LAROUCHE WEBCAST
Implications of the Gore Hoax
For International Policy
Here is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's keynote address to a LaRouche PAC webcast from Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2007. He was introduced by Lawrence Freeman, and the subsequent open discussion was moderated by LaRouche's East Coast spokeswoman, Debra Freeman. (Subheads have been added.)[PDF version of webcast transcript]
[Video and audio archive of the webcast]
Lawrence Freeman: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to welcome you to this international webcast event, featuring physical economist and international statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. We'd like to welcome the audience here in Washington, D.C., that managed to make it through the snow on the way to this event. And by way of introduction, I'll simply tell you that Mr. Al Gore is not very happy with Mr. LaRouche. And I will leave it to Mr. LaRouche to fill you in, as to why that's the case.
LaRouche: Thank you. You have perhaps noted that global warming has struck Washington, hard. Since Gore began talking about this nonsense, the weather has gone cold all over North America: We've had record storms in the Midwest; we have a record low temperature right now at Washington, D.C., for this time of year. So, everything seems to be saying, God seems to saying, "Gore is wrong!"
And he is wrong. But he's professional about it. He's professional about it.
Now, to situate the current situation—Gore's only a minor part of it—we're now gripped by the greatest financial collapse globally in modern world history. It's under way. It's like a landslide. It's coming on: It's started; it's not going to stop.
Now, these are not mechanical events. You can not predict a date of a depression generally, and this is worse than a depression; this is a breakdown crisis. Because there are many factors of human will which can intervene to change the date. But the condition under which a breakdown will occur, can be foreseen in a certain approximate time frame. We have now entered the time frame, where a general breakdown of the world financial-economic system is now inevitable.
That does not mean the situation's hopeless. It does mean that the situation's hopeless, unless, certain measures are taken to prevent the breakdown from continuing.
Now, the solution is to reorganize the planet, because we have a situation in which the entire international financial-monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. There are, really, no independent banks left in the United States, for example, and a similar situation exists in Europe. The banking system of every part of the world, especially Europe and the Americas, is bankrupt.
Now, a bankruptcy is an interesting phenomenon, because at any point, under natural law, a government can declare its financial system to be bankrupt, and under law put the system into receivership for management. You can say, that foreclosures will not occur; that payments on pensions will continue, things of that sort; that credit will be available from the government for needed purposes, to keep the economy functioning, and for other purposes. So the bankruptcy of a financial system is not in itself an inevitable catastrophe. It may be a catastrophe for some of the bankers. But it's not necessarily a catastrophe for a nation: If the nation uses the sovereign powers of government, to deal with the problem, the worst effects of a bankruptcy can be averted, and time can be given for reconstruction to build back a self-sufficient economy all over again.
The Queen and the Cayman Islands
Right now, the amount of indebtedness outstanding is greater than ever could be repaid, so the system is hopelessly bankrupt. There is no independent bank in the United States. What's happened: Well, the Queen of England is controlling the world financial system, because the biggest factor in international affairs involves hedge funds and similar kinds of things which are controlled from a set of islands in the Caribbean, where the cayman crocodiles are out there, to eat you. And this island, which is wholly owned by the Queen of England, is the world headquarters for the financial speculation which is going worldwide: the Cayman Islands. There are a few other islands which also function similarly, including the Isle of Man in England. The key banking institution of record in this is the Bank of Scotland and Halifax, which is the British royal family's personal, favorite bank.
But the British monarchy controls the world financial banking system. The U.S. banks, including your major banks in the United States, are now in a subsidiary situation relative to this crisis. It is the Cayman Islands and similar kinds of institutions associated with hedge funds, which are controlling the international monetary-financial system. There's no possible way, that you could have a bankruptcy now, without a general collapse of the world economy as well as the United States banking system: except, that the government intervenes, to take precautionary actions, to put the system into receivership for reorganization, and that is the only way that we can get through this.
Now what we're going to have to do, is the following: This means we're going to have to replace the current President of the United States. We're going to have send the Vice President to places where he belongs. Mr. Libby may have suggestions on that point. To have a President, because our system does not function without a President, and we don't have a functional President on the premises. We have a dummy—worse than a dummy, a mean-spirited dummy, who has no comprehension of anything. And therefore, we require Presidential action, with the support of the Congress, to take the measures which are protectionist measures to save the American System itself from a disintegration process, which is already under way. I'll explain what this phenomenon is, in due course, but first give you the outline of what we're up against.
