin Luther King spoke for principle, not for advantage. He did not appeal to the lowest instincts of people. Freedom. Freedom for all. To make the entire United States whole, by purging it of the evil which was destroying it, including racism within it. And the people who came afterward, were opportunists, who responded to the opportunistic impulses of the people they were leading. They didn't lead the people; they tried to follow them. To follow their cupidity, wherever it led. And that's how they lost their power.

That's what happened to civil rights. It had no leader, no acknowledged spokesman, who would stand up for truth, for principle. But said, "We're going to get this deal, and then we'll get that deal next week, and that deal next week." And you say, "Well, we've got to go against you, because we got a little interest here."

And that's how the American people are constantly destroyed. That's how they've been destroyed in many cultures. They go for little things, for deals, for short-term interests. They don't understand that, if you're a human being, and you know you're going to die—everybody dies, but human beings are different. Because human beings have a quality which lives on beyond them. And therefore, if you are human, and know it, your motive is not what you get, in terms of what jingles in your pocket.

Or like Jeanne d'Arc. Jeanne d'Arc did not play for her personal advantages. If she had, France would never have come into existence. Others who died—the principle of Christianity. The same thing. Christ died for all mankind.

If you don't have that, and are not willing to stand for the truth on the basis that you must not die with a lie on your shoulders, that you must know the truth, you must act for it. Then you don't have a problem.

Now, let's go at the lies.

There's a lie called denial. People all over the United States today, are saying, "No, but there's a recovery! The statistics say there's a recovery! The statistics say there's a recovery! That's going up! That's going up!"

How about your jobs? What happens if the valuation on the shack, which you just cashed out on, collapses, and you lose your job? What's going to happen in Northern Virginia when the cash-out runs out, for example?

So people are in a state of denying. They're saying: "Because I wish to believe, it can't happen, it couldn't happen, I believe it. And you attack me, and say there's a depression going on, or about to come on, you are attacking my right to have denial! And everybody tells me that if I'm shown to believe, in this recovery..." (which is not occurring; it's like Dracula's denizens gathering dust, waiting for the recovery, which he keeps promising them!) "...somebody's going to attack me. My neighbors aren't going to like me. My children will scold me, they'll say I'm nuts. Because everybody knows there's a recovery!"

But there is no recovery.

So, on the economic question, in particular, people are in a state of denial.

Also, they have other states of denial. The mental conditioning of the population, in general, is to believe in a consumer society. Think of it carefully. How many aspects of the life of the citizen, in Europe, the United States, or elsewhere, believe in things like consumer society? How many people believe globalization is good? How many people believe free trade is good? Other kinds of insanity. Therefore, if you attack the present economic system, which is collapsing around their ears—the house is collapsing—they say, "You are attacking our values. And our neighbors won't like us, if we attack our values."

Therefore, they are defending an illusion. No civilization was ever destroyed, by itself, except by its popular beliefs, of these types. If people continue to believe this, they're going to be destroyed.

Now, how do you get people to stop being stupid, as most people are, leading people and others in the United States today?

Well, unfortunately, that's one of the reasons that history has this cyclical characteristic. Every people that makes mistakes of this type, reaches the point that the nation is doomed. Like Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Shakespeare's Denmark was not doomed by Hamlet, as a bad leader. Hamlet was doomed by the fact that he was a leader consistent with the culture of the nation he represented. George Bush will not destroy the United States. The United States could be destroyed—it'll be destroyed by its own people. One of the two clowns we voted for, for Presidential candidates, in the last Presidential election. You voted for two people who are not qualified to be President, in the face of the worst crisis in American history. The American people did that. We did it to ourselves.

The lesson of Classical Greek tragedy, the lessons of Shakespeare's tragedy, the lessons of Schiller's tragedy, of every great writer, historian, is that a nation is never destroyed—unless conquered from the outside—is never destroyed by itself, except by its own popular opinion. By its stubborn clinging to wrong opinions, which bring about its own self-destruction. We, as a United States, are on the road to self-destruction; not by outside enemies; the enemy within is more powerful, and more dangerous than any possible enemy from without.

The enemy is us. It's the people.

When that point comes, the only way that a people, whose enemy is themselves, are ever likely to get out of that habit, is when they reach the point of death. Not actual physical death, as such, but the point that the inevitable hits them.

For example, in the case of the Civil Rights movement. Now, all these fellows who told you, about the great civil rights record they had back in the 1960s and 1950s, were liars. Where were they when the fight was going on? They were carefully avoiding getting out in the parades with Martin and company. They came in later, when the glory started.

Initially, the people who marched, who fought, for civil rights, in the struggle for civil rights, in the late '50s and early 1960s, were the have-nots. Because, here you are, people, men and women, who are destitute, who came out and marched, peacefully, but stubbornly, against fascist mobs. Because they knew that their life meant nothing in the eyes of the system, and if they're going to do something, they're going to risk their life only for that which is good. Because all the other things have been taken away from them.

Therefore, it is the sight of the collapse; when your mortgage is being foreclosed; when there's no hope of employment; when you can't see it there; when the danger of war, when the chaos, when the destruction of your children by Nintendo games, and so forth—when this gets to you, that you realize that what you've been living with is an illusion, and you're willing to change.

This happened. Look, I had the advantage of living in the 1920s, and being old enough at that time to see the condition of the population around me. They stunk! Morally, they stunk. They all stunk. Now, they had some good qualities inside them, but morally, in their general behavior, they stunk. My parents, like everybody else, lies all the time. They called it "company manners." Similarly, you were told to say what you're told to do, and when you get old enough, you can think for yourself.

So, you were conditioned not to believe in the truth. You saw the Flapper Age. You saw the corruption, immense corruption, prior to 1929.

Now, two things changed it. It's not that Franklin Roosevelt was a great leader—he was. He was a great leader because he was the one who was available at the time, who was willing to move in the right direction, and had the position to do it. But the reason people were moved behind Roosevelt, was because the illusion had been shattered. And if you know people, as I knew them then, between say, 1928, and 1934-35, and saw the changes in the American population—I can tell you exactly what the problem was. The problem is, this people in general, and the leaders of it, are corrupt.

See, why I do what I do is this: The problem with the American people is they don't have enough people like me. Not people who necessarily express things exactly the way I do, or my profession, but people who will say, "Look, the situation is going to become hopeless. It is becoming hopeless. What shall we do?"

Well, you say, you have to have some power. You say, how do you get power? Well, everybody agrees, you get power by support of the people. But how are the people going to support you, if they disagree with you? Because you persistently unite to tell the truth. And the people, because you're telling the truth, and because a lot of people they think are leading people, are telling them the truth, are going to take it seriously. And they're going to think about the false values which they've had. What they need to change in their own opinions. That's how a movement is made.

The problem I have in leading people is, there are not enough of me. If I could get more people who are in leading positions, to be willing to tell the truth—first of all, to discover what it is, with the determination to tell it, whatever it is. We could change this. And that's why I do what I do. Somebody has to stand up, and tell the truth. And on these matters, I'm the only significant voice internationally, on this range of issues, as an American spokesman, who is telling the truth.

If I could find 10 other people, who are recognized leading figures in the United States, to join me in telling the truth, we could change this country. Either they would kill us all immediately, or we'd change the country.

U.S.-Russian Arms Negotiations

Prof. Stanislav Menshikov: Mr. LaRouche, what is your view of the U.S.-Russia negotiations on strategic weapons? In Russia, some experts think that it is a unilateral disarmament of Russia. Do you think that this is true, and should Russia actually sign this treaty?

LaRouche: Well, the answer is, that this is one of the things that makes me think kindly of President Reagan.

Reagan is a complex man, who I met personally on one occasion. We had a chat, not of great consequence, but it was a very useful chat, which turned out to be useful in later months. We were sitting at a candidates', Presidential candidates' event, up in Concord, New Hampshire, and he and I were arranged at the table with the other Presidential candidates, in alphabetical order, so I was next to Reagan, who was in the corner. So, we chatted for a while, while these proceedings were going on.

And because of that, and because of other things, we met in the period following the election, with people of his, and other forces in the military and so forth, also had interest in some things I had. So I presented to the incoming Reagan Administration, and the transition team, to various people in it, including the Richard Richards' crowd and so forth, presented what my agenda for the United States was. Just as a matter of anybody, a new President's coming in, anybody of influence who's invited to do so, will be very happy to go into any new administration, and present to relevant people in that administration, or incoming administration, what their agenda is.

