LaRouche Briefs Milan Leaders
On Solutions to Global Crisis

It is a great honor to speak after Lyndon LaRouche, who always shocks and surprises me with ideas that go against what we are used to hearing, but ideas that are extremely truthful, because through this analysis he has always succeeded in forecasting great events that the traditional theory was not able to forecast. The Argentine crisis, for those who regularly read his writings, was foreseen far in advance. The crisis of the huge energy company, Enron, was also foreseen. He was always talking about the fact that this company was heading for bankruptcy. Whereas in the traditional world, when we were talking about the large auditing firms, starting with Andersen Consulting, everyone was saying that everything was fine.

He has a different vision, the vision of those who met in Bretton Woods. This evening, LaRouche didn't touch on his second most important issue, which is the question of a New Bretton Woods. But I would add another thing, the Bretton Woods of the founding fathers, because unfortunately even in that situation in 1944, the very short-term interests of the huge financial groups were allowed to prevail.

President Broggi was talking about the other issue, i.e., that, at the origin of all of these troubles there is a financial system that has become an antagonist vis-à-vis the productive system, vis-à-vis the system of the real economy. This is the evil denounced by Lyndon LaRouche. Throughout known history, finance has been at the service of the productive system. Starting with the years of the crisis discussed by Lyndon LaRouche, finance separated itself, and started to accumulate huge riches on its own, excessive if compared to the real economy. And in my opinion, his appeal is that finance be brought back under control. And we always say, when we meet, that to open a little drug store on Fifth Avenue you need five different permits—to open a company in the U.S. you need one-third of the permits that you need in Italy, but still you need permits. Instead, the world of finance, with a phone call, can destabilize Argentina today, yesterday Turkey, the day before Southeast Asia, some years ago Russia, and before that Brazil. Thus, it is necessary, as he underlined, that the financial world begin to respect some rules.

The financier claims that freedom of the market does not have any comparison in human reality; but freedom—and I have been a pupil of Norberto Bobbio, who taught me that one's own freedom must always be compatible with the freedom of others. And finance has forgotten this. It is an old principle; it's the principle of not only the progressives, but also of any honest and correct conservative. The world of finance must be regulated and return to the service of industry. And this industrial world is the only one that creates surplus. It's the splendid reality of our country, that we have to defend ourselves from certain European power groups. Here you are in the fatherland of a certain Senator who sometimes looks like he has lost his mind, but when he attacks the European world, he is not totally wrong—not because we don't want Europe, but rather, because we want a Europe that is at the service of the citizens and not at the service of the big lobbyists.

And so, the proposal of Dr. LaRouche: to fight against these short-sighted interests that see only one yard in front of their eyes, and destroy the world in order to get profits that cannot be achieved, because in a world that is poor, there is no one who can live as a happy person. And LaRouche indicated that for Europe there [are markets in] Asia, the former socialist countries; for the United States there is Latin America—these are extremely rich countries. I agree with this emphasis. Imagine a country like Argentina, one of the richest countries in the world, today in a crisis where people do not even have food to eat. It is a scandal! It is a scandal that we cannot tolerate. And thus it is necessary to block these gangsters who jeopardize the necessary growth of the whole world, in order to pursue very small margins of profit on the financial markets. This must be stopped. And this is the great message of Lyndon LaRouche.

However there are many interests involved, and thus this message, which should be proclaimed over a loudspeaker in the main square of Milan, is boycotted by all those (forgive my colorful language) gangs who try to extract their profits exactly from the finance which is out of control. I want to congratulate those who made possible this beautiful initiative, and again I want to thank the president and I want to thank Lyndon LaRouche for this occasion that has been offered to me.

Q: I have several questions to ask Professor LaRouche, but one in particular. I emphasize the enormous potentiality implied in the small Italian firm: potentiality not just in terms of economic development, but potentiality in terms of guaranteeing employment, through the idea of creativity of which LaRouche spoke, and emphasized: This is the element that allowed our small entrepreneurs to evolve and remain on the market, a more and more competitive market, a market that the economic policy of this country was for sure not inclined to favor. And thus, the question that I want to ask: An economic policy focussed on the small firms, that allows the actualization of these potentialities, wouldn't it be an element that would greatly favor not only the real economy, but also make for wealth much more widely distributed, in this and any other country?

LaRouche: Without question, there's a very specific mechanism involved here. Take Italy: While you're more fortunate in this particular region, in the majority of Italy, you have well over, officially, 10% unemployment. Now, look at this 10% unemployment as a loss, an economic loss. This is human potential, which could be working and producing something of value. Of course, the greatest burden of this, lies in the region we call the Mezzogiorno, and other pockets in other regions. And, from the time that the new policy of the IMF was introduced, officially in 1976, the Cassa di Mezzogiorno, which played a useful role earlier, was turned into something quite different; not because of the intention of the leaders of the Cassa di Mezzogiorno was wrong, but the means to do it, didn't exist any more. So, you have a neglected area Italy—Sicily, southern Italy in general—which is poorly developed, which is a great cost to Italy, as a whole! The lack of development!

Now, how would I approach this kind of thing?

I would say, which is the reason I was very upset, in 1975-1976, about the introduction of the new IMF policy to Italy, at that time—'75-'76, when the fight was on. Because, the success of Italy depends upon turning the area of Italy which is poor, into a truly, net productive area of growth. And this is possible. I was very happy with the success of the bridge to Sicily—that being put back on the agenda—because that is an essential part, that is a revolutionary step, a great technological challenge and a revolutionary step, to change the situation. Because, every time we put people, who are being useless in the economy—sitting there, without hope, without purpose, without means to support their families—every time we give them a job, which is useful to the society, we make a profit, by deducting a loss. They're no longer a loss to the economy.