The Greenspan Bubble
What's happened, essentially, is that in 1987, in October of 1987, the United States experienced a depression, a Wall Street depression, parallel, exactly, to October-November 1929. At that point, the head of the Federal Reserve System was being replaced by Alan Greenspan, who was nominated to come in. Alan Greenspan said, "Hold everything, until I get in there. I'm going to fix it." What Greenspan did, was to create what is really an illegal form of money, through the Federal Reserve System, through credit, and used things like Fannie Mae, mortgages and mortgage-based securities, and things like that, to finance inflationary financing of the U.S. and world economy. This was followed up by the exploitation of the collapse of the Soviet system, where the British and the United States together connived, and looted Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for some years. This helped to stave off the depression.
The mortgage bubble buildup in the United States, together with what's called the Y2K bubble—that is, the so-called "fix the computer systems" by investing in the computer market—in 1999-2000 this thing came to an end. It was no longer going to to work. But they kept it going. What they came into, was phony types of mortgages, which became the subprime mortgage market: That is, people were investing in taking loans out, mortgages out, for acquisition of properties when they had essentially no equity in the property.
So, this was piled on as a new mortgage influx, to sustain the system. The Y2K bubble had collapsed in the Spring of 2000. The mortgage bubble built up on the basis of conventional mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so forth, this had reached a point of virtual saturation, relative to the requirements of the economy to keep it going. So, various things were added, the subprime market—then they went into the wildest of all gambling, which is the hedge fund type of gambling, which is actually a way of moving in, grabbing assets, looting the assets, destroying the company you take over, and moving on to the next one. The amount of debt that is built up in the system, is so great, there's no scheduling of repayment of the debt which could get us safely out of bankruptcy, global bankruptcy.
Under these conditions, you have a hopelessly bankrupt system, which is based largely on the Japanese yen, the overnight borrowing of the yen and similar kinds of things, which are used to feed the banks—but not the regular banks here, not the regular banks of the world, but to feed special banking institutions which are engaged in this wild-eyed speculation. And it all goes through the Queen of England's own nest, centered on the Cayman Islands, which is the real command headquarters of international finance today. This is ready to blow. And the breakdown of the subprime mortgage market, which is the front end of the capitulation of the entire mortgage bubble in the United States: Imagine a collapse of mortgage values, or titles, from $700,000 to $200,000 and less. That's the kind of situation which is building up, not far from here in Northern Virginia, as in Loudoun County; building up elsewhere. We're at the end of the game.
We're Coming to the End of the Road
Now, look at the Gore problem in that connection. Where's the Congress? The Congress is engaged in two great swindles. Swindle #1, biofuels. There's no possible way that this biofuels swindle could work. Because what the system requires—it consumes, actually, in raw, caloric terms, the production of this fuel produces less fuel in terms of power, than it consumes. In other words, there's no net gain from so-called biofuels. It's also an idiotic thing to do, because what biofuels means is reducing food! It means going into corn production for fuels, at a loss; that is, you get less power out of the fuel than you put into making it! This would mean destruction of the landscape, destruction of the entire economy, mass starvation around the world. It would destroy whole areas of food producing. Idiocy!
Then they come up with another thing, which Gore came up with—and this tells you something about the character of government these days: In 2001, we began to go into a world war. We got into the war, because the President of the United States lied. The Vice President of the United States lied. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lied. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister lied by causing the death of [David] Kelly, who had exposed the fraud of his lies—in order to get the lies through, and protect the lies, Kelly died. Joe Wilson was sacrificed here, for similar reasons: to cover up the lie, that the President had made—had lied! The Vice President had lied. Others had lied.
But above all, Blair, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had lied.
So, we're now in a maelstrom mess, in Southwest Asia, and elsewhere. We're losing the U.S. military. We still have naval forces and we still have an aircraft capability, but in terms of ground forces, we're losing it. We're losing the U.S. Army, we're losing the Marines and so forth. The scandal about Walter Reed Hospital, the lack of care for veterans returning from the combat in Southwest Asia, is typical. We are destroying the U.S. military. We are destroying the U.S. economy. The only part of the economy that's working significantly, is that which is being used to loot the U.S. government for the military production and operations, which are done under a civilian heading, rather than a military heading.
We're coming to the end of the road. There is no growth. Every part of Western and Central Europe is collapsing. The United Kingdom's basic economy is collapsing. The U.S. internal economy is physically collapsing. And you have this kind of situation: We have a global depression. But worse than a depression, because this means it's a breakdown crisis. It doesn't mean that you go for a period of unemployment and so forth. This means a genuine breakdown crisis, from which civilization would not spontaneously recover.
