LAROUCHE WEBCAST
But Still Not Too Late for You
Lyndon LaRouche delivered this address to an audience in Washington, D.C., on July 22; it was simultaneously carried on the Internet at www.larouchepac.com, the website of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, where video and audio archives are on file. LaRouche's opening remarks were followed by more than two hours of discussion, moderated by his national spokeswoman, Debra Freeman.
[PDF version of this webcast, and discussion which followed]
Debra Freeman: I think many of you gathered here, and many of you who are listening via the Internet are aware, it is ironically the exact anniversary of a similar presentation that Mr. LaRouche gave, here in Washington, in which he declared, without any reservation, that the collapse was not "about to occur," but that it, in fact, was ongoing. When Mr. LaRouche said that, people felt that it was a radical statement, that it was, perhaps, hyperbole, that perhaps it was a metaphor that was declared for effect. Yet, here we are, a year later; None of the solutions that Mr. LaRouche put on the table one year ago, were adopted.
And look at where we are right now: Over the course of the last week, we've seen the failure of one major bank. Today, every American woke up to the nervous jitters of losses posted by Wachovia, which I believe is now this nation's largest bank. And, in the words of many of our nation's top economists, what we are in the throes of right now, is the beginning of the end.
At the same time, we're in a Presidential campaign, where the two apparent nominees, don't really have very much to say about the economy. John McCain, the Republican, says that economics was never really his "strong point." And in the case of Barack Obama, his actions since early June are inexplicable even to those who are closest to him. And in fact, many are referring to him, these days, as the Manchurian Candidate—despite the fact that he seems to have virtually every ethnic ingredient in his background but Chinese. Although, who knows?
However, it is with this backdrop, that Mr. LaRouche, once again, comes to this podium, once again with clear proposals to avoid complete social chaos. And perhaps now, with ruling circles in the United States, and in Europe, with far greater appetites for those solutions than they had a year ago.
There are more things that I could say. And there are more things that will be said, during the course of today's proceedings. But I know that I'm very anxious to hear what Mr. LaRouche has to say; I believe that you are as well. So, Ladies and Gentlemen, please join me in welcoming Lyndon LaRouche.
The Present System Will Never Recover
Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you. Thank you.
The first thing to settle, is that the present international monetary-financial system will die, and will never recover. This system is finished. The only possibility that exists now, is to create a replacement system, based on the principles of the founding of the U.S. economic system, with the founding of the actual Constitutional government, as defined under, particularly, Alexander Hamilton. And if you don't understand, and agree, with Alexander Hamilton, it's like saying, there is no future for you.
Now, last year, I proposed, in steps, three specific remedies, which are not cures to the problem, but are absolutely necessary to be put into place immediately, then, and even more so, now. These three remedies—without that, there's no future for the United States and no future for the world. We're not looking at a depression. We're looking at what is called a general breakdown crisis. That is, where money goes out of existence—it's no longer really negotiable. So-called financial assets don't exist. Everything evaporates, in a worse crisis than the type that occurred during the middle of 14th-Century Europe, which was called a New Dark Age. A period in which half the parishes of Europe disappeared, and one-third of the total population. It was not until a half-century later, with the Renaissance, that there was the beginning of a recovery of civilization, and that was almost a miracle.
What we face today, is a crisis which is very similar, under admittedly different historical circumstances, than that of Europe's 14th Century: It's much worse, but of the same type. And without a miraculous solution, a dramatic solution—not reforms—but a dramatic, complete solution!—a new system: Without putting a new system, of the proper design, into effect immediately—not by experimenting back and forth, but by putting the system in, with foreknowledge and according to prescription: Without those measures, there is no possibility that civilization will survive, as civilization. Mankind would survive. After a vast depopulation of the planet, probably as much as the 3.5 billion people that Al Gore and Prince Philip of England, want eliminated.
Remember, that Al Gore is a stooge for Prince Philip. Al Gore is like Aaron Burr: Both were once Vice President of the United States. Both were traitors to the United States, on behalf of the British monarchy. And the Prince has demanded that the human population drop, from 6.5 billion presently, to less than 2 billion—and that, in short order. Al Gore's entire career is devoted to that end, and he is a flunky of Prince Philip. He is a British agent, like Aaron Burr, the traitor. Gore is implicitly a traitor. And he is trying to run for President of the United States, as soon as Obama drops. That's his big ambition, or his true ambition.