Now, if we develop infrastructure, of a useful type—where is the first stimulus of developing infrastructure: It's essentially an increase in the entrepreneurial sector's activity. This involves even simple shopkeepers. Every aspect of the economy benefits. New enterprises come up, and thrive, on the basis of that opportunity. So, we create opportunity. If, at the same time, we are generating exports, that works together in the same way.

So, therefore, if we realize that the entrepreneurial spirit, which is much better in response than the government, or the large corporation, is the active surface, the most vital part of the economy, which moves the most quickly and responds the most quickly to a new opportunity, a new situation; then, if you provide a system of credit, of well-managed credit, organized by governments, through existing banking institutions as special programs, or, through special lending institutions, which function like the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau [Reconstruction Finance Agency] used to function in Germany, to evolve this credit quickly, you can actually build a small-entrepreneurial business stimulation program, which, in conjunction with an infrastructure program, could transform Italy significantly, assuming that we have an export orientation. There has to be the export orientation; but, then, the internal economy—how productive is the Italian economy? That depends upon reducing the number of unemployed—real unemployed—raising the standard of living of the population; creating, thereby, new entrepreneurial opportunities, in the internal market, by the combination of the benefits and impact of infrastructure and the benefits of getting people from unemployment, into productive employment.

Q: You gave us a broad economic picture, but at the same time we see that dramatic winds are blowing in the Mideast. In Palestine, we do not know what decision will be taken by America. Concerning Iraq, I was touched already by the last war, and I would not want to see again today such a drama as I already experienced. I would like to know your opinion also, because Italy has been in favor of the conflict with bin Laden, who is now still free and we do not see any results.

LaRouche: Well, first of all, on the question of U.S. policy. The policy of the United States government, at present, is essentially to have a war with Iraq—either now, or this Fall; and, to now try to find excuses for having a war. In other words, the war is not motivated by any actual fact, of something done by Iraq to warrant a war. There are things, where someone says, "we suspect that ..."; "we think that ..."; "we hypothesize that ..." Or, that, "we think that, perhaps, it might happen in the future ..."

What you have now, is a policy, as expressed by the NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] in the United States (or its publicity), by the statement of the British government, and by statements from Washington, which indicate that, not only are they talking about an attack on Iraq—not because of something Iraq has done, but to prevent it from doing something, maybe, in the future. With no proof. No evidence. There's no casus belli—none. You're going to war, without casus belli. That is immoral. That is, actually, a violation of crimes against humanity, to do that. But, so, now, they try to discover a pretext for doing that!

All right. There are certain people, who do that kind of thing, and why are they doing it? Because Kissinger is one of them. Remember, Kissinger was actual President of the United States. Nixon was a Don Giovanni and Kissinger was the Leporello. And Leporello ran Don Giovanni—he made up the lists; he made up the appointments.

Then, you had another Leporello, who followed Kissinger, who came from the same school. He was called Zbigniew Brzezinski. Now, he was the madman, the craziest man of them all. But he came from the same school and represented the same thing. Brzezinski and his sidekick, Samuel P. Huntington, invented this Clash of Civilizations policy, together with a fellow called Bernard Lewis, a British Middle East expert. That's how the thing was developed.

And also, there is, obviously, a coincidence between the crisis in Israel and Palestine, now, and the Iraq war. The purpose of the Iraq war, is to unleash a permanent war with Islam, and within Islam. It's not Islam united against the West: It's destabilizing all of Islam, to unlock every possible conflict within Islam, as well as Islam and other countries. It's a way of running exactly what the Nazis did, in the last phase of the last war, with the Waffen SS: It is not war to win a justified war, by bringing about a successful peace. It's a war to perpetuate war, as a permanent way of managing the planet. You keep fighting wars, here and there, forever, as a way of controlling the planet for an imperial force. That's the policy. And Kissinger's part of it.

Now, the alternative, from the standpoint I think most people and governments in Europe would tend to agree: It's the problem of the one specific area, where there is a problem, an immediate problem. It's the conflict of the present Israeli government—especially the Israeli Defense Forces—and the Palestinians. This is a crime against humanity. In fact, from the military standpoint, what is being done by the Israeli Defense Forces under Sharon's government is exactly what the Nazis did in 1943, against the Warsaw Jewish Ghetto. And, in point of fact, the Israeli Defense Forces studied the Stroop Report—that is, the Nazi General Stroop, who conducted the assault on the Warsaw Ghetto. And, they copied it, as a basis, as a manual, for dealing with the "Palestinian problem," so-called. So, that's the kind of situation you have.

Now, what's the solution? In general, Europe would support—as I would—the Oslo Accord, as a general agreement, modelled upon the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. You have to have a peace. You have to have a basis for a durable peace. The basic problem in the Middle East, is water. There is not enough water in the aquifers, to sustain the existing population of that area. You can not find water for the Palestinians, and for an increasing flood of immigrants into Israel, and the settlements. It can't be done. They're draining the aquifers—that is, the permanent loss of aquifer—being drained. Israel's wars, aggression against the Golan Heights and so forth, were actually to get water; to steal water from their Arab neighbors. To steal it from Jordan. To steal it from the Litani River in southern Lebanon—things of that sort.

So, the solution has been recognized, and I was involved in this, in 1975, to try to get a water-development project, which means a large-scale desalination project, and we can produce water at economical prices, for drinking water, today—especially with nuclear energy. And, since the Israelis already have nuclear weapons of mass destruction, you can't protest against nuclear energy in that region: They already have too much of it, in the form of weapons of mass destruction. But, if we can have high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, in modular units of up to 100-200 MW capacity, which are almost self-regulating, we could have cheap production of desalinated water, for the entire population.

That kind of program, by itself, would create enough stimulus, for economic development of the region, to bring about a durable, economic basis in self-interest for peace. I think Europe would agree with that. And most people in Europe would be relieved, to know that such a project were being undertaken.