Where the Solution Lies
Now, there's a solution for this: The solution lies in the use of great political power. That doesn't mean dictatorship, it means a cooperation of groups of nations which represent great power. There are four such nations on this planet. One is still the United States, and the United States is key to orchestrating any remedy for the collapsing financial system, because we have the technology, built into our Constitution, for dealing with a crisis like this. It's worse than Roosevelt faced, but the same approach will work.
We have Russia, a major nation. China, with over 1.3 billion people, is a major nation. India with over 1 billion people is a major nation. If these four nations agree to support, in concert, a remedial action for the state of the world economy, and the state of world peace, it will happen. Because with that array of power, other nations will join that combination, and we will have a combination for recovery of the world's economy.
You have, for example, a mood in India: India wishes to have a large-scale development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, to provide what is needed for India. China is moving in that direction. Russia is moving in that direction. France is thinking of moving in that direction. Italy is thinking of moving in that direction. Poland is thinking about getting into nuclear power now, and so forth and so on. Because, without nuclear fission power, there's no possibility of survival of civilization.
Take the case of southern India, for example: typical problem. Southern India is depleted of water—a whole group of combinations in the post-war period helped to create this situation. Actually, the average temperature in southern India has risen significantly, as a result of the cutting down of the trees, which are used for fuel for cooking. Also, the southern part of India is in dire straits because of a lack of water. It has been drawing on fossil water reserves, in large degree, and the fossil water reserves are not being replaced. Now therefore, if you have—and India has a large stock of thorium—if you have the thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor model, in orders from 100 MW to 900 MW, you can in India, bespeckle the landscape with nuclear power, in order to do desalination, on a large scale. And nuclear power is the only efficient method of desalination. At a lower energy-flux-density, you can not efficiently, economically, desalinate on a large scale.
China is going to have to do the same thing. Around the world, we have a freshwater shortage, especially for human consumption and related consumption. For example, the Ogallala Aquifer in the Western United States is subsiding, sinking. Whole sections of the country that used to be prosperous, in terms of food production, are now dead, becoming arid, becoming deserts. We can, with nuclear power, we can economically increase the supply of freshwater, through desalination. We can also, by the same methods, we can produce synthetic fuels, from water, through nuclear power, which are called hydrogen-based fuels. Hydrogen-based fuels are the most efficient chemical fuels in existences. We can use them, produce them regionally and locally. We do not have to import oil; we do not have to use inferior methods of production.
So, that's a major industry. We also have a raw materials management problem. We have sufficient raw material assets on this planet available to us, to meet human requirements, for an expanding population. But! We must manage this. This requires the development of what we call an isotope economy. Which means moving toward controlled thermonuclear fusion as a source of management of these mineral resources. And it's not just a matter of quantity; we could get the quantity—the oceans are full of minerals; the greatest amount of the mineral resources of the planet are located in the oceans. But that's not the most efficient place to get them from. And therefore, we must think about the cost, the relative physical cost, of maintaining supplies of needed raw materials. And we're at the point where we could synthesize isotopes of a type that otherwise do not exist freely in nature, of the type we require. As a matter of fact, already one of the biggest by products of fission products, is the development of isotopes which are used in medicine.
So, these are the kinds of things we have to do.
We move in that direction. We move away from a post-industrial society, back to an agricultural and industrial society. We move into building large-scale infrastructure, to transform the land areas of the world, into fruitful ones. We have, for example, in this area around Washington, you have whole parts of the United States that used to be agricultural areas, that used to be industrial areas: like the Midwest, like the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana. These states are now becoming destitute. They used to be the prime source of agricultural production and industrial production.
What happens? The people move away. Whole parts of the nation, the Western states and so forth, are becoming desert areas, in terms of economy.
So therefore, we have to rebuild the national economy. And we have to cooperate with other nations of the world, in building a system, a treaty system to create a new monetary system in order to organize credit over a 50-year period to come, which will meet these objectives.
Insanity of the Baby Boomers
That's the only realistic answer. The other things that you're getting, like the Gore thing—why is Gore's policy tolerated in maybe one-third or more of the members of this Congress, right now? Why? It's a form of insanity. But it's a form of insanity which is a mark of the times, it's a mark of the culture. You had, in the course of the 1980s and 1990s, the leadership of our economy which was dominated into that period by people of my generation. Those people went out of the economy. They died out, they retired, they lost skills, went out of production. And gradually, the key positions of power were occupied by people in the Baby-Boomer class.
Now, "Baby Boomer" is not an age-group. A Baby Boomer is characteristic of a certain age-group, but a certain membership in that age-group. And that is, the so-called "white-collar class": the people who were born, usually into white-collar-oriented culture, between 1945 and 1956, between the end of World War II and the 1957 Recession, which came as a shock. And the 1957 Recession, which came '57 through '61 and so forth, was a cultural shock, for that entire generation.