There Will Be No Foreclosures
Now, what I propose, is to review what I proposed a year ago, in steps: First of all, that all regular banks be put into bankruptcy protection, by the Federal government. This means they will not close their doors. This means that there will be a restriction on which of their accounts will be paid; the rest will be frozen. At the same time, there will be no evictions of householders because of mortgage default. They will remain in their homes under conditions which are acceptable conditions, and they will continue to function under bankruptcy protection. There will be no foreclosures. There must be no more foreclosures, except in the ordinary case, where there should be anyway, because people are leaving or so forth. But where people intend to stay in their homes, there should be no foreclosures. We can have foreclosures on things which are, in a sense, held out for rent, but not for occupancy.
That's number 1. The idea is, the first thing you have to do, is you have to save the people. And the people, in general, live in homes.
We're not going to have communities shut down, which means that the local bank on which the community depends for its functioning, will not be closed; the doors will remain open. This, however, is only for certain banks, for banks which are banks of deposit, and chartered under the Federal government and the state governments, as depository institutions which engage in lending.
So therefore, the first thing was the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act. That was necessary. It was presented, it was presented actively around the country. It was blocked. It was blocked by the Democratic Party leadership. Blocked by the same people who presumably were enthusiastic, until the recent time, for Barack Obama.
So we see the result. We see that the foreclosures are now moving in. Communities are being shut down. And the banks are closing, like Wachovia and others—Wachovia's a piece of junk, but it also does regular banking, and it gobbled up a lot of small banks. And therefore, we have a threat to the continued functioning of communities in which people live. That is, even if we keep them in their homes, the jobs on which they depend to stay in their homes, are going away, because the banks which are involved with these jobs, are being closed. The rate of bank foreclosures across the Atlantic, and around the world, is beyond imagination.
That's the first measure. It wasn't done. A year has passed since I proposed that. It hasn't been done! Even though towns and city organizations, and state organizations, have proposed that it be done: It has not been done! The Congress of the United States, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, has blocked this, absolutely. And she's on the wrong side. She should get on another side—outside.
We Need a Two-Tier Credit System
Nothing has been done, to protect the banks. What's happened? Let's take a recent case in this vicinity: Bank of America, Countrywide. Bank of America was told to absorb a dead corpse inside its body, Countrywide. We have been destroying banks that should have been saved, by putting the bomb inside them, in order to support institutions which are not worth saving, and should have been allowed to die, because they're of no use to the community! We don't need those mortgages! Those mortgages are a problem! We don't need these things. That wasn't done.
So, I had two other proposals, which I put forth during the course of those months: First of the two, we must have a two-tier credit system. Now, I don't know if Hank Paulson has the knowledge, or guts, to take this up. I'm not sure he has the knowledge involved. He probably will have an inclination or a wish to do something in that direction. But so far, he's done nothing. He's a half-competent person, but not fully competent—he's the Secretary of the Treasury. And I don't think he, or almost anyone else, in authority in Washington, has the guts to do what I've proposed: create a two-tier credit system.
In other words, the proposal is: 4% is the standard interest rate for regular banking, the basic interest rate. The purpose of that is not just adjusting the interest rate. We have a situation, now, where our enemy—as it was in the time of Aaron Burr—is Merrye Olde England! And Merrye Olde England set up a system in Europe, under which England, Great Britain, has the highest official interest rate; Europe has a slightly lower interest rate. And the United States has been driven down to 2% and is threatened with going lower, which is insane.
This manipulation has the following effect: The British are determined to destroy the United States. That's what that is about—and they say so! And many in Europe are out to destroy the United States. They say, "Good!! This is going to destroy the United States!" And that's what the 2% interest rate, borrowing rate, is: Destroy the United States.