So, we have alternatives. There are no incurable reasons for doubting the possibilty of peace in the Middle East. We can have it! My discussions with leading Arab circles and others, recently, indicate, they are disposed to do that. They are disposed to find peace, and propose to go to a great effort, to bring about peace. And, I think Europe would support it.

The problem is, you have people, in the United States—crazy people, like Kissinger, the former Leporello of the United States, and Brzezinski, who's even crazier—who represent a force that wants war. They want war, like the Roman legions, in the worst phase, wanted war. They want war, as permanent war. The deployment of Roman legions—Anglo-American style—in every part of the world, like the Waffen SS, to control the world by managed war, as we tried in Indochina. We have a managed war, which will never be managed, in Afghanistan. There will never be peace there! We have just gone into, recently, the same phase of the Afghanistan war, that the Soviets went after their first occupation of Afghanistan. The United States has now successfully occupied Afghanistan. Now, the war has broken out! And, 50,000 fighters in Afghanistan, can pin down a quarter of a million U.S. troops—permanently—as the Soviets were pinned down in Afghanistan, in the 1980s.

So, there are people who want that kind of war. And, the problem is: Can we break it? I'm not sure. Europe is afraid of the United States. Europe protests, it expresses its interests—and, I think, accurately—but, then, it flinches. "Yes, but the Americans won't let us. We don't dare fight the Americans on this one. We'll wait until later." And, that's the problem. But, I'm not pessimistic, I'm just realistic. I'm saying: If we define more clearly, as the questioner suggests, implicitly, if we define the solutions more clearly, then we may find the means to implement a solution.

Remember, the United States government is in great trouble. It's in a financial collapse. This week, the financial collapse went through a new ratchet: A whole series of new entities are about to go under. There is no recovery. There's a process of collapse. So, the United States is going to go through continued crisis: Under the conditions of crisis, which will affect the United States, as well as Europe, there will be radical changes in the way the world is viewed, in U.S. circles, as well as in other circles. Under those conditions, we have to hope, that there will be a change of heart from relevant circles. And, if we, who oppose this nonsense, are clear, and have a clear message, perhaps that message will be heard.

Q: Good evening, Professor. I have to say first of all that I agree 99.9% with everything you have said. However I see some "holes" that maybe you can fill up.

You were talking about solutions to problems. I see many problems, but the two most important are pollution and, in parallel, the destruction of the green equatorial areas of the world—that is a huge problem. I would like to know your point of view concerning the solution. This is what is called "sustainable growth" of the economy: We cannot stop ourselves when billions of people live below the level required for survival.

The second point is, what do we do with the war industry? I believe one of the main reasons why there is war, is because there us a war industry, and when a commodity is produced it must be consumed. These, I believe are huge problems and I would like you to enlighten me if possible.

LaRouche: First of all, one of the problems, on pollution and so forth, is the fact that, especially over the recent period, there has been a fundamental error, in understanding what is called "ecology." Now, lower forms of life are subject, in first approximation, to principles of ecology—on principle—because lower forms of life can not change their characteristic relationship to the universe. Man is not an animal. Man is not subject to ecology. Man is subject to ecology, only when man acts like an animal.

What's the difference, here? The problem is what is taught as "physical science." A lot of people have been teaching ecology, and they don't understand physical science adequately—that's the problem. Now, Vernadsky, who I made reference to, defined the universe correctly, in a certain way: experimentally, in the same way that Curie defined life. Now, what we call life, in physical experiments, are forms of activity, which do not exist outside living processes. That is, the universe outside living processes does not exhibit these characteristics. And, this is an experimental domain.

Life is not entropic. See, the fallacy has been, in the argument of ecology, is that the universe is entropic, in the sense of Clausius, in the sense of those kinds of people, such as Kelvin, or Grassman, or Boltzmann. And it is not: The universe is a developing universe. But it has three phases: one phase, experimentally, in which we call it "non-life," that is, an experiment defines a non-living process, an entropic process, by definition. Then, you have experiments, which define living processes, whose characteristics do not exist in non-living processes; but these are universal principles, physical principles, and can be proven as such. Thirdly, you have the ability of the cognitive powers of the human species, which can do things that living processes, otherwise, can not do, in changing the physical universe. That's another level of anti-entropy.

So, you have three parts of the universe, which are interrelated: phase one, experimental domains, which are entropic, called "abiotic"; phase two, processes which are anti-entropic, which we call "life," experimentally; three, a phase in which the actions are caused by cognition, a form of human activity, which does not exist in the animal kingdom. All three processes are universal principles. All act in the universe, simultaneously. Now, what does that mean, in terms of what Vernadsky defines as "the Noösphere," the Biosphere/Noösphere? That means, that we must, as human beings, intervene in the planet, in order to increase the anti-entropy in all three catagories. For example: What we depend upon, on the surface of the Earth, is to a large degree, changes in the abiotic Earth, which were introduced as fossil forms of the non-abiotic Earth—fossil forms of life. Most of our mineral deposits were created as deposits by living processes. The oceans were created by living processes. The atmosphere was created by living processes. The atmosphere is a fossil of living processes. The oceans are a fossil of living processes. Water on the Earth is a fossil of living process. Soil, that the farmer uses, is a fossil of living processes. We, as human beings, can change, also, the characteristics of the Biosphere, to raise it to a higher level.

So, the way we approach this question of pollution, is to say, "Pollution is entropy." What I said, on the question of the use of Vernadsky's approach to Central and North Asia: We have to take moral responsibility, for the development of the planet in all of its aspects. Therefore, the question is—it's not pollution—it's our failure to improve that mine, whatever it is, and not to let it degrade. We must oppose the degradation of the universe as a cost of life.