And this is the generation with the white-collar mentality. If you went back to the 1950s and you would look at things like Dr. Spock (the book, that is): how to raise a baby, how to turn a baby into a monster. And you had the white-collar syndrome. Look at the books of the time, The Organization Man, White Collar, and so forth—these books, social studies on the cultural changes that were occurring in the minds of a whole section of little kiddies, of that period. These little kiddies became the 68er generation. They were the ones who went to the leading colleges, to the best opportunities on the universities—and what did they do? They took their clothes off, they had strange sex with animals and things like that, or whatever it was they did to amuse themselves; as one thing after another became boring, "try another one"! I think several sexes were invented during this period of time!
So this generation was actually comparable, because of the way it was influenced, by calculation, in Western and Central Europe, and in the United States, and to some degree South and Central America, they were conditioned to be a replica of what was done under the Cult of Dionysus, in ancient Greek civilization, which is the source of sophistry: Destroy the society, destroy the culture, destroy the cities. As a matter of fact, in the 1966-68 period, you had professors who specialized in this aspect of history, who were organizing the most radical so-called "left" of that period, which actually was the most "right" of that period, also—these were the terrorist generation—and organizing them around the idea of terrorism, on the doctrine of the ancient Cult of Dionysus. For example, you had people organized around the Gaea cult. The Gaea cult is the mother-version of the Dionysian cult. And we had a whole generation of our people, systemically, through television, through mass media, through educational programs, who were conditioned to become a special generation which has no compassion—these are not the blue-collar population, but the white-collar—no compassion for their antecedents, and no compassion for their descendants. Absolutely unique in U.S. history, in European cultural history.
Every generation, prior to that, took pride in the sacrifice or other things they did, for the sake of their children's and grandchildren's betterment. Every generation thought of the care for its parents' generation. Every generation thought of two generations back—typical were the American immigrants, who came from Italy or other places, who came to the United States, as poor immigrants; got off the boat, went into places like Brooklyn, which were the receiving areas for these great influxes through Ellis Island; and within two generations, people who had come into the United States as poor people, were doctors, scientists, and so forth, of that generation. The American ideal of the melting pot, was not simply the melting pot idea, it was the idea that you bring people in, they come into the United States, seeking opportunity; they work their way up, they sacrifice for their children, their grandchildren; their grandchildren are usually their pride. And their pride, the fact that they'd made these sacrifices, in their personal life, in order to ensure that they produced a generation which would achieve, two generations ahead.
This was the American ideal. This was the American ideal from the time my first ancestors came to this country, in the second quarter of the 17th Century. From that point on, always the idea was to build a nation, and to build the people in it: to increase the freedom, the skill, the power of the individual in society. To give meaning to life today, because of the future that you're bringing forth by raising children and grandchildren and whatnot, and the changes you're making.
Paradigm-Shift After FDR's Death
So what happened was, in the post-war period, people who hated Franklin Roosevelt, who took over the country, by and large, almost on the moment of his death, joined up with Churchill and said, "We're not going to let the world be run by the United States. We're not going to let Franklin Roosevelt's ideal for the post-war period be realized. We're going to not decolonize!" And they didn't decolonize! The Japanese soldiers who had been put into internment camps in Vietnam, were taken out of the prison camps and given their weapons back by the British—to recolonize Indo-China! And the Netherlands Indies: A freedom movement existed and established itself by resistance against the Japanese during that period. The Dutch, the Anglo-Dutch moved in, with U.S. backing, to conduct a long war of suppression and denial of freedom, to a group of people who had already had their freedom!
This is the same thing around the world: Where the promise had been, with Roosevelt, to free the people of the world, to create a community of nations, which would cooperate with one another, for the common interest of freedom, but also to preserve the culture of those nations! And to keep the power and control over the culture of those nations within the people of that culture! That was Roosevelt's commitment, in places, for example as in Morocco, where he confronted Churchill on this question.
So what happened? The Churchill crowd, and what he represented in Britain, together with the scoundrels in the United States, when Roosevelt died, what did they do? They told Truman about the nuclear weapons. Roosevelt had not told Truman, the Vice President, about the nuclear weapons—at that time, the President didn't tell the Vice President such things. He was just sitting there and waiting. So, what Churchill insisted upon, with the advice of Lord Russell, Bertrand Russell, was to use the weapons—nuclear weapons, we had only two, they were both prototypes; one was a uranium prototype, the other was a plutonium prototype: two weapons. We dropped the only two nuclear weapons we had—or were to have for some time to come—on two civilian populations: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The purpose of that, was to inform the world, that the Anglo-Americans were going to use nuclear weapons to intimidate the world, as Russell himself said publicly, to intimidate the world into accepting world government. To eliminate the nation-state as an institution and establish a system of world government.