So, as a result of the discussions which followed from that, the President showed interest in several things I proposed, including one: I insisted that it was feasible, through the use of so-called new physical principles, to devise an approach to the missile crisis. And I insisted that we were headed, under Carter policies, the policies of Brzezinski and Schlesinger—as we were, which I knew from 1975 on—we were headed toward a potential nuclear war, because of the policies of Brzezinski on the Carter Administration crowd. I don't think Carter had the brains to know what it was, but Brzezinski knew, and Brzezinski had controlled Carter, from the beginning. That we could avoid that, if we could get the Soviet Union to agree with work together, with the intent of getting us out of this thermonuclear missile confrontation, and that the Soviet system had a weakness in it, which we could help fix, if they would cooperate with us.

The Soviets had a very capable military-scientific complex, but the rest of their economy stunk. And it stunk because they believed in popular opinion—that was their problem. And therefore the administration, they didn't understand what the entrepreneur was. They believed in the objective forces of history; they didn't understand the voluntarist principle in history, which is the role of the successful good entrepreneur—whether it's a farmer, an industrialist, or a scientist. And therefore, we could help fix that, by showing them how to turn some of their military-industrial capabilities, into the basis for entrepreneurial endeavor. And that by developing certain technologies which would enable us to ultimately prevent a nuclear missile assault from working, that we could accomplish something for Third World countries, and others, which would be a common interest, a common interest in avoiding war, and a common interest for building a basis on this planet, for justice, for humanity in general, by going directly: saying, our constituency is that we're working forward, we're going to benefit, finally, what were the former colonial regions, the so-called developing regions. And we're going to use the new technologies to help them do that.

We need these technologies in order to stop the nuclear missile attacks—we can do that. Not so quickly, but we can engage in that process.

So, he came around to like the idea. And I worked on it considerably, with governments abroad, people in governments abroad, in Germany and France, and Argentina, India, Italy, and so forth. So, the point came that he decided at one time—I negotiated this also through a back channel, which was authorized by the Reagan Administration, with the Soviet government. And he came to a point that he decided it was a good idea. And then, as I found out only the same day, on March 23 of 1983, he, in a five-minute segment at the end of his broadcast, he announced the proposal as a proffer to the Soviet government.

The Soviet government turned it down.

Now, today we have a different situation. I'm not in the U.S. government, number one. I'm not even considered persona grata with the present U.S. Administration. So, therefore.... And there's not many of the people—scientists and others with whom I worked back in the 1970s and early 1980s, in any of these countries—who are capable of doing today what I proposed then. People do not realize the extent to which we've lost scientific competence. We do not have the human bodies with the brains in them, of the type that I was working with, among professional military, and scientific circles, back in the 1970s and the early 1980s. They don't exist. They died. And they have not been replaced. And our institutions generally are not capable of replacing them.

So, the idea that someone is going to produce a super anti-missile system, or something of that sort, or a space-based NMD, and so forth, that is not possible. And the government of Russia knows it's not possible technologically. Because the competence does not exist, in the United States, or Russia, to do it at this time. Impossible.

What is being done is, as usual, is fakery. There is no sincere intent on the part of the people who are putting this on the teleprompter for Bush to read—what he understands, I don't know, but I know he doesn't understand any of this—they are serious and sincere about what they're offering. It is purely manipulation.

The way they think is this. And you have to look at several things going on. I look at China, Russia, and India. Obviously, China has a different way of looking at the world generally, than Russia does, or than we do, in the United States, as Americans. They tend to look at things on a much longer-term basis. They think in terms of what's going to happen 20 years from now, or two generations from now. They think of China as a permanent institution, surrounded by an outside world. They have relations with it, but they think of China as China.

And they also have different internal currents within China, different cultural currents within China, historically determined cultural currents. And therefore they're very reluctant to make any commitment, to the kinds of policies that we in the United States used to make, or Western Europe. They think differently. They think of waiting the game out, of China's survival, of making agreements that they can live with, maybe live with for 10 to 20 years; and then maybe later, if a change is necessary, it'll be made.

But now what's happened is, with this crisis, China and its economic crisis, is now in a position where it has to regard the WTO as one of the worst catastrophes and mistakes it ever made. Because the Chinese economy is suffering greatly internally, as a result of not just WTO, but things which Chinese opinion tends to associate with WTO. China is now relying largely upon its internal market, that is, the infrastructure investments, and technology, as a source of growth, not exports to the United States, an importer of last resort that doesn't exist any more.

So, China is now faced with what it realizes is a very serious threat, from a bunch of madmen, in the United States. This is an immediate threat. It's not something to be faced 20 years down the line, but now. But China has no capability of conducting a war against the United States, and won't for 20 years to come, the way things are now. So China is not a strategic military threat to the United States. But the United States, like a bunch of fools, is trying to provoke China with a Taiwan adventure. They're insane! Absolutely insane. So, China is provoked. It can not respond, militarily. It has no inclination to do so.

But then you have a very powerful coalition which is developing in Asia. And you see the marches of Chinese representatives to India, and what was deprecated by many people back in 1998, when I was pushing it, and then Primakov pushed it, the idea of a strategic triangle. The strategic triangle is now on board. Russia is involved with it, although Russia is also playing, with Putin, with the United States, and so forth and so on. But the Chinese reaction is going to tend to be, is there a global alliance? And they will first of all think about the United Nations, as a global alliance, and try to get done what they can through the United Nations on these problems. They will try to find a partnership, and cooperation, among other nations. And try to bring pressure to bear, to prevent the ugly threat to all civilization, which they recognize now, as what's going in Central Asia and the Middle East, and elsewhere. They see the world collapse of economy.

Look, China and Russia and India are the three principal sources of exports of Western Europe. China and Russia are the two areas that are increasing exports from Germany. The economy of all Western Europe, continental Europe, in particular, depends upon the German economy. And the Chinese see this. The Chinese have taken German technology. They took the magnetic levitation railroad system. They took from Germany the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor. They're taking other technologies from Western Europe—their existence depends upon it.

So they see a global threat, not just a direct threat from the United States—they see that too. But they see a global threat to civilization in general, from which China can not escape, in terms of these developments of U.S. policy now.

So, I think that Russia is aware of this, obviously. Putin is certainly aware of this, and people around him, who, some of them are experts in this area, and therefore understand this very well. Therefore, Russia is in a very difficult situation. It is not thinking about making a war against the United States. It's being confronted with, on the one side, the offer of friendship, or partnership, or whatever, and on the other side, threat, after threat, after threat. Little threats, big threats, all kinds of threats. And Putin has his own internal problems.

So, you have a situation where Russia does not have a clear unilateral alternative for the kind of problems that Russia faces.

I don't know if Putin can think through this by himself. Because he also has other problems to deal with in Russia, among those left behind by George Bush, and the International Republican Institute, for example, things like that. So, I don't think Putin has a clear view. I see no signs of what I would require as a clear view of the situation. He probably has, as others in Russia do, a clear sense of some aspects of this problem, particularly of some of the military implications. But I'm not sure they see them clearly. Because to understand a problem clearly, you sometimes have to see the solution first. Then you recognize the problem.

It's when you find the answer to the question, that you understand the question. And really, you never fully understand it until you do.

I think that's the problem. But I would say this whole hokum about these missile agreements, these negotiations, has now broken into a total farce. But behind the farce, for me, is the fact that it was never serious to begin with. And I made a serious proposal, and design, back in the end of the 1970s, and Reagan adopted it and presented it. If Secretary Andropov had not said "no," if the negotiations had proceeded, the way we were starting with the back-channel discussion, you would not have the mess in the world we have today. We missed a terrible opportunity. And that occasion, of Reagan making that offer to Russia, was the last really serious offer ever made to Russia about anything. And that is why I think that Reagan deserves to be listed as perhaps the last actually sitting President, who, at least one moment, had a sense of vital American interest.

The Palestinian Suicide Bombers

Freeman: I'm going to read a couple more questions, from some of our listeners, and then we're going to move and take couple of questions from the audience here.