Under these conditions, the idea of "sustainable growth," as taught by the Club of Rome, and similar institutions, or the systems analysis people, is nonsense. There is no such problem as "sustainable growth." Growth, if we define it as anti-entropy, is worthless. The question is: What form should it take? And, that's the question. That is a scientific question. Unfortunately, this scientific question is not dealt with.

Now, on the question of war industry: This was an issue, which was raised, famously, at the end of the second term, by President Dwight Eisenhower, in the 1960s, on his way out of office. In which he said, exactly what I was talking about: He was talking about, what we know today, as the Kissingers, the Huntingtons, the Brzezinskis, and so forth. What has developed in the United States, is a military industry, which is intended to be used for perpetual warfare. Not for winning wars. We have destroyed the basis of the military system developed in Europe in modern times. The military system in modern times was based on universal military service. That meant that society as a whole, would participate in its own defense. The best system of military service was that which was called, in German, "Auftragstaktik": that you train soldiers, you would bring out the best in them; you wouldn't try to destroy them, and turn them into automatons. But you would use their natural creativity, as a part of their military training. And you would expect them, under conditions of warfare—or, on their other assignments, because the military often has engineering, and other assignments, which are not of a military nature, per se—to use their ingenuity, to carry out the mission in face of unexpected obstacles. You would expect the field officers, the company commanders, the battalion commanders, the non-commissioned officers, to respond to a challenge, of the unexpected, in what they had been expected, in being assigned the mission, to solve that problem to continue the mission.

Now, this involves calling forth the creative powers of the individual: This means that war has to have a moral purpose, and the purpose has to be what was famously defined by Augustinus, as the idea of "justified warfare." And, also Machiavelli, apart from the slanders against him, was very precise on this question, about justified warfare. You do not do continued warfare. Warfare is not an end in itself; it is not a purpose. It is a necessity, under certain circumstances, which you want to bring to a point of peace. And, therefore, your military arm must be provided for that and it must flow from the natural development of your people, and its economy. It must not be a special thing apart from the people. The people must control the machines of war. The people must control what they consider peace, and so forth.

All right. The problem is, that we've developed an imperial group, which has gone back to medieval times in its thinking, to pre-Renaissance times. It's gone back to the 15th and 14th Century in European history, the period that led into the great Dark Age of the 14th Century. They've gone back to the period of the old Norman successors—let's say, in the case of England, from Henry II through Richard III. They've gone back to those kinds of commanders of holy wars and religious wars, which are fought forever, until they resulted in the destruction of the population of Europe by half!—and the elimination of half the parishes of Europe—as a result of purely destructive war, which ended with the collapse of the Lombard bankers.

What we have done, in allowing this military faction to come into being, against which Eisenhower spoke—a permanent military industry, a permanent army, for permanent war—which is the Kissinger-Brzezinski policy, which is the Clash of Civilizations policy—is the end of civilization! MacArthur, again, also protested against it, in the same period, and warned against it. Every person I know in the United States, of any competence, has recognized and warned against the evil represented by this process. Unfortunately, the present President of the United States is in the grip, largely, of people who represent that point of view.

The danger, therefore, is great. You do not exaggerate the danger. But, it is not war industry secreting this. The war industry was created, by the people who advocated this policy. Franklin Roosevelt did not create the war industry; it was the people who were opposed to him, who created the war industry. The people opposed to him, who came up with this idea of utopian warfare: to replicate the Roman legions, to replicate the Waffen SS, and similar kinds of enterprises.

You're right! Your concerns are correct. It's just, I think I have a direction of solution to those problems.

Q: I had the chance to read in New Federalist your article on the decline of the physical economy, and since then I began to follow EIR also on your website. I read most of what you have written. I was always very impressed, since that first article on physical economy. I believe you are the most competent expert in the field of economy, finance, and foreign affairs. I think you are the only person who tells the truth in a world of liars. To be absolutely sincere, I should declare that I don't share all your opinions in the area of philosophy, in a broader meaning.

Anyway, I would like to ask you: Could we turn back to gold standard, again, as it was?

I think however that there is a problem, i.e., that the system of media, politics, and the democratic processes in the Western democracies, are based on economic models that are different from yours. The problem is to spread the knowledge of your economic non-Euclidean economic model in a world in which people tend to apply different criteria. How could you bridge this gap, selling your non-Euclidean LaRouche model, to Western democracies?

LaRouche: First of all, democracy, is often a misused word. It has come to mean something, since Brzezinski and Huntington got ahold of it, something quite different than it has meant in ordinary opinion otherwise. The word "democracy" now, is used mostly by the fascists (and they are fascists!), who support the policies of Brzezinski and Huntington; it's called in the United States, "Project Democracy." It's preached around the world as Project Democracy. Actually, it's fascism, in the literal sense of the term.

So, the problem here is, don't get trapped by words, and meanings which are attributed to words, by people who don't think through how the word is being used!

The question for me, is not democracy. The question is, human rights. The question is not human rights, only in terms of what is done to human beings; but, human rights, in terms of the right to participate, in the processes of deliberation. The modern nation-state is based on the principle of the General Welfare, or the Common Good; established as a law, of natural law—confirmed as natural law. It was always implicit in Christianity. But it's defined as natural law, by the work of the 15th-Century Renaissance. And it was established, especially in dealing with the ecumenical problems, which confronted Europe after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the battle with the Turks, which then followed after that. So, the question is: How do you maintain the Christian view of peace in mankind, in light of an onslaught, like the Ottoman conquests of that period?

So, that was the point. The modern nation-state is based on the idea, that no government should exist, morally, which is not efficiently committed to the General Welfare, the Common Good, of all of its people, both the living and the future. And, the participation of the people, the conscious participation of the people, in the processes of government, of deliberation by which the decisions are made, which determine the Common Good. So, to me, that's a much better definition, than "democracy," which is used to mean many things. Remember, the Democatic Party of Athens is what conducted a witch-trial against Socrates. That's a bad moral for the word.