A World Empire
Now the intention to do that, in a different way, exists today, centered in the United Kingdom, and in people inside the United States and elsewhere, who share that kind of mentality. The intention is to eliminate the idea of the nation-state on this planet, and if nation-states were allowed, they will be simply administrative units, under world government: called globalization. To destroy the power of production in presently industrialized nations, and to move industry and disperse it through former colonial nations, underdeveloped nations, of poor people, as we see oppressed now.
The intention is, to destroy what the United States represented. To establish a kind of world empire, which in some features resembles what the medieval period was, when you had Venetian bankers and Norman Crusaders, with their little killing operations running the world, to return to that kind of system. This is what, explicitly, George Shultz proposes! This is explicitly what Felix Rohatyn proposes! This is explicitly what Cheney proposed, when he was Secretary of Defense, and what he's proposed, and implemented as Vice President of the United States. This is the policy!
And, sitting in London, are the people who are behind the Cayman Islands operation—which is the center of world economy, today, which is about to blow up!—there's the problem. Whereas, if those nations which believe that every people has a right to sovereignty of its nation, true sovereignty, and it's cooperation among sovereign nation-states that must run the planet, not some power, not some superpower, then we have a chance. If you have the United States, Russia, China, and India agree on that, despite whatever differences they have on other questions, if they agree on that, we can unite the world to stop this nonsense. It's our only chance at this point. And we are running out of time.
The Purpose Is To Destroy the United States
Now, what Gore represents is simply that.
Look, as I said, look what happened, in this thing in Southwest Asia. Why are we in a war, a continuing war in Southwest Asia? Why did somebody want to do that, and why'd they keep doing it? We've got two aspects to it: Number 1: Because, the purpose was, among other things, to destroy the United States. See, the United States was, even at that point, a great power. In terms of aerial, military power, its other, naval power, we were the tops in the world. But! You couldn't destroy the United States from outside at that point—but you could destroy it from inside. And we were being destroyed from inside: That was the mission of George W. Bush. How do you destroy us from the inside? Get us involved, as we were involved in the 1960s. How were we destroyed in the 1960s? Well, they killed Kennedy. And that was not by some guy called Oswald. Kennedy had become a pain, a threat to many people in the Anglo-American Establishment, and he was eliminated. That simple.
Everybody was terrified.
Because he was killed, we went ahead with the Vietnam, Indo-China War, which he was going to pull us out of. What did it do, the war, from 1964, the end of '64 through '72? It destroyed the United States to a large degree, internally. It coincided with the 68er eruption, and those considerations destroyed the United States, as it had been.
On that basis, the banking system, the international banking system, the fixed-exchanged-rate system, collapsed. With some help from London, through George Shultz, collapsed. We were destroyed from the inside!
We were sent into a ruinous war! The same way that ancient Greece, ancient Athens was destroyed by going into wars it shouldn't have gone into! Committing crimes against the people of the island of Melos, and other crimes. And you had the Peloponnesian War, which destroyed Greek civilization as a power—forever! since that time.
That's how you do it. Get your victim into a war, in which he ruins himself—and then move in on him. What's happening to us? We went into a war in Southwest Asia, which we had no business getting into. There was no reason to do that; there was no problem that required military action by the United States. It required cleverness, it required diplomacy. It required resolution, imagination. But war was not the solution. There were many things we could have done to deal with the situation. But that was not a situation which required war. We were brought into a war, where there were no grounds for war! The grounds were what? Regime change! Saddam Hussein never had superweapons, in this period, none! The idea he did was a lie! The President of the United States lied! The Vice President of the United States lied! The Prime Minister of Great Britain was the biggest liar of them all.
We went into a war which ruined the United States, by being drawn into a protracted war which has cost us billions. Not millions, but billions; not hundreds of millions, but billions. It's bleeding the United States to death. It is destroying the U.S. military on the ground. It's a crime against humanity. We were induced to do it, to destroy ourselves! By what? By agents. What agents? Agents of Blair. And agents, who are our President and Vice President and their accomplices.