Because, what happens then, with the 2% interest rate, the discount rate, what you get is an outflow of the financial capital from the U.S. banking system! I am determined that I can beat the British, and sink them, and kick Europeans who cooperate with the British in the head, by a 4% standard rate throughout the Federal Reserve System. Why? Because the British are a bunch of parasites. They don't use the money for solid investment. The continental Europeans are not allowed to do that, under the Maastricht agreements. Therefore, if you protect bank deposits by having a 4% interest rate in the United States, that means that you're going to keep your financial capital that's viable, in those banks. That is, you're not going to take the capital out of the banks, and put it on the street, for lending. You're going to keep it in the bank, but you're going to use the bank credit of that financial capital in the bank, as a lendable asset, which you will lend, either at 4%; or, with government protection, Federal government protection, as low as 1-2% for special projects.
That means that the capital of the United States, including its financial assets, its credit, will not be depleted, the way it's being sucked dry now! We don't have to have a 5% interest rate, of the type the British are using. We don't need that. Because the British are a bunch of parasites. They don't invest in their own country. We invest in our country. We have to invest in our country. Therefore, if we have credit in the bank, we're not going to take the money out of the bank.
What we're going to do: The Federal government will simply take the fact that the Federal Reserve System banks, and their affiliates, have credit in the form of deposits, or the equivalent of deposits, in the bank. They will now issue loans, which will be new money, in a sense, in circulation, for specific purposes, on the basis of the asset, the financial asset which remains in the bank. In other words, the first thing here is to keep the financial assets of the United States' regular banking system, as much as possible inside the United States. Don't deplete that capital, by shipping it out and loaning it. Keep it in the banks as credit, under Federal regulation, with the assistance of the Federal Reserve Board. Then use that credit in the banks, to utter new credit, for authorized purposes to make the economy grow, and to solve some of the problems.
That's a defensive measure. It's not a solution; it's a defensive measure.
Put the Banking System Under Federal Protection
We had a similar kind of situation in the past. Roosevelt did that, in his own different way, under different circumstances. We need to have a growth program—now! A physical growth program! Not a financial growth program, as such, but a physical growth program. We have people losing jobs, we have communities disintegrating. We have infrastructure going, we have health care collapsing. We need tangible investments! Job-creating investments. Physical capital investments. Infrastructure investments. We need them! We've got to increase our rate of employment, of productive employment especially. We don't need more bookkeepers. Look what they've done to us! What we need is work. We need significant production.
So, at the first stage, we have to say, on a Tuesday for example, that, "now, the banking system is under protection." And the Federal Reserve System is bankrupt. So what? The Federal Reserve System is not the U.S. government. The Federal Reserve System is a chartered banking system. It will be put into receivership, for protection, by the Federal government. Then it will function, like a regular banking system, under the U.S. Treasury! The credit it uses will be the debt of the U.S. government, under the U.S. credit system. And that credit that's generated, will then be used, through the banking system—when not directly by the government—to create the additional investments we need to stabilize this economy.
Now, what that means in respect to Europe: Europe, today, Western and Central Europe, under Maastricht, is not allowed to do anything intelligent. It's a British trick. So therefore, Europe is not able to do this, as long as it remains under the Maastricht dictatorship. We are free. If we can get rid of that idiot in the White House, or get him under control—we are free to begin a defensive measure, to defend the U.S. banking system, to build up the relative value of the dollar, relative to every other currency on this planet! And our friends in China will be happy with that. Because, right now, they're about to lose everything, because of the collapse of the dollar.
We are going to defend the value of the U.S. dollar. We are going to increase its value on the markets, by doing this, by these kinds of measures—if we can get our idiots under control. We have to do it: Because if we don't do it, we will die!
And the problem is, you've got people who say, "Well, I would like to do that, but you know, it's so risky, it's so awesome, I don't think we could do that." Buddy! You're not telling people what you got to tell them. Look, buddy! The word is, the ship is sinking, get off it! Don't negotiate for a new stateroom on the Titanic! This thing is going down! You want to go down with it? Well, if you don't want to go down with it, get into this lifeboat. Now! Don't tell me it's too fearful to get into the lifeboat. What you ought to be afraid of, is the sinking ship, not the lifeboat!
And what I'm proposing in this respect, is simply setting up a system, a flotilla of lifeboats, to save the U.S. dollar! And I think we could increase that by about 20 or 30% fairly rapidly—which I think some of our friends in China will be a little bit relieved by that. Because we owe them a lot, in dollars! And if these dollars are collapsing, that is not good. We have to defend the U.S. dollar. It's necessary for us, it's necessary for the world. And there's no "it's too scary." No, it's not "too scary." Going down in the Titanic is scary. The lifeboat is a little bit worrying, but it's a better option! And any intelligent person would recognize that.