The question I'm going to read, was submitted by Mary Woodward, from Philadelphia; however, we have three or four other questions, that are almost identical to this one. Mary says, "Mr. LaRouche, I am a Jew, who, along with my synagogue, believes that the peace process in Israel can only occur if the so-called occupied territories are returned, despite the fact that war was launched against Israel, on the holiest day of our year. Indeed, there is much racism against Muslims in Israel. But, to hear terrorists referred to as heroes, is repugnant to me. What are your thoughts on Mrs. Arafat, who is now quite safe in Paris, who recently lamented that she doesn't have a son, whose life could be given for the conflict? And do you have any comments about the obscene photo of a Muslim man, holding his daughter upon his shoulder: The youngster had mock dynamite tied to her?

"Mr. LaRouche, freedom fighting is one thing, but wanton terrorism, or support of the same, is something else. Please comment."

LaRouche: Well, the situation of the fighters, the Palestinian fighters and activists, who are engaging in these acts which are called terrorism—which is really nonsense—must be compared and equated to the actions of a relative handful of Jews, in the Warsaw Ghetto, who, with a few pistols and carbines, and ingenuity, resisted—in a hopeless situation—resisted the full, concerted might of the Nazi war machine. If you would recognize the fact, which is the essential fact, that the Likud policy—especially the military policy of the IDF now, the policies of Sharon, and the incipient policies proposed by Netanyahu—are Nazi, then you get the truth of the situation; and, you now, then, can, from that standpoint, have the framework in which to judge the behavior of these Palestinians.

Now, many of them, I think, are wrong. But they are, like the Jewish fighters, in the Warsaw Ghetto, against the full weight of the Nazi machine commanded by Stroop: And, there's no difference. Thus, the American Jew has to face the fact.

Now, here's the problem; there's another problem, which I think the questioner refers to; which is not mentioned, but should be mentioned. See, there are two reactions on the question of condemning the crimes of the present Israeli, Nazi government, against the people of Palestine. One objection is to calling them "Nazis." But they are Nazis. They are! So, why not call them by the right name? "Well, they can't be Nazis, because they're Jewish." Come on: Cut it out! How many people are followers, in Israel today, are followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky, who once offered to support the Hitler government of Germany, if Hitler would give up anti-Semitism. And, whose policies are indistinguishable—including those of his Betar—from Nazi policies. What do you think the Israelis were, of the Betar, in particular—including the Menachem Begin, who often bragged about having blown up the King David Hotel, with the British governor there, sitting in the bathtub, when the bombs went off? Menachem Begin was a terrorist! The Likud is a terrorist organization!

You had many Jewish fighters, who were not Betar members, who were not terrorists; who may have been mistaken, at times, but you could respect them, as actually fighters in a war, or in a battle. And they have have to be respected as that. They may be wrong, but if you capture them, or if they surrender, you treat them with the respect their position requires. No: Not true of this situation.

So, therefore, the question, then, is: What are we talking about? We're talking about a Nazi-like oppression, of Palestinians, by Nazis—and they are Nazis! By every objective standard.

Now, what's the second question? The second question is much more serious, and some people will hide their concern over the second question, by their concern over the first one. That is, they say, "Yes. We agree with you. And you may whisper it to us. You're right. But, if you say it publicly, I'll denounce you!" What are they saying? They're saying, "I am an Israeli patriot, or I am a sympathizer of the existence of Israel. And, therefore, on that basis, if the Israelis commit a crime, I have to defend them, because I support Israel's freedom, and Israel's strength, in the fight." So, therefore, they would rather defend Nazism, than be in the position of being considered disloyal to Israel, when a war-like situation is going on.

When we don't say that, then we get into trouble. We say, "Well, obviously, it's a very simple solution: Get rid of the damned Nazis!" "Free Israel!" I mean, I don't recognize as much, the present government of Israel, except de facto, as Woodrow Wilson would say. Because the present government of Israel came into existence as a result of a criminal, coup d'état assassination of a Prime Minister of Israel, who had a contrary policy; who made the peace with Arafat. That every government of Israel, since that time has become illegitimate, because it's under the control of the people who committed that assassination. It has no historic authority. A government that commits assassinations and is caught at it, of its leaders, has no authority. I mean, the point is, implicitly, the people who killed Kennedy, to get him out of there, they have no moral rights, as far as I am concerned, in the United States.

I may, as a matter of fact, have to support the institutions of the U.S. government and its Constitution; but, in my heart, I know that's not right. And, sooner or later, justice will have to be served, in this matter, but in a manner, which does not destroy our country. Israelis should do the same thing. Those who sympathize with the cause of Israel's welfare, should do the same thing: Say, "Well, it's one thing to defend Israel, but I'm not going to defend those Nazis, or the crimes that they're committing! The best way to defend Israel, is to make it a state which is worthwhile living in! The kind of state, which, at least, Rabin understood had to be established. Therefore, which side are you on? Are you on the side of Rabin, or his murderers?" And, some people have forgotten that.

You can't have this kind of hypocrisy, this idea of "Ohh, these guys protest that you call 'em Nazis. This person killed one of our people." "Oh yeah! Who started the war?" Who started the war? Arafat didn't start the war. Arafat wanted peace at Camp David. Arafat honored his agreement, the so-called "peace of the brave," with Rabin. He tried to continue that policy.

Look, and see, the problem is even more complicated—the problem of the case of Hamas: Now, many people in Hamas, including some of those died, are probably honest people, in terms of what they are, as persons. But, I happen to know, that Hamas, as an organization, was created by Ariel Sharon! And I know there's a control in the leadership of Hamas, by Ariel Sharon! So, if, every time that Arafat agreed to a term, and the United States was going to support Arafat on this question of peace, an incident occurred—usually from Hamas. The opinion in the Middle East is—and I support it, because I know Sharon; I know what he is. I've dealt with him in the past: Sharon is the kind of guy, who will find a Palestinian orchestrator to go out and commit an attack, against the Israeli population, in order avoid the embarrassment of being forced to negotiate. How do I know that these poor fellows—how many of them, who bomb themselves, as self-bombers, were not being sent by Sharon, through the Hamas, or similar kinds of agencies? So, why not look at that?

So, why don't we, instead of condemning individuals, and trying to make scandal about somebody who committed an act, because you want to call it a terrorist act—an act of the same type, committed by Jews, fighting against the Nazi machine, with pistols and carbines, in the Warsaw Ghetto; and against the same kind of enemy. You're going to call them terrorists? What's the word "terrorist" mean, then? No, Sharon is a terrorist! Therefore, let's keep our records straight: Under conditions of aggressive warfare, of Nazi campaigns of extermination against a people, the people shooting back are not classed as terrorists.

Sharon on 'Nightline'

Freeman: Before I move to take a couple of questions from our live audience, I have one question, which has been submitted, which is a delightful question. So, I'm going to ask Lyn to answer it. It's a short question, that's come from New York. And, the person who is submitting the question has been charged with the job of putting together a list of questions, that Ted Koppel will ask Ariel Sharon tonight. Apparently, Mr. Sharon is a guest on "Nightline." The person, who has submitted this question says, "I'm quite certain that your name will not be mentioned in asking this question, but, if you were interviewing Ariel Sharon, Mr. LaRouche, what would you ask him?"

LaRouche: [laughing] "What are you doing about losing weight?"

Freeman: Do you know what it's like to be this guy's spokeswoman?

The U.S. Housing Crisis

Okay. I'd like to call to the microphone, someone in the audience, here, who probably is familiar to many people here, because she's a personality in Washington, D.C. She is somebody who has spoken the truth, and who's spoken with clarity, as a leader of the Democratic Party: Barbara Lett Simmons.

Barbara Lett Simmons: Thank you. I'm indeed honored, to be here, and listen to truth—I've heard so little truth lately, that it's a joy; it's a joy and a privilege! As a matter of fact, I had the uncommon experience, of, today, listening to the leader of my city, lie for an hour and a half, about the Inspector General's report. He, who claims to be a Democrat—now you know, Mr. LaRouche, the party wants to question whether or not you are a Democrat: I haven't seen you out raising any money for Connie Morella, or any other Republican, recently. But, at the same time, while our leader of the Democratic Party in the District of Columbia—capital of America—has said, he was under such pressure, because she's chairman of a committee. And, then, when they asked her, she said, "He volunteered! I never asked him to give me any money, or to raise money for me." Now, you know, that really makes a population feel a high sense of security.

I want you to know, folks, that when we talk about Israel and Palestine, it hearkens to me, that we don't have statehood and democracy that our birthright as Americans gave us, based on the Constitution. And, yet, we can continue to subsidize—you know, the 51st state is Israel, not the District of Columbia; I'm hoping that the District of Columbia will, indeed, one day—. I'm sorry: I had to seize the opportunity to share my concern, for statehood.