On the question of the gold standard: The gold standard is sometimes a term that's misused. Remember, the gold standard, which was imposed by the British, and dominated the world under British direction, until Roosevelt intervened in '44; that the gold standard ruined the world economy, for most of the world. It was a basis of British imperial control over much of the world. So, Roosevelt changed that, and we introduced, in the post-war period, a gold-reserve standard: in which a fixed price of gold was used as a reference point, for maintaining fixed parities among currencies, which was essential, in order to have long-term investments at low-interest rates—1 to 2%, for example, simple interest; which is what you must have, in terms of developing countries.

So, therefore, we do have to go back to a gold-reserve standard, not necessarily at Roosevelt's price, but at some agreed price, a fair price, for a current, fixed price of monetary gold. And, to use that as a regulator of currencies, as opposed to the present IMF system. That is necessary, because we must have long-term agreements, which are basically 1% to 2% simple interest—on long term, for large-scale infrastructure projects and credit policies, and trade policies, among countries, to rebuild the world economy. So, therefore, for that purpose, we require a gold-reserve standard.

On the question of this democracy: On, how do you bring people around, to accept a proper standard? When people recognize they're being ruined, by what they now believe, they'll give it up. And people have to recognize that. Because, what they believe—

Look at mass entertainment: Who runs society? Do governments run society? No. Do they run the United States? No. The government doesn't run the United States: The United States is run through the mass media. It's run by Big Brother, which is owned by the major financial interests of the United States and Britain—and the British Commonwealth. They own all the mass media. Including not just the so-called "news media," which is not news media; it's propaganda media; it's worse than Goebbels. What it is, the mass-entertainment media, is the worst. Now, you look at Italian entertainment, on television. You look at popular entertainment around the world: You're seeing that people are being degraded, in their self-estimation, in their estimation of human relations, by mass media, mostly the entertainment media. And, the news media is, more and more, especially in the United States, it's imitating the mass-entertainment media: the sex, and blood, and gore media; the Pokémon media; the Nintendo games media. This is what's destroying the minds of our people.

There's no chance for civilization, unless we're able to redeem society. We have to win the people back under conditions of crisis, to recognize what human values are. And, they will. It's been done before. But it will only be done, through the experience of this ongoing, frightening crisis. I'm optimistic. I'm not promising any easy solutions: There are none. But, I'm optimistic, that if we stick to our business, and work hard enough, we can win people back to sanity.

Look, everybody knows, that eventually you die, that mortal life ends. And, sooner or later, you have to wake up to the fact, that you have to decide what's important, in terms of the fact of knowing you're going to die. And you have to decide what is important about you—humanly—that outlives you, outlives your mortal life. And, you have say, "That's my interest!"

Now, people used to approximate that in the family. People would say, "My children, my grandchildren, are going to benefit from what I'm doing." Or, "My society, my community, will benefit"; or, "My nation will benefit." People, as soldiers, gave their lives, for their country, for that reason. So, there is, in the human being, a natural ability to respond to a higher sense of moral purpose. And, when people are frightened, and realize they've been foolish, in the way they've behaved, in the way they've believed, they sometimes can sit down and cry, and change their ways. I think we're coming to such a time. We just have to provide some answers, and help them find the answers.

Q: Good evening. In a recent movie, the protagonist drinks a magic elixir and becomes immortal. She falls down the stairs breaks her neckbone. She goes to the hospital, and the doctor says, "This is strange, your heart has stopped, your neck is broken, you are clinically dead, but you continue to live." My question is this: It has been more than ten years since the financial system was declared dead, yet it continues to live. And I would note, ten years from now, with an even worse situation, yet with the financial system still alive, that we would find ourselves here still discussing these same issues.

I also would like to make a comment on what you said. You compared the Nazi system and the methods used by the Israeli army that are almost identical. It is obvious they are identical, because the Nazi regime was created by the same power group that created the State of Israel.

LaRouche: That's true, but not really: The British created the State of Israel. This goes back to the beginning of the 19th Century, during the Napoleonic Wars, when the British decided to intervene in Palestine, with a Jewish settlement, in order to create, together with the traditional Syrian Jewish families, which are wealthy families—grain trader families—based in Syria; and based in Saloniki, for example, in what is now called Greece; that, these grain-trading interests and these other interests were used by the British, as a pawn, in the orchestration of the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, and its outcome. So, in that sense, that was the policy.

Then, you had a situation, which developed under the conditions of Nazism, in which you had this horror-show: a break of Europe, with itself, in this Nazi phenomenon against the Jews. And, who were the Jews that were killed? The Jews that were killed, were not these Nazi type, which we see in Israel predominantly today. It was not the Sharons. It was the followers of Moses Mendelssohn. And you look at the great leaders of the Jewish reform movement—which does not mean Reform Judaism, it means reform movement of Judaism; it includes people, who are, religiously, Orthodox Jews, but were part of this great reform, as Moses Mendelssohn was, to the end of his life. But, it was a great reform movement, which resulted, with the help of the intervention of Joseph II of Austria, in the political liberation of the Jews.

Now, the political liberation of the German Jew, brought about a great revolution in Germany! You look at the inspiration, of the intellectual life of the Jew, who was liberated, in Germany, and in Austria: Their contribution to German culture, is such, that you could not speak of a German Classical culture, without speaking about the role of the German Jew, as doctor, as scientist, as poet, so forth—as musician—in this process. This movement, from Germany, and from Austria, of the liberated Jew, under the influence of the great Classical revolution by Moses Mendelssohn, spread into Eastern Europe, and became known as the "Yiddish Renaissance," throughout parts of Slavic-speaking Eastern Europe. These people were a precious part of our culture. They were not Christians; they were Jews. But they were in ecumenical agreement with Christianity: That is, they were brothers, in the sense of monotheistic brothers. And, they made a great contribution to civilization.