The third thing is, this can't go on indefinitely. We must take measures to defend the U.S. dollar. We must have a goal of increasing the relative value of the U.S. dollar by 20% in a short term. I think we can do it, if we get the right action from Washington.
Send Obama to the Woodshed
All right. But now, we've got to go to a further step: We then have to go—and this is going to be the tricky one. This where you send Obama to the woodshed, or someplace else. We have to have a Presidential candidate of the United States—because we can't wait till November—some time in the short time ahead; we have to have a leading Presidential candidate of the United States affirm what I have proposed be done: That is, the United States must propose to the governments of Russia, China, and India, that these four major countries will agree to sponsor a committee, an alliance of powers, including other powers, to establish a fixed-exchange-rate financial-credit system internationally, of the type that Roosevelt intended in 1944, not what Truman did in 1945!
What Roosevelt proposed was a credit system, whose intention was, to eliminate colonialism, especially British colonialism. And Roosevelt said that, repeatedly, very clearly, to Churchill. "Winston! When this war is ended, Winston, we're not going to have your empire. We're not going to have colonies. These people are going to be free. They're going to have their own governments. And no more empire!" And how are we going to do that? Well, we had the greatest military machine the world had ever known: a production machine! What the Nazis would produce in a few hundred pounds, we would produce in tons. Our soldiers were not well-trained, in general. They'd just got into the service, off the streets or out of the woods, a short time earlier. Trained in 16 weeks, and a few other weeks, and sent overseas to war! This is not your recommended army.
But we had tonnage: Every man in service had tonnage behind him! And with that tonnage, and that power of mobility and logistics that we had, we won the war! Together with other people who cooperated with us, with aid of our tonnage! It was our tonnage that Russia depended upon, the Soviet Union depended upon, to defend itself against Hitler. It was tonnage that was required, tonnage of materiel.
So we had the greatest machine for production the world had ever known, at the end of the war. It had been built up, in large degree, for military purposes. But there's no difference between logistics for a military purpose, and the technology required to build for an economy: bridges, ships, railway systems, everything—machine tools. All of these kinds of things, are just as much interchangeable with materiel for war, and material for peace.
Roosevelt's intention, as he stated clearly, was that "once the war is ended, Winston!"—and this was in Casablanca—"we're not going to have your system any more!" And he laid out a scheme for a large-scale development of Africa! "We're not going to have colonies any more. We're going to help these people have independent nations. We're going to cooperate with them. And we're going to eliminate your empire, Winston!"
Well, the problem was, that Roosevelt died, and Truman was a stooge for the British. And that's no exaggeration.
The Churchill-Truman Alliance vs. FDR
So, what Churchill did, was enter into alliance with Truman—and with the British behind Churchill—and they decided they were going to start a preventive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Why? To defeat Roosevelt's intention! Because Roosevelt's intention was to take China, Russia, and the United States, who were the leading powers of the world at that moment, at the end of the war, and through a system of cooperation, redevelop the world, a war-torn, ruined world.
So what do you do? You start a war! With the leading allies and partners of the United States under Roosevelt, you start a war, under Truman, against those same allies. In order to preserve, what? The British Empire. Instead of eliminating British colonies, Churchill and company, with Truman's support, backed the reinstallation—for example, under British orders, the Japanese troops in prison camps in Indo-China, were told to get out of the prison camps, pick up their weapons, and go back into the occupation of Indo-China. Indo-China had freed itself from French imperialism, with U.S. backing: Ho Chi Minh was a friend of the United States, a friend of Roosevelt, a friend of Roosevelt's machine. We turned friends into enemies! Allies into enemies! We helped the Dutch do the same thing in the Indies. We made a mess of the freedom of India, a year after I left the place—again, the British.
So, we, under Truman, systematically destroyed Roosevelt's intention. Roosevelt's intention, was: We take our great economic machine, our agro-industrial machine for capital goods, and we use this weapon to free these subjugated people; and by doing so, to free the world from the damned British Empire! And Truman was an ally of the cause of the British Empire. And that's how this mess came about. That's how we came to a Cold War, through this process; how we came to witchhunt terror in the United States; how our youth, the white-collar youth, born between 1945 and 1958, were in large degree, turned into a pack of intellectual mongrels, degenerates, by things like the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and the comparable existentialist operations inside the United States.