Who else helped to do it? Well, the members of the Congress, the members of the Senate. The members of the Senate were Baby Boomers. And they knew this was a lie! They could smell it being a lie! They refused to challenge it! They authorized what had never been authorized before in U.S. Constitutional history, and let Bush have the handle on starting a war—actually Cheney. The lack of guts, the lack of integrity, on the part of the members of the Democratic and Republican parties in the Senate, made possible the means by which we as a nation were being destroyed—from the inside!—by protracted foreign wars. And anyone who's studied military history knows this: The way to destroy your enemy, is to get him involved in a useless war, a protracted war! And then, he will destroy himself.
But who is the victim in this case? The United States. Who is the intended victor? The United Kingdom. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal crowd: Which is precisely what Al Gore works for, and has always worked for.
Blood and Gore
I've read his proposals, Gore's proposals from this crazy book he wrote. The thing is clinically insane. The only thing that takes away from the aura of clinical insanity, is lying. But if you take Gore's lies and his clinical insanity together, you've got the whole package. There's nothing he says, in his principal theses in that book, which is true. Everything he says, in his principal theses, is a lie.
The way this thing was set into motion—it was not set into motion from the United States. Gore is not a creature of the United States: He's a representative of a firm called "Blood and Gore"—actually that's the name of the firm! That is his firm! His firm is a British firm. controlled by the British monarchy, and tied to the people who run the operation out of the Cayman Islands. Which is being run through the Bank of Scotland and Halifax, and similar kinds of institutions.
The Problem of Sophistry
So, you have the world's great financial bubble, the financial derivatives bubble, the thing that is ruining and looting all the banks in the United States, everything, being run chiefly, through the Queen of England's authority, through her tributory, the Cayman Islands. And probably 60-70% of the banking interests of the United States is being run through that thing. That's what Gore is working for! He's sort of the Aaron Burr—sort of lame-brained Aaron Burr—of our time. He's a traitor! In effect, he's a traitor.
But the thing is, what's wrong with our people? What's wrong with our members of the Senate, our members of the House of Representatives, that that they can't see this? We're being betrayed! We're being sold out! We're being doomed. And these idiots can't see it?
Why can't they see it? Because they're Baby Boomers.
See, the morality in every culture, whatever its morality, is a devotion of the living person, who has a sense of humanity to two things: to those who came before them, and those who will come after them. This is especially in the family itself, the parents, the children, the grandchildren. This is the elementary basis of morality in society. Your purpose in life is what you're doing with your life. And you think in terms of fulfilling a promise to your ancestors and fulfilling a promise to your descendants. That's the simple basis of humanity. It's what defines the human individual as immortal: that we live, we die in the flesh; but the means of our existence, the reason for our existence, exists in our devotion to those who came before us, and devotion to those who come after us.
What happened is, with the influence of sophistry, which was introduced in the generation born between 1945 and 1956, in the United States, that particular generation which became the campus-based Baby-Boomer generation of Europe and the United States in the 1960s, that generation has lost, through sophistry, the connection to a sense of moral responsibility to ancestor and for descendants. I mean, why should a soldier die, in battle, for his nation—unless he's just a killer—unless he sees an immortal purpose in the risk he's taking? Saying, that "If I die, my mission will be fulfilled." And the mission of life, is what morality is.
And the problem is, our people in the Congress do not have that strength—oh, some do. But by and large, at least one-third of the members of Congress do not have that. Republicans, Democrats alike, it's the same thing. Expressed in different ways, it doesn't mean much. Some people have a sense of morality, and some don't.
And the way society works, is that people who have a strong sense of morality must work together, as a cohesive force for that morality, and try to bring the moral weaklings in their tow, to inspire them, to move them. And that is forbidden, in a sense, in this Baby-Boomer culture. You're supposed to "go along with popular opinion." You're supposed to listen to what the neighbors are thinking! You have to think about this kind of thing. You will become an opportunist. You no longer have a commitment to principle, you don't believe in principle: You believe in advantage, and disadvantage.
And that's what's happened to us.
The problem before us, then, the practical problem, is the following. I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster alive, today. That's been the case, since about 1957-58, to the present time. I have never made a forecast which was wrong, though I've had a lot of problems with people insisting, "are you predicting this?" I say, "I don't predict. Forecasting is not predicting." Because human beings are creatures of will, and therefore, they will operate on the basis of their will, and they can change the course of events, more or less. But there are certain boundaries to their ability to change the course of events. These boundaries are called principles, like principles of science, principles of nature. And at some point, you have to change the principles on which you're operating, by bringing in new principles, in order to solve the problem.
What Makes Us Human?
Now, the nature of humanity is unlike the lemurs of Madagascar—Gore is probably a descendant of them. That, human being are distinguished from animals, we change our behavior. No animal species can change its behavior. They can adjust their behavior, but they can't change the range of their behavior in principle. It's limited in a sense, biologically.