Suddenly, once the Jew was established, as being an integral part, of some of the best of German culture, Germany, in the form of Hitler, turned upon the Jews, not only in Germany, and in Austria, but also throughout Eastern Europe; and committed a terrible, great crime against them. Under these conditions, people fled into Israel, in the post-war period. Out of sheer horror; sheer horror at what they had lived through. And the state was not a good one. But, they still continued, in Israel, part of that policy.

In 1975-76, there was a change: At that time, I was working with the Middle Eastern forces from the United States, for a peace—a Palestinian-Israeli peace. And, I worked with some leading figures in Israel, on this, as I did at a later point. And, then, they warned me in '75: "We've got to succeed now. This is our last chance." They meant, that what was coming into power, were the fascists. And, the fascists were the followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky. And, the one who came into power, was not the worst of them—with the founding of the Likud, then. But, later on, there was a real degeneration, within Israel: The economy degenerated; people fled Israel; they went back to Europe, the United States; they left behind. And, then they began a recruitment, into Israel, of people from all over the world, who were kept in ignorance and poverty, in a broken-down economy, with no expression—an economy based on rage; based on a sense of conflict. And nobody would intervene, to change that. There were promises from Europe, from the United States, to change that: to bring about a true peace, between Israelis and Palestinians, based on a permanent settlement of state rights, on the basis of the 1967 settlement on borders. It never occurred.

And, continuing to this day, the same people, typified by Kissinger, by Brzezinski, by Huntington, and others, from Britain and the United States—and some people who are nominally Jewish, very wealthy Jews of the so-called "Mega" group in New York City—have continued to push this policy, of Hell in the Middle East.

So, you tend to get into an anti-Semitic kind of thing we would wish to avoid, when you say, "Well, the Jews created Israel. From the beginning, it was bad." From the beginning, it was imperfect; it was an imperfect response to a terrible situation. We tried to learn how to live with it, and try to bring this thing to a peaceful resolution, based on the European tradition of the Treaty of Westphalia: that we can not have religious war, on this planet, under any circumstances. There must be a way, to find, or seek, at least, a durable, just peace, as a way of avoidance of war. We can not have any more religious war. And, that is the problem.

On the other question—no, the economy is disintegrating. This is not a crash, which has been going on; it's been going on for 35 years. We've now come to the point: It's finished. You'll find in my treatment of this "Triple Curve," which I use as a pedagogical device, you'll find the data corresponds precisely to that [Figure 1]. We have reached the crossover point: This thing is finished, right now. We will not be talking about this economy, ten years from now. This system is finished.

Q: What is your opinion about the contribution that telecommunications and the Internet can make to the development of the world economy?

LaRouche: There's a difference between—"communications" has been used in the wrong way. You have the followers of Bertrand Russell, typified by the cases of Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann, who were essentially altar acolytes of this heathen Bertrand Russell, and followers of Russell's Principia Mathematica as a doctrine. In the 1960s, Russell had a conference in Philadelphia, at the University of Pennsylvania, which he conducted in conjunction with the head of the University of Chicago, Hutchins, which was called the "Unification of the Sciences" project, at which these radical-positivist policies were pushed. One of the outcomes of this, was the establishment, through the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, of a project, which became known as "cybernetics." The project was pushed, by using Norbert Wiener, with his famous book—which is essentially incompetent, in its essential function—on information theory. Now, information theory is incompetent. It's intrinsically incompetent. It doesn't work. But, it is pure Bertrand Russell.

John von Neumann—who was another maniac, actually; he invented the johniac, but he's actually a maniac—developed a similar cult, called "systems analysis." You had, in the immediate post-war period, a school called "systems analysis," which was based in London at Cambridge University among the Cambridge group of systems analysis. This was the basis for the Club of Rome; it was the basis for the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenberg, Austria, and so forth. And, this group of people, were integral to the development of what became known as "the new, utopian theory of warfare and society."

This is what is behind the thrust toward war right now, this utopian policy. It denies humanity, because what Russell hated—what Wiener hated; what John von Neumann hated—they denied everything positive, in terms of the method of scientific development, of the 18th and 19th Century: the work of Leibniz; the work of Gauss; the work of Carnot; the work of Gauss and Gauss's followers, such as Dirichlet, and Riemann; and so forth. So, the real science was excluded, by these guys.

Now, what comes along, is that they say that, by mere information, communication of information, will cause scientific and technological progress. It will not. What causes scientific and technological progress is discovery of principle. The example of this, is one of the most famous cases in scientific history: the famous paper, by Gauss, in 1799, adjunct to his famous Disquisitiones, in which he refuted, forever, the argument of Euler, on the question of so-called "imaginary numbers," in defining the complex domain as a physical concept, which was later developed by Riemann.

That is the way in which the economy actually works.

Now, the communications system is useful, but it will never generate economic growth. The way you generate economic growth, is by scientific discovery, of the type that is performed, as proof of principle, in laboratories. The way in which you develop, is not by Ernst Mach, but by Max Planck. And, that's the difference.

So, the so-called "information revolution," is a fraud: It's doomed. The real economy is collapsing, and will collapse, permanently, internationally.

Computer technology and communications technology will not die. But, the idea of using it as a substitute for creativity, will fail. We simply will take the computer industry, we'll take communications technology—we will apply them, as tools of communications, and tools for accounting and similar kinds of things. We will use them. But, we will not say that, "This creates new wealth," or "creates new ideas." It is simply a tool, like any other tool, of doing a job. So, we'll save the tool, and throw out the theory.