But, Mr. LaRouche, my question to you, is a little different, but it deals with our economy. You know, we've been treading this broad communications highway. And we have seen that it's got some potholes, and it needs some repair. And, I wonder if you would share with us, the next, the next pothole, that's coming in terms of another whole area of our economy, called "housing," maybe.

LaRouche: Yeah, Al Gore, the former Vice President, does qualify as the chief pothole of the New Economy. And he's developed the pot to prove it! If you've seen him lately.

No, the housing problem is just simply typical of the overall situation. We have shacks, all over the place. But, we've had an insane policy—increasingly so—over the entirety of the post-World War II period, when we started with the suburban policy.

The suburban policy had two phases: It had the policy, up until about 1975, and New York was the turning point: '75, the Big MAC operation; in which, initially, the idea, instead of maintaining the city, as the typical engine of production, from the time of the 1791 Report to the Congress by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, until '75, the policy of the United States, generally—the Federal United States—was the policy laid down by Hamilton, of the relationship between public infrastructure, agricultural development, and urban industry. Now, you see what's happened—and I've complained about this a number of times—what's happened to our population since 1975: Think about the number of hours that people spend commuting per day. Think about the number of jobs they have to work, to get less than enough to live on. Think about the effects of these kinds of things on the household form of life—family life, the latch-key children, and so forth.

Think about the lack of structure of neighborhoods, which used to have an organic function in maintaining a population. I mean, the village cop on the beat; the fireman in the local firehouse; these other things had a relationship to the community. They knew people. For example, the cop on the beat knew everybody in the neighborhood. So, he could do a good job in law enforcement, because he knew what was different; because he knew what was the same. He knew where problems were coming from, and by using his wit, he would help to manage most of the problems. We don't have that kind of community structure any more, of neighbors who live next to each other; who, often, in the times past, would solve the problems of that community, simply by helping one another, in dealing with the problem. You've got neighbors who know you. You've got a child that's out of order, you got a child that's a problem: The neighbors will cooperate to help you deal with that child's problem. The school in the neighborhood, particularly the primary school and the secondary school, were integrated in a sense.

So, what we did is, we went to the second phase: We decided, in 1975, we went full-steam ahead with Big MAC in New York, into a post-industrial society, in the strictest sense; into a consumer society. What was done with the real estate, as in New York City and elsewhere, was to turn the entire real estate, available real estate, into one big, gigantic financial bubble—a mortgage bubble, a real estate bubble; in which the occupant of the building, whether a business, or a family, the occupant was a device for generating a cash-flow, which then could be converted into capitalization, to sustain a mortgage value, which would be attributed to the land upon which the thing sat. So, the value, if you look at this junk pile we call "suburbia"—look out at what we were referring to, on the way in, I was referring to as the ghost town of Herndon, out here, that used to be the center of the IT industry: It's now becoming a ghost town. We're going to have people with six-guns and so forth, sombreros, wandering through there as the local guides through "Ghost Town."

What they did was, they took this land area, used it as a promotion for these kinds of things. And took virtually unimproved land, put a shack on top of it—Hollywood set-style shack, with shrink wrap and a plastic exterior—with a big price on it; they call it "McMansions," or whatever they call it. And, these things are up there at all kinds of prices.

Now, why is this land valued at the value it has? Not because it has that intrinsic value: These are still the dumps they were and worse, than when the cows were wandering across them! What's happened, you've got somebody sitting there, as a mortgaged person, who is sitting there occupying the place, with an obligation. That obligation is marketable: It goes into the hopper of this pyramid, of ground-rent speculation, which is the basis for the economy! The financial structure of the economy, the internal economy of the United States, and of the cities.

So, therefore, what we've done, is we've shifted the economy from a production-oriented economy, to a ground-rent speculation-based economy. We employ people in jobs which are useless: Most of the employment, in so-called "service employment," is useless. I mean, you don't cook a hamburger at home: You get it at McDonald's, and you don't know what you're getting, hmm? Or whatever. So, we've destroyed the society. We destroyed its structure. We parcelled everything possible out to services—personal services, unskilled services. This is the kind of society we've created.

And, therefore, we've come to a point, when you talk about housing, we're not talking about housing, we're talking about urban planning. We're talking about going back to the old conception of urban planning: How do you plan? That sort of thing. I did, in the 1980s, I did a plan for this so-called "Mars exploration": the establishment of a science research city on Mars, within a 40-year period (which is what we should still do, but we might not be able to do it as well, now, as we could have, then). But, I said, "If you understand this—yes: We do have to explore space. We do have to build science cities out on nearby areas, in order to conduct the scientific exploration of space. But: If we can do that in space, if I can put a science city, under the ground on Mars—which we know essentially how to do; there are a lot of things we have to learn, but we know, essentially, we can do that: Why can't we do it in the Sahara? Why can't we do it, in any part of this planet? Why can't we take that approach?"

We've got cities, which are now decaying. Cities which are not worth maintaining in their present form. They're no good, down to the roots. The sewer systems don't work; the water systems don't work; nothing works! The whole thing has to be uprooted and replaced from the ground up—that's the way to do it. We can rebuild cities, rebuild them as engines for living, designed for human beings to live in, as families, with all these functions that we used to think were so good, in neighborhood communities. And have them on a more modern scale. It will seem to cost a lot, in the meantime; but then, as you come down the line, as our productivity increases, as a result of doing this, these will become cheaper and cheaper, relatively speaking, relative to income over the years. Why not do that?

So, I think that's what we have to do. We have a major land-scam, a ground-rent scam: Nothing can save the present real estate values. Nothing. There's no way these mortgages can be carried. Look out across the landscape of Virginia! It's all doomed! Just like Herndon is doomed. It's all a waste of money. And, when the crash comes, no one will ever be able to reorganize the finances of this. You'll never be able to save it. There's no way you can collect on these mortgages. There's no way you can collect on these financial obligations: It is going to have to be wiped off the books. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, or trillions of dollars, internationally, being wiped off the books. It must be done, there's no way to avoid it.

So, now, instead of looking at financial values, why don't we go the other way around? And say, "This all means, that the U.S. government is going to have to go back to national banking. That we're going to have to create a credit system, based on 25-, 50-year ideas on credit, at low rates. We're going to have to state large-scale infrastructure projects, modelled upon the success of what infrastructure projects did under Roosevelt, and earlier. We're going to have to rebuild entire cities."

Now, let's take Washington, D.C., which I've spoken on this, before. Washington, D.C. is obvious: It's the nation's capital; it's a shame! It was one of the first capitals of the world that was designed, actually designed by intelligent people, for intelligent purposes. And it's being destroyed. Why not make the capital city of the United States the best city in the world? As a functional city, to perform the function of a city of government, and of the people who work for government, and work in it? Why not do that? Why not build it up, from the ground? Save what we can save from good buildings, take the rubbish, rebuild the city for the people.

It'll cost a lot of money, but in the process of doing that, and in giving credit for similar work, throughout the nation, we will restore the United States. We won't be able to pay for it completely, at once; but we can start the process, and roll over the effects—as we did with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, that kind of thing. We can renew that kind of thing. Get it going, and take Washington, D.C.—it is the shame of the world! A shame of the United States! Let's clear this shame up! Make it a place that people admire from all over the world; including the conditions of life of the people who live there, and work there. And build communities again.

And, if we do that, then, I think we can create a sense of infection, of what the idea of a national housing program ought to be. We have large areas of the United States, and if we used the water projects, which we could develop in the Western States, we could create a number of new cities in the United States, in the area of the Great American Desert: We could create new industries, which would make sense, out there. We could change the character of the country, and give it a sense of an interior frontier, as well as other frontiers.

And, by inspiring young people, in schools, with the right education, and with these kinds of projects, I think we can set a spark loose, in the population, seeing the whole shebang as it's now, going under: That this was all a terrible mistake. We say, "Let's correct the mistake." And, we can start a housing program.

Is It Time for a Third Party?