That's where the '68ers came from! A product of the same thing that happened in France, under Napoleon III, which became known as the Synarchists. And what we have, today, among certain strata of the white-collar Baby Boomers, now, generally between 50 and 65 years of age, they are Synarchists! They're fascists! And that's what Gore's constituency is: fascist. That's what the environmentalist movement is: It's fascist! It's a Synarchist movement, modeled upon the Synarchism as developed under Napoleon III, which was then put through various existentialist migrations in the 20th Century, where it became known as fascism. Including the fascism of H.G. Wells of Britain, that sort of thing.
So, that's been the problem! So, what we have to do, is recognize that where Roosevelt was going to use the productive power of the United States, at the end of war, when we were the greatest power the world had ever known, in terms of financial, economic power, to use that power, to free the world from imperialism, by helping nations, which should be nations, to become nations. And creating a fraternity of nations, based on this idea, of building a world system of sovereign nation-states, which would eliminate empires—especially the British Empire.
And all the Hell that we've had—and we've had a lot of it, up to the present time, since the day Franklin Roosevelt died—has all been a result of this damned British Empire.
Our job, as the United States, is to reaffirm the commitment of Franklin Roosevelt before he died, a commitment he stated clearly to many people, many leading people in the world at that time, while he was still alive: to free, and help the development of people who had been semi-captive or captive peoples of the world, and to build an alliance of sovereign nation-states to manage this world, and to end empire, forever. And to devote ourselves to the missions of the Peace of Westphalia.
The Common Aims of Mankind ...
The mission of man is not to win wars: Sometimes we have to fight war, but that's not our intention. The power and importance of the nation does not lie in fighting wars. Wars are terrible things! They're awful things! Some Baby Boomers don't understand that; they sent people into this thing in Iraq, because they don't understand what war is! War is something which you do if necessary, as briefly as possible, and do everything possible to avoid it—if you understand war.
So, the aim of sovereignty is not to become a war power. The need to be able to defend one's nation—yes! But to become a war power? No! To become an empire? No!
We are peoples on this planet, of different cultural backgrounds. We depend upon our association with our culture, in order to think, in order to communicate among ourselves, among our own people. And to unite our people with a common culture, or what becomes a common culture, to cooperate with nations of other cultures, and to define common aims of mankind, common goals of mankind—I'll refer to one here, today, of that type. This is something we're supposed to have learned in 1648, with the Peace of Westphalia: The aim of victory lies not in war, but in peace. In the peace of peoples who have replaced killing each other, with cooperating with each other. And using their differences in cultural background, as the basis for their cooperation, not for their conflict. And to use the weapons of warfare, only as is necessary to maintain and defend that peaceful order, with a minimum of effort, a minimum of conflict when necessary,
So therefore, the time has come, instead of saying, "Who is the enemy?" I can tell you who the enemy is: the British Union Jerk. That's an enemy; there are other enemies. But how to overpower our enemies? What's the best way to overpower our enemies? To conquer them? No! Conquest is not victory! It's to dissuade them from continuing to be enemies! And how was that done in 1648? It was done through the Peace of Westphalia, of putting the benefit the other, above one's own. And if people do that, then, you have a system of cooperation, a Westphalian system, as it's called. That was Roosevelt's intention: to create a global, Westphalian system. You take leading nations of the world, which at that time, were the United States, China, and Russia—the Soviet Union, then—who had conflicts! Very serious conflicts. And to take these nations, and bring them together by working, each for the benefit of the others, the common benefits.
Now, today, we're at a point, where there's one project which typifies what should be done: It's a project which came out of the success of the United States in defeating the British agents called the Confederacy—the traitors, the Confederacy.
We had developed, in the United States as nowhere else, we had developed the concept of transcontinental railway systems. Transcontinental railway systems were developed as a technological capability, superior to inland water systems. In other words, what Charlemagne did in Europe: Charlemagne took the rivers of Europe, under his regime; identified the rivers of Europe, and prescribed a program of developing canal systems which would connect these rivers in such a way that you would have an inland water-based transportation system for freight, in particular, throughout Europe. As a matter of fact, that system was just completed recently, at the beginning of the 1990s—the last leg, the Rhine-Main-Danube connection.