Q: I am speaking also as a member of the International Commission of Jurists, and I see that your association is addressing also the safeguard of civil rights. In your opinion, is the level of human and civil rights in the United States better or worse, compared to Europe? Italy, through its participation in the European Organization for the Rights of Man, is part of an agreement including 43 states—Europe, Asia. There is a very advanced safeguard for human rights, even if not well known. The United States did not sign the Convention of the International Court concerning International Rights. What can you tell me?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, on the general question of civil rights in the United States, versus Europe: We had a great movement for civil rights, which was, at one point, led by Martin Luther King. We succeeded—and, my associates were involved in this; I was indirectly involved in it, at the time—in securing two bills, signed by President Johnson in 1964, on Civil Rights, and the Voting Rights Act. This bill has been subsequently repealed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 1966, when Richard Nixon, then campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, campaigned in Mississippi, he met with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, and similar groups—including Trent Lott, who's now the Minority Leader of the Senate—and based his campaign on revival of racism in the United States. So, since 1966, there has been a reversal of progress in Civil Rights, in the United States. There has been a concomitant reversal, in terms of political rights and Civil Rights, in terms of law practice in general. There has been a qualitative degeneration in the U.S. Supreme Court, since the middle of the 1970s. The present majority of the Supreme Court is, probably, not really human, so, it's difficult to talk about human rights, with this court, which does not recognize humanity. Maybe one or two on the court might turn to humanity, on one exceptional occasion. But, the most important spokesman on the court, which is Antonin Scalia, the Associate Justice: This man is evil! He's pure evil! And, "human rights" do not exist in his vocabulary.

So, we have a mess, in the United States. The characteristic problem of the United States, since the 1820s, has been that, in the 1820s, a group of British-led bankers, called the "American Tories" (American Tory Party: that's an official designation in the United States!) began to join with Southern slaveholding plantation owners, in a revival of the importation of slaves into the United States, in conjunction with the Spanish monarchy. The Spanish monarchy was one of the major people, who brought slaves back into the United States.

And, the New York bankers, typified by the Democratic Party, of Andrew Jackson, Martin van Buren, James Polk, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, was the party of treason and racism. Lincoln reversed that process, to a large degree, at the cost of a great, real revolution, in American politics.

In 1901, we had the assassination of McKinley. And, already, Grover Cleveland had introduced what became known as "Jim Crow," which was a reversal of Civil Rights, under Cleveland, who was a Democrat from New York. Then, under Teddy Roosevelt, who was the nephew of the chief of intelligence for the Confederacy, during the Civil War, and trained by him, became the President of the United States, through assassination. He, as President, introduced the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who was a Ku Klux Klan fanatic.

So, the history of the United States, internally, is rocked, by an American Tory faction, which is either racist, or outright pro-slavery, throughout its history, since the 1820s. And, on the other side, an American Intellectual Tradition, which I represent, and others represent, and Franklin Roosevelt represented.

So, in the United States, you have the peculiarity, of this particular struggle, with its American Tory faction, which is traditionally racist, and is racist, to the present day; then, you have, on the other hand, the American intellectual, constitutional tradition, which other people represent, and we sometimes accomplish the very best, internationally, in terms of Civil Rights.

Since the acquisition of power, in 1966, control over the government—even though Johnson was still President—through the Vietnam War, and other changes, the hegemonic tendency in the United States, has been this utopian faction, which is damn evil! And, in that respect, as you see in Europe, today, Western Europe is much more progressive, on human rights, and civil rights, than the United States itself is, generally—and that's the case. And, we have to fight to change it.

But, it's a complex question. We have to admit the truth, state the truth, and define how we are going to proceed to change it! We have some people—you know, Ramsey Clark is not only an attorney of mine, but he's a friend of mine. I don't always agree with him. But we have our friends in Austria, who also work on these problems, with other groups. And, we would hope that, somehow, by continuing to fight, with sympathetic people, we will make progress on these issues. But we're going to have to fight.

Q: Professor LaRouche, in the days following the tragedy of Sept. 11, you stated that you did not believe it was a terrorist operation, but rather a special strategic covert operation including U.S., British, and Israeli forces. Are you still convinced of this?

LaRouche: Well, I didn't say it after Sept. 11: I said it while it was happening. I happened to be on a radio interview at 9 o'clock in the morning, Eastern Daylight Time, at the time; being interviewed live, in Salt Lake City, on a fairly influential talk radio out there. And, as we were sitting there, doing the interview, the radio and television reports came pouring in, on what was happening in New York City. And, as you may know, included in my background, is a certain degree of special expertise in strategic issues. So, I know the internal characteristics, in general, of U.S. security policy and capabilities. And, because I recognize that, I recognized that, what I heard coming over the television screen, and over the radio, could not possibly be done by anybody from outside the United States. There might be one or two people from outside the United States, collaborating with it. But, this kind of plot, this is a very ultra-high-security type of operation. And, you can not do that, without complicity at the very highest level, from within—rogue elements, within the U.S. military command, at the top level.

I don't know who the guys were; I suspect who they were. I don't know. So, I'm not saying, because I don't know.

But, I do know what the interest was. It was the utopian crowd, who follow the policy of Brzezinski, Kissinger, Huntington, and so forth. That's one. Secondly, the purpose was: Remember, if you go back in your files, you'll notice that, prior to Sept. 11, even on Sept. 10, that George Bush was moving for U.S. official declaration of a Palestinian state in the Middle East. And he was stopped from doing that, by what happened on Sept. 11. Now, that does not mean that the Israelis were involved. There is indication, of a massive Israeli military-intelligence penetration of U.S. military installations, during that period. That's a fact; I've been involved in the investigation myself; I'm not taking it second-hand. It's true. It happened.

As to whether the Israeli operations, inside the U.S. military, had anything to do with the actual action of Sept. 11: I don't know. I do know, they were a pollutant in the atmosphere, and that Israel is probably the only possible source of accomplices for an operation of that type. But, I don't think the U.S. military would trust them. I mean, if you're going to run a coup d'état, you're not going to tell everybody and his brother, that you're running a military coup d'état, of that type. You're going to keep it as secret as possible. Even the people who are going to be deployed, won't know exactly what they're doing. That's the way you run a coup d'état. There are a number of them you can study, in modern world history: They all work like that.