Freeman: A former member of United States Congress, who was also a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, submitted the following question:

"Mr. LaRouche, during the year 2000 campaign for the Presidency, Al Gore, who was the Democratic nominee, made it clear that while he was willing to benefit from the black vote, he was not willing to work for it. This was signalled when the Democratic Party refused to sponsor platform hearings. We were grateful that you initiated an effort to do so. It is my view that Bill Clinton seconded the motion, by supporting Al Gore. I believe that it is among the reasons that Bush is President today. Now the situation is worse. There is very little in the way of an opposition to the current Administration, and I believe that in the mid-term elections, Democrats will lose seats, not gain them.

"Mr. LaRouche, is it time for us to move into a separate entity, for a third party, or something along those lines, or do you think that we have any hope of working within the current Democratic Party?"

LaRouche: I think we have to look at the country as a whole, and the country as a whole is not as rotten as Washington, D.C. is, as the Beltway is. The country as a whole does not really sympathize with the policies which are characteristic of Washington, D.C. I think the danger is, is a Congressman expressing the policies which he thinks he's obliged to express in Washington while he's here, could be lynched if he went 50 miles outside the city. In other words, what people say in Washington, D.C., is not necessarily what they believe, nor does it represent the country.

We've come to a time, when both major parties are hopelessly corrupt. A Democratic Party dominated by the DLC, is not long for this life. That kind of formation. The Republican Party is a mess, it's got this terrible stuff, these "outhouse people," like Pat Robertson—they're not fit to come in the house; they just keep them out there, where they can do what they have to do, but don't let 'em get in the house. They just don't have any manners whatsoever. DeLay I'm speaking of. The Exterminator. And he's an exterminator in more ways than one. The man is unfit, he's a shame for the Congress, just to let that fellow on the premises. It's a shame, to have this kind of animal there. You want to put it out of the way, so no foreign visitor can see that character, on television or elsewhere. But there are a lot of Republicans, or pro-Republicans around the country, who are decent people. And despite the fact they make some terrible mistakes and terrible behavior, there are a lot of good Democrats out there, they're just not represented very much.

So, what are you going to do? Well, we had a situation like that, remember, we had a terrible incident, which was a result of the effects of the French Revolution and so forth: The John Adams Administration was a disaster in the United States, and as a result of the John Adams Administration, and its mistakes, and the mistakes of the Jefferson Administration, or two of them, the mistakes of the Madison Administration, the United States parties, as they had existed up that to time, were garbage. A rallying point was made around two figures: one, a young Congressman who became Speaker of the House as the head of the so-called war party, War Hawks, Henry Clay, a Virginian who was at that time coming from Kentucky; and the man who had been designated as his successor in the publishing business by Benjamin Franklin, Mathew Carey.

And Mathew Carey, beginning in 1812 approximately, wrote a book which he subsequently republished in several later and larger editions, called The Olive Branch. What he proposed was a regrouping of the existing political structures, the partisan structures, to create the kind of party which would truly represent sensitivity to the true American interest. This book, The Olive Branch, led to the formation of a new party, around figures such as President Monroe, who was the hero of the War of 1812, that is, he continued to fight, to defend Washington, while Madison and his Dolly, went off to Virginia to escape the war—eh? And that was an Aaron Burr gift, Dolly was a gift, a present from Aaron Burr to James Madison, who ruined him.

So, under Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and people who followed him, like Abraham Lincoln and so forth, we had the formation of the American Whig Party. Now, that, of course, is what—back in the 1970s, I proposed that we consider re-founding the Whig Party, and I proposed it because I thought that if a Carter could be elected by the Democratic Party, given what had happened under Nixon, we needed an entirely new party at that time. It didn't quite work out that way, but that's what I proposed, is the American Whig tradition, which, with some problems in it, of the Southern Whigs, is the gut of the American political tradition, intellectually.

So, what I think we have to do at this point, is two things. First of all, in general, I take the position of trying to work from the vantage point of the Democratic Party as a reference point, where I have a lot of supporters, to try to take the view of rebuilding it. And let Al Gore go into a decent retirement, where he can concentrate on weight control. And also shave occasionally. Get that crowd out of power, and take the party over for the American Intellectual Tradition, as a goal. Get real Democrats, not these fake Democrats, in there.

And secondly, that we reach out—not necessarily on the basis of trying to build a combination party—reach out to those Republicans who think, in a sense, as we would like to think, and try to build a coalition in American politics, which may be a bipartisan coalition, which actually can run the country. And run it decently.

In order to get to that point, that general objective, we have to stop trying to work within controlled institutions entirely. You have to improvise by going into supplementary arrangements. By supplementary—for example, let's take the Black Congressional Caucus.

Now the Black Congressional Caucus has been largely destroyed, in its effectiveness, by a number of things: Al Gore and other things; and by the results of the primary campaigns and the nomination campaign of the year 2000. I think the problem is, is that the Black Congressional Caucus and similar caucuses don't function effectively. Yeah, well, sure, you're squeezed out by the Congress. So what? What you need is, to reach the people. The parties are not in touch with the people. They have a certain control over the people, but they're not in touch with the people.

Where are the party clubhouses? Who's turning out to the Democratic Party meetings? Who's attending them? What do the people have to do with selecting their representatives for nomination and election, in the parties? Where's the discussion about national policy occurring? Where are the party meetings that discuss that? Where are the people who engage in that? Where do you not have a dictatorship coming down from the top, a gag rule, like the kinds of gag rules they use on holds and so forth in the Congress? Where is the Democratic Party not controlled by gag rules? "You can't say that here. You can't say that here. You can't say that here." It's rigged. It's a corrupt political machine in the worst sense, from the top down.

And the people think it's the only place they have to go. It is like, you know, you have to go, and you have to go, and the outhouse is there, and you go there. That doesn't mean that you join the place. Use it, and get out of there—as fast as possible. What you have to do in a case like this, you have to build assemblies, representative assemblies, the nuclei of the people, who articulate what needs to be said to people. You have to have these sufficiently large, and populated in such a way, that they are respected by people as voices. You have to organize the people. Organize the citizens. Not by going outside or inside the party—just plain get people together to organize the citizens. Because the citizens don't have anybody to speak of these days. Nobody listens to the citizens.

Now, what I mean by listening to the citizens is not listening to popular opinion. Because the citizens, as I know, are usually wrong! I talk to them a lot. They're usually wrong. But I don't dislike them because they're usually wrong. I know they need to have a few things discussed. What you do with the citizen, is you have to educate the citizen. He doesn't know anything, especially with the schools going the way they are nowadays. The newspapers, and what they are. The citizen needs to be confronted, and challenged: What do you think? Well, you're wrong. Let me prove it to you. And if the citizen will take that, if you do it in the right way, you're going to change the citizens.

Most of what people believe, is stupid; what the typical American person believes, is stupid. It's not their fault. They were never educated. So what you have to do with citizens, you have to talk, and you say: "You believe this. Well, let's go through this in a rational way. Let's go into the facts. Let's discuss this. Let me challenge you. Let me not try to appeal to your prejudices, let me knock down your prejudices. Let me get you thinking, for your own good."

So what you need, for example: You get the problem of the Black Congressional Caucus, which is, implicitly, this kind of thing you're talking about here. What do you do with it? Tell it to stop being a bunch of prostitutes! I can meet with these guys, we have a grand time, we agree with each other, when we get into a private meeting. Just a few of us. We discuss things, we'll work out disagreements, but they'll say, "I can't say that out there; I gotta go along with this." So they go out of the place, they drop their chains, come into the meeting, park their chains outside; but when they go out the door, they put the chains on, and then they say, "I've got my constituencies to worry about."

So therefore, what we have to do is defend these leaders, and many of them are the best leaders we have in the country. From what I know, some of the black Congressional leaders and state legislators, are the best people we have in the country. In terms of politicians. But they put their chains on, before they're allowed to go out in public, to prove what good slaves they are, or something. So what you have to do is reverse that process, of leaders adapting to the mentality of the population, the opportunism of the population, and get leaders to be able to go out as groups, and confront the population with the authority of being leading people. Challenge them on these prejudices that they have, and start to uproot some of these follies. So the guy says, "I gotta go along with my constituents, they're demanding this, they're demanding this—I got this guy offering money around here, in my community. They need money, and I won't get this money unless I do what this guy says. I gotta go with this line. Yeah, I know it's crazy, but I gotta do it." And then he's destroyed.