So railroads came along, and usually you will find the first major railroads ran along the side of rivers and canals, like the Baltimore & Ohio system. You will find the old system, the railway system, ran beside the canal, the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, which was a very important strategic development in the United States.
...Versus Geopolitical Wars
Today, we have the same challenge, in a different form. All the important wars of the world, fought since 1876, have been so-called "geopolitical wars." Geopolitical wars meant, that the United States had built a model, as a continental power, a transcontinental power—from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the Canadian to the Mexican border—this nation had been developed as an integral nation, largely by aid of augmenting existing and potential waterway systems, by railway systems: integrated the territory. By 1876, every leading nation of Asia had—for example, Sun Yat-sen, a little later, had a complete railway system for China! Complete design for a railway system! The development of the total internal territory of a nation, or a group of nations, to enable it to more efficiently than by ocean freight, move people, move goods, move raw materials, develop the territory.
So now, the fact is, the United States had led in this model; you had in France, you had in Germany, you had in Russia, you had development in part in China, a conception of taking all of Eurasia, as well as the Americas—the plan for moving railway systems down to Patagonia from the Canadian border, was a policy of that period! And to create a system, whose aim was a fraternity of sovereign nation-states, which would share the benefit of combined inland waterways, and railway systems.
Today, we have the same thing. We had it then, and still today! One of the great missions is to develop a maglev system, combined with railway system, which by opening up the Bering Strait, and by doing similar things into Africa—to take the major continents of the world, and to bring them together with one, high-speed transportation system for freight and people, especially freight, at maglev speeds, magnetic levitation, 300 miles an hour. These can be modular; you don't have to have all this reloading as we do now. And this means that the raw materials of the world, can be developed as they otherwise can not be developed and managed. So therefore, this is the common interest of mankind, to develop this kind of system.
We've come to a time, where we can no longer rely on burning things as a source of power. We will burn water, with nuclear power! What we will do, with high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and similar kinds of nuclear power, is we will extract hydrogen from water; we will use that to make fuel based on hydrogen, hydrogen-based fuels, as a substitute, replacement, for petroleum as a source of power. When combustion occurs with that fuel, the waste is chiefly—water, not a pollutant. We will eliminate the kinds of crude methods we now use, by these superior methods.
So this is one example: the development of a global power network, as a cooperative effort among nations and among continents, for the common aims of mankind: a system based on separate, sovereign nation-states, cooperating with aid of these kinds of connections.
We must have that kind of mission, which is a 50-year, 100-year mission for mankind. And when we bring nations together, such as the United States, Russia, China, and India, and other countries today, for a future for mankind, this is what we must have in mind. We must take the needs of various nations, look at what these needs are, for three, four, five generations to come, and say, "What projects do we have to develop, for the coming three, four, five generations? What are the means required? What is the apparatus we require to do this job? What are the common aims of mankind?"
And that's the mentality we must approach.
Money: A Sovereign Instrument of Government
Now, what we would have, is a world system, a world credit system, not a money system. You would have money, but you wouldn't have a money system. You have money as a sovereign instrument of government. What we would do, simply, is create a fixed-exchange-rate system, by adjusting essentially what have been the trends in the relative values of currencies. Fix it there. And say, "We're going to keep that fixed-exchange-rate system."
Now, the changes that would come after that, do not come by manipulating currencies. They come by investment. They come by the use of credit for capital improvements, for large projects, for—all these kinds of things, really human development projects. What we do, is we're taking what Roosevelt intended in 1944, with a credit system, called the Bretton Woods system, and uniting countries of the world around a fixed-exchange-rate system. So money is no longer an instrument of warfare; it's an instrument of cooperation.
I'll tell you how we do it; it is very simple. The United States under its Constitution, when the Constitution is obeyed, does not have a money system, like a Keynesian monetary system. That's a European disease, and it's a very bad disease with some nasty side effects. You get syphilis, also, among other things, from that disease.
But under a credit system, or the United States system, you can not utter money by central banking systems: Money, or credit which is convertible into money, can be allowed only through actions of governments. That is, no bank can create money. Only a government can create money. And the government creates money, by credit, by authorizing the utterance of debt, of the government, in the form of credit; and defines that debt as applicable to certain missions, that is, like investments, or developments of people.