The biggest change you can make in animal life, is by adopting one as a pet, or taming it. Then the animal will tend to adapt to the human being, and will look at the human being as some kind of a master figure in the herd, or whatever. You see this in dogs, if you have pet dogs, families with pet dogs. The way the various dogs, cats, and so forth adapt to the people, and how the dogs, cats, and so forth sense a hierarchy among the people. And they have their favorite people, and they will take their favorite people as number-one dog, huh? That's what they do. If you've had dogs in your family life, you know this. They scheme—they scheme on that, they invent stories for you and so forth. So, they're not unimportant, and not unlovable, but they're not human.
The human being is capable of doing one thing, which Al Gore could never do: make a legitimate discovery in scientific principle. And mankind, by discovering principles, as we've seen in human progress, is able to introduce new factors into the behavior of the universe. And thus, we're a human species—at most, we would be, just as an animal species, not capable of doing more than reaching a level of several million population, at any one time. We'd have about the same species potential as higher apes, like chimpanzees, if we're just looking at ourselves biologically. But human beings have something else: They have the power of discovery of principles. And therefore, by these powers of discovery of principles, in various way, human beings change the culture of mankind in a way that no animal species can do, and thus, in this way, mankind has achieved a population in excess of 6 billion people on this planet today, as opposed to merely a million if we were a species of ape.
This is our character: Our character is the power to make discoveries, of principle; the power of creativity, the power to change the conditions of life in the universe. This sort of thing. This is what makes us human. This is what makes us, in a sense, immortal, because we're capable of doing this. We can discover a principle, and that principle will live on, once it's discovered and circulated, and will affect generations yet to come. No animal can do that. We can do that.
So what you need, therefore, is an emphasis in society on development of the individual, as a sovereign individual, whose sovereignty is defined by their ability to discover something with their own powers of mind, which is a contribution to human knowledge, either as a principle or an implementation of that principle, and to pass that on to others, and thus shape the future of mankind by one's own contributions to mankind. And the relationship among human beings who do that, is a loving relationship. Because what somebody else discovers is to your advantage, or it's to the advantage of you in the sense of society. And therefore, you're in a happy society—like children in a happy school. There have been such things as happy schools! Where the children are actually discovering things, and reenacting the act of discovery, and of sharing the joy of making that discovery with one another. This is a normal, healthy relationship in society, as opposed to a dog-eat-dog kind of society. And that's what we can provide.
But we have to take, at this point, in my estimation, we have to take the fact that our leadership right now, in general, in the Congress, while there are many good people there, overall, the Congressional leadership is a failure. Because the members of the Congress who are willing to move, and disposed to move forward on these issues, are held back by the way the institution is crafted to suppress that which does not follow the "party line." And the "party line" is deadly. And the "party line" now in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is crippled right now, by Gore! There's nothing which is more deadly to the Democratic Party than the presence of Gore in it! Blood and Gore! It's a name, but it's what you get as a result.
And thus, they're crippled, because people will not stand up for the truth. They will say, "You can not attack Gore, because he's popular." I say, "I attack him, because he's a liar! If you think he's popular, that's your fault, not mine!"
He is a liar! Everything he said on this question of global warming, is a lie!
The Science of Climate Change
For example: There has been a certain warming of the planet during the recent period. That's coming to an end. What was the warming of the planet caused by, CO2? No! CO2 had no effect on increasing the temperature of the climate. None. Say differently, it's a lie!
What warmed the planet? The Sun! Ya dumb bunny! The Sun—during the recent decade, there has been an increase of the intensity of solar radiation, impinging upon the Earth. This has raised the average temperature. The result is, you have—because of the way this worked, the Arctic ice is tending to recede, whereas the Antarctic ice is building up. So, they talk about the Arctic ice receding, and they're worried about the polar bears! Any of you guys wanna sleep with a polar bear? And they pay no attention to the other end, the Antarctic ("oh, that's the Southern part").
The whole thing is that. We also are dealing with many other questions of this type. Like for example, China observed this years ago: There was a phenomenon of a supernova, which was recognized from Earth, of course, many years after the supernova actually occurred. It was observed in China. And this phenomenon was what later became known as the Crab Nebula, which you can see. All the astronomical charts will give you this kind of information.