It's like people in the last election saying, "We gotta vote for Gore." Why? "Because we must prevent Bush from being elected." I say, you vote for Gore, you're going to get Bush. And they did. So, we've got to break that chain of where stupidity becomes a chain on the minds of our best organic leaders in this society. And the way to do that, is, you and I, and others like us, we have to meet, we have to function informally as well as formally. We have to establish ourselves in such groups, as the authority in the country for constituencies. We use that authority to confront our constituents, to get them to change from stupid ideas, into intelligent ideas.

We go out on the basis that nothing is important but the truth. We don't have to be afraid of the truth. You don't have to defend a lie. You have no interest in a lie. It's not yours. You don't have to have loyalty to a lie. You have to have loyalty to the idea of truth, which sometimes takes a bit of discovering.

And therefore, you've got to say, "Let's agree to one thing. We agree on one thing: truthfulness. Let us meet on the basis of seeking the truth in this matter. And let us keep discussing it until we get this thing sorted out. Then let us go forth, united on the basis of truth. Not opinion, but truth." And that's the only answer.

So, I don't think we have—alternative third party projects of this type, I see nothing on the horizon that would justify it. I see enough that would give you the horrors, but no alternative. And I have to be, at my age, I have to think in terms of things that will work for people, not gestures. And what will work for people, is if we can get this country back to the idea of the truth, and if we can start to organize people to talk to each other, not on the basis of stroking each other's prejudices, but of trying to find out what the truth of the matter is, then we will have a force that can't be stopped.

What Can Americans Do for Mideast Peace?

Freeman: I'm going to take a question from the audience, now, from someone who I could introduce in a lot of different ways. I could introduce him as a leader of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam; I could introduce him as one of the foremost health-care providers, here in the District of Columbia; or I could introduce him as one of the gentlemen, who was good enough to lead the fight to save D.C. General Hospital. But, maybe the best way to introduce him, is to introduce him as someone who never, ever wears chains: Alim Muhammad.

Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad: Greetings, Mr. LaRouche; I'm very happy to be here. I apologize for arriving a little bit late, and I did not, in fact, get a chance to hear all of your previous comments. But, it occurs to me, that, in terms of the Middle East situation, you have a constellation of forces opposing one another, that don't seem to have the creative power to resolve the situation in a way that makes sense. I mean, there's this agenda of war, that apparently has been agreed upon, at the highest levels, and it seems to be heading in that direction.

So, my question is this: Is there anything that can be learned from what happened 30 or so years ago, in the civil rights movement? When, in the segregated South, there was this balance of forces, that seemed to enforce the continued segregation, the continued disenfranchisement of large segments of the population. But then, there occurred the phenomenon of individuals from other parts of the country, people from New York, or Michigan, or Illinois, or wherever they were from: They didn't mind going to Alabama, or Georgia, or Louisiana, or wherever they thought the problem was. They were called, by the segregationists, "outside agitators," "communists," and other bad names. They, themselves, thought that they were Freedom Riders, that they were activists, civil rights workers, workers of conscience. And, they went into a situation, they inspired the local residents: They became teachers; they became examples to local people there, of new solutions. They brought resources to bear on the situation, and they sort of shook things up. They changed the pattern of behavior on both sides of the problem.

I'm wondering whether or not you feel that there's any possibility of developing that line of approach, internationally? Is it possible, for example, for delegations of private citizens—men and women of conscience, people of religion, people of business, people from all walks of life—who, naturally, would have to have the resources: But, could they go to the Middle East? Could they go to Jerusalem, and engage in activities, that might in some way, shake things up, and destroy these ingrained patterns? And have some inspirational effect on the local populations? Is it possible, for something like that to be conceived of? I just would like to get your thoughts about something of that nature.

LaRouche: I think there's no solution in that direction. There's a good in that direction, but not a solution.

The only solution right now, the only obvious solution, is if the President of the United States would be persuaded, to make an Eisenhower-like decision, on the horror-show in the Middle East. I know from Europe, that Europe would generally unite—including Russia—would unite with the United States on that issue. And, that most of the rest of the world would agree. So, under those conditions, we could bring this to an end—that is, in terms of the horror-show. But, at the same time, to go further than that: You have to talk about building a peace, and that's where what you're talking about comes into play.

Now, what we have to do, in a sense, is: We have to—by bringing unity among people, of those who are concerned about this horror, as I've found myself in the middle of doing, recently; not because I started out with the intention of doing that, but I just followed my own nose, and I ended up doing that: Is to try to bring people from the Arab world and others together, on trying to clarify exactly what the issues are, in this business, and how to deal with this. Now, when we get to the point that we decide, in a sense, agree on what to do, in general, about it, we find ourselves up against the fact that we need another factor, which we don't have: which is, for either the President of the United States, or equivalent thereof, to step in and tilt the thing, so that we can implement what we are saying.

What is important—two things: First of all, it is very important to address those sections of Israelis, who will respond, even if it's a sort of "Damascus Road" response, to the idea of justice and freedom. Now, in that case, you have a movement among Jews, which is pretty much crushed—it was crushed by Hitler largely, and the right-wing supporters crushed it—that of Moses Mendelssohn. Moses Mendelssohn was one of the real, authentic geniuses, of modern times. He was called, in Germany, in his time, "the modern Socrates." Moses Mendelssohn did more than any other person, to bring about the political liberation of the Jew in Europe. His work, as a collaborator of people like Kästner, whom most people don't know; and a collaborator, especially more immediately, of Gotthold Lessing, the founder of German Classicism. It was through his networks, that Joseph II, the Emperor of Austria, was the first country to grant political identity to the Jew. And, most people don't know what the condition of the Jew in Europe was, prior to that time. Some Jews had licenses to live; the others would go around as virtual cattle, without the right to live!

And, Moses Mendelssohn's movement did that. You had the spread of that into Eastern Europe, in the case of the Yiddish Renaissance, which is famous among Americans, mostly through the writings of people like Sholom Aleichem, in his stories; but the Yiddish Renaissance. So, that you had a great movement among Jews, which is the movement of true liberation, pivotted on Moses Mendelssohn. And, he's a genius: I mean, this guy, you don't think of him as just Jewish—he's everything! He's a universal mind; and he was an Orthodox Jew to the day of his death. But, a universal mind: He was a man of peace; he was a man of reconciliation. So, I would say that, in respect to the Jew: It's important to emphasize the question of Moses Mendelssohn. Those who have Jewish affiliations, attachments: Here's a genius, a true genius, who did more for the liberation of the Jew, than any other known individual in modern history. Isn't that pretty good? Isn't that a hero for you?

So, take the true hero, as Martin is for many of us, a true hero of his time, and say, "Wasn't it a mistake to go away from that?" Just because Hitler wiped out most of the adherents of that persuasion? And, left the survivors, who were of a different persuasion, to take over?

So, therefore, there are, also, many Israelis, who will tend to agree with that. We know; I've been working with some of them for a quarter-century, who have been fighting for peace—Arab-Israeli peace, inside Israel, and outside. There is a core, that is really committed to this.

Therefore, yes: In the process of rebuilding, and mobilizing support, for the rebuilding, for the peace, there are many people from various parts of the world, who, based on some understanding—remember, the civil rights movement worked to the degree that the young kids who went in, had some understanding of what they were going into; and had guidance on non-violence, and other kinds of things, to enable them to do this.

So, with guidance, of some understanding of what the issues are, by meeting with Arabs, by meeting with people who understand the position of Israel and the Jew, and understanding the situation, then you can have people who are not going to mess the things up, and make them worse than they already are. But, who will be useful, and will be gestures of solidarity, in implementing peace: support for this; support for that. Who do you go to visit? When someone comes from this part of the world, who can they go to visit? Where is the group of people, who will visit them, receive them, guide them around, and send them off as friends? Who do you go to visit, in that area? You need these kinds of people-to-people contacts, it's very useful. But, it won't solve the problem, in the short run. But in the long run, it can be the thing that's a decisive factor in leading to a permanent solution of the problem.

The Pedophilia Scandals

Monsignor Elias El-Hayak: Mr. LaRouche, I would like to ask you a question. I'm surprised at the fact that, in this conjuncture of war we have now in the Middle East, why is it that [there is an] assault on the moral authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church? Wherever I go, wherever—all these channels I watch every day, they are talking about this situation in the Catholic Church, about pedophilia and all that, and they are criticizing even that meeting the Pope held with these Cardinals of the United States, and setting up a way of diminishing all this. So I find, behind this, some intent to diminish the authority of this Pope, or the Church in general, particularly when he had already a year ago gone to the Middle East, and he had built so much goodwill among the people of the area. This is my question.