Now, because the United States is the one major nation in the world, which has such a specific conception of economy, if a country such as Russia, China, India, makes a treaty agreement with the United States, which is a credit-based nation, then the currency of those countries—Russia, China, India, and other countries—becomes on an equal status with the United States, becomes an integral part of a world system, while preserving the sovereignty of each of these countries.
That's what Roosevelt's intention was. The reason we went to a Keynesian version of the Bretton Woods, rather than Roosevelt's intention, was, the British Empire. Truman decided the United States was going to be a partner of the British Empire in ruling the world. Roosevelt's intention was the opposite, was to create cooperation among the nations to eliminate the British Empire, which is the ol' bitch we want to get rid of.
I'm not against England being a sovereign country—it's better for them! Look at the way they're treated today, look at the way they talk! Maybe if they weren't an empire, they would have an English language again.
But the point is—the thing is so simple! A treaty agreement on long-term credit, like 30-year, 50-year agreements, on credit, among nations, which enter into such treaty agreements with the United States automatically have the Constitutional advantage of a global credit system, rather than a monetary system. And it becomes, essentially, a fixed-exchange-rate system. And that's what we need.
So, but these things, these are measures I've indicated, such as the action on the protection of people against foreclosures on mortgages; protection of real banks, as opposed to the phony ones; a two-tier credit system; and an international fixed-exchange-rate system. These are necessary instruments for creating a new world system, which can survive the inevitable death and disintegration of the present world monetary system. This is the only rational, feasible option, as an alternative to pure Hell throughout the planet for generations to come.
If you care about humanity, you will insist that these measures be taken, boldly, and now! Because we are, right now, after one year of mass stupidity from the top down, in the U.S. government and other governments, we're now just weeks away, from the point at which the whole system goes into disintegration.
What we're looking at is not a 1931. We're looking at something comparable to the 14th-Century European New Dark Age. Which came on suddenly, and wiped out half the parishes, and one-third of the population of Europe. And that can happen worldwide, if we don't stop it.
This Is Your Opportunity!
Now, I'm a little bit old to be President of the United States. But I'm not so old, that I can't tell one what to do. And that's what I'm saying. I'm saying, "You cowardly fools! Get up off yer butts! Stop this fooling around. Hey Paulson, get your guts up. I'll show you how to deal with the problem." And there are other people in the banking field and others who will join me in that. They're perfectly good people; they're talented, they don't know as much as they should; they make a lot of mistakes. But look, it's all we got! And you use what you got!
So, if these fellas will just have a little bit of my guts and knowledge, and act with the intention to do good, for this country and for the world at large—and the essential thing is, if you're not willing to do good for the world at large, you can't succeed, even in your own country. If you're not willing to enter into an agreement, a long-term agreement on a fixed-exchange credit system, with Russia, China, India, and with other countries brought into the same group—if you're not willing to do that, sincerely, you're not going to survive. And your descendants, when they come out of the caves four or five generations from now, will curse your memory, unless you do it. This is your opportunity. This is what must be done. Do you have the brains and guts to know, you have to do it, now!? Do you know, the Congress must stop what it's doing, because what it's doing is no good, and immediately do this? We have to get this idiot in the White House, somehow, to do that, to go along with it. To give Henry Paulson the guts and the advice to do what he's supposed to do, as Secretary of the Treasury, to implement this, to get the bankers inside the Federal Reserve System, who are competent bankers, and other bankers outside, together on this! And get a unity among people who understand, we're at the end! We're at the end of the system! Stop talking about compromises! Stop talking about halfway measures: We must do this, now!
We must first agree to do it inside the United States. We must have people inside the United States, who will say, "We are going to do it!" And once we say we're going to do it, we have to have a Presidential candidate, in the United States, who will be credible, in saying to the countries of China, Russia, India, and so forth, "This is what the United States is committed to do, as soon as I get to be President. And we can start it right now."
That's how you win wars, and that's what we need right now. Those three measures.
We've got people out there, as foolish as they have behaved—I know some of them have brains. Some of them have skills. They lack guts. I have the guts, and some of the brains they lack.
Let's do it.