So, what we do know, is the purpose of the operation, is what we see. What happened, is what happened. What happened is, the Clash of Civilizations war was put on the agenda immediately. In attacking an Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with Sept. 11; attacking Osama bin Laden, whom Bush is no longer interested in finding, by his own words; he had nothing to do with it. It was simply an opportunistic operation, to show muscle, in response to an attack, inside the United States. And, that's all there is to it. So, there's nothing really very complicated about it, if you understand what this is like, how it works. It's happened; it expresses a certain political tendency, inside the United States, inside the U.S. military, in other institutions. It's a policy, which everybody in power in Europe knows—the Clash of Civilizations policy. That's what the issue is. And, what happened on Sept. 11, obviously, was intended to, and did, set into motion, the Clash of Civilizations effort, which is now such things as the Middle East crisis and the threat on Iraq. But, that's only part of it; there're other parts of the world, also. We've now a permanent war in Afghanistan, started, and so forth and so on.

Q: I am a Catholic priest. You have an intuition that in my opinion is very prophetic. I really hope that good people will listen, because as an African, and as a missionary, I have a direct experience of what this system has produced in Africa, and above all among my people. I saw children dying every day, in my arms. When they came asking me for help, many times I found myself without any means to help them, because the system was causing their death.

For Africa, you propose aid in basic economic infrastructure, and to activate this, you start with what you call a Eurasian Land-Bridge. I think you know that the heads of state from Africa presented a sort of Marshall Plan for Africa, known as New Africa Initiative, done with the collaboration of the international community. My question is: How do you view this program, in relation to your proposal for a Eurasian Land-Bridge that would also spread to Africa?

LaRouche: The problem is, that the United States government, the British government, and the Israeli government, are, through various instrumentalities, the chief perpetrators of evil in Africa. This is done largely through mercenary forces, as you know, from being on the ground in Angola: There are official forces, but there are also mercenary forces. And, the mercenary forces are ready to go into action, whenever the official forces don't. We have a pattern of wars, radiating from the Great Lakes district of Africa, throughout all of Africa. And, a recent renewal of the war in Angola, as a by-product of what is happening. If you look at the map, for example, of Congo, today, you see that it's occupied territory, under the auspices of a number of neighboring African states. But, you look inside the areas they occupy, and you find things like George Bush's interest with Barrick Gold, up there in the northern part of Congo. And Barrick Gold is operated with a mercenary army, under the influence of these other armies, which are running all over that country, and looting it.

So, I tried to deal with this, during the Clinton Administration, by putting as much pressure as I could on the Clinton Administration; to say, "You must do something about this genocide in Africa. You must stop the support of these agencies, which are doing this. You must pull the American and British—get the American and British and Israelis out of there, with their mercenary operations: for diamonds, and gold, and other things, they're just taking out, by looting the place!"

And, the policy, of course, for Africa, is the policy which was set forth by Henry Kissinger in National Security Study Memorandum 200, in the year 1974, which said, in specific, on Africa: that Africa is overpopulated by Africans! And, the danger is that the Africans, by continuing to live and by overpopulating that territory (and, of course, as you know, it's not overpopulated, in terms of potential, by any means), are using up valuable natural resources, which future generations in the United States and Europe will require.

So, we have a policy of deliberate genocide, expressed, and integrated—confirmed by the Carter Administration, when it was going out—or, the Brzezinski Administration, better called—leaving office with Global 2000, which is a firm policy of the United States, to the present day, of promoting genocide in Africa and other parts of the world, in order to protect valuable natural resources for their looting, of the people who live in those countries! So, you have this process in motion.

Therefore, the problem does not lie so much in getting support for African countries, because African nations have been willing, many times, to try to do something for themselves, even good things for themselves—apart from imposed solutions. The problem has been: How do you get the monster off their back? They're terrified! They're crushed! Coups are run! The resources of the government are controlled by foreign powers—in the case of Angola, as you know. Where are the resources that the government depends upon? Who supplies them? There are foreign powers that control those resources! In any one of these countries, foreign powers—usually Anglo-American, or South African-based—control these resources! The governments have no control. If we remove the negative role of the Anglo-American and Israeli forces from Africa, then, what we could propose, would begin to work!

What is needed, of course, is large-scale infrastructure projects. And there are things that are obvious: You've got soft infrastructure and heavy. You have the infrastructure of water management, power, transportation. You have also, the treatment of plant and animal diseases, to make agriculture work, because Africa has tremendous agricultural potential—for it to export!—among other things. Also, you've got to have human infrastructure: education and health-care systems. We have diseases, which are suppurating in Africa. Previously unknown diseases in Europe, which could hit Europe at any time—and are beginning to hit Europe. From areas where these diseases were isolated pockets in Africa. And, also the transformation of the so-called human immunodeficiency virus diseases, which can undergo great transmutation and can become a threat to humanity, generally. So, we need the human infrastructure—the soft infrastructure—education, health care, and so forth, as well as the hard infrastructure, of transportation, power, water management, and so forth, on the other side.

And, so, I think that Europe and the United States, should, among others, contribute, to that hard infrastructure, and other infrastructure.

Of course, I believe that Africans will have to do it for themselves. But, I believe the only reason we can't do that—we've tried to do it many times—is because: Every time you try to do it, either the British interest steps in; the American interest steps in; and the Israelis have their hands in there, on the diamonds or gold or something else, and that's why it doesn't work.

So, I say, "Yes! We must do these things. We must support these things." But, even if governments, such as European governments, support these measures, they still run into the problem, that the place they're trying to help, will be destroyed by a coup d'état, organized by somebody from the outside.