LaRouche: There's an intent to destroy the Pope, not only on this question, but on many other questions. And there are efforts within the Church, some of which I've fought against, as without. You see, the Pope represents the best of a tradition, in terms of the Church in modern society, which dates from Leo XIII, especially. He represents the continuity of that, it's not new, it represents a refreshing—on the part of these Popes, particularly Leo XIII, and so forth—a refreshing of the original Apostolic mission.

Well, there are other interests, as we know. There are financial interests, which say, "The pews are empty, you want money, you take our money and you listen to our views." And what has happened is, a financial concert was brought to bear in the United States, probably also the White House, was brought to bear to push this pedophilia scandal in Washington. (I think the place to start it was the Congress. If you want to have a pedophilia scandal, I think we've got plenty of people in the political system who are much more appropriate.)

But this was done.

Now, I've been, of course I had friends, you know, who've been involved in investigating these kinds of problems before, for the Church. We've known about the problem for a long time, we thought that the American Church—I did—we thought it was wrong on this question, in the way they approached it; but that's not the blame of the Pope. The Pope's position is clear.

But, in this case, it's obvious. If [someone wants] to start a religious war, and you intervene, to defend the sanctity of any of the holy sites in the Middle East, you are in principle affirming the sanctity of the holy places. If you affirm the sanctity of the holy places, you can't have this kind of thing that's going on there.

So therefore, the Pope becomes a personal threat to the cause of Nazism worldwide. So, I mean, the point is obvious, that this is a serious fight, and those of us who have the means, have to try to see that the right thing is done. If they can't do it by one channel, by another. I do what I can. I need his continued functioning on this front; we all need it.

'The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight'

Alfredo Jalife of Mexico: Mr. LaRouche, will President Bush's debacles in Mexico and Venezuela, specifically those executed by Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich, who is known as the Iran-Contra man, by allying with Mexican Foreign Minister Castañeda and Venezuela's Cisneros Group, will they affect Jeb Bush's reelection in Florida? And what do you think U.S.-Mexico relations actually should be?

LaRouche: In general on these things, you've got to realize that we don't have a functioning government of the United States right now. We have persons occupying the nominal positions of government. But, if you look around the world, you look at the case of the handling of the situation in Argentina; you look at the mess that was made by the U.S. government with Elliott Abrams and company in the bungling of this whole business in Venezuela; you look at the stupidity with which the U.S. Administration, the present one, has approached the question of deregulation in Mexico; you look at the way they're dealing with Brazil; you look at the Africa policy, which is not even mentioned much any more, it's a horror show unto itself; you look at the question of the dealing with Europe; the dealing with China; dealing with Japan; dealing with Korea; and so forth and so on. Dealing with all the important domestic issues—this is not a government, it's a catastrophe. It's a catastrophe seeking a refuge place to hide in.

Now, like the military policy: The military policy of the United States is totally incompetent. It's incompetent on two grounds. First of all, it's incompetent because it's wrong—wrong in the sense that we have learned about warfare, through a long history of humanity. We have learned, especially from the experience of the Treaty of Westphalia, what kind of wars not to fight. We should have learned it also from commentaries on this subject by Machiavelli, a military specialist, a strategic specialist, back in the 16th Century. We should have learned it from Lazare Carnot. We should have learned it from the defeat of the first modern fascist, Napoleon, when he tried to march into Russia. We should have learned it from the German reform, military reform, which was done under the reformers, including Gerhard Scharnhorst; we learned about what warfare is, and how to conduct it, what is justified and what is not justified.

And what was conceived of as this new Waffen-SS model, of Huntington and that crowd around Kissinger, the Soldier and the State crowd; these guys are, from a military-strategic standpoint, they are utterly incompetent. There's no way that they can establish a durable form of empire, even as durable or undurable as the Roman Empire was. It can not be done. You could not establish a durable, existable new Roman Empire based on Anglo-American power today. It could not work. All it could do is destroy, and what it is doing, destroying.

But now you get to the point.

Talking about going into Iraq. Why are we going into Iraq? Because it's a perpetual war. They decided to do it, and Israel desperately needs it. Israel can not survive with its present policy unless the war is extended to the greater Middle East. And it means, first of all, Iraq.

So therefore, we don't have the troops to fight a war in Iraq; Iraq will not be like Desert Storm; the effects—it will be much more complicated. Look at Afghanistan, with these idiots who are running this thing—and I don't think Rumsfeld's quite that stupid, but he's acting stupidly—who believe that you can fight that kind of a war. You can not. They've gone into another quagmire, a mountain quagmire. So the weapons policy, the rearmaments policy, which is just swindling, putting some money in there for your friends—that's all it is. There's no recovery in this warfare. This is not a war economy recovery. That everything these guys do, everything they say, everything they say about the economy, every policy they make, is a manifestation of one stupidity worse than the other. You call this a government? Someone says, the United States government is a powerful government and knows what it's doing, you've got to bend over for it—it is not! It is sheer incompetence. They can't think, they can't make decisions, they make decisions but they can't—so that one should not exaggerate this kind of mess.

So what they're doing in Mexico, they walk into Mexico. Mexico's existence depends upon the restoration of an energy system. Mexico has been looted to a degree, since Kissinger went down there in the Fall Of 1982, has been looted to such a degree, that it's almost non-functional. What we did is we destroyed Mexico; we said, "We'll use cheap Mexican labor. We'll use it as immigrant labor, and we'll use it as maquiladora labor." Mexico depends upon, about 80% of its economy, on exports to the United States, of labor or materials. That's the Mexican economy. It has no other economy to speak of.

Now, the role of the United States as the importer of last resort, has come to an end. That means a disaster in the maquiladoras; it means a disaster throughout all of Mexico. So therefore, the existence of Mexico depends on a general reconstruction, of moving it back in the direction which it was in before it was wrecked 20 years ago. In other words, you've looted, you've taken the patient, you've sucked all the blood out of it that you could, up to the point that the patient would die from lack of blood, and now you go in, you want more blood—eh?—and to go in with that kind of policy.

Now naturally, what happened was, is that you had Vicente Fox, who thought he was the ever-beloved of George Bush, eh?—that's a mistake too, eh?—but Vicente Fox thought he could push through Bush's policy of deregulation in Mexico, despite Enron and everything else. And the Mexican people, the Mexican institutions, said "no." And the Chamber met and voted down the deregulation bill, permanently. They killed it, permanently. It's now an outlaw; you can't bring it into the procedure any more. Why? Why not?

But the stupid government of the United States is so determined to shove its stupid policy down the throat of Mexico, that it pays no attention to what it's doing. It does not force Mexico to accept policies that can work; it tries to force Mexico to commit suicide.

What is being done by the IMF and the U.S. government in Argentina is clinical insanity. As well as mass murder. What they're trying to do in Brazil is the same thing. The sideshow they played in Venezuela, eh?—with Elliott Abrams and so forth. And Otto Reich. They don't know what they're doing. But they're doing it anyway. It's like that gang, remember the organized gang warfare in Brooklyn which one famous reporter at the time wrote a book about, called The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight? That's the Bush Administration. They can't shoot straight. They shoot a lot, though, but they don't shoot straight.

So, that's the way to understand it. Do not imagine that the United States is some big powerful giant. It may be relatively gigantic, with some powers, but don't recognize it as an all-wise agency, so powerful, so wise, so all-knowing, that it knows what it's doing. The U.S. government at present has no conception of what it's doing. It just does it anyway. And it's getting more and more into a mess.

You should get the mood in Europe. Europeans, just to get a sense of this—Europeans, especially Germans. Germans went through two world wars. They were conquered by the U.S. twice; and they say, never again will we resist the word of our imperial master, the United States. We will always do what the Pentagon tells us. Without question, even if we know it's insane. But even in Germany, as in Italy and elsewhere, the Europeans are now in a state of revolt against a U.S. policy which is so stupid, that if they wanted to follow it, they couldn't, because you can't understand it, because it makes no sense.

Fascism in Australia

Craig Isherwood, national secretary of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia: Greetings from Australia. I think we might be the remotest link for this webcast, and it has been good to hear your clear and unequivocal message down here.

Lyn, within the last several months we have seen a dramatic step-up by the Howard Liberal government to ram through absolutely draconian fascist laws under the guise of fighting terrorism, particularly after Sept. 11, but also before Sept. 11.