Now, some friends of ours in Germany, physicists, reported to us in the late 1980s, that the results of these observations were made by a phased-array observatory in the area of Germany near Denmark. And they determined that the cosmic ray radiation was coming focussed from the area of the Crab Nebula. And they checked with a smaller phased-array in England, where they hand a similar kind of result. So the cosmic ray wave invasion of the Earth, which is periodic, and very interesting, has a very significant effect on some things that occur in the environment, in the atmosphere. And so, this is also a factor. Because this kind of thing can cause more clouding, and more clouding can affect the temperature level on Earth. It also can change the chemistry of the atmosphere somewhat, because very high-energy particles hitting atoms in the atmosphere will produce some interesting effects, and may be significant cumulatively.
So there are all kinds of factors which have to be considered. There also are long-term cycles in the Solar System, itself, which will tend to determine this kind of phenomenon. But when Al Gore says, "CO2 is causing global warming," the man is a liar. And the people who support him as scientists are prostitutes. Because, anyone who studies the data that's available, knows this is the case! There's no doubt of this. The evidence is clear. How can you ignore observations that were actually made over several centuries, on CO2 concentrates in the atmosphere, ever since the 17th Century? How can you ignore that?
There has been no recent increase in CO2. The so-called ice [core] studies are a complete fraud. Because the older glacial ice gets, the more the CO2 vanishes from it. Therefore, you take old ice, it has less CO2 because it's old ice. Gore turns the thing around, and says, since there's less CO2 in the old ice, that means that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Complete fraud! Complete fraud.
But people want to believe it! Because it's the approved thing to do. You get a grant for it, you get people lined up for it. And the thing is organized not from inside the United States, it's organized from outside the United States.
Environmentalism Is Genocide
Now, I'll give you one very nasty fact about this, which some people have noted before: If you go back to the 1920s—and I was around then, y'know! I picked up some information about this then, but also later on—you had a fellow called [Averell] Harriman. And Harriman was a guy who was one of the leading funders of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. He was an American. He had a guy that worked for him, called Bush, Prescott Bush. And Prescott Bush was the guy who wrote the order that moved the money into Hitler's coffers, in time to get Hitler nominated as the Chancellor of Germany. Well, Harriman was also involved in certain kinds of racialist studies—"eugenics," it was called then. And the eugenics studies of Harriman and company, and Morgan and so forth in the New York crowd, were the studies which were used by the Nazis, for their program of mass murder.
Now, at the end of the war, Hitler warn't so popular any more. He'd lost. People don't like to be associated with a loser. So they decided to change the name of the game. And the name of the game is called, today, "environmentalism." The intent of environmentalism, and the practice that was the result from it, is genocide used against masses of the human population. That's the intention. And if you look at the studies that were done in Austria, with the relevant accomplices—and in Russia, also, as well as in London—the intent to reduce the population of the planet, selectively.
For example: Henry Kissinger, 1974-75, is still on the payroll as National Security Advisor. And before he gave up that position, to remain just Secretary of State, he wrote a proposal on Africa, for depopulation of Africa. Genocide. That policy, which he enunciated then, which other people picked up on, are continuing with genocide against Africa. What you see as genocide, in Africa, is a product of that policy, onto which Henry Kissinger, among others, signed. That's the reality of this. The ugly reality.
We Need Some Serious Politics
So, my job is to worry. I know what the solutions are, the feasible solutions. I know what has to be done. And it has to come, in large part, from the United States. It has to come from my friends, the clowns on Capitol Hill, and some of them are not clowns, but from the clownish collection who tend to go along with something! Go along to get along! And against their own conscience! They go against their own conscience, in order to be "in" on it. "Well, we've agreed ... I've got to go along with the party." And that's what happens. You get one-third of the Congress, at least one-third of the Democratic members of Congress, are tied into Gore! They believe in Gore! They should believe in God, instead. But therefore, on that basis, they become a factor—"to have party unity" among these clowns!
You say, "Why don't you read the Old Testament, about Gideon's Army, or something. It's about time for one of those things to come along, now."
The problem is the failure of people to stand up as men, to stand up for what's right, to stand up for what they know they have to do. That's where the problem lies. And the failure to have the guts to stand up, even if you're one person sometimes, is what the problem is, right now,
We have the situation, we have the world crisis: Humanity is in jeopardy. The solutions exist: Do we mobilize for those things, or do we allow Al Gore and his admirers to stand in our way, when the fate of humanity's at stake?
We need serious politics back in the United States, again, away from the childish games which you've seen in the Congress lately. We have some very good people, they're very capable people, but they're held back by this factor. And Gore typifies that factor.
Gore was among those who lied. Like his buddy, his close buddy, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, who was key in creating the Iraq/Southwest Asia mess for the United States. Lied, like Cheney. Lied, like President Bush. Lied like others.
Why do you complain about Cheney? Why do you complain about Bush? Why do you complain about some of the others, when you don't complain about Gore?