These laws are identical, line by line, with Hitler's February 1933 Emergency Decrees.

Howard has introduced laws that:

* Can jail people for 25 years to life for such activities as union activity, civil disobedience, dissent or normal political organizing, under the pretext of being defined as terrorism;

* Ban any organization it wants to;

* Hold people without the right to remain silent, and incommunicado indefinitely;

* Allow spy organizations to use unlimited wire-tapping on people;

* Use lethal force and kill Australian citizens if domestic violence flares; and

* The untrammeled use of agent provocateurs to set organizations and groups up.

Now these laws are not being introduced from a position of strength, but from the fact that the political parties in this country are hated, and falling apart. The two major parties are actually seen as the same and are a hollow shell.

Top civil rights lawyers have stated, that these laws are not necessary. We already have the necessary laws to deal with any genuine terrorist problem.

We know it is the global financial collapse which is driving these desperate moves, but it is also the hysterical freak-out over your influence on this continent, through our work down here.

We would really like to hear what you have to say about this matter and others on the Australian continent.

LaRouche: Well, some people looking at Australia and these curious events down there say that, you know, that Australia has a lot of marsupials, and a couple of monotremes as well, and perhaps that that accounts for the kind of politicians that are trying to push this stuff through. They've just, they've got—it's in the pouch, so to speak. Other people may think that this is probably a reflection of the imperial power of the Emperor Rupert Murdoch, whose de-pressed association has some power in that country. And as a matter of fact, Rupert Murdoch is a lot of this stuff. We have a Murdoch in the United States, so watch out. Check him for pouches, and what's in his pouch, whatever he does.

But essentially, the thing is run through an organization called the British monarchy's Privy Council. All of the operations, while they have many fronts, are actually run, to my knowledge, and to the knowledge of people down there, by members of the Privy Council. Now, one thing to understand about this—now of course, this is Australia, which the British hate very much. They think it's a bunch of escaped prisoners or something—you know how they are; they're very backward, they don't keep their history straight.

But in any case, what we don't understand, and we should understand as Americans, is that our Constitutional system is superior to anything that ever actually developed in Europe. The nearest approximation was the reform of the Fifth Republic by President Charles de Gaulle. But never, never did a European country, establish a true sovereign nation-state republic.

What happened in Europe, largely under the impact of the American Revolution, was certain reforms in parliamentary forms of government, which were essentially monarchical forms of government, in which the basic feudal form of monarchy was preserved. You had a parliament, which originally was the adviser to a monarchy, and a monarch. The monarchs have generally gone, since then, but monarchs have been replaced by a President who performs, who holds the office of a monarch, but is not a monarch. He has no monarchical authority whatsoever. Even Chirac has no monarchical authority. He's controlled by a council of powers which control the state apparatus. Then you have a Parliament. Now, any time the Parliament gets in its mind to do something that the state apparatus doesn't like, the Parliament is thrown into a crisis, and you have a parliamentary crisis which overthrows the government, and you get a new Prime Minister, and a new set of laws. That's the way it's run.

The way this is run in Britain, for example, is through the Privy Council. Now, the Queen nominally has no powers to speak of, except to read the teleprompter at certain annual occasions, before the Parliament. But the Queen is actually a very powerful institution, who controls the United Kingdom, and the Empire, including Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, directly, for which she is the monarch, through Privy Councils. The operation to which you refer in Australia, is run from the British monarchy, through the Privy Council extensions in Australia. If you remove the Privy Council factor from these operations in Australia, the whole thing would fall apart. And therefore, though various kinds of monotremes, marsupials, and others, may be running around as one of the perpetrators of this atrocity, the atrocity is occurring because the master of the marsupials and monotremes, has laid this particular egg.

Can We Save Civilization?

Student: Mr. LaRouche, first, before I say anything else, I want to thank you for doing what nobody else seems willing to do, and that is tell us the truth. It's not easy deciding what you're going to do with your life, when people lie to you all the time. And the truth that you told today, while I'm happy you said it, doesn't really paint a very pretty picture.

I'm going to ask you to tell us the truth one more time. What do you really think our chances are, of implementing your policies and of saving civilization?

LaRouche: Well, that is a tough question, but not a tough question for me. It's a tough question for most.

You know, we are so obsessed by the short lives we lead, in our mortal existence, that we become too preoccupied with the issues that are defined in terms of our personal sensual experience. We forget history; we forget especially the history of ideas. What we live for—and this again is the question of death, life and death—what do we live for? Do we live for what we experience in our lifetime, or do we live because we are concerned about what comes after us, as a result of our actions while we live? Are we concerned, like the scientist, with the benefits of the ideas which may not be realized in his lifetime, but which save the future of humanity, eh? That sort of thing.

So therefore, in facing a question like this, never ask the question of yourself: Will you get the reward of your effort, within your mortal life? Never ask that question of yourself. Always say: Is it something which you should do, for the sake of humanity? Then, like Jeanne d'Arc, if you have to die, you'll die, but maybe as she did, the existence of France as the first modern nation-state, would come about because you didn't quit.

Now, that does not mean you should take a fatalistic attitude about history. That means you should think like a good soldier, a good commander in war, who's going out to war, not with the intent of dying, but the intent of bringing about a victory, by making an essential contribution to a necessary victory in the betterment of humanity. If you start from that attitude, then you're not a hostage to your sense of mortality. And the thing that makes people cowards, is the sense of being a hostage to their own mortality. If you can give that up, and say, "I'm going to do it because it's needed," you can fight the fight. And if you can fight the fight, the very fact that you can, in that way, gives you a chance of winning. So if you ask the question of yourself, "Should I do this on the basis of whether or not I think I'll enjoy the benefit in my lifetime, or live to see it," then you will lack the courage often to achieve the function of leadership. You say, "I'm going to do this, because the meaning of my life is to make a contribution to humanity, whether I enjoy it or not, in person." Then you can win.

See, because you, as I have to do, you have to take the point. You have to become in a sense the target, as Martin said, when he gave his famous speech "on the mountaintop," on the question. You're leading, you must give courage to those about you. You must speak clearly and truthfully, and let nothing, even the fear of the loss of your own life, stand in the way of speaking truth. And never allow that to induce you to speak garbage instead of truth. Or to babble, or to be evasive, instead of speaking the truth. Because the radiation in others of the sense of truth, a cognitive sense that you speak the truth, will impart to others the capacity to carry on, if you're gone.

And that's the point of the matter. I expect us to win. I know we can win. I expect to win. But that is not the thing that determines what I will do. I am determined that we shall win, and I will do what I have to do, to bring that about.


In facing a question like this, never ask the question of yourself: Will you get the reward of your effort, within your mortal life? Never ask that question of yourself. Always say: Is it something which you should do, for the sake of humanity?

Related Pages and Articles

Committee to Stop the "New Violence" (more articles on Nintendo killers)

Conference Speeches- February 2002- Continue the American Revolution!

Physical Economy Page - with Development Maps

Education, Science and Poetry Page

"Zbignew Brzezinski and September 11"

LaRouche Dialogues Sept. 11 to December 2001

LaRouche Dialogues in 2002

Dialogue of Cultures

Who Is Lyndon LaRouche?

Mideast Related Articles:

God Only Knows--LaRouche Warns Against Iraq War (2//28/02)

Götterdämmerung in Palestine, by Lyndon LaRouche (1/30/02)

Support Israeli Resistance to Sharon (3/16/02)

The Lessons of Schiller's Wallenstein for Today (12/20/01)

Rabin's Legacy Versus Sharon's Insanity (12/20/01)

LaRouche Speaks Bluntly on Sharon's Insane Fascism (12/10/01)

Water as a Strategic Flank -Where Clinton Failed ( 8/6/00)

Nuclear Powered Desalination for the Mideast (1995)

Water- Beautiful and Necessary fro Mideast Peace (5/5/01)

More on Mideast

EIR Arabic Website (in Arabic language)

And More!

The New BrettonWoods Plan for Monetary Reorganization

Strategic Studies Page

Conference on Eurasian Landbridge -(Panel I )

International Conferences

The McKinley Assasination (and the American Intellectual Tradition)

Physical Economy Page


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Join
| Calendar | Music | Books | Concerts | Links | Education | Health
What's New | LaRouche | Spanish Pages | PoetryMaps
Dialogue of Cultures

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2002. All Rights Reserved.